KENNEBUNK – There will be one name on the March 29 ballot for a short-term Regional School Unit 21 director, who would be seated only if voters approve the recall of current member Tim Stentiford, whose term expires June 30.
Gayle Asmussen Spofford, who was appointed by the select board to serve a short-term vacancy on the school board a year ago, and who has previously served as a regular member, is the sole candidate for the position.
The select board on Feb. 8 hosted a question-and-answer session with Town Attorney Natalie Burns, where residents queried aspects of the recall petition process, challenges to the process, and the time allotted for signature gathering. The board later agreed to set the recall of Stentiford for March 29, when voters will also decide two unrelated items.
A group led by Kennebunk resident Norm Archer filed affidavits to recall Stentiford and board chair Art LeBlanc on Nov. 30, citing what they alleged were deficiencies that warranted their ouster. Petitions were issued. The petition seeking a recall election of LeBlanc came up one short of the 665 signatures of registered Kennebunk voters required under the charter. Town Clerk Merton Brown determined the petition to recall Stentiford had 665 valid signatures.
The recall and candidate portion of the Special Town Meeting will take place pending the outcome of a March 2 court hearing on a civil complaint filed by RSU 21, which argues that Kennebunk’s municipal charter cannot legally be applied because board members are elected by their town of residence, but serve the entire regional school unit.
The town’s charter refers to “any elected official.”
Burns at the Feb. 8 meeting said York County Superior Court Justice Wayne Douglas had indicated he would rule on the merits of the case prior to the March 29 Special Town Meeting.
Resident Susan Bloomfield asked if the town attorney had reviewed the affidavit for truthfulness – the charter calls for an affidavit containing “a statement of specific facts” to support grounds for recall.
Burns replied that she had not. From the town’s perspective, she said, a sufficient affidavit is one that is signed under oath, and said the town has no ability under the charter to review whether the information contained in the affidavit is opinion, is true, or not true.
“There is nothing in the charter that authorizes the town clerk, town attorney or town manager to reject an affidavit as long as it is made under oath,” Burns said. She said there have been issues identified in the portion of the charter that speaks to recall, and noted that the provisions included in that section predate the 2008 charter commission.
Burns answered questions about whether others besides the affidavit submitters can circulate petitions; a change in the date the petitions were required to be submitted, and petition challenges.
In response to questions by resident Chris Babcock, Burns noted that the initial 25 affidavit submitters are issued petitions to circulate, but noted the charter doesn’t prohibit them from allowing others to circulate them as long as those individuals take the require circulators oath.
She said the charter spells out that the signatures have to be collected within 30 days of being issued.
The date for petitions to originally be returned was Dec. 30. Petitioners calculated the period given was one day short and emailed the town clerk about it on Dec. 29.
Burns said the 30-day time would have been Dec. 31, but the town hall was due to be closed that day to mark the New Year’s Day holiday. She said the petitioners wanted Dec. 31, and the weekend days of Jan. 1 and 2, so as to turn the petitions in on Monday, Jan. 3.
“We agreed it was a valid point they were losing a day,” said Burns, “We talked about it quite a bit and Merton said he’d simply come in on Dec. 31. The 31st is the 30th day. The 31st was always the 30th day.”
She said the five-day petition challenge period of five days was calculated beginning on Jan. 5, so wound down Jan. 10. She did note that the challenge posting on the town website did not happen until Jan. 6.
RSU 21 Board Chair Art LeBlanc said he received word of certification after 9 p.m. on Jan. 5.
Resident Rachel Phipps asked about challenges to signatures – including one by resident Steven Webb, who at a previous meeting said he had been “bamboozled” into signing by a petitioner who had spoken to him about teacher pay.
Phipps said Webb had submitted a legal challenge to the town clerk.
“A legal challenge is not one that says, “I don’t feel I was given correct information,'” said Burns. She said the challenge submitted by Webb spoke to the process by the collectors and was not a legal challenge of a signature.
“The town has no authority under the charter to judge these disputes,” said Burns. “These are disputes that would be taken to a court of law, not the town clerk.”
Earlier, during the public comment portion of the meeting, Melanee Paul, who was among those circulating petitions, said she had received word that Webb had indicated he wanted to sign, so she went to his house, and that he took the petition and signed it. She said she handed him a flyer that spoke to teacher attrition, among other issues.
Paul said she knew some in town wanted the signature gathering to have been fraudulent “but it wasn’t.”
On Tuesday, Feb. 15, Webb said he has asked the ACLU to assist him in removing his name from the petition.
“I would respectfully request some legal assistance,” Webb said in an email to the ACLU. “I am asking the town of Kennebunk to remove my signature from the school board recall petition as it was obtained fraudulently. … I submitted a challenge to my own signature on the grounds that the circulator did not offer me a chance to read the petition before signing, which was one of the rules.”
In the letter to the ACLU, Webb said the only portion of the petition he was offered was the signature page, and not the affidavit. He said he knows Tim Stentiford, had voted for him, and respects his work.
“Had I been shown the actual petition with the affidavit, I would have never considered signing the petition,” he said in the email to the ACLU.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
