Name the Republican who said this about the leadership of Mark Boughton (take 3)
Sunday, May 06, 2012 Time: 2:19 PM
Mark boughton is no better than george bush. He divides people, created the biggest dept that this city has ever seen and has raised taxes and user fees. All of this from a teacher Mayor who has directed are school system into failure as he claims that his administration has added 50 million new dollars to education.
Despite a state law aimed at stripping such benefits from politicians who use their office for corruption and personal gain, former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland will be paid more than $1.3 million by taxpayers over the next 20 years in pension benefits, plus some darn good health care coverage.
Rowland and his wife are eligible to go on the state employee health plan at a cost of as low as $29 a month in premiums out of his pocket and a cost to taxpayers of as much as $1,900 a month. The cost for prescription drugs to Rowland under this plan? No co-pay at all for many types of medication, and a “maximum” of a $6 co-pay for others.
After Rowland resigned and was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, mail fraud and tax fraud, the state legislature passed a bill (later signed by Rowland’s successor, Gov. M. Jodi Rell) that makes it possible for the state’s attorney general to seek a court action removing pension and health benefits should a state employee be found guilty of embezzlement of public funds, felonious theft from the state, bribery or felonies committed through the misuse of a government office or job.
But it was not enacted retroactively. and according to the state attorney general’s office, the state can’t strip Rowland of his pension.
“It does not appear there is any provision under state law to support revoking or reducing the qualified pension of a former state elected official who was convicted prior to passage of the revocation statute, for crimes involving their office,” spokesperson Susan Kinsman said. “We are also not aware of any provisions of the state pension plans that would permit pension forfeiture for bad acts.”
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.