School Board under fire

A recap of the Brentwood School Board meeting that drew the largest public turnout in years. At the center of the controversy: beloved kindergarten teacher Mrs. Julie Proctor, removed from her classroom for seven weeks following a playground incident. This episode breaks down the emotional public testimony, the board's selective enforcement of its own rules, a stunning revelation about who actually makes personnel decisions, and the deeper questions about transparency and accountability in our local government. The community showed up — did the board?

Transcript

Copy

SPEAKER_02 0:00

Hello, Brentwood, and welcome to the podcast. What you're about to hear is a detailed recap of a school board meeting that revealed deep fractures in our community. Questionable enforcement of meeting protocols, and serious questions about transparency and accountability in our local government. On the evening this meeting took place, the Brentwood School Board faced its largest public turnout in years. The reason? A beloved kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Julie Proctor, had been removed from her classroom for seven weeks following an incident on the playground. What unfolded over the next two hours exposed not just the controversy surrounding one teacher, but systemic issues and how our school board operates. The meeting began with newly elected chair Megan Fitzgerald reading an extensive statement about public input expectations. She emphasized that the board values public engagement, noting they too often have no one in attendance at meetings. She outlined strict rules. Each speaker gets three minutes timed precisely. Comments must be directed to the chair, not to administration or other board members. No back and forth dialogue would be permitted. Chair Fitzgerald stressed that public comment is not a back and forth, and that questions asked during comments would be noted and answered after the meeting, not during it. She wielded a gavel, admitting she's not a teacher and doesn't have a teacher's voice, warned that inappropriate comments would result in immediate termination of speaking time. The irony of these strict rules would become apparent as the meeting progressed. Chair Fitzgerald also made clear that personal attacks, inappropriate language, or any identification of individual students would not be permitted. She emphasized privacy and respect, particularly regarding a situation that involves both a young child and a dedicated educator. The public comment period revealed a community united in support of Mrs. Proctor. Speaker after speaker came forward, many visibly nervous, to defend a teacher with over 30 years of experience. Jean Gagnan opened by urging the district to hire a behavioral specialist and provide CPI, crisis prevention intervention training for all staff. She emphasized that teachers need to feel supported and equipped to handle behavioral situations. Diane Alden, a paraprofessional who has worked with Mrs. Proctor for 10 of her 21 years at Swayze Central Elementary School, delivered emotional testimony. She described witnessing a really scary situation seven weeks and four days prior, where Julie saw a student being harmed by another student and she believed she could intervene in that moment. Diane's testimony was interrupted by Chair Fitzgerald, who stated they couldn't discuss a specific incident. This would become a pattern. The board demanding privacy while the community desperately sought answers. Diane continued, describing how students' education has suffered since Mrs. Proctor's removal. She noted that a four-week chicken life cycle lesson was condensed to just one week. These are young learners experiencing school for the first time, Alden said. They look for familiar faces when they are unsure, they rely on the adults they trust, and right now that sense of security has been shaken. Christina Johnson, a parent whose daughter is in kindergarten but not in Mrs. Proctor's class, spoke about the impact on all kindergarten families. She emphasized the importance of consistency for young learners and the distraction caused by the situation. Olivia Fabiano, a seventh grader who had Mrs. Proctor in kindergarten, delivered one of the most powerful testimonies of the evening. She described Mrs. Proctor as always very patient and gentle with her students, who always made learning fun. Board member Dan Abrier praised Olivia's testimony as very impressive. Paul Proctor, the teacher's husband, made an impassioned plea for the board to consider his wife's character. He asked the community to stop talking about this in school playgrounds and stop talking about it in offices at other schools. He urged people to keep an open mind and consider the character of the person you have heard described over the past several weeks. His comments about playground discussions would prove prophetic. Jim McIntyre, a youth sports coach, raised concerns about student safety. He described an incident his fourth grade daughter witnessed eight weeks prior, where a child was out of control and was emptying tonkins of drawers and spilling them on the ground. He had to be physically removed from a classroom. Jim asked a critical question. Who's ultimately making the decision? Is it Chris Andrewski? Is it Principal Q or is it the school board? And who has the votes to either up or down it? This question would go unanswered. Mark Hannock delivered a scathing critique of the board's communication practices. He referenced former Superintendent Dr. Ryan, who would answer questions on a website rather than in person. That's just not adulting, Hannock said. He questioned the cost of bringing in a substitute teacher from elsewhere in SAU 16 while Mrs. Proctor sits at home. He demanded to know the voting process and who makes personal decisions. Mark concluded with a Theodore Roosevelt quote. The second best thing to do is the wrong thing. And the worst thing to do is nothing. And this is what we're seeing. Nothing. Then came a moment that exposed the school board's double standard. Carolyn Bellow approached the microphone and stated, I want to address the fact that with everything going on, it's not appropriate for school board members to be discussing the issues at hand that are confidential on the playground where others can hear them. I think it's been stressed to the fact how important confidentiality is in this situation. So as a school board member, I'm wondering why they were speaking about it so openly to people that they had no idea who they were. Chair Fitzgerald immediately interrupted. To which the chair started to reply to Katie, who was still trying to respond and was admonished by the chair, telling Katie, We're not going back and forth, and she's going to direct. Katie, please, sorry, no, we're not going back and forth. At this point, board member Katie stood up and walked out of the meeting. Chair