Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Residency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise residency concerns and question board responses during MSAD 11 public comment
Summary
At an MSAD 11 school board meeting, residents alleged a board member lives outside the town she represents and pressed the board to clarify residency verification; the chair said the district consulted counsel and declined to make personnel determinations in public. The exchange prompted procedural reminders about public-comment rules.
Public commenters at an MSAD 11 school board meeting on an evening in which the board introduced members repeatedly pressed the board to address whether a sitting member resides in the town she represents. Resident Tyler Eldridge told the board that "Kate Merryill is no longer a resident in the community of West Gardener. She resides in Lichfield and her...seat is vacant," and asked the board to take the matter up and to strengthen residency‑verification policies.
Board chair Becky Fles responded during the public comment period, saying she had consulted the district attorney twice that day and would "follow the law," declined to make personnel decisions in public and told the speaker she would not reduce her response to a written email for use at a town meeting. Other board members raised a point of order noting that the public comment item is not designed for back-and-forth exchanges and reminded attendees of the board's public‑comment protocol.
The exchange drew additional public remarks calling for transparency and policy clarification. Brandon Martin asked the board to publicly state the town of residence for each member and to consider amending policy "tripleBA" to clarify residency verification and enforcement. Multiple other speakers at the meeting urged the board to focus on student supports, special education and district collaboration while noting community concerns about trust and board collegiality.
The public‑comment item had been bounded by the board's announced procedures: a 20‑minute total public‑comment window with a two‑minute limit per speaker and a reminder that state and federal privacy laws prohibit discussion of personnel or confidential student medical matters in open comment. The board did not take a formal vote or issue a policy change during the meeting; several speakers asked that the board follow up in writing or by future agenda item.
