The Derby Board of Aldermen is scheduled to meet Monday at 7:45 p.m. to again consider a settlement in the lawsuit of former finance director Henry Domurad, Jr. versus Mayor Anthony Staffieri.
The meeting, an executive session, is scheduled to happen 14 hours before a court hearing in Milford in the civil lawsuit.
Domurad claims Staffieri wrongly terminated him back in April.
Executive sessions, meetings closed to the public, are allowed when a government body needs to discuss legal strategy. The meeting begins in public, then the board makes a motion to enter into an executive session. Any action from the executive session must then happen in public.
This is the second time the Board of Aldermen will meet 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.
The Derby Board of Aldermen were notified of Monday’s special meeting about 3 p.m. Friday.
Staffieri, a Republican, said it was convened by Aldermanic President Ron Sill, a Democrat.
Staffieri said he hasn’t talked with anyone about the proposed settlement since the Board of Aldermen rejected it May 24.
“The attorneys have instructed me not to say anything since we went to court because it’s all in litigation,” Staffieri said. “It has to go into executive session first, then we’ll come out of executive session and see what course the Aldermen decide to go.”
Sill said Friday Staffieri will not be invited to the executive session.
Sill said there will be a meeting in executive session with the Aldermen and the attorneys and then the Aldermen alone.
“I want to get all the Aldermen together, in a room, and ask every question they can think of with the lawyers present, without the mayor present,” Sill said.
Sill said that since May 24 meeting, two Aldermen who he declined to name told him they had questions about the settlement — but they didn’t want to ask the questions because Staffieri was in the room.
“He’s a party to this and I’m not sure he should be there,” Sill said.
Two other Aldermen asked Sill to call a special meeting before the case headed back to court.
“Some Aldermen didn’t ask some questions they would have liked to ask,” Sill said. “I want to give them a chance one last time because it’s going to court Tuesday.”
However, if the Aldermen vote to settle Monday, it would most likely cancel Tuesday’s court hearing, because the Aldermen would be voting to settle the matter out of court.
Sill said also hanging over Derby’s head is a “hammer clause” with their insurance company. If the insurance company advises settling the lawsuit, and Derby government presses on, the insurance company could pull out, leaving taxpayers to pick up the lawsuit’s costs, Sill said.
Whether the settlement to be discussed Monday is the same offer the Aldermen rejected May 24 is unclear. Sill said he believes the dollar amount — $53,000 — is the same, but he has “heard grumblings” that some aspects of the settlement agreement have changed.
Ken Hughes, a Republican member of the Board of Aldermen, pointed out the agenda for Monday’s meeting doesn’t precisely indicate the Aldermen will discuss a settlement. The agenda, posted below, says “Discussion/Possible action.”
“I’ll reserve my comments because I’m unsure as to what the Aldermen are being asked to vote on, if anything,” Hughes said.
John Gesmonde, Domurad’s attorney, said the matter will return to court Tuesday if Aldermen don’t approve a deal Monday.
“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,” Gesmonde 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.
Theoretically, the answer to the question regarding who is telling the truth about Domurad’s departure from city government will not be made public because of the out-of-court settlement.
However, Sill said the answer will eventually emerge.
“It’ll come out. The truth will come out. It always does,” he said.
