Democrats on the council were upset that they were not given an opportunity to comment on the budget as a whole when the topic was up for discussion. After Councilman Warren Levy offered his remarks, Republican Robert Riley abruptly stopped all debate on the budget by using a parliamentary maneuver entitled "call the question"
“calling the question” when done properly should be a rare occurrence. If debate has dragged on longer than you feel is really warranted, you can “call the question,” at which time the chair has to immediately ask those assembled to vote to determine whether or not debate should be cut off or continue. The motion to call the question is itself not debatable. If two-thirds of those voting agree that the discussion should have died some time ago, they will support the call. Then, and only then, will the vote be taken on the question itself.
The problem with this procedure is that it's been abused over the years by Republicans on the council in an effort NOT to stop long debates but to stop any debate from happening on any topic (former Majority Leader/xenophobe/hate-monger Pauline bASSo has a LONG track record of pulling this stunt).
Good bye bASSo, hello Robert Riley...
In stopping anyone from speaking out against the hidden details of the budget, Riley, after giving a long-winded rant in praise of the budget, moved to call the question, and with all the Republicans on the council voting on approval of the move, future comments on the budget were squashed.
...in other words, with Riley's shameless move, the tradition of abusing this parliamentary procedure (and silencing the opposition) is kept alive and well.
Way to go Rob!
Watch and witness one of the dirtiest tricks in the rubber-stamp majority's arsenal...
After the meeting, an outraged Tom Saadi spoke with me about the Republicans squashing people's opportunity to speak out on the 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.
Good bye bASSo, hello Robert Riley...
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.
