York County Superior Court Justice Wayne Douglas heard arguments Wednesday, Feb. 2 on RSU 21’s request for a preliminary injunction against the town of Kennebunk regarding a recall election of one of the school board directors. Tammy Wells photo

ALFRED – Regional School Unit 21 and the town of Kennebunk should know soon whether a preliminary injunction sought by the school district that would halt any further action on the attempted recall of elected school board director Tim Stentiford will be granted.

York County Superior Court Justice Wayne Douglas conducted a 90-minute hearing on the matter via the online platform Zoom on Wednesday, Feb. 2. He said he would rule on the preliminary injunction within a day or two.

Douglas set a March 2 hearing on the RSU 21 complaint, which contends that the town does not have the authority to recall an RSU 21 school board director.

“It is our position the better course would be for the court to hit the pause button,” said RSU 21 attorney Russell Pierce. “If there is a recall election, and Mr. Stentiford is removed from office when he is just about to complete his three-year term, there is no way to undo it.”

The Kennebunk Select Board, at its Feb. 8 meeting, is poised to formally schedule a recall vote for a March 29 Special Town Meeting, Pierce said. The select board received certified recall petitions from Town Clerk Merton Brown on Jan. 27. Originally, the Stentiford petition contained 697 signatures and 29 were found invalid at the initial count. After a review of challenges, three additional signatures were invalidated, leaving 665, exactly the number required to put the recall question on the ballot.

Under the municipal charter, the recall process calls for a five-day period following certification for the subject of a recall petition to resign if they so choose, noted Pierce. Stentiford, the subject of the recall action begun late last year by a group led by Kennebunk resident Norman Archer, may also request a public hearing.

Advertisement

Justice Douglas noted Stentiford is not compelled to resign in five days and could so at any time, if he so desired.

“The director himself if not a party to this case; the plaintiff is the (RSU 21) board,” said Douglas. “And frankly, I am struggling with how the board is irreparably injured if this recall election goes forward. Based on the point the town makes, there won’t be a vacancy.” He said if a voter checks yes on the recall question, they then vote on a replacement.

“The board’s operations continue, the board has full membership, so how is the plaintiff, the board, injured?” Douglas asked.

Pierce said the school district has institutional interest that Stentiford complete his term, which expires June 30. “If one of the directors has (his) three-year term interrupted, it will take … the resources of time and attention from the board. There is no secret this is a drain on resources and a stress on this director’s duly elected office.”

He said if the process moves forward and Stentiford is recalled, and it later turns out that RSU 21 is correct — that the town does not have the authority to conduct an RSU 21 recall election — “we won’t be able to undo that.”

Kennebunk town attorney Natalie Burns said the argument that the directors serve the district is contradicted “flatly” by the RSU reorganization plan that says directors represent the towns that elect them. “They don’t act as individuals, but act as a board,” she pointed out, but remain representative. “That does not excuse them from a recall; the municipality retains the authority to have a recall,” she said.

Advertisement

Douglas asked whether the charter applied to other positions, like that of sewer and water officials, for example.

“There is a section that talks about elections, and some are included on that list,” Burns said. “They would be considered elected officials and subject to recall.”

The attorneys referenced various portions of Maine Statutes 20-A, and 30-A, that speak to education and to municipal governance.

Burns said under state law, municipalities have the right to exercise any power or function that is not expressly denied or implied.

She referred to the 2008 charter commission that was approved by voters and noted the charter commission knew the RSU was being formed. “But (it) didn’t do what the town of Arundel did,” which voted to ban the recall of RSU 21 directors, Burns said.

She noted RSU 21 directors are elected by the town of Kennebunk and there is no separate election process.

Advertisement

Attorney Tom Murphy represented Kennebunkport, a party-in-interest in the complaint.

“Kennebunkport has a town ordinance language similar to Kennebunk, allowing recall of any elected officials,” he said. Murphy said in his view, the school district meets the definition of a quasi-municipal entity, and said he believes the Legislature wanted municipalities to have the right to remove a broad range of elected officials.

Attorney Thomas Danylik, who chairs the Arundel Board of Selectmen, said he was there as an observer. Arundel was also named a party-in-interest in the case.

“I will issue an order pretty promptly in the next day or two,” on the preliminary order, said Douglas. He ordered briefs on the complaint be submitted by Feb. 18, and replies by Feb. 25, with a final hearing set for 1 p.m. March 2.

In addition to the attorneys representing the school board, Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Arundel, several RSU 21 school board directors and Kennebunk select board members sat in on the hearing, as did some members of the public. At its height, 33 people attended the online session.

Comments are not available on this story.