In a flurry of last minute activity, the Senate failed to give final passage to bill that extends the municipal conveyance tax, which had passed the House 121 to 27 earlier Wednesday evening.

Given a free pass this year by the Realtors lobby that generally opposes the tax, the Senate failed to put it on the consent calendar which passed right before midnight.

Municipalities rely on the tax, which according to the fiscal note brings in about $20 to $25 million a year for struggling municipalities.

[...]

The tax is set to expire June 30 and without it every city and town in the state could run a deficit.

With some exceptions, Connecticut law requires a person who sells real property for $ 2,000 or more to pay a real estate conveyance tax when he conveys the property to the buyer. The tax has two parts: a state tax and a municipal tax. The state tax rate is either 0. 5% or 1% of the sale price, depending on the type of property and how much it sells for, and the town tax rate is either 0. 25% or up to a maximum of 0. 5% depending on where the property is located. The applicable state and local rates are added together to get the total tax rate for a particular transaction. The seller pays the tax when he conveys the property (CGS § 12-494-504h).

[...]

In addition to the state tax, sellers must pay a municipal real estate conveyance tax. The municipal tax rate is currently 0. 25% for all towns plus additional tax of up to 0. 25% for 18 eligible towns that chose to impose the increased rate. Thus, the municipal tax rate can range from 0. 25% to 0. 5%, depending on where the property is located.

The legislature's finance, revenue and bonding committee passed a bill Thursday that would extend the current conveyance tax rates until 2012. It would also expempt homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who have homes worth less than what they owe from the tax.

The committee vote was 35-15.

Most municipalities receive 0.25 percent of a property's sale price. More distressed communities, such as Hartford and New Haven, get 0.50 percent of the sale price.

Prior to 2003, the conveyance tax was 0.11 percent. The tax was increased in 2003 in the midst of a state budget deficit, but was set to revert back to the original rate the following year. The General Assembly, however, has consistently extended the tax increase, and now cities and towns rely on the revenue.

The increases are now set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. If they do, it would leave a hole in municipal budgets. The rate would drop to 0.11 percent for most cities and towns and 0.36 percent for distressed communities.

Focusing on Mt. Kilimanjaro, the film tracks the greatest advances happening in the medical community alongside the team's endurance at altitude. Over 92 million people worldwide have a family member battling Alzheimer's or Parkinson's Disease. This is a story of hope and of common everyday people coming together to change this world and leave something better behind. A collaboration with the Leeza Gibbons Memory Foundation and the Focus On a Cure Foundation for Parkinson's, proceeds from the movie go towards medical research and caregiver programs.

A celebration of the musical work of a group of session musicians known as "The Wrecking Crew", a band that provided back-up instrumentals to such legendary recording artists as Frank Sinatra, The Beach Boys and Bing Crosby.

"Science has an agenda! Science is unreliable!" If you've ever heard a religious person say these words, you'll love this video

COUNCILMAN VISCONTI: I just think that we are giving out almost a half a million dollars here. I think we should have some type of record keeping so we know what it's being spent on.

FIRE CHIEF HERALD: It's certainly a legitimate question.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: Just for historical perspective…a couple of years ago, the previous director of finance made a request to all the receiving agencies that received money to supply that office with an accounting of their records…I believe that some departments complied and some did not. I still think that's totally possible for the director of finance to request that from them. They should absolutely request that from the director of finance.

FIRE CHIEF HERALD: Similar as they do with the grant agencies.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: Yes. If the grant agencies can do it…

COUNCILWOMAN STANLEY: Can they do that for this year's budget?

COUNCIL PRESIDENT CAVO: I don't know if they would have to get that to us before we vote.

FIRE CHIEF HERALD: Well, whether you…a dispersal is different than voting I would say—

COUNCILWOMAN STANLEY: That's right—

FIRE CHIEF HERALD: When is the dispersal?

FINANCE DIRECTOR: Usually, funds are dispersed in July. In some cases, it's distributed four times a year.

