Last month in his executive budget, Gov. Ned Lamont proposed funding for an Open Choice Program that would bus 50 elementary school children out of Danbury to receive an education. At the same time, he excluded Danbury Prospect Charter School from his budget.
This decision was a severe disappointment to all who have fought hard to bring the charter school to Danbury. What’s worse, it clearly signals the intentions of the Danbury Democratic delegation: to ignore the demands of Black and brown constituents who have spent years advocating for Danbury Prospect. It’s a slap in the face to a community who has traditionally been underserved and who desperately needs better representation in local, statewide and national government.
[...]
We are the only major Connecticut city without a charter school. Our legislators have exploited our citizens’ lack of knowledge about charter schools to hide their true political intentions. It’s one thing for legislators to disagree on the tenets of a charter school in Danbury. It is an entirely different thing to propose no alternative solutions while propagating misinformation about how charter schools operate and serve children.
Give the entire op-ed a full read...expect the topic of charter school playing a significant role in the upcomming municipal election season.
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.
