Shelley files suit against Anderson, Whitley Board

Lester Shelley has sued the Whitley County Board of Education and Superintendent Lonnie Anderson over his termination as treasurer for the school board claiming it was done as a reprisal for his reporting suspected violations to the Kentucky Office of Educational Accountability (OEA).
However, Tim Crawford, the school board’s attorney, claims the lawsuit is the result of a “long running political vendetta” that Shelley has against Anderson, and that the lawsuit is the latest in an effort to damage Anderson politically.
Shelley, who served as assistant superintendent for 15 years before tendering his retirement on June 30, filed suit Monday and claims the board and Anderson violated the Kentucky Whistleblower Act and took “retaliatory actions” against him for making the report.
“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.
On June 8, the board of education met in executive session, and Anderson read to the board the alleged violations that Shelley had reported, the lawsuit states.
Anderson then allegedly stated that Shelley had “made his life a living @#(@ for the past month,” and demanded Shelley’s resignation or his immediate retirement, or else he would fire Shelley, the lawsuit claims.
The board scheduled another meeting on June 11, and informed Shelley that he would have until that time to respond to Anderson’s ultimatum and demand for Shelley’s resignation or retirement, according to the lawsuit.
At the June 11 meeting, Shelley delivered a letter to the board where he refused to tender his retirement or resignation and informed the board that he would take all legal action necessary to protect himself from “unlawful reprisal,” the lawsuit stated.
The board then adjourned and postponed its meeting until June 16.
“At the conclusion of the June 11, 2006, meeting, Shelley inquired of the board chairman (Delmar Mahan) as to whether he should bring legal counsel to the June 16 meeting, to which the chairman advised Shelley that rather than an attorney, he may want to consider ‘hiring a body guard,'” the lawsuit claims.
At the conclusion of the June 16 meeting, the board informed Anderson that Shelley had refused to resign or retire, and Shelley claims that 30 to 45 minutes later he was informed that he had been terminated as the treasurer for the board.
The board appointed Anderson as the acting treasurer during the meeting.
After the meeting on June 16, Crawford told the News Journal that the board didn’t go into a detailed discussion after meeting in executive session, but he said there was “some concern about the working relationship” with Shelley.
“There was some indication from Mr. Shelley that he may feel uncomfortable. If there was that feeling of being somewhat uncomfortable for whatever reason, they felt it would be best to have someone else serving as treasurer,” Crawford said.
“Under the board treasurer statute, the board can hire the board secretary as treasurer also,” Crawford said noting that Anderson currently serves as the board secretary.
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.
Anderson said Tuesday morning that he had not seen a copy of the lawsuit yet, and therefore couldn’t comment on it at this time.
“Lester has been insubordinate and undermined the school system for quite some time. I guess he thinks now that the courtroom is his last option,” Crawford alleged.
Crawford claims that Shelley was in contact with the board earlier this year trying to convince them not to give Anderson a new contract, which they did in February.
When that didn’t work, Crawford said Shelley made a complaint to the Office of Education Accountability claiming that Anderson illegally promoted relatives, and that Anderson had been paying one of his sons on the payroll, although he didn’t work for the school system.
Crawford claims that Shelley knew the complaints couldn’t be true since, as treasurer, Shelley signed every check written by the board.
“The state looked into Lester’s complaint, and completely exonerated Lonnie,” Crawford stated Tuesday afternoon.
Crawford said he feels confident the board will prevail in the case.
He added that in order to be considered a “whistleblower” under Kentucky law, you have to disclose information that is not publicly available, which isn’t the case for the salaries of public employees.
Bryan Jones, legal counsel for the Office of Education Accountability, said that all complaints made to the office are kept confidential, including who may have filed them, but that the final report concerning a complaint is released to the public.
“We did do an investigation in Whitley County that investigation has been finalized,” he noted.
Pursuant to the Kentucky Open Records Act, the News Journal filed an open records request for the final investigative report, which found that the allegations were not substantiated.
According to the report, the case focused on two issues.
The first dealt with certain relatives of Anderson, who had been employed and were allegedly promoted in violation of state nepotism laws.
“From all the evidence presented by the superintendent and other district employees, it appears that there is no nepotism violation … regarding any of the four relatives mentioned in the complaint,” the report’s conclusion noted.
“Two relatives moved from some type of teaching to another while a third relative took another position at her same school. All three remained at their existing salary levels, being compensated at that same level for additional days worked.”
The allegations also claimed that Anderson’s son, Brandon, was employed as an assistant high school basketball coach, but investigators found no evidence that Brandon Anderson was paid by district funds.
The second issue dealt with travel reimbursements that Anderson received to attend events and functions not related to the operation of the school district.
“Given Superintendent Anderson’s contract with the Whitley County Board of Education and Whitley County Board Policy #03.125, no violation is found is found in the travel reimbursement of the superintendent for trips to the hospital board meetings and athletic events,” the report concluded.