Bangor council advances ethics findings against Mallar, delays housing pilot

[0:30] Susan Hawes: Thank you, good evening, welcome to the city council workshop. It's Monday, September 14th, 5:15. We are in the council chambers and we have seven that, well, actually six items on the agenda, and then we will be asking for an executive session to end the workshop. So first on the list, well, we'll go around the table. We have City Manager Carollynn Lear, Council Carson, Council Walker, Council Falloon, Council Beck, Council Leonard, Council Malheur, Council Fish, and then Council Hawes. So we will start with the City Manager updates and I assume you're going to do your own. [1:18] Susan Deane: Yep. I just have two small items to mention today. The first is I'm sure you noticed when you were reviewing your agenda with respect to one of the previously passed school budget resolves. So when the school department was sending those certified resolves to the state where they need to go, they realized that in one of the resolves, it had listed fiscal 26, when it should have listed fiscal 27. Seven, so you just have on your agenda corrective council order that will change the year, that will go through two readings because it's a appropriation resolve. I have not, I have not referred it to a committee because I figured this discussion would be sufficient to, clarify why that's being corrected. No change to any number and it's just changed. And then the second item is something that I'm sure after last Monday's 10:30 p.m. and time of committee meetings will be exciting to you. So going forward, we're gonna try something new with purely informational items that we're bringing to council. So we're going to try to start scheduling those during the day. I think a good example of that would be a presentation from the students for when the, waterfront concerts came and presented on the economic impact of their work. We'll still do it here in person and it will be on Zoom. Counselors can come if they would like to, but you know, if you're unavailable for whatever reason, they'll all be on YouTube to watch. That we thought that this would be a good way to try to prevent us from having those 10 30 pm meetings also i sit here and grumble through these presentations because they're taking too long and i know it's just gonna make us you know of late at the end so i think you know having that not having that time crunch might also actually allow us to actually listen more and internalize the messages because we're not looking at a six hour [3:58] Susan Hawes: You manage an observation some of our committee meetings. It's happened more than once. A lot of our members and chairs and whatever are constantly thinking ahead as to other topics and things that they would like to see. The problem is if we start the topic conversation, then it expands and expands and expands. Where if we just said, okay, I want to talk about electric cars at the next meeting, you can ask the chair to be recognized and would you be able to put this on the next agendas item for that committee or an upcoming one because we well there was one that we lost about 20 minutes because you get started once you start into what they want to talk about at the next meeting we've gone into 15 20 minutes of discussion time so and then you feel like you're shorting the actual item that you were there for. It's just something to think about. I think we've all done it and said hey why can't we talk about blah and then you go on further and if we can just through the chair ask them to put it on the next committee meeting thank you. Those [5:21] Susan Deane: are my two options. We have plenty of other items. [5:24] Susan Hawes: Somebody okay the next item is the 2026 Penobscot county budget committee caucus. Yes so on September [5:37] Susan Deane: 16th so that's second Wednesday at 5 30 p.m there will be the county budget committee caucus where they will elect members to the budget committee and I was pretty green when this happened last year. I was only a couple months in but my recollection is that it was sort of an informal process whereby folks sort of raised their hands to indicate their interest in participating in that budget committee. So I was hoping we could have a conversation about that tonight who might be interested in serving. I think it's really important as you know just because of the impact that it has on last [6:25] Susan Hawes: year's it wasn't really raise your hand it was several of us were asked to do it so we get there and we just are told we're running and about a quarter way through that meeting leans over and she said if I had known it's getting later and later so it really is something to think about and if anybody's interested then we should sure if they want to sit on the budget we can promote that but it isn't just a hand raise usually over there somebody's been behind them saying, Oh, well, just listen, this is going to happen. [7:16] Susan Faloon: So I'll just add, yeah, we were asked, I was asked by one of the commissioners. And I think some other folks had been asked and weren't able to do it. So, but it was, it ended up being and I was under the impression, alright, so the first night we were there for like five hours. So it was talking about your 10 o'clock nights. And there was actually a joke that they tried to get us out before 410 and we were there till 10 and then we got called back because we didn't finish and I think and then there was some talk about them doing it a little bit differently and meeting more regularly during the year so that people weren't just coming in and kind of not knowing what was going on and that has not happened so I like I don't know I don't know how it's going to go down this year. But just yeah, it was pretty interesting. And then of course, last year, there were some real budget issues that I don't think have been entirely resolved. So all that said, I just wanted to give a little more info so people knew what they're getting into if they chose to do it. And I'm not, you know, jumping up and down to do it. But if nobody wants [8:29] Michael Beck: wants to do it I will I was just going to point out that it's going to conflict with personnel [8:40] Susan Hawes: That's true but if there's if there's someone here that's going to be at the personnel committee that is interested in being then having their name brought forward for the budget it can be done that way too so you don't actually have to be in person well I go to most of the meetings of the [9:09] Wayne Mallar: County I was last year said no I didn't think I should do it because I had a close relative who was an elected county official but I checked with her and everyone else and it's not a problem so I'd be glad to where I already go to the regular meetings and know somewhat what's going on [9:34] Michael Beck: Are we looking for more than one or is it just one sufficient last year I think it was just one [9:40] Susan Deane: But then other folks attended is that right I was thinking when those were us there were two of us [9:47] Susan Hawes: Oh there were two oh yeah yes if I'm still here I'll volunteer okay so Council Leonard and Counselor now great so [10:00] Susan Deane: I think you'll have to raise your hand in anticipation of you still being here and then we'll if you are not still here we can come up with an alternative sounds good okay perfect [10:18] Joseph Leonard: Okay well I wouldn't do so [10:22] Susan Hawes: That's it for that okay so the next item is the legislative committee update and that will be I assume city manager later [10:35] Susan Deane: Yes, so I offered to just summarize what happened at that very late legislative committee. I gave the committee a rundown of a meeting that Jen Gutterman and I had with some folks from the state about Dorothea Dix and that property and what's happening, and we sort of went on a map lot by lot and explained how it's being used or not used. Currently, there