LEWISTON — The City Council on Tuesday removed Councilor Linda Scott as council president and censured Councilor Scott Harriman in response to previous statements they made over whether several members of the council recently violated open meeting laws by discussing city business at a local bar.

Both votes were 4-3, with Councilors Scott, Harriman and Gelinas opposed.

The council then appointed Councilor Rick LaChapelle to serve as council president by a vote of 4-3.

Councilors and members of the public debated — and sometimes sparred — Tuesday over the retaliatory moves, with some calling on the council to end its divisiveness and address city issues.

The controversy stemmed from the council’s Oct. 3 meeting, where Scott said Councilors Bob McCarthy, LaChapelle, Larry Pease and Lee Clement recently met with two Planning Board members at The Cage bar on Ash Street and discussed city business.

Councilor Harriman said the councilors had discussed a potential resolution supporting Central Maine Power in regard to state referendum Question 3, but councilors refuted that, stating Harriman was deliberately “misrepresenting” the facts.

Prior to its vote to remove Councilor Scott as president, the council voted to release a memo from city attorney Marty Eisentein regarding Freedom of Access Act laws. A letter from the state Attorney General’s office Tuesday appeared to differ.

In his letter, dated Oct. 6, Eisenstein states that “based on the information shared with me thus far, I have not seen a violation of the FOAA because a quorum of city councilors did not discuss the business and affairs of the city for which the City Council is authorized to act.”

However, he said he was “not opining on whether any meetings occurred such that the FOAA may have been violated.” He said he based his opinion on a report of the meeting from Planning Board member Josh Nagine, but did not attend or watch the previous meetings.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey sent a letter to Lewiston officials Tuesday, stating that after watching the council’s meetings on Sept. 19 and Oct. 3, he’s “concerned that there may be a lack of understanding” about what the Maine Freedom of Access Act requires of elected officials.

According to Maine statute regarding freedom of access, public proceedings and deliberations must be conducted openly and records of actions must be open to public inspection. The statute also states that “clandestine meetings, conferences or meetings held on private property without proper notice and ample opportunity for attendance by the public” must not be used.

According to state statute, public notice must be provided for a meeting involving three or more persons, and that notice should provide ample time to plan to attend and be “disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to notify the general public.”

It also states: “While communications between members of a public body outside of public proceedings are not prohibited, those communications cannot be used to defeat the purposes of FOAA.”

Frey said through watching the recent meetings, he learned “there may have been a majority of members that coordinated outside of public view” on a proposed resolution to be sent to the Lewiston School Committee, and that “some number of councilors called an impromptu meeting at a local bar at which a possible resolution relating to a specific referendum question (along with other things of a public nature) was discussed.”

“In both instances, the efforts by some members to explain why FOAA may not apply evidenced their lack of understanding of the business they were conducting and what FOAA actually requires under the circumstances,” he said. “FOAA requires more attention than some members of the Lewiston City Council may be giving it.”

Councilor LaChapelle argued that the city attorney’s opinion shows that the councilors who attended The Cage did nothing wrong, and that the removal of Scott as president was based on her making “untrue allegations.”

Councilor McCarthy said Scott’s statements were intended to impact the election, as “voters have already started to cast ballots.” Thankfully, he said, the city attorney’s memo was provided to the public.

“Councilor Scott should have spoken to the attorney first. Instead she chose to be a political operative,” he said. “The only act that demands punishment here is yours.”

During public comment Tuesday, several people called on the council to end the internal conflict and address city issues. Most also disagreed with the council majority regarding its potential FOAA breach.

Luke Jensen, who is running for mayor, said the council is continuing to be embroiled in division and now has differing legal opinions to stand behind. But, he said, the council has been conducting public business behind the scenes all term.

“I was angry 18 months ago when this stuff was happening,” he said, adding that when he was a councilor, “We knew not to meet as a quorum.”

Councilor Stephanie Gelinas, who is not seeking reelection, said the entire process “feels very retaliatory,” and that even if no one has been found guilty of FOAA violations, it is the appearance that impacts the city.

“If you continue to skirt the line, it invites conversation,” she said, adding that she declined the invite to The Cage. “I don’t want to have my integrity questioned. We need to change the direction from this dysfunction, and incredible waste of time and money.”

Several people spoke out on behalf of Councilor Scott and her years of service to the city.

During her comments, Scott said, “actions have consequences. I stand by everything I said. I will look you all in the face and say I’m happy with what I did.”

Mayor Carl Sheline said it’s clear that by watching a couple meetings, someone can see that councilors “are meeting outside meetings.”

In response, LaChapelle said the info that’s shared during those meetings has been “half-truths” in an attempt to “change the narrative to make someone look bad.”

He said the meeting at The Cage was for the council and Planning Board to “attend a celebration of the accomplishments we were able to do.”

Clement said Scott “slandered us.”

“I don’t think that’s befitting of our council president,” he said.

Prior to the vote to censure Harriman, several members of the public spoke out against the measure.

A resident identifying himself as David said the resolution is “incoherent,” and “seems to be based on personal grievances.”

“We’d expect our city leaders to rise above,” he said. “Get some thicker skin and get on with the people’s business.”

Another resident said “crucial challenges” in Lewiston are going unaddressed.

“You might want to be concerned how it looks to fiddle while kids sleep in tents,” she said.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Sellers and rebuilders unite to help veteran with home makeover in Lewiston

Next »

Photos: Lewiston dental students help meet ‘the need’