Menu Bar

Home           Calendar           Topics          Just Charlestown          About Us
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friday, June 1, 2012

Developments in DiBello v. Charlestown

Town Council member’s lawsuit against the Town takes some new turns
By Will Collette

In the past couple of weeks, there has been some movement on the conspiracy lawsuit filed by Council member Lisa DiBello against the town of Charlestown and the “Charlestown Ten” - present and former town officials.

The lawsuit stems from the unanimous Town Council vote on May 10, 2010 to fire DiBello as Parks and Recreation Director on the recommendation of recently resigned Town Administrator William DiLibero.

DiBello then ran for and won a seat on the Town Council on the motto “Because She Cares.” She promised  she did not intend to seek revenge for her firing. But only weeks after her election, DiBello filed an administrative complaint against the town and the individual officials. She alleges they engaged in a five-year conspiracy against her that culminated in her wrongful discharge.

That administrative complaint was converted into a civil lawsuit. DiBello offered to settle her claims for either $1.5 million cash, or $500,000 (plus costs) and her old job back.

Despite DiBello’s claim that she needed to settle her case because she was nearly destitute and in danger of losing her home, there was no action in the case for almost two months while all eyes were focused on the CCA’s “Kill Bill” campaign to oust DiBello’s arch-enemy Bill DiLibero as Town Administrator.

The “Kill Bill” campaign hinged on a ruling from the RI Ethics Commission. The question before the Commission was whether DiBello could vote on DiLibero’s fate even though he was the one who fired her and was a central figure in her conspiracy lawsuit against Charlestown.

Remarkably, the Ethics Commission gave DiBello the green light to participate in DiLibero’s inquisition and execution, although the basis for their decision was narrowly drawn and very specifically focused on that one matter.

For the first time, you can read the Ethics Commission decision for yourself and draw your own judgments about what it means and whether it was a sound decision. Click here

The Town of Charlestown has apparently hired new Counsel to represent the town and most of the defendants in the case.

If you click here, you can read the Stipulation of Acceptance that shows the town’s counsel on this case is Michael DeSisto, a Providence attorney. His Martindale profile lists his practice areas as real estate, civil and commercial litigation.

However, DeSisto is not representing ALL of the “Charlestown Ten” DiBello defendants. He is listed as representing Acting Town Administrator and Treasurer Pat Anderson, former Town Administrator Bill DiLibero, soon-to-be-retired Chief of Police Jack Shippee, present Town Council members Marge Frank and Gregg Avedisian, former Town Council members Candi Dunn, Forrester Safford and Richard Hosp and Town GIS specialist Steve McCandless.

The only member of the Charlestown Ten not represented by DeSisto is former Town Administrator and present Budget Commission chair Richard Sartor. Of all the members of the Charlestown Ten, Sartor’s role appears to be the most crucial in DiBello’s conspiracy scenario.

Richard Sartor - going his own way?
 DiBello served a summons on Sartor at his home on May 15 to respond to this amended complaint. We’ll see if new records show who is now representing Sartor.

Charlestown is obligated by law to “indemnify” town officials who face legal actions arising from their official acts. Since lawsuits are a way of life, no one would want to work for the town or run for public office if they weren’t covered. However, it is not clear whether the town will be obligated to pay for private counsel for Sartor, should he choose different counsel than Michael DeSisto.

According to DiBello’s complaint, the conspiracy began when DiBello reported hearing a raunchy conversation in 2007 between Sartor, who was then Town Administrator, and another male Town Hall staff person.

DiBello’s complaint then describes how this led to months of trouble. Then, she claims, a particularly sinister conspiracy was hatched by Sartor and then Hopkinton Town Administrator Bill DiLibero. According to DiBello’s court filings, Sartor offered to line DiLibero up with the then-vacant Charlestown Town Administrator job, which paid more money, if DiLibero promised to do whatever it took to kick DiBello out of her job.

Members of the executive search committee that ultimately recommended DiLibero’s hiring say they find this conspiracy theory to be far-fetched. Even if true, it would not have affected their deliberations and their choice.

DiBello recently filed a new “First Amended Complaint” with the court – click here to read it in its entirety. It adds no new charges but cleans up some misspellings in the original version.

But this “amended” version misses some other errors. For example, in the the very first statement DiBello claims she “worked as the Director of Parks and Recreation for the Town of Charlestown, Rhode Island for over 21 years as of the date that she was fired for retaliatory reasons on or about May 10, 2010.”

But DiBello gave the RI Ethics Commission five different hire dates in her mandatory annual ethics filings, none of which add up to more than 21 years. If you accept the dates she gave in her first and second ethics filings, she worked as P&R Director for just over 19 years . So either this latest court filing is wrong, or the ethics reports she filed under penalty of perjury were wrong.

Now that two of DiBello’s enemies among the Charlestown Ten – Town Administrator DiLibero and Chief Shippee – are off the board, there’s a lot of speculation afoot about what might happen next.

Of course, the biggest question is whether a settlement is afoot. While the departure of two of her enemies has been touted by DiBello’s allies as a big win for her, there are still lots of enemies left, not to mention the matter of the money.

If DiBello seriously wants to get her old job back, there are at least two obstacles. One is the state law that bars revolving-door employment. The law requires one year to pass before an elected official can get a job in the jurisdiction they represented.

Just as Deputy Dan Slattery is barred from getting the Town Administrator job he coveted until at one year as passed from the day he leaves office, so too DiBello is barred from going back to being Parks and Recreation Director for at least a year after she leaves the Town Council.

