National trend hits home
To the editor,
During the 2018 recall effort in Scarborough, I remember reading an article about it and feeling sympathy for the students, families and staff of the district. Movements such as these are negative at their core, are a distraction for students and families, can diminish the morale of the staff, and cause hurt and resentment in those being recalled.
School board elections are the vehicle for putting qualified people on the board and making your personal preferences known.
This December, I was so saddened to learn that a recall effort had begun in our town and our RSU 21. Serving on a school board is an act of generosity, of volunteerism. Currently, school boards across the country are being barraged with negative actions. What is happening in Kennebunk is not unique, but is instead part of a larger national effort to divide, disrupt and polarize to win points for political gain.
There are numerous reports of these activities across our nation. Here is one article from Education Week chronicling the trend:
“These are really adult battles over adult partisanship, and the interest of kids is of secondary importance to them,” said Vladimir Kogan, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University.
For more information, visit www.edweek.org/leadership/why-school-boards-are-now-hot-spots-for-nasty-politics/2021/07.
As I walked my dogs down Mill Street in Kennebunk this December and complimented a gentleman on his holiday lights and decorations, he piqued my curiosity when he mentioned there was much more to come. Sure enough, the next day a sign boasting, “C’mon people, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now” was there, on his house – and lit.
How I wish that sentiment had been the only narrative in Kennebunk this season.
Lynda Wilson-Dinino
Kennebunk
Stay alert and engaged
To the editor,
Tim Stentiford has been an exemplary school board member in our community and the unfounded accusations that are the premise for the recall drive have been nothing short of outrageous.
Now, it’s likely that many of the people who signed the recall petition did not know that it was based on false information. (After all, they would have had no reason to suspect that there was a hidden agenda behind the process.) Had they been aware of this, though, it is a certainty that far fewer signatures would have been collected.
Many might not have been aware that this recall project in our community parallels similar efforts in towns and cities across the country – where there have been concerted attempts to have reactionary social values be dominant in local civic organizations. Knowledge of this might well have given some signers pause.
None would have expected that this action would blow up into the very divisive and hurtful mess that it is now.
But here we are.
If there is any good to come from this it could be the fact that it has awoken many to the importance of being alert and engaged with local governmental affairs and processes.
Tom Berry
Kennebunk
Review challenge, remove signature
To the editor,
I do not understand why the gears are still turning on a recall election for Mr. Stentiford when a legitimate challenge to a signature was sent to Town Clerk Merton Brown within the legal challenge window and receipt was acknowledged of said challenge by Mr. Brown.
The Kennebunk Select Board heard from Mr. Webb at their Tuesday, Jan. 25 select board meeting. He made known to them his challenge to his signature. He also reported that he had not been contacted by Mr. Brown. At the time, several of us assumed his signature to be one of the three Mr. Brown announced he had invalidated resulting in the 665 signatures he certified. Since learning that his signature is still on the certified petition, I am left full of questions.
Mr. Webb’s challenge is available for people to review at norecallRSU21.com. Mr. Webb contends that he was provided misinformation about the purpose of the recall and was never shown, nor offered to view, the affidavit. In fact, he has said that he was shown an entirely different flyer that did not include any of the accusations from the affidavit. Others have corroborated this report.
According to Mr. Brown, he was instructed that the only authority he had to disqualify a signature on the petition was to check it against the signature on the voter registration card. Who decided this was the extremely narrow definition of a legal challenge? And on what basis? A review of the form RSU 21 Recall Challenge Petition Signatures will show that nowhere on this form does it state that the only challenge you can make is for a discrepancy between signatures.
To date these are still the only challenges that were reviewed by Mr. Brown. Since this was the direction given to Mr. Brown, who is to consider and make a determination on the other multiple legal challenges that were made within the legal time frame?
This is the full extent of what the town of Kennebunk Charter says about legal challenges to the signatures on the petition:
Sec. 7.03 Election as to Recall and Public Hearing
If the petition shall be certified to be sufficient by the Town Clerk and the registrar of voters, the Town Clerk shall allow 5 days for the filing of legal challenges to the signatures on the petition. If no such challenges are filed, the Town Clerk shall forthwith certify and submit the petition to the Board of Selectmen.
Nowhere does it say, or is it implied, that the only legal challenge is to the matching of signatures. In fact, many would argue that a citizen coming forward within the legal challenge period stating that he was not shown the affidavit, and was shown another flyer, and wants his signature removed, to be a far stronger challenge than a mismatched signature.
Mr. Webb’s challenge stating that he was not shown, nor offered, the affidavit, should invalidate Petition No. 21 entirely given that the circulator, Melanee Paul, swore under oath that she had offered every signer an opportunity to see the affidavit. This is the same circulator who got the signature of another Kennebunk citizen who also has provided the Kennebunk Select Board a statement that he was never shown, nor offered to view, the affidavit.
The Upstanders are requesting that the select board review this challenge and act accordingly, and remove Mr. Webb’s signature.
Rachel Phipps
Kennebunk
Support for superintendent
To the editor,
I support Dr. Terri Cooper, superintendent of RSU 21, and what she has led the district in accomplishing and improving during the past 18 months. She is very professional, very qualified and is a leader. The hostility against her is wrong. The following six categories are both significant improvements and achievements she has accomplished:
1.) She has introduced a long-overdue data-based approach to our district’s strategic decision-making.
2.) She is forward-thinking, not backward-thinking, and is positioning our district to make some necessary adjustments to evolve and change – bringing a fresh, objective perspective. (Her outsider status is an asset: private sector business leaders know that organizations that promote only from within or from immediate surrounding areas often suffer from insular viewpoints.)
3.) She has led our district with science-based COVID policies, updating approaches as we collectively gain new understanding of public health recommendations.
4.) She has demonstrated sound financial management including securing state and federal COVID-related funds to expand our district’s revenue sources without burdening local taxpayers.
5.) She created an educational recovery officer position, fully funded by COVID-relief funds, to immediately and proactively address well-documented COVID-related academic losses.
6.) She is modernizing RSU 21 administrative processes and supports.
Dr. Cooper is extremely qualified to serve and lead our district. I disagree with those who want only individuals who have been superintendents before. She has the character, courage and the “guts to try” to go to a new district to improve the myriad of variables that will only make the future better for our community and school district.
Our superintendent has been here for 18 months and has been saddled with COVID her entire tenure. What she has accomplished is more than impressive. Why the unwillingness to let her show us what she can do?
Robert Sanders
Kennebunkport
Various claims have been challenged
To the editor,
I find it curious that, in the past two months, the group supporting the recall of certain school board members has been mostly silent, at least publicly. The various claims of unsupported teachers, profligate spending, and communication issues have all been challenged in numerous letters to the editor and open forums at select board and school board meetings.
One would think that if these challenges were misplaced, the pro-recall group would want to make the record clear. But, in fact, this has never been about teachers or spending or communication. They have no interest in actual dialogue. While individual signers of the recall petition may believe this, the drive behind this effort is focused on one thing.
In the words of one of the leaders of the pro-recall efforts, this is about stopping an extreme ideological agenda from being foisted on RSU 21. Make no mistake: This is about ending any and all DEI efforts in this district. Period.
Ian Durham
Kennebunk
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
