Selectmen Duel Over Lawsuit Settlement

A series of attempts by Third Selectman Jamie Cosgrove to discredit First Selectman Anthony ​“Unk” DaRos and Second Selectman Andy Campbell backfired Wednesday night at a Board of Selectmen meeting that drew the upcoming November election into the meeting room.

The public confrontation between Cosgrove, who is running for First Selectman on the Republican ticket and Campbell, who is running for First Selectman on the Democratic ticket, led to a feisty exchange between the candidates and DaRos, who is retiring as the town’s top elected official.The action unfolded in the community room at Fire Headquarters. 

At issue were a group of letters Cosgrove delivered to DaRos and Campbell this week, saying he wanted answers on their role in the malpractice settlement case between the town and the Marcus Law Firm, the town’s attorneys between 2005 and 2007. Cosgrove sent the letters to DaRos, Campbell and to R. Bartley Halloran, the town’s attorney in the recently settled malpractice case.

The malpractice case stems from the Tabor eminent domain case. The Marcus Law Firm represented the town of Branford in the case until it went to trial, and then was sued by the town for malpractice for its role in preparing the case for trial. Marcus settled with Branford in June and will pay $1 million to the town.

At the time the malpractice case was ongoing the Branford Democratic Town Committee (DTC) had posted statements on its website that a Marcus attorney had called libelous. He threatened a libel suit and demanded the statements be removed. They were not.

As the malpractice settlement agreement was taking formal shape, a local blogger wrote a story saying the settlement funds had been held up because DaRos and Campbell wanted the town to pay legal costs if Marcus later sued them as private citizens for the statements posted on the DTC website.

Cosgrove’s letters to Campbell and DaRos concerned that story. He accused Campbell and DaRos of delaying the $1 million settlement for personal gain. DaRos and Campbell angrily denied the claims. Under standard settlement agreements, each side has to sign releases regarding possible future lawsuits that may involve any number of people and town officials connected to the case. Attorneys for both sides were working on the language of those releases, DaRos said.

Jamie’s Letters

DaRos admonished Cosgrove for the letters. He also said that in his view Cosgrove, who is not a lawyer, had not written the three letters, which are legal in nature.

“These are pretty serious charges. And Jamie, you might be shocked but I am thinking you didn’t write this letter,” he said of the letter he received. ​“You got more constitution than that. And secondly I am more shocked that you signed your name to it,” DaRos said. 

Cosgrove interrupted to say he had written the letters. 

“Charging me with using my position here for personal gain is beyond the pale,” DaRos told Cosgrove.

Cosgrove said that because of his letter he had that day received ​“a letter from the town attorney stating this matter has been resolved and both sides have agreed to sign the releases and we will receive the funds.” The letter to Cosgrove was sent by Halloran, the town’s malpractice attorney. 

Cosgrove seemed ready to move on but DaRos insisted he read aloud the letter Cosgrove delivered to him. The Sept. 16 letter accuses DaRos of delaying the $1 million settlement ​“because you believe that the taxpayers should pay to defend you and Mr. Campbell for political statements made while running for office.”

Among many accusations, the letter goes on to say that ​“this sounds like you and Mr. Campbell are trying to use your status as town officials to avoid personal legal liability for political activities. It doesn’t take a law degree to know that’s just plain wrong. If you or Mr. Campbell are accused of slander or libel based on statements you made in a political campaign, the Town and the taxpayers should not foot the bill to defend you.” 

Cosgrove said he received his information from a blog he reads. DaRos questioned the veracity of the story. ​“I don’t know what news thing you read this in other than a blog,” DaRos said. He noted that he had been in some form of public service for the town for over 45 years ​“and that’s not including the four years in Uncle Sam’s Navy, and I’ve never asked for a single thing.” If he faces a libel lawsuit from Marcus in the future, he said, he plans to hire his own attorney and not any attorney connected to the town or to an insurance company. 

