HOLDEN – Despite the strenuous objections of her attorney, Superintendent Louise Regan for the second time in a week was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into her recent conduct.

A week ago Friday, the SAD 63 board of directors voted to place Regan on paid leave pending completion of an investigation they authorized on March 24 “into the possible existence of cause” to fire the superintendent.

The April 25 vote by the SAD 63 directors, however, did not affect Regan’s position as superintendent for CSD 8, which shares the superintendent and central office costs with SAD 63. SAD 63 represents the towns of Holden, Eddington and Clifton, while CSD 8 serves Amherst, Aurora, Great Pond and Osborn.

During an emergency meeting Friday night of the 11-member joint board of SAD 63 and CSD 8, the seven board members present – all from SAD 63 – voted to place Regan on paid leave pending completion of the SAD 63-authorized investigation into her conduct.

Members of the CSD 8 board have not participated in any of the joint meetings since voting in January to steer clear of the legal machinations between SAD 63 and Regan.

Regan attended Friday’s meeting with her attorney, Thad Zmistowski, but offered no comment publicly.

Joint board Chairwoman Karen Clark said that there were enough members present to constitute a quorum under the joint board’s system of weighted votes.

Zmistowski disagreed.

“They have just usurped the authority of CSD 8 and put CSD 8’s superintendent on administrative leave with no CSD 8 members present,” he said.

Friday’s meeting was over within 15 minutes. The only business on the agenda was to place Regan on leave on the joint board’s behalf, which was done through a motion crafted by the district’s Auburn-based attorney, Bryan Dench, who did not attend but was available by telephone.

The motion was read by Linda Goodrich, and seconded by Robert Kiah, despite Zmistowski’s attempts to place several objections on the record.

“I represent Louise Regan and I have some objections to this proceeding that I have to place on the record,” he said. “Pursuant to her due process rights under the Maine and United States constitutions as well as under statutory law, she’s entitled to place objections on the record,” he said, turning to make sure his objections were noted by a reporter attending the meeting.

As instructed by Dench in a letter that also was sent to Zmistowski, Clark did not permit Zmistowski to air his objections during the meeting. Zmistowski was advised to put his grievances in writing and send them to Dench.

“I am obviously shocked by this latest SAD 63 board action,” Zmistowski said immediately after the meeting.

“The SAD 63 board, with no notice to my client whatsoever, illegally convened an investigation on March 24, 2008,” he said. “It is now April 25 and my client still has no idea what the SAD 63 board is investigating. I have a problem with that.

“In our system of government, a public employee who is threatened with job loss at a public meeting has an absolute right, pursuant to the United States and Maine constitutions, as well as Maine statutory law, to place her objection to that proceeding on the public record,” he said.

Problems within the district began in October with a dispute involving recorded minutes of previous SAD 63 meetings, which Regan reported to police had been removed improperly from the central office.

Regan threatened in November, through letters issued by Zmistowski, to sue five of the eight board members – Therese Anderson, Karen Clark, Linda Goodrich, Dion Seymour and Robert Kiah – who allowed Seymour to read at an Oct. 22 board meeting a letter of concern about Regan’s conduct concerning the tapes. In the legal notices, Regan said she would be asking for the statutory maximum of $400,000 in damages.

Since then, Regan also has filed two Maine Human Rights Commission complaints against the SAD 63 claiming she was discriminated against and harassed for being a whistle-blower.

More recently, she filed documents in Superior Court calling the action taken at the March 24 meeting at which the investigation was authorized illegal in that she was not told the matter would be discussed and was not given an opportunity to attend the executive session in which her employment future with the district was discussed.