The Board of Ethics voted July 22, 2025, to recommend that the school board consider formal censure of Karen Stokes after the board’s ethics investigation officer concluded Stokes made politically coercive remarks during an April 21 meeting.

The ethics investigation officer, Andrew (ethics investigation officer, name as provided in the meeting), presented a report adopted June 20 that examined two allegations: disclosure of nonpublic information to a local reporter and politically coercive threats to fellow school board members. "This cannot be countenanced. It cannot be ignored," Andrew said, summarizing the officer’s finding that Stokes attempted to stifle debate by making threatening remarks and recommending referral to the city council or school board for formal censure.

The report found no ethics violation on the disclosure allegation after reviewing discrepancies among accounts and statements to reporter Dandurant of the Fosters newspaper, but it concluded the discrepancy affected witness credibility. Regarding threats, the officer said witnesses reported hearing Stokes tell board members that they could lose their seats if they pursued certain actions. The investigator summarized reported language along these lines: "If you send Sandy to ethics in an election year, there'll be political impacts and you could lose your seat," and that Stokes told another member, "you better be careful what you're doing because I'll find someone to take your seat." The investigator said the remarks were heard by multiple board members and by the minute-taker, Sarah Harrington.

The officer described varying witness accounts: some members said they did not hear threats, some said they were not paying attention, and others contradicted Stokes and one another. The investigator reported finding Paul Cormier and Karen Stokes’ accounts inconsistent with other witnesses and said those inconsistencies affected their credibility. He praised Sarah Harrington’s contemporaneous notes and said her detailed account strengthened the credibility of the reported threats.

The investigator concluded the conduct violated provisions of the city’s ethics code cited in the report (A.3; A.7; A.8.3; A.8.7; B.1.b) governing member conduct, communications and prohibitions on intimidating or harassing behavior, and recommended referral under the city charter (section C, point E) or the school board’s discretion for formal censure.

At the July 22 meeting the board moved, seconded and then adopted a motion to forward the officer’s recommendation to the school board. During a roll call on the motion, John Larochelle, Daniel Fitzpatrick and Sarah Harrington voted yes; the motion passed. The investigator said he made his recommendation before learning Stokes had resigned; he noted that Stokes later resigned but maintained that censure would still be appropriate to demonstrate standards for elected officials.

The investigation officer noted the matter arose in the context of ongoing tensions on the school board related to the superintendent’s situation but emphasized the recommendation was focused on the alleged conduct and its effect on the board’s deliberations.

The Board of Ethics’ action on July 22 forwards the recommendation; the school board or city council will determine whether to pursue formal censure or other action at a later meeting.