Checking obituaries

|

In previous posts, readers have wanted some clarity on when Republican mayoral candidate Michael Pavia’s business partner died. In a September article, his campaign manager Michael Larobina told the Advocate that Pavia left the Board of Representatives because he business partner, Joseph Romano, was sick and died. Democratic candidate David Martin has used a 2006 article in which Pavia told the Advocate he was too busy with his businesses to give the Board the attention it deserved and that he wanted to spend more time at his South Carolina vacation home.

A check of the obituaries shows that Joseph Romano died Aug. 29, 2004 at the age of 65. Pavia ran for reelection in 2005. Pavia told the Advocate’s Magdalene Perez in August that Romano’s death was a reason he did not seek the mayor’s office in 2005.

Four years ago, members of the city’s Republican Party held their breath hoping Pavia would run against Mayor Dannel Malloy. Pavia decided against it. His partner, Joseph Romero, had recently died, leaving Pavia to scramble to manage the ice rink and various other properties. And he was still taking care of loose ends: development projects and mortgages he preferred to put to rest before committing full time to becoming mayor.

A year later, Pavia resigned from the Board of Representatives, where he represented the 18th District since 2003. Again, he cited business commitments.

Categories: General, Politics
Monica Potts

No Responses

  1. Stamford Resident says:

    I understand that the press and media outlets have an obligation to be objective and unbiased, but I often find that in an effort to accomplish this task, in an election, newspapers only like publishing “bad” things or “good” things about ALL the candidates at the same time.

    The Advocate editors need to understand that sometimes the unbiased review of a situation calls for publishing the facts IN PRINT of a issue surrounding only ONE of the candidates because the other candidate did not in fact quit a job, let his campaign lie about the reason for quitting that job, etc.

    Advocate, I trust that you will do your job as an unbiased media source and PRINT the facts, only the facts, and ALL the facts.

    Thank you.

  2. M. Allen says:

    A responsible newspaper needs to publish the good and the bad, but always the facts. If the Advocate is not publishing this story it makes me think that Mr. Pavia is engaging in some sort of underhandedness with the newspaper to keep this story quiet. Come on Mr. Editor, do the right thing.

  3. K. Smith says:

    How is the same-old boring story “Stamford political campaigns engage in annual tussle over stolen signs” printed, and not the hugely important one involving a possible ethical scandel on the part of our republican candidate for Mayor – Pavia.

    Advocate – get on the stick please.

  4. M.Carboni says:

    Advocate – can you please run this story in print? As well as research the trip to Las Vegas other bloggers have cited as a REAL reason for Pavia’s stepping down.

    Please do your job for the residents of Stamford and print this VERY important news story. The people have a right to know impartial facts, and it is your job to provide those ASAP.

  5. anonymous says:

    Indeed, finally a story people would be interested in…heck, the Advocate would sell papers if they ran this story; aren’t they interested in that at least?

  6. Still curious says:

    We have here a series of dissembling responses from Pavia’s campaign.

    To review, David Martin’s campaign pointed out that Pavia had “quit”, or resigned, from the Board of Reps only three months after being elected to that board (he had previously filled a board seat by replacing another republican member).

    Martin’s campaign pointed out that Pavia had resigned, saying (per Advocate article) that he wanted to spend more time at his vacation home in South Carolina, and there were too many meetings (one a week) on the Bd of Reps to do that.

    Pavia’s campaign chairman responded that the charge was false; that the REAL reason Pavia resigned was because his business partner was ILL with brain cancer and he had to take a greater role in the business.

    An Advocate reporter called the Martin charge “mudslinging”

    BUT…several people asked the Advocate to investigate the charge, and we see the results now:

    1. The Martin quotes from Pavia have been determined to be accurate. He did say he was resigning to spend more time at his vacation home.

    2. It turns out, again as verified by the Advocate, that Pavia’s partner had passed away two years before Pavia ran for election to the Bd of Reps.

    3. So Pavia misrepresented his reason for resigning from the Bd of Reps. Why? If in fact, he resigned to spend more time on vacation, and has since changed his mind, that wouldn’t be so terrible. He could have said that.

    4. So is there another reason he resigned? Was there in fact a scandal brewing regarding favors in the building department? Some have said he resigned about the same time that the chief building official resigned after a trip to Las Vegas with a “friend” who works for developers.

    The answer is we don;t really know. What we DO know is that Pavia has not been honest with the people of Stamford about why he resigned.

    More important, though, is that this is what journalists call “A story”. A candidate for Mayor has been caught in a clear fabrication about his past, misrepresenting the time of death of his business partner.

    So why is all this research limited to a handful of people who read the 411 blog? Why is it not in the print edition of the Advocate, where many miore people could read it and make their own decisions about Mr Pavia’s resignation?

    Understandably, the reason for Pavia’s resignation, in itself, is not a major story. BUT the “cover-up” IS a major story. Will the Advocate sit on it until the election is over?