State Sen. Michael McLachlan has decided not to keep his second job as Danbury's economic development director.
Good move.
In the process of vacating the job, however, McLachlan trashed those who properly questioned the obvious conflicts of a state senator holding the job.
Bad move.
"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," McLachlan wrote Friday in a letter to Mayor Mark Boughton.
Politically driven? Come on, senator. Fess up.
The controversy over your new job was created by you. During the fall campaign, you said you would give up your job in City Hall as Boughton's chief of staff to avoid any conflicts or even the appearance of a conflict.
There was no fine print attached to that promise that you would take another job from Boughton.
[...]
Hmmm. Could he mean that criticism of his job arrangement by The News-Times Editorial Board was politically driven? Guess he doesn't remember that this page endorsed him for election last fall.
News-Times editorials have insisted that McLachlan keep his promise to the people of the 24th Senate District that if elected he would not be working in Danbury City Hall. The district includes Bethel, Danbury, New Fairfield and Sherman.
Those editorials also have insisted that Boughton keep his promise that McLachlan would not be on his staff because of, as the mayor said, the obvious conflicts that would develop between their different constituencies.
Don't worry Mary, I'm sure McLachlan's "given the politically driven opposition to my appointment" was also pointed towards yours truly...although the state senator said that he doesn't read the site (wink, wink).
I'll offer my take on McLachlan's outlandish statement as well as the entire history of this dishonesty from the mayor and his former chief of staff as soon as possible.
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.
