In a recent News-Times article, it was reported that a lawsuit had been settled involving the city of Danbury and five individuals who were on the hiring list for the fire department. It was reported that two of these individuals would be offered jobs with our fire department. I take it that the other three must already have jobs. It was reported that the city of Danbury agreed to pay these five individuals $450,000, which included the fee for the attorney that represented these individuals.
I question if this amount includes the attorney fees incurred by the city of Danbury? Does it also include back pay and/or contractual benefits for the two individuals offered jobs for the four years in question? What is the actual amount the tax payers of the city of Danbury will be expected to pay (minus the amount picked up by insurance, if any)?
Administrative mistake vs. violation of civil service policy and procedures -- which is it?
[...]
To date, why have we not heard from our representatives on the (City) Council, both Republican and Democrat, as to the question how and why did this happen and how long have these "administrative mistakes" been occurring?
[...]
I don't believe that to a reasonable citizen, the term "administrative mistake" is a responsible answer.
As I've reported on this site, the allegations of wrongdoing against Mayor Boughton, City Councilman Phil Curran and Civil Service Commissioner Mike Finn are serious...very serious. Again, when the suit was filed Boughton stated that the city "categorically reject the allegations made in the complaint and defend our positions," yet the city later admitted to unspecified "wrongdoing" in the matter.
Here's the list of questions that residents should demand Boughton to answer:
If the city admitted wrongdoing, then who in particular screwed up?
How was the wrongdoing fix?
The plaintiff's complaint stated:
74. On information and belief, Michael Finn, one of the candidates that were appointed over higher ranking ie: more qualified candidates is the son of Michael Finn, Sr. the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.
75. On information and belief, Michael Finn was arrested and prosecuted for impersonating a police officer. On information and belief, Michael Finn was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor.
76. On information and belief, other candidates listed in paragraph 66 are related by blood, marriage or impending marriage to current and past fire department administrators.
77. 0n information and belief, certain candidates, including O'Hanlon and Sussman, were passed over because City officials, including the Mayor and Fire Department administrators "blackballed" the candidates based on unofficial investigations.
78. The Civil Service Rules designates the Civil Service Commission with the sole authority to do a pre-employment "police record, employment, educational and reference check" and post-appointment employment verification and police record check.
79. Neither pre-employment nor post-appointment investigation was initiated or completed regarding Timothy O'Hanlon,
80. Sussman was never informed of any negative information discovered about him pursuant to the background check he authorized.
81. Neither Sussman nor O'Hanlon was given an opportunity to address or appeal the "blackball".
82. Based on the Civil Service Rules and the Charter, the authority to appoint or pass over O'Hanlon was the Mayor's alone, based on the objective testing, satisfactory physical ability test, and criminal background check.
83. 0n information and belief, the decision to pass over Sussman and O'Hanlon was made by Fire Department officials based on false and defamatory information procured outside of the background check process required by the Civil Service Rules.
Was there nepotism involved in the hiring of the firefighters?
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 asked to resign from the city council?
It was alleged in the lawsuit that Mayor Boughton played a central role in the matter. Did Boughton's role play a factor in the city's "wrongdoing" and/or was a determining factor in the city decision to settle the case as opposed to denouncing the charges?
If the mayor stated in 2009 that the city would fight these charges, why did the city settle the case as opposed to moving forward and dispute the allegations made in the suit? Did the city fear that the allegations made in the case would be proved factually true if the case moved forward.
Many questions remain unanswered regarding the mayor's role in this lawsuit and the mayor's continued avoidance in addressing the matter speaks volumes in terms of his leadership qualities.
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.
