The Lewiston City Council will vote to censure two councilors next week for using the encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate with a city employee.

The council will vote Tuesday to censure Councilors Josh Nagine and Scott Harriman for evading Freedom of Access Act requirements by using the app, which automatically deleted messages.

The communications were discovered during an internal investigation into the employee, and once notified, the council launched its own inquiry into the matter.

Several sources close to the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to release information, confirmed that the city employee was former police Detective Joe Philippon, who resigned this month.

Philippon was placed on administrative leave with pay in September following an internal investigation. He submitted a letter of resignation dated Oct. 1.

Elected officials are required to retain copies of all written communication, including electronic messages, related to city business that could be subject to FOAA requests.

The council will also vote Tuesday on whether to release a report on the internal inquiry.

A statement from city administration Thursday said “encrypted or disappearing messaging platforms are designed to prevent transparency. Using them to discuss government matters undermines both FOAA law and public trust.”

Both councilors who face censure admitted they failed to keep proper records for FOAA purposes, but also took issue with aspects of how the investigation unfolded. Harriman questioned the use of taxpayer resources for a non-criminal matter, but city administration said public resources were not misused.

‘RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATION’

Both Harriman and Nagine said this week that the text message conversations on Signal were initiated by the city employee, and they didn’t realize until it was brought to their attention that their messages were set to automatically delete.

Harriman said he “should have checked,” and as soon as he was made aware of it, he checked other chats and verified they were set to retain all messages.

“I have taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again,” he said. “I take both my role as a city councilor and my responsibility to preserve a record of my written communications very seriously, and I deeply regret this mistake.”

Nagine said his communications with the employee that were deleted are “a record-keeping violation,” which he called “unfortunate but not intentional.”

“I accept any decision of the council and apologize to my colleagues and constituents for my failure to retain records of my communications,” he said.

Mayor Carl Sheline said police questioning of the councilors took place as part of an investigation into the city employee, and after the Signal communications were found, the information was brought to the council by the city attorney and the council opted to conduct its own inquiry.

Sheline said he anticipates the report will be made public Tuesday.

“In my time as mayor, there has never been a clearer example of wrongdoing by those who knew what’s right,” he said.

Councilor Tim Gallant said he was surprised and “let down” to learn about the use of encrypted messaging by fellow councilors. He said while one councilor was prompted by the city employee to download the app, the other councilor was already using it.

Gallant said the employee asked most councilors to connect on Signal, but others declined.

Gallant called it “unbelievable” that the councilors would use an app like Signal, especially given the recent high-profile news of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who accidentally included a reporter on a Signal chat that discussed sensitive military operations.

Harriman in the past has railed against actions by fellow councilors regarding FOAA and transparency issues, including when a quorum of previous councilors were alleged to have discussed city issues at a downtown bar — a political fight that led to Harriman being censured by the same councilors.

The council memo states that the censures are “for failure to adhere to the requirements of Maine law and the council’s goal of transparency.”

A censure is a formal statement of disapproval that is adopted by majority vote, but does not typically result in further discipline.

‘INTIMIDATION TACTIC’

Both Harriman and Nagine pushed back on what they said has been a “narrative” that there was a conspiratorial nature to their communications with the city employee.

Harriman called it an “intimidation tactic” to use law enforcement to investigate city councilors for a non-criminal matter.

“This is especially true given that I have been open about my frustrations with leadership at the Police Department, as has another city councilor,” he said, referring to Nagine.

Harriman added that it’s “highly inappropriate” to use taxpayer resources on this issue, “especially given our community’s elevated level of gun violence and how short-staffed the Police Department continues to be.”

Nagine said questioning from police during the employee investigation regarding the nature of his communication with other councilors was “surprising” and did not feel like “the normal course of investigating what would amount to a civil violation.”

In response, city administration said that “knowing the sequence of events will demonstrate that public resources, specifically the Lewiston Police Department, were not misused. Nor, at any time, did anyone in City Administration initiate, direct, advise, influence, or have any involvement into LPD’s Internal Affairs Investigation.

“It is standard for LPD to send an Internal Affairs Investigation directly to the city attorney and not through city administration.”

Harriman and Nagine said they supported the council-directed inquiry.

‘OVERALL DIRECTION’

Asked what was discussed over Signal, Nagine said the employee shared general opinions on city issues, leadership, and challenges the city was seeing.

Nagine declined to comment on whether the discussions delved into concerns regarding the Police Department, but said he hears from many constituents who are concerned about public safety.

“The nature of my communications with the employee were fueled by my public statements and didn’t differ from anything I’ve said in public,” he said.

Nagine also said that under the broad FOAA definition, something as basic as forwarding a council agenda to a constituent can be considered city business.

Harriman said he and the employee “talked about the overall direction of the Police Department,” but that they didn’t share any personnel complaints.

“If they had, I would have directed that information to the appropriate staff members,” he said. “They are a resident of this city and they have the right to express their opinions to elected officials just like any other resident does.”

Harriman said that while he talked with the employee in question about “matters relating to how the city functions,” he didn’t take direction from them.

“I never felt like they were pressuring or intimidating me to vote or speak a certain way,” he said. “Our conversations didn’t change what I said or how I voted.”

Philippon has been active in city politics for years, often backing candidates and writing letters to the Sun Journal. He hasn’t been shy about sharing his opinions on city issues and leadership.

While Philippon’s separation agreement with the city confirmed that he was the subject of an internal affairs investigation, it does not disclose details of why the investigation was launched.

Nagine said he believes his openness with criticism of city decisions around public safety is why the city employee began reaching out to him.

“Constituents have a right to communicate with and make their views known to their representatives and advocate for changes they wish to see, no matter who they work for, what their socioeconomic status is, or their political leanings,” he said.

Nagine is running unopposed for a second term as the Ward 1 councilor. Harriman is seeking a third term as Ward 3 councilor.