COUNCILWOMAN DEEP: You can distributed it whenever you want right?

FINANCE DIRECTOR: Well, with the grant agencies you like to do it on some type of pre-determined basis…so it's clear and they can budget accordingly…

UNKNOWN COUNCILMAN: What determines that number [allocation to the volunteer fire department].

FIRE CHIEF HERALD: That number has been the same for about eight years from what I can see…

AD-HOC CHAIR (Charles Trombetta): I think that even that is about part of the budget…all the questions are legitimate, we need to have a separate ad-hoc committee to look into that…

Some members of the City Council suggested last week they would consider increasing the education budget, provided schools officials meet them in the middle with some long-term savings.

Mayor Mark Boughton said Monday there probably won't be enough votes on the council when it meets Tuesday to approve any increase in education funding.

"If there is a long-term savings found by the (education) board, we would certainly look at our commitment to education," Boughton said, "but the taxpayers are pretty much maxed out. I think the battle tomorrow night (during the council meeting) will be not to cut the education budget further."

DUTIES OF THE MAYOR ON THE BUDGET. Not later than April 7th or the next business day thereafter if April 7th shall not be a business day, the Mayor shall present to the Common CITY Council a budget consisting of:

a. A budget message outlining the financial policy of the City government and describing in connection therewith the important features of the budget plan indicating any major changes from the current year in financial policies, expenditures and revenues together with the reasons for such changes, and containing a clear general summary of its contents.

b. Estimates of revenue, presenting in parallel columns the itemized revenue collected in the last completed fiscal year, the receipts collected during the current fiscal year prior to the time of preparing the estimates, total revenue estimated to be collected during the current fiscal year, estimates of revenue, other than from the property tax, to be collected in the ensuing fiscal year, and a statement of an estimate of available surplus.

c. Itemized estimates of expenditures, presenting in parallel columns the actual expenditures for each department, office, agency or activity for the last completed fiscal year and for the current fiscal year prior to the time of preparing the estimates, total expenditures and estimated for the current fiscal year, and the Mayor’s recommendations of the amounts to be appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year for all items, and such other information as may be required by the Common CITY Council. The Mayor shall present reasons for his recommendations.

d. The Board of Education shall have the same duties and follow the same form and procedure with respect to the budget of the Board of Education as required of the Mayor in Section 7-2 of this Chapter for other departmental estimates.

e. As part of the budget, the Mayor shall present a program, TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 15TH THAT HAS BEEN previously considered and acted upon by the City Planning Commission in accordance with Section 8-24 of the General Statutes, as amended, concerning municipal improvements, of proposed capital projects for the ensuing fiscal year and for the five fiscal years thereafter. Estimates of the costs of such projects shall be submitted to BY each department, office or agency annually in the form and manner prescribed by the Mayor. The Mayor shall recommend to the Common CITY Council those projects to be undertaken during the ensuing fiscal year and the method of financing the same.

f. As part of the budget, the Mayor shall present to the Council the data required to be presented to the Mayor by Section 7-1.

DUTIES OF THE COMMON CITY COUNCIL ON THE BUDGET. The Common CITY Council shall hold one or more public hearings not later than May 1st or the next business day thereafter if May 1st shall not be a business day, at which any elector or taxpayer may have an opportunity to be heard regarding appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year. Following receipt of the estimates from the Mayor, the Council shall cause sufficient copies of said estimates to be made available for general distribution in the office of the City Clerk LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT and, at least five (5) days prior to the aforementioned public hearing, the Council shall cause to be published in a newspaper having a circulation in the City a notice of such public hearing and a summary of said proposed budget estimates showing anticipated revenues by major sources, and proposed expenditures by functions or departments in the same columnar form as prescribed for budget estimates in Section 7-3 of this Chapter, and shall also show the amounts to be raised by taxation. Not later than May 15th or the next business day thereafter if May 15th shall not be a business day, the Council shall adopt a budget and file the same with the City Clerk LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT; provided however, if the Council shall insert new amounts or programs, increase, decrease or strike out amounts or programs in the budget such changes shall be adopted by an affirmative vote of at least two- thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Council. The ordinance adopting the budget may provide for appropriations by department or function, and such appropriations need not be in greater detail than to indicate the total appropriation for each department or function. At the time when the Council shall adopt the budget, together with a provision for uncollectible taxes reserve, it shall also fix the tax rate in mills which shall be levied on the taxable property in the City for the ensuing fiscal year. Should the Council fail to adopt a budget within the time specified, the budget as transmitted by the Mayor, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7-3 of this Chapter shall be deemed to have been finally adopted by said Council. The tax rate shall forthwith be fixed by the Mayor and thereafter expenditures shall be made in accordance with the budget so adopted.

