Professional Documents
Culture Documents
:
: CIVIL ACTION
:
v.
:
: No.: 1:14-CV-00747-WWC
SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP
:
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
:
CAROL L. KARL,
:
In her Individual and Official Capacities :
:
JESSE RAWLS, SR.,
:
In his Individual and Official Capacities :
:
MARK Y. SUSSMAN,
:
In his Individual and Official Capacities :
Defendants
:
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes, Plaintiff, Dr. Susan Kegerise, by and through her attorney,
Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P., complains of
Defendants, the Susquehanna Township School District, School Director Carol L.
Karl, School Director Jesse Rawls, Sr., and School Director Mark Y. Sussman, in
their official and individual capacities, as follows:
Introduction
1.
Township School District, having held the position since January 6, 2010.
2.
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees and other relief for the
wrongful termination of Plaintiffs employment in violation of Plaintiffs
Constitutional, Federal Statute, Pennsylvania statute and the terms of her
employment contract.
Parties
4.
STSD) is a municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with geographic boundaries entirely within the
County of Dauphin and the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Since February 11,
2011, STSD has maintained its offices at 2579 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, PA
17110.
6.
and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board.
7.
and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board, and President
of the Board from 2011-2012.
8.
STSD and, at all times relevant hereto, a duly elected member of the Board.
9.
At all times relevant hereto, STSD acted and/or failed to act by and/or
U.S.C. 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 1367.
11.
U.S.C. 1391(b) because Dauphin County is the location of all defendants and the
location of the actions giving rise to this complaint.
Background
12.
University.
13.
received numerous positive comments from not only parents of students, but also
staff that worked directly for her.
17.
18.
2010.
20.
STSD.
21.
creation of the School of the Arts, School of Medicine, Health Sciences and
Engineering, and full day kindergarten.
22.
continue for another three-to-five years if the Board does not take official, specific
action during the last year of the term at least 150 days in advance of the end of the
term to notify the superintendent that another or other persons will be considered for
that position. 24 P.S. 10-1073.
24.
December 2012, did not re-negotiate a new contract with Dr. Kegerise prior to 150
days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerises contract.
25.
termination prior to 150 days before the expiration of Dr. Kegerises contract.
26.
Superintendent.
27.
called a meeting of the Board, without informing Dr. Kegerise, whereupon the Board
voted on the hiring of an interim solicitor.
28.
District Solicitor Paul Blunt, Esquire, indicated he needed to discuss a personnel and
student safety issue with the Board, but requested Defendant Rawls recuse himself
5
from discussion due to a family member of Rawls being a possible witness. When
Defendant Rawls refused to recuse himself, the Board (including Dr. Kegerise)
could not receive a full briefing on the matter due to Rawls refusal. In response to
the request for recusal, Defendant Rawls threatened legal action.
29.
High School Principal Ralph Lovelidge and attempted to have a conversation with
him which was critical of STSD central administration.
30.
The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign points to job
applicants.
33.
experience, education level, job related skills, interview performance and references.
34.
demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even expressing that
STSD should hire more Black males because the Superintendent is Caucasian.
35.
she was white and the whites would listen to her because you think like them.
6
36.
she would pave the way for an African American male to replace her and said that
is what his friend Major Poteet did in the Harrisburg School District.
37.
applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for review.
38.
and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy concerns,
Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and verbally and
physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented upon realizing
two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.
39.
On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted against the hiring
of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that an AfricanAmerican should have been hired for the position instead.
40.
subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observing the man
to be African-American and yelled at Plaintiff I should know [the applicants race]
ahead of time.
42.
stated to Dr. Kegerise that she would pave the way for an African American
male to be hired as Superintendent.
43.
Dr. Kegerise was asked to leave the meeting because the Board was going to discuss
renewal of her contract. Plaintiff left.
45.
than discussing solely the renewal of Dr. Kegerises contract, discussed personnel
issues unrelated to the Superintendents contract for which the Superintendent had
no conflict of interest and could have been present for discussions.
46.
School and High School without giving prior notice to the administration.
47.
directly with district employees due to possible liability and undermining of the
administration. (See Board Policy 907, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A).
48.
school gym teacher and coach to a district elementary school. Believing this transfer
was against the will of the teacher and discriminatory, Defendant Rawls attempted
8
Board, falsely accused Plaintiff of nepotism as grounds to not renew her contract.
51.
issued an apology to the hired employee on behalf of the Board for Defendant Rawls
false accusation of nepotism.
53.
regarding whether another employee should have been terminated. The propriety of
the termination was pending arbitration at the time. Defendant Rawls further stated
to the employee that the union should have helped the terminated employee and
district employees should start using ASFME as their union instead of Teamsters.
9
55.
District Solicitor Paul Blunt spoke with the custodian who confirmed
perceived by Dr. Kegerise and other members of the Board as threatening towards
Dr. Kegerise.
59.
Township School District and Dr. Kegerise was ratified by a majority of the Board
of School Directors at public meeting. (See, Contract, attached hereto and marked
as Exhibit B).
61.
8.00 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. The Board of School Directors may only
remove Superintendent for cause and terminate this AGREEMENT pursuant
to Section 10-1080 and 11-1122 of the Public School.
(a) Due Process. The Superintendent shall, throughout the term of
this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract for valid and just
cause for reasons specified under Section 11-1122 of the Public School Code.
However, the Board of School Directors shall not arbitrarily and capriciously
call for her dismissal without first providing the Superintendent with written
charges, adequate notice of a hearing, a fair and impartial hearing, all
elements of due process, and the right to appeal to a court of competent
jurisdiction. Notice of the hearing must be in writing and sent by certified
mail to the Superintendent and each member of the Board of School Directors
at least three (3) week prior to the hearing. Removal shall only be proper after
a hearing followed by a two thirds (6 members of a 9 member board) vote of
the Board of School Directors for removal.
