Douglas Dispatch
|
|
Pettit recently filed an amended complaint in U.S. District Court in Tucson.
The amendment brings together lawsuits that his attorney had previously filed in state and federal courts.
In February of 2010, Pettit filed a claim for $2.5 million and the Governing Board was officially served legal papers during an April, 2010 meeting
The claim had been filed as a precursor to the lawsuit. By that time, Pettit had been on administrative leave for several weeks.
Most of the accusations made in this latest claim is a result of the investigation, which Pettit and his attorney, Gary Lassen, say vindicate him, and the action to place him on paid administrative leave.
They claim it was done:
√ In violation of the open meeting law
√ Despite a questions of confidentiality surrounding the board
√ Administrative leave is by definition a “disciplinary action.” It requires cause and it requires a resolution with due process being provided.
√ Action was retaliatory.
√ Extended leave is a violation of due process in and of itself. The reliance on a contract provision that allows for reassignment during its term is misplaced.
√ The board has no authority to take action based on a report that was accepted and prior action admitted no reason existed for additional action.
√ The action constitutes interference by Deputy County Attorney Anne Carl and Hoyack’s continuing exercise of authority in excess of that provided him by law or policy.
√ The action was conducted with “evil mind” as perpetrated by Hoyack, Lopez and Rivera in furtherance of an illegal enterprise and with the intent to defame and cast Mr. Pettit in false light, and to intentionally inflict emotional distress upon Mr. Pettit.
Much of the claim looks at the investigative report filed by Patrick Cooper, which they claim found no wrongdoing.
While the report itself found no legal evidence, Cooper did say during his oral report to the board he was concerned about both reading district communication and the “hostile” environment.“
Lassen in the claim states “The board, without cause and contrary to law, has taken action to non-renew Mr. Pettit’s contract after its expiration-District breached Mr. Pettit’s contract by not providing an evaluation as required under the terms of his contract and district policy on or before December 18, 2009. This and other failures at a minimum obligate the district to extend Mr. Pettit’s contract through June 30, 2011.”
Since this started in earnest in 2010, many things have changed. Board member Ed Rivera resigned and Board President Chuck Hoyack was defeated. Pettit’s contract officially ended in July, and he is now working as superintendent/principal of the Monument School District in Monument, Oregon. The district is a K-12 and has only 57 students. Many districts in Oregon are secluded and similar to Monument.
Comments
J.T. Borgman wrote on Apr 14, 2011 12:44 PM:
To Friend wrote on Apr 10, 2011 12:24 PM:
Hope it ends soon wrote on Apr 9, 2011 11:48 PM:
Friend wrote on Apr 4, 2011 2:38 PM:
T wrote on Mar 31, 2011 11:34 AM:
Resident wrote on Mar 31, 2011 9:36 AM:
Move On wrote on Mar 30, 2011 10:27 PM: