Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, any vacancy in any elective City office except the Board of Education, from whatever cause, shall be filled within 40 days by appointment by the Common Council for the unexpired portion of the term or until the next biennial municipal election, whichever shall be sooner, at which election the office shall filled for the remaining unexpired portion of the term, and such person shall take office the first Monday following his election. When the person vacating the office shall have been elected as a member of a political party, such vacancy, when filled by appointment, shall be filled by appointment of a member of the same political party.
Remember section 2-6 of the charter when you read this News-Times article from my post this post from Friday April 6 2007 entitled "Common Council member Ted Cutsumpas resigns..."
Common Council member Ted Cutsumpas resigned his seat on the council Thursday and took a job as the city’s new Community Services Director.
The job in the mayor’s office is designed to help people in the community who have problems with the city.
The former director, Rich Antous, is now director of the city’s Unified Neighborhood Inspection Team. The UNIT works on improving neighborhoods by removing blight. Antous took the job in 2006.
[...]
Cutsumpas joined the council in 2005 to fill the unfinished term of Wanda Payton, who resigned. Cutsumpas started his new job on Thursday by learning about the city’s new 311 telephone system. The system gives people a place to call if they have a question about Danbury.
Say it with me...V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N.
Is there an explanation for this violation from the mayor's office or from Common Council President Joe Cavo...oh, silly me, it's GENE ERIQUEZ'S FAULT.
...if you don't respect the city charter, you don't deserve to be in office.
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.