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.

In a recent News-Times article, it was reported that a lawsuit had been settled involving the city of Danbury and five individuals who were on the hiring list for the fire department. It was reported that two of these individuals would be offered jobs with our fire department. I take it that the other three must already have jobs. It was reported that the city of Danbury agreed to pay these five individuals $450,000, which included the fee for the attorney that represented these individuals.

I question if this amount includes the attorney fees incurred by the city of Danbury? Does it also include back pay and/or contractual benefits for the two individuals offered jobs for the four years in question? What is the actual amount the tax payers of the city of Danbury will be expected to pay (minus the amount picked up by insurance, if any)?

Administrative mistake vs. violation of civil service policy and procedures -- which is it?

[...]

To date, why have we not heard from our representatives on the (City) Council, both Republican and Democrat, as to the question how and why did this happen and how long have these "administrative mistakes" been occurring?

[...]

I don't believe that to a reasonable citizen, the term "administrative mistake" is a responsible answer.

• If the city admitted wrongdoing, then who in particular screwed up?



• How was the wrongdoing fix?



• The plaintiff's complaint stated:
  

  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.

  
  Was there nepotism involved in the hiring of the firefighters?
  
  
• Is Mike Finn Sr. still on the payroll at City Hall? If he's not on the payroll, then doesn't the city have an obligation to the public to come forward and explain why's he's been removed from his role at Civil Service?



• What was current Former Fire Chief and currant City Councilman Phil Curran's involvement in the case? If the city's admittance of wrongdoing is in anyway connected to Curran, then shouldn't he be asked to resign from the city council?



• It was alleged in the lawsuit that Mayor Boughton played a central role in the matter. Did Boughton's role play a factor in the city's "wrongdoing" and/or was a determining factor in the city decision to settle the case as opposed to denouncing the charges?


• If the mayor stated in 2009 that the city would fight these charges, why did the city settle the case as opposed to moving forward and dispute the allegations made in the suit? Did the city fear that the allegations made in the case would be proved factually true if the case moved forward.

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.

I look forward to having an opportunity to address and correct the record," he said. "We look forward to going to trial and vigorously defend our position. We think we are right.

City officials filed a "sealed offer of judgement" in the federal lawsuit last month and the plaintiffs had up until this week to accept or reject it.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said a judgment offer isn't a settlement in the traditional sense, but an offer by a party that would "let the court enter a judgement against it," in this case the city, if specific terms are met.

"Such offers are rarely made in federal court," said Elizabeth Goergen, an attorney with the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm that is co-counsel on the case for the plaintiffs.

"Danbury filed such an offer and the plaintiffs have rejected it because the terms were inadequate," she said.

• You flat out LIED to the public about the city's role in the Kennedy Park raid.
  


• There is VERY good chance that your lying about what you knew about the raid before it took place.


• You tried everything in your power to NOT be deposed in the case...and lost.


• And you tired to settle the case before you were set to be placed under oath and questioned by the very law student from Yale that you've mocked for years...and lost.

Owners of the popular New Haven pizzeria have submitted plans with the city to open a Frank Pepe Pizzeria on Federal Road near the Harley-Davidson store.

The plans call for a restaurant with enough seating for nearly 70 customers. The application still needs to be reviewed by building officials.

[...]

Charles Troccolo, the owner of the building, said he believes the pizzeria could be very successful at the location, which is near Interstate 84. He declined to comment on when the restaurant might open its doors.