RSU 21 School Board member Kirstin Shapiro, seated at left in the foreground at a meeting on Monday, Oct. 21, 2024, could be facing censure in addition to a recall election for allegedly violating Board policies in recent months. (Courtesy of RSU 21 Streaming Service)
RSU 21 School Board member Kirstin Shapiro is potentially facing a censure in addition to a recall election stemming from accusations she has repeatedly violated numerous board policies.
School Board member Kirstan Watson made a motion during a Monday meeting to censure Shapiro on the grounds she violated rules pertaining to ethical and responsible behavior, community involvement in decision-making, and the process for making education-related complaints.
Meanwhile, during another meeting that took place at around the same time on Monday, the Arundel Select Board unanimously voted to set Tuesday, Dec. 17, as the date for a recall election in that community that could remove Shapiro from office.
In making her motion, Watson said Shapiro’s behavior during recent meetings has affected the School Board’s ability to function.
“The continued escalation of these violations has prevented the board from fulfilling its duties in a timely and reasonable manner and with integrity,” Watson said.
Board member Rachel Kennedy-Smith seconded Watson’s motion.
Ultimately, the motion did not lead to discussion and a vote, as Board Chair Lesley Stoeffler noted it was her understanding such a move first needed to be discussed with an attorney during a private session, with the accused and her attorney present.
After speaking briefly with the school district’s attorney, Superintendent Terri Cooper confirmed Stoeffler’s understanding.
“According to our attorney, Kirstin must have the opportunity to discuss this in an executive session with her attorney present,” Cooper said.
Kennedy-Smith said efforts already had been made twice to hold such a private session. Watson’s motion that evening made the second attempt, she added.
“I’d like everyone to know we’re trying to do this,” Kennedy-Smith said, turning to members of the audience. “Tonight failed, as well.”
Shapiro said an executive session had not happened yet because, in that evening’s instance, she did not have her attorney present, and, in the previous instance, she had been recovering from a medical injury.
Watson’s reasons for wanting a censure mirrored reasons that petitioner Dorothy Gregoire has given for pursuing the recall against Shapiro in Arundel.
In her letter seeking the petition for a recall, Gregoire accused Shapiro of violating Code of Ethics policies calling for School Board members to handle complaints a certain way, to avoid criticizing district employees in public, and to “welcome and encourage” cooperation and participation by teachers, administrators, and others in crafting policies.
Gregoire provided three examples from recent School Board meetings that she considered violations.
At a meeting on July 22, Shapiro dismissed a question from a teacher as “absurd,” which Gregoire said violated the School Board’s obligation to welcome and encourage participation from teachers and others.
At another meeting on Sept. 17, Shapiro interrupted a local teacher who was trying to speak about the difference in pay scales for educators in RSU 21 and in another district in Maine – a key sticking point for educators as they continue to negotiate with the School Board for a new contract. Shapiro persisted enough in her efforts toward a “point of order” that Stoeffler was prompted to ask her to stop talking.
The third instance Gregoire cited occurred during the School Board’s emergency meeting on Sept. 19, when Shapiro became emphatic – at one point using profanity – while alleging educators were harassing her and her family through her 4-year-old daughter amid the tensions of the ongoing negotiations for a new teachers’ contract.
Shapiro did not present evidence in support of her accusation, but did say she and her family would be pursuing legal action.
In her letter, Gregoire said this incident showed Shapiro violated the policy in which School Board members are supposed to refer their complaints to proper authorities.
Gregoire also said the “outburst” violates the policy against criticizing district employees in public.
She also referred to the profanity Shapiro used at the meeting.
“The use of this language at a School Board meeting raises questions about Director Shapiro’s judgment and her ability to perform the responsibilities of this role with the respect it demands,” Gregoire wrote.
In a statement on Oct. 18, Stoeffler said she had received a lot of feedback from people upset with Shapiro’s language and overall behavior at the Sept. 19 meeting.
“The board does not endorse or support the remarks Director Shapiro made during the public comment period, her decision to use profanity in her remarks, or her decision to raise concerns about the alleged treatment of her daughter in the School Board forum,” Stoeffler said.
Shapiro’s use of the four-letter profanity on Sept. 19 proved not to be an isolated incident. At the board’s meeting on Monday, she uttered the same word, this time under her breath but within range of her live microphone, so that those in the room and watching online could hear.
Board, teachers and public unite against ‘wildly inappropriate’ comment
If the Shapiro matter and prolonged negotiations for a new teachers’ contract are an indication of continued strife within the district, the meeting on Monday did have a moment of unity, when those in attendance refused to tolerate a public comment calling for the “fumigation” of the district’s central office.
The moment occurred when a Kennebunk resident spoke during public comment, describing the district as “in turmoil” and stating it was “obvious” to her the School Board is the problem. She attempted to speak directly about Cooper, but Stoeffler intervened and reminded her about the board’s policy against speaking about specific individuals when discussing issues in the district.
The resident described herself as someone who “has seen all kinds of people” and can “read people like a book.”
Then the resident made a remark that ultimately led Stoeffler to tell her that she needed to leave the room.
“I’m an ally for anyone in this room who wants to see the central office ousted and fumigated,” she said. “Please reach out to me, as I have an abundance of resources at my disposal, and I will vehemently fight on your behalf.”
Board member Megan Michaud spoke up against the resident’s use of the word “fumigated.”
“That is dehumanizing,” Michaud said. “That’s too far.”
Stoeffler agreed.
Cooper responded, as well, directing her comments through Stoeffler. Cooper said “we can have conversation and we can disagree,” but she spoke against people belittling others.
“If you have a message to say, please say it, but you can say it in a respectful way without trying to belittle another person,” Cooper said. “We don’t have to agree with each other, but we can be respectful of one another. I really can’t listen to what you have to say if you’re saying things to hurt or to just be mean or to come with misinformation.”
When Cooper finished speaking, members of the audience applauded.
The resident continued to speak from her seat in the audience, at one point asking, “Does truth have a place here?”
Such speaking out of turn prompted Shapiro to request that the resident be removed from the meeting.
Stoeffler agreed, saying, “I think you do need to leave the room, ma’am.”
The woman left without incident, and the public comment portion of the meeting continued.
A couple members of the audience reacted to the resident’s remarks, with one person describing them as “wildly inappropriate,” “disgusting,” and “dehumanizing.”
Another, Greg Cavanaugh, a former RSU 21 educator who has been critical of the district’s handling of the current, drawn-out negotiations for a new teachers’ contract, also responded to the remarks.
“Dr. Cooper, you don’t deserve that sort of behavior from anyone,” Cavanaugh said. “That type of rhetoric, that type of discussion and language … just doesn’t move us further. We are all trying to move things forward, and there are disagreements, and, really, none of this should cross bounds and lines.”
These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.
