Susan Kegerise's amended lawsuit against Susquehanna Township School District, Karl, Rawls and Sussman

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 4 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 44












































Page 1 of 3

No. 907

SECTION: COMMUNITY

TITLE: SCHOOL VISITORS

ADOPTED: October 28, 2013

REVISED:

SUSQUEHANNA

TOWNSHIP

SCHOOL DISTRICT

907. SCHOOL VISITORS

1. Authority

SC 510

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 visitor’s 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.

Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 4-1 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 3

907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 2

Page 2 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 child’s 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.


907. SCHOOL VISITORS - Pg. 3

Page 3 of 3

Pol. 002 School Board Members And Other Officials

1. Persons wishing to visit a school shall make arrangements in advance with the

Superintendent.

2. The Superintendent or designee shall be notified of the building and the purpose

of the visit.

3. The Superintendent or designee shall accompany the visitor to the building on

the agreed upon day and time.

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




















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and : MARK Y. SUSSMAN : Plaintiffs, : : CIVIL ACTION v. :

: THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP : NO. SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, : THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL : DISTRICT and DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, : SUPERINTENDENT : OF THE SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP : SCHOOL DISTRICT IN HER OFFICIAL AND : INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES : Defendants :

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs JESSE RAWLS, SR. and MARK Y. SUSSMAN

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby bring the following action against the

SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL BOARD OF DIRECTORS (“Board”),

the SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT (STSD), and DR.

SUSAN KEGERISE, its superintendent (collectively “Defendants”) to enjoin

Defendants from violating Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights and to nullify an

Employment Contract (“Contract”) between the Board and Dr. Kegerise. Plaintiffs

contend that the terms, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the

Contract violates their rights under the First Amendment to the United States

Case 3:02-at-06000 Document 1370 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 29Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 29Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 4-4 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 29

2

Constitution, and also violates federal and state law and in support thereof, aver the

following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendants Board and Dr.

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. The Contract, by its terms, interpretation, implementation, and

enforcement, violates:

a. Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech under the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

b. Plaintiffs’ rights to perform their constitutional and

statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and laws of

the United States and Pennsylvania.

3. Express terms of the Contract violate the plain language of the

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.


3

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to nullify and declare invalid the

Contract, permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Contract, uphold

Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution and enjoin Defendants from

committing acts or omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory

rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to

STSD.

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD,

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Board is comprised of nine members elected by the

voters of Susquehanna Township.

8. Defendant STSD is the public school system for Susquehanna

Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

9. Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as

superintendent of STSD. Dr. Kegerise is being sued in her official and individual

capacities.


4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which conveys

subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

11. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a).

12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)

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. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant

superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act.

15. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new

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.


5

16. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all

“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. Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: “Criticisms, complaints,

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. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of

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. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been

employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf

and with her knowledge and approval.

20. It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013

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 Kegerise’s behalf.


6

21. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the

front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

22. Although public meetings of the School Board are normally

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. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of

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. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended

board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and

did so on Dr. Kegerise’s behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

25. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence

the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.


7

26. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff

Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.

Kegerise by STSD.

27. In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to

look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.

28. In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting

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. Further, Kutulakis stated “[p]lease accept this correspondence

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. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.

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,


8

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.”

31. Blunt replied via email stating “[y]es I agree. Also should you

choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.”

32. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.

Kegerise stating “I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this

correct?”

33. Several additional emails followed, including one where

Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township

High School athletic director.

34. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the

school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails

violated Dr. Kegerise’s 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. In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with

and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and

with her knowledge and approval.


9

36. Discovery will show whether other Board members or other

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.

37. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and

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. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify

the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

39. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by

midnight on Saturday, May 19, 20131, litigation would be initiated the following

Monday due to Kutulakis’ view that Sussman was “tortuously [sic] interfering with

Dr. Kegerise’s Contract.”

40. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis

repeated the demands and threats made in the email dated May 18, 2013. A true

1 May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence.


10

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. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide “Dr. Kegerise

with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as

the District’s Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.”

43. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

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

2 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.


11

Kutulakis correspondence to Rawls, Sr. dated March 4, 2013 is appended hereto

and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.

44. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the

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. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to

threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents,

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls,

Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him.

46. 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. As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the

relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.


12

48. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to

STSD.

49. In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized

the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contractual prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the first instance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents may make sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations’ roles. It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt.”

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.

50. The community survey was never undertaken.

51. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the

recipients’ constitutional and statutory rights.

52. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance

where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis’ attempts to interfere with Board

business or Board members’ activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of

the Board.


13

53. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt

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. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members

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. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact that Sue’s attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are well-founded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity to liability the law provides when they are acting within their role as Board members. When they are acting as individuals and not as members of the Board, they are subject to the same risk of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues in determining whether a Board member is acting as a Board member is whether their actions are in accordance with the advice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only protect individual Board members if and when their actions are authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing to disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . . Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or the District unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain board members] on behalf of the District and Board.

56. In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:


14

It has come to my attention that some of you attended a “community meeting” sponsored and organized by Peter Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-register effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attend any meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is ill-advised to attend such meetings precisely because it engenders the appearance and invites the assumption that you are representing the Board and District.

57. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to

communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address --

[email protected] -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board

members.

58. The official STSD website explains that “[w]hen using this

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. Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has

the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors

or even if an email will be disseminated.

60. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emails

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.


mailto:[email protected]

15

61. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other

Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send

emails from it.

62. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident

Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,

sent an email to [email protected] to ask a question related to a

criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSD’s

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. The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School Board

members.

64. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or

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

week prior had not been disseminated to the Board.



16

66. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any

member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.

67. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not

allowed to discuss the substance of the email.

68. Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to

threatening letters he had received from the Superintendent’s personal attorney,

Kutulakis, as well as legal “guidance” from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.

69. Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldn’t

discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wiener’s

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation

as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors.

70. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have

Wiener’s email disseminated to the Board.

71. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wiener’s email,

which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.

72. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute

Wiener’s email to the Board.

73. On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at

[email protected], stating in part “I was informed that the e-mail had



17

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. Despite Sussman’s email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise

that she distribute Wiener’s October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent

the second email.

75. On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or

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. Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt replied to

Wiener by email, referring to Wiener’s “repeated missives demanding

information.”

77. In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: “Contrary to reports by

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


18

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. At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this

Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wiener’s

emails and it is unknown whether Wiener’s 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.

80. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch

supporter of the superintendent and her administration.

81. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as

adversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

82. Board members who are perceived as favorable to the

Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those

Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.


19

83. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce

numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise.

84. The Contract was approved by a 6-3 vote of the School Board.

85. Plaintiffs first received a copy of the Contract at an executive

session of the board immediately prior to the public meeting where it was adopted.

86. Plaintiffs had approximately 37 minutes to review the proposed

Contract prior to the start of the meeting during which it would be voted on.

87. Plaintiffs voted against entering into the proposed Contract, as

did Board member John Dietrich.

88. Plaintiffs do not know which other Board members may have

received the proposed Contract before Plaintiffs did.

89. Although Kutulakis handled Contract negotiations on behalf of

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. In an email to the Board dated March 20, 2013, Blunt stated

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].”


20

91. Notwithstanding Blunt’s review of the draft document, the

Contract contains numerous provisions that conflict with the express language of

the Act.

92. Section 5-508 of the Act states in part:

The affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the board of school directors in every school district, duly recorded, showing how each member voted, shall be required in order to take action on the following subjects: . . . Appointing or dismissing district superintendents, assistant district superintendents, associate superintendents, principals, and teachers.

24 P.S. § 5-508. (Emphasis added.)

93. Section 10-1080(a) of the Act states: “District superintendents

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. Section 8.00(a) of the Contract states “[r]emoval 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.” (Emphasis added.)

95. Section 5-514 of the Act states:

The board of school directors in any school district, except as herein otherwise provided, shall after due notice, giving the reasons therefor, and after hearing if demanded, have the right at any time to remove any of its officers, employes, or


21

appointees for incompetency, intemperance, neglect of duty, violation of any of the school laws of this Commonwealth, or other improper conduct.

24 P.S. § 5-514.

96. Section 8.00(b)(1) of the Contract states:

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[.] (Emphasis added.)

97. The language contained in Section 8.00(b)(1) expressly

references §11-1122 of the Act as grounds for termination, even though §11-1122

applies only to professional employees.

98. Dr. Kegerise, as a superintendent, is not considered a

professional employee for purposes of §11-1122. See 24 P.S. § 11-1101.

99. Section 10-1073.1 (b.1) of the Act states: “[t]he board of school

directors shall post the mutually agreed to objective performance standards

contained in the contract on the school district's publicly accessible Internet

website.” 24 P.S. § 10-1073.1(b.1).

