By Paul Mills
It’s the city which is to Maine what Ohio or Virginia is to our nation: the mother of chief executives. For just as Ohio and Virginia are the home to a multitude of our presidents, it’s Waterville that’s been the springboard for many of our governors. Since the 1890s it has been equaled only by Portland and surpassed by no other as the political base for Blaine House occupants.
They run the gamut from the state’s current political leader, Republican Paul LePage, to the founder of the modern Maine Democratic party – and later U.S. Secretary of State – Democrat Ed Muskie. Other governors from the city have also left their mark. They include: Republican William Haines, who shepherded creation of both the State Highway as well as Public Utilities Commissions in 1913 and Muskie’s successor, Democrat Clinton Clauson, elected in 1958 and one of only two governors to have died in office in the last 125 years.
Waterville native George Mitchell came within 10,000 votes of making the list too, though despite his 1974 gubernatorial loss to Lewiston’s Jim Longley, Mitchell went on to scale other heights.
It’s Waterville’s George J. Mitchell Elementary School, named for the former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, that was the scene for hearings a few days ago into dramatic allegations that has resulted in the dismissal of the city’s long-time high school principal, 44-year old Don Reiter.
Reiter, who had been at the helm of the school for eight years, and who in recent years had also juggled being school board chair in the nearby Mt. Vernon-Readfield School System, has been the center of media attention in recent weeks stemming from his alleged solicitation of sex from one of the Waterville school’s students. Though the student herself testified before the board behind closed doors, she had, according to a summary of the evidence presented by the superintendent’s attorney, been propositioned by the principal with the words, “Every year I choose one student to have sex with, and this year I’ve picked you.”
In a somewhat spectacular coda to the proceedings – and not officially a basis for the school board’s decision – allegations emerged just hours before the board’s vote that Reiter had inappropriate associations with two students at another high school about a dozen years ago. These allegedly occurred at Mascenic High in New Ipswich, N.H., where Reiter worked before he relocated to Buckfield Junior/Senior High, the school Reiter ran before being hired by Waterville. The New Hampshire disclosures included reports of 147 pages of amorous letters written by him to a 17-year old student. An allegation of sexual relations with a second soon before or just after her graduation was yet another.
No matter what becomes of Reiter, the recent case has already broken new ground. That’s because public school board proceedings to throw a high school principal out of office for attempting to initiate a carnal relationship with a student appear to be without precedent in Maine.
It’s of course quite possible that other Maine principals have confronted similar allegations. But according to Auburn attorney Bryan Dench, who presided over the recent Waterville proceedings, the vast majority of those involving attempts to dismiss a school employee are conducted behind closed doors, possessing as they do a legal right to have their disciplinary cases conducted privately. Here, Reiter waived this option. This was a move that helped occasion overt demonstrations of support from some of the faculty, students and parents including a sustained standing ovation for him after one board meeting and a subsequent student-parent rally at the school itself on one of the five days the board was mulling over its decision.
Moreover, even in private proceedings, a school employee faced with such allegations will typically according to Eric Haley, the Waterville superintendent who brought the case against Reiter, resign at some stage prior to a board hearing.
What was not waived in the Waterville case was the student’s right of privacy under the so-called Buckley Amendment or Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Thus, even though the allegations were disclosed, the identity of the student along with nearly all testimony from both sides occurred out of public view.
An incidental feature of the Waterville case was the gender of Reiter’s judges: all seven school board members, who voted six to one to fire him, were women. It’s a reminder that in Maine, women have long been significant players on such panels, this in a state that as far back as 1881 made women eligible to serve on them.
Where the Waterville case moves on from here is unclear. Spurred on by that city’s Police Department’s continuing investigation, Kennebec County District Attorney Maeghan Maloney announced Thursday that she is instituting misdemeanor criminal charges while at the same time Reiter’s attorney is considering an appeal of his client’s dismissal. In either case, much more of the apparent evidence would be public than it has been in the recent school board proceeding. In a criminal case, for example, the Sixth Amendment mandates a public proceeding even though news outlets typically shield the identity of the alleged victim.
No matter where the case – or potential cases – wind up, it’s clear that the odyssey has cast the limelight on a subject Maine people will long remember. It’s also given renewed fame, or as the case may be, infamy to the home city of Paul LePage and George Mitchell.
Paul Mills is a Farmington attorney well known for his analyses and historical understanding of public affairs in Maine; he can be reached at pmills@myfairpoint.net.
This whole case was so sad. There are no winners. Unfortunately, the backers of the principal should be ashamed of themselves for backing him so much in public, ie standing ovations, etc. Staff should be fired for trashing the girl involved and not protecting her identify. This girl is the real hero for coming forward and preventing future crimes.
And how could an individual with such credentials be hired in the first place? Was no attempt at a background check made whatsoever? Did the previous employer not disclose the circumstance of his leaving? Is this common practice in public education?Do they not bear some responsibilty for children he might proposition?
I am always grateful for the columns by Paul Mills. He makes me think and brings light to an issue while including interesting historical background.
Did anyone see these love letters?
Nick, yes, this is (and has been) common in public education, for offenders to be quietly moved along to be some other district’s problem. Much like the catholic church’s policy of moving predator priests. The internet age has made this practice more difficult, but executive sessions can hide a lot. Sad.