CLICK TO OPEN PDF FILE AND READ JUDGE’S DECISION IN FULL:
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
-
Links
Limoncelli v. Town of Barnstable Decision
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
by Taryn Thoman
Thank you for publishing the written decision in the Limoncelli v. Town of Barnstable case. Reading the document answered most if not all of my questions about this case and the repeated claims made by Albert Russo at various town council meetings.
Until I read the document I did not understand why the decision was appealed. However after reading the document it is now crystal clear to me that the split decision 2 rulings for the plaintiffs and 2 rulings for the defendants. While the plaintiff’s did obtain the nullification they sought, they did not completely win on all grounds under which they sued, nor did the town completely win either.
Ruth Weil’s decision to appeal now makes full and complete sense as the ruling in this case did not resolve the matter fully for one side or the other, the nullification order not withstanding.
Mr. Russo has repeatedly said at various council meetings since last Summer that the town lost to him and his wife in court. How the written decision makes it quite clear that neither side prevailed at a level of 100% on all counts. In effect the decision says that both sides were right and both were also wrong., again the nullification order not withstanding.
Mr. Russo may feel that Ruth Weil is wrong to appeal but based on the written decision Ruth Weil is well within the boundaries of her legal duties to the town to appeal this split decision.
I look forward to the appeals court hearing and decision
Why wasn’t Linda Edson fired for misrepresenting herself as a “zoning enforcement officer” for the town of Barnstable?
Clearly this woman was playing little power games, which are all too common around here.
This problem should have ended seven years ago. Perry, or whoever had authority to do so, should have fired Edson, given Limoncelli an apology, and allowed the family the use they are enjoying now.
It’s clear that Edson waited until her FRIENDS, the Grovers, happily vacated the property before diving down like a vulture on the new owners.
Barnstable authorities have to STOP bullying people JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Ruth isn’t going to change the FACT that this twisted little twerp Edson used her small time job to make big time trouble for the town.
This is a clear case of SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.
Ruthless can certainly go ahead and appeal, but there’s a shitstorm brewing for her and for the town, because those people will not go away quietly. Russo isn’t stupid or reckless.
We don’t need to spend another dime on this stupid lawsuit. What we DO NEED is oversight of the town attorney’s office, and several other out of control departments in town.
Tom Perry didn’t hire Edson, Klimm did. It was a patronage hire.
The central issue here is selective enforcement, which should never happen, but happens all the time.
This reminds me of the sign enforcement officer about 5 or 10 years ago – Gloria somebody. She was brutal.
I don’t think Edson makes a lot of money, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets paid by the case, which is why she jumped on this one.
She really should not be working for the town at this point.
I don’t know why Linda wasn’t fired but my best guess was that she was hired @ 25,000 per year by John Klimm. Perry knew and knows better then to ruffle John Klimm’s feather’s by firing Linda Edson or any other Klimm hire.
As to Ruth Weil, the fact the court found for and against both sides is confusing and doesn’t not clear up the overall issue, which needs to happen. One side needs to be either fully in the right or fully in the wrong in order for this matter to be completely settled. As a result of the split decision an appeal was essentially automatic because of the lack of a 100% resolution.
Mr. Russo may not like the fact that Ruth appealed but he could have also file an appeal himself over the two points the town won on?
What really bothers me is that Mr. Russo has appeared before the council 7 or 8 times since last July. He has repeatedly stated that he and his wife prevailed over the town when the truth is they actually half-prevailed. That fact should have been brought to light long before you published the written decision today.
The whole thing has been handled badly by all the sides involved and now the council has been dragged into middle of it, where they should not be.
Thank You again for publishing the written decision it is very eyeopening all the way around.
While I appreciate that you actually read the decision, I don’t agree that the town was “half” right.
Lawyers often put several counts into a suit hoping that the important ones will stick. Since the town didn’t countersue, they didn’t really “win” anything.
Ruth has made an offer to Limoncelli which does demonstrate admission of culpability, but part of the deal was that the plaintiffs would not disclose the details of the settlement.
There were some underhanded tricks here, which are WAY TOO common.
The plaintiffs want the modus operandi of this town to be aired publicly, and I commend them for that.
Just because the plaintiffs did not prevail on two counts doesn’t mean they “lost” half the suit, or that anyone was “half” right or wrong.
