Woman: Library violates city code Anti-obscenity activist files official complaint with cops
By Daniel Hartill
,
Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
LEWISTON - JoAn Karkos, due in court next month to answer a theft charge over a controversial sex-ed book she refused to return to the Lewiston Public Library, now wants the library to answer her allegation of obscenity.
Karkos, 64, gave Lewiston police a one-page complaint Monday charging that the library violated the city's obscenity ordinance when it placed "It's Perfectly Normal" on its shelves.
"No. 1, I want awareness," Karkos said in a phone interview. "People are simply not aware of what this book means. And when they find out, they don't want it to exist at all and they certainly don't want it in their libraries and their schools."
City officials met Monday afternoon to talk about the complaint and the ordinance. When the meeting ended, the complaint remained under review so ordinances and other materials could be examined, said Sgt. David Chick, spokesman for the Police Department.
Officials will decide whether to press the complaint within the next few days, Chick said.
The award-winning book has been discussed in Lewiston City Hall since August, when Karkos' campaign began.
Written by Robie H. Harris and illustrated by Michael Emberley, the book was published in 1993. Subtitled "Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex & Sexual Health," it features some frank but cartoon-like illustrations of naked people. Topics include abstinence, masturbation and sexually transmitted diseases.
This summer, Karkos checked out copies of the book at both the Lewiston and Auburn libraries. She refused to return the books, but sent each library a check to cover the cost.
Karkos, who lives in Lewiston, said she particularly objected to a series of cartoons showing naked male and female bodies. One page depicts masturbating children. Another teaches girls to examine their genitalia with a hand mirror.
Karkos contended that such images are obscene. Librarians disagreed, and the Lewiston Public Library board chose to file charges of theft against Karkos. She is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 19.
The obscenity complaint filed against the library "boggles the mind," Lewiston Library Director Rick Speer said Monday. "There's a lot of books in this library that people have called obscene." Notoriously banned books have included Nobel and Pulitzer winners, classics such as "To Kill a Mockingbird," "The Old Man and the Sea" and "The Catcher in the Rye."
"It's Perfectly Normal" has been banned in some cities but applauded in others. According to its publisher, Massachusetts-based Candlewick Press, it has been sold in 25 countries and translated into 21 languages. More than two dozen Maine libraries carry the book.
For now, the issue rests with city staff, who must compare the ordinance with the book. The ordinance bans depictions of masturbation and other activities. However, it also makes allowances for context.
Speer said he is saddened that much of the discussion of the book has left out that it also talks about abstinence and sexual crimes. Without information, some children and young adults may be at a greater danger from predators.
"The library has an educational role," he said.
Karkos said she continues to be surprised at how much attention her act of civil disobedience has gained.
"I never, ever thought it would get this far," she said. Since her story first appeared in the paper, she's been approached by news organizations across the country.
"I'm not sure how comfortable I am with all of this," she said.
Staff Writer Scott Taylor contributed to this report. |
CLICK HERE To Show/Hide Discussion Thread - (51 Comments)
Comments
 |
Posted By:Homer at November 20, 2007 6:11 AM (Suggest Removal) Puh-leeze. Theft is theft. Throw the book at these self-serving, holier-than-thou types.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Bilge Rat at November 20, 2007 7:06 AM (Suggest Removal) I didn't realize that Lewiston had it's own "Watch and Ward Society" but I'm not surprised. Whenever a book was banned in Boston it became required reading in the Lit classes at Wellesley the next day. Perhaps Bates should take note.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Joe at November 20, 2007 7:08 AM (Suggest Removal) Could we take just a minute and think about the probability that this woman is seriously disturbed. I know that doesn't make her any more endearing, but taken in this light, she does become a bit less offensive.
Controlling other people's sexual behavior and exploration has been a pattern throughtout history. Churches have done it for centuries, governments do it all the time. Taken in the broader prespective of humanity, her absurd behavior becomes clearer.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Ray at November 20, 2007 8:39 AM (Suggest Removal) A thief - wants us to believe the books she stole are indecent. Don't you think stealing erases any claim to moral high ground? What arrogance! She has no standing to preach.
