Notes From Away: Direct Democracy II

By Tom Lamia

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” 

As I mulled over what tack I might take in again addressing the institution of direct democracy (see Notes From Away: Let the People Decide, February 2022), the quoted words came to me from somewhere in my past. The essence of it was right and Shakespeare was in my head as the author. My knowledge of Shakespeare is sketchy (I took a one semester survey course in college) and snippets from the eight or nine plays covered do sometimes crowd into my thoughts. 

I did a Google search for “Oh, what a web . . .” and nothing more was needed to trigger the above quote. But, to my surprise it was Sir Walter Scott, not Shakespeare, who was the author. Further research was clarifying: the quote is generally thought to be from Shakespeare because it is so true and fitting, a venerable, pithy and precise aphorism of the pitfalls of lying. These are strengths of Shakespeare, whose plays remain popular after 400 years. Scott, unfortunately, is now lightly read, if at all, despite being nearer to us in time (the quote is from an 1808 poem, Marmion). 

Being wrong about the source of the quote makes a relevant point in the story of direct democracy that I now offer in further description of its perils. The story comes from Maine and is continuing toward an outcome that is so convoluted and uncertain that no good result should be expected. 

As I said in last month’s installment, the process of direct democracy can be complex, costly and dangerous for those who venture to use it. A news report in the Portland Press Herald’s February 7 edition, illustrates the point. 

School boards, parents, state and local government bodies, and the courts have been in the political news everywhere it seems. The conflicts have been combative and unsatisfying to all participants. Battles are being fought over books, COVID mitigation measures, courses, teachers, coaches, bussing and other issues. Often there are more than two sides to these issues and, just as often, more than two bodies who claim decisional rights. 

Maine’s sixteen counties each embody smaller administrative units of governance. These include Regional School Units (RSUs), districts that govern school issues within a geographical area. Those geographical areas can include several municipalities and parts of municipalities. A school board governs each RSU. The residents of each municipality within its boundaries elect school board members. RSU 21 oversees schools in Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Arundel—all in York County in Maine’s southeastern corner. RSU 21 has eleven elected board members, five from Kennebunk, and three each from Arundel and Kennebunkport.

As one might expect in these turbulent times, some residents were unhappy with the board and began a recall process against two board members, the chairman and one other. Signatures needed for a recall vote to be held fell short for the chairman, but were enough to hold a vote on the board member. To block the vote, the board went to court seeking an emergency injunction. The court rejected the injunction on the ground that the true party in interest in the case was the board itself and not the residents who initiated the recall process. As the board could not show an irreparable injury the injunction was not granted and the recall process continues. 

Those are the facts that illustrate the first few inches of a legal morass that has made a small problem a tangle of community-destroying issues. 

The recall process was started as a method for concerned residents to confront and disempower an elected board. Why was that necessary? If my reading of this is correct, the answer is shameful. The residents initiating the recall believed that they had no alternative beyond lobbying their elected representatives (the board members) to take action to deal with “teacher and human resources” issues. The true issues now appear to be the desire of the initiating residents to have a board member recalled for reasons that may be homophobic and to have a reconstituted board remove the only African-American school superintendent in Maine.

Now residents not responsible for initiating the recall and town officials are supporting the board in its effort to stop the recall. They argue (1) that the recall process does not apply to board members, (2) that the recall petition does not contain a verifiable basis for the recall, (3) that the board members are elected by the towns (and not by the district as a whole) and are accountable only to the towns. Contemporaneously the recall initiators are complaining of being unfairly attacked as being motivated by improper motives and the board is arguing that the entire process is divisive and unfair because no grounds for the recall are cited or required. What a mess. 

The subtext is that letters in support for the recall have argued that the board’s focus on “DEI” (diversity, equity and inclusion) after “racist incidents” were reported to the board was misplaced, unnecessary and divisive. The backers of this DEI Initiative appear to be the targets of those who initiated the recall. The chair of the school board has said that it is the recall process that is divisive and unfair because it allows unfounded charges to be made against community members with no opportunity for those members to respond. “It does not protect a community member from personal dislike by other community members or from racism or sexual orientation or gender discrimination.” The ultimate objective is to remove the school superintendent as “unfit to lead.” 

A letter seeking support for the recall says the list of reasons is long and “somewhat personal for each of us. But the bottom line is this: after a year of [the superintendent] it is clear that she is unfit . . . and not being held into account . . . It is time to take the only step we the voters have [to] remove the . . . board leaders from office and replace them with people who will do the one job they were elected to do: manage—and possibly replace—the superintendent.”

The leader of the recall effort says that the claims of motivation by racism or homophobia are “repugnant and lazy.” The recall efforts, they say, are to deal with a “failing board and have nothing to do with the fact the superintendent is Black or that one of the [board members] we’re recalling is gay.”

With that, the process heads to a vote on March 29. Nomination papers for a replacement member were due on February 11. This story illustrates in a modest way that direct democracy can be a blunt and mishandled instrument for governing school board disputes.