are in the neighborhood of 60 to 70 patients receiving services there. The sort of long-term state level plan is to actually build a new facility there to house folks receiving services within what is currently very old, outdated, and probably not great facilities for them to be receiving treatment in. But that's a very long-term plan with no commitment of timeline or funding for that new facility. So one thing that the legislative committee talked about was maybe, you know, maybe starting with more information, but then maybe applying some pressure to come up with a firm plan for when that new facility would be constructed. Certainly having resources for mental health services within the city is an important component of our community's overall health. The other thing we talked about was that there is sort of one building slated for demolition that hasn't yet been demolished yet,, but that potentially could be a future location for some sort of state-supported services for folks in our community. And the legislative committee asked that I sort of get with department heads in-house and come up with some ideas about what we might like to see there. And then once we sort of talk about that and vet it, reaching out to the state and encouraging them to think through and you can add on what the other two things that the legislative committee discussed was that sort of as Counselor Carson went down his running list of items he's been inventorying it was clear that several of the recommendations that have come up are very aligned with things that the property tax relief task force is also working into a recommendation to the legislature. So the legislative committee thought that it would probably be most efficient, rather than to come up with independent proposals. For example, Councilor Beck, you had mentioned the county tax credit for service centers. There's going to be some sort of recommendation from the property tax release task force about getting more money to service centers. It may be revenue sharing as opposed to accounting tax credit, but we talked about maybe rather than doing our own thing, piggybacking on those recommendations once they come out, which I expect to happen in the fall. And then the last item was an idea that we've talked about previously, which is connecting [14:18] Daniel Carson: So this was related to the emergency response manager that we decided to forgo in this year's budget. Two things came out of that discussion and one was to pursue or to research and find out if there was state funding available for something like that and the second idea was that we collaborate with the City of Brewer and actually see what options may exist to share that type of a responsibility and so we saw that both of those things kind of together but as a possible division of labor and so with that I wanted to bring to this workshop and the legislative committee I thought it was a good Idea that we went that direction and at least reached out to Brewer and started communication, so I wanted to bring that to this workshop to get the council's permission to move forward. I think that's a good idea. [15:25] Susan Hawes: I would make a motion to move forward with that. So who do you plan to meet with? I haven't [15:45] Daniel Carson: I haven't come up with a strategy yet. I didn't want to do anything without getting the full council's permission to approach the question [15:58] Susan Hawes: Questions council back. I'm assuming both [16:01] Michael Beck: City managers on either side will also be involved in these discussions [16:15] Susan Hawes: In opposition decision. [16:18] Wayne Mallar: It doesn't have anything to do with Bangor and Brewer, but we have a we know what the county emergency preparedness people are supposed to be doing. We have a list of their I [16:32] David Szewczyk: Mean, I don't have some of that as much. [16:34] Susan Deane: Yeah, well, you know, I think that's an important component of the conversation. And it's It's very stale in my mind from budget conversations, but I know that a component of the conversation I had with Chief Lowe at the time was what the capabilities and limitations are with the county. You'll recall that one of the things we actually talked about was a proposal from the county that they formally made to us that they would hire a new person to put on their staff. We would fund a portion of it, and they would serve in a dual role. And ultimately, my judgment at the time was I wasn't really comfortable moving forward with that, because the cost that we were going to pay for our portion of that role felt like only a nominal savings compared to just hiring it in-house. And so I wanted to do more evaluation to figure out whether it really made sense to fund a position in the county like that. And we also know what the state [17:39] Wayne Mallar: provides. I mean, the flow back is from the feds to the state to the counties. So what [17:44] Susan Hawes: are the states supposed to be providing for services? Yeah, I mean, we are certainly, we meaning [17:51] Susan Deane: the city, not me, the city, is aware of what the state is providing. And if we have a more in-depth conversation about funding, we'll have Eric here to [18:04] Wayne Mallar: I'd also like to see, when Eric comes, I'd like to see who we have mutual aid contracts with for EMS services, because I'm thinking about it, I'm sure we're providing more service than they are to us. I just would like to see how that works out. Sure, you [18:36] Susan Hawes: know it's on your committee. No, [18:41] Daniel Carson: the only other thing I promised that committee, but I can repeat here, is that the legislative policy committee of the main municipal association is still completing its work for the bills that it's going to support for this section. That meeting happened, second meeting happened on Thursday, I was there, and we'll go ahead and draft a memo about that to detail the ongoing. Okay, next [19:07] Susan Hawes: item is project [19:10] Susan Deane: Yes, so as Jen walks up to the table, you have a memo in your packet about this topic. You'll recall that this was on her second reading, I think, the last council meeting, which August, actually a while ago, and we delete final consideration of that item due to there being some unanswered questions. The two that I recall during that conversation were questions about whether there were other sources of funding, as well as what would happen after the pilot program if it was discontinued. I'll hand it over to Jen because her memo addresses those questions. [19:59] Speaker I (unidentified): Absolutely, and that's what I heard as well, from either public comment or the questions that I heard that city council had. So the memo addresses two of those pieces, and happy to answer any other questions. So the first question of what could be other potential matching funds, we sort of uncovered, you know, turned over every stone that we could to determine what would be other potential sources. So in the original order, the opiate settlement funds, the unspent funds, not the new ones that are Arriving, was proposed as that match. In talking with Economic and Community Development, the Community Development Block Grant funds can be used as match. And this order, this memo, lays out what that would look like. In talking with Robin, who is our representative that is the steward of those funds, it fits into the category of public services. Of the funds that we receive from Community Development Block Grant, only 15% of those funds can go towards public services. So while those funds can be leveraged, we have to be very mindful of the cap that we have and any funds that are used as match will then eliminate the opportunity for those funds to be used in for public services in other ways so pros and cons to that one of the things that we spoke about is the possibility to sort of balance both not taking too many of those funds not taking too