Back in June, Danbury Democratic Town Committee chairwoman Lynn Taborsak wrote a letter to the editor in which she criticized Mayor Boughton, Former Fire Chief/At-Large City Councilman Phil Curran and Civil Service Chairman Mike Finn for their alleged roles in the recently settled firefighter lawsuit.
Taborsak's letter gave details into the merit of the suit and called upon Boughton to provided details in regards to the city's admittance of wrongdoing that played a factor into the case being settled. All of the points in Taborsak's letter were reported numerous times on this site and can be found in the court records.
There is good news for the residents of Danbury! The city is now accepting applications for the position of entry level firefighter! Applications will be accepted until June 23rd. Let’s hope this round of hiring strictly follows civil service rules and let’s make sure our “part-time” Mayor understands how a merit eligibility list works. It requires selections to be made on the sole basis of ability as demonstrated by the examination. We don’t want another lawsuit or another $450,000 settlement coming out of city coffers. That money could have been used to save five or six teaching positions in this year’s school budget.
However, mistakes were made and they cannot be explained away as simple administrative errors. There were eight rounds of hiring using the old list and in every single round the city made the same mistake over and over. In every round the Mayor selected less qualified candidates over better qualified candidates and the City Council went along and approved them. It’s outrageous that one of the less qualified candidates was engaged to Acting-Chief Philip Curran’s daughter and that a second less qualified candidate was the son of Michael Finn, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission These particular selections give an appearance of bias or favoritism.
I don’t think the Mayor would make the same mistake eight times in a row. One time is a mistake. Eight times is purposeful and willful. He must think that he can get away with anything.
I think it is embarrassing that a Ridgefield attorney had to go into court for a Writ of Mandamus to make the City follow its own rules. Add to that $450,000 settlement another $180,000 that our municipal risk insurance paid to defend us for making the same mistake over and over.
If you missed this letter to the editor in the News-Times it's because the newspaper refused to publish it.
Last week, Taborsak took to the airwaves to provide the public details regarding the case, express her frustration with the paper's refusal to examine the city's admitted wrongdoing in the case, and comment on the rejection of her letter to the editor.
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.
