ALFRED – York County Superior Court Justice Wayne Douglas said he would render a decision “in due course,” on whether the town of Kennebunk has the authority to conduct a recall election of a Regional School Unit 21 school board director.

A hearing on the matter, conducted Wednesday, March 2, via Zoom lasted an hour, and examined some familiar themes in the case.

Tammy Wells photo

The court case stems from the submission by citizen initiative of an affidavit under Kennebunk’s municipal charter to recall RSU 21 director Tim Stentiford.

Attorney Russell Pierce, representing RSU 21, said the district is “fundamentally separate and distinct from the way the court would deal with a municipal school committee.”

Town of Kennebunk Attorney Natalie Burns had a differing view. She said the responsibilities of a school board in municipalities are the same as in school administrative districts. “The RSU is asking the court to order a two-tier system that they should not be subject to recall provisions,” while municipal school boards can, she said.

It is expected Douglas will render his decision prior to March 29, when Kennebunk voters are scheduled to go to the polls to decide a couple of zoning matters and vote whether to recall Stentiford and replace him with a candidate to finish the remaining three months of his term.

Gayle Asmussen Spofford is the sole candidate on the ballot for the short-term position and has said she does not favor recall, but would not want to see the seat remain vacant for a time.

A group led by Kennebunk resident Norm Archer filed affidavits to recall Stentiford and board chair Art LeBlanc on Nov. 30, citing what they claimed 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. The petition naming Stentiford was certified with 665 signatures.

RSU 21 filed a civil complaint on Jan. 10, claiming neither of the affidavits contained an objective verifiable basis for recall and that the town of Kennebunk does not have the authority to recall school directors.

“An RSU is a different animal altogether, a distinct legal entity,” Pierce told the court. “Local control over that school system is vested in the board.” He noted the RSU sets three-year terms, sets calendar dates when the terms begin, and so on. “The long and short of it is, a municipality cannot by charter amendment say, ‘well the school board director is only going to serve a one-year term,'” Pierce said as an example.

Burns noted it is the voters, not the municipality as an entity, who decides elections.

“It is not a town decision to recall, it is the voters,” said Burns, “Voters determine who is going to serve on the board in the first place and if someone is going to be recalled. This is how it works for municipal school boards and should work exactly the same for RSUs and SADS.” She said the statute does not differentiate.

Justice Douglas said it was clear that the formation of the RSU system in Maine that allows for the three towns to send their representatives to the board, “suggests that the towns do have some interest and input.”

He said the town of Kennebunk is not purporting to manage the school board.

Pierce disagreed. “There is no question this is a complete shift of the control and management of the board to the municipalities that frustrates (the intent) of the statute,” Pierce said.

He said Stentiford has served with distinction, experience and leadership developed over his term.

Justice Douglas pointed out that the designers of the regional school unit model established a system whereby voters have a say in who is on the board. “Those directors in reality are members of the community,” Douglas said.

Pierce said residents are elected to serve on the RSU board, not represent the municipality.

RSU 21 has a 12-member board; three directors each from Arundel and Kennebunkport and six who reside in Kennebunk.

Burns said just because an RSU is considered a “separate body politic” does not mean their members are exempt from recall. She said recall provisions are enacted by voters in a charter.

Attorney Tim Murphy represented Kennebunkport, a party-in-interest in the case. He noted Kennebunkport’s recall provisions are nearly the same as neighboring Kennebunk.

Murphy noted the governor can be removed from office under Article 5 of the Maine Constitution, as can state legislators, judges, district attorneys, “all manner of public officials in Maine – but remarkably the RSU states that somehow their folks are exempt.”

Murphy said the Legislature in 2011 passed section 2505 of Maine Title 30-A which makes it clear school officials can be subject to recall and did so after the RSU law had already been established.

“The Legislature was clear public officials should be subject to reasonable recall,” Murphy said.

Pierce disagreed and said the focus on that statute was on municipal officials.

Arundel attorney and selectman Tom Danylik said he was there as an observer. Arundel is also a member of RSU 21 and is a party-in-interest in the case. Arundel’s charter states school board members cannot be recalled.