Superior Court, J.D. of Danbury at Danbury, 10.31.07

Timothy O'Hanlon and Adam Sussman, Plaintiffs

-v-

City of Danbury, Mark Boughton, in his official and individual capacity, Peter Siencienski, in his official and Individual capacity, Philip Curran, in his official and individual capacity, Geoffrey Herald, in his official and individual capacity, Michael Finn, Sr. in his official and individual capacity, Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, JonathanDeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis and Paul Perrotti, Defendants.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

First Count: In the Nature of Quo Warranto

1. Timothy O'Hanlon ("O'Hanlon") is a resident of Danbury Connecticut and a candidate for a position with the Danbury Fire Department as an Entry Level
Firefighter.

2. Adam Sussman ("Sussman") is a resident of Bethel Connecticut and a candidate for a position with the Danbury Fire Department as an Entry Level Firefighter.

3. The City of Danbury, hereinafter, the "City", is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

4. Mark Boughton is and was, at all times relevant, the Mayor of the City of Danbury, hereinafter, the "Mayor".

5. Peter Siencienski was the Chief of the Danbury Fire Department, hereinafter, "Chief Siencienski".

6. Philip Curran was the Deputy Chief and then the interim Chief of the Danbury Fire Department, hereinafter, "Chief Curran".

7. Geoffrey Herald is the Chief of the Danbury Fire Department, hereinafter, "Chief Herald".

8. Michael Finn, Sr., is and was at all times relevant, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission for the City of Danbury.

9. Defendants Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan Dejoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti have each been appointed to positions as Entry Level Firefighters in violation of the City of Danbury Charter and the Civil Service Rules. Such positions should have been filled by persons that the open competitive examination determined to be more qualified as evidenced by their higher rank on the Entry Level Firefighter Eligibility List.

10. The City is organized under a Charter which establishes a "merit system" for the hiring and promotion of officers and employees of the City. Revised Charter of the City of Danbury approved November 6, 1990, Section 6-3, hereinafter, "Charter, Sec. ___".

11. The 'merit system" for the City is administered through the Personnel Department and the Civil Service Commission pursuant to the Charter and the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Danbury, effective 01/18/2000, hereinafter, "Civil Service Rules, Sec. ___".

12. The Civil Service Rules were established to "provide a means for selecting and promoting each public official and employee upon the sole basis of his or her proven ability to perform the duties of his or her office or employment more efficiently than any other candidate." Civil Service Rules, Introduction,

13. Further, the Civil Service Rules provide that the selection of employees "shall in no way be influenced by the race, religion, creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, marital status, citizenship, age, or political affiliation of the candidate." Id.

14, The Civil Service Rules proscribe the process by which a new employee is selected, including:

• a. how a competitive examination is announced and what information the announcement must include, (Civil Service Rules, Sec. V. A. 1.);


• b. the application procedure (Civil Service Rules, Sec. V. B.);


• c. the examination's purpose, contents, procedure and what conduct will allow a candidate to be disqualified (Civil Service Rules, Sec. VI.);


• d. how the examination will be conducted, scored, what preference points, if any, will be awarded, how the candidates' results will be used to assign a rank on the eligibility list, and how the results will be announced. Id. at H, and


• e. how the eligibility lists will be used to certify eligible candidates to the Mayor for appointment. (Civil Service Rules, Sec. VII.).

