Bangor council weighs ethics findings against Mallar, Leonard remarks

[0:37] Susan Hawes: Good evening, welcome to the city council workshop. It's Monday, July 13th, it's 5 15. We are in council chambers. Around the table we have city manager Lear, Council Dean, Council Carson, Council Walker, Council Saloon, Council Beck, Council Leonard, Councillor Fish, and Council Mellow, and I'm Sue Nots. So we have two items on the agenda that we'll be talking about first, and then we'll have three executive sessions that I've been looking for motions for that you need to go into. [1:13] Susan Deane: So did you want to start off with item one? So I think looking around the room, I don't believe Mr. Dick Temple is in the room, so I think we'll have to skip over that one and hopefully he'll arrive. So I guess next would be the ethics board decision. Okay, are you coming to it? Yeah, there's [1:36] Susan Hawes: there's a feed up here for you. City solicitor Subchuck is on his way to the table. He's winning the war with the chair. Good evening, and you want to do the ethics board decision? [2:01] David Szewczyk: okay david subject city solicitor so the council has had a chance to review the materials that were forwarded to them this would be regarding the council order pertaining to city councilor malice actions during the historic preservation commission meeting of it is august 14th 2025. So tonight is a workshop shop where you will need to discuss the items and then give directive to staff to prepare a council order where the council can then officially deliberate and vote at the next council meeting on whether there were violations of each of the ethics code provisions reviewed by the ethics board and then will be reviewed again by the council. So tonight, I think that what staff needs is a way to prepare a council order that there can be a vote taken on. And so the ethics board investigated and made findings with respect to five questions that, well, there were four questions, but there were two kind of incorporated rated one that the council directed to the ethics board for their consideration. They made a finding that there were violations with respect to three council, three ethics code provisions. They made findings that there was no violation with respect to two, the other two, one of them being a catch-all. So I would suggest that the council have a discussion about each one so that we can get a general get some pointing in as to how we should prepare a council order for the review of this and for the vote. The first one that the ethics board found and by the way the ethics board's findings you decided that you weren't going to do your own investigation so you're going to be deliberating and voting but the investigation that they have you're not going to do another one you already decided that last time and there as you know and I've mentioned before their findings are advisory only you don't have to do make the same conclusion that they made but with respect to the question about section 33-13.1 of the Code of Ethics, whether there was a violation of that, the Ethics Board found by a five to zero vote that Councilor Malheur violated his provision, stating that their findings, stating in their findings that Section 33-13.1 prohibits an elected official from using his title unless he makes it clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the city. The board also find and it's found in its written opinion as you saw that it was ambiguous they found that it was ambiguous whether counselor Mallory's statements made to the commissioners during the recess were made as a city councilor or as a private citizen so in combining those two findings they found that there was a violation of section 33-13.1b and I don't know it might make sense for you to discuss each one of these separately in order to give staff a directive if so that's the first one and so I would pause to see if there needs to be discussion on that particular one and then a directive given to staff what's [6:15] Susan Hawes: the role of the committee do you want to take them one at a time so that we can let staff know are there any comments on the findings of that one item could [6:38] Susan Deane: you repeat which item that is I just want to point [6:39] David Szewczyk: without it was it was a vote on section 33-13.1 capital b do you have anything nothing just be clear you know the deliberations counselor mallard should have a chance to provide a defense here but would not be involved in deliberation but only would have a chance to make his own statement and defense to whatever it is [7:19] Susan Hawes: that he might need to make a defense to but he could make his own defense statement on each other it does yeah you could do it that way okay well he does so much I just wanted to get that clear in my head [7:38] Susan Deane: Yes, Council, I will say something. As I've said many times before, I feel that a city councilor, when they are at any kind of a public meeting, has a very difficult time separating themselves from being an individual or city councilor. So I think that factors into just what everything we do. And I also feel that this is not the first time this has happened in a public meeting, Council. [8:15] Michael Beck: Back, well, in regards to the first one, 33 13 1 b, there needs to be a statement, a reminder of the importance of that, you know, the ethics board found that was violated. You know, based on the testimony they had, they found it egregious enough to say that it was violated, that there was ambiguity. So we need to make sure that the council, you know, that we're reiterating the fact that when we are speaking, you know, whether the public me or any, really, you know, you're recognized as a counselor, you