Here’s the deposition of Tom Perry in the Limoncelli case. The file is large, so you’ll have to CLICK TO OPEN:
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
-
Links
Limoncelli’s Deposition of Thomas Perry, Building Commissioner
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Thank you yet again for more interesting reading.
From what I have read so far it is pretty standard deposition stuff does seem like the point about the 1981 letter is proven though.
One of the key take-aways from the deposition is the admitted, blatant selective enforcement. Perry did not enforce the alleged zoning violation with then-owners, the Grovers, but instead waited until the property changed hands. That was wrong.
It is also clear that he had little to no oversight over Edson’s hiring or daily activity, despite the fact that she supposedly “reported” to him.
Two words so far caught my eye: JACK LEBOUF!
“Two words so far caught my eye: JACK LEBOUF!”
Not sure why he is important in all of this?
It just reminded me that the bldg dept hired a convicted felon and didn’t know it. Sounds like a pretty loose operation.
“Lost files”, fraudulent representation of Edson’s position, bullying, lack of oversight, lack of oversight, and lack of oversight.
Mr. Perry didn’t hire Edson, and since she appears to have been a Klimm patronage hire, Tom couldn’t control her.
I don’t care if she’s now an employee of the town or not, FIRE LINDA EDSON!
Linda Edson once tried to prevent the installation of the roundabout at Race Lane and Route 149. She also lost the 1997 town council election in Precinct 10 by a whopping 213 votes.
She definitely needs to go but making that happen will much easier said then done. Patronage hires like her tend to stick like glue and advance on to bigger and better things.
Not this time. Edson is as good as gone. Dear Linda – you misrepresented yourself and placed the town at risk. You’re fired. The end.
Check out her FB page and look at her list of friends you might be surprised.
already did.
I remember a town hall custodian who was a patronage hire when he first arrived. He was then made full time 40 hours a week and retired 20 years later with a full pension!!
Like I said those patronage hires stick like Gorilla Glue, firing Linda Edson is much easier said then will be getting it done!!
Not if she’s still a 1099 contract employee. That won’t be hard to find out first thing Monday morning!!
I just went the most recent town wage report on the town website which you can find here:
http://www.town.barnstable.ma.us/HumanResources/MUNICIPAL%20DEPT%20WAGE%20REPORT.pdf
Linda Edson is not listed on it.
That’s because she is a private contractor – easy to get rid of.
Your persisent contention that getting rid of incompetent and/or abusive town employees is so difficult that it is better to just keep them is disturbing.
A group of individuals connected to town hall have created an odious culture of secrecy,intimidation, and discrimination that has abused taxpayers of this town for far too long.
In the present day absence of players like Jimmy Crocker and John Klimm, there are cracks of sunlight seeping through the windows. At the moment, the light is shining on ghouls like Ruth Weil and LInda Edson.
The villagers need to bring flashlights and point them directly at those two, for starters, and have them replaced with kinder, smarter and far more responsible individuals.
After that we can start chipping away at the structure of this government, which is unstable. “Butch” keeps repeating that the town council has no administrative duties, but who oversees the town manager?
In theory, at least, the town council is charged with overseeing the performance of the town manager, but Mr. Klimm operated outside of the organizational chart, often with the tacit approval of the council majority.
At this moment in time we have an opportunity to reclaim our position at the “top rung” of the town’s “ladder” we heard so much about in the last election.
Keeping the same old characters around will only bring more oppression by simple minded idiots like Janet Joakim and her pals. Can you imagine another ten years of mob rule by those morons?
The Limoncelli case has blown open the doors of town offices where no one appears to answer to anyone. This has to change. I keep going back to what Anne Canedy has said throughout the Klimm buyout about the council’s responsibilities. She was demonized for speaking directly to department heads because she couldn’t get answers from the town manager. If it’s the council’s responsibility to hear about department activities from the town manager, and he/she refuses to communicate, then what recourse is there?
Meanwhile, at least certain of our town departments are out of control. We might as well start with them, and move forward from there.
The current town charter clearly designates the town council as the legislative body of the town and the town manager as the administrative body of the town government.
The rules that in order to deal with department heads the council must go through the town manager. Ann Canedy actually upset quite a few people with her repeated end runs around John Klimm with her demands on department heads.
ironically the 2007-2009 Charter Commission sought to set the separation of council and manager in stone with the following charter language:
Section 2-12 Prohibitions
Prohibitions- No councilor shall, while a member of the town council, hold any other town office or position. Elected charter commission membership shall not be considered to be a town office or position. No former councilor shall hold any compensated appointive town office or town employment until one year after the expiration of their service on the town council. This provision shall not prevent a town officer or employee who has taken a leave of absence from such duties in
order to serve as a member of the town council from returning to such office or employment following service as a member of the town council.
Any councilor who has been finally convicted of a criminal offense involving misconduct in any elective or appointive public office, trust or employment at any time held by him shall be deemed to have vacated office and shall not be eligible to serve in any other elective or appointive office or position under the town.
*No councilor shall direct or request the appointment or employment of any person, or the removal of any person, or in any manner attempt to participate in the appointment or removal of persons in that part of the administrative service of the town for which the town manager is responsible. Councilors shall deal with the officers and employees
serving under the town manager, solely through the town manager, and the council president shall have no authority to give any orders or directions to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately.*
The above charter language is common in most newer and many older charters in MA.
