The state Democratic Party chairwoman asked Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Thursday to explain the role she played years ago, as lieutenant governor, when she met with transportation officials on the routing of a Route 7 bypass through a quarry in her hometown of Brookfield.
"Perhaps there was a perfectly legitimate reason why you felt the need to involve yourself, as Lieutenant Governor, in this issue. But certainly you can agree that your involvement does, at the very least, seem odd and even self-serving, given your residency in Brookfield and potential personal interest in the outcome," Democratic Party chief Nancy DiNardo wrote to Rell.
[...]
The decade-old routing decision led to a judge's July 29 order that the state pay the quarry owners $28 million extra for land the Department of Transportation took in 2004 by eminent domain.
The state paid $4.1 million then, but the owners sued for more, and Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Sheedy issued a decision blasting state officials for "unprofessional behavior" as they minimized the property's appraisal.
Sheedy's decision mentioned that Rell met with state transportation personnel and federal officials about the stalled project in July 2000 while she was lieutenant governor. Before assuming that office in 1995, Rell was a state legislator for a decade.
In her letter, DiNardo cited a Courant editorial urging more investigation and called it "unconscionable" that taxpayers may pay $28 million "for the state's malpractice."
DiNardo told Rell that "surely you would agree that your constituents in Connecticut deserve to know the answers to several $28 million dollar questions," including:
-"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?"
DiNardo concluded by saying that "at a time of great economic distress in many Connecticut households, and certainly in our state's fiscal outlook, as well, it's unconscionable that taxpayers will be asked to cough up an additional $28 million to pay for the state's malpractice, and perhaps, even blatant disregard for the truth. Connecticut residents deserve their Governor practicing the transparency and accountability she so often preaches. I look forward to hearing back from you promptly regarding these questions."
While a spokeperson for the governor's office called the comments from Connecticut Democratic chairwoman DiNardo ""pathetically, blatantly political and unworthy of those she purports to represent," specific questions by the Hartford Courant went unanswered. RELATED POSTS:
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.