15. Each provision of the Charter and the Civil Service Rules relating to the selection of candidates and employees must be strictly complied with by the City to eliminate bias and favoritism.

16. The policy of the City is that all appointments are made "upon the sole basis of his or her proven ability to perform the duties of his or her office or employment more efficiently than any other candidate … to be ascertained so far as practicable by competitive examination." Civil Service Rules, Introduction and Section VI Examinations, A. Policy.

17, In or about June 2005, the City announced that it would accept applications for "Firefighter- Entry Level" through July 21, 2005, The cost to apply for employment was $75.

18. The announcement stated that the candidates' final score would consist of the written examination: 60% and oral examination 40%, and a physical ability test: pass / fail. Further, candidates would receive additional credit for status as a veteran, a City resident, or a volunteer firefighter. The announcement does not state that an interview by any Fire Department administrator or by the Mayor will be considered in determining a candidate's relative qualification for a position.

19. O'Hanlon submitted an application with all of the required supporting documentation including a certification from the Connecticut Fire Academy that he had passed the physical ability test on July 12, 2005.

20. Sussman submitted an application with all of the required supporting documentation including a certification from the Connecticut Fire Academy that he had passed the physical ability test on April 7, 2005.

21. O'Hanlon and Sussman were notified that the written test would be administered August 22, 2005.

22. After signing in for the test, O'Hanlon observed that candidates who were arriving to take the test were allowed to mingle with candidates who had completed the test.

23.The oral portion of the examination was given on September 14,15, and 16th 2005.

24. On October 3, 2005, prior to the Entry Level Firefighter Eligibility List being promulgated on October 19, 2005, the City appointed six candidates; Seth Ambroso (ranked 3rd), James Croswell(ranked 6th), Raymond Guard (ranked 11 th), Shawn McGee(ranked 13th), Kevin Sullivan (ranked 14th), and Richard Gallagher (ranked 15th), (the, "First Round").

25. Appointing candidates to positions prior to the promulgation of the eligibility list violates the Civil Service Rules,

26. On the Entry Level Firefighter Eligibility List promulgated on October 19, 2005, Sussman ranked 8th and O'Hanlon ranked 18th, The firefighter/Defendants were ranked as follows:

Name, (Date of hire in rank in order of seniority) -- Rank

Ambrose, Seth (10/03/05) -- 3
Croswell, James (10/03/05) -- 6
Guard, Raymond (10/03/05) -- 11
McGee, Shawn (10/03/05) -- 13
Sullivan, Kevin (10103/05) -- 14
Gallagher, Richard (10/03/05) -- 15
Bruce, Gary (03102/06) -- 1
Sellick, Keith (03/02/06) -- 5
Mourges, Theodore (03/02/06) -- 9
Hughes, Adam (03/02/06) -- 19
Sedgwick, Michael (03/02/06) -- 21
Whitehead, John (03/02/06) -- 24
Hanson, Robert (07/06/06) -- 2
Cabral, Nicholas (07/06/06) -- 7
Houser, Adam (07106/06) -- 16
Bierbower, Justin (09/28/06) -- 53
Chapin, Nate (03/05/07) -- 23
Zamewski, Jouglas (03/05/07) -- 30
Stilson, Kenneth (03/05/07) -- 34
DeJoseph, Jonathan (03/05/07) -- 38
Heron, Patrick (03/05/07) -- 40
Bonsignore, Kent (06/22/07) -- 28
Gagliardo, James (06/22/07) -- 39
Bohan, Rodger (06/22/07) -- 61
Carson, James (06/22107) -- 72
Wanat, Sean (06/22/07) -- 80
Stabile, Joseph (06/22/07) -- 90
Velotti, Nicholas (06/22107) -- 91
Vitolo, Michael (06/22/07) -- 114
Espitee, Philip (recent) -- 47
Lunnie, Kevin (recent) -- 27
Rivera, Gabriel (recent) -- 69
Monteavaro, Kenneth (recent) -- 102
Finn, Michael (intend to hire list) -- 103
Korotash, Gregory (intend to hire list) -- 105
Sherman, Jordan (intend to hire list) -- 108
Brown, Dickon (intend to hire list) -- 119
Lewis, Allan (intend to hire list) -- 135
Perrotti, Paul (intend to hire list) -- 164
Conlon, Leonard (no longer employed) -- 66
Arnold, David (no longer employed) -- 33

27. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, nine unappointed candidates including Sussman were ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than at least one of the persons appointed on October 3, 2005.

28. Candidates 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were passed over.

29, On November 7, 2005, O'Hanlon was notified by the City that he was 18th on the list.

30. 0n November 7,2005, Sussman was notified by the City that he was 8th on the list.

31. 0n January 19,2006, Sussman was notified that the City of Danbury would be running a CPAT exam the following day. Sussman successfully completed the CPAT exam on January 20, 2006.

32. 0n February 10, 2006, a job offer was extended to Sussman, contingent on satisfactory results of a background check, and medical and psychological examination. Sussman immediately met with the Danbury police department and provided the required fingerprints, information and releases.

33. On February 14, 2006, O'Hanlon was notified that his application was deferred until the next round of hiring and that his name would remain on the eligibility list for at least one year.

34. On February 24, Sussman was informed by letter that the City did not have enough seats at the Fire Academy to send him to the Fire Academy and, therefore, he was being deferred to the next round of hiring, By implication, Sussman had successfully completed the requirements of the contingent offer.

35. 0n March 2, 2006, six additional candidates were appointed to positions; Gary Bruce (ranked 1 st), Keith Sellick (ranked 5th), Theodore Mourges (ranked 9th), Adam Hughes (ranked 19th), Michael Sedgwick (ranked 21) and John Whitehead (ranked 24th), (the, "Second Round").

36. Gary Bruce (ranked 1 st), Keith Sellick (ranked 5th), and Theodore Mourges (ranked 9th) ranked higher ie: more qualified than persons appointed in the First Round.

37. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, twelve unappointed candidates including Sussman (ranked 8th) and O'Hanlon (ranked 18th) were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed on March 2, 2006.

38. Candidates 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22 and 23 were passed over.

39. Although the City is allowed to strike from the eligibility list any candidate that has been certified to the Mayor three times but not appointed, on information and belief, the City did not strike every candidate that was certified to the Mayor three times but not appointed.

40. If the City claims it did strike certain candidates from the eligibility list for this reason, its action would be arbitrary and capricious because the City did not strike every candidate that has been certified to the Mayor three times but not appointed.

41. The City is required to notify a candidate that his/her name has been removed or stricken from the list and the reason therefore.

42. 0'Hanlon has not been notified that his name was removed or stricken from the eligibility list.

43. Sussman has not been notified that his name was removed or stricken from the eligibility list.

44. 0n July 6,2006, three additional candidates were appointed to.,positions; Robert Hanson (ranked 2nd), Nicholas Cabral (ranked ih), and Kyle Houser (ranked 16th) (the, "Third Round",).

45. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, four unappointed candidates including Sussman (ranked 8th) were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed.

46. Candidates 4, 8, 10 and 12 were passed over.

47. Robert Hanson (ranked 2nd), Nicholas Cabral (ranked ih), and Kyle Houser (ranked 16th) each ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than persons appointed in the second round. Robert Hanson and Nicholas Cabral ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than persons hired in the first round.

48. On September 28, 2006 Justin Bierbower was appointed. He was ranked 53rd on the eligibility list. (The, "Fourth Round"). On that date there were 37 unappointed candidates ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than Bierbower.

