ROCKPORT, Maine — The Five-Town Community School District Board rejected a request Wednesday night to allow a memorial service to be held at the school for a well-known community member, an action that has prompted a debate over the original school policy.
Superintendent Elaine Nutter said the decision was an agonizing one for the board but was based on several factors including being consistent, since no memorial services have been allowed at the Strom Auditorium at Camden Hills Regional High School for five years.
The vote by the board came after the administration at the high school had rejected the use of the auditorium for a memorial service for Ken Bailey, who died Tuesday. Bailey, 62, had served Camden and the region in numerous positions including selectman, firefighter, police officer, lake warden, recreation director and newspaper editor.
The board voted 5-3 to uphold the administration’s decision not to allow the auditorium to be used. The five members who voted to uphold the policy were Marcia Dietrich of Rockport, Eliza Haselton of Rockport, Robert Lawson of Camden, Tori Manzi of Camden and Gretchen Richards of Rockport. The three members voting to allow the service to be held were Matthew Dailey of Camden, Elizabeth Borch of Hope and Edmund Hartt of Lincolnville. Bill Hibbard of Camden abstained from the vote and Jim McKenna of Appleton was absent.
The decision not to allow memorial services was made, Nutter said, about five years ago when outside experts advised school administrators that the school needs to be a “safe and neutral” place for students. She said following a series of suicides, school administrators decided that having memorial services for students at the school would not be in the best interest of the other students. That prohibition extended to all memorial services.
Since then, she said there have been other requests to use the auditorium for memorial services — including one request last summer by the family of a Camden Hills student who died in a car crash — but they all have been rejected.
The board’s decision, the superintendent said, was based on the argument that if they made an exception this time it would send an unintended message to people who have been refused previously and make it difficult if not impossible to refuse future requests.
Nutter said the board made it clear that it has the utmost respect for Bailey and all he has done for the community.
Parker Laite, a longtime friend of Bailey, said he was disappointed by the board’s decision, not just for his friend but for the overall community.
“The community raised $6 million to $7 million so the auditorium could hold 800 not just 400 people,” Laite said.
He said the goal was to have an auditorium where community events, not just school events, could be held. Laite said he believes memorial services should be allowed if they are held outside of school hours and do not conflict with other events.
While I commend the board for adhering to the guidelines and regulations in place at this time, and sending a consistent message, I would like to respectfully suggest that they consider changing this policy now, and going forward.
This is a (largely) tax-payer funded structure, and should be available to the taxpayers for events other than school-related functions. Especially memorial services. Death is a significant part of the life experience. Hiding memorial services from our youth may well traumatize them more to the lessons of life than allowing them to experience grief in their own way…including communally, if desired.
Please consider changing this guideline to allow the building to be used for other functions.
It’s the right, and fair, thing to do by our taxpayers, and our students.
Very well said
Thank-you…
Opening up a school for outside activities is a very slippery slope. Once that door is opened, anybody could petition the school to use their auditorium for memorial services, sell girl scout cookies, hold meetings, etc. My stance has nothing to do with whether the “taxpayers” help pay for the building or not. Taxpayers pay the police as well, but we certainly can’t use them as a taxi service. While this person may have been a very significant part of the community, do you then want to open up the school to anybody wanting to use it for memorial services (or other functions)? I believe that is something that you really wouldn’t want, as it would be a huge headache for all involved. Do you want the town/taxpayers on the hook for potential lawsuits if somebody is injured at the school during one of these non-school events because you know the first parties sued are the school system and the town.
It is a touchy subject, but looking at the big picture and potential future issues, I do understand why the board decided as they did.
I do understand your position, but if fear of lawsuits is the deciding factor, then there are certainly other considerations that would be considered as well. What if someone is injured at a school function held at the building? What if a student is injured in an athletic event at the school? What if a parent is there for a child’s function, and the parent trips and breaks their ankle?
I don’t think whether or not there might be a potential lawsuit can be the deciding factor.
I agree, they should look at the big picture. I do understand why the board decided as they did. That’s the policy in place at this time.
