Crystal Nicholas of Greene urges the MSAD 52 board of directors to adopt her proposed policy additions and revisions related to student health during public comment at their meeting Thursday. Vanessa Paolella/Sun Journal

TURNER — The Maine School Administrative District 52 board of directors declined Thursday to discuss three citizen-proposed policies related to student health.

Policies titled “Preservation of Student Health and Safety from Coerced ‘Public Health’ Mandates” and “Statement of Breath” would have been new policies, if adopted. The third submission was a revision of the district’s policy on administering medication to students.

According to Superintendent Cari Medd, the proposals were submitted to the board by Crystal Nicholas of Greene in September. Unable to come to a consensus in the Curriculum and Policy subcommittee, the policies were brought before the full board, with no recommended action.

Director Anthony Shostak of Greene motioned to open discussion on the documents but no director offered a second, effectively killing the proposed policies.

He said after the meeting that he didn’t expect the policies to pass but wanted to have a discussion about them.

Numerous parties related to MSAD 52 have expressed opposition to the proposed policies, including the district’s medical director, DFD Russell Medical Centers.


“If the board were to implement the policies calling for blatant disregard for state and federal guidelines it would lead to a dissolution of the relationship between DDFDRMC and MSAD 52,” according to a letter from district’s medical director. “It is our belief that the board would find it nearly impossible to find any licensed medical professional to agree to assume such a liability and support the restrictions and inflammatory language contained within the proposed documents.”

The superintendent, assistant superintendent, executive board of the Tri-Town Teachers Association and the Maine Department of Education all advise against adopting the policies, according to a memo from the superintendent and assistant superintendent.

“We fully recognize that not all members of the school community agreed with these decisions but the precious time that the board has to conduct the work of the district and act upon its responsibilities to the students and staff of our schools cannot be spent second-guessing decisions and tying the hands of future boards,” the memo reads.

During public comment, five community members spoke in opposition to the policy, including three medical professionals. Three, including Nicholas, spoke in support.

In a memo to the board, Nicholas urged directors to consider her proposed changes.

“These policies, or any combination thereof, if passed, protect the health of children from forced masking-induced suffocation — something the board was, by their performance, unable to do,” she wrote.


“A policy preventing what occurred from occurring again makes sense for the victims, and goes a long way toward restoration of the public trust … What was done to our students in the name of some bizarre bastardization of science was cruel and inhumane,” she continued.

The policy titled “Preservation of Student Health…” would have limited the district’s authority to make decisions related to student health, instead giving students and their families the final say in most cases.

“No student shall ever be expected to sacrifice their health and well-being to ‘protect the health of others’ through FRAUDULENT means,” it reads.

The policy titled “Statement of Breath” would have prohibited anyone from “interfering with a student’s right to breath,” according to the policy.

Revisions to the district’s policies on administering medications to students sought to expand the policy to require parental permission to administer “medical devices,” in addition to medication. “Medical devices” was not defined in the proposal.

Shostak, who is married to Nicholas, is a member of the Curriculum and Policy subcommittee.

There is no obvious conflict of interest around employment or contracts, which are explicitly stated in the district’s conflict of interest policy. However, the board never had an open discussion about whether their relationship was a conflict of interest, Medd said in response to a question after the meeting.

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.