The ad-hoc committee Film Festival love fest was a treat to see... Ad hoc committee, City Hall
...that's the only term I can use to describe the ad-hoc committee formed to look at the results of the Connecticut Film Festival.
For now, lets just skip over the load of mumbled nonsense that was projected at this meeting and just focus on one critical point THAT WAS NOT REPORTED IN THE MEDIA.
After everyone was just gushing over the festival (while completely ignoring the numerous PROBLEMS with the festival, Councilman Ben Chianese brought up a point with organizer Tom Carruthers that was on my mind from the beginning of the meeting.
B.C.: Last year, according to the numbers, you spent 104 thousand dollars...according to this report, 104,257 dollars. Now the city gave you 75,000 dollars which is about 75 percent of your budget. What other revenues did you receive? Did you make money on the show?
T.C.: There were some ticket sales, some very small sponsorships?
B.C.: Can you give us a listing of what income you had.
T.C.: I don't have that listing of that with me? But I was...
B.C.: Can you provide a copy of that?
T.C.: ...when I was doing this reporting to the ad-hoc committee on the 75,000 spent, so I'm not really prepared for that, and I'm not sure of that part of my reporting to the ad-hoc committee.
Now the defensive tone from the supporters of the festival towards Chianese's question is ridiculous on so many levels that it's laughable.
Remember, The Connecticut Film Festival is a "for profit" venture that's using taxpayer's funds in order to do the event. Since it's using taxpayer dollars for a venture that's not a non-profit enterprise, the public has a right to a full accounting of the film festival activity...PERIOD.
The argument being made in this clip that the city is gave money to Carruthers ONLY to promote the festival is the same argument that was made when the festival was being pitched to the Common Council. Think about it, would ANY city continue to fund a festival that was not successful? Based on the logic in the clip, the city is ONLY interested in whether or not the money given to the festival was used correctly...which again, makes no sense because you KNOW the success of the festival was part of the decision making in funding it for another year.
Think about it, THE CORE OF THE AD-HOC MEETING WAS ON FEEDBACK FROM THE FESTIVAL!!!
Mayor Boughton's equating the funding of the film festival to giving money to a contractor to pave a road doesn't pass the smell test and is insulting to anyone who has a clue.
I'll have more on what happened at the meeting (including video footage of the entire meeting) later.
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.