Why did the Sun give this thief space to present her views over the weekend? Do we do this for other criminals? Why would we want our library books censored by religious people with restrictive views? I certainly don't.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Adam at November 20, 2007 9:34 AM (Suggest Removal) The facts are, she stole the books. The issue of the book being indecent or not needs to be addressed in the manner afforded everyone who wishes to lodge a complaint. This lady needs to follow the rules, she apparently feels that she is above them.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Lincoln at November 20, 2007 9:47 AM (Suggest Removal) While I disagree with Ms. Karkos actions, something doesn't add up here. When this issue first came to light the library was quick to inform everyone that the book was not in an area where children could view it - and yet now Mr. Speer is they should be able to view the book. Which is it?
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 10:36 AM (Suggest Removal) Mrs. Karkos is HARDLY a thief. She PAID the replacement fee for the books she removed from the library and notified each library as to what she was doing and why. If it had been any other book, for any other reason, the librarians would have just shrugged and replaced the books. I have seen pages from the book in question. The pictures are vulgar and often obscene. True freedom is not freedom to do anything whatsoever you please or have access to all things of any nature. True freedom is the freedom to choose what is right and good. Destroying the innocence and purity of children can never be a good or a right. Mrs. Karkos is in her right mind. She understands the harm these books can have. It is those who will defend these books for the sake of some false notion of liberty and those who have been brainwashed by the propaganda of Planned Parenthood so they no longer know how to properly protect children who have lost the proper function of their minds.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:DAISY at November 20, 2007 10:41 AM (Suggest Removal) refer her to a mental health place, she needs an evaluation
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:JulieL at November 20, 2007 10:43 AM (Suggest Removal) I think the librarians were saying it wasn't in the baby/toddler area of the library. Mrs. Karkos is affiliated with an extreme right wing, religious sect known for sending monthly newsletters to their followers. The followers were told to seek out these books and remove them from the library. Mrs. Karkos is now a celebrity in her own mind and in the minds of the cult she is affilaited with. Perhaps these books will now be even more popular than they were before the theft and local kids will receive the sexual education they all need and deserve.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Shalla at November 20, 2007 11:04 AM (Suggest Removal) Members of the public do not get to choose what books belong on a public library's shelf by simply taking and paying for them. If she disagrees with a book's presence, most libraries have a system of review for books/movies/cds. You should always request a review of the book. If that doesn't work, then the best thing to do if you are worried about your children is to review what your children are reading and actually parent them and pay attention. You can't protect them from everything, but you can set an example and from that they'll learn how to sort through what they encounter without being overprotected.
I happen to think St. Augustine, Ann Coulter, and Hitler all say pretty horrible things in various books, but I have yet to remove them from the shelves of my public library because sometimes people need the information contained in those books. Someone's offense at parts does not necessarily negate my needs, and we're all much better off if we learn to read critically than if we try to sanitize everything to the level of a child of age three.
I am sorry, but restricting the entire populace "for the (unspecified) children" is not true freedom.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 11:11 AM (Suggest Removal) Suzanne...what would your feelings be if someone waltzed into your home...took your stuff and left you a couple books to "replace" them. Would that be ok with you?
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 11:25 AM (Suggest Removal) I cannot expect anyone who will string together the names of St. Augustine, Ann Coulter and Adolf Hitler to be able to reason critically and be able to determine what is a good and what is intrinsically evil. There are materials whose contents we disagree with and there are materials whose contents are harmful. One has to be able to draw distinctions in an objective and systematic manner in order to distinguish one from the other. It is not a matter of the book's causing someone personal offense, it's a matter of objectively harmful material being made available to children. Whether or not you agree with me or Mrs. Karkos does not change the reality of the situation.
