Sec. 11. Section 1-225 of the 2008 supplement to the act is of extreme interest.
Within seven days of the session to which such minutes refer, such minutes shall be available for public inspection [within seven days of the session to which they refer] and posted on such public agency's Internet web site, if available
In other words, within seven days of any public meeting, the minutes of that meeting much be available for viewing by the public on the city website. Although the publishing of meeting minutes within seven days is already law, posting the minutes on the internet is new and several towns in Connecticut are opting to shut down their sites as opposed to adhering to the new law.
This bring us to Danbury and a new responsibility for City Clerk Jean Natale. As stated by the City's website:
The City Clerk serves as the superintendent of public records, ordinances, resolutions and minutes of the Common Council meetings. The City Clerk also attests and seals official documents.
This means that the City Clerk is responsible for the publishing of the minutes and making sure that these minutes are posted on the city's website and although the posting of minutes has been done, the difference now is that unlike the past, the publishing of minutes on the internet is now a state mandate.
Since Natale already has a history of violating FOI law as well as not posting the agendas to meetings in a timely manner, it's not a far stretch to say that there's a good chance that the city of Danbury might be the first municipality in violation of this new law sooner than 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.
