Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BRITT, District Judge. This matter is before the court on several motions for summary judgment filed by various defendants. The motions have been extensively briefed and oral arguments were heard on 6 January 1992. The matter is now ripe for disposition. I. Facts The facts of this case have been recited in numerous prior orders and opinions, both published and unpublished. See, e.g., Stott v. Martin, 725 F.Supp. 1365, 1380 (E.D.N.C.1989) (hereinafter “Stott I”), rev’d sub nom. Stott v. Haworth, 916 F.2d 134 (4th Cir.1990) (hereinafter “Stott II”). For purposes of the pending motions, the pertinent facts can be briefly summarized as follows: In November 1984, Republican James G. Martin was elected to replace Democrat James B. Hunt, Jr. as Governor of North Carolina. Upon entering office in January 1985, Governor Martin and his cabinet secretaries made numerous personnel changes regarding state employees who were “exempt” from the job-protection provisions of the North Carolina State Personnel Act, N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 126-1 et seq. (1991). Plaintiffs Bobby Stott, Joseph Register, and Lonnie Michael Cayton were all discharged from their exempt positions. At the time of their respective discharges, Stott was the Regional Office Manager for the Raleigh Regional Office of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Register was the Director of Collision Reports and General Services within the Division of Motor Vehicles, and Cayton was the Director of the C.A. Dillon School, a residential treatment and rehabilitation center for juvenile delinquents. II. Procedural History Over the course of nearly seven years of litigation, this case has taken a variety of twists and turns. The case began when Stott, Register, and Cayton each filed a separate complaint naming himself and a class of similarly situated state employees as plaintiffs. The three complaints were eventually consolidated into this unified action. Plaintiffs alleged that the sole reason they were discharged was because they were affiliated with the Democratic party. They prayed for damages and injunctive relief to redress an alleged violation of their First Amendment rights. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to allege that they were also fired because they supported and contributed to Martin’s Democratic opponent and did not support or contribute to Martin. This court certified a class of about 120 plaintiffs and permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add nine new defendants. Defendants moved for decertification of the class and for summary judgment. The motion for decertification was denied. The motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to Stott, Cayton, and 55 class members and were denied with respect to Register and the remaining class members. Stott I. The court granted summary judgment for all defendants on plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim, ruling that plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence of an agreement among defendants to violate their rights. 725 F.Supp. at 1439. Finally, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity eleven class members’ claims for monetary relief; it denied defendants’ motions regarding the remaining class members and the named plaintiffs. Id. at 1442. The court then certified all orders entered for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1990). The Fourth Circuit, in a split decision, held that this court erred in certifying the class. Stott II, 916 F.2d at 145-46. It therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to decertify the class. Id. at 146. The court also vacated every other order from which appeal was taken due to the fundamental defect resulting from the improperly certified class. Id. Upon the return of the case to this court, the court decertified the class and issued notice to class members and putative class members of 1) the decertification; 2) their right to move to intervene in this action; and 3) their right to file independent actions. Thirty former and putative class members moved to intervene. Meanwhile, defendants filed a joint motion to reinstate the court’s previous ruling dismissing plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim. The court denied the putative motions to intervene and granted defendants’ motion to reinstate its ruling dismissing the civil conspiracy claim. Defendants have now filed four motions which, if granted, will terminate this litigation: 1) a motion to reinstate the court’s ruling dismissing Stott’s claim; 2) a motion to reinstate the court’s ruling dismissing Cayton’s claim; 3) a renewed motion for summary judgment on Register’s claim; and 4) a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief. The court is now ready to rule. III. Discussion A. The Fourth Circuit’s Opinion Plaintiffs read the Fourth Circuit's opinion to require a trial by jury on the claims of Stott, Register, and Cayton, notwithstanding this court’s previous dismissal of Stott’s and Cayton’s claims. Defendants read the very same opinion to require dismissal of all three claims, notwithstanding this court’s previous denial of the motion for summary judgment on Register’s claim. The irony of the matter is that the Fourth Circuit expressly stated that it did not intend “to make a determination about the merits of the claims brought by the plaintiffs.” Stott II, 916 F.2d at 143-44. Thus, the Fourth Circuit’s opinion does not require the court to grant or deny the instant motions. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion does, however, strongly suggest to this court that it should take a fresh look at all three plaintiffs’ claims. First, at the time this court ruled on defendants’ summary judgment motions, it rejected as “too broad” the First Circuit’s test for evaluating the constitutionality of patronage dismissals under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980). Stott I, 725 F.Supp. at 1381; see Jimenez Fuentes v. Torres Gaztambide, 807 F.2d 236, 241-42 (1st Cir.1986) (en banc), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1014, 107 S.Ct. 1888, 95 L.Ed.2d 496 (1987). The Fourth Circuit, in laying the foundation for its ruling on the class certification issue, stated that “Elrod and Branti, read together, mandate” the First Circuit’s test “in order to properly render a decision on the propriety of a patronage dismissal[.]” Stott II, 916 F.2d at 141; see infra pp. 976, 977 (setting out test). It found that test “consistent with the generally accepted broad interpretation of Elrod-Branti and its progeny[.]” Stott II, 916 F.2d at 142. Since this court rejected the First Circuit’s test as overly broad, it did not evaluate plaintiffs’ claims under the correct legal standard. Second, at the time this court ruled on defendants’ summary judgment motions, it examined “both the actual duties performed [by the discharged employees] and the[ir] job descriptions.” Stott I, 725 F.Supp. at 1388 n. 10. The court reasoned that “[a]n approach that completely ignores the actual duties performed within a given position by this particular employee and other employees is suspect and subject to abuse.” Id. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion, however, establishes that only the inherent functions of an office are relevant: “We would note that in conducting this inquiry, courts focus on the powers inherent in a given office, as opposed to the functions performed by a particular occupant of that office. ‘The relevant inquiry is to the function of the public office in question and not the actual past duties of the particular employee involved.’ ‘Thus, if an officeholder performs fewer or less important functions than usually attend his position, he may still be exempt from the prohibition against political terminations if his position inherently encompasses tasks that make his political affiliation an appropriate requirement for effective performance.’ ” Stott II, 916 F.2d at 142 (quoting Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242 (quoting Brown v. Trench, 787 F.2d 167, 168 (3d Cir.1986) and Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 641 (7th Cir.1985))) (citations omitted). Finally, at the time this court ruled on defendants’ summary judgment motions, it placed the burden of proof “on the defendants to show that political affiliation was necessary or essential to the effective performance of the positions in-volved.” Stott I, 725 F.Supp. at 1381. However, the Fourth Circuit’s opinion indicates that the classification of “exempt” in North Carolina’s personnel policy scheme should be accorded great deference: We believe the fact that each of the plaintiffs in this case held an exempt position, so designated by the governor, creates a presumption at law that discharge or demotion was proper.... While deference must be given to the decision to so designate those positions as exempt, or to reduce the number of exempt positions, that decision is not un-reviewable. The matter is a question of law to be ultimately decided by the courts. Stott II, 916 F.2d at 142-43. The parties hotly contest the meaning and correct application of this presumption. The Fourth Circuit did not articulate how it would apply to this case. However, Savage v. Gorski, 850 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.1988), on which the Fourth Circuit relied in recognizing this presumption, suggests the appropriate application: Both the interests of federalism and the conservation of judicial resources would ordinarily be better served by the federal courts’ giving substantial deference to the state’s judgment where government positions are so defined_ Where ... employees terminated by an incoming administrator can show no special circumstances (as in Elrod or Branti) which would make deference to such electoral and legislative determinations inappropriate, the court should accept those judgments. In other words, where the position in question has been designated “exempt” by the appropriate designating authority, the defendant is relieved of the burden of proving that the dismissal was proper under Elrod and Branti. In this instance, the plaintiff-employee must affirmatively demonstrate that the dismissal was improper under El-rod/Branti. Hence, in light of the classification of plaintiffs’ positions as “exempt,” the court is now convinced that it should have placed the burden of proof on plaintiffs, not defendants. In summary, the Fourth Circuit has implicitly rejected the legal test, the factual standard, and the burden of proof applied by this court in its summary judgment rulings on plaintiffs’ claims. Consequently, the court feels obliged to reexamine each of plaintiffs’ claims in light of the standards embraced by the Fourth Circuit. B. Jimenez Fuentes and its Progeny 1. Jimenez Fuentes The Fourth Circuit’s opinion directs this court to evaluate plaintiffs’ claims under the standards articulated by the First Circuit in Jimenez Fuentes. Just as in this case, Jimenez Fuentes arose in the aftermath of a 1984 gubernatorial election — in this instance, in Puerto Rico. The candidate from the Partido Popular Democrático party (“PPD”) defeated the candidate from the ruling Partido Nuevo Progresista party (“PNP”). 807 F.2d at 238. Apparently, the differences between these two parties are similar in magnitude to the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in the states. See id. at 243. Plaintiffs were two Regional Directors of the Puerto Rico Urban Development and Housing Corporation (“CRUV” — the Spanish acronym) — a component of the Puerto Rico Department of Housing — and were members of and active participants in the PNP. Id. at 237. After the gubernatorial transition and appointment of a new Secretary of the Department and Executive Director of CRUV, plaintiffs were transferred from their Regional Director positions to inferior positions. Id. at 238. Plaintiffs moved for and obtained a preliminary injunction requiring their reinstatement as Regional Directors. Id. at 237. In reviewing the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction, the First Circuit adopted a two-prong test to determine whether their discharges violated the First Amendment. That test, embraced by the Fourth Circuit in Stott II, looks first to “whether the position relates to partisan political interests or concerns.” Id. at 242. “That is, does the position involve government decisionmaking on issues where there is room for political disagreement on goals or their implementation” or “do party goals or programs affect the direction, pace, or quality of governance?” Id. at 241-42. If this first inquiry is answered affirmatively, the court must then look to the inherent responsibilities associated with the plaintiff’s position to determine whether it “resembles a policymaker, a privy to confidential information, a communicator, or some other office holder whose function is such that party affiliation is an equally appropriate requirement.” Id. at 242. Among the indicia relevant to this second inquiry are: “ ‘relative pay, technical competence, power to control others, authority to speak in the name of policymakers, public perception, influence on programs, contact with elected officials, and responsiveness to partisan politics and political leaders.’ ” Id. (quoting Ecker v. Cohalan, 542 F.Supp. 896, 901 (E.D.N.Y.1982)). Also relevant are “ ‘responsibilities that are not well defined or are of broad scope.’ ” Id. (quoting Elrod, 427 U.S. at 368, 96 S.Ct. at 2687). At issue are the inherent responsibilities of the job, not the functions actually performed by the officeholder. Id. The court then applied this test to the facts. It first found that the position of Regional Director does “relate[] to partisan political interests or concerns.” Id. at 242. On this inquiry, the court examined CRUY as a governmental entity, rather than plaintiffs’ particular positions within that entity. The court found that “[a]l-though CRUV’s objective is to assist in the provision of housing to all low and middle income urban residents regardless of political persuasion, the subject-matter of the division’s work is still of a political nature within the context of the [Supreme] Court’s opinion in Branti.” Id. at 242-43 (emphasis in original). The court stated that “the provision of housing to low and middle income city residents is a vital political issue ... important to partisan program goals_” Id. at 243. It noted that the two political parties in Puerto Rico differed in their approaches to the programs and functions of CRUV. Id. The court then proceeded to the second inquiry and evaluated “the inherent powers and privileges of the position of Regional Director.” Id. It divided the position’s job description into five categories: 1) policy-making functions, 2) representative functions, 3) spokesperson functions, 4) personnel duties, and 5) ministerial duties. Id. at 244. The court noted that the first four categories “clearly show that the Regional Director proposes, establishes, and implements public policy, is privy to confidential information, and acts as a spokesperson for the agency.” Id. Because the duties at issue and the First Circuit’s characterization of them are helpful in evaluating plaintiffs’ claims here, the court quotes from the Jimenez Fuentes opinion at length: 1.Policy-making Functions 1. Directs, plans, and supervises operational activities of the Region; 3.Monitors compliance with Commonwealth and federal regulations. 