"Given the politically driven opposition to my appointment I feel it is in the best interest of the city to allow you to go in a different direction,"
Hey Mike, this isn't about politics...it's about you and the mayor GOING BACK ON YOUR WORD!
Lets go back to the editorials.
Here's a copy of the 12.29.09 editorial that calls Boughton and McLachlan out on going back on their word.
Here's a rebuttal editorial to Boughton's bitter response to Connelly's 12.29.09 piece (you know, the posting that ignores the central piece in the News-Times' editorial...that the he and McLachaln went back on their work).
But of course McLachlan blames the whole matter on partisan politics...although a BI-PARTISAN ad-hoc committee overwhelmingly approved his appointment.
Oh...if I had the time to do a full post on McLachlan's excuse for stepping down...I'll have to come back to it later. Until then, enjoy the letter.
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.
