Here at McGown & Markling, we generally inform school clients that nothing good comes from talking to the press about personnel matters. The case of Stepp v. Medina City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2016-Ohio-5875, provides an excellent example of why this is so.
In Stepp, an Ohio appellate court found that the claims of a former superintendent against the individual board members for defamation and false light invasion of privacy could proceed to trial.
The case involves the contentious break-up of the school board and its former superintendent over the fringe benefits in the superintendent’s contract. In 2011, the former superintendent approached the board president “and discussed amending his contract to include a provision whereby the school district would pay the costs of his education.” Stepp at ¶ 3. The final version of the amended contract contained “the following provision: ‘The board also agrees to pay the costs associated with [the Superintendent’s] acquisition of past academic degrees as they relate to education.’” Stepp at ¶ 4. As a result of this provision, the former superintendent “received a check [* * *] in the amount of $172,011.00, which fully paid all of [the former superintendent’s] student loans.” Stepp at ¶ 4.
The board was “purportedly shocked” when it learned about the payment. Stepp at ¶ 6. “This information also quickly became public knowledge and caused a major outcry from the community.” Stepp at ¶ 6. In response to a list of questions from a local newspaper, the board allegedly issued a press release.
The former superintendent filed suit alleging, among other things, “that the Board’s press release [* * *] included false and defamatory statements about him.” Stepp at ¶ 7. Specifically, “that the language of the press release insinuates that he lied, concealed information, or misled the Board concerning the total cost of his degrees, the number of degrees for which he would obtain reimbursement [* * *], and that he obtained reimbursement through the ESC to avoid detection.” Stepp at ¶ 26. The former superintendent further asserted that the language of the press release demonstrated that “the Board Members acted with a malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner,” which would be an exception to the individual board members’ immunity. Stepp at ¶ 26. The Ohio appellate court determined that a question of fact exists as to the board member’s motives and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
As stated above, this case demonstrates why governmental officials should avoid commenting on personnel matters to the media – and the public in general. If you feel compelled to speak to the media on personnel matters, make sure you communicate in consultation with legal counsel.
In addition, read your superintendent’s contract. Know exactly what fringe benefits exist and exactly how much it will cost the district. If the individual board members in this case are to be believed – that they were “shocked” by the former superintendent’s benefit package – they could have avoided the resulting public outcry and messy dissolution of their relationship with the superintendent by reading and understanding the terms of the contract.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.