14. Discusses the Region’s operational problems with the Associate Director. 15. Recommends improvement in program to Executive Director. 19. Prepares and controls the Region’s budget. 20. Performs any assigned task. 2. Representative Functions 4. Conducts periodic meetings on regulations, work guidelines, etc. with supervisory personnel. 6. Attends meetings, as agency representative, with other government officers and civic leaders to coordinate government services offered to public-housing residents. 12. Meets with residents and general public to resolve problem cases. 16. Meets with residents and organized groups to coordinate social activities. 3. Spokesperson Functions 8. Drafts correspondence for the Executive Director and Associate Director. 4. Personnel Duties 9. Supervises and evaluates Region’s section supervisors. 10. Recommends recruitment, dismissals, promotions, salary increases, and other matters for Region’s employees. 11. Recruits “necessary irregular personnel.” 17. Organizes training of Region’s employees. 5. Ministerial Duties 2. Reviews and signs reports to central office, HUD, and other agencies. 5. Reviews and signs reports on rent changes, purchase orders, disbursements, and budgets sent to other agencies. 7. Drafts reports on work performed. 13. Visits the Region’s housing projects. 18. Receives telephone calls involving Region’s operations. Id. The court stated that the Regional Director’s lack of final decisionmaking authority is not dispositive. Id. at 245. Rather, the court found it important that Regional Directors are sole directors of an entire region, each supervising approximately three hundred employees. The Regional Director is, in effect, the alter ego of the Executive Director at the regional level. It is through the relationship with the Regional Directors that the Executive Director maintains effective control of the implementation of the housing programs. Id. at 245. The court found that the Regional Director “acts as the Executive Director’s representative at the regional level.” Id. at 246. “Without the Regional Directors’ political sympathy and loyal cooperation, the Executive Director ‘might face a situation where the hostile efforts or foot-dragging actions of any one of the [eleven Regional Directors] could single-handedly thwart the Administration’s goals in that particular [region.]’ ” Id. (quoting Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 239 (S.D.Ohio 1981)). The court also found it significant that Regional Directors are among the few positions treated as poli-cymaking within the Commonwealth’s personnel system. The Act generally limits the number of confidential positions to twenty-five per agency ... and only twelve employees from the Program of Public Housing were so designated. Eleven of the twelve were Regional Directors. Within the agency at least, plaintiffs were considered to be at the policymaking end of the spectrum. Id. (citation and footnote omitted). It concluded that “ ‘party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance’ of the office.” Id. (quoting Branti, 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. at 1289). The court therefore reversed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. Id. at 247. 2. Mendez-Palou In Mendez-Palou v. Rohena-Betancourt, 813 F.2d 1255 (1st Cir.1987), the First Circuit further defined the contours of both Jimenez Fuentes inquiries. In paraphrasing the first inquiry, the court stated that it considers whether the agency employing the plaintiff handled matters potentially subject to partisan political differences and ... focus[es] upon how the plaintiff’s position influenced the resolution of such matters. This step is designed to cut off from further consideration those positions involving matters devoid of partisan concerns.... [I]f the employee is responsible only for duties that are measured solely by strictly technical or professional criteria, the job is nonpartisan in nature and not properly a target of patronage dismissal. Although government employees may have differing views concerning important technical or operational matter — for instance, the proper method of accounting to be employed or the preferred plan for computerizing the agency — such a disagreement does not itself involve an issue implicating partisan political differences and is not the sort of “policy” dispute recognized as relevant by Elrod and Branti. Id. at 1258. The court also amplified the second prong: “[T]he actual past duties of the discharged employee are irrelevant if the position inherently encompasses more expansive powers and more important functions that would tend to make political affiliation an appropriate requirement for effective performance.” Id. Finally, the court announced the standard it would apply in deciding whether qualified immunity shields defendants in patronage cases from liability for monetary damages. The court held that there is “no clearly established constitutional protection against patronage dismissal for those individuals whose positions potentially concerned matters of partisan political interest and involved at least a modicum of policy-making responsibility, access to confidential information, or official communication.” Id. at 1259. 3. Collazo Rivera and Rosario Nevarez In Collazo Rivera v. Torres Gaztambide, 812 F.2d 258 (1st Cir.1987), plaintiff, a Regional Director of Puerto Rico’s Rural Housing Administration (“RHA”) — another agency within the Puerto Rico Department' of Housing — was dismissed when the PPD took control of the government in 1985. Id. at 259. The district court entered a preliminary injunction ordering plaintiff’s reinstatement from which defendants appealed. Id. Under Jimenez Fuentes’ first prong, the First Circuit noted that the Regional Director of RHA “implements RHA programs of significant economic and geopolitical impact[,]” such as distributing land to certain agricultural laborers and low-income families and administering programs encouraging family farm ownership. Id. at 260. The court observed that these programs “impact on the fabric of Puerto Rico’s rural life.” Id. Therefore, “[t]he governing political party’s ideological orientation on social and economic issues could affect the approach taken in carrying out these programs.” Id. at 260-61. Thus, “[a]n official with regional authority to implement rural social and economic reforms could, because of political disagreement with the Administration over fundamental issues, hinder the accomplishment of the elected Administration’s goals.” Id. at 261. The court concluded that the Regional Director’s position is “substantially related to partisan political concerns.” Id. Applying Jimenez Fuentes’ second prong, the court highlighted the Regional Director’s most significant duties as “implementing RHA programs, coordinating RHA activities with senior officials and other agencies and officials, and evaluating RHA policy and making recommendations for changes to it.” Id. at 262. Plaintiff argued that these duties leave the Regional Director with no discretion over how to perform