During Tuesday's meeting of the Board of Education, Mark Boughton displayed his trademark arrogance in his rationale behind punishing a separate body of government.
For those who don't know, at tonight's city council meeting, the mayor is leading the charge in punishing the board of education for giving raises to school administrators...although the mayor and city council has no jurisdiction over the decision making of the board of education.
Since News-Times education reporter Eileen Fitzgerald and political reporter Dirk Perrefort refuse to inform the public on the arrogant (and possibly illegal) action by Boughton, other concerned people are stepping in to fill the void by exposing the mayor's nonsense.
From Tuesday, here's video footage of arrogant Boughton scolding the board of education. As you'll see, although some of Republican members of the board kissed Boughton's ring, at least some Democrat (Robert Taborsak) put Boughton in his place and informed others that the mayor's move was most likely illegal.
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.