49. Candidates 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25-52 were passed over.

50. 0n information and belief, at some point, Candidate 4 was taken off the eligibility list.


51. 0n November 1, 2006, the eligibility list was revised, All remaining candidates were given revised rankings. Sussman was ranked 1. O'Hanlon was ranked 5.

52. 0n February 27,2007, five additional candidates were appointed; Nate Chapin(ranked 23rd then 8th), Douglas Zaniewski(ranked 30th then 14th), Kenneth Stilson(ranked 34th then 18th), Jonathan DeJoseph(ranked 38th then (22nd), and Patrick Heron(ranked 40th then 24th) (the, "Fifth Round").

53. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, nineteen unappointed candidates, including Sussman (8th) and O'Hanlon (18th), on the October 19, 2005 eligibility list were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed.

54.Candidates 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25-29, 31-33, 35-37, and 39 were passed over.

55. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, eighteen unappointed candidates including Sussman (8, then 1) and O'Hanlon (18, then 5) on the November 1, 2006 revised eligibility list were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed. (Candidate 4 did not appear on revised list.)

56. Based upon the results of the merit competitive examination, Sussman and O'Hanlon ranked higher (ie: more qualified) on the eligibility lists dated October 19, 2005 and November 1, 2006 than Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, and Patrick Heron.

57. On June 22,2007 ten additional candidates were appointed to positions:

Kent Bonsignore(ranked 40th then 28th), David Arnold(ranked 33rd then 1 ih), James Gagliardo(ranked 39th then 23rd), Roger Bohan(ranked 61 st then 2ih), James Carson (ranked 72nd then 58th), Leonard Conlon(ranked 66th then 52nd), Sean Wanat(ranked 80th then 66th), Joseph Stabile(ranked 90th then 76th), Nicholas Velotti(ranked 91 st then 77th) and Michael Vitolo(ranked 114th then 100th) ( the, "Sixth Round").

58. Sussman and O'Hanlon ranked higher (ie: more qualified) on the eligibility lists dated October 19, 2005 and November 1, 2006 than any person appointed on June 22, 2007.

59. Eighty four unappointed candidates on the October 19, 2005 eligibility list were ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007.

60. Candidates 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 35-37, 41-47, 48-51, 54-60, 62-65, 67-71, 73-79, and 81-89, 92-113 were passed over.

61. Eighty three unappointed candidates on the November 1, 2006 revised eligibility list were ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007. (Candidate 4 did not appear on revised list. )

62. Kent Bonsignore, David Arnold, and James Gagliardo were each appointed after persons having a lower rank (ie: less qualified) on either eligibility list were appointed.

63. As of this date, at least four additional candidates have been appointed to positions; Kevin Lunnie (ranked 2ih then 11th), Philip Espitee (ranked 4ih then 31 st), Gabriel Rivera (ranked 69th then 55th), and Kenneth Monteavaro (ranked 1 02nd then 88th), (the, "Seventh Round").

64. Sussman and O'Hanlon ranked higher (ie: more qualified) on the eligibility lists dated October 19, 2005 and November 1, 2006 than Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, and Kenneth Monteavaro.

65. Eighty four unappointed candidates on the October 19, 2005 eligibility list were ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007.

66. Candidates 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35-37, 41-46, 48-51, 54-60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73-79, and 81-89, 92-101 were passed over

67. Eighty three unappointed candidates on the November 1, 2006 revised eligibility list were ranked higher (ie: more qualified) than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007. (Candidate 4 was removed from the revised liSt.)

68. Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, and Kenneth Monteavaro were each appointed after persons having a lower rank (ie: less qualified) on either eligibility list.

69. On information and belief six additional candidates have been appointed through the use of conditional offers to hire in April 2008; Michael Finn (ranked 1 03rd then 89th), Gregory Korotash (ranked 105th then 91 st), Jordan Sherman (ranked 1 08th then 94th), Dikon Brown (ranked 119th then 105th), Allan Lewis (ranked 135th then 121 st), and Paul Perrotti (ranked 164th then 150th), (the "Eighth Round").

