Today, in a press release Danbury City Councilman Paul Rotello announced that he's decided drop out of the race for state senate in the 24th district.

The present landscape is unsettled and distracting to a degree that is almost unknown in Connecticut politics, and with attention diverted the region is suffering. As an elected official I will continue to concentrate on the job I have during what is a very troubled period in our history.

[...]

It is my wish that the 24th district, presently faltering under Republican management, can return to Democratic stewardship with Alice Hutchinson, and I endorse her candidacy

By Rotello exiting the race, Democratic endorsed State Senate candidate Hutchinson can shift her focus from dealing with a primary, to campaigning against current State Senator Mike McLachlan.

---

RELATED POSTS:

Democratic delegates endorse Alice Hutchinson for State Senate

VIDEO: One on one with Paul Rotello

VIDEO: One on one with Alice Hutchinson

This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Danbury Unity March.

On Jun 12 2005, over 2,000 supporters of immigrant rights converged on Main Street to express their opposition to the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment in the city.

The event, organized by the Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants and church groups, started with a march down Main Street, originating from Kennedy Park, and ended with a series of speeches from civic leaders and elected officials at Rogers Park.

The march is significant to me because it marks the first time I decided to videotape an event in the city and was one of the primary reasons I decided to start blogging about events in Greater Danbury. A full video account of what happened at the event was never shown to the public, which allowed misinformation about the march from the mayor's office to go unchallenged. Due to advances in video processing, I was finally able to successfully restore the footage I shot on that day and give proper credit to people who worked tirelessly to make the event happen.

From Jun 2005, here's footage of the march.

The dishonest one is at it again...

Oh, this is rich!

For those who have followed Boughton's misleading statements to the public over the years, his latest comment regarding the parade ordinance and the impromptu World Cup celebrations is laughable to say the least.

Here's the last honest man in Danbury in his own words addressing the parade ordinance just a few days ago:

Boughton said while the city does have an ordinance governing parades, the ones that follow soccer matches are impromptu events.

"These are spontaneous celebrations and there is nobody really organizing them," he said.

Did Boughton just say that the World Cup celebrations were impromptu celebrations that are not covered by the parade ordinance? Is this the same mayor claimed that the parade ordinance could be used to control the World Cup celebrations when he was selling his proposal to the public?

Lets take a trip back in time and see what Boughton said about the World Cup game celebrations when he was questioned about the parade ordinance by then News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam on the local access TV show Ideas at Work and Beyond:

Boughton in his own words, June 2007:

PUTNAM: Now the impetus for the parade ordinance however was impromptu celebrations, this does not really address that. Is there a way to address that?

BOUGHTON: I would disagree with that statement that it doesn't address that. I think this ordinance could be a better tool in the tool box in looking at impromptu celebrations. That wasn't the whole impetus, that was only part of the impetus and I'll explain why.

If you're talking about the parades after the World Cup game that were very controversial that happened in 2006, those are not impromptu parades. We spend a lot of time planning internally for those parades. If you know that is a World Cup game coming up on Sunday…the chief and I probably had two or three discussions/meetings about how many police officers we're going to bring in…and what type of enforcement activity we're going to have. So there is planning going on…

PUTNAM: …there's planning going on with your side…

BOUGHTON: …and there's planning going on their side as well. Those individuals know that when the game is over that they're going to be in the streets. We would take this ordinance, in addition to writing tickets for not being properly seatbealted and all the other issues that came up during that time period, we would also cite people for not having the proper permit for not being on Main Street if they're blocking traffic and/or holding up public safety vehicles so I think this is another tool in the toolbox to do that and I don't' necessarily agree with that statement that it won't do that.

In case you weren't' keeping scoring, lets review

LIE number 1: The Mayor says that the World Cup games were NOT spontaneous because he and the chief had "prior planning."

FACT: What the Mayor and police chief do in terms of addressing traffic concerns has NOTHING to do with the legal definition of prior planning as outlined by the ordinance.

JUST READ THE ORDINANCE!

Sec 11-15 (a):

Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.

The term "parade permit applicant" MEANS A PLANNING COMMITTEE and NOT AN INDIVIDUAL and definitely NOT THE MAYOR OR POLICE CHIEF.

In other words, PRIOR PLANNING does not mean the following:

The Mets are one game away from winning the World Series. I'm at a bar and tell my buddies that if they win, we'll run up and down the street and celebrate with the other Mets fans.

NOR does it mean this...

I just graduated from high school and I drive my car up and down the road with my friends, which I'll probably see for the last time, because I finished High School.

NOR does it mean this...

I'm at my house watching the World Cup games and decide to jump into my car and drive up and down the street because my team won.

THIS is prior planning:

The local AOH plans to hold a St. Partick's Day parade. a planning committee is formed to organize the event.

OR

The police union plans on holding a demonstration in front of City Hall against the Mayor over the lack of a contract. A planning committee is formed to organize the event.

OR

A group of immigrant rights organizations plan on holding a rally down Main Street to protest Mayor Boughton and the fact that he uses the immigration issue for political purposes. They get together and plan the event.

LIE number 2: When called out on LIE number 1 by an then News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam, the mayor fumbled and stated that the celebrants had prior planning because they knew that they were going to go out in the streets after the game.

FACT: Prior planning does not apply to people deciding to celebrate in the streets spontaneously…you would think that a former high school teacher should know basic First Amendment law.

LIE number 3: The ordinance is another "tool in the toolbox" to help the police.

FACT: This so-called "tool" was not needed in the "toolbox" to address traffic concerns that stemmed from spontaneous parades (a.k.a. those pesky immigrants celebrating downtown). They are already LAWS on the books to address the problems that stemmed from the World Cup games in regards to traffic concerns.

From the parade ordinance debate in 2007, here's Minority Leader Tom Saadi outlining EVERY POINT I just raised in my debunking of Boughton's dishonest comment:



Even though opponents against the ordinance repeatedly stated that the parade ordinance could not be applied to impromptu celebrations, Boughton stuck to his dishonest statement throughout the parade ordinance debate until it was approved by the council…and he used the topic of immigration and the controversy surrounding the 2006 World Cup celebrations to do it.

Lets just say that honesty isn't one of Boughton's more well-known characteristics.

…to be continued.

Mayor Boughton Nov 2005:

Mayor Mark Boughton said he will keep illegal immigration at the top of his agenda as he starts his third term in City Hall.

In fact, the Republican said his controversial stance on the issue helped win him re-election by a wide margin Tuesday. "People are very much concerned about illegal immigration in Danbury. That is evident. I think it was one of the top two or three issues in the election," Boughton said. "The public is genuinely frustrated."

[…]

Going forward, Boughton said he won't back off the issue of illegal immigration.

If illegal immigration is one of the top reasons Boughton was elected in 2005 (as he claims), why hasn't be made this a centerpiece of his campaign for Lt. Gov. Heck, if he's so proud of his anti-immigration record, then why is no mention of it on his poorly designed Boughton for Lt. Gov website:



Makes you wonder what Boughton is so afraid of…like people across the state finding out that when it comes to the issue of immigration, good ol' Mayor Mark has a LONG history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, punish people/organizations that oppose him, and controls his message by establishing a climate of fear within the immigrant community.

With the August Lt. Gov primary around the corner, it's important for people across the state to learn the REAL history behind the last honest man in Danbury...a history that Boughton is doing his best to keep off the radar.

...to be continued.

Note: Pay particular attention to this episode as it exposes Boughton's DISHONESTY when he claimed that his 2009-10 budget was "balanced" when in fact he MISLEAD the Common Council.