The leader of the state's Democrats has issued a scathing letter to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, calling into question her role in the Route 7 bypass and the seizure of a local quarry to make room for the new highway.
[...]
A statement from Rell's office this week defended her actions, and area lawmakers also supported her involvement in the project, which has been on the books since the 1970s and is slated for completion this fall.
and which area lawmakers are Perrefort talking about?
State Rep. David Scribner, R-Brookfield, who serves as a ranking member of the legislature's Transportation Committee, praised Rell for her leadership on the Route 7 project.
Besides the fact that this particular State Rep/treasurer for Brookfield has a problem paying his LOCAL property taxes, grabbing the opinion of one politician (who resides in Rowland-Rell's hometown) doesn't really add up to several area lawmakers supporting the governor.
...and the entire article fails to address the point raised by DiNardo.
Lets recap the Democratic State Chairwoman's questions to Gov. Rowland/Rell.
-"Why were you, as Lieutenant Governor, involved in these Department of Transportation meetings?"
-"What was your role?"
-"Did the proximity of the quarry to your home in Brookfield play any part in your involvement in the issue?"
-"How many meetings did you have with DOT officials about this issue?
-"Who did you meet with?"
-"What, specifically, was said?"
-"As part of these meetings, did you have any knowledge of the two internal DOT memos by senior officials admitting the quarry was actually worth between $25-30 million?"
No where in Perrefort's piece does Scribner address DiNardo's concerns regarding a screwed-up project which is going to cost the taxpayers an additional 28 million dollars.
Upon reading this so-called article, unlike the details in the Courant piece (in which the reporters directly questioned the governor's office), it's clear that Perrefort's reporting consisted of reading a couple of press releases and making a phone call to Scribner.
In wake of the governor's screw-up on the Route 11 upgrades, and the I-84 "storm drains to no-where" in Cheshire, DiNardo's questions regarding Rowland-Rell's role in this latest DOT debacle demands a response...and it's a reporter's responsibility to ask the questions on behalf of the public, not just re-write press releases from the comfort on one's desk.
In short, this type of reporting is a disservice to the public and an insult to the public's intelligence.
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.
