Published: July 17, 2008 11:17 pm            

LEW-PORT: Former board members denied defense for lawsuit

LEWISTON — Former board members being sued for actions during their terms last year will not be getting any help from the current school board.

By a narrow 4-3 vote, the Lewiston-Porter Board of Education voted at a special meeting Thursday night to deny legal indemnification to former board members Robert Laub, James Mezhir, Louis Palmeri and David Schaubert.

Scott Stepien, Ed Lilly, Robert Weller and Edward Waller voted against providing legal defense while Michael Gentile, Keith Fox and James Sperduti voted the other way.

Stepien filed a federal lawsuit against the four former members alleging they conspired to violate his rights of free speech and to hold public office for their role in removing him from the school board last year. The board majority last year removed Lilly and Stepien after charging them with misconduct for failing to take a state-mandated training course. State Education Department Commissioner Richard Mills later overturned the removal, calling it pre-emptive and too harsh.

The question in Thursday’s vote became one of state education law — section 3811 of the law “provides that a school district must pay for legal expenses incurred by board members in proceedings arising out of their official duties,” according to written decisions by the commissioner.

Before the vote, the board met in private session for about two hours to receive counsel from a new legal team on special assignment. Former district attorneys F. Warren Kahn and Hodgson Russ LLP are also named in Stepien’s lawsuit.

After the vote, board vice president Waller said the attorneys determined the board would not necessarily be violating education law by denying indemnification to the defendants.

“Legal counsel said the risk was no greater if we said yes than if we said no,” Waller said. “By saying no, we’re not putting the district at enormous risk.”

Weller, board president, said the legal limitations were not completely clear, but he felt the defendants were not entitled to indemnification.

“I don’t want to tell the commissioner how to do his business,” Weller said. “But I believe it’s worth challenging or questioning.”

Lilly told the Gazette he believed the defendants' actions did not qualify as proper board duties.

“Basically what it comes down is this: The board is compelled to choose a math book,” he said. “If someone wants to sue us for using the wrong one, we will be indemnified. That is our responsibility. No where does it say if you don’t like someone you’re compelled to kick them out.”

Gentile disagreed — he said the defendants had been certified as acting in good faith from the commissioner in his decision overturning Lilly and Stepien’s removal, which entitles them to indemnification. Gentile also said Stepien, as the plaintiff in the suit, stood to “benefit personally, professionally and financially” and should’ve abstained from voting.

Stepien said he weighed his personal interests and determined it was not a conflict of interest.

“I am an elected Board of Education member whose constitutional and statutory rights were violated by the former board majority and former board attorneys,” he said. “I think the public interest in me pursuing this suit and voting in favor (to deny indemnification) outweighs dramatically any private interest I have. It’s not even close.”

Gentile said he hoped with this vote the board could move past the problems of last year and return its focus to education.

“This is done. Those people are gone,” he said. “You kind of wish people would give it up and start working as a board member and they haven’t, so this is what we’re left with. Maybe if we can get past it with some more time between it, maybe this won’t be an issue in the future. Think about it: We spent two hours on this. We haven’t talked about a kid in a month.”

Contact reporter Caitlin Murrayat 282-2311, ext. 2251.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.