Jamestown Public Schools won't hold special election for referendum
Jun. 7—JAMESTOWN — The Jamestown Public School District will not hold a special election for a referendum to build a new elementary school that addresses declining future enrollment and facility needs.
Superintendent Rob Lech said at a special meeting of the Jamestown Public School Board on Thursday, June 5, that results of a community-wide survey show that it is not the right time to make a request for a referendum.
"We have reached out to the community and said, 'We want your feedback,'" he said. "I think it's important that we listen to what that feedback was."
School Board President Heidi Larson said Thursday was the last day the school board could call for a special election before a state law goes into effect on Aug. 1 that requires votes on referendums to be held at either a primary or general election.
"We either had to move forward before August 1 or at a primary or a general election," Lech said.
A community survey was conducted this spring to help guide the school board in determining future actions. The survey gathered feedback on the school district's two options for a potential referendum to build a new elementary school at the Washington Elementary School site.
Washington Elementary School officially closed in May. Beginning in the 2025-26 school year, the school district will operate four elementary schools with seven elementary classrooms of each grade level for K-5.
If the school district continued to operate five elementary schools, the general fund would have been projected to dry up by the 2029-30 school year, The Jamestown Sun reported in September. With the district already capped for its general fund levy, the cost to operate the same facilities and staff as the 2023-24 school year would result in a complete loss of the general fund balance by the 2029-30 school year.
Closing Washington saves the school district $1.3 million in annual operating costs.
The school board approved on March 3 a new boundary system for the elementary schools. The plan expands the Lincoln Elementary School boundary to the west into the current Washington boundary, Louis L'Amour expands to the north into the current Lincoln boundary south of the railroad, and Roosevelt Elementary expands to the west into the Lincoln boundary south of the railroad to the James River.
In the future, the school board could bring a referendum forward for a new elementary school to address declining future enrollment and facility needs.
The referendum options are:
* Option one: Close Lincoln Elementary School and build a new elementary school on the Washington school site for Lincoln students within the new boundaries. The estimated cost is $23 million to build the elementary school with two classrooms for each grade in K-5.
* Option two: Close Lincoln and Louis L'Amour elementary schools and build a new elementary school on the Washington school site large enough to serve students and staff from the two schools. The estimated cost is $29 million to build the elementary school with three classrooms for each grade in K-5.
If the school board decides to move forward with either option, 60% voter approval would be required. City and rural residents in the school district would be eligible to vote.
For option one, the estimated property tax increase would be $87 per year for a house with a market value of $100,000, $97 per year for commercial property, 98 cents per year for each cropland acre and 20 cents per year for each noncropland acre.
For option two, the estimated property tax increase would be $110 per year for a house with a market value of $100,000, $122 per year for commercial property, $1.24 per year for each cropland acre and 25 cents per year for each noncropland acre.
The school district worked with School Perceptions to conduct the survey that received 1,173 respondents, or a 14.1% response rate, with a plus or minus 2.92% statistical margin of error.
School Perceptions helps educational leaders gather, organize and use data to make strategic decisions, according to its website.
The survey results show 81% of JPS staff, 51% of parents with a student enrolled in the school district and 44% of nonparents/nonstaff would support a plan to replace one or more of the remaining elementary schools with a new facility.
Daren Sievers, project manager at School Perceptions, said survey respondents were asked which option for a referendum they would support. Survey results show 26% of JPS staff, 19% of parents with a student enrolled in the district and 20% of nonparents/nonstaff would support only option one. Survey results show 12% of JPS staff, 9% of parents and 8% of nonparents/nonstaff would only support option two. Survey results also show 42% of JPS staff, 29% of parents and 22% of nonparents/staff would support either option.
Sievers said School Perceptions added the results for the support of either option to the results of supporting options one or two. The survey results then show 68% of JPS staff, 48% of parents and 42% of nonparents/nonstaff would support option one, and 54% of JPS staff, 38% of parents and 30% of nonparents/nonstaff would support option two.
Sievers said School Perceptions took into account that 20% of parents and 80% of nonparents/nonstaff would cast a ballot. With that weighted representation, survey results show 43.2% of parents and nonparents/nonstaff would "definitely" or "probably" support a bond referendum for option one, and 31.6% of parents and nonparents/nonstaff would "definitely" or "probably" support a referendum for option two. Each result has a plus or minus 2.92% statistical margin of error.
School board member Aaron Roberts said the board should see analysis on comments from survey respondents. He said the comments would help the school board understand what issues need to be addressed moving forward.
School board member Jason Rohr said survey results also show areas that the school district can improve its communication on.
Survey respondents were asked how the school district is doing in four areas — delivering high-quality education, keeping the public informed, managing funds appropriately and building pride in the community.
Survey results show about 68% of respondents chose "great" or "good" for delivering high-quality education, 54% chose "great" or "good" for keeping the public informed, 45% chose "great" or "good" for managing funds appropriately and 56% chose "great" or "good" for building pride in the community.
Larson said the survey results will be referred to the facilities committee and the school board could hold a retreat later to discuss the school district's next steps.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'
Wall Street Journal
32 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Barclays Analyst on What Investors Should Know About Trump's Tax Bill - WSJ's Take On the Week
In this episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, we jump straight into a topic on many minds: the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill. Co-hosts Gunjan Banerji and Telis Demos are joined by Michael McLean, public policy senior analyst at Barclays, to unpack what some investors are paying attention to when it comes to the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill. McLean explains the differing viewpoints between Washington and Wall Street and the role of a rising U.S. deficit. Plus, the hosts share and answer listener questions about tax policy asked at WSJ's Future of Everything conference in May. The conversation also explores what economic growth the tax and budget bill can bring and why investors and government officials alike are watching to see how this tax bill addresses concerns with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Gunjan Banerji, lead writer for Live Markets, and Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@ To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of Further Reading Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Gets Slimmed Down in Senate The Tax Bill Would Deliver a Big Win for Private Schools—and Investors The Path to Record Deficits For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liberal Democrats are angry at CT Gov. Lamont and no longer hiding it. ‘There will be a challenger'
It took a spark to ignite quickly. Liberal Democrats have been grumbling about Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont for more than a year regarding his opposition to tax hikes on Connecticut's richest residents and blocking more wide-scale loosening of the state's fiscal guardrails to allow more spending for progressive priorities. But the anger against Lamont suddenly overflowed last week with his high-profile veto of an affordable housing bill written by Democrats and his endorsement of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayor's race. The exasperation turned into talk about a potential primary from the left against Lamont as more Democrats became unafraid to publicly criticize the two-term incumbent. Rep. Josh Elliott, a deputy House Speaker, said that Lamont will definitely face a primary challenger from the left. If no other candidate comes forward, Elliott implied that he would run in the same way that he challenged then-sitting House Speaker Brendan Sharkey in a 2016 primary before Sharkey abruptly retired. 'If the governor decides to run again, he will absolutely not run uncontested,' Elliott told The Courant in an interview. 'There will be a challenger. Who that person is, we will see, potentially over the next couple of weeks.' A longtime leader who helped create the Progressive Caucus in the state House of Representatives, Elliott has already spoken to his colleagues to rally support for a primary. 'Of the hundreds of conversations that I've had over the last couple of weeks, I cannot tell you a single person who is excited about [another] Ned term,' Elliott said. 'Not one person. He doesn't realize how much people are struggling because he's just living in an alternate reality. So he's trying to convince people that things are better than they are because he might actually believe it. He is totally divorced from reality.' The items sought on the progressive agenda, Elliott said, include a capital gains tax surcharge on the state's richest residents, a child tax credit for the first time in state history, regulation of artificial intelligence, free school meals for children, increased Medicaid rates, more funding for higher education and additional money for cities and towns. When asked by The Courant about a potential primary challenge by Elliott or others from the left, Lamont responded, 'It's the political season. A lot of folks have the right to run. I took on a guy named Joe Lieberman some years ago. You've got to have a strong, compelling reason. Back then, it was the war in Iraq, which I thought was a terrible tragedy for this country, and that's why I acted on it.' He added, 'When I took on the war in Iraq, everybody said, 'Lamont's got to be a left-wing guy to go up against this war.' Today, everybody knows that war was a terrible mistake. I'm glad I stood up when I did stand up. I think when you do a primary, you've got to have strong, compelling reasons to challenge your own party. I thought I did back then.' Lamont defended his record over the past seven legislative sessions, saying that he helped restore fiscal stability to a state that faced large budget deficits and tax increases in the past. 'I like where we are as a state,' Lamont said. 'I think we've had a very strong, progressive agenda, and we've been able to do it within a balanced budget and paying down a lot of debt. I think we've got a good balance.' Concerning his progressive accomplishments in light of the recent New York City primary, Lamont said, 'I saw what the progressive agenda was there. They said, number one, they wanted to have universal early childhood and pre-K. We're already making a down payment on that. Look what we've done on the minimum wage. Look what we've done on paid family and medical leave. Other people can promise, but look what we've delivered.' Besides Elliott, other Democrats have been speaking out, including Sen. Saud Anwar of South Windsor, who wrote, as CT Capitol Report put it, a 'shock op-ed' calling for Lamont to give up his seat. He pointed to Lamont's unwillingness to raise taxes on Connecticut's high earners 'protecting working and middle-class families,' 'inadequate funding' for education and 'the human cost of wrong action,' as he tallies overdose deaths after Lamont had support for overdose prevention centers removed from a bill. 'Governor Lamont is not only an outlier among Democratic leaders of other states, but he is increasingly so among Democrats in Connecticut. … In the past two years alone, Governor Lamont has vetoed or threatened to veto legislation that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of Connecticut's working families.' 'But the challenges before us demand a different vision for what Connecticut can be. One that is willing to ask more of those who can afford it, rather than asking those who are already struggling to carry more weight,' he wrote. 'I am heartened by the many strong Democratic leaders across our state who are rumored to be considering a run for governor. Should Governor Lamont choose not to seek re-election, I hope those individuals will move forward with their campaigns. In fact, I would urge them to do so regardless of what the governor decides.' State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, an outspoken member of the party's liberal wing, said on Facebook and in an interview that the housing veto represented a major problem for Democrats. 'When the only people applauding you are the state's Republican leaders … maybe you don't represent the people who elected you,' Gilchrest said of Lamont's veto on the housing bill. On the same day of the veto, Lamont initially dodged any discussion of Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace as New York governor amidst a scandal with public accusations by numerous women of sexual harassment. But after being pressed by reporters, Lamont eventually said that he would have supported Cuomo in the contentious primary that was won by a democratic socialist in left-leaning New York City. The criticism of Lamont increased after a previously unknown liberal named Zohran Mamdani won an upset victory over Cuomo, giving liberals their biggest win of the year at a time when the Democratic Party has been reeling nationwide by the presidency of Donald J. Trump. The New York mayor results 'sent a strong message to corporate democrats like Governor Lamont — it's time for bold leadership that centers the needs of the working class,' said Constanza Segovia, the organizing director for Connecticut For All, a coalition that supports tax hikes on the rich. 'Lamont's endorsement for an accused sexual harasser and disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo is indicative of all of his choices lately — wrong and out of touch.' When asked by The Courant about Republicans being happy with the housing veto and Democrats being upset, Lamont responded, 'It's sort of funny that the Republicans are champions of more local regulation that slows down growth. Usually, they're the party of growth and deregulation. But that said, we're going to get this bill right. I'm going to do it with Democrats and Republicans — if they want to be constructive and join me at the table.' In addition, Lamont caused concern among union members by vetoing a controversial bill that would have awarded unemployment benefits to striking workers. 