know, I'm here as an individual, I'm here speaking on my, you know, on behalf something, anything. If that didn't happen, that we need to be part of the statement, the [9:04] Wayne Mallar: only comment I'd make on that, it was not during an open meeting, it was during a recess. So there was no, I mean, you know what you're saying is if I wanted to go talk to anyone at this table that was sitting in another meeting, before I could ask them a personal question or discuss something personal, I must tell them that I'm not speaking as a counselor. I think that's ridiculous. Well, take it up with the court [9:32] Michael Beck: of ethics, or her ethics says you have to, it says your job. No, that's how they determined it, but [9:37] David Szewczyk: mean, if so, what you people are saying, I don't believe that Counselor Mallory should be participating in the debate. I think that the proper way to proceed would be for Councilor Mallory to provide a defense, but I think the back and forth needs to be amongst the counselors that are not the ones that have an allegation against [10:05] Michael Beck: to finish my point, the code of ethics says it's our job to make sure there's no ambiguity. It didn't say only in a meeting, only at the grocery store, or only, you know, on the street. It ambiguity is ambiguity to be giving no matter where it is, and it's our job as counselors to make sure that we're, we're getting rid of that with the statement, say that I'm speaking on my own behalf, I'm not speaking for the council, I'm not speaking for the city, anything of substance, you know, like that, to make sure that people know you're talking to the individual you know so again i think that's important that you know anything we vote on should include a reminder that statement that 's [10:41] David Szewczyk: important. I [10:47] Carolyn Fish: think that the ambiguity can, you know, when you're not there and you don't know exactly, you know, who the comment was made to, how they interpreted it, did they feel that he was speaking or did he feel or she feel it was private conversation because there had been a recess and the majority of the people had left the room. And I know my two and a half years, there's been a lot of comments from counselor to counselor or even engaging with people as they're sitting where we just engage in conversation. And I don't think every conversation has ever started off, You know, oh, I saw you the other day, you know, at the ball game and I don't, oh, but this is a private conversation, not as a counselor, you know, I just think that the ambiguity, I think there's situations where we're not obviously going to constantly in every conversation that happens in chambers or a public meeting is going to start off with, this is my personal opinion. So I think that the contents in the situation, you have to look at that and that's probably be part of where this ambiguity I'm assuming is coming from. Absolutely [12:05] Susan Deane: I would disagree. Personal conversation is much different than approaching a board member with an opinion on something that's being discussed that evening and this opinion has been voiced many times prior to, it wasn't the first time and we've heard in council chambers, we've heard it many times. So I don't agree at all. Anybody [12:36] Speaker G (unidentified): else? Sure [12:43] David Szewczyk: if the discussion is and I don't know if councilman wants to speak, you know, on this issue, but it could be that I'm given the directive to put into the proposed council order that there was a violation of this and then the council can deliberate and vote with respect to that issue at the regular council meeting once the agenda item proposed council orders put forth. Well [13:15] Susan Hawes: I believe councillor Beck had laid out some verbiage that he wanted to see in that order that you were just talking about. Did [13:29] Speaker H (unidentified): you do [13:32] Michael Beck: You want to run that by him again? Sure. I was just saying that whether, you know, we don't know what final form is going to take, but the item that we are going to vote on, I would like to see some statement about the importance of, you know, disclaiming your title, you know, again reiterating 13, you know, 13 1b or 33 13 1b again, you know, our responsibility to remove that ambiguity and that, you know, and basically reiterating what the ethics board found, that, you know, that was violating other. [14:03] Susan Hawes: Comments you'd want added to the order. Does that give you enough to draft in order to come back? Yeah. Did counselor Mallard want to? [14:24] David Szewczyk: Provide any kind of, I have nothing to say. So on that one, if I'm, if I'm reading this correctly, it, should be the council will take a vote on whether or not there was a, that the council order should say there was a violation of this particular provision, and then the council would be able to vote with me if that's fair, yay or nay. Okay, can we move on to that? Absolutely. Okay, the next one would be section 33-13.1c, and on that one the ethics board found by a vote of four to one that counselor Mallor. Violated this provision, finding that 33-13.1c places an affirmative duty on the elected official to make a disclaimer that they are speaking in their individual capacity and not in an official capacity when there could be ambiguity regarding the capacity in which he is speaking. Again, the board found in their written decision that it was ambiguous whether Councilor Mallory's statements were made as a council or orthopraises. So specifically, this one involves the obligation to make a disclaimer. The previous one had to do with prohibiting an elected bishop from using their title unless it's made clear and unambiguous us they are