Complaint filed against SAD 63 Superintendent claims retaliatory discrimination

HOLDEN – SAD 63 Superintendent Louise Regan has filed a complaint against the school district with the Maine Human Rights Commission claiming she was discriminated against for being a whistle-blower.

“We do have the complaint filed,” a representative for the Maine Human Rights Commission said Monday. “It’s entirely confidential until the investigator’s report is in, which could be months from now.”

The charge of discrimination against the district was filed Nov. 12. A copy of the complaint, which was obtained Monday by the Bangor Daily News, states that the cause of the discrimination is based on retaliation. Regan states in the complaint, “I believe I was retaliated against for exercising rights afforded me pursuant to Maine’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.”

The Whistleblowers’ Protection Act is a Maine law that provides “protection of employees who report or refuse to commit illegal acts,” according to the state’s Web site.

In her complaint, Regan refers to having reported to police the “unauthorized removal” from SAD 63’s central office tape recordings of recent school board meetings. Holden police confirmed Monday that Regan had filed a complaint with them about the tapes being taken. Police also said Regan told them the tapes had been returned to her, but that she wanted the incident on record.

The discrimination complaint is related to a second legal claim that Regan made recently.

Regan, through her Bangor attorney Thad Zmistowski, on Nov. 7 sent certified letters of intent to sue to five school board members – Therese Anderson, Karen Clark, Linda Goodrich, Robert Kiah and Dion Seymour. In those letters, Regan claimed she was “the victim of a purposeful defamatory attack” and that she was “falsely and maliciously accused of lying and attempting to engage in a cover-up by” the five board members during an Oct. 22 meeting.

During that meeting, Seymour, with board approval, read a letter of concern that basically stated Regan had told lies about him to three other board members. Seymour indicated in the letter that Regan lied about how he acquired taped recordings of previous school board meetings and that those lies “maligned” him and his integrity. The letter ended with Seymour asking for Regan’s resignation.

Once Regan understood the letter was referencing her, she asked that the issue be discussed in executive session, but board members argued that since she made the statements about Seymour in public, the letter of concern should be public as well.

A vote was taken to end the meeting, and the five aforementioned board members voted to continue the meeting.

Three board members – Clause Berthiaume, Sylvia Ellis and Patricia Sirois, who serves as chairwoman – are not listed in the complaint. The three walked out of the Oct. 22 meeting while Seymour was reading his letter and returned just as he was finishing.

School officials in attendance also left the meeting, leaving only a handful of residents, including two Holden Town Council members.

The board did not immediately address Seymour’s letter or his request that Regan resign but instead moved on to finish the few remaining items on the agenda without incident. They then went into a 11/2-hour closed-door meeting, during which heated debate sometimes could be heard from outside the room. The executive session ended with no official action being taken by the board, but Seymour did rescind his letter and the board issued an apology for its actions that evening.

The legal action announced against the five board members is to “redress the grievous injury to her reputation and her mental and emotional wellbeing” brought about by them, according to Regan’s intent-to-sue letters. Regan is asking for $400,000, the statutory maximum penalty allowed by law.

In the separate discrimination complaint filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission, Regan does not list the board members individually, but names SAD 63 as the employer who discriminated against her.

The complaint does refer, however, to the five board members who voted during the Oct. 22 school board meeting to allow “Mr. S” to read his letter. It also goes on to state that “Mr. S’s retaliatory action was done with the worst kind of malice.”

Regan declined Monday to comment on either of her legal actions. The involved board members also have indicated they have been advised by legal counsel not to comment publicly because of the pending litigation.

When it next meets on Monday, Nov. 26, the school board is expected to go into another executive session to discuss those pending legal issues.