While Mayor Boughton continues to avoid addressing the city's admitted wrongdoing and allegations made against him and city officials in the recent firefighter lawsuit, this week, new details emerged that new light on other costs that were attributed to the case. While the 450,000 dollar settlement has been reported, what not been talked about are the attorney fees which will also be paid by the taxpayers of Danbury.
Information provided via a recent Freedom of Information request outlines how much was paid to the attorneys who defended the city in the case. Here's a summary of the costs:
Payments to the attorneys were made via the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency (CIRMA) insurance account. Nonetheless, when it comes to the cost of this case towards the taxpayers of the city, you can add aprox. 180,000 dollars to the 450,000 dollars from the settlement.
To recap:
Although the mayor stated to the public that "we will continue to categorically reject the allegations made in the complaint and defend our positions", the city, which was forced to admit wrongdoing, settled the case for 450,000 dollars and forked over an aprox. 180,000 dollars in attorney fees.
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.
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.
