How to remove an elected official in Kennebunk? Charter Commission wants your input

KENNEBUNK, Maine — Members of the Kennebunk Charter Commission want to hear from the public on three weighty subjects they have been tackling during their twice-monthly meetings: recalls, petitions, and forfeiture of office.

On Saturday, Sept. 30, the commission will hold a public forum following its reviews of its drafts for forfeiture and recall criteria and procedures in the town of Kennebunk.

The reviews and public forum – originally scheduled for Sept. 16, but postponed in response to weather forecasts about Hurricane Lee – will be held on the third floor of the Kennebunk Town Hall at 1 Summer Street at 10 a.m.

The drafts for the proposed forfeiture and recall procedures are posted on the town’s website, for residents to review before Sept. 30.

The need to focus on recall guidelines and procedures surfaced in 2022 when petitioners sought to recall former RSU 21 School Board member Tim Stentiford.

In their affidavit, the petitioners cited poor leadership, contentious behavior, a lack of a curriculum committee, and increased spending as their reasons for wanting to remove not just Stentiford, but also then-School Board Chair Art LeBlanc. The effort against LeBlanc failed because the petitioners fell short of collecting the required number of voter signatures for the recall to proceed.

The School Board pushed back against the effort against Stentiford, asserting in a York County Superior Court filing the town did not have the right to recall one of its elected officials. The board argued that its members serve a regional school unit, and not a municipality, and therefore are not subject to the recall provisions in a town charter.

The judge decided against the school district, and the recall was allowed to proceed. Voters handily rejected the recall, and Stentiford remained in office until the end of his term in June of 2020. He did not seek reelection.

The whole episode raised questions and exposed gaps in the portion of the town charter related to recalls.

'Incredible expansion opportunity': Kennebunk Free Library buys building next door

Commission proposes new criteria and procedures for recalls

In its draft, the charter commission describes the ability to recall an elected official as “an important part of the democratic process,” one that ensures that office holders serve with “honesty and integrity.” Without referring directly to the Stentiford recall, however, the draft also acknowledges the strife a recall can create in a community.

“Recall elections ... have the potential for abuse, community divisiveness and controversy, and can cause harm to individual reputations, so it is important that such elections are authorized only when an Elected Official has committed a serious act or acts of misconduct, and only after those seeking the recall have satisfied the procedural requirements for such elections,” the draft reads.

According to the draft, valid reasons for recalling an official include breaches of the public trust, deliberate misrepresentation of one’s background and credentials, malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office, and conviction of a “qualifying crime,” or a guilty plea to one.

“Disagreements, no matter how vehement, over an Elected Official's exercise of discretion in the performance of a lawful act, or in the performance of his or her official duties, shall not be a valid ground to request a recall election,” the draft adds.

Such language is more extensive than the current charter, which says voters can recall and remove an elected official if they have lost confidence in that official’s judgment and ability to perform his or her duties.

Charter Commission Chair Chris Babcock said he and his colleagues have made sure to include introductions in their drafts for segments pertaining to procedures that have the potential to be contentious.

“One thing we’re trying to do is ... make clear to the reader what the spirit or the intention of the section is,” Babcock said.

Similarly, the commission’s proposed language for forfeiture of office also spells out the circumstances under which such a measure may be taken.

According to the draft, an elected official could be subject to forfeiture if he or she misses a number of meetings, commits malfeasance or shows a pattern of misfeasance and nonfeasance in office, fails to disclose a conflict of interest, or is convicted of a “qualifying crime.”

Chamber awards: Who won the "Be the Best" honors in the Kennebunks?

Should the Select Board have the power to remove an elected official?

While voters decide the fate of an elected official during a recall, it is the town’s Select Board that settles matters involving forfeiture of office.

“Recall and forfeiture are blood brothers,” Babcock said.

According to Babcock, the commission’s discussions about forfeiture of office coincided with a controversy involving former RSU 21 School Board member Ryan McQueen, of Kennebunkport, earlier this year.

McQueen resigned after the school district and members of the public took issue with some of his posts on social media. Before he resigned, however, some residents in Kennebunkport began to consider recalling him.

During charter discussions across the border in Kennebunk, commission members and residents noted that neither the RSU 21 School Board nor the local Select Board had the authority to try to remove a fellow member from office if the need arose, according to Babcock. New language about forfeitures of office is meant as a remedy, Babcock added.

More: How York County plans to fight the opioid crisis with a comprehensive recovery facility

Commission proposes making it tougher to recall officials

Lastly, the Sept. 30 forum will focus on petitions, known previously as initiatives, and how voters may have an issue placed on a ballot.

Babcock said the commission is proposing in its draft that petitioners collect many more signatures from registered voters to start a recall process than is required in the current charter.

The new draft calls for an individual to submit to the town clerk a notice of intention, signed by 500 or more registered voters, to file a recall petition. It also calls for petitioners to collect 2,000 or more signatures from registered voters during a 30-day period for a recall election to be held.

Under the current charter, the thresholds are much lower. In the Stentiford recall, for example, the lead petitioner, Norm Archer, needed only to collect 25 signatures for the affidavit that started the recall process. Also, Archer and his fellow petitioners needed only to collect and submit 665 signatures from registered voters – specifically, 10% of the voter turnout during the previous gubernatorial election – in order to secure the recall election they sought.

The higher threshold for signatures has a purpose, Babcock said.

“That will hopefully prevent weaponizing recalls,” he said. “At the end of the end of the day, a recall is an expensive process.”

According to Babcock, the commission will draw up a report once all of its drafts for revisions are complete and will submit it to the Select Board. The Select Board, in turn, will determine how and when to present the charter proposals as articles on the warrant for an upcoming town meeting.

Babcock said the community made clear to the commission that its top priority should be improving the language for recall criteria and processes in the charter. Babcock added that a second priority for the commission is to consider a different form of government for the town of Kennebunk.

Babbidge: Big decisions facing Kennebunk Charter Commissioners

Up next: Should Kennebunk move to a town council form of government?

Municipal attorney Don Gerrish delivered a presentation about assorted forms of government to consider during one of the commission’s meetings in August.

Currently, Kennebunk has a form of government centered on a Select Board and the type of town meeting in which voters independently and privately weigh in on articles on a ballot.

Among the commission’s considerations will be a form of government in which Kennebunk would have a town council and the kind of town meeting in which voters gather and, together, discuss articles, and even amend them, if necessary, before voting for them with either a show of hands or a vocalized “aye” or “nay.”

Babcock said the commission will turn its attention to Kennebunk’s form of government in the weeks and months that follow the Sept. 30 forum about recalls, forfeiture, and petitions.

“There is no proposal yet,” Babcock said.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Kennebunk Charter Commission forum to focus on recalls, petitions