Fitzgerald continued. There seemed to be some confusion as Carolyn tried to continue. I would also like to say my child is in Mrs. Proctor's class currently. Carolyn completed her testimony describing her daughter's heartbreak at not having the light and not wanting to go to school anymore. She pleaded, please, please listen to us as your community members bring Mrs. Proctor back. After Carolyn finished, Katie returned to her seat and said, I just want to apologize for getting upset. I just, it was staring at me. This moment is critical for several reasons. First, Chair Fitzgerald had established strict rules about directing comments to the chair and not engaging in back and forth dialogue. Yet when a community member accused a board member of violating confidentiality by discussing the case on a playground, Fitzgerald's response was to protect the board member rather than address the serious allegation. Second, Katie's decision to walk out of the meeting during public comment when a citizen was exercising their right to address the board demonstrates a troubling lack of accountability. If the allegation was false, Katie could have remained seated and allowed the process to continue. Her departure suggested the accusation hit close to home. The rules, it seemed, applied to the public, but not to the board itself. Later in the public comment period, Chair Fitzgerald read a letter submitted by Aaron Bouchard Callahan, a parent whose five-year-old son was at the center of the incident. This letter provided the other side of the story, and it was devastating. Callahan's letter stated that her son was illegally restrained by Mrs. Proctor. She explained that her son has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder level two, which means he often misunderstands social interactions as negative, becomes overwhelmed, and responds out of anxiety. According to the letter, her son kicked another child at the top of a slide. When he came down the slide, Mrs. Proctor took him by his arm and leg, brought him down to his bottom, and proceeded to hold him down by his knees for six long minutes while yelling at him to apologize. The child screamed for her to stop the entire time, his snow boots came off, and his feet were red and cold. Callahan stated that three staff members reported the incident to administration and that New Hampshire law states that only school staff who had been trained in restraints and seclusions can conduct these actions. She was informed that Mrs. Proctor was not trained in restraints. The letter also alleged that Mrs. Proctor had labeled the child as a bully and expressed to other staff that the school was doing nothing about it. Callahan wrote, I have heard this teacher has done some positive things for students, even helping parents get IEPs for their child. I only wish she had paused to wonder if my son had something else going on requiring an IEP rather than labeling him as a bully. She concluded with a powerful statement. Support for Proctor also underhandedly shames an autistic five-year-old boy who is struggling and truly trying to find out how to make it in this world. This message does not truly support Proctor because she too has a right to privacy. I should not know who restrained my boy, and you are not supposed to know the name of the child who was restrained. After this letter was read, Mark Hannock returned to the microphone to point out a contradiction. He noted that a letter from the superintendent to parents had stated the teacher did no wrong. There was no wrongdoing yet. Yet Callahan's letter described an illegal restraint. Hannock said, We're getting two different stories. Again, the narrative is going wild. Now the school board has an opportunity to stop this. Victoria Spania, a parent of a first grader with autism spectrum disorder, offered a different perspective. She described how her son has almost every week episodes of dysregulation where they have to lead the whole classroom out because he cannot calm down. She emphasized that her son is not violent, he's not throwing things, but still requires the classroom to be cleared. Spania stated, if there was an incident where my son would be throwing things at other people, kicking chairs, trying to hit other kids with a chair, trying to be violent somehow, attack other kids, I would be all for the teacher keeping other kids safe and restraining my kid. This comment highlighted the complexity of the situation. Different parents, even those with children who have similar diagnoses, had different views on when physical intervention is appropriate. Shannon Stevens, a parent in Mrs. Proctor's class, made a crucial point. All the parents in the class have never spoken poorly about any child in this situation. The one thing that just keeps repeating itself is that it's not about the child. I don't even know who the child is. I wouldn't have even known his last name if that letter hadn't come out. Shannon asked the key question, what should Mrs. Proctor have done in a situation where she witnessed another child she felt was in danger of being harmed? She noted that protocol requires calling someone trained to restrain, but in the heat of the moment she saw somebody getting hurt. If she had just stood back and not done anything when that child was being hurt, if that were my child, I would have been extremely upset. Shannon, identifying herself as a human resources professional with 20 years of experience, said, sometimes procedure and protocol has to be bent just a little bit if the situation warrants it. Policy is great, there's ways that we discipline or whatever, but we always have to look at all the facts, take everything into consideration, and decide if the punishment fits the crime. Throughout this outpouring of community concern, the school board remained largely silent. Chair Fitzgerald repeatedly reminded speakers that public comment is not a back and forth and the questions would be answered after this meeting. When Jim Meeshow stood up and simply said, It's common sense when you sit down and you look at the situation. It doesn't make sense what you guys are putting Miss Proctor through. It doesn't make sense. Thirty years of a stellar career doesn't mean anything. I think you guys need to look at yourself in the mirrors. The board offered no response. The only substantive information came later in the meeting when Dr. Renee Bennett from the SAU-16 administration provided an overview of safety protocols. She explained that New Hampshire RSA 126-U, passed in 2023, tightened the reins in terms of what constitutes restraint and seclusion, whether schools are allowed to do it, and what are all of the other protective factors they need to do. Dr. Bennett described a crisis response team of seven adults at Swayze trained in CPI. She emphasized that the law does state you can't put your hands on a kid unless there's imminent danger. The protocol Dr. Bennett