many of the opiate settlement funds but do a 50 in terms of 50 from community development block grant 50 from opiate settlement development funds and community development block grant could then spread that 126,000 over two years as long as the pilot was successful. So this was another consideration for you to ponder around those matching funds if you felt the program was beneficial to the community. The second piece around sustainability, that's the nature of our business in public health and community services. For anyone who's worked in this type of field, you are looking for the next way to fund your programs. And even when, in our work, when you're said this funding is for so many years, things can happen. And so you always have sort of, what do we do next in the back of our mind? If this pilot did not go well and the decision was to not continue the program, then we would work with our clients to provide a warm handoff to services that were appropriate and what they would what they what the client would accept and so that is something that we always build into our programs that are very client focused in terms of financial sustainability going forward there's different ways of potentially doing this that we would explore throughout this first year if we look to portland they've always used some city resource particularly opiate settlement funds but there could be other ways of understanding how could billing for traditional case management services be integrated into this what are some other funding that could come down the path so i'll stop there and address any questions [23:35] Joseph Leonard: What are some of those scenarios that would cause the pilot program to fail? [23:42] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, goodness. Thank you for asking that question. One, we can think of that the community that we're serving just is not interested in this program. That is always the nature of this work of taking a risk, that maybe it's something that people would not be excited to be a part of. Knowing that this is around strengthening relationships, meeting people where they're at and moving them towards sustainable housing, we would be engaging with people who are ready for that so worst case scenario is nobody's interested in the program you know the other things that can happen is that we cannot find any housing to put people in one of the ways that we've tried to look around that like Portland has done is to look wider than the sort of Bangor area for where we can support people to be housed in an appropriate way that still allows people to access services that they need. So to me, that would be the two biggest, oh my goodness, this didn't go well. I guess the third piece would be that we can't hire people because the workforce is really strained. We don't know what the pool of candidates look like. We, at the City of Bangor, we have been able to fill case management and outreach positions with very qualified people. So all of that is [25:04] Joseph Leonard: a risk that may ask a follow-up question so if those are the primary three things that would like individually cause the pilot program to fail if none of those three things were to occur is that basically a guarantee that like per those three things not occurring the pilot program would be deemed successful and we would continue with the program [25:29] Speaker I (unidentified): I would be nervous to say guarantee, but I would say there'd be a strong likelihood that the program would be successful and we'd want to continue it. Okay. [25:38] Joseph Leonard: Because the reason why I asked that question is the program sounds really great. I want to support the program. I really don't like the idea of supporting a one-time program and having it to end. I would almost feel better if this pilot program were to be guaranteed we're going to run it for like two years as opposed to an initial one, because at least that gives the city more leeway to find its footing in regards to that. that. But yeah, I'm a bit hesitant going forward with a project if it's if there is a potential risk of it just we provide services and then we're not going to provide services afterwards. And then even if we do offshore those people that take those services on from us, is it just to me feels like a lost opportunity and lost actions that I would rather see you guys do for something that is more long term. So I guess what I'm trying to say is I want to set, if we're going to go forward this project, I want to set this up for success. I don't want this to be a one-time program. I would want this to be a continuous thing in the city for as long as we need it. [27:10] Susan Deane: My question is more on the funding side, the $126,000 is the entirety of the open settlement fund that is sitting at the event. And we also have something on this evening to allocate $7,000 of that elsewhere. So that would cut into the $126,000 that's already on your proposal. The CDBG amount at $126,000 sounds like it's a little generous, that if we were to consider that, we'd probably not want to do the full amount from CDBG. [27:43] Speaker I (unidentified): I think the recommendation in talking with CDBG is it would be great to have a 50-50 split, just so that there is still room in CDBG to offer support to projects that fall within that public service category. [27:57] Susan Deane: Query, so you're feeling that half of that 126 would be feasible and the other would come from some sort of city funding whether it be opiate or another. And so if we did want to go forward, wouldn't we have to vote down what's on the agenda tonight and come up with a new, or would we do a substitution? You could do, you could do an amend by substitution orally today, or if you wanted to delay another meeting, we could actually prepare an actual document for you to do that. How soon do you need to move these funds? How long do we have to figure out if I do it by substitution, everyone's confused what is the substitution. It's almost better to have something at hand that's more feasible, but are you in a time crunch at this point? Mean housing hasn't said that [28:47] Speaker I (unidentified): there's a particular time that they sort of give us a deadline. I will say that as much delay a lot of startup that needs to happen in terms of posting, hiring, getting things in place. So the delay is basically delaying the start of the program. Maine Housing had originally thought it'd be great to get the project started by the time that the cold months start hitting so we can get people moved into housing. So there's no deadline set by Maine Housing. It would just be delaying the program start. [29:19] Susan Hawes: I think that's it. Thank you. [29:20] Susan Faloon: Thank you. Just a couple of things. Like, I don't, I don't disagree with what Counselor Leonard said, but, and kind of on the flip side, I'm sort of in a place where like only committing to a year gives us a chance to see if it's successful without committing to multiple years and being sort of stuck with a program that we have to then continue to find if it's not successful. So that's sort of the flip side. But my question is, well, actually, it's a concern and a question. Like, we're being offered $300,000 in state funding. If we don't accept this, another community, it would go to another community, right? [30:07] Speaker I (unidentified): It could. It would not come to us. Right. [30:09] Susan Faloon: And so is there a risk if we start saying no to funds like this that they stop coming to us with it because I mean I feel like we've constantly been saying we need more help from the state, why is the state not helping us, then we get this offer of three hundred thousand dollars which is not nothing, and you know if we start saying no to these things for various reasons, when do they stop asking or will they stop asking? Yeah, and you may not know that. You may not know the answer. [30:45] Speaker I (unidentified): I