This is the same mayor who's was VERY careful not to inform the audience that he giving less than ONE PERCENT increase in aid to education (which is NOTHING when it comes to the minimum amount needed to keep education in the city at it's current level).
With his city budget proposal showing a total increase of THREE percent, bonding increasing by three million dollars, and revenue proposal full of gimmicks such as the recycled proposal to sell 13 acres of land, when it comes to a bloated budget, Boughton should be careful when it comes to running off at the mouth.
In attempting to outline the educational challenges facing the city, the last honest man in Danbury said the following:
“We need to focus on cleaning roofs and sealing buildings to prevent problems. One school needs a new roof and that is going to cost $1.6 million, which not be coming from the education budget. We have to meet certain standards and other ongoing maintenance; we have to replace boilers at Mill Ridge, Broadview and Danbury High School, which is going to cost $5.2 million. If we replace the boilers at Danbury High School, we must also do the windows which will cost $ 3 million.
These are not educational challenges as the items Boughton mentioned are capitol expense items that has NOTHING to do with the city's education operating expense. Also, in reference to the items the mayor described, because of the price tag of each item, approval of the school projects comes from the voters as opposed to the mayor or city council.
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.