Donald Stitt of Danbury, CT paid a $400 civil penalty for violating the Code of Ethics by entering into two contracts with the state valued at amounts over $100. Neither contract was awarded through an open and public process, as required by the Code of Ethics.
According to the stipulation and consent order finalized on April 26 with the Office of State Ethics (OSE), Stitt, who is married to a full-time faculty member of the Theatre Arts Department at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU), entered into contracts with WCSU in July of 2009 and 2010. The contracts, valued at $300 and $500 respectively, were for Stitt’s services in running workshops for the Master’s in Fine Arts program. Neither of the two contracts was awarded through an open and public process.
Connecticut law prohibits a state employee or an immediate family member of a state employee from entering into any contract with the state, valued at one hundred dollars or more, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process.
“To prevent public employees from having an inside track, either in appearance or actuality, the Code of Ethics requires all but the smallest state contracts to be awarded through an open and public process,” said OSE Executive Director, Carol Carson.
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.