'I think paying striking workers is a bridge too far,' Lamont told reporters. 'Some people say, 'Gov, you're too pro-labor or you're too pro-business.' I think I'm pro-jobs, and I want to watch out for any bill that I think discourages jobs in this state. For the first time in decades, we're actually growing jobs in this state and growing our manufacturing base in particular, which are very good jobs. And I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.' Despite concerns among liberals, Lamont is a popular, two-term governor who self-funds his own campaigns as a Greenwich multimillionaire. Lamont is widely expected to seek re-election in 2026 and no Democrat has stepped forward to challenge him in a primary. He has a massive funding advantage in a state where any opponent would need large amounts of time and organization to qualify for public financing. Despite internal squabbling for decades at the state and national levels, Democrats traditionally come together and close ranks for the general election instead of voting for the Republican alternative. One of Lamont's potential opponents, Westport First Selectwoman Jen Tooker, hailed his veto. 'My campaign for governor is centered on addressing the affordability crisis in our state, including the need to create more affordable and diverse housing,' Tooker said. 'While I agree with the stated goal of HB 5002, I disagree with its one-size-fits-all approach and the heavy-handed tactics used to push it through the legislature. Governor Lamont's veto is a victory, for sure, but much work remains to be done.' A fiscally moderate Democrat, Lamont has butted heads with liberals in the past. The difference, though, is that the liberals do not have enough votes to override Lamont's vetoes. In the House with 102 members, the number necessary for a veto override is 101 votes. With the housing bill, for example, 18 House Democrats voted against the legislation, blocking any chances for a veto override. House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford noted that House majority leader Jason Rojas of East Hartford had spent large amounts of time on the 92-page housing bill that got rejected by Lamont. 'Clearly, a lot of the members of our caucus are disappointed that he vetoed the bill,' Ritter told The Courant in an interview. 'Every member should say whatever they want to say. And that's fine. At the end of the day, my job as the Speaker is to take the temperature down at some point, get people to understand that we're still working on something and present them a new bill in September that can hopefully garner the support.' He added, 'But it's hard when bills go down and there's sort of an intra-party fight. I acknowledge that. But it's like you lose a game at the buzzer, and you've got to come back the next day and you've got to play. And that's what we're going to do.' Lamont had never intended to publicly endorse Cuomo, and the issue only came up on the day before the New York City primary because reporters asked him in his Capitol office. Lamont expressed surprise when Channel 8 television reporter Mike Cerulli asked him whether he was supporting Cuomo in the primary. Lamont did not give a direct answer, which led to some back-and-forth among the press corps as Lamont's communications director opined that the issue was 'not a story.' After more questioning, Lamont said, 'If you ask me who I'd vote for, I'd vote for Andrew Cuomo.' When asked if he would rank Cuomo first in the ranked-choice voting in New York City, Lamont replied, 'Yeah.' The exchange with reporters spread quickly to insiders in the political world. 'I am both disappointed and disgusted that the governor of the state of Connecticut would endorse Andrew Cuomo for an elected position,' Gilchrest said at the state Capitol. 'The Department of Justice has found that he has sexually harassed at least 13 women. Actions speak louder than words, and the governor should not be endorsing Andrew Cuomo.' But after Cuomo's defeat and his concession, Lamont was asked what advice he would give to Cuomo about remaining on the ballot in the general election against multiple candidates in November. 'I think he got hit pretty hard in that last election,' Lamont said of Cuomo. 'He ought to think hard about if he wants to go forward or not. That's what I'd tell him.' Lamont's vetoes of the housing bill and striking workers, combined with the upset New York primary win, brought to the surface frustrations of the party's more progressive members. 'It has changed the landscape, but it hasn't changed my perspective,' Elliott said. 'The way that I feel about the way our government is being run has been pretty consistent. Certainly the vetoes are additional evidence that I think now the public can see what we in the legislature have been facing over the last seven years. … More people are paying attention to the idea that focusing on the middle class can be politically popular due to that massive [New York] primary win. I think more people are looking for change.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
