Included is Mayor Boughton and Chief Baker's 30-day report that's 60 days late, an one page, two-sided sheet of paper on ICE ACCESS, and an opinion from Corporation Council that raises more questions than answers.
Remember, the Common Council received this information on the afternoon of DECEMBER 27TH and the last day City Hall was open was on DECEMBER 28TH.
...oh yeah, it's been SIX DAYS since the agenda was distributed to the members of the Council but our WONDERFUL City Clerk STILL hasn't gotten around to posting the agenda online yet so the public can view and research the proposal and express their thoughts to their representatives BEFORE TOMORROW NIGHT.
I'll have more on this later today...
UPDATE (1/2/08 @ 12:00 P.M.): With just a little over a day until January's Common Council meeting, the City Clerk finally gets around to posting the agenda for TOMORROW'S meeting including the one of the most controversial proposals in recent memory, Danbury's formal agreement with ICE ACCESS. Something to think about as you're at work and have VERY LIMITED TIME to fully analyze, research, and digest the impact of this program.
...did I tell you that Mayor Boughton's 30 day report (which was announced in October) was distributed to all the members of the Common Council SIX DAYS AGO and that City Hall has been closed since MONDAY.
As I said before, I'll have more on this later including information that was distributed to the members of the Council that was NOT provided to the public.
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.