100. Plaintiffs have requested that the objective performance

standards be posted on the official STSD website; however, as of the date of this


22

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.


23

106. Since becoming superintendent in 2009, Dr. Kegerise has never

received an annual performance review, notwithstanding the fact that the annual

performance review is mandated by the Act.

107. Section 10-1073(e)(2)(iii) provides that the Contract between a

school district and its superintendent shall “[i]ncorporate all provisions relating to

compensation and benefits to be paid to or on behalf of the district superintendent

. . . .” 24 P.S. § 10-1073(e)(2)(iii).

108. STSD policy provides that a non-resident who attends STSD

shall pay tuition in the amount of $941 monthly for an elementary student.

109. Since 2009, Dr. Kegerise’s grandchild has been enrolled in

STSD.

110. It is believed and therefore averred that the grandchild does not

and has never resided in the Susquehanna Township School District.

111. It is believed and therefore averred that no one has paid out-of-

district tuition for the non-resident grandchild since she began attending STSD in

2009.

112. In October 2013, Dr. Kegerise informed the Board that her

grandchild attended STSD tuition-free based on a verbal authorization from a prior

school board, some of whose members no longer serve on the Board.


24

113. Authorization for Dr. Kegerise’s grandchild to attend STSD

tuition-free does not appear in Board minutes dating back to 2009.

114. The benefit conferred on Dr. Kegerise to send her grandchild to

STSD tuition-free is not reflected in the Contract.

COUNT I

Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual and official capacities

115. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by

reference as if fully set forth herein.

116. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

117. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

118. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times

relevant hereto under color of state law.

119. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise

their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD

parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.


25

120. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected

School Board members, including Plaintiffs.

121. In addition to examples provided above, Discovery will show

numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been

interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval.

122. Under authority vested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her

contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional

violations be stopped.

123. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional

violations continue.

124. 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.

125. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerise’s actions or

inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First

Amendment rights of free speech.


inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys’ fees and other costs.


26

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




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. Section 8.00(a) violates 24 P.S. §§ 5-508 and

10-1080(a); and

b. Section 8.00 (b)(1) of the Contract violates

24 P.S. § 5-514.


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,


27

implementation and enforcement of the Contract’s provisions have been the

vehicle through which Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been violated.

132. As a direct and proximate result of the illegal terms,

interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Contract, Plaintiffs have

incurred attorneys’ fees and other costs.

COUNT III

Punitive Damages

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity



134. 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.

135. 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. By monitoring correspondence sent to and from

the Board;

b. By withholding correspondence sent to the Board;


28

c. By delaying correspondence sent to the Board;

d. By repeatedly threatening legal action against

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for

exercising their First Amendment rights;

e. By acting to intimidate individuals, including but

not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising

their First Amendment rights; and

f. By punishing or threatening to punish Board

members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

136. Kegerise’s continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs’

First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious

actions.

137. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive damages be awarded

against Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y.

Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against all Defendants, as

follows:

A. Declaratory Relief against all Defendants;


29

B. Nominal Relief against all Defendants;

C. Compensatory Relief against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Kegerise

in her individual and official capacities;

D. Punitive damages against Defendant Dr. Susan L. Kegerise in

her individual capacity;

E. Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and,

F. Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C. /s/ Bret Keisling

Bret Keisling, Esquire Attorney ID #201352

17 S. Second Street, Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 303-3446 (Phone) (717) 801-1786 (fax) Email: [email protected]

Date: November 25, 2013







1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JESSE RAWLS, SR. and : 1:13-CV-02867-JEJ MARK Y. SUSSMAN : Plaintiffs, : : (Judge John E. Jones, III.) v. :

: DR. SUSAN KEGERISE, : Defendant :

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. Plaintiffs file this action because Defendant has systematically

violated their rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ rights to free speech under

the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Case 1:13-cv-02867-JEJ Document 10 Filed 01/21/14 Page 1 of 24Case 1:14-cv-00747-WWC Document 4-6 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 24

2

3. Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ rights to perform their

constitutional and statutory duties as elected officials under the Constitutions and

laws of the United States and Pennsylvania.

4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to uphold Plaintiffs’ rights under the

United States Constitution and enjoin Defendant from committing acts or

omissions that violate Plaintiffs constitutional or statutory rights.

THE PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Jesse Rawls, Sr. is an elected member of the

Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors (“Board”), resides in and is

registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, and pays taxes to the Susquehanna

Township School District (“STSD”).