Keith -- your question as you pose it is ridiculous. Let's re-state it so it's parallel to the situation we are discussing: If someone took books from my family's private library and told me that they had done so and gave me money to cover the cost of replacing them, I would be puzzled perhaps, but much happier than losing the book to someone who borrows, never returns and never reimburses.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 11:35 AM (Suggest Removal) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is one of the funniest things I have heard.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Regallily at November 20, 2007 11:41 AM (Suggest Removal) Suzanne, your perception of hell and heaven are yours...I don't need someone else to be my moral compass. Your view on TRUE freedom is actually missing a very important component...Free Will. YOUR God, gave us free will, to choose our path for ourselves. Thus, TRUE freedom is to determine your own personal moral code and what is right and wrong for you personally. Many times we may not agree with what others perceive as what is right...but it is not for US, individually, to decide who shall reside in heaven or hell in the afterlife. Again, these are religious concepts believed by you...not everyone reading this article or this blog or even those who have allowed their children to view this book. According to your views, I'll be in hell...but at least all my friends will be with me.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 11:43 AM (Suggest Removal) Someone thinks they are funny - the 11:30 AM post is not mine.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 11:49 AM (Suggest Removal) Ok so money is given to replace the item STOLEN. So what did you just accomplish? Let's think about this...the money is there to replace it, so the library does just that and uses the money and replaces the book with another therefore going back to phase 1 and you also accomplished getting the publisher more money as well. Good work. Point taken haha I am living my life the right way just fine, you don't need to decide my ultimate fate for me. I will do that on my own by not stealing.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 11:51 AM (Suggest Removal) Once again, the 11:30 a.m. post is not mine. Regalily - Take your reasoning to it's logical conclusion. If my personal moral/religious code says it's okay for men to rape women, how would you defend that raping women is wrong or not acceptable? Just because a law of the United States says so? Those laws are susceptible to change. Because most people think it's not okay? Public opinion is susceptible to change.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Homer at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM (Suggest Removal) Suzanne - Let's say the library accepts the cash and purchases ANOTHER copy of the STOLEN/LOST book. What's to say Mrs. Karkos won't STEAL the next copy and offer cash? Notice a pattern here? No where in the 1st amendment does it give the individual any right to censor another. Now I could be mistaking the Lewiston Public Library as Iran... but last I checked, this is US soil.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 11:56 AM (Suggest Removal) Keith -- Mrs Karkos has accomplished public awareness. People are talking about the issue and now know that the issue exists when the might not have before.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:??? at November 20, 2007 12:05 PM (Suggest Removal) Mrs.Karkos should spend some time in jail. Just like any other common thief. Yes, she IS a thief.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 12:13 PM (Suggest Removal) She made her self look like a thief is all she has done and she has gotten more people to either take the book out from the library and read it or buy their own copy therefore promoting the book.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Michael Dumas at November 20, 2007 12:15 PM (Suggest Removal) If she has an issue with these books being available to the public, let her take it up with our fighting men and women who have fought in wars both past and present to preserve the rights under which we live, including that to which we are entitled to read what we please. They fight and die so we may enjoy a free exchange of ideas, speak freely, and not have the government dictate what we are to believe religiously. Keith, you are absolutely right, this women is a thief. JulieL, I like the extra insight you are giving on this matter. If this cult that she is purportedly affiliated with is promoting the violation of local laws, there is something not right about that. Suzanne, you are way off in your 11:51 post. The laws do change every now and then, but they are there to protect the individual as well as society as a whole. You can feel however you like, as can Ms. Karkos, but when you start taking actions on those beliefs is when you can be held accountable for wrongdoing. The rape example was exceptionally off-base and for what reason you would even try to draw a correlation from that to a stolen library book based on personal feelings is completely beyond me. I'll tell you how you can defend rape being wrong if your moral/religious code says it is ok: It is wrong because it violates and infringes on the privacy and security of an innocent party. Now, if your moral/religious code says that you should worship asbestos and sacrifice tomatoes before it, well then go right ahead, because it won't have an impact on us. This society is so screwed up; no one is accountable for their actions anymore. You are right though, this has gotten some awareness, and now people are aware the book exists and is available to them when they may not have known before.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Cookie at November 20, 2007 12:17 PM (Suggest Removal) Whether she paid for the books or not is irrelevant. The point that is important is that this woman has NO RIGHT to demand that a book be kept out of the public library. Whether it is a "danger" to children or not is the right and responsibility of the PARENT of said child to decide. Just because she feels something is wrong or obscene, her ONLY choice is to not view it. I feel that the salaries paid to Hollywood stars and pro atheletes is obscene, and that their behaviors are immoral...however I don't have the right to demand that everyone stop going to the movies or to sport shows, now do I??
