When asked why she apologized in an October letter addressed to the Rev. Ivan Pitts of the New Hope Baptist Church, Basso said, "Because the minister wanted me to."
-Danbury News-Times 11.07.07
Good riddance...and take that jackass (a.k.a Joel Urice) with you.
When asked if he had any regrets about the e-mails, Urice didn't exactly offer an olive branch to Danbury's minority communities.
"Oh, I don't know," Urice said. "I think it's best just to put this thing to bed."
We'll put the whole thing to bed once Mayor Boughton refuses to appoint you back to the Planning Commission.
We call on Council President Joseph Cavo to clearly and publicly denounce the conduct of Councilwoman Basso. By her actions she has ceased to be an effective leader and should resign her majority Republican leadership position immediately and while she refuses to resign from office it will be the voters in November to determine her future. However, Mr. Urice is an appointed official and should step down for the good of the Planning Commission and, if he refuses, the Mayor should not reappoint him at the end of his current term.
...and in case you missed Minority Leader Tom Saadi's interview on WLAD demanding that Urice not be re-appointed at the end of his term.
Remember, what people like Basso and Urice do in private mirrors their public actions. The fact that Basso and Urice STILL think that the emails were a "joke" and no big deal speaks volumes about their character.
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.
