Too busy running for governor to answer questions?
It's been one week since the News-Times broke the news that the city of Danbury agreed to settle lawsuit that will cost taxpayers a MIND BLOWING 450,000 (minus legal fees and other goodies) in which the following allegations were made by the plaintiffs:
The lawsuit states that Michael Finn Jr., the son of Civil Service Commission chairman Michael Finn Sr., was hired by the department in February 2008. He was originally ranked 108th on the list of candidates, according to the filing.
The attorney for the plaintiffs added that Patrick Heron was hired by the department in March 2007 and was related by an "impending marriage" to former Fire Chief and current Common Council member Phil Curran. Heron was originally ranked 40th on the candidate list.
In reaching the settlement, the following statement was made by the city's legal department:
"In defending the litigation, the city of Danbury did discover that some administrative errors were made in compiling that list," a statement released Wednesday on the settlement said.
We will continue to categorically reject the allegations made in the complaint and defend our positions," Boughton said. "I have faith in our process and I have faith in the people we hired.
Now that the city has ADMITTED to mistakes, lets take a look at what Boughton had to say about the matter now:
Mayor Mark Boughton could not be reached for comment Wednesday despite several attempts.
While Dirk Perrefort was unable to get Boughton to comment on the matter, the last honest man has been quoted in several articles since the publication of the settlement. That being said, and in light of the fact that the taxpayers of this city are on the hook for 450,000 due to someone's screw-up, these questions are still unanswered:
If the city admitted wrongdoing, then who in particular screwed up?
How is the hiring process being fix?
Are the same people who screwed things up, now the same ones responsible for fixing the system?
What about this part of the plaintiff's complaint.
The lawsuit states that Michael Finn Jr., the son of Civil Service Commission chairman Michael Finn Sr., was hired by the department in February 2008. He was originally ranked 108th on the list of candidates, according to the filing.
The attorney for the plaintiffs added that Patrick Heron was hired by the department in March 2007 and was related by an "impending marriage" to former Fire Chief and current Common Council member Phil Curran. Heron was originally ranked 40th on the candidate list.
Was there nepotism involved in the hiring of the firefighters? Are the people responsible for the admitted wrongdoing still employed by the city?
Is Mike Finn Sr. still on the payroll at City Hall? If he's not on the payroll, then doesn't the city have an obligation to the public to come forward and explain why's he's been removed from his role at Civil Service?
What was current Former Fire Chief and currant City Councilman Phil Curran's involvement in the case? If the city's admittance of wrongdoing is in anyway connected to Curran, then shouldn't he be pressured to resign from the city council?
Did the city's admittance of wrongdoing have anything to do with anything with the mayor's involvement in this case?
Remember, the heart of the lawsuit alleged that people at City Hall were involved in nepotism.
Instead of posing in front of the NBC camera shaking hands with his planted Republican operatives (like THE SAME Mike Finn Sr. in the above image whose name came up in the lawsuit), maybe Boughton can take a moment from his his fledgling gubernatorial campaign to answer some questions...and the News-Times has an obligation to do a follow-up on this important matter!
I wonder how many teacher's jobs could be saved with 450,000 dollars...
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.