6. Plaintiff Mark Y. Sussman is an elected member of the Board,

resides in and is registered to vote in Susquehanna Township, pays taxes to STSD,

and is the parent of a student enrolled in STSD.

7. Defendant Dr. Susan Kegerise is employed by the Board as

superintendent of STSD.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which conveys

subject matter jurisdiction to district courts over all civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.


3

9. Additionally, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a).

10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)

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. The Board has employed Dr. Kegerise since 2005 as assistant

superintendent and since 2009 as Superintendent of STSD. The Board is

empowered to employ Dr. Kegerise by Sections 508, 1071, and 1073 of the Act.

12. On or about May 7, 2013, the Board entered into a new

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. Article VI of the Contract states that the board retains all

“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. Section 4.02(d) of the Contract states: “Criticisms, complaints,

and suggestions called to the attention of the school District shall be referred to the


4

District Superintendent for study, disposition, or recommendation to the Board of

School Directors as appropriate.”

15. It is believed and therefore averred that the plain language of

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. At all times relevant hereto, Jason Kutulakis, Esquire, has been

employed by Dr. Kegerise as her personal attorney, and has acted on her behalf

and with her knowledge and approval.

17. It is believed and therefore averred that between February 2013

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 Kegerise’s behalf.

18. At each of the meetings Kutulakis attended, he would sit in the

front row, usually directly across from Plaintiff and Board member Rawls, Sr., and

always in direct view of both Plaintiffs.

19. Although public meetings of the School Board are normally

held in the STSD administrative building, the venue for the monthly Board

meeting on September 23, 2013, was changed to the Susquehanna Township High


5

School auditorium due to public interest in a number of issues, including those

related to this litigation.

20. The meeting was attended by a standing-room-only crowd of

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. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis attended

board meetings in order to intimidate and/or attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and

other Board members from performing their lawful duties as elected officials and

did so on Dr. Kegerise’s behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

22. Following certain Board meetings, Kutulakis sent

correspondence to Plaintiffs Rawls, Sr. and Sussman, and/or Board President

Michael Ferguson, in which Kutulakis attempted to interfere with and/or influence

the lawful duties of the elected Board members including Plaintiffs.

23. At a public meeting of the Board on January 28, 2013, Plaintiff

Rawls, Sr. questioned the circumstances related to the hiring of a relative of Dr.

Kegerise by STSD.

24. In response, the Board decided to retain a special investigator to

look into the questions raised by Rawls, Sr.


6

25. In correspondence dated February 22, 2013, Kutulakis, acting

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. Further, Kutulakis stated “[p]lease accept this correspondence

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. Board President Ferguson emailed Board members, Dr.

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

choose to ignore my advice you will be subjecting yourself to personal liability.”


7

29. On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff Sussman sent an email to Dr.

Kegerise stating “I heard that cheerleaders were not at the basketball games. Is this

correct?”

30. Several additional emails followed, including one where

Sussman offered to correspond with Michael Knill, the Susquehanna Township

High School athletic director.

31. In correspondence dated March 4, 2013, and directed to the

school board president, Kutulakis wrote complaining that the Sussman emails

violated Dr. Kegerise’s 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. In every instance where Kutulakis attempted to interfere with

and/or influence Board members or matters, he acted on behalf of Dr. Kegerise and

with her knowledge and approval.

33. Discovery will show whether other Board members or other

individuals received correspondence from Kutulakis and whether such

correspondence included threats of litigation.


8

34. In an email dated May 18, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman and

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. Kutulakis further demanded that Sussman immediately identify

the names of every teacher with whom Sussman spoke.

36. Kutulakis further stated that if Sussman failed to comply by

midnight on Saturday, May 19, 20131, litigation would be initiated the following

Monday due to Kutulakis’ view that Sussman was “tortiously interfering with Dr.

Kegerise’s Contract.”

37. In written correspondence dated May 17, 2013, Kutulakis

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

1 May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence. 2 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.


9

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. Kutulakis also demanded that Sussman provide “Dr. Kegerise

with a formal written acknowledgment of the very positive role she has played as

the District’s Superintendent must also occur. Your retraction must occur by

midnight, Saturday, May 19, 2013.”

40. In correspondence dated March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

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. On March 1, 2013, Kutulakis wrote Sussman essentially the

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,


10

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. Rawls, Sr. understood the correspondence of March 1, 2013, to

threaten legal action if he continued to attempt to correspond with STSD parents,

students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents, notwithstanding the fact that Rawls,

Sr. wanted to communicate with them and they wanted to communicate with him.