I just take it one step further, and say that I believe that policy should be changed, or at least re-evaluated, with input from the taypaying public and citizens of the towns it building belongs to.
Exactly!
Thank-you!
During school events, school staff is also present, and the district’s liability insurance would cover it. You may not think a potential lawsuit should be a deciding factor, but what if it happened and the taxpayers are on the hook for a settlement?
What if the school is opened up to wedding receptions. Even if alcohol is prohibited. Some person sneaks it in, gets drunk and falls down and breaks their leg. Trust me, somebody will go after the town/school (oh, you should have had onsite personnel to monitor the activity”…in the end, the taxpayers lose because lawyers must be hired, and in this crazy country, a settlement will probably be offered. If taxpayers in a town are ok playing Russian Roulette with that sort of thing then that is fine…just don’t complain when the bill comes due.
I agree that if they want to change the policy, then do so. Again, understand that most tax paying citizens also have no idea of the ramifications of this, from a school law point of view (not that they would have to know that), but if they want this changed, make sure they completely understand what it means. They should not go into this with “we need to fix this because this upstanding citizen’s memorial service could not be held at the school” and end up with a policy where, 6 months or a year from now is allowing the memorial service of a child molester to be held at the school. Hopefully that would never happen, but if the door is opened, it COULD.
They should make informed decisions, and go from there. That is all.
Your comment is in agreement with mine, so, obviously, I agree! :-)
The district’s policies require auditorium users to obtain their own insurance in an amount determined by the district and naming the district as an additional insured. The district’s auditorium use policy and standard contract for auditorium use cover this and other damage and security matters. In addition, the contract provides that users shall pay a rental fee and for custodial and security personnel.
Liability concerns are covered in the Five-School District’s policies. Under the auditorium use policy, and as part of the district’s form contract, auditorium users may be required to obtain insurance coverage, for an amount determined by the district, naming the district as an additional insured under the policy.
If we take your slippery slope argument to its logical extreme, the Five-Town School District policy would be changed to prohibit outside activities at the Strom Auditorium. They could call the new policy “Just Say No”.
While Just Say No would make a lot of people unhappy, especially those citizens who donated their own money so that the school could have a much larger auditorium, and would remove an important performing arts and events venue from public use, it would have the advantage of bright-line simplicity. There would be other benefits. too: It’s easily administered; It would insulate school board members from the headaches and possible criticism that result from making decisions about using the auditorium; and, most importantly, it would make the school district’s lawyers happy. Lawyers love to dream up hypothetical liability scenarios and then tell their clients “no”.
I very much agree with your post MaineIsMyHome. As a school board member, (for a different town) I can understand why they are not allowing it and applaud their consistency, but to not hold memorial services for students after a serious of multiple suicides? Those students deserve to get closure surrounded by all the other students that are enduring the same loss. It seems inconsiderate to not allow that simply for the sake of “well we didn’t allow it for that one, so we won’t allow it for these ones either”. Taxpayers do use that money, and majority of costs for the school are paid by taxpayers. They deserve the use for at least that since they paid to have the gym capacity increased.
Then, as you know, a policy can be revisited for the time/purpose/location of outside events. I have attended a memorial service at a school for a student who had died.
Honestly, I don’t believe having the memorial service in a school helped with closure at all. The student still would have had a memorial service at a church, etc. I honestly did not see any other significance from it being at the school other than the family asked, the administration said yes, and it was the largest possible gathering place in the town. Kids, especially as they get older, get through things like this with their friends. I do not believe WHERE the memorial service is held, is at the core of this issue.
I think the school board, in this instance, made the mistake of going into too much detail on why they do not allow memorial services. The whole “safe and neutral” part doesn’t make much sense to me. Simply either allow memorial services or do not allow them….student, pillar of the community, etc.
Will you allow christian revival too
What if the church of Satan or Scientology want to use it…….again, slippery slope.
I would not allow religious events at all (if it were up to me.) Unless there were a “rental fee”, a charge, which was charged for every event, secular or religious.
“safe and neutral”
Yea ok when has a public school been NEUTRAL? I am guessing this statement does not include politics or religion..