not speaking in that capacity. So they do have some overlap, but it is a separate provision that the ethics board found was violated by a vote of four to one. I'm. [16:18] Susan Hawes: Sorry, thank. [16:24] Susan Faloon: you just a question when we vote on these will we be voting on them all separately or voting on the whole thing together sorry if you already said that is actually a good [16:39] David Szewczyk: Good question, and that is something that you should direct staff to tonight. Do you want to make one vote on an overall proposed order, or do you want there to be four or five different proposals, or four or five votes that take place in incident with one proposal in my. [17:04] Susan Hawes: way of thinking the board sent back multiple comments on violations or not violations. So if we're responding to those, then we should respond in the order that they were given. Doesn't mean they can't all be done inside of a larger order, but whatever the council wants to do. [17:30] David Szewczyk: we can actually discuss that form when we've sort of figured out the format of the different issues if that helps maybe we could talk about that form at the end just a [17:50] Susan Faloon: follow-up so like alternatively could we could somebody make a motion to accept the recommendations, to accept the recommendations of the Ethics Board and move that forward, you know, as is like, alternatively, could that be it? [18:14] David Szewczyk: That could be the form of a proposed council order that would just reiterate how they found things and then have the city council vote on that one order as a whole that would be one possibility one format that could be used and [18:34] Susan Deane: then might I ask if that's the direction that council wishes to go might it be helpful just to go [18:41] Speaker H (unidentified): through all of the findings and have a discussion if [18:47] Susan Deane: you think you're just going to accept them all as a whole we [18:53] Michael Beck: could do that Council Pag? here's a quick question does the HPC have a council liaison to [Speaker G (unidentified): it do] we have a select one i [19:06] Susan Hawes: believe it's councilman that [19:13] Susan Faloon: would be on committees [19:17] Susan Hawes: under the liaison you might get there fast i have [19:22] Susan Faloon: it in front of me and some finance gov operations infrastructure [19:30] Susan Hawes: no there's not there's not okay he was not appointed [19:38] Michael Beck: it no there's not one so that said i mean i would be a supporter of the you know just a statement acknowledging the findings along the lines of what counselor felinda proposed because in my mind it would almost be more beneficial to reverse engineer this if the council has any kind of action it wants to take decide that first and then go back well there's not going to be any action taken then why spend the time going through each line item when it can just be one order says we got this back and we acknowledge it happened and this is what the ethics board found it [20:22] David Szewczyk: would be a little bit more than that it would be we acknowledge that the ethics board made these times and we make the same findings you know we make the same findings regarding violations or no violations so i could go through the rest of them if that will speed be things long the third finding that the ethics board made was they found by a vote of five to zero that counselor mallard violated section 33-1 findings they found specifically that 33-1 required that city councils maintain a Standard of conduct that would inspire confidence in the integrity of the city's government. So those are the three violations that they found. They, the ethics were also found by a vote of five to zero. The councilor Mallory did not violate section 33 dash 13.1 capital D, which ties the FOA statute one MRS section 403 in to the whole consideration. That section requires the public proceedings to be open to the public. So the bottom line of that is that it prohibits ex parte communications during public proceedings. So they found the councilman did not violate that provision. The ethics board also find that found that by a vote of three to two that counselor mallard did not violate any other provision of the code of ethics. My recommendation there would be just to, you know, I mean, you can make the same finding, but I'm not even sure that since it's a catch-all, I'm not even sure that needs to be addressed in the proposed council order, because if there were no findings, there were no other provisions that they found. So you just, you could just kind of ignore it. That's just, or you could do it either way. You could say we find that there were no violence of any other provisions either way. Now if you, if you direct staff to prepare a proposed council order stating that councilor maller violated one or more of the ethics code provisions, you need to also do one thing that the, that the ethics board did not consider. You need to direct staff as to include in the proposed council order an appropriate penalty the council is inclined to impose on counselor Mallory for the violation or violations, and I can talk about those here in a moment. If you are inclined to direct staff to prepare a council order that follows along with what the ethics board found, then you would need to do that, because they found three violations, you'd need to suggest what to go into the proposed order as an appropriate penalty. One of the things you want to think about is if there are three violations that might be found, would you want three separate penalties or one penalty that would cover all three violations? I would suggest that the first two violations, although they are violations of a separate ethics code