The St Joe School District and three officials being sued by the district’s former chief financial officer deny that he lost his job for blowing the whistle on stipends.

In an answer filed electronically on Friday, June 13, attorney Thomas Mickes offers what he calls the other side of the story. The defendants deny all of the contentious allegations in Beau Musser’s lawsuit, and level a few allegations of their own.

“Maybe for the first time there’s some balance to the discussion, and the board and the other defendants have an opportunity to present their side of the story,” Mickes said in an interview, “and, I hope people will withhold their judgment until they see all the facts.”

“There’s ethical obligations about litigating the lawsuit in the media, and I don’t do that,” Mickes said. “And now both sides have had their say, and we go forward.”

Musser filed the lawsuit against the district, claiming in part that by his second day on the job, he’d uncovered a host of unethical and possibly illegal financial payments made to top administrators without the approval of the school board (read more here).

Musser insists he brought his concerns to the attention of Superintendent Dr. Fred Czerwonka, but was told they would not seek school-board approval for the stipends. Musser claims the district’s legal counsel advised him to ask Czerwonka one more time to alert the board before going public himself, which he did.

After the details of the stipends went public, administration officials brought a number of those stipends to the board’s attention for approval.  But by then Musser had been placed on administrative leave. He claims wrongful termination and breach of contract, because the district failed to renew his contract without a hearing. His lawsuit also claims he’s been the victim of slander and defamation of character.

It names the St Joseph School District, Dr. Czerwonka, Human Resources Director Doug Flowers, and School Boardmember Dennis Snethen as defendants.

The defense takes a curious position on Musser’s contract. On one hand, the defendant’s assert that as a condition of employment, Musser was required to have a teaching certificate, but did not. They claim that makes the contract null and void, and insist that Musser is not under contract with the district.

But they also assert that Musser has not been terminated, and in fact remains on administrative paid leave.  Musser would not comment on the district’s filing.

The defendants deny that Musser was threatened with sexual-harassment charges if he didn’t accept a separation agreement, as he claims in the lawsuit. But the filing does go on to make sexual harassment allegations. It also asserts that the exchange over the separation agreement was part of a privileged settlement conversation, and thus was confidential.

The filing asserts legal protections ranging from attorney-client privilege to the qualified immunity granted to some public officials. It challenges any demand for damages, and specifically singles out punitive damages for a series of legal challenges.

Judge Randall Jackson currently has the case on the docket in August for a trial setting.

Click here for your pdf copy of the school district’s reply.

You will need to reference the original lawsuit to understand some of the entries. Click here for a pdf copy of the lawsuit.