explained is for staff to call as soon as you can for someone from the crisis response team to come and respond to the student in crisis. She added, if there ever is a need to put hands on a student, there is required legal documentation. That's why it's really important for the crisis team to know and be called so that they can document it right away. We have 24 hours to document it, get it in the forms, the state mandated forms, and submit it up. When board member Melissa Litchfield asked whether the ratio of seven crisis team members to 290 students was accurate, adequate, Bennett responded that seven is a great number for this building. Given the low incidence of CPI holds, she noted, I can pull your discipline data and your CPI data and you don't have a lot. You really have not had a CPI hold in multiple years. This raised an obvious question. If the school rarely has incidents requiring physical restraint, and if Mrs. Proctor has 30 years of experience without prior incidents, why was the situation handled so severely? One of the most significant revelations came near the end of the meeting when board members discussed who actually makes personnel decisions. Dr. Bennett stated clearly, the board has delegated superintendent responsibilities to the superintendent's office, and that includes the oversight of staff and personnel. The decision, the final decision around staff, is done at the superintendent's office in conjunction with building level administration and information that they have. Then that information is brought to the board as a piece of information. But you have delegated superintendent responsibility, including the supervision of staff, to the superintendent's office, and we make the decisions. This was a bombshell. Throughout the evening, community members had directed their pleas to the school board. They had come to the board meeting, signed up for public comment, and asked. This was a bombshell. Throughout the evening, community members had directed their pleas to the school board. They had come to the board meeting, signed up for public comment, and asked the board to bring Mrs. Proctor back. But according to Dr. Bennett, the board doesn't make these decisions. The superintendent's office does. Board member Melissa Litchfield later emphasized this point. There is a reason why the board members did not respond. It's policy for the chair to respond, but we read every single email. We care, but it's policy. I am a little frustrated that I don't understand why we don't put out there where policy and budget. I said it at candidates night, I'll say it again. That's what the board does. This raises profound questions about accountability and transparency. If the superintendent makes personnel decisions, why wasn't Superintendent Chris Andrewski, who was present, not answering any questions? Why, given the heat of the moment, did he not say anything? Why was the community addressing a board that, by its own admission, has no authority over the decision they were asking about? Later in the meeting, the board reviewed several policies, including one particularly contentious policy, JBB, Employee Student Relations. This policy had been held over from a previous meeting, and the Brentwood Teachers Association and Paraprofessionals Association had requested more time to review it. The union representatives explained they thought the policy was being represented for a first reading, not a vote, because the summary page was missing from the packet. Chair Fitzgerald acknowledged this was an oversight. Melissa Litchfield raised concerns about vague language in the policy. She questioned provisions stating staff members shall not make derogatory comments to students regarding the school and or its staff. And staff members shall not use insults or sarcasm against students as a method of forcing compliance. Melissa said they seem subjective, vague, or how would you enforce it? I'm not saying you go around a bad mouth to school. It just seems like a freedom of speech kind of thing. I just feel as though it can be misinterpreted. Board member Katie Coppola agreed. They are kind of vague, those two you shared, Melissa, are very vague and could be misconstrued into many different ways. The irony was palpable. Here was a board discussing how vague policies can be misconstrued and used unfairly against staff while a teacher sat at home, removed from her classroom for seven weeks. Apparently for violating a vague standard about when physical intervention is appropriate. The board ultimately decided to hold the policy for another month to get more feedback. This meeting exposed several troubling patterns in how Brentwood School Board operates. First, selective enforcement of rules. Chair Fitzgerald established strict protocols for public comment, including no back-and-forth dialogue and directing all comments to the chair. Yet when a board member was accused of violating confidentiality, the chair protected the board member rather than addressing the allegation. Board member Katie Coppola walked out during public comment rather than facing the accusation. The rules, it seems, apply to citizens but not to board members themselves. Second, a lack of transparency about decision-making authority. Community members spent two hours pleading with the school board to bring Mrs. Proctor back, only to learn that the board doesn't make personnel decisions. The superintendent's office does. This information should have been communicated at the beginning of the meeting and not buried in a discussion later. The community deserved to know who actually has the power to address their concerns. Third, inconsistent application of privacy standards. The board repeatedly invoked privacy and confidentiality to avoid discussing the Mrs. Proctor situation. Yet Chair Fitzgerald read a detailed letter from the parent of the child involved, which included specific information about the incident, the child's diagnosis, and the family's perspective. If privacy was truly the concern, why was one side of the story read into the public record while the other side remained silenced? Fourth, a disconnect between policy discussions and real-world consequences. The board spent significant time debating whether policy language about staff conduct was too vague and could be misconstrued. While a teacher sat at home for seven weeks, apparently for violating a vague standard about physical intervention. The board seemed unable to connect their abstract policy discussions to the concrete human impact of these policies. As this meeting concluded, more questions remained than were answered. Who made the decision to remove Mrs. Proctor from her classroom? Was it Superintendent Andrewski, Principal Q, someone else in the SAU 16 administration? Why, even though in attendance and hearing all the pleas from parents, was the superintendent silent? The community deserves to know who is