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 12:22 PM (Suggest Removal) Keith, I don't suspect her actions will persuade those who are not already of like mind. However, the situation may be a starting point for interesting conversations happening among families this holiday weekend. Maybe many will conclude that she is a thief and a nut. And, yet, maybe someone's heart will be opened to the understanding that improper education with regard to subjects of such a sensitive nature is harmful to children and society at large. At the very least, well meaning families, who may have otherwise been naive, will know that they have to exercise more cautious guardianship of their children when going into public libraries.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 12:28 PM (Suggest Removal) The book is improper to YOU. Who are you to say who else it is improper for. Worry about your family and let others decide what is proper or not for their own.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 12:34 PM (Suggest Removal) Michael - I was using an example that was CLEARLY wrong so that there was no ambiguity, not drawing parallels between the actions. We really need to examine how right and wrong is determined in a pluralistic society, or it will become, as it has been becoming, one that is chaotic, where "anything goes." Sexually explicit materials aimed at children, without question, harm the security and safety of innocent parties. The fact that children who are not my own are exposed to such materials puts my children at risk. When I was a child, I knew children who sexually abused other children because they were introduced to the notion of doing so by such materials. No, I'm not making this up. Whether or not the parents of the abusing children were "okay" with exposing their own children to such materials, I am NOT OKAY with the idea that my children could be their victims.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Michael Dumas at November 20, 2007 12:49 PM (Suggest Removal) Exactly, which is why the education is so important; to identify, early on, what is ok and what is not ok. The object isn't to incite children into doing bad acts, it is to educate what the bad acts are so a potential victim can identify it and avoid the situation or get help/report it. Believe me, I don't want any child to be the victim of some pervert, which is why I will make it my responsibility to educate them and help them protect themselves.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Michael Dumas at November 20, 2007 12:53 PM (Suggest Removal) I'm sorry, when I said "them" I was referring to my future children.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:just me at November 20, 2007 2:02 PM (Suggest Removal) I know I'm going against the grain here, but I myself would not want my kids viewing this book. That would not happen though, as I go to the library with my children and am aware of what they are checking out. Education does begin at home in my house, but there unfortunately are kids out there who don't get spoken to frankly and honestly about sex and it is those that may see this kind of thing in the library.
I admire this lady's pluck and her plight. Lots of people disagree with things in this world and they moan and complain.. but do nothing to incite communication and/or change.
But this woman - she brings to my mind the phrase, "Don't talk about it, BE about it."
She didn't agree with something, so she took a stand.