Though Lisa DiBello may think the RI Ethics Commission is willing to bend the law to accommodate her because they ruled in her favor on the DiLibero discipline vote, the Ethics Commission decision was, in fact, very narrowly draw, However, it was more than enough to allow DiBello to strike the killing blow against DiLibero.

The second problem is that the job she wants is currently filled by Jay Primiano. As much as she, and her CCA allies, would like to get rid of Primiano – especially if it ensures DiBello’s continued loyalty to the CCA agenda – how much stomach does the CCA have for another public fight over the purge of a town official?

Since we are only weeks away from the June 27 deadline for candidate declarations, DiBello will also have to decide if she intends to run for re-election. With a record dominated by turmoil, ethics questions and broken campaign promises, DiBello would go before the voters as the only known Town Council member in Rhode Island history to be actively suing the town she claims to represent. 


  1. How can Lisa's allies feel that the Chief's leaving is a boon for her? He is leaving under is own steam, retiring with an exemplary record. He is not leaving because of her or her suit. The Chief is leaving while on top of his game.
    I'm still puzzling over the ethics ruling but's Rhode Island. It shouldn't surprise me in the least.

  2. Having more than 35 years of experience in state and local government I hereby challenge Will Collette or anyone else on the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee to a public debate on former Town Administrator, William DiLibero's tenure here and his tenure as Town manager in Hopkinton, R.I. Court records in my possesion clearly show that during his interview with the Charlestown search committee he misrepresented the truth about his previous employment in Hopkinton and the RIDEM. His tenure in Charlestown is riddled with controversy and lies which can be easily proven. Your alleged concerns about political attacks on the town hall staff have proven to be bogus and the morale and the business climate in the town hall has never been better. You will no longer be permitted to misrepresent the truth about DiLibero's and Shippee's involvement in the DiBello case. It's time to put up or shut up.

  3. I deal in evidence, in documents, and want to see the evidence before dishing on people's character.

    I have seen every scrap of documentation on DiLibero and analyzed it, item by item, in Progressive Charlestown. I eagerly await to see what DiBello has for evidence to back up her fantastic charges of an elaborate five-year conspiracy covering two towns and more conspirators, some named as defendants, some simply named.

    I noted in my most recent article that it's not a good sign when the very first claim DiBello makes in her lawsuit is to claim she has more than 21 years of experience" when I have five different ethics filings she signed under penalty of perjury that give five different dates when she was hired, and none of them match her 21+ years claim.

    Evidence, documents, that's what we need.

    Then there are the 10+ years of IRS-990 reports on her personal charity, A Ray of Hope, that federal law requires her to disclose - and which she refuses to reveal.

    As you say, Jim, it is time to put up or shut up. Let's see the evidence, not just the wild accusations.

  4. When the time comes I will be happy to disclose the "legal" documents (copies of his sworn depositions in the Hopkinton case) in my possession that contradicts the answers he gave to the Charlestown Administrator Search Committee and the town council during his job interviews. You claim to have copies of all of the legal documents that involve DiLebero. In that case, you should already know that he is a defendant in the Hopkinton lawsuit. During his job interviews he told Charlestown officials that he wasn't and that's a matter of public record. Will, you are not the legal expert that you think you are. There is no question that Ms. DiBello was employed by the town for more that 20 years and the town's employment records will show that. The discrepencies in her ethics filings are legally insignificant and would be viewed as rhetoric in court. Your personal hypocricy regarding the DiBello case is mind boggling. You claim to be a former union official but yet you accuse Ms DiBello of seeking revenge against the town because she was illegally fired. I have always known that some union officials get confused about the legal rights of employees, (especially if it doesn't involve them) so let me enlighten you. You may call it revenge but those of us who believe in the rule of law call it justice. Ms. DiBello was fired illegally and she is simply exercising her legal rights under state and federal law. She did not promise not do that. As I said previously, I have been involved with politics for a very long time but this is the first time that I have ever been expected to disclose my debate material to the other side before the debate. Will, you have hitched your pony to the wrong wagon and the wheels are about to fall off.

  5. I would like to hear more on this topic and thread.

    Also though, I don't see a meaning full debate happening at all so it would sure be interesting to see what Mr. Mageau has or has not. After all I've read about Deputy Dan withholding papers, it might be worth it for Jim to not do the same and get it out on the table.

    Jim and Will, I know quite a few voters who will be voting with this whole mess in mind. Lisa's suit, Y-Gate, lights at Ninigret, etc all weigh on our minds, this law suit most of all. It would be great to see 2 (opposing?) sides having a civil conversation about what is really going on and why.

    Thanks in advance?

    1. If the writer is so interested in transparency and good government he should identify himself properly.

    2. Geez Jim,How did I become interested in transparency and good government. You and Will seem to see some pretty important issues in totally different light. I am interested in those issues. I tend to favor Will's leanings because they are the only ones I have heard. I would not have said anything if I thought your opinion was valuable and worthy of being expressed here.

      ALSO, Jim, always the politician. Totally changing the subject to how I identify myself. Give it a rest. You never can tell, someone like me might be on your side much more than not.

    3. Quick correction:

      I would not have said anything if I thought your opinion was INvaluable and NOT worthy of being expressed here. That's as in I do consider it valuable

  6. Interviews for Town Administrator were held in Executive Session. How can Mr. DiLibero's alledged answers be public record then?

    I also am aware that Chief Shippee has witnesses to back any possible statements he may or may not have made, before or after he was Chief of Police.

    As one named in the suit, though one not being sued, my words are just that, words to some.

    Eventually, I'm sure everything will come out in the wash.


Comments are moderated so your comment will not appear immediately.