Twelve hours before a scheduled court hearing in the lawsuit of former finance director Henry Domurad, Jr. against Mayor Anthony Staffieri, Derby Aldermen voted Monday night to a reject a proposed settlement in the case.
The tally was 6-3, with Aldermen Scott Boulton, Barbara DeGennaro, and Stephen Iacuone voting in favor of accepting the settlement, which would have seen Domurad receive $53,000.
The vote was taken after Aldermen discussed the case for about 90 minutes behind closed doors with lawyers representing the city.
Click the play button on the video above to see the vote taking place.
Background
Domurad claims Staffieri wrongly terminated him back in April, and filed a lawsuit last month asking for damages — and his job back.
Monday was the second time the Board of Aldermen met to consider settling the matter out of court.
On May 24, the Aldermen met in executive session and then voted in public 8-1 to reject a settlement that would have seen Domurad receive $53,000, including $8,000 for sick time and vacation pay.
The details surrounding Domurad’s departure are in dispute. Domurad claims Staffieri fired him unjustly and that the mayor’s office circulated a fraudulent letter of resignation.
Staffieri said Domurad resigned — and that he watched Domurad sign the letter of resignation in front of him.
Staffieri hired a handwriting expert to examine Domurad’s signature on the alleged resignation letter, which he said matched Domurad signatures on other city documents.
Staffieri’s attorneys have also said if he wanted to fire Domurad, he would have been well within his rights to do so. Domurad’s lawyer claims the mayor needed permission from Aldermen.
Back To Court
Staffieri and Derby Corporation Counsel Joseph Coppola declined to comment after the vote, as did most Aldermen.
“I’ll see you in court tomorrow,” Coppola told a reporter.
Aldermanic President Ron Sill, who called Monday’s meeting, said afterward that members of his board wanted more information before voting to reject the proposal.
“The aldermen had a lot of questions, especially for the attorneys,” Sill said. “Last time some of those questions weren’t asked with the mayor in there.”
Earlier in the meeting, Staffieri made a point of saying it was his idea not to be present during the talks.
“Yeah, and I seconded it,” Sill interjected.
Once Aldermen were finished asking questions of lawyers representing the city in the case, Sill said, they debated among themselves before returning to vote on the proposed settlement publicly.
“We argued a little bit, and brought it back and forth with just the aldermen in the room, and we were all very comfortable with our decision,” Sill said.
He wouldn’t elaborate further, but in response to a question said the terms of the settlement discussed Monday were the same as when Aldermen rejected the settlement last month.
When the board first turned down the settlement, DeGennaro was the lone member in favor of accepting it. This time around, Iacuone and Boulton joined the minority.
Sill said a so-called “hammer clause“ with the city’s insurance company could end up costing Derby more money in the long run, but that it’s important to find out exactly what happened in the dispute between Domurad and Staffieri.
“I think the people in the end want to know the truth,” Sill said.
Domurad was present at the beginning of the meeting, and during the executive session, but left shortly after the vote.
John Gesmonde, Domurad’s attorney, last week characterized Monday night’s meeting as an 11th-hour attempt to avoid proceeding in the lawsuit.
“This is a last ditch effort for them to approve a deal, which the parties to the lawsuit have already signaled would be agreeable to them,” he said in an e-mail. “If the Board does not ratify the terms, the parties will be in court the next morning to litigate the issues.”
Gesmonde, in his initial court filing, had requested a “show cause” hearing, during which the city would have been compelled to explain why Domurad could not be reinstated.
The show cause hearing was initially scheduled for May 21 in Milford court.
However, attorneys for the city and Domurad huddled outside court for several hours May 21, then emerged with a proposed settlement. The specific details of that proposal have never been made public, other than the dollar amount and the fact Domurad would not be reinstated.
More bad news for Derby taxpayers. Due to a political stand-off, legal costs are “sky-rocketing” in this three law-firm, shameful endeavor — that keeps the City of Derby as “the broken,laughing stock of the State of Connecticut!”
We’ve settled frivolous lawsuits for the mistakes of Derby’s administration before: This is one that I want to see go all the way. With not just civil, but criminal ramifications. I have zero tolerance for liars, regardless of their political affiliation. I hope to see justice soon!
This is not a “frivolous” lawsuit — which means “of little importance.” It’s very important to Derby politicians — to prove a political point — at wasted Derby taxpayer expense. When will the City of Derby return to being run AS A BUSINESS once again, instead of a costly political vendetta?
I do know what frivolous means…. Basically every lawsuit filed up to this point at our cost. My point was to stop settling to get to the heart of the matter for justice to the offended and to us taxpayers. This is one that should not be settled!
It is encouraging that three Derby aldermen voted to “stop the bleeding” and put an end to this costly legal vendetta. When will all the aldermen finally start working for Derby taxpayers — and not only for their politically driven guidelines?
No, this should not settle. We’ve settled enough stupid lawsuits and this is one with substance. This will “stop the bleeding” from future lawsuits and expose a LIAR. Whoever is found to be the liar should be permanently removed from politics. No, this is one lawsuit I don’t mind paying for, if need be!
I respect your opinion, but the outcome of this
charade, is in the hands of the powers of our elected officials, lawyers and the legal system. Aldermanic President Ron Sill says he understands that the “hammer clause” with the city’s insurance company, could end up costing Derby more in the long run, but he is determined to find out what happened in the dispute between Domurad and Staffieri.
So we all have to “grin and bear it” until this show it over.
And I respect yours however, if this concludes in removing a cancer from politics, I’m all for it. My point was, the taxpayers have had to bear the balance of what our insurance hasn’t taken care of for past lawsuits. I agree with Ron. We need to get to the bottom of the matter and do what’s right. I’m also very interested in seeing the criminal outcome of this.What if another forensic expert disagrees with the one Tony hired? Someone involved sure has a good charade going on!
I hope that another forensic handwriting expert, if applicable, doesn’t charge taxpayers another $3000 for an opinion. Perhaps I was in the wrong business, before I retired?
If Tony can spend $3,000 of our city money, another $3,000 should be allotted for another’s opinion. Then, whoever is found to be the liar, should have to reimburse. AND, the city taxpayers should not have to pay for any danages if Tony is found to be the liar. HE should pay. Our city is not an open checkbook. Remember how the “adult business” was ALLOWED to come to Derby, then WE had to pay to make them go away? Pathetic that this is supposedly known as democracy. Enough! You’re right. Derby IS the laughingstock of the state for these types of reasons.
Derby wasted tens of thousands of dollars, annually for a number of years — cleaning ups dog feces on the Greenway. Derby politicians finally banned the dogs this year, after many complaints, so, now Derby elected officials are spending “mucho money” in legal expenses. This wasteful spending could have been better used by our school district, which must make cuts — due to mandated annual union teacher’s raises and restraints.
I agree. Derby aldermen, over the past 5 years, HAS wasted a ton of money. Finally, when something this important happens, they’d want to settle? Nope. If the poop issue can be dragged out, so can this. Exposure and removal is my new motto!