(b) Termination for Cause. The Superintendent shall, throughout the
term of this AGREEMENT, be subject to termination of contract for valid
and just cause for the following reasons specified under Section 11-1122 of the
Public School Code:
(1) The only valid causes for termination of a contract heretofore
or hereafter entered into with a professional employee shall be
immorality, incompetency, intemperance, cruelty, persistent negligence,
mental derangement, advocation of or participating in un-American or
subversive doctrines, persistent and willful violation of the school laws
of this Commonwealth on the part of the professional employee:
Provided, That boards of school directors may terminate the service of
any professional employee who has attained to the age of sixty-two
except a professional employee who is a member of the old age and
survivors insurance system pursuant to the provisions of the act,
approved the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred fifty-six
(Pamphlet Laws 1973). In such case the board may terminate the
service of any such professional employee at the age of sixty-five or at
the age at which the employee becomes eligible to receive full benefits
under the Federal Social Security Act.
11
62.
outvoted 6-3.
63.
Pennlive.com
in
the
comments
section
under
the
screen
name
moderatecommonsense:
Our attorneys are all over this, we only need 5 votes to fire her. State law
takes precedent over this or any boards actions, so no worries there.
Rawls, Edwards, Karl along with our two other allies on the board means
Dr. K should get her resume ready, we are firing you. DelG you will soon
follow Fuller and Butler so you might as well just resign you have
absolutely no chance of being reelected next time you run.
12
65.
and Sussman, appeared uninvited with Rawls and Sussman at the STSD
administration building with multiple reporters and cameras.
68.
At all times relevant hereto, Keisling was counsel for Defendants Rawls
Attorney Keisling had announced his intention to file but had not yet filed. Attorney
Keisling was aware Dr. Kegerise was represented by counsel.
13
70.
Kegerise was his client and Keisling may not speak to her, Keisling ignored this
demand and continued to yell at Dr. Kegerise in a loud and aggressive tone.
71.
him, and later made such false accusation to the assembled media.
72.
and Defendant Karl was elected for the first time to the STSD Board.
74.
the Civil Action Complaint that they had announced a month earlier. Rawls and
Sussmans Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, naming the Susquehanna Township School Board of
Directors, the Susquehanna Township School District and Plaintiff as defendants.
(See Rawls and Sussmans Complaint, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit D).
75.
On January 15, 2014, Solicitor for the School District, King Spry, sent
Attorney Keisling a Rule 11 Letter indicating they would be filing for sanctions due
to the frivolity of the Complaint filed by Rawls and Sussman. (See King Spry letter,
attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E).
14
76.
Plaintiffs resignation.
80.
attorney, Attorney Keisling, a letter indicating Dr. Kegerise would be filing for
sanctions due to the frivolity of the Amended Complaint filed by Rawls and
Sussman. (See February 7, 2014 correspondence, attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit H).
15
81.
they were withdrawing their suit because the reasons for filing this action have been
corrected as a result of community and media interest in this case and recent events.
(See March 4, 2014, Pennlive.com article, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit I).
84.
Keisling brought members of the media to a community meeting with a local realtor.
85.
It is believed and therefore averred that the purpose of the meeting was
Township have increased at a greater rate than neighboring Lower Paxton Township
and Dauphin County as a whole, the meeting promptly ended.
Dr. Kegerise was not present for the meeting due to attendance at a conference.
Pursuant to common procedure, a non-attorney representative was sent in her
stead.
16
87.
text or photograph.
89.
concluded that the STSD Administration did not violate any laws. (See Grand Jury
Report, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit J).
91.
commissioned by the STSD Board to launch yet another investigation into the
Administrations handling of the Sharkey matter, after the administrations original
investigation, law enforcements investigation, and the Dauphin County District
Attorneys Grand Jury Investigation.
92.
instituted by the STSD Board into the handling of the Sharkey matter, is a witch hunt
in order to find some minimally plausible cause to terminate Dr. Kegerise.
93.
Since hiring Dr. Kegerise, the STSD Board has violated policies
enacted by the Board in an attempt to usurp Dr. Kegerises authority within the
District and prevent her from performing her duties as Superintendent.
17
Exhibit K).
b. STSD Board Policy 304 allows the Administration to hire staff for
continuity of educational services, prior to Board approval; however,
the Board has applied this policy arbitrarily and capriciously by
periodically not allowing the administration to hire non-administrative
positions between board meetings and without prior board approval.
(See Policy 304, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit L).
c. STSD Board Policy 903 outlines procedure for public participation at
Board Meetings, which the current School Board does not follow in
order to hinder undermine the administration and its effectiveness. For
example, Defendants have individually and collectively disregarded
this policy by allowing and/or encouraging members of the public to
speak about confidential personnel issues, display signs and disrupt
speakers. (See Policy 903, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit M).
d. On April 11, 2014, the Board and Solicitor met with Assistant
Superintendent Taschner to post an employment position opening for a
18
new position within the School District. Per Board Policy, only the
Superintendent can recommend new positions within the STSD.
e. As of April 15, 2014, the School Board has appointed a committee
consisting of Defendants Rawls and Sussman, as well as Board
President John Dietrich, for the sole purpose of conducting interviews
and hiring of a District Business Manager.
f. Hiring is a function of the Administration.
94.
Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the STSD took the position that
Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School District and was simply on leave
pursuant to a Doctors note. (See April 16, 2014, correspondence from Attorney
McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit N).
96.
sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion due to her
qualifying condition.
97.
On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint in the instant
case.
19
98.
As of April 21, 2014, the Board had not been served with Plaintiffs
initial Complaint.
99.
On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute addition to the agenda
halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the acceptance of Plaintiffs
Resignation, and did vote in the affirmative.
100. As a result of the vote, Defendant STSD ceased paying Plaintiff her
contractual salary and stopped providing benefits, retroactive to April 17, 2014.
101. At no time did Plaintiff tender resignation for the Board to accept.
102. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff merely petitioning the
government for redress of her grievances was wrongfully construed as a resignation
of her position with the STSD.
103. Additionally, confusingly, single correspondence dated April 22, 2014
from STSD Solicitor Jeffrey B. Engle, Esquire, both memorializes the acceptance of
the resignation and indicates Plaintiff was terminated for breach of contract.
([P]ursuant to the contract with the Board, [Plaintiff] breached the terms of the
contract and failed to provide sixty (60) days notice.).
104. Plaintiff has never formally resigned from her position.
105. Plaintiff has not breached her contract with the STSD to warrant
termination.
20
106. STSD never afforded Plaintiff a due process hearing in relation to her
employment at STSD.
107. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania School Code, the only mechanism for
removal of a Superintendent is a due process hearing with prior notice. 24 P.S. 101080.
108. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Mandamus in the Dauphin County Court
of Common Pleas, docketed at 2014-CV-3793-CV on April 24, 2014.
109. On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in Mandamus
in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.
110. On October 16, 2014, a Trial on the Complaint in Mandamus was held
in front of the Honorable Judge William Tully in the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County.
111. As a result of the Trial on the Complaint in Mandamus, an Order was
entered on November 5, 2014 in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas
reinstating Plaintiff to her position as Superintendent of the Susquehanna Township
School District. (See Order dated November 5, 2014, attached as Exhibit O).
112. At 6:45 a.m. on November 7, 2014, Plaintiff returned to work in her
capacity as Superintendent at the Susquehanna Township School District.
113. In its November 5, 2014, Order and supporting Opinion, the Dauphin
County Court of Common Pleas found that Plaintiff:
21
COUNT I
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD
CONSTRUCTIVE TERMINATION
(Count Dismissed by January 7, 2015 Order of Court)
22
COUNT II
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD, Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. 1983
118.
119.
42 U.S.C. 1983 states, every person who, under color of any statute,
23
25
reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post
judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT III
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD
BREACH OF CONTRACT
132.
133.
including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract, and (3)
resultant damages. Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683, 692 (Pa. Super. 2002).
134. The termination of Plaintiff from her employment as Superintendent by
STSD has breached her employment contract by depriving Plaintiff of the privileges
and immunities of the position of Superintendent.
135. The employment contract between Dr. Kegerise and STSD provides for
notice and hearing prior to a vote on termination for misconduct.
136. On April 21, 2014, Defendants violated the explicit mandates of the
employment contract between Plaintiff and STSD by terminating Plaintiff for cause
without written notice of alleged misconduct and failing to provide a fair and
impartial adjudication hearing.
137. On April 21, 2014, Defendants violated the explicit mandates of the
employment contract between Plaintiff and STSD by terminating Plaintiff by a five
26
(5) vote majority rather than the six (6) voter supermajority previously agreed to by
the Board upon approval of the contract.
138. Due to Defendants breach, Dr. Kegerise has incurred irreparable
damage to professional reputation, loss of future employment, loss of earning
capacity, plus costs and attorneys fees, for which Plaintiff is entitled to be
compensated.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against STSD damages in excess
of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and economic
damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other emoluments of
employment, consequential damages, including damage to professional reputation
and loss of future salary as an educational administrator, punitive or exemplary
damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment
and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary
and proper.
COUNT IV
Dr. Kegerise v. Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
139.
140.
147. The actions of Defendants Karl, Rawls, and Sussman did collaterally
harm the contractual relationship because Plaintiff is unable to fulfil contractual
duties to STSD due to Defendants creation of a hostile, threatening work place and
their efforts to undermine and sabotage district image and administration
performance, such that the relationship was breached by STSD on April 21, 2014.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Karl, Rawls,
and Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000), including
compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17,
2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including
damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational
administrator, punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other
further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT V
Dr. Kegerise v. Rawls
DEFAMATION
(Count Dismissed by January 7, 2015 Order of Court)
COUNT VI
Dr. Kegerise v. Karl and Rawls
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
29
COUNT VII
Dr. Kegerise v. Rawls, Sr. and Sussman
WRONGFUL USE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
UNDER 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8351, et. seq.
148. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by reference.
149. A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation
of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful
use of civil proceedings:
(1) He acts in a grossly negligent manner or without
probable cause and primarily for the a purpose other
than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of
parties, or adjudication of the claim in which the
proceedings are based; and
(2) The proceedings have terminated in favor of the person
against whom they are brought.
42 Pa.C.S.A. 8351(a).
150. On October 31, 2013, mere days prior to the November 5th elections for
School Board Members, Defendants Rawls and Sussman announced their intent to
30
file a Civil Action Complaint against STSD, the Board, and Dr, Kegerise seeking to
void the Superintendents contract.
151. Defendants Rawls and Sussman did not file their Complaint until
November 25, 2013.
152. On January 21, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman filed an
Amended Complaint in the Middle District naming only Dr. Kegerise as a
Defendant.
153. Thereafter, on March 4, 2014, Defendants Rawls and Sussman
discontinued their lawsuit against Dr. Kegerise without any type of settlement.
154. It is believed and therefore averred that the initiation of Defendant
Rawls and Sussmans Federal Suit against Dr. Kegerise was for an improper
purpose.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Rawls and
Sussman for damages in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including
compensatory and economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17,
2014 and other emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including
damage to professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational
administrator, punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable
attorneys fees and costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other
further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
31
COUNT VIII
Dr. Kegerise v. Susquehanna Township School District
Violation of Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 2601, et. seq.
Retaliatory Termination
155. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by reference.
156. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C.A. 2601, et.
seq., states in pertinent part that it shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere
with restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided
for under this chapter. 29 U.S.C.A. 2615(a)(1).
157. Additionally, the FMLA provides it shall be unlawful for any person
to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual because such
individualhas filed any charge, or has instituted or caused to be instituted any
proceeding, under or related to this subchapter. 29 U.S.C.A. 2615(b)(1).
158. An employer may not retaliate against any employee for having
exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights. Budhun v. Reading Hosp. & Med.
Ctr., 765 F.3d 245, 256 (3d Cir. 2014)(quoting C.F.R. 825.220(c).
159. In order to obtain relief under the FMLA, a plaintiff must show (1) she
invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse
employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to her
invocation of rights. Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294,
302 (3d Cir. 2012).
32
160. Plaintiff was on leave from her position for health related reasons
beginning on March 24, 2014.
161. In fact, the STSD School Board released a statement to the public
telling the public that Plaintiff was on leave from her position.
162. Moreover, on April 16, 2014, undersigned counsel received
correspondence from Attorney Michael McAuliffe Miller, indicating the STSD took
the position that Plaintiff still was the Superintendent of the School District and was
simply on leave pursuant to a Doctors note. (See April 16, 2014, correspondence
from Attorney McAuliffe Miller, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit N).
163. Moreover, in the same correspondence, it was relayed the District had
sent Plaintiff Family and Medical Leave Paperwork for completion due to her
qualifying condition.