43. 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. As personal attorney for Dr. Kegerise, Kutulakis wrote the

relevant correspondence on her behalf and with her knowledge and approval.

45. In late 2012 and early 2013, the Board considered taking a

community survey of STSD stakeholders to assess views on issues related to

STSD.

46. In the March 1, 2013, correspondence, Kutulakis characterized

the community survey by stating:

Some members are attempting to end run the contractual prohibition against complaints going to Dr. Kegerise in the first


11

instance . . . while a survey permitting input from residents may make sense to allow community outreach, it may not be utilized to obtain anonymous allegations into the administrations’ roles. It may not become an additional tool to conduct a witch hunt.”

See Exhibits E and F appended hereto.

47. The community survey was never undertaken.

48. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will show

additional correspondence written by Kutulakis on behalf of and with the

knowledge and approval of Kegerise that serve to violate or attempt to violate the

recipients’ constitutional and statutory rights.

49. Plaintiffs do not believe Discovery will show any instance

where STSD Solicitor Blunt responded to Kutulakis in any way about

inappropriate threats of litigation or Kutulakis’ attempts to interfere with Board

business or Board members’ activities on behalf of Dr. Kegerise, an employee of

the Board.

50. At no time during his representation of STSD has Mr. Blunt

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. Blunt never informed Plaintiffs that as elected Board members

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.


12

52. In email correspondence dated March 20, 2013, and sent to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Blunt wrote:

I realize that Board members have concerns over the fact that Sue’s attorney has sent them letters. Those concerns are well-founded. Board members only enjoy the extensive immunity to liability the law provides when they are acting within their role as Board members. When they are acting as individuals and not as members of the Board, they are subject to the same risk of liability as anyone else. One of the critical issues in determining whether a Board member is acting as a Board member is whether their actions are in accordance with the advice of the Solicitor. . . . To put the matter plainly, I can only protect individual Board members if and when their actions are authorized by the Board as a whole and if they are willing to disavow the unauthorized actions of other Board members . . . . Worse still, I cannot protect innocent Board members or the District unless I am allowed to disavow those actions [of certain board members] on behalf of the District and Board.

53. In email correspondence dated July 31, 2013, and addressed to

Board members and Dr. Kegerise, Paul Blunt wrote:

It has come to my attention that some of you attended a “community meeting” sponsored and organized by Peter Speaks in which the chief topic of discussion was the re-register effort . . . . While all of you, obviously, have the right to attend any meeting you choose, I must again advise that it is ill-advised to attend such meetings precisely because it engenders the appearance and invites the assumption that you are representing the Board and District.

54. If a parent, student, teacher, resident or elector wants to

communicate by email with school directors, there is a single email address --

[email protected] -- for email correspondence to be sent to Board

members.



13

55. The official STSD website explains that “[w]hen using this

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. Under the single email address scheme, the superintendent has

the absolute discretion to determine when an email will be distributed to directors

or even if an email will be disseminated.

57. Plaintiffs have never been shown how to directly access emails

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. Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to whether or not other

Board members have been shown how to directly access this account or send

emails from it.

59. On or about October 1, 2013, Susquehanna Township resident

Adam Wiener, an elector, taxpayer, and parent of two children enrolled in STSD,

sent an email to [email protected] to ask a question related to a

criminal investigation by the Dauphin County District Attorney into STSD’s

handling of allegations of an illegal sexual relationship between an assistant



14

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.

60. The email was addressed to Dr. Kegerise and School Board

members.

61. On or about October 5, 2013, having received no response or

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

week prior had not been disseminated to the Board.

63. At no time subsequent to the October 1, 2013, email did any

member of the District administration contact Wiener for additional information or

feedback prior to sending the email to the Board.

64. Sussman told Wiener several times that Sussman was not

allowed to discuss the substance of the email.

65. Sussman believed he could face legal repercussions pursuant to

threatening letters he had received from the Superintendent’s personal attorney,

Kutulakis, as well as legal “guidance” from Blunt, the STSD solicitor.


15

66. Notably, although Mrs. DelGrande said that she couldn’t

discuss confidential information, she was able to discuss generally Wiener’s

concerns and she did not appear to be under the same threat of personal litigation

as Sussman, even though she and Sussman are both elected Board directors.

67. Sussman did promise Wiener that he would attempt to have

Wiener’s email disseminated to the Board.

68. Sussman emailed Dr. Kegerise requesting that Wiener’s email,

which was directed to and intended for the Board, be distributed to the Board.

