Boughton questioned why council Democrats didn't object in the past when Lew Wallace, a Democrat, served as a state representative and as an administrator in the water department.
"Nobody who was on the council then, who is still on the council now, objected at the time," he said. "This is not unprecedented."
Nice try Mark but your quote doesn't hold water. There is a HELL of a lot of difference between Lew Wallace working for the water department AND Mike McLachlan working BOTH as Director of Economic Development for the City AND being State Senator.
With the current economic climate, it makes NO SENSE to reduce this position from full-time to part-time just to hook-up McLachlan...someone who took a HUGE paycut in stepping down as Chief of Staff in order to be State Senator (hmm...I smell another Boughton classic Quid pro quo).
Unlike Wallace, McLachlan is in a position as State Senator where he could use his position at the State Capitol to vote on legislation that would benefit his role in the city...this is a DIRECT conflict of interest.
As the News-Times correctly pointed out, during the campaign season, Boughton and McLachlan stated that Mike would step down as chief of staff because of the obvious conflict of interest that would rise with McLachlan being state senator. Mike role as director of economic development is no different...in fact it's worse and if Boughton and McLahclan would have disclosed this nugget of info during the campaign season, it's very possible that Mclachlan would have lost the election.
I could go on and on but you get the idea.
As a bonus, lets look at McLachlan's boneheaded comment in the article:
McLachlan said the argument being forwarded by the council Democrats "doesn't hold water."
"Obviously they haven't read the opinions," he said. "Clearly there is no conflict here."
THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE!!!
Here's what the spokesperson for the State Ethics board said:
She added that the commission's decision didn't address whether McLachlan could vote on legislation that would bring economic development dollars to the city.
"He might want to check with our office, just in case," Trimble said.
In other words...THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT which is much different than there is no conflict."
BTW: You notice how both Boughton and McLachlan to this day NEVER address the fact that they BOTH mislead the public during the campaign when it comes to the topic of conflict of interest and holding a high level position at City Hall AND being State Senator?
Again, from the 12/29/08 News-Times editorial:
During the campaign, McLachlan and Boughton said McLachlan, if elected, would no longer serve on the mayor's staff because of obvious conflicts of interest that would develop in serving their different constituencies.
We're STILL waiting on Boughton and McLachlan to explain how his new role at City Hall doesn't apply to the above statement both he and Boughton made during the campaign.
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.
This is TOO easy...
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.
