Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Misconduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers defend themselves after a staff criminal case; union president says blame rests with arrested employee
Summary
Teachers and the RSU 73 Education Association pushed back at a board meeting after community remarks blamed educators for a staff member’s criminal conduct; union leaders said administrators control evaluations and hiring and that the arrested employee was not a union member.
Michelle Brand, speaking for the RSU Education Association, told the RSU 73 board that teachers are not to blame for a recent staff criminal case and that ‘‘the blame lies solely with the predator who was arrested for his actions.’’ Brand, identifying herself as speaking on behalf of the association, reminded the public that administrators hold hiring and firing authority and that the union contract does not prevent the district from conducting investigations or taking personnel action.
Several teachers and local residents echoed that defense in public comment. Nicole Curtis, a Spruce Mountain teacher with seven years in the district, described staff as ‘‘caring professionals’’ and said recent social‑media messages and public comments that lump teachers into the image of a ‘‘horrible monster’’ have been demoralizing. Curtis urged the community to remember staff dedication and to avoid treating educators as the enemy.
Why it matters: public criticism of school staff after high‑profile misconduct can erode morale and complicate district responses. Michelle Brand reiterated that only district administrators have the power to evaluate and remove staff, and that contractual language cited in recent discussions did not slow the investigation or removal of the arrested employee, who Brand said was not a union member.
Other speakers raised concerns about community tone and the risk of scapegoating. Board members including Tina Riley urged restraint and respect during a time of ‘‘political and social upheaval,’’ warning that public meetings used to single out individuals undermine the board’s work.
Next steps: comments were recorded in public comment and board members discussed process improvements and the need for clear information; no formal personnel actions were described in the meeting record.
