Will the depositions of Mark Boughton and former HR director Carol DeSantie finally put the rumors to rest or create more questions than answers?
No thanks to the stonewalling tactics at City Hall, yours truly will have in his possession the transcript of the deposition Mayor Mark Boughton provided in her sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by his former personal secretary and friend Wendy DaCosta.
Along with Boughton's transcript, I will also have depositions from former HR director Carol DeSantie, former Deputy Manager of Personnel Julio Lopez, and Director of Public Works Antonio Iadarola.
I understand that there are many residents who are waiting anxiously to read the depositions of Boughton and DeSantie as rumors of an inappropriate relationship has dogged the mayor at least a decade.
Lawyer Jerry Leaphart, who represents the clerks, said he wants to learn if there's a pattern of sexual harassment at City Hall. That, he said, gives him the right to ask Mayor Mark Boughton about rumors the mayor had an affair with a former employee. Boughton vehemently denies any improprieties involving former personnel director Carol DeSantie, who abruptly left her post in December 2003, but was paid her salary of nearly $60,000 per year until the following July.
[...]
According to a copy of a deposition obtained by The News-Times, Christy Doyle, one of the lawyers for the city, had the following exchange with one of the clerks. Sources identified the clerk as Theresa Boccuzzi. Doyle: " well, first of all, who told you that Ms. DeSantie was seeing the mayor?" Clerk: "It was common knowledge around City Hall and anybody you talked to would know it." Doyle: "How did you find out?" Clerk: "Just gossip." Doyle: "By who?" Clerk: "People that work up there." Doyle: "You don't recall who?" Clerk: "No. Everybody was talking about it." In a press release issued Monday, Leaphart raised the issue of "improper sexual relationships" and "sexual improprieties."
Although this lawsuit isn't about whether or not Boughton had an extramarital affair. To the contrary, one of the points raised in the lawsuit centers on whether or not there has been an climate at City Hall where sexual harassment has taken place unchecked.
Complaint:
Due to legal reasons, I will not be able to publish the documents as soon as most people would like...but I do promise that they will be posted online. The News-Times has also obtained the depositions and will probably report on the content of the documents before I have a chance to make them available to the public. It's unclear if the newspaper will post the documents or summarize the content of the document.
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.
