Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/187362596/Susquehanna-Township-School-District-lawsuit
Timestamp: 2017-05-24 12:52:04
Document Index: 320341671

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1343', '§ 1367', '§ 1391', '§ 5', '§ 10', '§ 5', '§11', '§11', '§11', '§ 11', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 1983', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 10']

Susquehanna Township School District lawsuit | Diversity Jurisdiction | Lawsuit
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadSusquehanna Township School District lawsuitUploaded by PennLiveDiversity JurisdictionLawsuitTortUnited States ConstitutionBoard Of Directors0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Susquehanna Township School District lawsuitView MoreSusquehanna Township School District lawsuitCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE 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 l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l 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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 4 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 4 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 5 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 5 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 6 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 6 of 29
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, Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 7 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 7 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 8 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 8 of 29
May 19, 2013 fell on a Sunday, not a Saturday as stated in the correspondence. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 9 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 9 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l0 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l0 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page ll of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page ll of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l2 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l2 of 29
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: Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l3 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l3 of 29
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 -- schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org -- 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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l4 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l4 of 29
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 schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org 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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l5 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l5 of 29
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 schoolboardstsd@hannasd.org, stating in part “I was informed that the e-mail had Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l6 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l6 of 29
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 Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l7 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l7 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l8 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l8 of 29
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].” Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l9 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l9 of 29
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 Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 20 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 20 of 29
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 Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2l of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2l of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 22 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 22 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 23 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 23 of 29
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. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 24 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 24 of 29
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. 126. As direct and proximate result of Dr. Kegerise’s actions or inactions, Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys’ fees and other costs. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 25 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 25 of 29
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 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. 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. 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, Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 26 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 26 of 29
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 133. The previous paragraphs of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 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; Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 27 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 27 of 29
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; Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 28 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 28 of 29
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: Bret@KeislingLaw.com Date: November 25, 2013 Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 29 of 29 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 29 of 29
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-l Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-l Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 4 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 4 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 5 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 5 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 6 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 6 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 7 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 7 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 8 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 8 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 9 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 9 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l0 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l0 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page ll of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page ll of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l2 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l2 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l3 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l3 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l4 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l4 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l5 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l5 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l6 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l6 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l7 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l7 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l8 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l8 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l9 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l9 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 20 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 20 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2l of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2l of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 22 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 22 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 23 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 23 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 24 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 24 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 25 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 25 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 26 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 26 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 27 of 27 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-2 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 27 of 27