The CHRHS is always neutral as long as being neutral means very liberal. No surprise given the same type of neutrality shown by not allowing yellow ribbons on town lamp posts while the Iraq war was more active. Though I must say I can’t disagree with them sticking to a set of guidelines, when so often rules are made but ignored for certain people and not others.
I can understand that the board members were doing their job and upholding their policy. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the policy.
Finally, a rational post. If people do not agree with the policy, then they can move to try to change it. BUT…in doing that, they should educate themselves on what the change of policy would mean. The school committee cannot write a policy indicating “memorial services may be held for SOME people.”
community leader
KKK member
child molester
Their memorial services could all be at the school. Once you open that door, it can’t be closed. If the community is comfortable with what a change of policy truly means, then by all means contact your school board members and push for a change.
Does this mean that without a change of policy the Strom Auditorium could not be used for a memorial service for a deceased President of the United States?
Good question. I suspect they would do whatever they wanted (as the fed govt has done, especially more so over the past 3 1/2 years), but IF that happened, I do not believe the school board could still say no to the next person. I have commented several times on this article, and my main point is this: If they want the policy changed then please contact the school board members with their concerns, but educate yourselves on what is involved and what it would mean. If you let one do it, you let all do it. There is no process to decide “well, this person is worthy, but this one is not.” School boards are not going to get into that. The lawyers would be hounding them constantly.
How disrespectful to treat such a giving and devoted man who has always “given” to his community his entire life. What possible harm could there be in allowing a memorial service when school is closed for the summer – because it’s never been allowed before – a very poor choice. This decision is a disgrace to the Camden community and Ken Bailey and his family. May you rest in peace Ken- we will hold you in our hearts forever.
This is in no way disrespectful of Mr. Bailey, yet an actual lesson in following the rules and not changing them spur of the moment. They adopted the rules for a reason and now are forced, regardless of whom the service is for, to abide by them. It’s actually refreshing to see them stick to the rules. What would the students, friends and families say who were turned away when their student-child’s memorial couldn’t be held there and then they made a “special exception”?
Oh yes it is disrespectful of Mr. Bailey, their statements did not include the fact that they left out their political agenda. The few, the powerful, are very telling.
The board upheld a policy that had been in existence for the past 5 years. Policies exist for a reason.
Really? Should they be used as a guide for intelligent people to make realistic decisions? Of course they should. If someone makes a policy that says a citizen must buy in to the Osham-a care, as the Supreme Court did, does that mean that millions of people should buy into it because it is policy? Should citizens have turned and ran in regards to being non-citizens under British rule. Of course not! Should we all buckle under just because a rule or policy has been in place for 5 years? Of course not, there is always an exception for every rule or policy.
and there is a process for trying to overturn obamacare (and I hope it is overturned), but this policy exists so the school board must follow it. If they do not follow it, why have it? To me, intelligent people would be thinking more big picture than just “well, he was a great community member, let’s make an exception.” This isn’t a private company that can simply do what they wish with their rules. If the school board allowed this memorial, they must allow others with no filter process. If they denied the next person, I am sure that person’s family would understand “oh, you made an exception to a public policy last time but not for my family member….where is my lawyer’s number again?”
They cannot do that..unless they rewrite their policies and then any other memorial service can be held there.There is a process for changing policy and if the people want it changed, they should speak to their schoolboard members, but again, they need to understand the ramifications of that. A knee-jerk reaction to let this “exception” happen could lead to shocking situations later when the convicted murderer’s memorial service could be held at the school.
The “harm” would be that you have now opened the flood gates for any and all memorial services to be held at the school. Remembering One person, no matter how significant he was to the community, cannot override that. It is that “what’s the harm” attitude that gets places in trouble because once you go down this road, it is no longer an “exception” to allow a memorial service, it is past practice and if somebody else wants to hold one there, the school really has no leg to stand on to deny it. What if the next memorial service was for a convicted child molester? They would have as much right to hold the memorial service at the school. Now go back and think “what possible harm” could come.
Why is “because it’s never been allowed before” not a good reason? I know the Camden elite have their own system of judging a person’s worth and making exceptions for them, but that attitude is unfair. You cannot pick and choose who is worthy. Memorial services should be open to all or none.