provision, they really, it's really just one act that they are both covering. And the third one might also be covering one act, the one that talks about maintaining a standard of conduct that will inspire confidence in the integrity of the city. So, but it's up to you now. There are penalty options that are in the current proposed addition to the ethics code, and those that's going to be for first reading tonight. It's not in the ethics code yet, but I would suggest that those proposed conditions could be followed, since the ethics code is somewhat silent on how to proceed when an ethics board's written advisory opinion comes back to you. So the proposed penalty options that are in the proposed code says that the first option is the council could vote that no penalty be imposed, accompanied by a written statement of the council's reason. So if you're going to find violations but find that there's going to be no penalty imposed, you would need to put in a written explanation as to why. The second option would be a public resolution formally censuring the official, with written findings entered in the public records. A third option would be remove the official from one or more committee or board assignments, including liaison positions, for a specified period not to exceed the remainder of the current council year. Another option would be to impose a civil fine, and if that's an option that you are considering tonight, I would be able to speak with you about the minimums and maximums. I won't do that yet. Another option would be require completion of a specified training as a condition of continued service in an assigned role, and there's also a catch-all at the end that says any other lawful action the council deems appropriate and proportionate to the nature and violation. So you, I would suggest a discussion first on whether those, that's what, how you want to direct staff to prepare a council order that follows the findings of the ethics board, and then a discussion on one of the penalty options and one or more [26:20] Daniel Carson: the proposed changes to the ethics code I see are on the agenda for this evening under referrals to committee and first reading. Yes. So they would come back to council when? In a couple of weeks. Two weeks. Two weeks, and then you have to vote on that. And if they pass, how long after we pass them do they become effective? [26:49] David Szewczyk: I'm advising that you could use those same options because the code just doesn't say anything. And I think those are appropriate options, whether or not you pass that provision. If the council doesn't think that those are appropriate options, you can discuss that now. [27:08] Daniel Carson: Well, so the reason that I'm asking is because I have a reservation about using options that we have not passed. passed. The code is silent on that question. It says I have it in front of me, you know, that violations can constitute the cause for censure after hearing, but there's not a lot in there. And I am concerned that we would be applying penalties that we have not passed yet to a case that was instigated far before an update to the ethics code was considered. I don't think that 's fair. I think that we should personally, my personal opinion is that we should proceed with this case under the rules as they stand now because of when the case was instigated and when we're discussing it and not to consider rules that we haven't passed it or penalties we haven't passed yet. I do, I mean in there it does say any penalties acceptable by law so maybe these all count but I do have that concern. [28:10] David Szewczyk: Sorry just so you know the censure and the civil penalty are in the code already there were six options I mentioned one of them was to impose no penalty and I don't think there's anything anywhere that would suggest that you can't do that because it's kind of the absence of a penalty. There's also Robert's rules that could justify penalties that even more so perhaps than the ones that were on the list, but we're talking about elected officials here and some of those are penalties that if they attempted to be imposed there might be we do process considerations to try to, for example, removing the elected official from office when that elected official was elected by the people. There's a recall process that both state law and our city code have in it for the voters to do a recall, but none of those, although they might be authorized by Robert's rules, Robert's rules have general applicability and aren't specific to public officials. So those extreme potential options from Robert Jules were not even included in the list that I just gave you. So the ones that aren't included in the code would be the removal from a board or a liaison position. They can now, that one, that the chair is the one who appointed appoint people to the boards, so in theory the chair could remove that person without even the council, so you might want to keep that under consideration when you talk about that option. And then the other one was the training, the training is not mentioned, I do not believe it's mentioned in Robert's Rules, but it's not mentioned in our ethics code right now down. And then the last one was a catch-all, it's just said any other provision so that's to catch [30:31] Speaker H (unidentified): come back [30:34] Michael Beck: And then council Fish, yep, on the idea of using what's proposed in the upcoming ordinance change, I'm in favor of it. You know, I look at it, we're the same body who's deciding on those punishments, you know, so whether we're choosing one now and then later, you know, counterfeiting it in the law, I'm okay with it. I but did hear something that I did want to kind of get more clarity on, because it's my