Settlement reached in Fed Hock lawsuit

A lawsuit filed by Federal Hocking School District Supt. Jim Patsey against the school board and President Dan Torrence has been stayed after the two parties informed the court that they have reached a settlement in the matter.

Both Patsey and the school board are withholding details of the settlement until an announcement that's expected in the coming weeks. An order from the court states that the settlement needs to be approved by the full board of education for the school district. Details of the settlement are expected to emerge with that approval.

In an order of the court declaring the matter stayed until Jan. 29, 2010, the parties are said to have indicated that the settlement proposal should be on the agenda for a Dec. 15 board meeting.

Patsey filed suit against Torrence and the board in July in an attempt to halt his transfer to Coolville Elementary School.

Dealing with budget issues, the school board decided earlier this year to eliminate the position of principal at the elementary school. On June 9, the board voted 3-2 to reassign Patsey to an office in the building and have him take over the principal's duties.

Board President Torrence, Vice President Roger Ketchum and member Dan Dailey voted in favor of the move, while members Bill Elasky and John Young voted against it. Patsey's office was moved to the building on June 22.

The measure assigned the additional duties of supervising and managing the operation of the building to Patsey until further notice because the school "does not have a building administrator."

In the lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Patsey claimed that the board and Torrence are violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This alleged violation of free speech is the reason for filing in U.S. District Court, as opposed to state court.

The lawsuit filed by Patsey claims that Torrence, "using his power and authority as president of defendant Board of Education has restrained (Patsey) from exercising his freedom of speech by, among other things, ordering (him) not to speak at meetings of the Board of Education and by ordering (him) not to speak to members of the public without advance authorization" from the board and Torrence.

The lawsuit claimed that Torrence and the school board had threatened Patsey "with charging him with insubordination" if he does not obey this directive.

The second claim of the lawsuit stated that by passing a resolution assigning Patsey to the elementary building, the board was, in effect, transferring him into the vacant principal's position. The lawsuit cited Ohio Revised Code, which states a superintendent may not be transferred to any other position during his term of employment without a mutual agreement between the superintendent and the board. The lawsuit said Patsey told the board that he did not and does not agree to being transferred to the position of principal at Coolville Elementary.

In an answer to the lawsuit filed with the court, the school board and Torrence denied liability in all respects as well as violation of any statute. The answer said that at all times Torrence was "acting in good faith within the course and scope of his employment."

In their court filing, the board and Torrence said that Patsey's role as superintendent "was not lessened in any respect, but his assigned duties were increased to include supervision at the Coolville Elementary School." They said that Patsey "was never transferred to the position of principal" and "remains in the position of superintendent."

The board and Torrence asked that Patsey's lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice and that Patsey be ordered to pay court costs and attorney fees sustained by the defendants.

In a memorandum filed by the defendants, the board and Torrence's attorney argued that Patsey had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. They also claimed Patsey had not explained "any particular urgency relative to the relief requested in his complaint."

With regard to the speech issue, earlier this month defense counsel submitted a notice of citation to supplemental authority, calling attention to the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Hansen v. Westerville.

In that decision, according to the First Amendment Center, the court ruled held in 1994 that the president of a school board was allowed to restrict the amount of time given for comments because of high attendance at a particular meeting.

However, that decision didn't specifically apply to the speech of superintendents at board meetings.