This is sad , for someone to say no to this request when he has been so active in the community he’s a very caring giving person and for all you to say no.. I wonder how many of you. he said no too?
You have to understand this is not about one person. It is not about WHO this person is or how important he was to the community. If the school board had said yes to the request, then there is no stopping it from being somebody else (whether they were a great community leader or a convicted murderer would make no difference).
Ok, then allow it for the community leader and deny it for the convicted murderer. What’s so hard about that? It’s known as exercising discretion, which is one of the school board’s jobs.
Schoolboards might be able to Exercise discretion so long as it follows law. When does the school board meet to go over these case by case situations? Are you going to hold up a memorial service until the next school board meeting so they can give a yes or no?
Do you want school boards to be able to deny a person because “oh, they are from that family,and that family is trouble” or “that family is ok because I went to high school with their cousin.”
Maybe the school board should just be “on call” to meet at a moment’s notice to decide whose memorial service can be held at the school.
It must go to intent of the policy. When CHRHS had a series of student suicides there was concern over holding those services there, both because of the potential attention it brought to the act of suicide and the memories which the location may then hold for student s attending the services. This situation does not warrant such precaution. The current board should have asked enough questions to understand the meaning behind the policy not just the words within.
The policy, as written, was approved. If the board wants to change the policy, they can (so long as it abides by the law). The intent of their policy, at this point, is irrelevant to me. The fact remains that if they allow this memorial service, they MUST allow others so long as the “time, purpose, location” constraints are followed. Maybe nobody would ever ask the school again to hold a memorial service or perhaps it could be 1 a months, 2 a month, etc and you would not have control over whose memorial services could be held there.
Safe and neutral…seriously? How safe and neutral is the school when someone brings bath salts prompting searches by drug dogs and parent meetings and informational sessions?
I had no idea this policy existed. I didn’t realize other requests had been made and turned down. I guess it is time for this policy to be changed.
http://www.fivetowns.net/subsites/StromAud/StromIndex.html here is the text that follows:
Strom Auditorium belongs to the people of Appleton, Camden, Hope, Lincolnville and Rockport. The Five Town Community School Board of Directors wishes to make the auditorium available to our community of learners for use as a performing arts center, a teaching facility and a place for educational, cultural and *civic* events.The 826-seat facility opened in 2000. It was the result of the fund raising efforts of the Friends of the CSD and more than 600 area businesses and community members whose donations helped to build the project. Strom Auditorium was named in honor of local educators Mort and Jean Strom.The Camden Hills Regional High School and its associated programs have first priority of use, whether students are the performers or the audience. Second priority for use includes all other public schools in the five town region. In addition, the School Board wishes to make the auditorium available to organizations, municipal groups or individuals within the district who wish to sponsor appropriate civil, cultural, educational, recreational or political activities as long as these activities do not interfere with the conduct of the school programs and are in the best interest of the school system.
*From Dictionary.com*Civic-adj. of or relating to a city, citizens, or citizenship
How much more civic can a celebration of life be than to honor this community’s citizens, whether it be Ken Bailey or anyone else that needs a venue of this size now or in the future?
Well said Kim! I would add that Ken loved the Snow Bowl, it will be a fitting place for us to gather in support of his family and in rememberance of a truely amazing human being. Ken would have put the politics aside and got on with the task at hand, so despite my great dissapointment in this decision, I will do just that!
Take a school law class and then you might rethink your stance. You cannot selectively choose whose memorial services would be held at the school once you open this up. Again, I understand this man was a huge part of the community, but this is not about WHO the person is.
I believe she stated that it should be for “Ken Bailey or anyone else”. Why would the school district selectively choose who could have a memorial service there?
My point is they could NOT selectively choose, but if you have the memorial for the upstanding community member, the door is open to have the memorial service for the child molester, convicted murderer, KKK member, etc. I don’t think everybody is seeing that as a possibility, but if they open it up once, the precedent has been set.