his assigned functions. Id. The court squarely rejected this argument: “Even if the procedures for carrying out the program are strictly circumscribed, there is still an opportunity for affecting rural social and economic policies.” Id. The court noted that policy implementation can be just as important to a department’s program goals as policymaking. Id. Finding that “[t]he Regional Director’s duties offer considerable opportunity either to effectuate or to hinder the implementation of RHA programs and policies[,]” and observing that the legislature had classified the Regional Director as a policymaker, the court held that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the position. Id. It therefore reversed the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. Id. In Rosario Nevarez v. Torres Gaztambide, 820 F.2d 525 (1st Cir.1987), plaintiff also served as a Regional Director of RHA. Upon the shift in administrations in 1985, he was demoted to a career position within RHA. Id. at 526. Following a five-day bench trial, the district court ordered plaintiff’s reinstatement and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. Id. On appeal, plaintiff conceded that in light of Collazo Rivera, the first prong of the Jimenez Fuentes test had been satisfied. Id. at 527. Under the second prong, however, he argued that the Regional Director holds a “managerial” position “ ‘insufficient to frustrate the policies of the government.’ ” Id. at 528. The First Circuit rejected this argument, finding that the job description for plaintiff’s office was “essentially identical” to the job description in Collazo Rivera. Id. at 528. Although plaintiff testified that he performed less important functions than those listed in the job description, the court found that testimony “irrelevant ... because [the proper] analysis must focus upon the ‘inherent powers’ of the position — that is, those described in the job description — not the duties actually performed.” Id. at 528 n. 6. The court therefore reversed the district court’s judgment. Id. at 529. A Quintana and Echevarria In Quintana v. Anselmi, 817 F.2d 891 (1st Cir.1987), plaintiff was dismissed from his position as a Regional Director of Puer-to Rico’s Right to Employment Administration (“REA”). The sole issue on appeal was the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. In addressing Jimenez Fuentes’ first prong, the court observed that “the REA was designed to address the historically critical, and increasingly political, problem of high unemployment in Puerto Rico....” Id. at 892. The Regional Director is responsible for providing job training and employment to the region’s economically underprivileged citizens. Id. The court concluded that “[gjiven the REA’s plainly political mandate and the wide scope of authority exercised by [the Regional Director] ... plaintiff’s position potentially concerned matters of partisan political interest.” Id. Applying Jimenez Fuentes’ second prong, the court first noted that REA Regional Directors hold nine of the twenty-three positions in the department which the legislature classified as policymaking positions. Id. It then examined the position’s job description which include the following responsibilities: approving requisitions for equipment, materials and supplies; justifying the creation of new positions; selecting personnel; recommending personnel actions; representing the REA in internal, interagency, and community activities; advising officials and employees in the performance of their functions; representing the Administrator at the regional level; directing, supervising, and coordinating the implementation of REA programs; establishing administrative policies; and determining the organization of the regional office. Id. at 892-93. The job description also reveals that the Regional Director may exercise independent judgment, subject to revision. Id. at 893. The court concluded that the position “is so involved with policy-making, confidential, and official communicative tasks that we cannot say plaintiff was entitled to clearly established protection against a politically motivated discharge....” Id. It therefore reversed the district court’s order on the qualified immunity issue. Id. In Echevarria v. Gracia-Anselmi, 823 F.2d 696, 697 (1st Cir.1987), plaintiff, also a dismissed REA Regional Director, won reinstatement and compensatory damages in a trial on the merits. The First Circuit, holding that Quintana settled the issue of whether political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for that position, reversed the district court’s judgment in a per cu-riam opinion. Id. 5. Roman Melendez In Roman Melendez v. Inclan, 826 F.2d 130 (1st Cir.1987), plaintiff was dismissed as a Regional Director of Puerto Rico’s General Services Administration (“GSA”). After a bench trial, the district court ordered his reinstatement and awarded damages. Id. at 130. In analyzing the case under Jimenez Fuentes’ first prong, the First Circuit noted that Regional Directors are responsible for GSA’s building construction and conservation program which employs about seventy percent of GSA’s employees and accounts for approximately sixty percent of its budget. Id. at 133. The Regional Director oversees repair, maintenance, and improvements of all public school buildings within his region. Id. Although the court considered the first inquiry a close question, it found “ ‘room for principled disagreement in the development and implementation of plans to achieve’ the ultimate goals of the program.” Id. (quoting Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633, 641 (7th Cir.1985)): [T]he physical condition of schools could be an issue of special political significance for the incumbent governor and his administration because of its close relationship to the undoubtedly partisan issue of education in public schools.... Certainly if schools are in disrepair, many voters are likely to be upset and to blame the party in power for its policies or lack of policies in this area. Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court also looked to the job description which provides that the Regional Director coordinates with school superintendents and agency heads in his region to establish priorities in planning .and construction. Id. at 134. The court observed that [political parties may disagree as to the degree of attention they are going to give the physical conditions of public buildings. They may also disagree as to which buildings need immediate or special care. Furthermore, they may disagree whether to give priorities to rural or urban schools. Id. The court also found that “the regional director’s political affiliation could reasonably affect the manner in which he responds to” “complaints about the physical needs of the schools from committees composed of parents and teachers, from the different mayors, and even from the Governor’s office.” Id. “The political parties might hold different policies about the way to proceed in those cases that depend on their different views of the role of government.” Id. Thus, the court concluded that the position satisfied the first prong. Id. On the second prong, the court had little hesitation in holding that the Regional Director is a policymaker. The court found his significant responsibilities to be: supervising, coordinating, and evaluating all of the work from his office “ ‘applying with broad independence the public policy of the agency in the development of the work program,’ ” id. (emphasis supplied by court); coordinating priorities with school superintendents and agency heads; developing conservation programs; directing and supervising budget drafting; ordering investigations on complaints; and applying the agency’s public policies in his region with broad discretion. Id. at 135. It noted that the position is one of only twenty-eight of GSA’s three thousand employees classified as policymakers. Id. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and instructed the district court to dismiss the complaint. Id. 7. Other First Circuit Cases The First Circuit has addressed several other Puerto Rico patronage cases in the qualified immunity context. In granting qualified immunity to various defendants, the court has held that the following positions potentially involve matters of political concern and involve at least a modicum of policymaking responsibility, see Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1259: Head of the Supplies Division, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Rodriguez-Burgos v. Electric Energy Authority, 853 F.2d 31 (1st Cir.1988); Vice-President, Housing Bank and Finance Agency, Goyco de Maldonado v. Rivera, 849 F.2d 683 (1st Cir.1988); within the Department of Health and the Health Facilities and Services Administration, Auxiliary Director of Fiscal Resources, Special Assistant to the Secretary, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Assistant Director, and Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Nunez v. Izquierdo-Mora, 834 F.2d 19 (1st Cir.1987); Regional Director, Public Building Authority, Juarbe-Angueira v. Arias, 831 F.2d 11 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 960, 108 S.Ct. 1222, 99 L.Ed.2d 423 (1988); within the Highway Authority, Director of Design, Director of Construction, Plans Director, Toll Facilities Director, Director of Personnel, and Director of Internal Audit, Zayas-Rodriguez v. Hernandez, 830 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1987); the Governor’s translator, Roure v. Hernandez Colon, 824 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1987); Editing Assistant, Governor’s Press Office, Vazquez Rios v. Hernandez Colon, 819 F.2d 319 (1st Cir.1987); Social Services Secretary, Raffucci Alvarado v. Sonia Zayas, 816 F.2d 818 (1st Cir.1987); Regional Director, Department of Social Services; Director of Bureau of Statistics, Economic and Social Planning Program of Planning Board; Director of Bureau for Consultation on Land Use, Physical Planning Program of Planning Board, Rosado v. Zayas, 813 F.2d 1263 (1st Cir.1987); Director of Administration, Environmental Quality Board; Assistant Secretary for Special Services, Department of Agriculture; Deputy Executive Director for Special Affairs, Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d 1255; Director of Office of Education and Community Relations, Environmental Quality Board; Regional Director, Department of Natural Resources, Monge-Vazquez v. Rohena-Betancourt, 813 F.2d 22 (1st Cir. 1987); Regional Director, Right to Work Administration, Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Munoz Munoz, 808 F.2d 138 (1st Cir.1986); and Executive Director, Quality Control Program, de Abadia v. Izquierdo Mora, 792 F.2d 1187 (1st Cir.1986). The First Circuit has also ruled in other qualified immunity cases that several positions within the Puerto Rico government are not ones for which political affiliation is an appropriate requirement: Director of the Vocational Racing School, Horseback Riding Sport Administration, Hernandez-Tirado v. Artau, 835 F.2d 377 (1st Cir.1987); the Executive Mansion’s cleaning persons, waiters, and the supervisor of domestic services, Vazquez Rios v. Hernandez Colon, 819 F.2d 319 (1st Cir.1987); and an Administrative Aide/Assistant and Director of Public Works, the Cleaning Supervisor, and the Internal Auditor of the Municipality of Moca, Cordero v. De Jesus-Mendez, 867 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1989). See generally Susan L. Martin, A Decade of Branti Decisions, A Government Official’s Guide to Patronage Dismissals, 39 Am.U.L.Rev. 11, 44-46 (1989) (listing dozens of additional cases in which federal courts have addressed whether patronage dismissals were constitutionally permissible). The First Circuit also recently considered a patronage dismissal case which arose in Massachusetts. Plaintiff was dismissed from her position as Director of the Secretary of State’s Western Massachusetts Office allegedly because she expressed opposition to the Governor at a local political meeting. McGurrin Ehrhard v. Connolly, 867 F.2d 92, 93 (1st Cir.1989). On the first Jimenez Fuentes inquiry, the court found dispositive the position’s provision of “public information and referrals, in helping to solve citizens’ problems, and in ‘public relations[.]’ ” Id. at 95. On the second inquiry, the court reasoned that despite the position’s lack of final policymaking authority, its input into hiring decisions, supervision of employees, development of office policies and practices, communication with the public, and its designation as a policymaking position under Massachusetts law made political affiliation an appropriate requirement. Id. at 95-96. The court concluded that plaintiff’s dismissal was not subject to a First Amendment attack. Id. at 96. C. Application of Legal Standards The court must now apply the teachings of Stott II and Jimenez Fuentes and its progeny to the facts in the record. Before doing so, however, it is helpful to summarize the standards and principles the court gleans from the above discussion: First, in light of the presumption that plaintiffs’ dismissals were lawful, Stott II, 916 F.2d at 142-43, unless they can demonstrate that political affiliation is not an appropriate requirement for their former positions, Savage, 850 F.2d at 69, this court must accept the judgment of Governor Martin that these positions are not protected by statute or the Constitution. Second, in evaluating whether political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for plaintiffs’ positions, the court must decide 1) whether the agency in question, and the position within the agency, addresses matters in which there is room for political disagreement, Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1258, and 2) whether the position entails policymak-ing responsibilities, is a privy to confidential information, a communicator, or otherwise such that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement. Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242. The focus of the second inquiry is whether the inherent responsibilities of the position are such that a politically disloyal occupant could thwart his agency’s goals regarding the programs and policies over which he has responsibility. Id. at 246. In engaging in the second inquiry, the court should be guided by the following principles: 1) only the inherent responsibilities of the position, not the plaintiff’s actual past duties, are relevant, id. at 242; 2) the position’s classification as “policymak-ing” by the appropriate designating authority is entitled to some deference, id. at 246; 3) indicia relating to whether political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for a position include its occupant’s power to control others, authority to speak in the name of policymakers, public perception, influence on programs, contact with elected officials, responsiveness to partisan politics and political leaders, responsibilities that are not well defined or are of broad scope, id. at 242, input into hiring decisions, supervision of employees, development of office policies and practices, and communication with the public, McGurrin Ehrhard, 867 F.2d at 95-96; and 4) that the position’s occupant does not have final decision-making authority, or has strictly circumscribed responsibilities, is not determinative: a significant role in policy implementation or communication may be sufficient to render political affiliation an appropriate requirement for the position. Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 245; Collazo Rivera, 812 F.2d at 262. 1. Stott Plaintiff Bobby Stott was employed as the Regional Office Manager for the Raleigh Regional Office of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (“NRCD”). NRCD was abolished by the General Assembly in 1989 as part of an effort to streamline the state’s environmental programs. See Act of Aug. 3, 1989, ch. 727, 1989 N.C.Sess. Laws 2125. Its functions are now those of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Id. The focus of this lawsuit, however, is on NRCD because that is the department that employed and ultimately dismissed Stott. At the time Stott was dismissed, NRCD had three primary statutory duties: (1) To provide for the management and protection of the State’s natural resources and environment; (2) To promote and assist in the orderly development of North Carolina counties and communities; and (3)To provide job training and promote •employment for economically disadvantaged persons. N-C.Gen.Stat. § 143B-276 (1987) (repealed 1989). The court need go no further than the first duty to find as a matter of law that NRCD addressed matters in which there is room for political disagreement. It cannot be seriously disputed that there are fundamental differences between the Democratic and Republican parties’ approaches to the management and protection of natural resources and the environment. The court’s conclusion on this score is bolstered by two decisions addressing Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural Resources (“PRDNR”); “[T]he Department’s work is of a political nature. The utilization and conservation of our vital natural resources has always been a highly charged matter.” Navas Chabran v. Santiago Nieves, 666 F.Supp. 16, 18 (D. Puerto Rico 1987). The agency “formulates and implements public policies that potentially implicate partisan interests.” Monge-Vazquez v. Rohena-Betancourt, 813 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir.1987). Moreover, it is evident from the Regional Office Manager’s job description, see Appendix pp. 1-2, “that a Regional [Office Manager] regularly t[ook] action with regard to issues that potentially involve partisan political concerns, such as the handling of complaints” directed at NRCD programs within the region, Monge-Vazquez, 813 F.2d at 26, and communicating the functions, responsibilities, and goals of NRCD by visiting and contacting local government officials and public and private organizations. Its duties were not “measured solely by strictly technical or professional criteria.” Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1258. Rather, these duties required the Regional Office Manager to personally address issues on which “theré is room for political disagreement on goals or their implementation.” Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242. Turning to Jimenez Fuentes’ second inquiry, the court first notes that the Governor designated the Regional Office Manager’s position “exempt” from the job-protection provisions of the North Carolina State Personnel Act. This designation is equivalent to a declaration that the Regional Office Manager is a policymaker. See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 126-5(d)(l). As of May 1985, NRCD’s seven Regional Office Managers were among only sixty-four exempt positions of the department’s two thousand employees. Within NRCD, therefore, Regional Office Managers “were considered to be at the policymaking end of the spectrum.” Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246 (footnote omitted). The Regional Office Manager’s inherent functions confirm this characterization. These functions are described in a two-page job description plaintiffs submitted in connection with the previous motions for summary judgment. Grouping the duties described in that description as the court in Jimenez Fuentes did, the Regional Office Manager’s responsibilities were as follows: 1.Policy-making Functions 1. Supervised regional programs. 2. Prepared the administrative budget for regional office and coordinated with the divisions in preparation and submission of their budgets. 3. Served as lead in coordinating responses to emergencies taking place within his region. 4. Took on special assignments as needed by the Secretary. 2.Representative Functions 1. Was a member of the Secretary’s executive staff and represented the Secretary as requested throughout the region. 2. Communicated functions, responsibilities, and goals of NRCD by visiting and contacting local government officials and public and private organizations. 3. Addressed civic groups, environmental groups, business organizations, and public officials for the purpose of communicating NRCD programs. 4. Conducted regular meetings with divisional representatives to ensure that NRCD’s position on all issues was uniformly comprehended. 5. Provided information, speakers, and referrals as appropriate to the needs of citizens within region. 6. Responded to citizen complaints directed at NRCD programs within the region. 4. Personnel Duties 1. Assigned secretarial support as needed within region. 5. Ministerial Duties 1. Assigned vehicles, space, supplies, furniture, and nontechnical equipment for administrative support for regional programs. 2. Coordinated visits to the region by members of the Secretary’s staff. Stott testified at his deposition that he was responsible for a sixteen-county area; that he directly supervised a personal staff of four clerical employees; and that it was part of his job to address the news media. William Hodge, another Regional Office Manager who served at approximately the same time as Stott, indicated that the position required him “to support and participate in the development and implementation of agency, department, and state programs and related projects”; to “[e]n-sure timely and appropriate response by regional personnel to citizens’ complaints and emergency episodes”; to “[cjonduct monthly staff meeting[s] attended by regional management staff to discuss pertinent issues”; and to “[ajccept and implement all assignments from [the] Office of the Secretary.” Milan Muzinich, another Regional Office Manager, testified at his deposition that his position required him to “maintain and coordinate the different activities within the Department”; visit “with local city and county elected officials ... periodically”; meet with “groups within the counties and communities”; “promot[e] NRCD’s policies and many of their programs”; travel with the Secretary and division directors to promote NRCD policies; and assist “elected state senators and representatives in resolving some of the problems that they may have had within their constituency” which required “constant contact with these legislators. The job description and this testimony reveals that NRCD’s Regional Office Manager performed functions similar to PRDNR’s Regional Director. The occupant of the latter position performs the following functions: —Programs, directs, coordinates and supervises all agency