Sorry for the delay, but I've been working on obtaining information regarding the personal leave request from School Superintendent Kevin Walston.
Here's what happened last night.
After a 100-minute Executive Session to discuss School Superintendent Kevin Walston's personal leave request, the school board made the following motion:
"The Danbury Board of Education has been notified of Mr. Walston's decision to take personal leave, and the board recognizes the need for Mr. Walston to take time to address his personal issues.
In the intern, the board of education will be exercising its due diligence to ensure that the interests of the Danbury public schools are safeguarded."
Rumors are circulating about the nature of Walston's leave request, and at this point, for legal reasons, I'm not comfortable going public with any unverified information.
Given the length of the executive session and the motion's language, the public deserves answers regarding the Superintendent's temporary leave from office.
Here's video footage of the reading and acceptance of the motion (courtesy of Hatters TV:
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.