Mr. Russo was 100% accurate in saying he “won” his suit, because it was based on selective enforcement. That’s called corruption in most places in America – not “half” wrong.
This whole thing was handled badly by RUTH WEIL, who should have found a way to settle this before it started. She made the same mistake with me, and countless other victims of townie politics. She is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t just give the next person in line an important top position in a town department. She’s not a problem solver.
Limoncelli didn’t enter into this litigation looking for a big pay day. She wanted a wrong righted. The town wants to sweep the abuse under the rug and keep the abuser in the field so she can continue her dirty work.
Klimm is gone. Why can’t they simply fire Edson now? Why can’t we move onward and upward in this place?
Change is gonna come. I feel it in me bones.
“Why can’t they simply fire Edson now?” I am assuming that they will but it will not be easy. First she will have to be suspended pending termination proceedings which means she will be paid to sit at home. Then during the termination proceedings, Linda Edson will be entitled to defend herself against the termination proceedings. In the event that she is in fact terminated, she will likely file a wrongful termination civil suit against the town. If she were to do this, and prevail with a sizable cash settlement it would be like good money after bad in this case.
As for whether or not Mr. Russo and his wife prevailed page 35 of the decision under the word ORDER makes it clear that Mr Russo and his wife prevailed only on counts I and III while the town prevailed on counts II and IV.
Neither side gained a clear victory over the other which is why I have an issue with Mr. Russo’s misleading claim of “victory”. An accurate accounting of the written decision gives Mr. Russo and his wife a partial victory at best. Mr Russo and his wife have a valid issue with Linda Edson and her actions however that is not a matter for the town council to be involved with.
Unfortunately Ruth Weil is in all likelihood going to lose her job over this in order to please Mr. Russo and his wife. Apparently three councilors, Debra Dagwan, Jessica Rapp-Grassetti and Jennifer Cullum want Ruth held accountable. This could lead to another high priced buyout deal in order to end Ruth Weil’s employment. It may also lead to yet another split on the council similar to what happened with John Klimm. Ruth Weil has loyal supporters in Joakim, Barton, Chirigotis, Rugo and Tinsley. This will likely put Ruth’s future in the hands of Canedy, Norman, Cote, Hersey, and Daley .
No matter who it goes, it is going to get ugly.
Linda Edson is a contracted 1099 employee.
Dear Linda,
We no longer need your services.
Thank you.
The town of Barnstable
You can’t get a job as a 1099 nail banger and run around town calling yourself the building inspector. Edson committed all kinds of fraud, which was thoroughly vetted in her deposition, where she was represented by Ruth Weil. I would like to know who paid Ruth to represent Edson.
The town wiggled out of some technicalities – hardly a “win”.
Don’t the words ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS and UNREASONABLE sound like ABUSE OF POWER to you?
The court ordered that the plaintiffs may now rent out their cottage. They have tangible damages of lost rents over seven years, and $100K in legal fees.
If Ruthless pursues appeal and loses, the town will have to pay a whole lot more than if she settles now, not to mention the political hell that’s going to be raised.
The town council is akin to the board of directors of a corporation. Our town is incorporated. Town mgr is akin to CEO. Are you really saying that the actions of an employee of our corporation (Ruth) should not be discussed with the town council? Really?
I don’t believe Ruth was representing Linda Edson as she was not named in the suit brought by Mr. Russo and his wife. Ruth was representing her employer The Town of Barnstable and The Barnstable ZBA who were named.
Under the organizational chart of Barnstable’s town government, the town attorney answers to the town manger not the council. Mr. Russo and his wife should have filed formal complaints with John Klimm or presently Tom Lynch against Ruth Weil, Linda Edson, and building inspector Perry. Once those complaint were filed the town managers office would have obligated to investigate each one and report the findings to the council.
If the town manager felt action up to and including termination were in order he has to report that to the council before actually terminating the employee. The town council has zero administrative authority under the charter so any discussion with the council is out of order. Until the town manager and only the town manager brings to the council, this has not happened as of yet.
As for firing Linda or any other employee the town must be able to show significant cause to terminate the employee. In Linda’s case there is clear cause but I have no doubt she would out up a costly fight that town would want to avoid.
Edson was deposed.
Ruth Weil represented her at deposition.
Just the facts.
The town manager, under our organizational chart, answers to the town council.
I believe Limoncelli properly complained to all authorities when she filed suit.