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-3 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-3 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-3 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-3 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 3 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 3
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 3 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 3 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-4 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 3 of 3
From: "J kutulakis" <jpk@abomkutulakis.com> Date: May 18, 2013 7:50 AM Subject: Comments To: "mark.yale.sussman@gmail.com" <mark.yale.sussman@gmail.com> Cc: "pblunt@kingspry.com" <pblunt@kingspry.com> Mr. Sussman: I hope that this email finds you well. I am out of town and am unable to develop a formal letter, however one will follow. It has been brought to my attention that you have been making comments about the state of the Susquehanna Township School District including but not limited to statements that its teachers are afraid and the students are out of control. I am informed that you specifically indicating that the administration must go as a result. I write to formally ask that you immediately provide me the names of the teaches with whom you have specifically discussed this matter. I also write to inform you that I believe you are tortiously interfering with Dr. Kegerise's contract with the District. I ask that you immediately retract these statements with whomever you shared them and do so in writing, also copying me. I believe an apology to 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 19th. If you are unable and unwilling to follow these requests, I will be taking swift legal action on Monday. If you have retained independent legal counsel, please forward this immediately to that attorney and provide me his/her contact information. I am copying Solicitor Blunt on this out of professional courtesy, but do not believe his capacity as the Solicitor covers your conduct as it appears you are acting independent of the Board on this matter. I will defer to him on the capacity of his representation of you. I want to be crystal clear. I have individuals who have provided very specific information about what you have said to them. It is unconscionable to knowingly make such blatantly false statements about the Districts outstanding administration. Your failure to correct this situation by day's end will undoubtedly result a a legal battle. Thank you in anticipation of you prompt attention to this matter. Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-5 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of l Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-5 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of l
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-6 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-6 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-6 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-6 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-7 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-7 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-7 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-7 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-8 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-8 Filed ll/25/l3 Page l of 2
Case 3:02-at-06000 Document l370-8 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2 Case l:l3-cv-02867-JEJ Document l-8 Filed ll/25/l3 Page 2 of 2
Documents Similar To Susquehanna Township School District lawsuitSkip carouselLarkin Arnold v. Sony - Royalties ComplaintMarshall Huffman Virginia Newton v. Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, a Maryland Limited Partnership, 194 F.3d 1072, 10th Cir. (1999)Edmond Fair Lawsuit2010 Epstein sued for breach of contract by designer of Virgin Islands office.California GOP Lawsuit Against PAC MailerComplaint Preston v OaklandBlue Water Investment v. Whitmor - ComplaintJunker v. Medical Components Et. Al.Civil lawsuit filed against NWHLSeaboard Co. v. Chicago, Etc., Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 363 (1926)Sundesa v. Incline HealthN. L. Wymard and George L. Stark, Receivers of Kemmel & Co., Inc., Debtor v. McCloskey & Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 495, 3rd Cir. (1965)Free Spirit v. Scholastic- How Rude trademark complaint.pdfIllinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Pargas, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co., Third Party, 706 F.2d 633, 3rd Cir. (1983)William S. Ausherman, by Marian Ruth Ausherman Chavez, His Natural Daughter and Administrator of the Estate of William S. Ausherman v. Lee K. Stump, Harry W. Saums, and Ausherman Manufacturing Company, Inc., 643 F.2d 715, 10th Cir. (1981)Symes v. Harris, 472 F.3d 754, 10th Cir. (2006)CivProCases_12OctFlying J Inc v. New Haven City of et al - Document No. 11Calloway v. Bank of America, 10th Cir. (2016)Sidney E. Huddleston, Sr. v. Ohio River Company, 328 F.2d 789, 3rd Cir. (1964)Wildermuth_CivPro_Fall2010FLORIDA SUPREME COURT v. SIBLEY - Document No. 4Chu v. Suzhou ZhongCheng New Energy Tech. - ComplaintHarriet Berger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 291 F.2d 666, 10th Cir. (1961)Federal Lawsuit Geovany Quiroz v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, 11th Cir. (2013)Robert Angst v. Royal MacCabees Life Insurance Company Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company David J. Schiller, Esquire, Intervenor in D.C, 77 F.3d 701, 3rd Cir. (1996)The Stewart Organization, Inc., a Corporation Walter H. Stewart, and James S. Snow, Jr. v. Ricoh Corporation, a Corporation, Ricoh of America, Inc., a Corporation, 810 F.2d 1066, 11th Cir. (1987)Rickey Combee, Cross-Appellant v. Shell Oil Company, Defendant-Third Party Travelers Insurance Company v. Kendall Construction Co., Third Party Cross-Appellees, 615 F.2d 698, 3rd Cir. (1980)Ajax Enterprises, Inc. et al v. The Szymoniak Saw Firm, PA et al - Document No. 36Documents About Diversity JurisdictionSkip carouselPokemon Go lawsuitCharles Clarke Forfeiture CaseTHX ComplaintSHIRLEY COHEN AND HANNAH COHEN VS. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONA123 Systems Poaching SuitShady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010)Rose Merchant ComplaintJarrett v. Life Lock, Kanye West - Insane Pro Se ComplaintRusso vs. The Brattleboro RetreatMorrison v. Kache, 10th Cir. (2014)Stuart Pendleton v. Michael Sura"Bachelor" Producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitSadikov Et Al v Avshman Et AlGilbert v. WWE/ESPN - Joint Notice of RemovalShelby Hall-Lisa Garza LawsuitPRAMCO, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina, 435 F.3d 51, 1st Cir. (2006)Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 3rd Cir. (2011)Harry Berkowitz, Guardian of the Estate of Wilson Kinch, a Minor, and Wilson Kinch v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation, 303 F.2d 585, 3rd Cir. (1962)Shaukat Ali v. Tehmina Ali, 3rd Cir. (2012)Acacia v. SUNY RF et al19 Entertainment v. Phillips DecisionLIBERI v TATIZ (C.D. CA) - 190.9 - Plaintiffs Exhibits 48-50 to Amended Complaint.190.9ACID ComplaintBuzzfeed Patent LawsuitSingh BofA Opp to PIChuck Johnson v. GawkerHertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010)Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (1987)Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990)More From PennLiveSkip carouselConfirmation of HUD extension for sinkhole projectContract for feasibility study for Harrisburg poolsCSVT Southern Section Realignment Alternatives Overview Map (5!17!17)CSVT Southern Section Realignment Alternatives Overview Map (5!17!17)CSVT Southern Section Realignment Alternatives Overview Map (5!17!17)Dauphin County ResultsDauphin County ResultsDauphin County ResultsNyeem Wartman vs International Specialty Insurance, Inc. Document 3Nyeem Wartman vs International Specialty Insurance, Inc. Document 1Nyeem Wartman vs International Specialty Insurance, Inc. Document 4Nyeem Wartman vs International Specialty Insurance, Inc. Document 2Wartman v. International Specialty Insurance Court DocumentsNyeem Wartman Doc 4.pdfNyeem Wartman Doc 3.pdfNyeem Wartman Doc 2.pdfPhiladelphia 2016 Host Committee letter to auditor general about auditChild safety seat fitting and inspection eventsPhiladelphia 2016 Host Committee's financials fact sheetState audit of $10 million grant to support last year's Democratic National Convention2017 B1G OTF ResultsWTISD Notice of ReasonsPenn State president's statement on grand jury findings related to student death | Penn State UniversityNotice 11 FINAL Charges and PresentmentClark Ruling on CondemnationClark Ruling on CondemnationMcFarland LP v. the City of Harrisburg McFarland LP v. the City of Harrisburg -2017-05-03 Resolution 2017-16 RE CAT's Proposed FY 2017-18 BudgetStephen Reed letter for Gloria Martin Roberts