69. Sussman also verbally requested that Dr. Kegerise distribute

Wiener’s email to the Board.

70. On October 8, 2013, Wiener again sent an email to the Board at

[email protected], stating in part “I was informed that the e-mail had

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.

71. Despite Sussman’s email and verbal request to Dr. Kegerise

that she distribute Wiener’s October 1, 2013, email correspondence to Board

members as it had been intended, Kegerise failed to do so until after Wiener sent

the second email.



16

72. On October 21, 2013, having not received any reply or

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[?]”


73. Finally, on October 25, 2013, STSD Solicitor Blunt replied to

Wiener by email, referring to Wiener’s “repeated missives demanding

information.”

74. In his reply email, Blunt stated in part: “Contrary to reports by

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.”


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. At no time, up to and including the date of filing of this

Complaint, has any elected Board member acknowledged receipt of Wiener’s


17

emails and it is unknown whether Wiener’s 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. Mrs. DelGrande is recognized by many to be a staunch

supporter of the superintendent and her administration.

78. Sussman has been unfairly and inaccurately characterized as

adversarial to the superintendent and her administration.

79. Board members who are perceived as favorable to the

Superintendent and her administration do not face the same prohibitions on

communicating with parents, teachers, students, electors and taxpayers as do those

Board members who are perceived as unfavorable to Dr. Kegerise.

80. In correspondence dated December 17, 2013, Kutulakis wrote

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. Notwithstanding the assertion in the December 17, 2013

correspondence, Rawls had not placed any call to Kegerise for at least 6 weeks

prior to the correspondence.


18

82. Oddly, the December 17, 2013 asserted without citation to

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. On January 10, 2014, Kegerise filed a lawsuit in the Court of

Common Pleas for Dauphin County against Plaintiffs Rawls and Sussman

requesting emergency injunctive relief.

84. On January 15, 2014, Plaintiffs removed that lawsuit to federal

court (docketed in this Honorable Court at 1:14-CV-00067-JEJ).

85. In the state court complaint, Kegerise alleged:

Sussman attempted to make service of the Complaint [filed in the instant matter] on an assistant district solicitor during a recess of the December 17, 2013 meeting of the School Board. Sussman dropped the papers on the floor of the men's restroom while the assistant solicitor was making use of the facilities and requested the papers be picked up.

A true and correct copy of the Complaint seeking injunctive relief is incorporated

herein and appended hereto as Exhibit J.

86. On January 16, 2014, undersigned counsel spoke in person with

Brian Taylor, Esq., the assistant district solicitor referenced above.

87. When asked about the averment that Sussman dropped papers

on the floor and told Taylor to pick them up, Taylor told undersigned counsel “I

told Jason twice that it never happened, I don’t know why he put that in the

complaint.”


19

88. It is believed and therefore averred that Kutulakis knowingly

included false information in that complaint in dereliction of his professional

responsibilities and rules of court.

89. Kegerise signed a verification of the state court complaint

verifying that the statements contained therein were true and correct subject to the

penalties for unsworn falsification.

90. It is believed and therefore averred that Discovery will produce

numerous emails written by parents, students, teachers, taxpayers, and residents

that were directed to Board members but never forwarded to them by Dr. Kegerise.

COUNT I

Violation of Rights to Free Speech 42 U.S.C. § 1983; First Amendment to the United States Constitution



92. Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to free speech by the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

93. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have served as elected

members of the Susquehanna Township School Board of Directors.

94. As an employee of STSD, Dr. Kegerise has acted at all times

relevant hereto under color of state law.


20

95. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs have desired to exercise

their First Amendment rights of free speech in order to communicate with STSD

parents, students, teachers, taxpayers and residents.

96. At all times relevant hereto, assorted STSD parents, students,

teachers, taxpayers, and residents have desired to communicate with their elected

School Board members, including Plaintiffs.

97. In addition to examples provided above, discovery will show

numerous instances where constitutionally protected free speech has been

interfered with by Dr. Kegerise directly, on her behalf and/or with her approval.

98. Under authority invested in Dr. Kegerise by state law and her

contract, she had the ability at all times relevant hereto to order constitutional

violations be stopped.

99. Instead, Dr. Kegerise allowed or directed that constitutional

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.


inactions, Plaintiffs have suffered repeated and continuing violations to the First

Amendment rights of free speech.


21


inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys’ fees and other costs.