Linda Edson is NOT A TOWN EMPLOYEE. The town can fire any 1099 contractor any time for any reason.
The town council can vote to direct the town manager to do whatever necessary. In this case it’s necessary to fire BOTH Linda Edson and Ruth Weil.
The people are at the top rung and are therefore NEVER out of order when bringing concerns that effect us all, such as negligence and abuse of power, to their elected officials.
Nice try.
I agree the firing of both is necessary both but while firing Linda might not cost much, firing Ruth will cost plenty. After the John Klimm buyout debacle the council will do everything to avoid another such buyout as Ruth is a contract employee.
Had Mr Russo and his wife filed a proper formal complaint against Linda, Ruth and Perry with the town manager, there would have been a formal investigation conducted by the town manager and the head of human resources. Since no such investigation has ever been done the only logical conclusion is that no formal complaint was ever filed.
The town manager does in fact answer to the council however all of the other departments answer to the town manager. The council has zero administrative authority or power under the charter therefor they have no place in the discussion unless the proper steps have been taken.
Linda Edson may have started as a 1099 employee when she was first hired but I believe she is now considered a part-time 20-30 hour a week town employee.
What I would like to know is what transpired during the executive session after last week’s council meeting? There are unconfirmed reports that Dagwan, Cullum and Rapp-Grassetti tried to turned the session into a come to Jesus meeting for Ruth Weil. Fred Chirigotis had to remind the three ladies about the open meeting law rules regarding the purpose of executive sessions at least twice.
As I said before this will likely get very ugly before all is said and done.
The issue is bad conduct. Originally, Bert Russo appeared to discuss the method of operations around this town, which are generally in the dark.
Klimm was terminated without cause. Weil and Edson should be fired for their scandalous behavior, which has given our town yet another black eye.
Executive sessions are supposed to be private, so if you are hearing things, then it sounds like Joakim is blabbing complaints, as usual.
If Edson is no longer a 1099 contractor with the town, then it must have been a gift from John Klimm on his way out the door. Either way, her conduct has been disgraceful, and there is plenty of CAUSE to fire her.
Weil has been running her own law office out of town hall, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. Firing her would accomplish many things, but most of all we’d end up saving millions settling lawsuits before they begin.
As for filing a complaint to the town manager, you are suggesting that the victim go to the enabler to correct the abusers – it’ll never happen. This is yet another example of why we need new blood in the town manager’s office.
“Weil has been running her own law office out of town hall, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. Firing her would accomplish many things, but most of all we’d end up saving millions settling lawsuits before they begin.”
So you would have no problem giving Ruth Weil a nice $200,000 or more severance package on her way out the door? Edson behaved badly no doubt but Ruth defended the town as is her job she didn’t know or realize went it was time to stop. Edson will get very little if anything if she is let go but she will raise hell on her way out and cause even more damage.
I know you dislike Ruth Weil but mark my words firing her will be ugly and very costly before all is said and done.
As for the executive session my source is not Janet Joakim, in fact no one has been able to get her to speak about the session which in of itself is quite rare.
As I have already said this is going to get ugly before it is all over
I wouldn’t give Ruth a dime. I’d fire her for abuse of power. That’s called CAUSE.
Look, this has nothing to do with the true fact I dislike the woman. People get fired for cause all the time. Our legal department is bloated, and the Limoncelli case put a spotlight on the fact that Weil
c r e a t e s problems instead of solving them to demonstrate purpose for all the money that gets wasted in her office every year.
Ruth knew that a 1099 contractor for the town had misrepresented her powers in order to shake down new homeowners. This is akin to a clerk from the records department showing up at your door with a badge, claiming to be a cop. The town was clearly at risk, and rather than recommend immediate termination of Edson, Weil represented her at the deposition!
Limoncelli balked at the “amnesty program”, as anyone in her position would. This pissed Edson off, and she marched into district court and filed charges of having an illegal apartment against Limoncelli, another abusive act for which she had no authority to commit.
This situation will certainly get uglier, but if you knew the facts, you’d be aware that it’s already very “ugly”. Ruth Weil has placed the town in a very bad light and exposed the fact that she operates out of view of the rest of the town. I’m not alright with giving her anything. She can fight all she wants. I’m going to publish depositions and maybe even the whole trial. People are going to soon understand just how shabbily some of our town offices are run, and they’re going to demand changes.