Town’s Malpractice Attorney Weighs In

Halloran’s letter to Cosgrove dated Wednesday says the arrival of the $1 million is imminent. He also said in answer to Cosgrove’s questions that neither DaRos nor Campbell had sought a release from liability regarding the political statements made in 2011. He also said, in answer to a Cosgrove question, that he had not been retained by either one.

As for Marcus bringing a future lawsuit against DaRos and Campbell, a legal threat Marcus has made in the past, Halloran said in his letter he could not imagine why ​“after paying a million dollars to settle a malpractice claim, anyone would bring a case for libel over statements that alleged that malpractice was committed.”

Halloran went on to say that if such a suit is brought, whoever is the town attorney at the time ​“will have to determine whether it implicates official or personal acts, and respond accordingly.” In 2011, when the DTC statements were posted, DaRos was serving as first selectman and was a public official.

In October, 2011, Fred Murolo, the Marcus Law Firm attorney in the malpractice case, threatened to file a libel lawsuit against those who posted the information to the DTC website. He demanded the information as written be removed and a retraction posted. Neither happened. The material on the DTC website was not taken down until this year.

A Slow Legal Process

DaRos told Cosgrove that he wishes the process between the attorneys had moved more quickly but it hadn’t. The hold-up was over language in the releases, he said, a not uncommon problem in settlements. Indeed sometimes fights over release language causes settlements to fall apart.

Halloran explained in his letter to Cosgrove: ​“It took a while to draft these documents, as understandably the defendants (The Marcus Law Firm) wished to closely review the agreement. They initially objected that the releases were too broad and would exculpate the town for actions unrelated to the Tabor matter. I believe we resolved that issue.”

But then, when he received the document both sides had worked on, he said ​“I questioned the completeness of the document. I wanted to make sure that the town would not face any claim whatsoever arising out of the Tabor matter.” He did not explain what he meant but this could have been a reference to the DTC website statements.

Campbell Takes On Cosgrove

When it was his turn, Campbell’s (pictured far left) questions were precise and to the point, hammering away at Cosgrove and repeatedly asking him what it was that he didn’t understand about Campbell’s responses. He repeatedly noted Cosgrove’s apparent dependence on the blog for his information.

“You knew I was not a party to the (Tabor) suit. I wasn’t a party to the settlements — -and you were clear on that, and yet you sent out these letters,” he told Cosgrove.

“Jamie, your letter to me was full of false statements. I don’t know where you get your information; I don’t know who wrote all these letters for you,” Campbell said.

Cosgrove interrupted and demanded that he be allowed to read his letter to Campbell. He still wanted to know, he said, about whether Campbell was seeking legal protection at the town’s expense.

Campbell again asked: ​“What previous statement did I make that was not clear to you?” 

“What is your issue?” Cosgrove demanded.

Campbell: ​“My issue is the news sources you are using. My previous statement on this is that I have had no part of this settlement whatsoever. Of course I would not seek any protection from the town.”

Cosgrove replied: ​“That is all I wanted to hear.”

“And Jamie,” Campbell went on, ​“This is being done at taxpayer’s expense because a phone call would have been cheaper to the attorney than a town attorney responding to all these letters. Campbell said the letter he received from Cosgrove was full of ​“false statements.”

“This is cheap political theater, Jamie,” he said as the audience erupted in groans and laughter.

Campbell said he agrees with Cosgrove that the residents of Branford deserve clear answers to the questions. ​“Is there anything that is not clear?”

Cosgrove observed that his questions had been answered by the Halloran letter he received just that day. ​“But if there was a holdup (of the funds) there are a whole series of questions.”

Again Campbell asked: ​“Is there anything that is not clear?”

Cosgrove said he simply wanted to know his position.

“My position, I will state it again, Jamie. I have not and will not seek the town’s protection for any matter involving personal legal issues.”

Cosgrove replied: ​“That was the question.”

Campbell said: ​“Are we clear now? Are we resolved now?” 

Cosgrove had enough. Before the audience could ask any questions under the final agenda item, dubbed ​“other,” Cosgrove quickly moved to adjourn the meeting and left the room. 

A story on the public works building, another topic raised at the BOS meeting, will be posted at a later date.

###.