think from the other side of it is that we're using all the tools that we can at the, on the ground right now and it's still not enough. And what I've heard from our partners is that a program like this that could really offer all the benefits in terms of smaller caseloads, being able to work with someone from living outside through stable housing, offering some discretionary funds to get them set up for success is another tool that we could be leveraging that we don't have right now. [31:15] Susan Hawes: Okay, it's Council Fish, then the Council Carson. [31:18] Carolyn Fish: Council, now we're coming back. My concern is, you know, it's great that we can get grants and help several more people get into housing, but my concern is about our own, you know, health and community, you know, your department, and your spread thing. Is this going to be another program that will involve your attention and your time and your coordination? Because it just seems like we have, you know, a lot that's pulling on you. And if I recall, you said that this program will also perhaps bring landlords from outside the community to try to help people stay within their community, which I know I've been the biggest one saying, in other communities participating, but it's so fast and furious that I also concern about the individual that may be unhoused and need those wraparound services. And if they're out in some rural community, you find the landlord, but then they're removed from the services that they've been used to in town. And that would take up more of your time. And my concern is for our Bangor area, you know, our poverty level people, our seniors that really also depend on our department of community health services. So I just think a little here and a little there is pulling a lot on your department. And you know we do have the homeless committee now, and it just seems my observation is a chunk here and a chunk here. If we put all of that, all of that into one kettle and we had a more significant amount of money, if we could establish a more permanent, a bigger, you know, resource center, or, you know, I don't know if we got the homeless committee for that, but I just, you know, I just see this using your time. We don't know how, you know, how successful it's gonna be, yet I see another thing on your plate. And I don't know that we always have to say yes to everything. I just still have a lot of questions and concerns. It's not a bad thing. [33:21] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, no, I absolutely appreciate you thinking of our department and the workforce and making sure that we are, you know, providing high quality and not spreading ourselves too thin. I'll just mention a couple of things with that. First of all, it's not just us, it would also be Bangor Area Homeless Shelter, Hope House, and Shaw House getting a case manager. And because the money would be coming to the City of Bangor, gives us sort of the leverage to be able to provide that coordination and collaboration among all the entities. So it would not just be all on us, it's shared with those other organizations that would also have a case manager. Our work is very challenging. I think one of the things that we're seeing right now is we're doing everything that we can with the tools that we have, and it's still falling short in some ways. This would provide us with a tool to help move things further along in somebody's journey. And I would have to say with all the people they've ever worked with inside of our department or outside of our department, we would never have somebody where they could not leverage their resources. That would be something that would fly in the face of everything, the success we would want to set someone up. Thank you. [34:38] Daniel Carson: i am wondering so if the in the event that this pilot program is not carried forward. So you mentioned earlier that there would be more transfers to other services like case management and whatnot. Are you aware of any that are right now like so strapped or at their limit with people that a transition like that would be important? [35:08] Speaker I (unidentified): In terms of case managers, I think it depends on the organization that you talk to, and case management can sometimes ebb and flow. Low, there is usually a high demand, but even if the program was to come to an end, we have between our street outreach person and our homeless response coordinator and our housing stabilization person, other people that we could leverage that warming up. Okay. [35:35] Daniel Carson: Follow up real quick, I just, this is a comment actually for all of us, which would be that I think if we, if we move forward on this, it would be great for the homeless committee to be able to keep tabs, you know, as we have success as people are moving into housing, in the event that this comes to an end, they will need to be able to include those people in their stabilization and their responsibilities. [36:02] Michael Beck: I just had a few questions regarding first regarding CDBG funds, and the memo talks about there needed to be an amendment with the annual action plan, and knowing that, you know, to come up with that action plan, and it was, you know, pretty extensive community outreach program getting feedback from all kinds of folks, and if we, you know, and council just approved that plan, and I guess I'm concerned about you, because if we're amending the plan, I mean, by saying yes to this, we're saying no to something. Else, and I don't know what we're saying no to, and also in the, how does that square with the community feedback who worked, you know, showed up and told us what they wanted and had a plan and we agreed the plan, I just, I don't think that CDBG funds is the place for this after we just did a plan. This is something that I think would be a discussion for next year's plan, maybe, so I'm definitely not in favor of using CDBG funds here for this, and then the other piece I'm having with this is, you know. What's been raised about the homelessness committee. And we're asking them to come up with a strategy. And one of the things that I keep getting told is we're not going to case manage our way out of this. It's resources where we're really at. And I guess before I would feel comfortable even considering this, I mean, I'm laying on the spot of, I'd like to see a referral go to that committee and see what they think of this. Because I think the feedback that we may end up getting is you know hey maybe let's look at our resources first as opposed to going to this program and if the money does go elsewhere you know i question whether they'd be in the same boat we would be like one of the things we talk about often is well we can't always guarantee it'll be bangor first people you know with these other whoever ends up getting the money would they be taking some of our folks you know that are a good fit you know could the money still work elsewhere while we're still kind of getting our ducks in a row with all the issues we're facing so i just i just i have a lot of questions about this that i think i'd rather see the homelessness committee sort through before i'm feeling confident about moving forward with this [38:18] Wayne Mallar: and that's horrible i'm in question well i agree with council of back on this one for change i'm concerned about we're going to be taking on services for hub 7 [38:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Potentially. So we would be providing, us as well as the three emergency shelter providers, would be providing intensive case management? [Wayne Mallar: Of seven.] Well it would be based out of people who are homeless, who are living outside in Baincourt. [38:57] Wayne Mallar: So if, perchance, Newport decided, or some other area, because I don't know who would qualified to take decided to do this and we didn't they would be only servicing the people in their area i don't know you know you know i find