I disagree. I think they could selectively choose, as long as their choice didn’t involve the denial of a request based on race, religion, or some other constitutionally protected category. The thing is, I suspect, that they don’t want to get into the hassle of making memorial service decisions, and I can understand that. It’s a matter of expediency.
It would have to be all or nothing. How could they selectively chose and not be accused of some sort of discrimination? Would they only allow those members of the community that they considered deserving? It’s a can of worms that’s better left unopened.
I take your point. Still, there’s merit to Parker Laite’s argument that the community raised a lot of money for that auditorium, and the School Board itself recognizes that the community should use the auditorium for civil and cultural purposes as long as they don’t conflict with the school’s use. A blanket prohibition is convenient and expedient from the Board’s point of view, but have there been enough memorial service requests to make the subject a real problem? Or is it just hypothetical, a problem that might manifest in the future if a service for an unpopular or ordinary citizen is requested?
Very well said, Kim.
If you ever run for the school board, you have my vote.
Might the board have said-we believe this policy is flawed and we intend to begin correction with Mr. Bailey ? I remember years ago when the town of Rockport had a reval done by “outside experts”-that did not work out too well either.
The board could have said that IF they thought the policy was flawed. I do wonder how many school board members have taken a school law class (I suspect very few if any at all) to understand what the ramifications are of opening up the school to outside activities.
The school is already open to outside activities. The Strom is rented on a very regular basis to outside groups.
schools can control “time, space and purpose”
For example, they can dictates times the school can be used, what part(s) of the school, and for what purpose (I suppose memorial services could be a purpose), but again, once you start going down that road, the school would have no control over whose memorial service would be held there (again, community leader, convicted murderer, etc). It is a very slippery slope. I may look online to see if their policy on this is available. I would be interested to see how they crafted it.
I wish I knew how to link the Five-Town School Board’s policy list. If you’re interested, you can find it with a Google search. Anyway, I went to the Board’s website and searched the written policies carefully, and as as far as I can tell, there’s no written policy prohibiting memorial services at the Strom Auditorium. However, under the general purpose section of the policy statement regarding community use of the auditorium, memorial services would fit in the category of a “civil” activity, so long as it wasn’t a service for a student who had committed suicide.
When you are gone there are certain citizens, boards, commissions, etc., will do things of that nature. It is now a me, me, me situation for them. Good job selectmen. For those of you egotists in the public domain, your turn is coming.
To the outside experts…Life is not neutral and kids need to know that.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and devines” – Emerson
The Superintendent’s recommendation against the service at the Strom Auditorium is exactly what I’d expect from a school administrator. As to the school board, well done to the 3 dissenters.
This is in reply to tjones4’s reply to Mike Callaway (for some reason, this did not go where it was supposed to post).
What you’re saying about memorial services is interesting. In effect, it would amount to a blanket prohibition of memorial services at the Strom Auditorium, and I think that would conflict with the School Board’s discretion and it’s policy that the auditorium should be made “available for appropriate civil, cultural, educational, recreational or political activities . . .”
Can you cite any statute, regulation, case, or other legal authorities that support the notion that school boards cannot selectively choose whose memorial services could be held at the auditorium?
It is basic school law. They could decide what type of activities but if they say memorial svcs are ok, they cannot then pick and choose which memorial svcs they will allow.
I’m sorry, but “basic school law” is too vague for me. If you can’t give me any legal authority, at least give me the general basis of your claim that the school board cannot pick and choose. Is it based on a Constitutional right (i.e., due process, equal protection, etc.) or something else, perhaps a state or federal statute on the use of school facilities?
I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to understand the basis of your position.
I would have to pull out my school law books which are at school right now. It is there. We got drilled pretty good on this in school law.
Schools can dicate “purpose, time, place” For example, the school board could say that the auditorium is available on Saturdays, from 8am until 10pm for X purpose. They could not say memorial services for some but not others which is a power you think the school board either has or should have.Let me give you a little different example. Let’s say a teacher is hired over the summer, privately, to tutor a student. The teacher would like to use the school in order to do this. The principal (or superintendent, etc) approves it. Ok, then IF any other citizen (who may or may not be an employee of the school department) wants to tutor a student and use the school for that purpose, the door has been opened to private citizens using the school to tutor students. The school dept could not say no as long as the purpose/time/place were specified. The superintendent could not say “this person can tutor here privately, but this other person cannot.”
