When it comes to whether Mayor Boughton and the City Council have the legal authority to "punish" the board of education in the manner that they plan to do at tonight's meeting, the answer is not that simple.
From the City Council's ad-hoc committee meeting, here's corporation council Lez Pinter's take on the action.
While I don't think Pinter's rationale would pass the smell test in court, the legal opinion from the board of education regarding Boughton's action is quite different...
Although we're talking about a small amount of money, the board of education is well within their right to take the city to court over this highly controversial move. One body of government to punishing another separate body of government is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton has gone too far and has overstepped boundaries in his attempt to cut the already approved education budget.
[...]
The mayor has called the 2.5 percent raises to four people irresponsible at a time when an intermediate school is closing in the city and other cost-saving measures are being instituted.
He has a point. Every expenditure must be carefully weighed when it comes to educating children -- no matter the frugality of the economic times.
But it is too late. The mayor and the City Council had their chance to review the proposed education budget; they took the responsibility seriously and allowed a less than 2 percent increase above the previous year.
It was up to the Board of Education to work with that amount, though the increase was only half of what was requested. Neither the mayor nor the City Council ought to have line-item veto power over the Board of Education.
All three arms of local government, after all, are elected by voters.
[...]
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.
[...]
We are not quibbling about the salaries or whether they are deserved.
Our position is based on the fact that the mayor and the City Council ought not to try to override the Board of Education and manage its budget line by line.
For trying to do so, Mayor Boughton, a former teacher, should get called into the principal's office.
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.