accountable for this decision. What is the appeals process for personnel decisions? If the superintendent's office makes the final call, is there any mechanism for a review or appeal? Can the school board override a superintendent's decision if they believe it's unjust? Why was Mrs. Proctor not trained in crisis intervention? If she's been teaching for 30 years, if CPI training is so critical, why isn't it mandatory for all staff who work with young children? And if it Is mandatory. Why wasn't Mrs. Proctor trained? What happened in the six minutes of the restraint? The parents' letter describes six minutes of her son screaming while being held down. Mrs. Proctor's supporters describe a teacher trying to protect one child from being harmed by another. What does the video footage actually show? Who has reviewed it besides the parent and the administration? Why did three staff members report the incident to administration? Were they concerned about the appropriateness of the restraint? Were they following protocol? Or were they protecting themselves from potential liability? What is the school's protocol when a child is actively harming another child and no crisis team members immediately available? Should a teacher stand by and watch? Should they call for help and hope it arrives in time? Should they intervene physically despite not being trained? The community needs clear answers to these questions. Why wasn't this incident addressed more quickly quickly? Seven weeks is nearly two months. That's almost half a school year for kindergarteners. Why did it take so long to investigate and make a decision? What support has been provided to the students in Mrs. Proctor's class? Multiple parents ascribe children who are heartbroken, confused, and struggling academically. What is this district doing to help these children process this situation? What support has been provided to Mrs. Procter? Regardless of whether the restraint was appropriate, a teacher with 30 years of experience has been removed from her classroom and subjected to public scrutiny. What resources has the district provided to support her during this time? What support has been provided to the child who was restrained in his family? This five-year-old boy with autism is now at the center of a community controversy. His mother's letter reveals the pain and frustration of watching her son be labeled a bully when he is diagnosed a disability. What is the district doing to ensure this child can continue his education in a supportive environment? This meeting is about more than one teacher and one incident. It's about how our community handles different situations when there are no easy answers. It's about whether we can have honest conversations about the challenges of educating children with behavioral and developmental needs in mainstream classrooms. Victoria Spain's testimony about her son's weekly dysregulation episodes reveals that this is not a rare occurrence. Schools across the country are grappling with how to support students with diverse needs while maintaining safe learning environments for all children. It's about whether we trust our teachers to make split-second decisions in crisis situations, or whether we expect them to follow rigid protocols, even when a child may be in immediate danger. Shannon Stevens asked the essential question: what should Mrs. Proctor have done? If the answer is call for help and wait, what happens to the child being harmed while we wait? It's about whether our school board can govern effectively when members walk out during public comment, when rules are enforced selectively, and when the board itself admits it doesn't have authority over the decisions the community is asking about. It's about whether we can maintain privacy and due process while also providing the transparency and accountability that the community demands. The tension between those values was on full display throughout this evening. And ultimately, it's about whether we can come together as a community to find solutions or whether we will fracture into opposing camps, each convinced of their own righteousness. As this meeting ended, the school board voted to go into non-public session. What was discussed in that session remains confidential. But the public portion of this meeting revealed a community in crisis. A beloved teacher has been removed from her classroom, a five-year-old boy with autism has been labeled a bully, parents are confused and angry, and the students are suffering, and the school board seems unable or unwilling to provide the leadership and transparency the community needs. The path forward requires several things. First, clarity about decision-making, authority, and accountability. The community needs to know exactly who makes personal decisions, what the process is, and how those decisions can be reviewed or repealed. Second, an honest communication about what happened and why. While respecting privacy and due process, the district needs to provide more information about the incident, the investigation, and the reasoning behind the decision. The current information vacuum has been filled with speculation, rumor, and competing narratives. Third, a comprehensive review of crisis intervention protocols. If the current system requires teachers to stand by while children are harmed, waiting for a crisis team member to arrive, that system needs to be reevaluated. If teachers are expected to intervene physically in emergencies, they need to be trained and supported in doing so. Fourth, support for all parties, including Mrs. Proctor, the child who is restrained, the child who is allegedly being harmed, the students in the classroom, and the families all need support to heal and move forward. The selective enforcement of meeting rules, the lack of clarity about authority, and the political divisions on display at this meeting do not inspire confidence. The board needs to do better. The people of Brentwood showed up to this meeting because they care deeply about their schools, their teachers, and their children. They deserve a school board and administration that matches their level of commitment and concern. Thank you for listening. If you have comments or would like to add to this discussion, please message me at Brantwood Joe's Town Hall Podcast at gmail.com. You can also leave comments on the Brantwood Joe's Town Hall Podcast Facebook page or the Brentwood for All Facebook group. I would also like to do an impromptu poll. If you would like me to start posting the transcripts of my podcast on my Facebook page, let me know in the comments of the YouTube feed or the podcast feed. You can also email me or leave comments on the Facebook page. As always, keep our first responders and military in mind. Thank them for what they do for us when you see them. Let them know how important they are. Thank you all for listening and for your support. Have a great week, brother.