If you believe that the school board should have discretion over whose memorial service could be held at the school, when do they meet do decide this? If it is a case by case basis and a person passes away 3 weeks before the next school board meeting, how would the school board approve it? Is an emergency school board meeting called? Trust me, if they had that discretion (which they do not), they would have to meet all the time to decide who gets what….or give that authority to the superintendent, etc. THAT would be much more of a hornet’s nest than this situation is. If the argument is used that this is a public building (that whole “we are taxpayers” argument), then ok, why would the school board have that discretion? Is one taxpayer more worthy than another of having a memorial service at the school? School boards do NOT have that authority.I understand the school board’s postion, and honestly, it doesn’t matter to me at all whether they change their policy or not. However, I am just pointing out that if they are going to change their policy, people need to truly understand what it means. Many on here have the attitude that there could simply be an exception to this policy for this community member who passed away. They do not understand that when public policies are concerned, there are no “exceptions.” If they allowed a memorial service for this man, they would not have a leg to stand on to deny any other memorial services…unless, again, they had clearly stated the time and locations that could be used if the next memorial service did not meet those guidelines, then they could be denied.
The people on here saying that this person has been disrespected, and the school should allow this, etc would be the first ones complaining if a convicted murderer’s memorial service was held at the school. The “how could they let this happen” statements would be flying. Both situations are connected.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. You have not given a legal basis for your comments, but your examples of school facilities for tutors and your arguments about the practical difficulties of having school boards consider every request for a memorial service are helpful. What I take away from this is that there are no legal impediments; the Five Town School Board has discretion to grant or deny memorial service requests, but they have decided as a matter of expediency to simply deny all such requests, thereby saving themselves the trouble of facing the possible problems that you have mentioned.
School Boards as many other organizations must use policy development well. The policies need to be well crafted, but the essential pat is that they need to be enforced equitably. Unfortunately the equitable part is often decided in a court room as opposed to a School Committee Meeting, hence it is easier and more prudent to have a solid policy statement with only state / federal mandated exceptions, e.g. no animals in school except service animals…
From
the Maine School Management Association – the goto source for school baords
http://www.msmaweb.com/policy.html
One
of the most important functions of the school board as a legislative body is
the adoption of policy. Through policy, the board exercises its authority – and
responsibility – to set the school unit’s direction and articulate its
philosophy, vision and expectations. Through policy, the board defines its
position on important issues affecting the schools.
Board
policy establishes broad principles and goals to guide the school unit’s
educational program. Sound policy ensures that state and federal regulations
are met and sets a foundation for fair, consistent and efficient school unit
governance. Written policy ensures continuity, provides direction for the
superintendent, informs the public, saves time and provides a basis for
accountability. In addition, state and federal laws require school boards to
have policies in many areas.
I understand about policy. The Five-Town School Board has a very long list of written policies at its website, including the policy on community use of the Strom Auditorium. Kimberlee Graffam has quoted the main part of the policy in her comment. As far as I can see, and I looked at the list of written policies carefully, the School Board does not have a written policy about memorial services at the auditorium.
“The decision not to allow memorial services was made, Nutter said, about five years ago when outside experts advised school administrators that the school needs to be a “safe and neutral” place for students”
First of all, who were these “Outside Experts” and secondly, how does a memorial service after school hours effect the school from being “safe and neutral”?
I guess that this is the “NEW” world that we live in …………………….
—
While I agree that rules should be followed, I know there are usually exceptions made. In this case, the reason for the exception should be that the attendance expected at this service is far too large for other accomodations; combine that with the fact that Ken was so much a leader in the community, the school board had every reason to agree to an exception, without concern that they would have to make exceptions for every Tom Dick or Harry that asked for it. Is that just too simple? Are they overthinking this whole thing? Whatever it is, I’m very upset – no, I’m mad as hell about it. The building belongs to the community and was funded so to be used by the community.