it we take on any program and because it's bangor we seem to accumulate everyone from all of piscataquis penobscot hancock all of hub 7 and you know i'm getting tired of servicing everyone and not having anyone service us we don't seem to get services as readily as i'd like to think we'd like to so i would i agree with councillor beck that there's still a lot of questions to answer and i think the homeless committee should be involved before we make this decision sorry [39:53] Susan Deane: question regarding the opioid settlement money i think councillor hawes and councillor leonard were the only two on the original committee for the allocation of the compared settlements from this correct were you [40:07] Joseph Leonard: Wanted or I was covering for another counselor who wasn't there. I was not in favor of using opioid funds for that vote at the time. [40:19] Susan Deane: And wasn't there something about not expanding more than fifty thousand per? Was there something about fifty thousand dollars? Because some allocations are larger than others, but we made some exception and some people did get more than 50, so or not, it has been said at 50. The 50,000 criteria was the criteria that the committee chose to implement for purposes of the grant application process, okay? So it doesn't really have to do with what we have in the settlement fund. So if we wanted to leave 126, it isn't going against that 50,000. So the settlement fund does not limit the amount that we use for any one project, okay? That was something that the community is so excited. All right, thank you for the [41:05] Susan Hawes: clarification. Yes, yeah. [41:10] Speaker I (unidentified): I just wanted to remind the context of this main housing came to us because if this was a successful program in Portland and has seen the good work that we are doing here collaboratively in Bangor. This is a tool that we don't have right now that could be helpful to move people into housing. Maine Housing is willing to support this by 70 percent and us come up with 30. And so I just wanted to like try and do a little bit of advocacy with understanding what your concerns are. I understand needing to go in front of the homeless advisory committee, they are wonderful people with incredible competency and skill. I also want to remind you that you have a department of public health and community services with hundreds of years of accumulative experience working in this field. And so I just want that to be part of your thought as you think about a decision on this, on this program. So thank you for listening and for your questions and for your interest in the community. [42:22] Susan Hawes: We have one more council one. [42:25] Joseph Leonard: Is there a hard timeline that you are that we have to basically go forward with this project in order to get the 70% share of funding? [42:38] Speaker I (unidentified): I'll have to check in with main housing, they've been, I've been keeping them updated on this boat and I think we're waiting to see where things go tonight and then have a conversation with them on [42:47] Joseph Leonard: What they would like to do next, okay, because if, I may follow up, if there are more questions, because it sounds like there's a lot of like funding questions related to the project, how we want to like match do our 30 match, and I know we talked about for example using unassigned fund balances for that match as well. But for me, the question's more so about the project itself and just making sure it's successful. That's really my area of questions, which might be a bit easier to answer at the end of the day, or maybe not. But would that be more suitable to maybe, unless you hear differently, like would it be more acceptable to put this off again on at council tonight just so that we can provide you with the questions that you need in order to respond back with the answers that we need to hear in order for us to make the most informed decision possible, would that be helpful to the council, to you, I think I would just need [43:54] Susan Deane: clarity on what your remaining questions are, yes, 100 [44:00] Carolyn Fish: You know, it seems, I know our residents feel like we're getting a lot of help, and which we should. The unhoused issues is crises, but at the same time, when we have fuel at $6 a gallon and we have a lot of seniors, I think we have a serious, just a serious issue with our seniors who are just, they're a different generation where they're not visual, they're not optical, they're in a home or they're in their car are and they're not asking for help, and I know of three or four stories just in the past month or so that there's a lot of seniors and people on you know fixed incomes of less than fourteen hundred dollars a month, and you know we don't have anything coming from the state or anything that's looking at that crisis that's right on the threshold, and you know we have a lot of unhoused and at least half of them or a little more are bang wars, but I also know that we have a great deal of a population of the elderly which is the majority of our population that is right on the threshold of having not don't be able to get their medicine, not put fuel in their in their houses, and it's and I'm excited to see a lot of things every week coming in, but I'm also so disappointed that we've totally sort of lost our seniors and our elderly and where we're at right now with them, so I hope from your perspective you're seeing something being offered for what's what's coming for them this winter as well, do you see anything from the state coming down the pipeline or anything, yes [45:52] Susan Deane: I'm still confused because there's no way we can vote on this out of the opioid settlement fund that doesn't have 126,000. So [46:02] Carolyn Fish: how would we even [46:03] Susan Deane: vote? I think we'd only be looking for you to approve the first year at this point, so half of the 126. Okay, I mean, I really think that any subsequent conversations would be, in my mind, I think we'd want to see the success of the program and then [46:36] Susan Hawes: Next we have the homeless advisory committee. That's a recommendation. I'm [46:44] Susan Deane: wondering if we should skip this and delay into the next meeting. I want to make sure that we have a solid 30 minutes for our executive session, and I think that we've also delayed the ethics point decision for several meetings, so I'm wondering if we should tackle that delay with the latest one and [47:02] Susan Hawes: go from there. Do you want to do the ethics pool? Yes, if that's okay with council, and maybe if it's [47:11] Susan Deane: quicker than I expected, we can return to the homeless advisor. Maybe. I don't think [47:24] Susan Hawes: okay. Ethics forward decision. City says subject city solicitor. This, as you recall, [47:37] David Szewczyk: has come back from the ethics board that gave its advisory opinion on the comments Californ Mallor made on March 31st, captured on live mic during a break for executive session of the ethics board. And I would just summarize real quick that they found the ethics board found that counselor Mallard had violated section 33-1 of the ethics code, which requires a city councilors that act in a fair and impartial manner and maintain a standard of conduct that will require public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. They also found that counselor Mallard violated section 33-5.1 of the ethics code, which requires concerts to conduct themselves in a manner that does not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, natural origin, or cultural group. The council that the board found, they were given four questions, they found two violations. They found that counselor Matter did not violate section 33-13 point one of the ethics codes, as the board found that the comments did not suggest to his counselor Mallory was speaking on behalf of the city in any official capacity and that there was