BANGOR – The parents of a former student at Maine Central Institute in Pittsfield who sued the private high school after their son was suspended for misbehavior in an incident two years ago have appealed a November decision by a federal judge in Bangor that virtually threw the civil case out of court.

Peter and Dawn Logiodice as friends of their son, Zach Logiodice, filed a notice of appeal Dec. 5 at U.S. District Court in Bangor. The case then was sent to the federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

Efforts to reach the Logiodices’ attorney in the case this week were unsuccessful.

In a decision filed Nov. 8, U.S. District Judge George Singal granted motions for summary judgment by numerous defendants in the case. The decision took care of the first five counts in the 11-count lawsuit, which was filed Nov. 30, 2000. The first five counts named each defendant and claimed each violated Zach Logiodice’s 14th Amendment rights to due process. The judge dismissed the remaining six counts, five of which alleged the defendants violated Zach Logiodice’s rights under the state constitution. The last count sought a declaratory judgment that would order private schools that accept public school students on tuition to abide by the same disciplinary restrictions as public schools.

The defendants are the trustees of MCI, Headmaster Douglas Cummings and Dean of Students John Marquis, SAD 53 (Pittsfield area) and its superintendent, Terrance McCannell.

The case began when Zach Logiodice was suspended from MCI in January 2000, after he used profane language during an argument with a teacher over a soda can he carried into a midterm examination area. The suspension lasted for 17 school days. The state restricts such suspensions to 10 days for public school students, during which a hearing usually is held.

One of the conditions of Logiodice’s return to MCI was that he get a safety evaluation from a mental health therapist.

Zach Logiodice’s parents could not get an appointment with a therapist for their son until Feb. 7, the lawsuit states. Zach’s suspension was set to expire on Feb. 2, 2000. Still, school officials insisted the student could not return until an appointment was kept. On Monday, Feb. 7, 2000, the Logiodices and their son attended a scheduled appointment with a therapist, the lawsuit states. The parents attended an SAD 53 school board meeting that night and told the board that MCI and SAD 53 were violating their son’s due process rights. Superintendent McCannell agreed, according to the lawsuit.

On Feb. 8, 2000, McCannell and Headmaster Cummings met with the boy’s mother and said he could return to MCI after his second appointment with a therapist, provided the therapist agreed to meet with school officials. On Feb. 11, the therapist met with all concerned, and Zach was permitted to return to school on Monday, Feb. 14, 2000.

Zach Logiodice “was denied educational services for 17 school days without the opportunity for a hearing,” the lawsuit states.

Since that time, Zach Logiodice has graduated from high school. However, the case persists and reflects a long-standing dispute over student rights and protections that has existed between SAD 53 leaders and MCI.

In his decision, Judge Singal cited U.S. Supreme Court cases to conclude that MCI, even though it accepts public funds to educate public school students, does not perform an exclusive public function in educating SAD 53 students. The school is not a “state actor” and public officials are not overly “entwined” with MCI’s functions, the judge concluded, despite the Logiodices’ claims to the contrary. The relationship between SAD 53 and MCI does not meet other standards, specifically the “coercion” test or the “symbiotic relationship test” that would define MCI as a state actor, the decision states.

The Logiodices and their attorney “have not directed the court to any case in any jurisdiction in which the court has held that a private school is a state actor as to its publicly funded students,” Singal wrote in his decision. The judge cited several Supreme Court cases that upheld the independence of private schools in similar circumstances.

When a private facility acts under the principle of sovereignty – for example, when a private party administers elections for public office or provides health care for prison inmates – it is working under government authority and the situation would change, the judge wrote.

“In contrast, providing education does not depend on the force of the government. Education is a benefit that many citizens would seek from private educators whether the government compelled the education or not.

“To hold that a private school that accepts publicly funded students is a state actor as to those students could threaten the very nature of private school education,” Singal wrote.