COUNT II

Punitive Damages

Plaintiffs v. Dr. Susan Kegerise, in her individual capacity



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. By monitoring correspondence sent to and from

the Board;

b. By withholding correspondence sent to the Board;

c. By delaying correspondence sent to the Board;


22

d. By repeatedly threatening legal action against

several individuals, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, for

exercising their First Amendment rights;

e. By acting to intimidate individuals, including but

not limited to Plaintiffs, in an attempt to prevent them from exercising

their First Amendment rights; and

f. By punishing or threatening to punish Board

members including but not limited to Plaintiffs, and other STSD

stakeholders, for exercising their First Amendment rights.

106. Kegerise’s continued and persistent violations of Plaintiffs’

First Amendment rights constitute reckless, wanton, intentional, and/or malicious

actions.

107. Plaintiffs therefore demand punitive be awarded against

Kegerise, in her individual capacity.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs, Jesse Rawls, Sr. and Mark Y.

Sussman, demand judgment be entered in their favor against Defendant Kegerise,

as follows:

A. Declaratory Relief against the Defendant;

B. Nominal Relief against the Defendant;


23

C. Compensatory Relief against the Defendant;

D. Punitive damages against the Defendant;

E. Attorney fees and costs as authorized by law; and,

F. Such other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate.

The Keisling Law Offices, P.C. /s/ Bret Keisling

Bret Keisling, Esquire Attorney ID #201352

17 S. Second Street, Suite 301 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 303-3446 (Phone) (717) 801-1786 (fax) Email: [email protected]

Date: January 21, 2014



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:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

_______________/s/_________________

Bret Keisling, Esq.
























SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17109

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. Matters Regarding a Teaching Staff Member

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.

Fourth Level If the matter is not resolved by the Assistant Superintendent or Assistant to the Superintendent, it shall be referred to the Superintendent. If it is beyond the Superintendent’s authority and requires Board action, the Superintendent shall furnish the Board with a complete report.

The Board, after reviewing all material relating to the case, shall:

1. Provide the complainant with its written decision; or

2. Grant a hearing before the Board or a committee of the Board.

The complainant shall be advised, in writing, of the Board’s decision, no more than ten (10) days following the hearing.


B. Matters Regarding an Administrative Staff Member

In the case of a complaint directed toward an administrative staff member, the general procedure specified in Part A shall be followed.

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. Matters Regarding a Classified Staff Member

In the case of a complaint directed toward a non-instructional staff member, the same procedure is to be followed as in Part A; except the Second Level discussion shall be with the Building Principal or the head of the non-professional department in which the staff member is employed.

D. Matters Regarding a Program, Operational Materials or Instruction

A request, suggestion or complaint relating to a matter of District or school policy, procedure, program, operation or instructional materials should be addressed initially to the Building Principal or the head of the non-professional department who is mostly directed concerned and then referred to higher levels of authority in the manner prescribed in Part A.

E. Matters Regarding Student Progress and Well-Being

The general procedures specified in Part A shall be followed for complaints relating to student progress and well-being.


Approved by the School Board – October 23, 1967

Amended by the School Board – June 8, 1987

Amended by the School Board – November 23, 1998

Amended by the School Board – May 19, 2008


Page 1 of 4

No. 304

SECTION: EMPLOYEES

TITLE: EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT

STAFF

ADOPTED: July 22, 2013

REVISED:

SUSQUEHANNA

TOWNSHIP

SCHOOL DISTRICT

304. EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT STAFF

1. Authority

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.

SC 406, 508,

1089, 1106,

1107, 1142-

1152

Title 22

Sec. 4.4

Pol. 328

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.

Approval shall normally be given to the candidates for employment recommended

by the Superintendent.

SC 1111 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.


304. EMPLOYMENT OF DISTRICT STAFF - Pg. 2

Page 2 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

The Superintendent or designee shall develop administrative regulations for

employment of staff, in accordance with Board policy and state and federal laws and

regulations.

Staff vacancies that represent opportunities for professional advancement or

diversification shall be made known to district employees so they may apply for

such positions.

42 U.S.C.

Sec. 12112

The Superintendent or designee may apply necessary screening procedures to

determine a candidate's ability to perform the job functions of the position for which

a candidate is being considered.

The Superintendent or designee shall seek recommendations from former employers

and others in assessing the candidate's qualifications. Recommendations and

references shall be retained confidentially and for official use only.

SC 1109, 1201

Title 22

Sec. 49.1 et seq

Each certificated administrative and professional employee employed by the district

shall be responsible for maintaining a valid certificate when such certificate is

required by law.