164. Pursuant to STSD practice, it was known to all parties that Plaintiff
would exhaust sick leave prior to taking FMLA leave time.
165. However, On April 21, 2014, the Board, as a last minute addition to the
agenda halfway through the board meeting, voted to approve the acceptance of
Plaintiffs Resignation.
166. At no time did Plaintiff tender resignation for the Board to accept.
167. Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiffs employment knowing she
would soon be taking FMLA leave.
33
34
172. Therefore, the STSD has violated Plaintiffs First Amendment right to
Petition the Government by retaliating against her and terminating her employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages
in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and
economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other
emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including damage to
professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational administrator,
punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, violation of FMLA and retaliatory
discharge, Violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment Right to Petition the
Government, and such other further relief as may be just, necessary and proper.
COUNT X
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD, Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 20 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION
173. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by reference.
174. Article 1 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, the citizens
have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble together for their common good,
and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of
grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance.
35
175. Plaintiff has exercised her right by filing the initial Complaint in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania to redress her grievances she has encountered.
176. After filing her initial Complaint, the STSD attempted to incorrectly
characterize her lawsuit as a resignation and/or a breach of her contract.
177. Therefore, the STSD has violated Article 1 20 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution to Petition the Government by retaliating against her and terminating
her employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for damages
in excess of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00), including compensatory and
economic damages for loss of contractual salary since April 17, 2014 and other
emoluments of employment, consequential damages, including damage to
professional reputation and loss of future salary as an educational administrator,
punitive or exemplary damages, reimbursement of all reasonable attorneys fees and
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may
be just, necessary, and proper.
COUNT XI
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD, Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.
2000e, et seq. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
178. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by reference.
36
179. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides:
it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individuals race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin;
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for
employment in any way which would deprive or tend to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because
of such individuals race, color, sex, or national origin.
180. A plaintiff must show that (1) (s)he is a member of a protected class;
(2) he was qualified for the position (s)he held or sought; (3) (s)he suffered an
adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated persons who are not members
of the protected class were treated more favorably, or that the circumstances of
termination give rise to an inference of discrimination. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila.,
198 F.3d 403, 410-11 (3d Cir. 1999).
181. STSD uses a sophisticated, established merit selection system (the
rubric) for the hiring of teachers and administrators.
182. The rubric for hiring uses a three (3) step system to assign points to job
applicants.
183. The rubric awards points for factors such as certifications, work
experience, education level, job related skills, interview performance and references.
37
184. Defendant Rawls has publically and privately advocated for, even
demanded, the hiring of minority teachers and administrators, even expressing that
STSD should hire more Black males because the Superintendent is Caucasian.
185. Defendant Rawls has demanded that he be permitted to take job
applicant resumes and other application documents home with him for review.
186. On or about May 13, 2010, when allowed to review applicant resume
and documents but not permitted to take them home due to privacy concerns,
Defendant Rawls, a former college wrestler, became visibly angry and verbally and
physically threatened Dr. Kegerise. Defendant Rawls only relented upon realizing
two (2) witnesses to his conduct were present.
187. On or about May 27, 2010, Defendant Rawls voted against the hiring
of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Cathy Taschner, citing his belief that an AfricanAmerican should have been hired for the position instead.
188. On or about November 19, 2012, Defendant Rawls voted against the
hiring of an assistant principal, citing insufficient information about the applicant.
189. Following the introduction of the assistant principal to the Board at a
subsequent meeting, Defendant Rawls became visibly angry upon observing the man
to be African-American and yelled at Plaintiff I should know [the applicants race]
ahead of time.
38
costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest, and such other further relief as may
be just, necessary, and proper.
COUNT XII
Dr. Kegerise v. STSD, Karl, Rawls, and Sussman
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.
2000e, et seq. SEX DISCRIMINATION
195. The preceding averments are incorporated herein by reference.
196. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) provides:
it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an
employer
(3) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin;
(4) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or
applicants for employment in any way which would
deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect his status as an employee, because of such
individuals race, color, sex, or national origin.
197. Defendant Rawls, as a member of the STSD School Board, has
stated to Plaintiff that she would pave the way for an African American male
to be hired as Superintendent.
40
41
Respectfully Submitted,
ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP
Date: February 12, 2015
__/s/________________
Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire
Attorney ID #80411
2 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-0900
JPK@abomkutulakis.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
42
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
COMMUNITY
TITLE:
SCHOOL VISITORS
ADOPTED:
REVISED:
The Board welcomes and encourages interest in district educational programs and
other school-related activities. The Board recognizes that such interest may result in
visits to school by parents/guardians, adult residents, educators and other officials.
To ensure order in the schools and to protect students and employees, it is necessary
for the Board to establish policy governing school visits.
2. Delegation of
Responsibility
The Superintendent or designee and building principal have the authority to prohibit
the entry of any individual to a district school, in accordance with Board guidelines
and state and federal law and regulations.
The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative regulations to
implement this policy and control access to school buildings and school classrooms.
3. Guidelines
Persons wishing to visit a school should make arrangements in advance with the
school office in that building.
Upon arrival at the school, all visitors must report to the school office and register
their presence in the building.
A visitors badge will be issued to guests to be worn throughout the visit. Prior to
leaving the building, the visitor should return to the office and indicate his/her
departure.
Notice of this requirement shall be posted on entrances to the building.
All staff members shall be responsible for requiring a visitor demonstrate that s/he
has registered at the school office and received authorization to be present for the
purpose of conducting business.
No visitor may confer with a student in school without the approval of the principal.
Should an emergency require that a student be called to the school office to meet a
visitor, the principal or designee shall be present during the meeting.
Page 1 of 3
Failure to comply with this policy shall result in more limited access to the school as
determined by the building principal, consistent with Board policies, administrative
regulations, school rules and federal and state law and regulations.
A person who enters or remains on school property without authorization may be
charged with trespassing.
Pol. 709
All schools shall be monitored by video surveillance equipment for the purpose of
maintaining security.
Classroom Visitations
SC 510
Title 22
Sec. 14.108
Parents/Guardians may request to visit their childs classroom, but the request must
be made prior to the visit, in accordance with established administrative regulations.
The building principal or program supervisor must grant prior approval for the visit,
and shall notify the classroom teacher prior to the visit.