programs, projects and activities at the regional level.... —Administers resources (financial, human and all other type[s]) which have been provided to the region for the fulfillment of his particular responsibilities. —At the request of the Secretary of Natural Resources, represents her and the Assistant Secretaries in the activities which require coordination at the municipal [or] regional level.... —Programs, directs and supervises the periodic evaluation of work as to how natural resources and natural systems of the region have been affected or will be affected in development of activities on the use of land, recreation, housing, and others.... —Assigns [and co-]coordinates ... all investigations regarding complaints which are received at the regional level.... —Plans, coordinates and supervises the orientation, education and participation activities of the citizens related to programs at the regional level of the Department of Natural Resources regarding the utilization and protection of natural resources. —[Is] [Responsible for preparing and submitting periodic reports to the Assistant Secretary on the status of the Agency’s programs at the regional level and prepares the pertinent recommendations on same. —Performs all related tasks which are assigned by the Assistant Secretary or the Secretary of Natural Resources. Monge-Vazquez, 813 F.2d at 25. The First Circuit concluded that [although not ultimately responsible for formulating the broad contours of the DNR’s public policy, a Regional Director does possess the vast responsibility for directing all agency programs, representing the Secretary, and implementing the agency’s broad policies at the regional level. Successfully completing these various duties necessarily requires the Regional Director to perform a mix of the policymaking, confidential, and communicative tasks envisioned by Elrod, Branti, and their progeny. Id. at 26 (citation omitted). The district court likewise concluded that the inherent functions of the Regional Director concern matters of partisan political concern, involve policymaking responsibilities, and allow plaintiff to be both privy to confidential communication and a spokesman for the agency at the regional level.... [Pjlaintiff s position ... is one where political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the office involved. Navas Chabran, 666 F.Supp. at 18. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at 19. The court concludes that the position of Regional Office Manager of NRCD “involve[d] policymaking responsibilities, and allow[ed its occupant] to be both privy to confidential communication and a spokesman for the agency at the regional level.” Id. at 18. The Regional Office Manager’s supervisory authority over all programs within the region, his participation in the development and implementation of agency, department, and state programs, his responsibility for promoting NRCD programs, and his budget-making responsibilities gave him broad power to control others and influence programs. He also was given significant powers to speak in the name of policymakers to the news media and the public and had significant contact with elected officials and the public. His emergency powers were not well defined and were of broad scope. See Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246. “Without the Regional [Office Manager’s] political sympathy and loyal cooperation, the [Secretary of NRCD] ‘might [have] face[d] a situation where the hostile efforts or foot-dragging actions of any one of the [Regional Office Managers] could [have] singlehandedly thwart[ed] the Administration’s goals in that particular [region].’ ” Id. at 246 (quoting Brunton v. United States, 518 F.Supp. 223, 239 (S.D.Ohio 1981)). Stott has not met his burden of proving that party affiliation is an inappropriate requirement for the position of Regional Office Manager of NRCD. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Stott’s First Amendment claim. 2. Register Plaintiff Joseph Register was employed as Director of Collision Reports and General Services within the Division of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). DMV’s primary statutory duties are to maintain records and to enforce laws and regulations regarding driver licenses, vehicle registration and ownership, collision reports, vehicle-related insurance coverage, and school bus and traffic safety. See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 20-1 et seq. (1989). Among its numerous specific responsibilities, the division is authorized to revoke or suspend driver licenses, vehicle tags, and vehicle registrations for violation of certain statutes, e.g., id. § 279.5, to restore suspended or revoked privileges, e.g., id. § 20-231.1, to assess monetary fines, e.g., id. § 20-279.31, to direct peace officers to secure possession of revoked licenses, e.g., id. § 20-279.30, and to regulate automobile dealers. Id. § 20-285 et seq. The court finds as a matter of law that DMV addresses matters potentially subject to partisan political differences. Although the partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans over the implementation of motor vehicle laws are not as pronounced as they are on environmental policies, they nonetheless exist. Simply put, a Democratic administration might handle licensing, registration, suspension, revocation, restoration of privileges, fines, procurement of revoked licenses, and regulation of automobile dealers at least somewhat differently than a Republican administration. In any event, DMV deals with issues at least as politicized as issues addressed by Puerto Rico’s General Services Administration. See Roman Melendez v. Inclan, 826 F.2d 130 (1st Cir.1987) (GSA oversees repair, maintenance, and improvements of public school buildings) (discussed supra at pp. 980, 981). It is not an agency that addresses exclusively matters “devoid of partisan concerns.” Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1258. Moreover, the duties of the Director of Collision Reports and General Services are not “measured solely by strictly technical or professional criteria.” Id. Rather, the Director is personally engaged in work which potentially involves partisan concerns. The position’s job description, see Appendix pp. 994, 995, reveals that its occupant assists the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in appearing before legislative committees. Moreover, Register testified at his deposition that it was not unusual for politicians to bring their constituents’ problems to him. Thus, the Director’s “political affiliation could reasonably affect the manner” in which he performs his duties. Roman Melendez, 826 F.2d at 134. This position therefore satisfies Jimenez Fuentes’ first prong. Turning to Jimenez Fuentes’ second prong, the court first notes that the Governor designated the Director’s position “exempt” from the job-protection provisions of the State Personnel Act because he considered the Director a policymaker. See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 126-5(d)(1). As of May 1985, the Director of Collision Reports and General Services was one of only twenty-eight exempt positions among DMV’s two thousand employees. Within DMV, therefore, the Director is “considered to be at the policymaking end of the spectrum.” Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246 (footnote omitted). The Director’s inherent functions confirm this characterization. These functions are described in a one-page document entitled “Description of Work” which defendants submitted in connection with the pending motions. Grouped as they were in Jimenez Fuentes, these functions are: 1.Policy-making Functions 1. Works with the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioners in preparing an annual budget to be submitted to the General Assembly. 2. Researches and evaluates proposed changes in laws, rulés, and regulations for impact on the budget and operation of DMV. 3. Receives and evaluates accident reports, administers financial security laws, and issues orders for revocation of driver licenses when no insurance is in effect at time of accident. 4. Projects budgetary needs for the operation of the Collision Reports and Evaluation Section, Print Shop, Supply Unit, and Mail Room. 3. Spokesperson Functions 1. Assists Commissioner in appearing before the various committees of the General Assembly. 4. Personnel Duties 1. Projects personnel needs for the operation of the Collision Reports and Evaluation Section, Print Shop, Supply Unit, and Mail Room. 2.Staffs and supervises the operation of the Print Shop. 5. Ministerial Duties 1. Provides statistical data to the Commissioner for use in presenting a legislative program. 2. Works with other directors to determine the needs for supplies and equipment from the Central Supply Room. 3. Supervises operation of Print Shop. 4. Works closely with postal authorities to ensure compliance with regulations and maximum service at the lowest cost. 5. Works closely with Data Processing Section to provide best system and equipment for DMV’s needs. 6. Works closely with Purchase and Contract in negotiating a contract for presorting mail. Register’s deposition testimony amplifies some of these responsibilities. He testified that: he directly supervised five or six employees and indirectly supervised between seventy-five and eighty; his job involved some exercise of discretion; he implemented policies established by the Commissioner; he answered directly to the Assistant Commissioners and the Deputy Commissioner; he established hearing procedures for hearings on the suspensions of driver licenses; he dealt with the public and gathered evidence for the hearings; he had ultimate decisionmaking authority over whether licenses should be suspended or revoked; politicians would bring their constituents’ problems to him; he directed both the state collision reporting system and the Motor Vehicle Uninsured Motorist Liability Administration; and he served on a review committee for DOT’s budget. Register’s testimony and the Director’s job description establish that the Director has the authority to speak in the name of the Commissioner before the legislature; influences programs through his implementation of DMV policies, his establishment of hearing procedures, his budget-making powers, his evaluation of proposed laws and regulations, and his discretionary authority to order revocation of driver licenses; and has contact with elected officials through his appearances before legislative committees. Moreover, when politicians bring their constituents’ problems to him, the Director must obviously be responsive to partisan politics and political leaders. See Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242. Register argues that his duties were strictly circumscribed by the motor vehicle laws and that political affiliation was therefore not an appropriate requirement for his position. The court rejects this argument for three reasons. First, this same argument was made and rejected in Collazo Rivera, because policy implementation can be just as important as policy formulation. 812 F.2d at 262. The Director does have significant policy implementation responsibilities. Second, the position actually does have significant discretion at least regarding decisions to revoke driver licenses. Finally, Jimenez Fuentes does not require the position’s occupant to be a “policymaker” for political affiliation to be an appropriate requirement: political affiliation is also an appropriate requirement for a “communicator.” 807 F.2d at 242. The Director’s role in appearing before legislative committees and in responding to politicians’ telephone calls makes him a communicator. The court concludes that the Director’s duties “offer considerable opportunity either to effectuate or to hinder the implementation of [DMV] programs and policies.” Collazo Rivera, 812 F.2d at 262. Without the Director’s political sympathy and loyal cooperation, he could singlehand-edly thwart the Commissioner’s goals in the several areas over which he has authority and responsibility. See Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 246. The court holds, therefore, that Register has not met his burden of proving that political affiliation is an inappropriate requirement for the position of Director of Collision Reports and General Services. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Register’s First Amendment claim. 3. Cayton Plaintiff Lonnie Michael Cayton was employed as Director of the C.A. Dillon School, one of North Carolina’s five residential treatment and rehabilitation centers for juvenile delinquents. This institution houses the most difficult, disturbed, and assaultive adolescents in North Carolina’s juvenile commitment system. Cay-ton was employed by the Division of Youth Services (“DYS”), a division of the Department of Human Resources (“DHR”). The legislature’s intent in creating DYS was to separate the administration of training schools for committed delinquents from the adult corrections system to avoid the stigma and punitive philosophy associated with penal facilities for convicted adult offenders. It is further intended that institutional programs for delinquents provide appropriate treatment and care according to the needs of the children in care and that such programs be appropriately coordinated with other services for children within the Department of Human Resources. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 134A-1 (1986). DYS is responsible for implementing the following programs and services: “educational; clinical and psychological; psychiatric; social; medical; vocational; recreational; and others identified as appropriate by the Secretary.” Id. § 134A-20. Moreover, DYS is required to ensure that its juvenile training facilities provide adequate security to the surrounding public and to inmates within the facilities. The court concludes that DYS addresses matters potentially subject to partisan political differences. Issues regarding the extent to which convicted offenders can be rehabilitated or reformed, the educational and psychological means necessary to achieve this objective, and the measures necessary to protect the public and other inmates from convicted offenders are ones in which there is “room for political disagreement on goals or their implementation.” Jimenez Fuentes, 807 F.2d at 242. Moreover, the Director’s duties are not “measured solely by strictly technical or professional criteria.” Mendez-Palou, 813 F.2d at 1258. Rather, the Director is personally engaged in work which potentially involves partisan concerns. The position’s job description, see Appendix pp. 995-997, reveals that its occupant develops, implements, and enforces policies and procedures relating to the institution and its management; serves as a member of the divisional management team where he is responsible for recommending, reviewing, and implementing policies and procedures to guide the entire division; and maintains regular contact with the general public through the news media and speechmak-ing. Thu