It's Wednesday morning and I still stunned over the chain of events at Tuesday's Common Council meeting.
In short, democracy failed as Mayor Boughton ignored the will of the people and the majority on the Common Council and strong-armed this ordinance down the city's throat.
For those people whose only source of information is the News-Times (who apparently had other things to report on SUCH AS AN EVENT THAT WAS IN NEW HAVEN on an issue THAT WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN THIS YEAR'S MAYORAL ELECTION), lets do a brief recap some of the things that happened last night:
* For the second time in one week, anti-immigrant radical Elise Marciano and her merry band of screeching minions who make up the laughable group, United States Citizens for Law Enforcement, proved to everyone once again that she and her member HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THEIR TALKING ABOUT and view everything through their hatred for immigrants (why, oh why, do anyone take these ill-informed xenophobic people seriously).
* A very ill Republican Common Council member (who's been sick for months, hasn't attended ONE parade ordinance ad-hoc committee, and probably didn't read the ordinance because she understandably had more urgent things in her life to deal with) appeared at the meeting for the sole purpose of voting in favor of the ordinance (and promptly leaving the second the ordinance is "approved").
* Playing the role of the attack dog, Mayor Boughton's lapdog Common Council President Joe Cavo launches one of the most outrageous smears in recent memory.
* In a move of extreme arrogance, Mayor Boughton plays the role of dictator and overrules the will of the bi-partisan majority who voted to re-examine the ordinance ON TWO OCCASIONS and blatantly ignores several common council members (who had their hands up for a significant period of time) and picks on his favorite ace-in-the-hole (who popped her hand up at the last minute) who he knew would stop the debate and force a vote while many on the council (INCLUDING THE REPUBLICAN WHO WAS THE STRONGEST SUPPORTER OF THE ORDINANCE) had grave concerns and questions about many items in the ordinance.
Oh, I could go ON and ON and ON but unfortunately, due to the lack of coverage over this ordinance from the News-Times, HatCityBLOG will have to pick up the slack.
With the power of video and documents, I'll fully inform the public on everything surrounding this ordinance as well as show how your local government actually works (and it's not in your best interest). After you view everything (including the arrogance of several members on the Common Council), you'll have a better understanding why it's so critical that ALL local government meetings need to be broadcast.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
