In my haste to follow-up on stories I've left on the shelf, I forgot to follow-up on State Senator Mike McLachlan's decision to not accept the position of Director of Economic Development.
Senator McLachlan's bitter letter to Boughton dated Feb 20th contained this goodie:
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
Although it's laughable to read McLachlan's excuse over declining the job offer because, as the News-Times noted in THREE editorials, our new State Senator and Boughton still refuse to admit that they went back on their word, something important was overlooked that makes Mike's rant even al the more silly.
You see, just ten days prior to McLachlan declining Boughton's offer, a BI-PARTISAN ad-hoc committee that looked into McLachlan's appointment unanimously approved the State Senator working in the capacity of Director of Economic Development.
I'll let the video tell the story.
Instead of doing the right thing, keeping his word to his constituents who voted for him, and stepping down with grace, McLachlan goes out with his trademark hot-tempered attitude and bitterness which was completely unnecessary.
The whole matter with McLachlan had nothing to do with partisan politics, it had to do with an individual who went back on his word when he stated during the campaign that he would avoid conflicts on interests. It's simple, you went back on your work and you were held accountable...no more, no less.
You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Now hopefully, McLachlan can do what he's suppose to do and work on dealing with the state budget.
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.
In my haste to follow-up on stories I've left on the shelf, I forgot to follow-up on State Senator Mike McLachlan's decision to not accept the position of Director of Economic Development.
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.
