City Council discussion on NEA teachers contract, Jan 2012
In advance of today's education budget workshop meeting here's an email Mayor Boughton sent to members of members of the city council, and School Superintendent Sal Pascarella and Kim Thompson, Director of Human Resources & Counsel to the Board of Education.
The letter is regards to confusion on the mayor's part regarding salaries and health benefits figures within the recent teacher's contract that was presented to the council earlier this month.
Mark Boughton m.boughton@XXXXXXX-XX.XXX
To: Sal, Kim, David, Joe, Jack, Colleen, Gregg, shaymonika, Phil, Andrew, Tom, Peter, Fred, me, Benjamin, Mary, Phil, Donald
Sal, Kim
I have just reviewed the proposed education budget. I am confused about the health benefits and salary adjustments line items. When I presented the new teachers contract to the City Council I shared with them your estimates for costs to the taxpayers.
Apparently I was either misinformed or there has been a problem with the estimates. It was relayed to me the costs for the contract for salary adjustments and benefits would be an additional $400,000 in year 1 and an additional $800,000 in year 2. Those are approximate numbers. Based on your spread sheet, you are showing a combined increase of almost $4 million dollars to just fund health care and raises for staff.
In fact when I questioned the salary adjustments, I was assured that changes to the health care plan would help offset the increases to salaries.
Needless to say given the current financial conditions of the city, I would not count on anywhere near the amount outlined in the budget and I would make preparations to explain how the contract cost escalated to almost 4 million dollars.
I guess the education budget fiasco is off and running...
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.
