The same member of Maine’s Board of Social Worker Licensure has now been documented recusing himself from six complaints brought by the same complainant across separate proceedings. State officials say the reason for the five most recent recusals was not stated publicly—and Board staff was not separately told why.

THE MAINE MIRROR | RECORD UPDATE
August 22, 2026

A procedural question that began with a single unexplained recusal has become considerably more significant.

On August 14, the Maine State Board of Social Worker Licensure considered five separate professional licensing complaints involving personnel connected to the Maine Office of Child and Family Services.

The complaints—2025-SOC-20907 through 2025-SOC-20911—were each dismissed.

During each matter, Board member Benjamin Strick recused himself.

The Maine Mirror initially asked the State a straightforward question: Why?

The answer from the Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation was equally straightforward:

“Unknown. No, the reason was not entered into the public record.”

(Screenshot of The Maine Mirror’s August 14 request asking what the stated basis was for Board member Ben Strick’s recusal from the five complaint matters. The State’s highlighted response reads: “Unknown. No, the reason was not entered into the public record.”)

That answer did not establish anything improper about Strick’s decision to recuse.

But subsequent correspondence has now established something more precise: Board staff says it was not separately informed of the reason either.

And a review of an earlier complaint brought by the same complainant has revealed another fact requiring clarification:

These were not Strick’s first recusals from matters brought by Ryan Michaels.

Strick also recused himself from an earlier complaint Michaels filed concerning social worker Shaylene Wallace-Borden.

That means the documented record now contains six recusals by the same Board member across separate complaint proceedings brought by the same complainant.

The reason—or reasons—remain unknown.

THE STATE CLARIFIES WHAT BOARD STAFF KNOWS

After OPOR initially said Strick’s reason was “unknown” and had not been entered into the public record, The Maine Mirror asked a narrower follow-up question.

Was the reason perhaps known internally, even though it had not been publicly stated?

Or did Board staff genuinely not know why Strick recused?

On August 19, Kristin M. Racine, Acting Deputy Director of Maine’s Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation, answered.

Racine wrote that the reason “was not stated on the record at the board meeting” and added that “Board staff was not separately informed about any reason for recusal.”

That distinction matters.

The issue is no longer simply that the reason cannot be found in published minutes or another readily available public document.

According to the State official responding on behalf of the licensing office, Board staff itself was not separately given the reason.

(August 19, 2026 email from Acting Deputy Director Kristin Racine stating that Ben Strick’s reason for recusal was not stated on the record at the Board meeting and that “Board staff was not separately informed about any reason for recusal.” The email also explains the Board’s recusal instruction and states that there are no other Board policies or rules regarding recusal.)

WHAT DOES THE BOARD REQUIRE WHEN SOMEONE RECUSES?

Racine also provided copies of the Board Chair script and complaint-presentation script read aloud during the August 14 meeting.

According to Racine, Board members are instructed:

“[a]ny Board member who believes they cannot render an impartial or unbiased decision in a presented matter is expected to recuse themselves.”

Racine then provided another significant clarification:

“There are not any other board policies or rules regarding recusal.”

That language should be treated carefully.

It does not establish why Strick believed recusal was appropriate.

It does not establish a conflict of interest.

It does not establish bias.

It does not establish a relationship with any participant.

It does not establish disagreement with the complaints or with their disposition.

And it does not establish misconduct by Strick.

In fact, recusal can be precisely what an ethical decision-maker should do when circumstances prevent—or could prevent—an impartial decision.

But the Board’s own instruction makes the unanswered question more specific.

Board members are told to recuse when they believe they cannot render an “impartial or unbiased decision.”

Strick did so.

Five times on August 14.

And Board staff says it was not told why.

THEN AN EARLIER COMPLAINT CHANGED THE CONTEXT

The August 19 response might have resolved the inquiry there.

Then The Maine Mirror reviewed an earlier complaint proceeding.

Michaels had previously filed a separate professional licensing complaint concerning Shaylene Wallace-Borden, a counselor involved with his sons.

Strick recused from that complaint as well.

That materially changes the context.

The question is no longer simply why Strick stepped away from five related OCFS complaints presented together on August 14.

The record now shows that he also stepped away from an earlier complaint involving a different licensee and a separate Board proceeding brought by the same complainant.

At this point, the documented pattern is:

One complainant.
Separate proceedings.
Different licensed professionals.
Six recusals by the same Board member.

That does not tell us why.

It makes answering “why” more important.

THE EARLIER MATTER WAS NOT ENTIRELY UNRELATED

There is also an important factual connection between the earlier Wallace complaint and the later OCFS complaints.

The Wallace matter was not simply an unrelated professional dispute that happened to involve Michaels.

According to Michaels’ latest correspondence to the Board, the Wallace matter involved, at least in part, representations concerning his interaction with DHHS and the resulting no-trespass order. His later complaints against the five DHHS/OCFS licensees addressed representations surrounding those circumstances and included recordings and other documentary evidence that Michaels contends contradicted the Department’s account.

That does not establish that this factual overlap caused Strick’s recusals.

