Letter to the editor: We need a new voice for Naugatuck

3
8

I’ve known Catherine Ernsky her entire life. Catherine has always been highly motivated and people-oriented. She has always been interested in the world around her, and now she is courageous enough to want to make a difference in her hometown by running for burgess.

Currently her job as vice president of sales for Forest Hills Financial Group gives her ample opportunities to speak before people of different cultures and backgrounds. She is an engaging speaker who expresses herself with clarity. Additionally, her job has honed her business and financial acumen. These assets will be beneficial during her post as burgess.

There is no double-talk from this candidate. She is determined to serve the people of Naugatuck with transparency and an open-door policy. Like most residents, she is concerned with how property taxes keep increasing and believes Naugatuck could and should encourage commerce and big business. I know her well enough to assure you that she will give 110 percent of herself to this office.

Vote for Cathy. She is your girl next door, and yet, she’s something more.

Liz Wierzbicki

Naugatuck

3 COMMENTS

  1. Your logic is flawed and you miss the point. I’m being pestered by someone for whom it would not be legal for me to vote (and she is paying to pester me). You have however correctly restated the facts and suppositions laid out in my writing (and proven my point): “Many will make the argument that political calls are exempt from laws regarding respect of people’s privacy, but that only raises the question – who in their right mind would defend calling someone who can’t make it more clear without eliminating telephone service altogether that they don’t want unsolicited telephone calls ?” Why would anyone, particularly someone who wants my vote (whether or not they’re legally entitled to it), have the resource to know that I don’t want unsolicited calls and use a loophole in the laws to say I don’t respect what you want, even though you can’t make it more clear – I’m going to bother you anyway – but please vote for me even though you can’t ?

  2. Then outside of local elections, there is probably not a single candidate you would vote for. Every good candidate makes phone calls and no, the Federal “Do Not Call” list does not apply to political campaigns. Wake up and welcome to the 21st century.

  3. Unfortunately, she believes in the robocall method of political marketing and actually thinks people who are enjoying their Sunday afternoon want to her her voice on the phone. She figured out a way to get through to my home even though (for my privacy) AT&T is supposed to block any unidentified calls. Hers showed “Out of Area” for both the name AND the number. She chose to call my home even though I’m registered on the federal “Do Not Call” list. Many will make the argument that political calls are exempt from laws regarding respect of people’s privacy, but that only raises the question – who in their right mind would defend calling someone who can’t make it more clear without eliminating telephone service altogether that they don’t want unsolicited telephone calls ? It is this lack of respect and lack of common sense that are two of the three reasons that I will not be voting for Catherine Ernsky. The third reason is a serious question about her fiscal responsibility (or acumen as this writer calls it). She’s clearly spent money to invade my privacy to solicit a vote. She won’t get mine. I am a resident of Beacon Falls, not Naugatuck.