Following weeks of controversy and public pressure, the Lewiston City Council will launch an investigation into newly elected Ward 5 Councilor Iman Osman’s residency and qualifications to serve.

The council voted 6-1 to move forward with the investigation, with Osman opposed. Osman did not comment.

During the first meeting for the new City Council, officials said they hoped a third-party investigation can put the issue to rest as councilors hope to dig into city issues in the new term.

Council President David Chittim said the council wants to “resolve this unwanted distraction” as quickly as possible.

At issue since Osman’s successful campaign for council has been his legal address, which is listed as 210 Blake St. The building has been condemned since October of last year, with no clear timeline established for Osman’s return, which has led to continued questions from the public regarding whether Ward 5 would have true representation.

Osman has not publicly released the address where he lives. His attorney, Kiernan Majerus-Collins, has said he will not divulge the location because Osman is facing harassment, and that Osman plans to return to the 210 Blake St. address when renovations are complete.

The City Clerk’s office has previously said that 210 Blake St. meets residency requirements under state law because Osman plans to return there, and there is no time frame established by precedent for the state to define “temporarily absent.”

Complicating matters further for Osman and local officials was Osman’s indictment for gun theft charges last month, which led to calls from Mayor Carl Sheline for Osman to resign.

Both Sheline and Councilor Susan Longchamps again called for Osman to resign Monday.

During public comment, residents appeared split on support for Osman and a possible council investigation.

Andrew Jones said given Lewiston’s issues with gun violence, Osman should not be serving on the council after being accused of trafficking stolen firearms.

Several Somali Americans said the spotlight on Osman has been rolled into a national anti-Somali fervor that has amounted to a “smear campaign.”

One resident said Osman “won fair and square,” and that Osman was elected because previous councilors in Ward 5 “were not doing anything about the problems in downtown Lewiston.”

“He’s the only hope we have,” he said.

Shukri Abdirahman, an Androscoggin County commissioner, said the investigation isn’t a problem, “it’s the bigger picture” of how the public has been “destroying someone’s image.”

Marcel Leclair said the issue in front of the council is not about the national rhetoric.

“We love our Somali citizens, this is an eligibility issue,” he said.

Matt Agren called the investigation “the correct step to quickly put to an end the issue,” and “end the source of controversy.”

Martin Chartrand told councilors that the issue seemed to be resolved by the City Clerk, but was then forced on the council by “a lot of loud voices.”

Councilor Josh Nagine said an independent investigation and report is “objective and accountable,” and “allows us to move forward.”

“There’s a loss of trust in government and officials overall and these processes are needed in order to be accountable to the people we serve,” he said.

Following the meeting, Majerus-Collins said Osman “is confident that any fair investigation will conclude what has been clear for some time now: The facts and the law are on his side.” 

According to the City Council memo, a report on the investigation would be expected in time for the council’s next meeting “so that the City Council can determine whether to hold a hearing.”

“There’s a loss of trust in government and officials overall and these processes are needed in order to be accountable to the people we serve.”

Councilor Josh Nagine

The City Charter, under section 2.08, gives the council the authority to judge the qualifications of any of its members and of grounds for forfeiture of office.

According to that section, “a member charged with lacking the necessary qualifications to hold office or conduct constituting grounds for forfeiture of office shall be entitled to a hearing on demand, at which the individual charged shall have the opportunity to present witnesses and cross examine witnesses.” 

Removal from office requires the affirmative vote of at least five members of the council. The member charged would be disqualified from voting on the question of removal.