70. Candidates 4, 8, 10,12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25,26, 29, 31, 32, 35-37, 41-46, 48-51, 54-60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73-79, and 81-89, 92-101, 104, 106, 107, 109-118, 120-134, and 136-163 were passed over.

71.Sussman and O'Hanlon ranked higher ie: more qualified on the eligibility lists dated October 19, 2005 and November 1, 2006 than Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti.

72, One hundred twenty three unappointed candidates on the October 19, 2005 eligibility list were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007 One hundred twenty two unappointed candidates on the November 1, 2006 revised eligibility list were ranked higher ie: more qualified than at least one of the persons appointed on June 22, 2007.

73. Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti have each been appointed to positions that pursuant to the Charter and the Civil Service Rules of the City of Danbury should have gone to persons that the merit competitive examination and the City of Danbury determined to be more qualified as evidenced by their higher rank on the Eligibility List in violation of the Charter, the Civil Service Rules and the policy of the City of Danbury.

74. On information and belief, Michael Finn, one of the candidates that were appointed over higher ranking ie: more qualified candidates is the son of Michael Finn, Sr. the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

75. On information and belief, Michael Finn was arrested and prosecuted for impersonating a police officer. On information and belief, Michael Finn was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor.

76. On information and belief, other candidates listed in paragraph 66 are related by blood, marriage or impending marriage to current and past fire department administrators.

77. 0n information and belief, certain candidates, including O'Hanlon and Sussman, were passed over because City officials, including the Mayor and Fire Department administrators "blackballed" the candidates based on unofficial investigations.

78. The Civil Service Rules designates the Civil Service Commission with the sole authority to do a pre-employment "police record, employment, educational and reference check" and post-appointment employment verification and police record check.

79. Neither pre-employment nor post-appointment investigation was initiated or completed regarding Timothy O'Hanlon,

80. Sussman was never informed of any negative information discovered about him pursuant to the background check he authorized.

81. Neither Sussman nor O'Hanlon was given an opportunity to address or appeal the "blackball".

82. Based on the Civil Service Rules and the Charter, the authority to appoint or pass over O'Hanlon was the Mayor's alone, based on the objective testing, satisfactory physical ability test, and criminal background check.

83. 0n information and belief, the decision to pass over Sussman and O'Hanlon was made by Fire Department officials based on false and defamatory information procured outside of the background check process required by the Civil Service Rules.

84. Connecticut General Statute§ 52-491 provides:

"When any person or corporation usurps the exercise of any office, franchise or jurisdiction, the Superior Court may proceed, on a complaint in the nature of a quo warranto, to punish such person or corporation for such usurpation, according to the course of the common law and may proceed therein and render judgment according to the course of the common law,"

85. Since October 3, 2005, Adam Sussman has been and continues to be wrongfully denied appointment to the position of Entry Level Firefighter in the Danbury Fire Department.

86. Since March 2, 2006, Timothy O'Hanlon has been and continues to be wrongfully denied appointment to the position of Entry Level Firefighter in the Danbury Fire Department.

87. Because defendant Boughton was required by the City's Charter and Civil Service Rules to select Sussman and O'Hanlon over lower ranked ie: less qualified candidates as determined by the competitive examination, defendants Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, JosephStabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti are not legally occupying the position of Entry Level Firefighter in the Danbury Fire Department

88. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the defendants show by what right defendants Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti hold these positions.

89. Further, if defendants cannot prove their right to each of these positions, Plaintiffs request an order to unseat each of these illegal office holders and declare these positions vacant.


Second Count: In the Nature of Mandamus Sec. 52-485

1-87 Plaintiffs reasserts and re-alleges paragraphs 1-87 of the First Count as if set out here.