Further, I think that calling this theft is ridiculous. How can you be called a thief and accused of stealing something that you paid for? Just my humble opinion.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 2:06 PM (Suggest Removal) Michael - When you are speaking of children under the age of 13 (the book is recommended for 8-12 year olds), you are not speaking of folks who can process all the complex messages of when and where and with whom. They hear: Sex feels good. They are curious and want to find out for themselves. Parents need to talk to their children regarding good and bad touch, but that needs to come in a talk that is separate from: "Sex feels good." You cannot expect children to parse messages like that.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Michael Dumas at November 20, 2007 2:21 PM (Suggest Removal) I disagree with you on part of that, Suzanne, but I completely agree with you that parents need to talk to their children about the birds and the bees. Children are developing at younger ages these days, many start within the age range you mentioned. They are going to be curious, and yes, need to be taught the good and the bad. Simply advancing the message that "sex feels good" is not the way to go about education, and I think we both agree on that. Sure, with children under 13 you can't expect them to understand some of the complexities of sex, and frankly, the "pleasure" part would probably only serve to further confuse them. I don't think there is anything wrong with educating them about the basics: why, when it is appropriate, with whom it is appropriate with, ect. Certainly teaching aides cannot be a bad thing considering children use them everyday in school. I think "just me" puts it correctly when they say their children would not be checking this book out because they would be there to monitor their children. I think that is a great approach. I don't think there is anything wrong with preventing YOUR child/children from reading the book. How you choose to educate or not educate is your decision, but what I am saying, and many others, is that one person should not be making that discretionary decision for others. The book should be available for those who choose to use it.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:vic at November 20, 2007 2:25 PM (Suggest Removal) Look Suzanne - You are most definitely confused with what "true freedom" is! It has nothing to do with righteousness and goodness. True freedom is the freedom to do exactly what it is you want to do. Say what you want, do what you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with everyone else's freedom. Now, I agree with Ms. Karkos' right to freedom of speech but, I have a right too! If I want to see the book or teach my children in this manner, I have the freedom to do so and NO ONE has the right to keep me from doing so!
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Keith at November 20, 2007 2:33 PM (Suggest Removal) Just me- she didn't go into a bookstore and purchase a book. She went to a library. You can't just go in there browse for what you want and pay for it. If this is the way the library works why didn't she take it to the counter and pay for it? No she had steal it and then mail the money, because it was WRONG.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Regallily at November 20, 2007 2:37 PM (Suggest Removal) I think Michael puts it well...it is up to the parent to decide when/how their child is educated about sex. Unfortunately, a lot of kids learn about it through books and school. I think there is more damaging material out there than this book. Kids are subjected to thousands of "sexy" graphics a day. These are often unexplained and used for commercialism. At least book is using illustrations to explain what is going on. I also think that if a parent uses it correctly, it creates a dialogue between the parent and the child about what is an uncomfortable topic to many parents. NONE of us want to discuss sex with our children. But kids as young as 9, 10 and 11 are acting in sexy ways and trying to emulate their "sexy" role models. But it should be that parent's decision to use or not use the book. The library provides a service by having it available to loan. Ms. Karkos circumvented that service. If what she did wasn't theft, she wouldn't be going to court next month.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Shalla at November 20, 2007 3:46 PM (Suggest Removal) Ah, yes. Not theft. Just like if you "borrow" a car from your neighbor but leave them a check and a note, it's not theft, because you paid for it, right?
It was not her book. She purposely took it. While the library knows that people will inadvertantly lose items and has come up with a way to help replace such materials, that does not mean that the deliberate removal of an item is not theft.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:just me at November 20, 2007 3:47 PM (Suggest Removal) Keith-
How many court hearings are normally scheduled for missing books i.e., theft.. for books that people never do actually return OR pay for? Probably something close to zero.
But here, this lady did in fact pay. This was my point.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Unknown at November 20, 2007 4:21 PM (Suggest Removal) I just read all the comments on here and just have to say Keith, I agree with you 100%...any comment I was going to say, Keith said it for me. Its theft...period. The fact that she paid for it, does not make it OK.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Joe at November 20, 2007 4:29 PM (Suggest Removal) "Fascism: strong, autocratic control." The woman's actions are illegal, it does not matter that she thinks she is right. End of argument. Please someone get her help.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Unknown at November 20, 2007 4:43 PM (Suggest Removal) Someone I know committed a crime, something called theft. He went to jail AND has to pay for the items he stole....so she is half done, she already sent a check to pay for it, now its time to complete the consequences.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Mainah47 at November 20, 2007 6:02 PM (Suggest Removal) The public library is not a book store. She removed the book from the library, knowing at the time that she would not return it. Sending a check after the fact does not make it a purchase in the minds of any clear thinking adult. She stole the book from the tax payers of Lewiston.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Just a thought at November 20, 2007 6:46 PM (Suggest Removal) She's appearing in court because now that she's made her statement, the library wants to make its own. I often find that people who are guilty of much bigger wrongs are inclined to make a big deal out of petty situations such as this, crying "lock her up!" For Pete's sake. Has no one here ever taped a show off of television and fast forwarded through the commercials? Technically, that's illegal. No one here has ever gone five miles over the speed limit? Because you know, that's illegal.