Parents/Guardians shall be limited to one (1) class period per month, per child in the
school for classroom visitations, in order to minimize disruption of the classroom
schedule and the educational program. Parental participation in classroom activities
or programs such as room parents, back-to-school events, and chaperones for field
trips shall not constitute a classroom visit for purposes of this policy.
The building principal or program supervisor and classroom teacher have the
authority to ask a visitor to leave if the visitor disrupts the classroom routine,
educational program or daily schedule, or if a visitor violates Board policy. Failure
to leave when asked or repeated, documented disruptions may result in loss of
classroom visitation privileges.
Under exceptional circumstances and upon request of the building principal,
program supervisor, classroom teacher or parent/guardian, the Superintendent or
designee may authorize additional or longer classroom visits by a parent/guardian.
Military Personnel
24 P.S.
Sec. 2402
Pol. 250
Members of the active and retired Armed Forces, including the National Guard and
Reserves, shall be permitted to:
1. Visit and meet with district employees and students when such visit is in
compliance with Board policy and district procedures.
2. Wear official military uniforms while on district property.
Page 2 of 3
Pol. 002
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 510
State Board of Education Regulations 22 PA Code Sec. 14.108
Military Visitors 24 P.S. Sec. 2402
Board Policy 000, 002, 250, 709
Page 3 of 3
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
11of
of129
29
of 29
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
22of
of229
29
of 29
Constitution, and also violates federal and state law and in support thereof, aver the
following:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Kegerise have entered into an employment contract (Contract) and that its terms,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement violate Plaintiffs rights under the
Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
violates the Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101 (Act). A
true and correct copy of the Contract is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
2.
enforcement, violates:
a.
Act and the Contract expressly cedes to Dr. Kegerise powers, duties, and
responsibilities conferred upon the Board under state law, in violation of the Act,
Plaintiffs constitutional rights, and the Delegation Doctrine.
2
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
33of
of329
29
of 29
4.
superintendent of STSD. Dr. Kegerise is being sued in her official and individual
capacities.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
44of
of429
29
of 29
subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
11.
because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
THE FACTS
14.
Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half
years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
4
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
55of
of529
29
of 29
16.
power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested
in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of
this AGREEMENT. (Emphasis added.)
17.
and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the
District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of
School Directors as appropriate.
18.
Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful
direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers,
residents, and taxpayers.
19.
employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf
and with her knowledge and approval.
20.
and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled
monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings
Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.
5
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
66of
of629
29
of 29
21.
front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and
always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.
22.
held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board
meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High
School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those
related to this litigation.
23.
STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the
front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out
for intimidation.
24.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
77of
of729
29
of 29
26.
Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.
Kegerise by STSD.
27.
on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal
attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any
special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and
demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February
22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
29.
as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both
privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr.
Rawls.
30.
Kegerise, and STSD Solicitor Paul Blunt, and informed them that in response to an
inquiry from a reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the
board was taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations,
7
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
88of
of829
29
of 29
Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you
Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this
correct?
33.
school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails
violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually
interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr.
Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
35.
and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and
with her knowledge and approval.
8
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
99of
of929
29
of 29
36.
claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in
private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is
appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
38.
midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following
Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortuously [sic] interfering with
Dr. Kegerises Contract.
40.
repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true
May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.
9
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
10
10of
10
of29
29
of 29
and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2
41.
In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written
correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately
retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on
the written correspondence.
42.
with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as
the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by
midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.
43.
Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his
personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly
with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be
provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material
breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.
It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email
when it clearly was written after.
10
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
11
11of
11
of29
29
of 29
same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made
public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted
that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,
specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must
cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to
Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit G.
45.
Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about
Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not
use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students,
teachers, taxpayers, and residents.
47.
relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
11
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
12
12of
12
of29
29
of 29
48.
51.
12
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
13
13of
13
of29
29
of 29
53.
explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would
be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their
elected positions.
54.
they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or
speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.
55.
13
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
14
14of
14
of29
29
of 29
communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address -schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board
members.
58.
email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the
message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration
may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding
to the School Board.
59.
sent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to
send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account
information or passwords necessary to access the official account.
14
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
15
15of
15
of29
29
of 29
61.
Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send
emails from it.
62.
Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,
sent an email to schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org to ask a question related to a
criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs
handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant
principal at Susquehanna Township High School and an enrolled student (the
Sharkey Matter). A true and correct transcription of the Wiener emails
referenced here and in the following Paragraphs is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit H.
63.
64.
members.
even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two
Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark
Sussman.
65.
Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
16
16of
16
of29
29
of 29
66.
which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.
72.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
17
17of
17
of29
29
of 29
not been sent to the [members] of the board, and I am still unsure if [it] has been as
of today. I have the right to have my question answered. See Exhibit H appended
hereto.
74.
acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise
and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or
any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I
believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a
response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?] (Emphasis
added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
76.
the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires;
and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of
17
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
18
18of
18
of29
29
of 29
any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim.
(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
78.
Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had
previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to
District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.
79.
18
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
19
19of
19
of29
29
of 29
83.
85.
session of the board immediately prior to the public meeting where it was adopted.
86.
Contract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted on.
87.
Dr. Kegerise, Blunt was quoted in local media defining his own role as limited to
reviewing the draft document to insure that it had the changes mandated by the
new law.
90.
that to date, my involvement has been limited to reviewing one draft contract
presented to me by Mike Ferguson prior to his presentation of it to Sue and
[Kutulakis].
19
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
20
20of
20
of29
29
of 29
91.
Contract contains numerous provisions that conflict with the express language of
the Act.
92.
and assistant district superintendents may be removed from office and have their
contracts terminated, after hearing, by a majority vote of the board of school
directors of the district, for neglect of duty, incompetency, intemperance, or
immorality 24 P.S. 10-1080.
94.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
21
21of
21
of29
29
of 29
97.
references 11-1122 of the Act as grounds for termination, even though 11-1122
applies only to professional employees.
98.
21
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
22
22of
22
of29
29
of 29
filing Dr. Kegerise, who controls what information is posted on the website, has
refused to comply.