no ambiguity regarding the capacity and which he was speaking so there was no that 's the code provision that talks about use of titles and disclaimers so there was no violation there and finally the board declined to make any further findings as to whether counselor mallory violated any other provisions of the ethics code so staff would recommend that not go forward At all, that was a catch-all provision. So tonight we, there are, I've seen four sections of things that the council needs to get through at the workshop tonight. The first two I think should be very quick. The first one would be that the council should first note, not necessarily by a formal vote, but just get confirmation that the council does not feel that any matters need to be discussed in executive session other than that what was already discussed executive session on this item. Sure, everybody's in agreement that there's no further executive session, and this is not required, but it would probably be prudent to just confirm with council now. Anything else? I [50:20] Wayne Mallar: guess no. I don't know what you're going to discuss, so it's hard to say, but I'm assuming, you know, this is dragged on far too long, should have been resolved all months ago. We've just delayed, delay, so let's finish it off. So I take it we're [50:44] David Szewczyk: past that first item. The second item would be also, I think will be quick, and that would be to deliberate and vote on whether the council wishes to conduct its own investigation outside the investigation that the ethics board conducted. Now having said that, the ethics board didn't need to conduct much of an investigation. These were comments that were captured on live mic, they could be heard on the video, the link to the video was provided in your memo, the places in the video, the specific places where the comments occurred were also noted in the video, and so if you could just take a vote that there's no further, that you don't want to do any additional investigation to what the ethics board already did. I'm sure I [51:29] Daniel Carson: move that we accept the investigation conducted by the board of directors. [51:33] Susan Hawes: I move in second that we accept the investigation conducted by the board. Any further discussion, questions, comments? [51:47] David Szewczyk: Objection. Okay, all right, so then we go to the third and fourth sections of what we need to get through tonight. So the council should deliberate on and direct staff as the type of proposed council order the council wishes to consider at the next regular council meeting. The proposed council order should make findings with respect to any violations of the ethics code provisions in question and, if applicable, with respect to any penalty the council wishes to consider imposing for the violations. specifically the council should deliberate on and direct staff to prepare a proposed council order on whether councilor mallory's comments in question violated one or more of the following sections of the ethics code section 33-1 section 33-5.1 and section 33-13.1 and in conducting these deliberations per the procedures that are in the ethics code now counselor mallory should not participate in the deliberations or vote but should be given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf and provide a defense to the allegations at the time of, well, tonight, and at the time of the council order is prepared and in front of the council at regular meeting, so [53:16] Susan Hawes: you've already stated that 33-1 and 33-5.1 [53:21] David Szewczyk: they did find was violent, correct? But there are, the ethics board's findings are advisory in nature only, their own advisory. It's the city council that makes the ultimate decision on whether there are any violations, so you know, the city council should deliberate and direct staff as to what kind of a council order to prepare for you to then deliberate on and vote at the [53:49] Susan Deane: next regular council meeting. Immediately after the comments, council did provide an order that stated that they did not agree with the comments and that it would not affect any budget concerns regarding the school committee. Does that not suffice for how council felt about the comments? Do we still have to go through each one and then vote on those as well? We need to, we need direction, [54:16] David Szewczyk: direction on what type of council order for you to deliberate on at the next council meeting. And that would be a council order that would say, you know, we find that this was or wasn't a violation. This was or wasn't a violation. So one, two, three of the four questions that were given to the ethics board, the council should address whether the board wants a council or a proposed council are prepared that says it was or wasn't a violation with respect to each of those three ethics code provisions. You can, you can follow the findings of the ethics board or you can not, choose not to, and that would be something that you would ultimately decide on at the next council meeting, but there needs to be a council order, a proposed council order in front of you that would [55:25] Daniel Carson: Be, I guess I'll just get us started. If I would propose a council order that accepts the findings of the board of ethics and which references the council order that we had already passed addressing the remarks after, and then which concludes with no more action, because Counselor Maller is already undergoing legal training. [56:02] Michael Beck: That's okay. Just a clarification of the legal training for this particular issue? No. [56:07] David Szewczyk: The legal training was, this is a second set of alleged violations that we're dealing with now. The training had to do with the first set of alleged violations that had to do with actions that were taken during the Historic Preservation Commission. That's official. [56:26] Carolyn Fish: But wouldn't the legal training include both or why wouldn't it? [56:33] David Szewczyk: The training in that instance was supposed to be on use of titles and disclaimers. That is not something that is an issue here because the ethics board in this case found that provision was not violated. [56:51] Susan Hawes: Unless the council finds differently I [56:57] Susan Faloon: don't know if I can even ask this question since it's about the other one but has that training occurred it [57:07] David Szewczyk: is not from the last one but I would just clarify that the whatever the council decides in terms of a proposed penalty if any should be separate from the other the other one the other one is the other one and one of the options we didn't get to the penalty part yet because that would be section four if the council were to direct staff to prepare a council order that involves one or more violations of an ethics code provision then the council needs to also direct staff on what to put in for a appropriate penalty but one of the options is that no penalty be imposed accompanied by a written statement of the council's reasoning so considering the penalty is fourth section the third section is how do you want to direct staff to prepare proposed or regarding whether violations occurred [58:18] Wayne Mallar: [58:21] Joseph Leonard: The order can we actually make it so that there's an order for each address violation to separate them out or do we have to address both violations [58:34] David Szewczyk: in the same corner you could do it either way but I would inquire as to why it would want [58:43] Joseph Leonard: To be separated into separate orders. For me, the way I'm looking at it is one of the violations is something that is trainable and the other one not so much, if that makes any sense. And that's and that's why I asked the question is if we wanted to, for example, make the first one, if we wanted to incur a penalty to say, like, it's additional training for Counselor Maller, could we have that be a first order for that? And then