Title I Requirements

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 3 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

All paraprofessionals providing instructional support in a program supported by

Title I funds shall have a secondary school diploma or a recognized equivalent and

one (1) of the following:

1. At least two (2) years of study at an institution of higher learning.

2. Associate’s or higher degree.

3. Evidence of meeting a rigorous standard of quality through a state or local

assessment.

Title I paraprofessionals who solely coordinate parental involvement activities or act

as translators are exempt from the above qualifications.

Special Education Paraprofessionals

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. Associate’s or higher degree.

3. Evidence of meeting a rigorous standard of quality through a state or local

assessment.

Title 22

Sec. 14.105

Instructional paraprofessionals shall provide evidence of twenty (20) hours of staff

development activities related to their assignment each school year.

Personal Care Assistants

Title 22

Sec. 14.105

A personal care assistant provides one-to-one support and assistance to a student,

including support and assistance in the use of medical equipment.



Page 4 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

An educational interpreter is an individual who provides students who are deaf or

hard of hearing with interpreting or transliterating services in an educational setting.

To serve as an educational interpreter, an individual shall meet the qualifications set

forth in law and regulations.

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 1 of 3

No. 903

SECTION: COMMUNITY

TITLE: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN

BOARD MEETINGS

ADOPTED:

REVISED:

SUSQUEHANNA

TOWNSHIP

SCHOOL DISTRICT

903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS

1. Purpose

The Board recognizes the value to school governance of public comment on

educational issues and the importance of involving members of the public in

Board meetings. The Board also recognizes its responsibility for proper

governance of the district and the need to conduct its business in an orderly and

efficient manner.

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

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.

3. Delegation of

Responsibility

SC 407

Pol. 006

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.


903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS - Pg. 2

Page 2 of 3

Pol. 906 Complaints about individual students or staff members, or criticism or remarks

about problems involving such individuals, must first be brought to the

attention of the Superintendent or other appropriate staff member in

accordance with the procedures set forth in the Board policy on public

complaints. First-time discussion of such matters is not permitted during the

public comment period. This is necessary to allow the administration an

opportunity to investigate, verify the facts and resolve such matters in a way

that safeguards confidential information and the privacy of those concerned. If

the required administrative complaint procedures have been exhausted without

resolving the problem, the Board may allow comment at an appropriate Board

meeting, in accordance with Board policy.

4. Guidelines

Whenever issues identified by the participant are subject to remediation under

policies and procedures of the Board, they shall be dealt with in accordance with

those policies and procedures and the organizational structure of the district.

The Board requires that public participants be residents or taxpayers of this

district or any representative of a firm eligible to bid on materials or services

solicited by the Board.

Participants must be recognized by the presiding officer and must preface their

comments by an announcement of their name, address, and group affiliation if

applicable.

Each statement made by a participant during the public comment period shall

be limited to three (3) minutes duration, unless otherwise approved by the

presiding officer.

No participant may speak more than once on the same topic, unless all others

who wish to speak on that topic have been heard, and only with permission

from the presiding officer.

All statements shall be directed to the presiding officer; no participant may

address or question Board members individually.

The presiding officer shall be responsible for maintaining proper decorum and

adhering to established time limits. Questions of fact asked by the public may,

when appropriate, be answered by the Superintendent or other administrator.

Questions requiring investigation shall be referred to the appropriate

administrator for later reporting to the Board.


903. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BOARD MEETINGS - Pg. 3

Page 3 of 3

The presiding officer may:

1. Interrupt or terminate a participant's statement when the statement is too

lengthy, personally directed, abusive, obscene, or irrelevant.

2. Request any individual to leave the meeting when that person does not

observe reasonable decorum.

3. Request the assistance of law enforcement officers to remove a disorderly

person when his/her conduct interferes with the orderly progress of the

meeting.

4. Call a recess or adjourn to another time when the lack of public decorum

interferes with the orderly conduct of the meeting.

Electronic recording devices and cameras, in addition to those used as official

recording devices, shall be permitted at public meetings under guidelines established

by the Board.

No placards or banners will be permitted within the meeting room.

The meeting agenda and all pertinent documents shall be available to the press and

public at the meetings and posted on the district web site two (2) days prior to a

regularly scheduled Board meeting.

References:

School Code – 24 P.S. Sec. 407

Sunshine Act – 65 Pa. C.S.A. Sec. 701 et seq.

Board Policy – 006, 906





Documents

Susan Kegerise's amended lawsuit against Susquehanna Township School District, Karl, Rawls and Sussman