As for firing Linda Edson when was the last time you heard of a town employee in Barnstable being fired. The last one I can recall was Tony Troiano who was caught stealing Sandy Neck Gate receipts about 16 years ago. There have been other who have had to go but in most cases they are allowed to resign so the town avoids any legal wrangling by the employee.
Linda Edson maybe a contract employee but I am sure she has enough protectors in town hall to keep her on the payroll.
You don’t seem to understand that we are operating under the
e x i s t i n g c h a r t e r .
This Limoncelli case will have so many people scrambling for their jobs that Linda Edson will be the first one they toss out the door.
“Butch” keeps insisting on calling Edson an “employee” of the town, which she obviously is not. The town may simply advise her that they no longer need her services.
I’m fine with the idea of any incompetent/corrupt town employees choosing to resign. Gone is gone as far as I’m concerned.
This story has caused readership to spike again, and I suspect some of the readers are new to this blog. New readers should know that “Butch” generally promotes the narrow views of the old establishment.
Now that we have folks like Hank Farnham and Felicia Penn asking for residents to insist on a broad search for a new town manager, it seems the old guard has lost some serious support.
I don’t think “Butch” and the control freaks he/she runs with understand that things are about to change around here.
Taxpayers of Barnstable heed the call and take back our town!!!
If she receives a check with a town seal on it then under MA DOR rules she is considered a town employee even if she receives a 1099 for her taxes.
Given the friends she in town hall she not be asked to leave nor will she be fired it is not how things are done in town hall. Nor is Ruth Weil going anywhere either has she has too many supporters on the council
Back in the early 1990′s there was a lot of noise about a school custodian who had a criminal record. He was a custodian in what is now the Intermediate School in Hyannis but at time it was called Barnstable Middle School. When parents found out the man had criminal record they insisted he be fired. The school committee refused to fire the man but did reassign him to the School Administration Building next to Town Hall, it’s just the way things are done in Barnstable.
As for my comment about the charter I was pointing out how the current allows councilors to bypass the manager and how the 2007-2009 charter commission wanted language to keep the manager and council apart as it should be.
The folks who petitioned for a charter commission wanted a MAYOR. What they created at hideous expense was a piece of garbage that gave more power to the council president. Being that someone of the ilk of Janet Joakim could be in a position to garner (and absolutely abuse) more power was more than voters were willing to allow.
It’s obvious that folks still want a mayor – given the lengths they were willing to go to keep John Klimm. Unless and until the charter changes, we need to give the town and all its powers back to the people, where it belongs.
Review “Butch’s” blathering statements on this thread. At one minute he says Ruth Weil will probably lose her job, and the next he says she has too many powerful friends. He says the same of a useless contract employee who is not a town employee and could be fired with little fanfare.
We want to change “just how the way things are” to “just how the way things WERE” in town hall. While this matter is beyond outrageous, the matter of a wide open search for a town manager is even more pressing.
We cannot allow a small time skank like Janet Joakim to keep us from becoming a town where people will want to raise children, run business, and increase the tax base.
Hyannis has one of the highest percentages of registered sex offenders in the state. Anybody care to guess how much they contribute to the general fund each year? How about how much they take from it?
Barnstable taxpayers have been oppressed by the old time establishment pigs for far too long. We now have folks formerly considered to be of those ranks clamouring for new blood in town hall. Just because elevating incompetent understudies to department heads is “just the way it’s always been done” does not mean it has to be that way now.
I think last year’s council/manager dispute was inevitable, but most folks were genuinely surprised by it. A lot more people are paying attention to town government now, and they are not easily marginalized.
My belief regarding Ruth Weil is that there will be a serious effort to fire over this lawsuit. As I have already said there are three councilors who appearing to be lining up against Ruth in Jennifer Cullum, Jessica Rapp-Grassetti, and Debra Dagwan. I fully expect based on very recent council history Ann Canedy and John Norman to side with Jennifer Cullum, Jessica Rapp-Grassetti, and Debra Dagwan.
I expect that Fred Chirigotis, Jan Barton, Janet Joakim, Tom Rugo and James Tinsley will support Ruth 100%. This as I said before leaves Ruth’s ultimate fate in the hands of Mike Hersey, June Daley and James Cote. It will take a minimum of seven votes to fire Ruth so two of the three councilors in the last group will have to vote either for or against Ruth.
Should the seven votes needed to fire Ruth actually materialize then the matter of buying out her contract will be the next step and that is where things will likely get very costly. The cost factor in firing Ruth is the reason that I believe that she will not be going anywhere. Remember everything in Barnstable always comes down to money in the end.
Money is also the reason that Linda Edson will not lose her job either she will in all likelihood be moved to a different office and position to get her out of the building department.
Ho hum. I do tire of your bean counting.
Reading Edson’s deposition now.
There is no room for an abuser like her in this All America City.
Are you going to post her deposition?
Did you see Janet Joakim’s quote in yesterday’s CCT article concerning Elizabeth Warren’s speech at the Barnstable Senior Center on Saturday?
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120226/NEWS/202260325/-1/NEWS01
Sorry, I’ve had a cold and feel lousy. I’ll get to this stuff in awhile – Edson file is HUGE.
As for Joakim’s daughter, sounds like the apple didn’t fall far from the rotten apple tree!!!
How INCONVENIENT that her kid of inconvenience has to repay the government for a low interest loan to give the kid a better education than her moronic mother!