In order to fully understand the rationale behind my report on Common Council member/DHS teacher Gregg Seabury, a little background info is in order.
Since I started this site back in July 2005, I've routinely receive emails offering tips and bits of information on different subjects in Danbury. In all the emails I've received, allegations regarding Seabury tops the list, which is why in the fall of 2007, I finally decided to look into the Seabury's alleged questionable actions as a teacher.
First, I needed to do a bit of legal research and learn about areas of the Freedom of Information Act in regards to an individual's personnel records. Luckily, some of by most faithful readers just happen to be lawyers and after consultation and a bit of research, I learned about my now favorite Connecticut General Statue(s), section 1-212, 1-210 and 10-151c.
I'll save everyone the legal mumbo-jumbo (you can look up the law by doing a Google search) but in a nutshell, according to Connecticut General Statutes 10-151c and 1-210(a), documents and records pertaining to the misconduct of a teacher are deemed "public records" and disclosure of such records "shall not require the consent of the teacher" according to 10-151c and Connecticut case law.
Based on that knowledge, here's portions of a letter to Dr. Sal V. Pascarella Superintendent of Schools City of Danbury Administrative Center.
Dr. Sal V. Pascarella Superintendent of Schools City of Danbury Administrative Center
63 Beaver Brook Road Danbury, CT 06810
Freedom of Information Request
Dear Dr. Pascarella:
Under Connecticut General Statute section I hereby request the right to inspect, and receive copies of all of the following documents and records, whether the same are located at Danbury High School, the Administrative Center, or other location:
1) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any complaint(s) made against teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
2) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any discipline, reprimand or warning given or made against teacher Gregg Seabury for his misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
3) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, containing or pertaining to any Board of Education decision or administrative action taken to reprimand, warn, and/or discipline teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct;
[...]
6) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any complaint(s) made against teacher Gregg Seabury for any misconduct and/or alleged misconduct involving awarding extracredit to students for inappropriate reasons; and/or
7) any documents, written communications, emails, and/or notes, regarding any discipline, reprimand or warning given or made against teacher Gregg Seabury for his misconduct and/or alleged misconduct in connection with awarding extra-credit to students for inappropriate reasons.
[...]
Please also note that under Connecticut law, if a document has information that contains both non-exempt information and exempt information, such portion of the communications/notes regarding non-exempt information (like teacher misconduct) are "public record" and must be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining exempt information may be redacted from the document.
Now that you have a somewhat basic understanding of what's involved in this report, act 2 of this report will focus on the accusations that were made against Seabury and the response one parent claimed he received from Mayor Boughton.
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.
In order to fully understand the rationale behind my report on Common Council member/DHS teacher Gregg Seabury, a little background info is in order.
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.