101. Section 10-1073.1(b) of the Act states: The board of school
directors shall conduct a formal written performance assessment of the district
superintendent and assistant district superintendent annually. A time frame for the
assessment shall be included in the contract. 24 P.S. 10-1073.1.
102. Section 7.01 of the Contract calls for an annual performance
assessment of the Superintendent, however the only rating categories allowed
under the Contract are exemplary, good and satisfactory.
103. An exemplary rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 5% stipend, a
good rating entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 3% stipend and a satisfactory rating
entitles Dr. Kegerise to a 2% stipend.
104. It is believed and therefore averred that the performance bonus
is classified as a stipend in order to avoid calculating the bonus as income which
would subject the bonus to contributions by Dr. Kegerise and STSD to the
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System.
105. Section 7.01 of the Contract states that in the event no annual
performance review is conducted, Dr. Kegerise is entitled to the 5% bonus for
exemplary performance.
22
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
23
23of
23
of29
29
of 29
23
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
24
24of
24
of29
29
of 29
24
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
25
25of
25
of29
29
of 29
25
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
26
26of
26
of29
29
of 29
COUNT II
Declaratory Judgment Action to Declare the Employment Contract Void
as Violative of The Public School Code of 1949, as amended, 24 P.S. 1-101
Plaintiffs v. All Defendants
127. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
128. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and
enforcement, is the vehicle through which Plaintiffs and others constitutional
rights have been repeatedly violated.
129. As stated more fully above, sections of the Contract violate
express language of the Act as follows:
a.
10-1080(a); and
b.
24 P.S. 5-514.
130. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and
enforcement violates 24 P.S. 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) which requires that the Contract
state the salary conferred upon a superintendent such as Dr. Kegerise.
131. Notwithstanding a Severability Clause included in the
Contract at Section 15.00, the Contract cannot be modified because in addition to
the express terms of the Contract which violate applicable law, the interpretation,
26
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
27
27of
27
of29
29
of 29
b.
the Board;
27
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
28
28of
28
of29
29
of 29
c.
d.
Case
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ
3:02-at-06000 Document
Document
Document
1370
39-4
1 Filed
Filed
Filed
11/25/13
11/25/13
02/27/15
Page
Page
Page
29
29of
29
of29
29
of 29
B.
C.
F.
29
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1 of
1 of
2424
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
DR. SUSAN KEGERISE,
Defendant
1:13-CV-02867-JEJ
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN
(collectively Plaintiffs) hereby bring the following action against DR. SUSAN
KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively Defendants) to enjoin Defendant
from violating Plaintiffs rights under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitutional rights, and in support thereof, aver the following:
INTRODUCTION
1.
violated their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2 of
2 of
2424
3.
constitutional and statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and
laws of the United States and Pennsylvania.
4.
superintendent of STSD.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
2
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
3 of
3 of
2424
9.
because all parties are residents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
THE FACTS
11.
Contract with Dr. Kegerise to extend her term as Superintendent four and one-half
years, through June 30, 2017 (Contract). A true and correct copy of the Contract
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
13.
power, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and invested
in each respective party by the laws and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania save for any power or rights limited by the express terms of
this AGREEMENT. (Emphasis added.)
14.
and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the
3
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
4 of
4 of
2424
Section 4.02 has been interpreted and enforced to prevent and interfere with lawful
direct communication between elected Directors and parents, students, teachers,
residents, and taxpayers.
16.
employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf
and with her knowledge and approval.
17.
and September 2013, Kutulakis attended most, if not all, of the regularly scheduled
monthly meetings of the Board. Discovery will show the exact number of meetings
Kutulakis attended on Kegerises behalf.
18.
front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and
always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.
19.
held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board
meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
5 of
5 of
2424
STSD stakeholders and other interested people. Nonetheless, Kutulakis sat in the
front row directly across from Rawls, Sr. in an apparent attempt to single him out
for intimidation.
21.
Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.
Kegerise by STSD.
24.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
6 of
6 of
2424
25.
on behalf of and with the knowledge of Dr. Kegerise in his role of personal
attorney, insisted of the Board President that you retract your appointment of any
special counsel, make a determination that this investigation is fruitless and
demand a public apology from Jesse Rawls at the next School Board meeting. A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Ferguson dated February
22, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
26.
as a formal demand to take all actions necessary to support Dr. Kegerise both
privately and publicly against the relentless attacks and accusations made by Mr.
Rawls.
27.
Kegerise, and Blunt, and informed them that in response to an inquiry from a
reporter for the Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter about whether the board was
taking any action regarding Dr. Kegerise and Mr. Rawls' allegations, Ferguson
stated that it would inappropriate for me to say anything. I would implore you to
do the same. Paul-[Blunt,] please confirm my assessment.
28.
Blunt replied via email stating [y]es I agree. Also should you
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
7 of
7 of
2424
29.
Kegerise stating I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this
correct?
30.
school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails
violated Dr. Kegerises contract and that Mr. Sussman and Mr. Rawls continually
interfere with the contractual obligations between the School District and Dr.
Kegerise and this must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
32.
and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and
with her knowledge and approval.
33.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
8 of
8 of
2424
34.
claimed that Sussman violated the Contract in part because Sussman stated in
private conversations that teachers are afraid and students are out of control[.]A
true and correct copy of the Kutulakis email to Sussman dated May 18, 2013 is
appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D.
35.
midnight on Saturday, May 19, 2013 1, litigation would be initiated the following
Monday due to Kutulakis view that Sussman was tortiously interfering with Dr.
Kegerises Contract.
37.
repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true
and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to Sussman dated May 17, 2013
is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 2
May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.
The email dated May 18, 2013, stated that formal correspondence would follow.
It is unclear why the written correspondence was dated one day before the email
when it clearly was written after.
8
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
9 of
9 of
2424
38.
In both the email dated May 18, 2013, and the written
correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis insisted that Sussman immediately
retract in writing the comments made by Sussman and that Kutulakis be copied on
the written correspondence.
39.
with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as
the Districts Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by
midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.
40.
Rawls, Sr. and complained that Rawls, Sr. indicated he desired to have his
personal email made public so residents of the district may communicate directly
with him about their concerns. All complaints or concerns are required to be
provided to the administration, specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material
breach of her contract and must cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the
Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.
41.
same letter, complaining again that Rawls, Sr. wanted his personal email made
public so he could communicate directly with residents. Kutulakis again asserted
that [a]ll complaints or concerns are required to be provided to the administration,
9
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1010
of of
2424
specifically Dr. Kegerise. Again, this is a material breach of her contract and must
cease immediately. A true and correct copy of the Kutulakis correspondence to
Sussman dated March 1, 2013 is appended hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit G.
42.
Sussman did not know why Kutulakis was writing him about
Rawls conduct, but he believed that Kutulakis was warning him that he better not
use his personal email address for communicating with STSD parents, students,
teachers, taxpayers, and residents.
44.
relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.
45.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1111
of of
2424
48.
explained to Plaintiffs what activities Board members could engage in that would
be constitutionally protected or otherwise protected under the immunity of their
elected positions.
51.
they may communicate with STSD stakeholders if it is clear they are not acting or
speaking on behalf of the entire Board or other Board members.
11
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1212
of of
2424
52.
communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address -schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board
members.
12
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1313
of of
2424
55.
email address, mail is sent to the District's Superintendent, who then forwards the
message to all members of the school board. A member of District Administration
may reply to the sender for additional information or feedback prior to forwarding
to the School Board.
56.
sent to the official school board email address, nor have they been shown how to
send emails from the official address. Plaintiffs are not privy to the account
information or passwords necessary to access the official account.
58.
Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send
emails from it.
59.
Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,
sent an email to schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org to ask a question related to a
criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSDs
handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant
13
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1414
of of
2424
61.
members.
even an acknowledgement of his email dated October 1, 2013, Wiener called two
Board members whom he knew personally, Kathy DelGrande and Plaintiff Mark
Sussman.
62.
Both Board members told Wiener that the email he sent one
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1515
of of
2424
66.
which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.
69.
15
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1616
of of
2424
72.
acknowledgement to his two previous emails, Wiener again emailed Dr. Kegerise
and School Board Members, stating: I still have not received a reply from you or
any other school board member to my email that was sent on October 1st. I
believe that it is very unprofessional to not even dignify my question with a
response. Is there another avenue I should explore to get a reply[?]
(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
73.
the newspaper, the District handled the Sharkey matter exactly as the law requires;
and there were no reports or allegations by anyone to District employees of
any inappropriate relationship between Mr. Sharkey and the alleged victim.
(Emphasis added.) See Exhibit H appended hereto.
75.
Blunt made this false assertion despite the fact that he had
previously acknowledged in the media that four teachers had reported the issue to
District employees some six months before Wiener sent his email.
76.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1717
of of
2424
emails and it is unknown whether Wieners second and third emails were ever
disseminated to all Board members, despite the facts that they were addressed to
the Board and sent to the official Board email address.
77.
undersigned counsel, complaining that Plaintiff Rawls had placed a telephone call
to Kegerise, and that Kegerise would not accept any further calls from Rawls,
notwithstanding that a school district superintendent works for the school board. A
true and correct copy of the December 17, 2013 correspondence is incorporated
herein and appended hereto as Exhibit I.
81.
correspondence, Rawls had not placed any call to Kegerise for at least 6 weeks
prior to the correspondence.
17
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1818
of of
2424
82.
supporting authority that the contents of the letter may not be used in litigation
except to enforce the directive contained herein. See Exhibit I.
83.
Common Pleas for Dauphin County against Plaintiffs Rawls and Sussman
requesting emergency injunctive relief.
84.
A true and correct copy of the Complaint seeking injunctive relief is incorporated
herein and appended hereto as Exhibit J.
86.
on the floor and told Taylor to pick them up, Taylor told undersigned counsel I
told Jason twice that it never happened, I dont know why he put that in the
complaint.
18
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
1919
of of
2424
88.
verifying that the statements contained therein were true and correct subject to the
penalties for unsworn falsification.
90.
19
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2020
of of
2424
95.
their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD
parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.
96.
teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected
School Board members, including Plaintiffs.
97.
contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional
violations be stopped.
99.
violations continue.
100. Dr. Kegerise is liable for her actions and omissions and the
actions and omissions of those acting on her behalf, both in her individual and
official capacities.
101. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerises actions or
inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First
Amendment rights of free speech.
20
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2121
of of
2424
COUNT II
Punitive Damages
Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity
103. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
104. At all times material hereto, Kegerise knew or should have
known that her conduct, as stated above and as will be further shown in discovery,
constituted a violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
105. Despite this, Kegerise acted willfully, recklessly, and/or
wantonly, either herself or through Kutulakis and others, to deprive the public at
large and Plaintiffs in particular of their First Amendment rights generally and
more specifically as follows:
a.
b.
c.
the Board;
21
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2222
of of
2424
d.
B.
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2323
of of
2424
C.
D.
E.
F.
23
Case
Case
1:14-cv-00747-WWC
1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10
39-6Filed
Filed
01/21/14
02/27/15Page
Page
2424
of of
2424
Certificate of Service
I, Bret Keisling, Esq. certify that on January 21, 2014, the foregoing
Amended Complaint was served on the following parties by electronic means at
the addresses listed below:
jef@kingspry.com
jpk@abomkutulakis.com
cek@abomkutulakis.com
_______________/s/_________________
Bret Keisling, Esq.
POLICY
PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
District residents, taxpayers and community groups have the right to present a request,
suggestion or complaint concerning District personnel, the program or the operations of
the District. At the same time, the Board has a duty to protect its staff from
harassment. It is the intent of this policy to provide a fair and impartial manner for
seeking appropriate remedies.
Any misunderstandings between the public and the School District shall be resolved by
direct discussions of an informal type among the interested parties. It is only when such
informal meetings fail to resolve the differences that more formal procedures will be
employed.
Any requests, suggestions or complaints reaching Board members and the Board shall
be referred to the Superintendent for consideration and action. In the event that further
action is warranted, based on the initial investigation, such action shall be in accordance
with the following procedures.
A.
First Level A matter specifically directed toward a teaching staff member shall be
addressed initially to the concerned staff member who may discuss it with the
complainant and make every effort to provide a reasoned explanation or take
appropriate action within his/her authority. As appropriate, the staff member shall
report the matter and whatever action may have been taken to the Building Principal.
Second Level If the matter cannot be satisfactorily resolved at the First Level, it shall
be discussed by the complainant with the Building Principal.
