<< Previous   of   Next >>

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTACT THE ENTERPRISE Jocelyn Robinson, Copy editor jrobinson@heraldnet.com

Ex-employee, blog author sues school district

By Sarah Koenig
Enterprise reporter

Mark Zandberg, a former Edmonds School District employee, has sued the Edmonds School District.

In his lawsuit, Zandberg claims officials retaliated against him for exercising his right to free speech and "constructively discharged" him in violation of public policy.

In response, officials claim that the lawsuit is malicious, that Zandberg knows the claims to be untrue and that in their dealings with him they acted lawfully.

Since leaving his position in June 2007, Zandberg has run an Internet blog that includes accusations of wrongdoing by district officials. It also includes personal attacks against them.

Zandberg worked as a planning and property management specialist for the district from March 2001 to June 2007. In court papers, he and district officials disagree about what happened near the end of his employment.

Neither responded to a request for an interview.

One thing both parties agree on is that Zandberg wrote a letter to the Edmonds Beacon in March 2007, near the start of events between the two.

In court papers, district officials describe the letter this way: "(Zandberg) referred to his fellow citizens as 'buffoons' and suggested the city 'deport' them 'to a city better equipped to deal with the mentally disturbed -- like Lynnwood.' (Zandberg) referenced confidential district information by stating that 'Edmonds School District was under no obligation to sell any portion of the site to the city.'"

In Zandberg's legal claim, he describes the letter this way: "Zandberg expressed his personal opinion as a resident of Edmonds and a licensed real estate agent regarding legal actions brought by fellow residents against the city of Edmonds. He also mentioned the city's purchase of property from the Edmonds School District."

Zandberg also claims in court papers that in March 2007, he spoke with an audit manager at the state auditor's office about the propriety of a district financial transaction and about his concerns on the proposed site for a new district administration building. District officials deny that claim in the legal papers.

On March 29, 2007, Brian Harding, Zandberg's supervisor, gave Zandberg a letter directing him to do three things.

First, he was to make clear that opinions expressed about the district were to be stated as his own and not the district's; second, that if he expressed opinions on district matters, he didn't include non-public information he had privileged access to; and third, that Harding or Marla Miller, assistant superintendent, were to approve any communication he prepared on behalf of the district.

Disciplinary action could follow, the letter said.

In response, Zandberg told his supervisors he thought the letter was an attempt to "silenc(e) all future expressions of free speech."

According to Zandberg, the restrictions kept him from doing his job. He said he wrote numerous e-mails to Harding and Miller asking for approval of communications he'd prepared on behalf of the district and that they were ignored. He claims he got complaints from those he worked with inside and outside of the district because of the communication delays.

Harding and Miller deny both accusations.

Zandberg also said he felt increasing hostility from his supervisors, a claim they deny.

In early May, Miller asked to meet with Zandberg about his communications, though the two disagree about what was discussed.

In court papers, Miller said she talked to Zandberg at the meeting about a statement he'd asked parents of the College Place Elementary School PTA to sign. She said she expected him to follow the letter of direction and respond to requests for factual information without inserting his personal opinion. Miller said Zandberg could bring a union representative to the meeting, and Mary Blankenship attended as his representative.

According to Zandberg, Miller did not discuss the letter of direction at that meeting. Instead, she questioned him about his conversation with representatives from the auditor's office on a 2005 property transaction Miller negotiated on behalf of the district.

At the end of May 2007, Zandberg sent an e-mail to his supervisors saying they had "constructively terminated" his employment by their conduct and saying his last day of work would be June 11, 2007.

Miller said that in response, she expressed confusion over the term "constructively terminated" and assured Zandberg he had not been disciplined and that his employment had not been terminated.

Zandberg then accuses the district of locking him out of the district's e-mail and voice mail systems June 7, five days before his last day of employment.

In response, Harding said that he was informed by the head custodian that Zandberg had returned his keys and said he would not be back to work. Zandberg notified Harding on the evening of June 7 saying that he would continue working until June 11, and on June 8, Harding told Zandberg his e-mail access would be reinstated, according to court papers.

In October 2007, Zandberg filed a tort claim against the district.

District officials denied the claim and told Zandberg that since his resignation, the district believed he'd "engaged in a number of improper acts…includ(ing) deceptively accessing district e-mail by assuming the names of other district employees and sending harassing e-mails to people under the assumed names, sending harassing e-mails to district employees and their families," and other accusations.

In response to Zandberg's lawsuit, the district filed a counterclaim of malicious persecution, saying that Zandberg knew his claims to be false and that the lawsuit was malicious in nature. They asked for attorney's fees and a dismissal of the case.

The court denied the request.

No dollar figure for the lawsuit appears in court papers. However, Zandberg claims that as a result of district officials' conduct, "he has suffered and continued to suffer damages in amount to be proven at trial," according to court papers.

The trial is tentatively set for July 2009.