Seems like parents are REALLY PISSED OFF with the board of ed and Schools Superintendent Sal Pascarella over the god-awful performance of Student Transportation of America.
School has been open for a week and STA just can't get it right. Buses are late or just don't show up. Students are left waiting for late buses on the street and at schools. Classes are disrupted by late-arriving students. Parents are having their own work schedules disrupted and also are worried about the safety of their children -- with reason.
All STA offers are excuses and promises. Not enough drivers. Unfamiliar routes. We'll get better. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next week.
[...]
The superintendent also has indulged in excuses and promises. A contract change, after being with one bus company for 18 years, should have come with concrete performance assurances. Pascarella obviously didn't get them.
The school board voted for the change, except for one member, Joan Hodge, who questioned whether STA could perform as promised.
The board and Pascarella meant well in trying to save money, but meaning well is not enough. In addition, more should have been done to ensure STA was ready for the first day of school. When it wasn't, the board and superintendent should not have been so passive as they watched what was being done to students, parents and teachers.
STA has failed to meet its contractual obligations, disrupted the education of students and endangered their safety. Will STA be held accountable?
Will parents hold the board and Pascarella accountable?
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.
