At least the bill was a no-brainer until Mike McLachlan got involved...
Here's the portion of the proposal that our state senator disagrees with (highlighted in bold)...
Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2011) (a) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in consultation with the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve the establishment of any regional fire school. Any municipality seeking to establish a regional fire school shall hold a public hearing in the municipality where the regional fire school is proposed to be established and, after the public hearing, submit an application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after such application, the commissioner, in consultation with the commission and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve or deny the application.
In layman's terms, if a municipality seeks to have a regional fire school, they MUST hold a public hearing where the residents who are effected by the school can have a chance to offer their input about the matter.
Sounds reasonable right? Well, not for McLachlan...
"Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2011) (a) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, in consultation with the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve the establishment of any regional fire school. Any municipality seeking to establish a regional fire school shall submit an application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after such application, the commissioner, in consultation with the commission and the Connecticut State Firefighters Association, shall approve or deny the application. "
In other words, McLachlan doesn't want the public to have any input into the matter.
According to several Democratic and Republican sources at the Capitol who are extremely upset with McLachlan, apparently Jason Page's least favorite politician wants Danbury to get a regional fire school on Plumtrees Road but doesn't think the public, particularly residents the city's 4th ward, should be able to provide any input.
I'm ashamed that McLachlan is my state senator...in fact, we should ALL be ashamed with McLachlan's actions as it's obvious that he's not representing the interest of the people in his district.
UPDATE: Yesterday, I had a chance to interview 4th ward City Councilman Tom Saadi and get his take on McLachlan's amendment.
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.