To that end, at least one petition will be circulated in the coming weeks, asking the council to address the issue of LACK OF PROPER OVERSIGHT of town departments.
As for the Limoncelli case, ask yourself WHY the town would want to go forward with an appeal. At this point, the town is not required to pay the plaintiffs any monetary damages, and all Limoncelli has “won” is the right to rent her cottage. It’ll take the rest of her life to make that $160K back. Ruth has sucessfully beat the hell out of those people, so what more does she want?
Chances of success on appeal are low, and if the town loses, taxpayers stand to lose $200,000 to Limoncelli. Are you ok with that?
Great piece by PG today: http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27996&Itemid=112
Ruth has sucessfully beat the hell out of those people, so what more does she want?
Lawyers are like sports coaches in that they don’t take losing lightly especially when there was no clear decisive winner in this case. Ruth cannot recommend termination of any employee only the employee’s supervisor, in this case Perry can do that.
As for firing Ruth Weil, she has a legal and binding contract with the town with at least two years remaining on it. Presently she is the third highest paid employee on the town pay roll after the town manager and police chief. She presently makes $127,000 per year which means she stands to make more then $250,000 before her current contract expires. The town will have no choice but to assemble another costly buyout package in order to avoid litigation brought by Ruth herself.
No I am not okay with Limomcelli and her husband being compensated over this nor am I okay with another costly buyout either.
Susan LImoncelli also wrote a letter that sums up the issue:
http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28008&Itemid=45
It’ll be interesting to see how the yellow whore David Still sums up Weil’s responsibility in this disaster. Now that there’s no town manager with his fist planted up Still’s weak spine, perhaps he’ll actually feel safe enough to tell the truth.
It’s time for truth in this town to be declared a good thing, and not “toxic” as it’s been for as long as I can remember!
“To that end, at least one petition will be circulated in the coming weeks, asking the council to address the issue of LACK OF PROPER OVERSIGHT of town departments.”
Instead of that petition how about a petition seeking Ruth Weil’s termination or a meeting of the voters petition to discuss firing Ruth?
I’m presently leaning towards an open meeting, but after the last one, I have to consider how the control factor will affect participation.
You need to understand that there most certainly was a “clear decisive winner in this case”.
Limoncelli wanted to enjoy the same use of her property that the previous owners enjoyed for over 20 years. She was awarded that use by the court.
Therefore, she won.
All Ruth has to do is to leave these people alone, and the town will incur no further expense or damages. If this case is opened again, do you really think the issue of selective enforcement will change? If so, then you need to read the “finding of facts” again.
Once all of the facts of this case are publicly aired and petition(s) certified, Ruth Weil may be asked to resign. If she refuses, the town can easily prove that she abused her power, and give her absolutely nothing, which is what she deserves.
Frankly I’m sick and tired of you and those you clearly run with of operating on the basis of fear and intimidation. You’re saying that we should maintain corruption on all levels to save money on possible buyout packages. You’ve been a supporter of back door politics since you first appeared on this blog. Just who are you trying to protect here?
What skin do you have in the game?
Under the law a clear winner wins on all counts as presented to the court the plaintiffs won on 2 counts and the town won on the other 2 counts. That what is commonly called a tie so neither side won clearly and decisively which is what this case needs a clear and decisive winner.
Yes the plaintiffs were granted what they sought but that will in all likelihood change on appeal. Again in cases like this the one side must prevail on all counts for there to be a clear winner.
I can tell you right now from experience that the words “INCONSISTENT FINDING BY THE SUPERIOR COURT” will be featured in Ruth’s appeal of the decision. There was no consistent finding under the law for one side or the other in this case.
Ruth has a right as do the plaintiffs to appeal the inconsistent finding on the counts. There is no abuse of power in Ruth doing her job in obtaining a clear and consistent finding in this matter.
Great, then Limoncelli will be the clear winner and the town will have to pay the victims of this clearly arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable matter hunreds of thousands of dollars.
Read the judge’s findings about the 1981 letter and tell me that’s not sufficient evidence of selective enforcement.
We can speculate all day long, but I’d prefer to lay out the facts.
Publishing Perry’s deposition in one minute. File is huge and can’t figure out how to publish it open – it’s a.pdf.
Selective enforcement in the town of Barnstable has always happened- it was always who you knew and how much money you have or who owes you a favor. Take a look at all the 1099 employees in town- they are all ‘friends’ and they all should go get real jobs.