Anderson claims board members threatened with political payback

Whitley County Superintendent Lonnie Anderson is countersuing a former assistant superintendent, who recently filed suit against him and members of the Whitley County Board of Education.
In his answer to the complaint filed Friday afternoon, Anderson denied any wrongdoing in connection with Lester Shelley’s termination as treasurer for the board of education on June 16, or that he retaliated against Shelley for filing a complaint with the state Office of Education Accountability.
In his counterclaim, Anderson alleges that Shelley had been engaged in a “long term series of acts threatening members of the board of education with election challenges” in a series of attempts to prevent the board of education from awarding him a new contract as superintendent, which took effect July 1.
“The counterclaimant has reason to believe the plaintiff and at least one of his agents have recruited citizens to file as candidates in the upcoming board of education elections in retaliation for the counterclaimant’s new superintendent contract and as a means to affect the voting majority of the board of education to the personal and political benefit of the plaintiff,” board attorney Tim Crawford wrote in court filings.
Two Whitley County school board members are up for re-election this year, District One Board Member Larry Lambin and District Two Board Member Delmar Mahan, who is also chairman of the school board.
Both men have filed to run again, and as of Monday afternoon, but were unopposed in their bids for re-election. However, the filing deadline for a candidate to run against the two is Aug. 8 at 4 p.m.
Shelley retired from the district as assistant superintendent on June 30, and on July 10 sued the district and Anderson under the state “Whistle blower Act” claiming his firing was the result of his reporting suspected violations to the Kentucky Office of Education Accountability (OEA).
The OEA issued a final investigative report on June 20 concerning an investigation that dealt with certain relatives of Anderson that had allegedly been promoted in violation of state nepotism laws, and of Anderson receiving travel reimbursement to attend events and functions not related to the operation of the school district.
The report conclusions found no violation of nepotism laws, nor any violations for travel reimbursement.
Citing confidentiality laws, the OEA would not disclose who filed the initial complaint, but legal documents filed by both parties in the lawsuit indicate Shelley filed the complaint.
“As a result of Shelley’s good faith belief and reports to the OEA of alleged suspected violation by Superintendent Anderson, Shelley was targeted for reprisal by the Whitley County Board of Education and by Superintendent Anderson,” Sandra Reeves, Shelley’s attorney, wrote in the lawsuit.
Reeves wrote that in the course of Shelley’s normal duties as assistant superintendent and treasurer for the Whitley County Board of Education, Shelley came to learn of things that he reported to the OEA. Those included, alleged misappropriation of a fund, improper spending, waste, and alleged acts of mismanagement, political influence, illegal activities and improper promotions, which were all allegedly done by Anderson.
Reeves wrote that as a result of the discoveries, Shelley reported the suspected violations to the Kentucky Office of Educational Accountability, as he was entitled to do.
The lawsuit claims that in addition to being fired as board treasurer, Shelley suffered other retaliation.
On June 20, Shelley and JoAnn Siler, the other assistant superintendent, were notified by an e-mail from Anderson that starting June 21, they were to call him or a certain other employee to verify whether they were coming to work if they couldn’t be at the office at the official starting time of 8 a.m.
The e-mail, a copy of which is in the court file, informed both of them that if they had to leave the building for any reason, they were to sign out on the sign out sheet provided at the front desk on the second floor noting the time they were leaving, the destination, and estimated time of return.
“In the event you need to conduct business in the building but somewhere other than the second floor, notify Shawnda or me of your destination in the event you are needed in an emergency or you have a visitor,” the e-mail stated.
“Given that the restrooms are located on a different floor, Shelley, an assistant school superintendent and employee of 40 years, was not permitted to go to the restroom without first getting Anderson’s permission,” Reeves contends in the lawsuit.
“And equally significant, the e-mail prohibited Shelley from going to the financial records room that contained information related to Shelley’s original complaint to the Office of Educational Accountability.”
The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to protect him from further harassment, for a trial by jury, and for attorney costs.
“The reports made by the plaintiff are not protected because the reports made by the plaintiff did not disclose the type of information which is protected by said statute as the reports were not made in good faith by the plaintiff,” Crawford wrote in court filings.
“The reports did not reveal any wrongdoing of any nature. The reports contained information that was not concealed and the contents were of public known information. Further, the plaintiff neither took action nor threatened to take action to discourage the plaintiff from making such reports nor to punish the plaintiff for making such reports.”
Crawford added that Shelley didn’t disclose any information which was not already publicly known, and that the law was designed to protect employees who possess knowledge that is concealed or not publicly known, and who step forward to help uncover and disclose knowledge they possess of wrongdoing.
The counterclaim also states that as treasurer, Shelley was responsible for approving all claims and salaries and for signing all checks issued by the board of education. As assistant superintendent, the counterclaim also states that Shelley was responsible for knowing personnel laws and board policies.
The counterclaim alleges that Shelley knew the reports he made to the OEA were “false, not true, deceiving and inaccurate.”
Reeves said Monday afternoon that she had not seen a copy of the counterclaim yet.
In a previous written statement she released on Shelley’s behalf, Reeves denied claims that the lawsuit was politically motivated.
“To say that Lester Shelley’s suit was politically motivated appears to be nothing more than an attempt at damage control by Mr. Anderson, in an attempt to explain away his bad acts which have now become public, in attempting to intimidate and retaliate against Mr. Shelley for a lawful act. We have the utmost confidence that our legal system can sort out exactly which of the parties here is motivated by politics and which has force of law behind him,” Reeves said in a written statement.
“It is unfortunate that all too often we suffer repercussions for doing what we know is the right thing. However, in this instance, there is a law (KRS 61.102 also known as the Kentucky Whistle blower Statute) that protects Mr. Shelley, and others like him who are subjected to retaliation by their employers for their lawful deeds,” Reeves wrote adding that Shelley’s dismissed as the board treasurer was only one element of the retaliation that Shelley endured.
“And, the fact is, under the law an employee is protected not only from actual repercussions from their employer for having reported an actual or suspected violation by that employer.”