IRSD facing second suit over prayer case

Rejected settlement stipulations would restrict district’s use of religious designations

By Jonathan Starkey
Staff Reporter

New information emerged this week on the legal woes of the Indian River School Board. Not only is the board now facing another lawsuit, but an enforced silencein the original case regarding religious issues in the district was lifted, revealing some of the terms of a proposed settlement that the board rejected in late February.

On the first count, the board’s insurance company, Utica Insurance, has filed suit – essentially because the board denied the settlement offer in the Dobrich/”Doe” case, a settlement that, according to an attorney close to the case and a school board member, came with unacceptable conditions.

The sealed suit filed last week by the insurer would require that the board pay back to the company legal fees accumulated after the board denied the offered settlement on Feb. 27. School Board President Charles Bireley and Board Member Donald Hattier said that the insurance-agency-appointed attorneys – John Cafferky and John Balaguer – told the board to accept the settlement offer. Balaguer refused to comment on the matter when contacted by the Coastal Point. Cafferky did not respond prior to the Coastal Point press time to messages left at his office.

The Dobriches – a Jewish family – and another family (named as the “Doe” family in the legal matters) filed the initial lawsuit in February of 2005, claming First Amendment violations, and offered the settlement late last year. According to Thomas Neuberger – a Rutherford Institute attorney working for Board Member Reginald Helms pro-bono – and Hattier, that settlement offer included a six-figure money settlement and several other conditions.

Neuberger said that the settlement would have required the board members to bump one of the plaintiffs’ children to the front of the line for admittance into the Southern Delaware School for the Arts.

“We’re asking any other member to apply through a process,” said Hattier, who confirmed that condition was in the proffered settlement. “I just don’t think that’s fair.”

Perhaps even more controversially, the settlement also would have disallowed the board from using the words “Christmas” or “Easter” in district policy, such as in outlining vacation times, Neuberger said.

Hattier said that the settlement would have also required that the board consult their insurance-agency-appointed attorneys before implementing district policy. Hattier added that the board members didn’t have any input on negotiations of the settlement, which they denied on Feb. 27 by a unanimous 10-0 vote.

“They didn’t trust us to make policies that were legal,” Hattier said of the plaintiffs, adding that he had expected the insurance company to drop the district as customers because its lawyers told the board to accept the settlement. But didn’t expect a lawsuit, he said.

“This has got nothing to do with money. It’s to get out of the suit. These were nice lawyers but they weren’t representing us.”

“I’m still looking forward to our day in court,” he added. “This is not something I think should be settled out of court. I’m glad my fellow board members feel the same way.”

Utica Insurance had supplied and been paying for the two attorneys working on the board’s case, before the board denied the settlement offer. Hattier and Bireley said they didn’t know what the legal costs Utica is asking for would be, because there was not a cash value in the court papers. Officials served those papers to several board members in their homes on Easter Sunday. A Utica Insurance spokesman wouldn’t comment on the issue.

“No insurance company on earth has the right to dictate legislative policy,” Neuberger said. “Now they’ve decided to sue the board? I’m sure the board will respond strongly and affirmatively.”

In the initial suit filed, the Dobriches and the “Doe” family noted that school-sponsored prayer at athletic and academic events and banquets had “pervaded the life” of district teachers and students.

Specific examples cited in the complaint claimed that some teachers had preached “one true religion” and offered preferential treatment to students in a school-sponsored Bible Club. Some district teachers passed out Bibles during school hours, according to the complaint.

The Dobriches didn’t file the suit, however, until after Samantha Dobrich’s 2004 graduation ceremony, in which the Rev. Jerry Fike delivered the invocation, mentioning Jesus Christ and offering two Christian prayers, including one asking that students be enlightened to Christ.

In October 2004, the school board adopted new policy regarding school-sponsored prayer, after district Superintendent Lois Hobbs heard complaints from the Mona Dobrich but before the families filed suit.

“School officials may not mandate or organize prayer at graduation or select speakers in a manner that favors religious speech. Graduation speakers shall be slected on the basis of genuinely neutral criteria,” the policy reads.

Hattier said the board had also adopted policies regarding school-sponsored Bible clubs. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan – who is presiding over the case – released the board members as individual defendants in August 2005. Thomas Allingham, an American Civil Liberties Union-cooperating attorney working with the Dobrich and “Doe” families did not respond prior to the Coastal Point’s press time to a message left at his office.