Written by: Dan Shibilia

As if Methuen didn’t have enough going on with Central District Councilor, Yanilda Santos, arraignment this coming Monday following her accident and DUI charge earlier in the week, a new legal dispute has landed squarely in the middle of Methuen’s School Committee.

School Committee Member Kristen Maxwell has filed for a harassment prevention order against fellow committee member Laurie Keegan under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258E. Court records show that Keegan has been formally served and that a hearing is scheduled for February 13, when a judge will decide whether the order should remain in place, be modified, or be dismissed.

For residents trying to understand what this means, and what it does not, the state provides detailed guidance through the Trial Court’s Harassment Prevention Order forms and instructions. These orders are designed to stop a pattern of threatening or abusive conduct, and can impose strict limits on contact, proximity, and behavior while the case is pending.

(Source: https://www.mass.gov/lists/harassment-prevention-order-court-forms)

I think it’s important to start with the understanding that the harassment order does not verify the harassment. That will happen at the hearing on the 13th.

What do we actually know

Well, not much really. There is not much that we can verify with any certainty.

Right now, Keegan is restricted from going to Maxwell’s home. There is no reason circulating now to believe that it has ever been an issue. This is not a stay-away order. There is no requirement for Keegan to stay a certain number of feet from Maxwell.

What has circulated most prominently from people in Maxwell’s orbit, who say the dispute stemmed from an argument in the media center before the last School Committee meeting over where members were seated at the table. In that version of events, Keegan is alleged to have knocked, or thrown, Maxwell’s school-issued Chromebook onto the floor during the exchange.

Those same accounts emphasize that the two were reportedly alone in the room at the moment it happened, meaning there were no direct third-party witnesses to the initial incident itself. Chief McNamara, who was attending the executive session, along with members of the administration and the committee, is said to have entered shortly afterward.

That timing matters because it underscores how little of the encounter can be independently confirmed right now. Much of what the public is hearing is second-hand, filtered through allies, colleagues, and hallway conversations rather than sworn testimony or video.

Let’s assume Keegan did damage the Chromebook in some fashion. People familiar with her temperament have questioned whether the act would have been intended as physical aggression, describing her as not prone to that sort of conduct. That, of course, is opinion, not evidence, and precisely the kind of distinction the court process is meant to sort out.

Having served with her for 2 years on the school committee, I've never known her to be anything even close to what could be considered as aggressive. Having no relationship with her pride to join the school committee, I have known her over the last 2 years to be a strong advocate not the aggressional/ confrontational type.

Aside from these rumors, some residents (including me as I write this) have also questioned the timing of the filing, noting that it occurred less than a day after the publication of a police report involving Councilor Santos who is widely seen as politically aligned with Maxwell. That proximity has fueled chatter and private conversations about whether the harassment order could have the secondary effect of shifting public attention away from other controversies currently unfolding in the public forum. It is not that far-fetched to believe that in our current political environment, where alliances are openly discussed and narratives move quickly, the coincidence has prompted some to ask whether the timing was purely procedural or whether residents are right to scrutinize how and when major developments become public.

What a Harassment Prevention Order Can Do

Under Massachusetts law, a court may issue a temporary order, sometimes without the defendant present, if it finds a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment. These emergency orders are short-term and are followed by a hearing where both sides can appear.

Depending on the circumstances, a judge can order a defendant to:

Stop abusing or harassing the plaintiff.
Have no contact with the plaintiff in person, by phone, email, or through third parties.
Stay a certain distance away from the plaintiff’s home or workplace.
Comply with other restrictions the court believes are necessary for safety.

Violating such an order is a criminal offense.

The February hearing will be the moment when evidence, testimony, and arguments from both parties are weighed before any longer-term restrictions are imposed.

In practice, judges are looking for a minimum of 3 direct threats of bodily harm to meet the standard set forth to obtain a temporary protection order. Those must be detailed in the affidavit that accompanies the form filed. (Sample form: https://www.mass.gov/doc/gl-c-258e-harassment-prevention-order-application-forms/download)

We will request the affidavit on Monday when the courts reopen.

A History of Tension

This is not the first time Maxwell’s conduct has drawn scrutiny in city government circles.

During the previous term, Maxwell was restricted by the mayor and School Committee legal counsel from communicating directly with then-Superintendent Kwong after continued complaints from Kwong about abusive interactions. Many of these events were even openly discussed during meetings. That restriction, while separate from the current court filing, is likely to resurface in public discussion as residents attempt to contextualize the latest conflict.

Maxwell was vocal over this, publicly blaming Keegan, who was vice chair at the time and thus involved in the discussions with the Mayor (Chair) and superintendent.

Some within City Hall have long argued that interpersonal disputes on the committee are not as one-sided as they sometimes appear, pointing to internal dynamics and external alliances that rarely play out fully in public meetings.

What Comes Next

For now, the focus is split between the February 9th regular meeting of the School Committee and the February 13 hearing.

At that hearing, a judge will decide whether Maxwell’s request for a harassment prevention order meets the legal standard required for continuation. Both sides will have the opportunity to present their accounts, and any temporary restrictions could be lifted, tightened, or extended.

Until then, residents should keep in mind that filings and allegations are not findings of fact. The court process exists precisely to sort through competing narratives and determine what, if anything, legally constitutes harassment under state law. Unlike an arrest, there is no documentation provided by reliable witnesses, such as an officer, and the court acts solely on that of the complainant - here, Maxwell.

What is already clear is that the dispute adds another layer of strain to a School Committee that has seen no shortage of conflict in recent years, and it raises fresh questions about professionalism, internal governance, and how personal disputes spill into public institutions meant to serve the community.

As the hearing and regular meeting approach, Methuen will be watching closely.

*I did reach out to both parties via text. Keegan opted not to comment as this is a pending matter, and Maxwell did not respond. The Mayor and Vice Chair DiZoglio were also unresponsive.

May be an image of blueprint, ticket stub and text

Inside Methuen

Trouble on the School Committee: What We Know…