The 7% Budget Referendum: A Political Weapon, Not Reform

Image
This was the budget data the Charter Revision Commission examined. It shows the percentage of budget increase by year. The budget increase does not translate to a tax increase. In 2023, the Democrats for instance, lowered spending but taxes still increased. The party and COLA columns were added by author.  The Charter Revision Commission’s 7% budget referendum proposal isn’t reform — it’s a political weapon. It's disguised as fiscal responsibility, but it’s engineered to shift blame, confuse voters, and lock Enfield into bad policy. There are some good ideas in the commission’s package. But this one? It shouldn’t go to the ballot. Here’s what the proposal says: If town expenditures increase by more than 7% over the current fiscal year, it would trigger a referendum. That sounds reasonable — until you understand the facts. The 7% Fiction First, Enfield hasn’t approved a 7% budget hike in at least 15 years — likely far longer. No council, Republican or Democrat, proposes a 7% hike u...
Post a Comment

Enfield to Pay Over $1 Million in Legal Fees After Violating Disability Rights


AI generated art 



Enfield is on the hook for more than $1 million in legal fees after a federal court ruled that the town and its Board of Education violated federal disability laws by failing to accommodate Sarah Hernandez, an autistic and deaf elected official.

In 2017, Ms. Hernandez was a newly elected school board member. Instead of providing reasonable accommodations for her to participate in board meetings fully, the town chose to fight a multi-year federal legal battle.

After about five years, a U.S. District Court jury ruled in January 2024 that Enfield discriminated against Ms. Hernandez in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She won little in damages from the court, but the court later issued a permanent injunction requiring the town not to discriminate against people with disabilities. The town had to pay her legal cost, and that bill has arrived.

On March 7, the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport ordered Enfield to pay $964,366 in attorneys' fees and $60,579 in litigation costs, bringing the total judgment to just over $1 million. 

The Town Council is set to discuss the court's decision at its meeting on Monday. It will likely do so in executive session.

Barring any avenues of appeal, Enfield appears to be liable for the full amount.

A jury ruled in the case last year, finding that Enfield "Excluded Ms. Hernandez from equal participation," among other findings. It only won $10 in damages from the jury, but Enfield was still responsible for legal plaintiffs legal costs.  

Ms. Hernandez attorneys originally sought $1.3 million. 

The Cost to Enfield is Higher

The $1.024 million Enfield must pay only covers Hernandez's legal fees and litigation expenses. It does not include what Enfield spent on its legal defense. The total cost to taxpayers could be significantly higher. The council should disclose the total cost of this case.

A Case of Systemic Discrimination

Hernandez required basic accommodations, such as written communications and having speakers face her so she could read lips. She wanted access to written documents in executive sessions.

Enfield's Settlement Offer

In 2023, Enfield made a pre-trial offered Hernandez $75,000 to settle the case, but it was rejected, in part, because the offer didn't include any commitment to change its behavior, something U.S. District Court Judge Stefan Underhill, noted in his decision. In his ruling, Judge Stefan: "Although the total dollar amount of fees may be high compared to the amount of monetary damages awarded by the jury, it reasonably reflects the five years of effort required to litigate this case, considering the significant opposition that Hernandez faced at each stage of the litigation." 



Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

Fix it or face foreclosure: Enfield’s blight ordinance targets minor issues

Image
  Chipped paint on Town Hall is blight under the town's proposed blight ordinance Imagine being fined $100 a day because your lawn grew too tall while you were in the hospital. Under Enfield's proposed blight ordinance, this nightmare could become a reality for many residents. The Town Council will consider this revised ordinance at its Monday night meeting—but as written, it could harm hundreds of residents over minor cosmetic issues, from overgrown grass to temporary home repairs. While it's reasonable to address properties that pose genuine health and safety risks, this ordinance goes too far by treating cosmetic issues as equally severe. For example, if grass or weeds grow taller than 12 inches, the town can issue a citation requiring correction within 10 days. If it's not addressed in time, the property maintenance inspector can impose fines of $100 a day—with no cap—until the problem is resolved. In extreme cases, these escalating fines could even lead to foreclos...
Read more

Why is Enfield in trouble? Facts with a dose of sarcasm

Image
Molly at School Rally People are going after spending in Enfield and trying to dissect it to see where they can find gross mismanagement. Since the Republicans have been in control for all but two of the last 16 years, let's assume that the town's spending is pristine and error-free and beyond reproach—except for the two years when the Democrats were in charge. As we all know, the Democrats dumped money out of the windows of Town Hall. The Town Council Republicans are going to try to set a token reduction in the Mill Rate. To reach that point, they may have to do some problematic things, such as deferring spending on things like police cruiser replacements and equipment generally, putting off some maintenance, and not filling vacancies and laying off where they can, and who knows what else. There's a lot they can't touch, namely contractual salary obligations. But they want to be able to say that they reduced taxes. More concerning will be how much of the costs are bein...
Read more