Lack of clarity is concerning
To the editor,
It is important for community members to understand the legal challenges submitted to the Kennebunk town clerk regarding the recall petition targeting Mr. Stentiford. The legal challenges have gone unanswered by the town.
One challenge to the petition concerns a falsehood submitted on the petition affidavit portraying him as having mismanaged monies destined for RSU 21. This is verifiably false with public knowledge that he did not serve on the finance committee and was absent from the meeting where the appropriation of funds was discussed and voted on. The fact that the town accepted this lie in a sworn affidavit is legally egregious. Those familiar with legal documents will realize that lying on a sworn affidavit is a crime known as perjury.
Another challenge involves the time period given to the petition to collect signatures. Town charter stipulates the return of the petition to the town clerk in “30 days or less.” Signatures on the petition appeared every day in the month of December, which has 31 days. This is an important distinction as it allowed petitioners to gather 51 extra signatures on the additional day. They would not have met the threshold otherwise.
Finally, there are the direct signature challenges. Most disturbing are the recent revelations of community members who were lied to about the intent of the petition and were not shown the petition header with the sworn affidavit as required. These community members report being shown a flier containing misinformation or no document at all. I hope that any other community members who were unaware of the intent of the petition when signing will come forward and let the select board know.
It is our job to hold our government accountable. The lack of clarity our town government has provided around this serious process is gravely concerning.
Chris Babcock
Kennebunk
Who is preserving election integrity?
To the editor,
Who is preserving the integrity of Kennebunk’s elections?
The town established the rules for the school board recall petitions, including petition deadlines and sworn oaths for petitioners, and then violated those rules. The town also ignored citizens who brought forth accusations of fraud among petitioners, and ignored data showing that the foundational information stated in the petitioners’ sworn affidavits is false. Town officials, including the town manager, registrar of voters, and select board chair all deny responsibility for ensuring that the rules were adhered to and for preventing the alleged fraud. All have allowed the recall election to proceed. All of this has been supported by the town attorney.
The recall petitions included a deadline printed directly on each petition copy. This deadline was within the guidelines established by the town charter. On the day of the deadline, because petitioners had not gathered enough signatures for the recall to proceed, the town complied with their request to move the goalposts and offered an extension to allow more signatures to be gathered.
Town officials certified the recall petition for one school board director with exactly the number of signatures required, ignoring the fact that a dozen voters who signed had alleged fraud in obtaining their signatures. One signer shared his allegations before the select board in a public meeting, stating that the petition he was presented is not the one that was submitted to the town. His comments are cut from the video of the public meeting that is posted on the town website.
This signer also submitted a written signature challenge within the timeframe provided for by the town, noting that his signature was obtained fraudulently as he was not presented with the petition to which his signature was affixed (as required by the petitioner’s sworn) but a different document. The town declined his challenge and counted his signature anyway. The town charter does not prohibit the acceptance of this signature challenge by the signer himself, but the town claims that because the charter doesn’t provide for this specific incidence, it cannot be done.
On the other hand, the town charter states that those who signed the original recall affidavit, a legal document under penalty of perjury, are to be the petitioners gathering signatures. Town officials chose to ignore these provisions of the town charter and accepted signatures gathered by individuals who had not signed the sworn affidavit.
In allowing these troubling irregularities to impact our elections and in selectively refusing to accept responsibility for the integrity of our local election process, the actions of Kennebunk officials have created the appearance of favoring one outcome over another, leaving Kennebunk voters with no one to trust.
Jane Anderson
Kennebunk
Preserving healthy air and water
To the editor,
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights are impressive, but reflect the times in which they were written – “the best of times and the worst of times” à la Dickens.
Therefore, and while it protects our rights to free speech and other things we consider important liberties, it falls short in protecting our most basic rights – those to clean air and water. It was drafted just prior to the advent of the industrial revolution, and the excavation and use of coal for motorized machines.
There was plenty of clean air and water to be had back then. So the need to protect it never crossed Madison’s mind as he sat drafting up the first 12 Amendments. He had an excuse. But what’s happened since?
During this legislation session, most likely early March, LD 489, known as the Pine Tree Amendment, will be up for vote. If it, like other amendments, is ratified, it will serve as a backbone upon which to rest and test all matters related to preserving healthy air and water, now and for generations to come.
It’s time has certainly come. Please take action in support of its passing.
The website, www.pinetreeamendment.org, is chockful of useful information as well as tools for action, from signing off on letters to your reps, or selecting letters representing your various affiliations, whether they be avid outdoors enthusiast, educator, healthcare worker, fishermen, businessperson, artist/artisan, grandparent, or youth. Each action should take no more than one minute, and in the time it took you to read this, they would’ve been done.
Andrea Roth Kimmich
Kennebunk
District seeks rate increase
To the editor,
Well, here we go again: the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport & Wells Water District is asking for another rate increase.
If you look at its annual reports posted online from 2013 to 2018, the district has been granted four rate increases, one as high as 6.6 percent. No online reports for 2019 or 2020 are posted, but upon asking, there was an increase in 2020.
The proposed 4 percent rate revision is to increase revenues. Wouldn’t we all like to increase the money coming into our homes for various projects. But no doubt some of us put them off, perhaps forever.
So please attend the district’s public hearing on Thursday, Feb. 17th at 6:30 p.m. at the office building at 92 Main St., Kennebunk.
Liz Walsh
Kennebunk
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