SPEAKER_01 28:30

In the heart of town where the stories unfold, Bramwood Joe's got a tale to be told.

SPEAKER_00 28:44

Grab your cave and take a seat in the glow. Is it yourself or a neighboring near? Every little whisper can plant a good scene. Come gather round, let your voice be heard. It's our town, folks. Let's spread the word. So participate to make a difference today. At Brainwood Joes, we're paving the way. What's going on? Let's discuss and plan. Together as one we'll take a stand. What's on the docket? What's going down? Checks and balances our hometown. Let's talk about taxes. Where do they go? Building our future. Brick by brick, roll by roll. New buildings rising. Schools buzzing bride. Fire the parliament. Ready to break the night. Police on the lookout. Keeping us safe. Together we try. Here's our escape. So participate to make a difference today. At Brownwood Joe's, we're paving the way. What's going on? Let's discuss and plan. Together as one, we'll take a stand. Roads in a town gotta keep 'em clean. Trash pick up punctual. You know what I mean? Seasonal celebrations. Let's gather a chill in the time and lining up every year. Community gatherings, and Brandwood Joe's is a hotel. An economic update. What's coming a long way? Crime prevention efforts. Keeping trouble at bay. Emergency contact. Hold 'em close. Together with a thri. That's what matters the most. A platform for Discuss with your neighbors. Make a small So participate. Well, let's discuss the plan. We'll take a standard brown. The voice of the time with every conversation will turn the tide. John and the laughter. Come and take us in at the time of our spirits, maybe so gang of the heart, leaderheart, and brown together. We'll make changes.