whatever we want to have the other order be, if any order, that can be its own separate one. That's why I bring that up. [59:28] David Szewczyk: I would suggest that the different violations or non-violations could be addressed all in one order. It just has more than one part to it, so if let's say there were you know one or two violations, then the penalty could be separated out for each violation. It's all in one order but [59:52] Joseph Leonard: separate parts of this of the same one. Okay, that clarifies, thank you. I [59:58] Susan Deane: would suggest that we go down through the violations and vote on those violations and were in agreement that they were all violation that the ethics board had found as a violation, then that would go in one order and we could vote on what that order would be and then move on to the penalty section. If at all, would actually not be in favor of the penalty. I [1:00:30] Michael Beck: mean, let's maybe vote on each finding that they found a violation of and whether or not we agree, and at least that takes care of part three and then we can move on to part four of if there's a penalty [Joseph Leonard: or not. Could] you remind me of the two findings again? Two numbers, sure. The first one would be [1:00:56] David Szewczyk: section 33-1 and 33-1 inquiries of city councils be fair, impartial and responsive to the needs of the people and maintain a standard of conduct and to maintain a standard of conduct that won't fire [1:01:14] Michael Beck: public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. Okay, I make a motion that the council find Counselor Mellor did violate 33 one in agreement with the Board of Ethics finding. Sex and [1:01:32] Susan Hawes: moved and seconded. Discussion on that piece. So [1:01:47] David Szewczyk: the second one would be a violation of section 33 dash 5.1 of the ethics code which requires that city councilors conduct themselves in a manner that does not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, national origin or cultural group among other factors. Make [1:02:13] Michael Beck: a motion that the council find the counter Miller violated 33-5.1 agreement with the board of ethics finding. The [1:02:22] Susan Hawes: the same second. I moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Further discussion on that violation. [Speaker I (unidentified): The] third [1:02:38] David Szewczyk: One would be section 33-13.1 b2c, which prohibits the city council from using their title unless the official makes it clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the city, a board, commission, or committee. Okay. [1:03:02] Michael Beck: And they found that was not violent, correct? All right, I'm making this motion, the affirmative under Robert's Rules, but your vote no, so I would vote, or I would make a motion that Counselor Mallard violated 33-13.1 b to c. Second to. [1:03:25] David Szewczyk: Make it clear a yes vote means you're finding contrary to what the ethics board found. A no vote means you agree with, you agree with the ethics. Yeah, and it's done, it's done. Yeah, that's. [1:03:44] Susan Hawes: The dean, no, that's Carson. Council Walker, no. Council, no, that's okay, that's our money, that's a fish, sure, and I'll be enough just. [1:04:01] David Szewczyk: For there are actually a couple of different sections, I actually cited a particular section, but it would also include section 33-13.1c, which places an affirmative duty on the city council to make a disclaimer that they are speaking in their individual capacity when it's in, when there's ambiguity. So I will take it that your motion included that as well, I would think. Okay, and I would recommend that the council take no further action with regard to any other violation. Right, okay, their consensus. For that one, no further action. Okay, so that would bring us to this full fourth section. Actually, Councillor Mallar is going to be able to have an opportunity to provide a statement on his own defence, and when you do that at tonight's meeting, it's up to you. But you know, I don't know if you want to do that now or after they talk about the penalty section. [1:05:16] Susan Hawes: Do you want to give him a defense? [1:05:20] Wayne Mallar: Not right now. Not right now. Okay. [1:05:23] Joseph Leonard: Council member. I was going to say it's probably actually best for him to hear the penalties before he makes his defense. I shouldn't agree on a hand. [1:05:32] David Szewczyk: Okay. So you've directed staff to prepare a council order that would indicate two violations. And in that case, you need to also direct staff. And you could, you should deliberate in direct staff with regard to preparing as part of the proposed council order an appropriate penalty or penalties for the violations under section 33-23 b3 of the ethics code. It sets forth how you can vote on that. There's six different possibilities that the code of provision list. One, that no penalty be imposed accompanied by a written statement of the council's reasoning. So if you find that, you find that you want to have findings of violations but no penalty, you need to include a written statement of the council's reasoning why there's no penalty. Second choice, impose a formal censure with written findings entered into the public record. Third possibility, make a penalty on whether to remove the official from one or more committees. These are board assignments for a specified period of time, not to exceed the remainder of the current council here. Fourth item, whether to impose a civil fine as authorized by section 33 dash three of the ethics code in section nine has 26 of the city code. Fifth, whether to, require that the official complete specified training as a condition of continued service and assigned roles and, or six as a catch-all to take other lawful action, the council deems is appropriate and proportionate to the nature of the violation. So I would suggest that you deliberate on any of those items. I [1:07:21] Joseph Leonard: think it's appropriate to add that counselor malice should go under training for what was it 33.1 or 33-1. I think that's appropriate at the end of the day for that one, but that's how I feel about just 33-1. [1:07:48] Susan Faloon: I would agree with that. However I think that we need to put some kind of date of completion because we could require a training but if there's no requirement that it actually has to happen then it's kind of senseless. I [1:08:03] Susan Hawes: personally don't have a problem with the training but I think if we're going to do it 's got to be formalized training and it's got to be something that would last because if we had to use it again we can't have training that's up and down and up and down and up and down. It's going to have to be standardized something that's reasonable that could be used again because that's the only way it's going to be fair and there'll be other things that come up [1:08:31] Susan Faloon: that people might need extra training. Yes I wonder if there are some like mma trainings that we can access possibility. [1:08:43] Susan Hawes: I can look into. Oh, I thought you were saying no. [1:08:47] David Szewczyk: I don't know of any MMA training that I said here. And again, we're talking about two different provisions, both of which are in our ethics code. You know, I don't know how many other municipalities ethics codes they are in, so I'm not aware of any MMA training on it would be. [1:09:08] Carolyn Fish: Generalized, okay. And I know we have ethics training in the beginning for the new counselors, but I wondered, I know with realtors we have ethics training sometimes for different articles, but that you know of, there's no specific segmented ethic training for these articles. [1:09:31] David Szewczyk: The training on the previous one, for example, was specifically on the use of titles and disclaimers. The standardization of that would be the items that are in the ethics code, going over those