88. The City is required to select employees "upon the sole basis of his or her proven ability to perform the duties of his or her office or employment more efficiently than any other candidate ... to be ascertained so far as practicable by competitive examination," Civil Service Rules, Introduction and Section VI Examinations, A. Policy.

89. Defendants Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, David Arnold, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti are not legally entitled to hold these positions because the Charter and Civil Service Rules require selection on the basis of merit as determined by relative rank based on the results of a competitive examination.

90. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

91. Plaintiffs request an order requiring the City to appoint them to positions of Entry Level Firefighter as of October 3, 2005 (Sussman) March 2, 2006 (O'Hanlon) with all of the rights, benefits and compensation thereto.

Third Count: 42 USC § 1983- Equal Protection

1-87. Plaintiffs reassert and re-allege paragraphs 1-87 of the First Count as if set out here.

88. The defendant's actions were taken under color of state law,

89. The Equal Protection Clause requires that the government treat similarly situated people alike.

90, O'Hanlon and Sussman have been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for that treatment.

91. There is no legitimate governmental policy to justify passing over more qualified candidates to appoint less qualified persons as described above.

92. Alternatively, such selective treatment was based on an impermissible. Consideration such as intent to hinder constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure O'Hanlon and Sussman.

93. Plaintiffs request an order requiring the City to appoint them to a position of Entry Level Firefighter as of October 3, 2005 (Sussman) and March 2, 2006 (O'Hanlon) with all of the rights, benefits and compensation thereto.

94. Under § 1983, plaintiffs are also entitled to be compensated for their loss of experience and training, loss of promotional opportunities, emotional distress including humiliation and loss of respect, attorneys fees and court costs.

95. Sussman and O'Hanlon are also entitled to punitive damages against defendants Peter Siencienski, Philip Curran, Geoffrey Herald and Mark Boughton in that their conduct in wrongfully failing to appoint Sussman O'Hanlon was "motivated by evil motive or intent" andlor "involve[d] reckless or callous indifference" to plaintiff's federally protected rights.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Adam Sussman and Timothy O'Hanlon demands judgment against defendants as follows:

• a) on the First Count, Plaintiffs request that the defendants show by what right defendants Adam Hughes, Michael Sedgwick, John Whitehead, Justin Bierbower, Nate Chapin, Douglas Zaniewski, Kenneth Stilson, Jonathan DeJoseph, Patrick Heron, Kent Bonsignore, David Arnold, James Gagliardo, Roger Bohan, James Carson, Sean Wanat, Joseph Stabile, Nicholas Velotti, Michael Vitolo, Philip Espitee, Kevin Lunnie, Gabriel Rivera, Kenneth Monteavaro, Michael Finn, Gregory Korotash, Jordan Sherman, Dikon Brown, Allan Lewis, and Paul Perrotti hold these positions,



• b) Further, if defendants cannot prove their right to each of these positions, Plaintiffs request an order to unseat each of these illegal office holders and declare these positions vacant.



• c) On the Second Count, Plaintiffs request an order requiring the City to appoint them to positions of Entry Level Firefighter as of October 3, 2005 (Sussman) and March 2, 2006 (O'Hanlon) with all of the rights, benefits and compensation thereto.



• d) On the Third Count, Plaintiffs request an order requiring the City to appoint them to positions of Entry Level Firefighter as of October 3, 2005 (Sussman) and March 2, 2006 (O'Hanlon) with all of the rights, benefits and compensation thereto and to be compensated for his loss of experience and training, loss of promotional opportunities, emotional distress including humiliation and loss of respect, attorneys fees and court costs. O'Hanlon and Sussman are also entitled to punitive damages against defendants Peter Siencienski, Philip Curran, Geoffrey Herald and Mark Boughton.



• e) such other and further relief which this Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiffs

By: Elisabeth Seicroe Maurer
Maurer & Associates, PC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
871 Ethan Allen Hwy, St. 202
Ridgefield, CT 06877
Phone: (203) 438-1388
Fax: (203) 431-0357
emaurer@maurerandassociates.com