Petersburg’s police chief sued his employer, the Petersburg Borough, and the two parties have officially resolved the matter with an out-of-court settlement.
That means the remaining claim about the chief’s First Amendment rights will not go to trial this summer.
Police Chief James Kerr testified against enforcing a masking mandate during a fall 2021 borough assembly meeting. He said he was speaking as a private citizen.
This ultimately snowballed into a multi-year legal battle between Kerr and the borough.
In the months following his testimony, Kerr told the borough he had become the subject of retaliatory harassment and intimidation by two assembly members. The borough hired legal counsel to look into the matter, and the investigation’s findings did not favor Kerr.
After KFSK reported a story in summer 2022 with information about the investigation and a statement from the borough, Kerr’s supervisor, Borough Manager Steve Giesbrecht, asked that Kerr submit any future public statements to him for prior review, noting that community members might conflate Kerr’s personal views with official borough positions due to his occupation.
Kerr maintained that he was speaking only as a community member, not as chief of police, when he testified against the masking mandate. He took issue with the borough’s actions and how the legal situation was explained to the public, and he filed a lawsuit in state court to seek reparations. The defendants —the borough manager and the borough— moved the case to federal court. By then, it had been nearly two years since Kerr’s initial testimony.
Kerr’s lawsuit claimed that the borough defamed him, portrayed him in a false light, and that the borough’s policy limited his speech and violated his constitutional First Amendment rights. In March, a federal court in Juneau ruled in favor of the borough on most of the claims. For the remaining claim regarding the police chief’s free speech rights, the court granted the borough manager immunity, but ruled the verdict would be better determined by a jury trial in August or for the parties to settle through mediation.
The two sides gave mediation a try in June, and the borough emailed a short press release announcing they’d reached a settlement: The borough’s risk pool insurance will pay Kerr $70,000 as part of the agreement.
According to the release, the parties believe that it’s important for borough officials to work well together and that settling the case is what’s best for the public. It said both sides made compromises, but it didn’t provide any specific detail and no clarification was given by either party when asked. They’ve also agreed not to comment further publicly about the settlement.
The borough’s attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for clarifying information, including questions about the “concessions” made by each party; Kerr’s attorneys also did not provide clarification or answers about any potential changes in policy they were seeking.
The parties reached the settlement agreement on June 11. The case officially closed in court July 2, with all of Kerr’s claims against the defendants formally dismissed.
