State Sen. Michael McLachlan of Danbury is doing himself no favors by clinging to a job in City Hall. During last fall's campaign, he said he would do just the opposite.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton is doing himself and McLachlan no favors by clinging to McLachlan and attacking anyone who criticizes the arrangement.
McLachlan served well as chief of staff for Boughton. But when he ran for the 24th Senate District seat, he and the mayor, both Republicans, said McLachlan's continued employment in City Hall would create too many conflicts.
After the Nov. 4 election, however, Boughton and McLachlan changed their tune. McLachlan isn't chief of staff anymore, but he has been named the city's director of economic development.
The new position raises many questions about conflicts. McLachlan now has responsibilities well beyond Danbury. He has responsibilities to the state and to the other communities in his district -- Bethel, New Fairfield and Sherman.
No matter how he tries to explain away those conflicts, it can't be done.
But even more of a problem is the fact that McLachlan made a promise to the voters, as did the mayor.
McLachlan wasn't going to be employed in City Hall, they said. There was no fine print attached to the promise.
If you look at my posting on McLachlan's latest appointment as well as the Fairfield Weekly article, you'll see that it mirrors EXACTLY what Connelly is saying in her editorial. What's Boughton's response, take the defensive/baseless post that he did on Dec 29 2008 and recycle it on Feb 3rd while STILL not addressing Connelly's main point that he and McLachlan mislead the public when they said that Mike would step down at City Hall if elected as State Senator because of the obvious conflict of interest it would create.
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.
