As we get ready for tonight's Common Council meeting, I thought it would be informative to take a look back at the biggest controversy on the Common Council in 2007, the parade ordinance.

From the insulting amount of misinformation peddled by Mayor Boughton, anti-immigrant leader Elise Marciano, and the media who DROPPED THE BALL, to what will go down as the biggest disregard of the City Charter in recent memory, the debate surrounding the parade ordinance set the tone for future political battles in Danbury.

For the first time, people throughout the state of Connecticut were able to get a a peek into Danbury's world of dirty politics as this blog's coverage surrounding the ordinance received a great deal of media attention.

I'll start this multi-post flashback on the ordinance with an interview I conducted with Common Councilman Paul Rotello. The Democrat from the 6th Ward took time out of his schedule to set the record straight and debunked the misinformation surrounding the impact the ordinance would have on spontaneous parades.

Trust me, those who fought against the parade ordinance will never forget what happened and this story is FAR from being concluded.

I Originally posted May 2, 2007)

There been an alarming amount of misinformation from those who are pulling all the political tricks in order to push this so-called "parade ordinance" through the system.

From the misinformation regarding the impact this new policy will have on spontaneous celebrations (e.g. immigrants World Cup festivities), to the possible constitutional problems, which could ultimately cost the city a GREAT deal of money in legal fees, more than ever, it's important for people to have a better understanding about what Mayor Boughton is attempting to push through the Common Council.

Since the News-Times failed to fully inform the public, I felt it necessary to pick up the slack and do the job that the mainstream media refuse to do. Instead of explaining how bad an ordinance this is for the everyone in Danbury, I decided to go to the lawmakers who are fighting this ordinance and have them do it for me.

In an exclusive interview with HatCityBLOG, Democratic Common Councilman Paul Rotello took time out of his schedule to help explain the various problems with the ordinance and why everyone should be concerned.

Part 1: The public is misinformed ("This is not the ordinance you want, this is not the ordinance you expect.")



Part 2: If this ordinance doesn't address "spontaneous celebrations" then why do we really need this ordinance? Is this matter more about a knee-jerk reaction to immigration? (note: the World Cup games were in 2006).



Part 3: Threat to the right to assemble and technical problems with the ordinance.

Sections of the ordinance mentioned by Councilman Rotello in interview (note the section in BOLD)
Click here to download the entire ordinance (pdf)
ARTICLE II: PARADES AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

Sec 11-15 (a):

Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.

[...]

Sec 11-15 (d):

Public assembly means any meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally or gathering, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, held on the streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.

[...]


Sec 11-22 Standards for issuance

(a): The Chief of Police shall issue a permit as provided for herin when, from a consideration of the application and from such other informaiton as may otherwise be obtained, he finds that:

(1) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of the other pedestrian or vehicular traffic contiguous to its route or location;

(2) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not require the diversion of so great a number of City police officers to properly police the line of movement and the areas contiguous thereto as to prevent normal police protection of the City;

(3) The concentration of persons, animals, and vehicles at public assembly points of the parade or public assembly will not unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, areas contiguous to such public assembly areas;

(4) The conduct of the parade or public assembly is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property;

(5) The parade or public assembly is scheduled to move from its point of origin to its point of termination expeditiously and without unreasonable delays en route;

(6) Adequate sanitation and other required health facilities are or will be made available in or adjacent to any public assembly areas;

(7) There are sufficient parking places near the site of the parade or public assembly to accommodate the number of vehicles reasonably expected;

(8) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time and location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted;

(9) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time but a different location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted, and the police resources required for that prior parade or public assembly are so great that in combination with the subsequent proposed application, the resulting deployment of police services would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property; and

(10) No event is scheduled elsewhere in the City where the police resources required for that event are so great that the deployment of police services for the proposed parade or public assembly would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property.