City Council ad-hoc committee on school administrator salaries: 08.25.10
On Thursday, Mayor Boughton and the members of the city council plan to overstep their boundaries as elected officials by punishing the board of education for giving raises to four non union administrators.
The question isn't whether the school board's June 9th decision to give a 2.5 percent raises was responsible…as someone who's still shaking his head over the board's decision to give two principals a nine percent raise back in 2009. What's outrageous is the fact that one separate body of government is taken upon itself to punish another separate body of government.
The mayor, city council, and board of education are separate bodies of local government elected by the people. After the city council reviews and approves the education budget, it is the board of education responsibility to spend the money in any way they want to choose. The mayor and/or city council DOES NOT have the line item authority when it comes to the board of education. In turn, the board of education does not have the authority to punish the city council when it comes to questionable decisions they make in terms of the overall city budget.
And in terms of the money the mayor is crying foul about…we're talking about peanuts.
The board had approved the raises for the schools superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent and finance director at a June 9 meeting. The board revisited the decision at a June 24 meeting, and upheld it.
Schools Superintendent Sal Pascarella is offering to return his increase to the education budget, after he pays taxes, to be used for the new literacy center.
The net increase, without Pascarella's raise, comes to about $10,000 in a $114.1 million budget.
Mayor Boughton's suggestion, which was referred to committee last week by the City Council, amounts to posturing.
Remember, the mayor and members of the city council do not attend every board of education meeting, therefore, they have no knowledge of the day to day decision making by the board that goes into operation of the school budget.
For a part-time mayor that's spent a majority of his time running for state office and a city council that has a LONG history of questionable spending decisions while turning a blind eye to accountability, this latest move is outrageous to say the least.
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.