There is presently no evidence establishing that.

But it creates multiple plausible possibilities that cannot responsibly be resolved through inference.

The six recusals could have arisen from the same underlying circumstance.

They could have arisen from different circumstances.

They could relate to the complainant.

They could relate to information Strick encountered during the earlier proceeding.

They could involve a professional, personal, ethical or legal consideration not apparent anywhere in the public record.

Or there may be another explanation entirely.

The available record does not tell us.

That is precisely why The Maine Mirror has gone back to the Board rather than choosing among those possibilities.

SEVEN QUESTIONS ARE NOW BEFORE THE BOARD

On August 21, Michaels sent another written request for clarification to Racine, with Michael Tarr copied.

The request explicitly states that the repeated recusals should not themselves be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.

Instead, it asks the Board to establish what, if anything, it actually knows and documents about them.

The seven questions are:

(Excerpt from The Maine Mirror’s August 21 follow-up inquiry showing the seven questions now submitted to the Board concerning Strick’s earlier recusal from the Shaylene Wallace complaint and his five subsequent recusals. The questions seek any records identifying the basis for the recusals, whether Strick has communicated that he must recuse from matters involving the same complainant, whether the recusals share an underlying circumstance, whether counsel was consulted, what authority governs documentation of repeated recusals, and explicit confirmation if no explanatory record exists.)

Those questions remain pending.

THIS IS A GOVERNANCE QUESTION, NOT AN ACCUSATION

There is an important line that should not be crossed in reporting this story.

Six recusals do not prove six conflicts.

They do not prove one continuing conflict.

They do not prove bias against the complainant.

They do not prove favoritism toward anyone else.

They do not establish misconduct by Strick.

And an absence of information is not evidence that the missing information would be damaging.

The Maine Mirror is therefore not assigning a motive to Strick’s decisions.

The concern is institutional.

The Board instructs a member who believes they cannot render an impartial or unbiased decision to recuse.

One member has now been documented doing so six times in matters brought by the same complainant.

For the five most recent recusals, the State says the reason was not stated publicly and Board staff was not separately informed.

And according to Racine, the Board has no other policies or rules regarding recusal beyond the instruction provided to members.

That creates a legitimate transparency question independent of whatever Strick’s actual reason may be:

When repeated recusals alter the composition of the body deciding one person’s complaints, what mechanism exists to document, evaluate or account for that continuing effect?

WHY THE EFFECT ON BOARD COMPOSITION MATTERS

Every time Strick recuses, one fewer member participates in deciding the complaint before the Board.

That observation should not be converted into a simplistic claim that Michaels automatically suffers some fixed percentage disadvantage.

The mathematical effect depends upon how many members are present, who participates, applicable voting requirements and the circumstances of a particular proceeding.

But the practical effect is indisputable:

The composition of the decision-making body changes.

Michaels raised precisely that concern in his latest correspondence, writing that if a member has effectively determined he cannot participate whenever Michaels is the complainant, then complaints brought by Michaels begin with one fewer participating member.

Whether that is actually Strick’s position is one of the things the Board has now been asked to clarify.

Until it answers, it should not be assumed.

WHAT WE KNOW — AND WHAT WE DON’T

The documentary record presently establishes several things.

Strick recused himself from the five OCFS-related complaint presentations considered August 14.

OPOR initially said his reason was “Unknown” and was not entered into the public record.

Racine subsequently clarified that Board staff was “not separately informed about any reason for recusal.”

The Board’s complaint-presentation process tells members who believe they cannot render an impartial or unbiased decision to recuse themselves.

Racine says there are no other Board policies or rules regarding recusal.

And Strick previously recused himself from Michaels’ separate complaint concerning Wallace-Borden.

What the record does not establish is why any particular recusal occurred, whether all six share the same basis, whether Strick has determined that he cannot participate generally in matters brought by Michaels, or whether the earlier and later recusals are connected at all.

Those are now questions, not conclusions.

THE NEXT ANSWER MATTERS

There are several ways the Board’s response could materially clarify this story.

It may identify a documented explanation for the earlier Wallace recusal.

It may establish that the six recusals arose from unrelated circumstances.

It may identify a continuing circumstance requiring Strick to step away from matters involving Michaels.

It may identify additional governing authority or procedures.

Or the Board may confirm that no explanatory record exists.

Each possibility would change what can responsibly be said.

Until then, the most accurate description is also the simplest:

A Maine licensing Board member has been documented recusing himself from six complaints brought by the same complainant across separate proceedings.

For the five most recent recusals, the State says the reason was not stated on the record, Board staff was not separately informed why, and no other Board policies or rules regarding recusal exist beyond an instruction that members who believe they cannot render an impartial or unbiased decision are expected to recuse.

The reason for the earlier recusal—and whether these six recusals are connected—has now been put directly to the Board.

The Maine Mirror will publish the answer when one is received.

Until then, the appropriate conclusion is not suspicion.

It is a question.

Why has the same Board member repeatedly determined that he should not participate in complaints brought by the same person—and does the institution responsible for those proceedings have any record explaining it?