items and what they require. So in that sense, it is formalized and it is something that's on paper that can be repeated. Needed. And in this case, we have two different provisions, but they are, of course, in the ethics code. And what they require could also be training could be provided about these. These aren't as simple as the other one, because like Section 33 dash one is kind of more of a kind of a generalized ethics code provision, and then the other one is sort of generalized as well, but if. [1:10:36] Susan Hawes: The items are in our ethics code, then a review of the ethics code and some questions and discussions is just as much as much of a training that would be beneficial official to someone who had to have extra training in that than going to the outside. I mean, after all, it is the ethics code for the city. And that's what we're concerned with more than MMA stuff. [1:11:05] Susan Deane: Yes. I think we would also have to figure out who best would be the one to do that training and the one that would be most responsive to the training, whether that be an outside source or someone here, whether it be the chair at the city manager, a solicitor, it has to be someone that is going to respond well to who they are discussing it with, and that person also needs to respond back to who's doing the training. [1:11:33] Michael Beck: Or it's pointless to do. Is this something we could reach out to the advisory committee on racial equity inclusion human rights on to get their opinion on a good source for this if. [1:11:52] David Szewczyk: This were to go in front of council at the next meeting, I don't know what the schedule of that, when they meet next. [1:12:04] Susan Deane: I mean, I think we would need to delay it and not have it go to council at the next meeting that accommodate the schedule, I think that would be. [1:12:15] Susan Faloon: Through the big, yeah, I think their. [1:12:16] Carolyn Fish: Next meeting would be in October, yes. Hasn't the solicitor in the past two or three years been the one to do the ethics training? And so why wouldn't we just be proactive and say our city solicitor, they're the ones that, you know, have to know the laws and the rules and the ethics the best. Why wouldn't we just make that decision unless Council Beck has some other ideas he was thinking of might be more effective. [1:12:50] Michael Beck: I would just say because of the sense of nature of this particular topic, because of the group that was spoken about, you know, it would maybe get a little deeper training on that issue, you know, because talking about children, you know, another nationality and I'm sensitive to that. [1:13:18] Joseph Leonard: So much, yes, we're just going to say like I would agree with like I know you've been playing this off, I apologize for that, but I think it is important if we're going to really tackle this in the best approach possible where there is going to be some sort of good-natured healing going forward, I think we do have to include the acre committee on this, so I 'm completely supportive of putting this off to include them and their guidance on the [1:13:51] David Szewczyk: appropriate training 100, yes, any [1:13:56] Susan Hawes: other comments, are you okay with that, just so [1:14:04] David Szewczyk: so I'm clear, so it the idea would be maybe a motion to refer to the to the acre committee the on the issue of training, appropriate training, I [1:14:19] Joseph Leonard: would make that motion to refer to the acre committee on further training for Council Malik to engage with, second [1:14:30] Michael Beck: if this motion passes I just want to make sure we're specific in our instruction to them that they're strictly talking about just the training, not the actual issues or the of anything else, like all we wanted was what's a recommendation for training, that's it, yeah [1:14:52] Susan Faloon: everybody okay, I'm gonna have a question, so would that come back to us to discuss before an order is drafted for the council, then we would discuss this in another [1:15:01] David Szewczyk: it would it would do whatever you want it to do, you want it to come back here to workshop after the anchor committee [1:15:13] Daniel Carson: I just need some clarification. So just to make sure I understand, we're not asking them to consider Councilor Mallar and this question. We're asking the question about if we wanted to train on Section 35-1, what would that training look like? Is that right? Okay. Because my concern was that we were making a referral about consular conduct and I was just about to wonder if the city ever got mentioned in its whole history, but that's not what we're talking about. Okay, well, I was over here terrified for no reason. [1:15:52] Susan Faloon: I was gonna say, if we were gonna move forward with the order without coming back, I would just suggest that we put some parameters in there, or like maybe a deadline by which the training should be completed, something like that, just to, you know, so we're sort of like not just saying yeah, there should be training, and then there's never any follow-up, and never any deadline for that training, right? [1:16:21] Carolyn Fish: Well, they're going to come back with a recommendation, and because we have no idea what this recommendation might be, see, you know, a deadline would be great, but you know, if there's certain programs there know of at the university or wherever they might suggest, we would have to jive with that schedule and that opportunity. So if we, I just don't want us to set a deadline that they have an idea that particular class or training won't be available. So, and also I'd kind of like to see what they recommend, make sure where, you know, I'm sure it would be something we would be in agreement with. But I would like to propose that it's a recommendation that comes back to council. And that the time would be in line with it being possible to do. I [1:17:14] David Szewczyk: just want to make sure that I'm clear. If there's a motion to refer it to the ACRE committee for recommended training, we're talking about recommended training for a violation of the two ethics code provisions? [1:17:38] Michael Beck: Well, it would specifically be the 3351, the discrimination. We're looking for a recommendation of the appropriate training for that specific provision. So again, not having them discuss anything about the finding itself or counter mail or anything, just strictly what do you recommend is the best training regarding discrimination specifically 33 5.1 and adhering [1:18:03] David Szewczyk: to that what about 33-1 is that not going to be included on the referral I in my opinion I think [1:18:13] Michael Beck: not I think that's more of a preamble which is being fair and impartial where I think really way it's about the discrimination piece it's a very good thing [1:18:26] David Szewczyk: should counselor mallory provide an opportunity to make his own statement about what's happened [1:18:32] Susan Hawes: or happening here tonight no i'm not ready to make a statement okay next time when we have to we've had the order seen it so is the motion i didn't see if there was any doubt [1:18:47] David Szewczyk: it also to the government referral to acre committee for recommendation of appropriate training with respect to section 33-5.1 there were no doubts it was just there they wanted to [1:19:03] Susan Hawes: Be clear that it would be just that. All right, we need an alternative to go into executive session, so thank you. [1:19:15] Joseph Leonard: Family chair, we're going to one MRSA four or five six. A, I would move we go into executive session for personal matter regarding two items. Thank you. Thanks. Ready to go to the [1:19:31] Susan Hawes: the executive, both of them. We need to welcome them to this. [1:19:36] Susan Deane: I'm closing with a heart for you. Something awesome. Yes. Yes. Council Beck. Yes. Council Leonard. Yes. Council Bell. Yes. Council Fish. Yes.