LISBON – The town Ethics Panel did not find sufficient evidence that Town Councilor Roger Cote has acted with bias, and therefore did not recommend the council take action against him, Chairman David Bowie said Tuesday night.

The panel’s review was the result of Cote’s accusations last summer that police Chief David Brooks and his department were involved in illegal drug activity.

Earlier this year, the state Attorney General’s Office cleared Brooks and the department of any wrongdoing. Brooks later called for Cote’s resignation or for the council to take action against him. The council was advised it could not, because the allegations were made before Cote was elected last November.

The Ethics Panel interviewed Brooks and Cote, and consulted with Maine Municipal Association attorney Michael Shultz, according to its report presented to the Town Council Tuesday night. It also reviewed its responsibilities under town ordinances and looked at state law, particularly in regard to conflict of interest by public officials and bias.

In the discussion of public issues it can often be very difficult to distinguish between bias in the form of political viewpoint and bias in the form of prejudice, the panel said.

“We feel that any decision to remove Mr. Cote from office or deny his right to vote would require evidence of prejudice in his actions as a councilor,” the report stated. “Without sufficient evidence we are concerned that such action by the council would generate deeper division within the community and compromise the ability to move ahead in a political atmosphere already made delicate by economic worries.”

The panel did offer five recommendations, “which we hope the council will consider as possible ways to move forward,” the report stated. They are:

• Work with an outside professional facilitator to try to rebuild a functional working relationship among council members.

• Keep the public informed as much as possible during the budget process, possibly posting the proposed budget and revisions made during budget meetings.

• Consider actions it can take to control prejudicial decisions.

• Determine if the ethics ordinance needs further definition or clarification to provide better guidance for issues that may arise in the future. The panel, however, does not suggest this as a remedy for the current situation.

• Structure public meetings to avoid having unexpected issues become the focus at the expense of other business on an agenda. When an important issue is brought before the council without advance knowledge, it is possible that the process of considering the issue can overshadow the issue itself.