“However, in the interest of public discourse I proposed, as an alternative, a TV debate, which can be seen [on the Comcast government access channel] anytime they want to show it.”
Boughton also repeated this remark during the 45 dollar a plate Chamber of Commerce debate...
Well, after a week, City Hall started broadcasting the ONLY debate between Boughton and Gary Goncalves BUT most likely, you probably missed it since only the first 10 minutes of the debate is being broadcast.
Think I'm kidding, here's footage of the so-called debate on the government access channel...fast forward to about the 2 minute mark and you'll see what I mean.
So to recap:
Boughton has used the same ol' timed excuse he used in 2007 when it comes to offering the public FREE and OPEN debates,
Offers the Fairfield Weekly a series of bizarre explanations regarding the time in which he received an invite from the League of Women Voters that doesn't pass the smell test,
and now we see that our mayor doesn't even have the common decency to make sure the ENTIRE chamber of commerce debate is PROPERLY broadcast on the government access channel for members of the public who couldn't fork over 45 dollars to see the candidates running for PUBLIC OFFICE debate at an AFTERNOON luncheon.
...oh yeah, the government access channel is controlled at City Hall and this nonsense has been going on since they first televised the debate LAST THURSDAY.
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.