Third Level If a satisfactory solution is not achieved by discussion with the Building
Principal, the Principal shall attempt to schedule a conference with the appropriate
Assistant Superintendent or Assistant to the Superintendent. The Principal will
furnish to the appropriate Assistant Superintendent or Assistant to the
Superintendent a report which will include:
1.
The specific nature of the complaint and a brief statement of the facts giving rise
to it;
2.
The respect in which it is alleged that the complainant (or child of the
complainant) has been affected adversely; and
3.
The action which the complainant wishes taken and the reasons why it is felt that
such action should be taken.
The Board, after reviewing all material relating to the case, shall:
1.
2.
The complainant shall be advised, in writing, of the Boards decision, no more than
ten (10) days following the hearing.
B.
The complaint shall be discussed initially with the person toward whom it is directed
and, if a satisfactory resolution is not achieved at this level, the matter shall be
brought as required to higher levels in accordance with the Organizational Chart of
the District, terminating with the Board.
C.
D.
E.
The general procedures specified in Part A shall be followed for complaints relating
to student progress and well-being.
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
EMPLOYEES
TITLE:
EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT
STAFF
ADOPTED:
REVISED:
SC 406, 508,
1089, 1106,
1107, 11421152
Title 22
Sec. 4.4
Pol. 328
The Board places substantial responsibility for the effective management and
operation of district schools and the quality of the educational program with its
administrative, professional and support employees.
The Board shall, by a majority vote of all members, approve the employment; set the
compensation; and establish the term of employment for each administrative,
professional and support employee employed by the district.
No teacher shall be employed who is related to any member of the Board, as defined
in law, unless such teacher receives the affirmative vote of a majority of all members
of the Board other than the member related to the applicant, who shall not vote.
The Board authorizes the use of professional and support employees prior to Board
approval when necessary to maintain continuity of the educational program and
services. Retroactive employment shall be recommended to the Board at the next
regular Board meeting.
An employee's misstatement of fact material to qualifications for employment or
determination of salary shall constitute grounds for dismissal by the Board.
SC 1109, 1201
Title 22
Sec. 49.1 et seq
A candidate for employment in the district shall not receive a recommendation for
employment without evidence of his/her certification when such certification is
required.
Page 1 of 4
SC 111
Title 22
Sec. 8.1 et seq
23 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 6301 et seq
A candidate shall not be employed until s/he has complied with the mandatory
background check requirements for criminal history and child abuse and the district
has evaluated the results of that screening process.
SC 111
Each candidate shall report, on the designated form, arrests and convictions as
required by law. Failure to accurately report such arrests and convictions may,
depending on the nature of the offense, subject the individual to criminal
prosecution.
SC 1204.1
The district shall use the Standard Application for Teaching Positions but may also
establish and implement additional application requirements for professional
employees.
2. Delegation of
Responsibility
Pol. 104
42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12112
SC 1109, 1201
Title 22
Sec. 49.1 et seq
Title 22
Sec. 403.2, 403.4
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319, 7801
All elementary, middle and secondary teachers employed by the district who teach
core academic subjects shall be highly qualified, as defined by federal law and state
regulations.
Page 2 of 4
Title 22
Sec. 403.4, 403.5
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319, 7801
The principal of a school providing Title I programs to students shall annually attest
that professional staff teaching in such programs are highly qualified and
paraprofessionals providing instructional support in such programs meet required
qualification, in accordance with federal law and state regulations. The written
certifications shall be maintained in the district office and the school office and shall
be available to the public, upon request.
Title 22
Sec. 403.2, 403.5
20 U.S.C.
Sec. 6319
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
Pol. 113
All instructional paraprofessionals hired on or after July 1, 2010, who work under
the direction of a certificated staff member to support and assist in providing
instructional programs and services to students with disabilities or eligible students
shall have a secondary school diploma and one (1) of the following:
1. At least two (2) years of postsecondary study.
2. Associates or higher degree.
3. Evidence of meeting a rigorous standard of quality through a state or local
assessment.
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
Page 3 of 4
Personal care assistants shall provide evidence of twenty (20) hours of staff
development activities related to their assignment each school year. The twenty (20)
hours of training may include training required by the school-based access program.
Educational Interpreters
Title 22
Sec. 14.105
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 108, 111, 406, 508, 1089, 1106, 1107, 1109, 1109.2,
1111, 1142-1152, 1201, 1204.1
State Board of Education Regulations 22 PA Code Sec. 4.4, 8.1 et seq., 14.105,
49.1 et seq., 403.2, 403.4, 403.5
Criminal History Record Information Act 18 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 9125
Child Protective Services Law 23 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 6301 et seq.
No Child Left Behind Act 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6319, 7801
Americans With Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.
Board Policy 000, 104, 113, 328
Page 4 of 4
SUSQUEHANNA
TOWNSHIP
SCHOOL DISTRICT
SECTION:
COMMUNITY
TITLE:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN
BOARD MEETINGS
ADOPTED:
REVISED:
2. Authority
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710
The Board shall adopt policy to govern public participation in Board meetings
necessary to conduct its meeting and to maintain order.
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710.1
In order to permit fair and orderly expression of public comment, the Board shall
provide an opportunity at each open meeting of the Board for residents and
taxpayers to comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation before
the Board prior to official action by the Board.
The Board shall allow public comment on agenda items or other matters of
concern at the beginning of each meeting. Before taking official action on a
matter which is not on the agenda, an opportunity shall be provided for public
comment on that matter. Attendees at the Board meeting shall be requested to
sign in prior to the public meeting and may indicate their request to address the
Board on the sign-in sheet.
65 Pa. C.S.A.
Sec. 710.1
3. Delegation of
Responsibility
SC 407
Pol. 006
If the Board determines there is not sufficient time at a meeting for public
comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular meeting or to a
special meeting occurring before the next regular meeting.
The presiding officer at each public Board meeting shall follow Board policy for
the conduct of public meetings. Where his/her ruling is disputed, it may be
overruled by a majority of those Board members present and voting.
Page 1 of 3
Pol. 906
4. Guidelines
Page 2 of 3
References:
School Code 24 P.S. Sec. 407
Sunshine Act 65 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 701 et seq.
Board Policy 006, 906
Page 3 of 3