Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy says he will not seek a third term and voluntarily turned over about $4 million in campaign funds to the district attorney following a 16-month investigation.
[...]
Levy, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2010, made the stunning announcement Thursday afternoon in a press release.
In the statement, Levy said he had “been blessed” by being able to work as a public servant for 25 years. He said his decision “was not made lightly,” adding that “long hours, tough decisions, grueling debates, family sacrifices” have made him “look to new challenges.”
District Attorney Thomas Spota said a 16-month investigation by the Government Corruption Bureau “revealed serious issues with regard to fundraising and the manner in which it was conducted, including the use of public resources.”
As Boughton's anti-immigrant BFF, Levy is no stranger to controversy when it comes to the topic of immigration but his AWOL status has several in Suffolk Country concerned.
Has Steve Levy gone into hiding? Several days after the embattled Suffolk County Executive announced he would not seek re-election amid an ongoing campaign fundraising investigation, the question remains…where is Levy?
[...]
A move that has legislator John Cooper question Levy’s timing.
“This is not the time for us to have an absent county executive so my hope is after the next few days the county executive will come back, collect himself and get back to doing the peoples’ business,” said Cooper.
Cooper is not calling for Levy to resign amid all the controversy, but he’s hopeful that if the controversy becomes too much of a distraction the county executive will, as Cooper told WCBS 880, do the right thing for the county.
“I remain concerned about how that’s going to – long term – affect the ability of Steve Levy to lead,” said Cooper.
Fundraising controversy? It seems like Boughton and Levy have more in common besides their anti-immigrant stance.
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.
