City officials are working on a solution to bring the library's drop box -- historically located on West Street -- back to its original location.
[...]
"We are working on a plan that will involve having someone empty out the drop boxes," Boughton said. "It will probably be a part-time person who would be responsible for that. Hopefully, we can have it all worked out in the next couple of weeks."
The councilman said he suggested one of the city's crossing guards be hired to empty the box in the morning and again in the afternoon at a cost of about $100 a week, or $5,000 a year.
[...]
Library director Mark Hasskarl said he also would like to see the box placed in its original spot, and he has asked the union representative whether employees can take on the responsibility of emptying it.
Hasskarl added that about $20,000 saved when the library revamped its website and -- eliminating the web master position -- could be used to pay for a new part-time employee to work at the circulation desk and empty the box.
"The library's management team is still trying to find a way to get the drop box back on West Street," he said. "Everyone was happy before we moved it."
Council member Colleen Stanley, who serves on the ad hoc committee, rejected the notion that another worker needs to be hired to perform the job.
"The drop box was a convenience, and we are looking at hard times right now," she said. "The library already has 57 employees. I can't see spending another dollar of taxpayer money to hire someone else to do it."
Boughton agreed.
"We are definitely not hiring anyone to empty the drop box," he said. "That's not going to happen. We are trying to save money right now, not create more expenses."
Not only is this yet another example of Boughton talking out of both sides of his mouth, but the mayor and Councilwoman Stanley's objections over hiring a part-time employee makes no sense.
As Councilman Rotello and Library director Mark Hasskarl stated, since the library was able to save 22,000, they have money within the budget to hire someone part-time to handle this relative easy job. At 5,000 dollars a year, since the library saved 22,000, they would still be 17,000 in the black for this fiscal year's budget. In short, taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for the expense since the library WAS ALREADY ALLOCATED the funds last year. Also, in terms of the overall city budget, 5,000 is a incredible drop in the bucket when you look at the cost savings of the boxes in the first place.
It's irrational comments like this which should make the public question the mayor's desire to bring this irritating situation to a conclusion. They don't call him the last honest man in Danbury for nothing!
...more later.
NOTE: These two articles referenced in this post were written by the SAME REPORTER (News-Times "political" reporter Dirk Perrefort). Makes you wonder why Perrefort allowed Boughton top get away with this nonsense in the first place since any reporter worth their name in print would had caught the mayor's flip-flop.
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.