Michael - the book in question does not separate the message of "sex feels good" from good touch vs. bad touch. It is too confusing for a child to process all of the information. Yes, they are being exposed to much in our culture which sexualizes them at younger and younger ages, but they are no better able to acquire the necessary reasoning skills to process explicit sexual information. And, the damage done to them can damage my children. I don't think that's okay.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Aryn at November 20, 2007 7:27 PM (Suggest Removal) It seems that perhaps, if Ms. Karkos had read this book before she was 64, she might have a more open mind to the importance of it. It's great that she is aware of the city's obsenity ordience (it doesn't seem to me this book fits that category)- was she so obsessed with that she disrespected many other laws? If she's triing to set a moral standard, it should start with obeying law.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:dd at November 20, 2007 8:07 PM (Suggest Removal) This is all starting to creep me out.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:ME2 at November 20, 2007 8:20 PM (Suggest Removal) Suzanne, if you're so concerned with your children being "damaged" by other children maybe you should consider moving to a remote desert island or lock them in their rooms until they're 21. Half the commercials on television are damaging your children far more than another child.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Aryn at November 20, 2007 9:17 PM (Suggest Removal) I find this wrong, whose right is it to steal a book from the PUBLIC library, if it were a book that held no controversy there would be no means of concern. I agree that actually Ms. Karkos actions have perhaps put more media, thus sales on a book she intended the opposite of. If she had proposed the banning of the book legally, perhaps she would have a valid case - until than she strikes me as a mad woman, with her own agenda.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:T at November 20, 2007 9:30 PM It is? Who knew...'>(Suggest Removal) "Has no one here ever taped a show off of television and fast forwarded through the commercials? Technically, that's illegal." It is? Who knew...
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Aryn at November 20, 2007 9:44 PM (Suggest Removal) Exactly T - who knew? Oh my goodness! Fast forwarding through commercials, last I knew it was legal, and comes with the cable package...
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:clifford Drake at November 20, 2007 9:47 PM (Suggest Removal) willow weep for me
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:B at November 20, 2007 11:26 PM (Suggest Removal) This woman is a close minded thief. I don't care if she DID pay for the book. If she wanted to buy the book - go to Waldenbooks. Since when did we allow moronic uptights be our moral compass? She should be fined and publicly chastised....oh, wait - that IS happening.... I wish I knew her so I could speak to her personally.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Shalla at November 21, 2007 9:15 AM (Suggest Removal) Just to clarify... Did you see pages of the book, Suzanne, (like you said earlier) or did you read the whole book as it was meant to be read? Seeing pages out of context doesn't really tell you whether or not it covers good touch versus bad touch. Actually, from the comments I've seen about it covering sex crimes, I'm fairly certain it does cover those things.
| Add your comments
|
Posted By:Claire at November 23, 2007 4:23 AM (Suggest Removal) Shalla, the determination of sex crimes should not be placed on the shoulders of children.
The book fails to teach the values of abstinence, encourages children to decide for themselves how to have sex, when, with whom. The book teaches that sex is a right at any age, at any time, and at any place. Everybody is a potential sex partner.
| Add your comments
|
|
Advertisement

|
 |
| Central Maine Medical Center College of Nursing and Health Professions |
graduated 38 students recently in a ceremony at the Franco-American Heritage Center in Lewiston. |
read more >>
|
| CMMC Wellness Solutions |
announces programs beginning June 2. |
read more >>
|
| Meghna Desai, M.D. |
a medical oncologist, has been appointed to the Central Maine Medical Center Medical Staff. She is practicing with Hematology-Oncology Associates in Lewiston. |
read more >>
|
|
|