understanding that the council chair cannot arbitrarily remove some form of committee by the way it's worded in both charter and, you know, the code itself, where it says that they, you know, serve the term of year and until their successor is selected, not or, so in other words, they can't pick someone else to replace them because the word and not or, like, so that's just something I guess we need to double check and make sure. But going back to the penalties at hand, speaking about, you know, another counselor had brought up the fact this is not the first time that this has happened, I'd be interested to hear more about the training option, you know, is there a way to do a training to, you know, talk about the proper way to, you know, this is this when you engage outside of the process, you know, this is the way you should disclose yourself, this is the, you know, when you're, you know, making sure you're, you know, you're clear about ambiguity. I don't know what training is available for that or something staff can do or come up with to offer that training, but that would be where I would be at [32:02] David Szewczyk: Clarification on your inquiry about the appointing of a council member to a board where it says to serve out the term and until someone else is appointed, it's my opinion that and does not mean that the chair can't remove an appointee that the chair made. It just means that if somebody's council year is up, but something happened and they couldn't appoint somebody to succeed them, that council would continue on until somebody else is appointed to succeed them. That's my opinion. [32:47] Michael Beck: Yeah, I mean I really want to double check on that because it sets us up in a situation where, you know, I would hope the chair wouldn't do this, but they could just move people around in and out of, you know, committees in a whim. That's not the way we're designed, you know, and that's why it's to me that word and versus or, you know, just like we can't remove someone from office because it says, you know, that they serve out their term and until their replacement's elected, and then we also have our recall position on top of that. So I mean not something I would be interested in researching further to make sure because that, if that's the way it is, I would like to see us change the code a little bit to, you know, once you're appointed you should have that position and, you know, it should be the majority of the council with cause to remove you from a committee versus just on a whim of just pulling you up, you know, not looking at anything particular. I'm just saying in general, just as a protection it's just my understand the committee that's the way it is. So yeah, I would be interested in [33:45] Susan Deane: a separate conversation later on about that council fish in the past. How many ethics [33:54] Carolyn Fish: complaints have been brought forward where the person was found guilty of an ethics violation and what was the penalty in [34:05] David Szewczyk: in all of the past? Yeah, were there, I don't know all of the past, I know a few of the ones, I mean there hadn't been any kind of an ethics finding a violation in 10 years. There was one 13 years ago that where it was a century 10 years ago, also there's a century before that. I'm not sure, I wasn't able to go back to the beginning of the existence [34:35] Susan Deane: distance to the city. Most of them were sent. And the last two were no violations found. [34:43] David Szewczyk: You're talking about the Ethics Board? Yes. Well, see, the Ethics Board, the ordinance used to be different. Many years ago, decades ago, the Ethics Board could do more, I believe, than advisory opinions. They could make the decision. So that's, I'm not sure if you were asking about the council, if you're asking about the ethics of the board or [35:09] Carolyn Fish: what I guess in general but what ethic violations what types of penalties regardless if it was council or the board I have not looked up every single one okay yes I think I share counselor Carson's concern that reading the violations you know I can see where there is a violation of public trust with these types of comments but at the same times to have the penalties that we're just starting if where this ethics complaint started months ago i don't know that i'm comfortable with applying the new penalties on an old ethics complaint. I'm not old, but previous, I'll say previous, okay. [36:07] David Szewczyk: So if you want to make the directive to staff to prepare a council order that follows the lines of the ethics board's findings, we do need some directive about an appropriate penalty. Or I should say penalty option, because the first one was no penalty. [36:33] Michael Beck: Councilor Bass. Well, I'll make the motion and we'll see where one's at. I would make a motion that we prepare the order with the findings of the board of ethics, as we discussed, and then include the penalty option for the appropriate training that would go along with the violations of 13 33 13 1b and 33 13 1c. Second. [37:00] David Szewczyk: I'm sorry, appropriate training, I'm not sure if anyone's going to know what that is if this is voted to go forward in that manner. [37:15] Michael Beck: I don't know what that is. Okay, the training, in other words, as counselors, we have to disclose or disclaim our, you know, our title when we're speaking to people. So the training I'm interested in is, as a counselor, when should we be disclaiming ourselves, what's the appropriate way to disclaim ourselves, when are the appropriate situations to do that, to get a better understanding of, obviously, this is a recurring situation. So I don't have a title of whatever that training would be. But one of the options, a penalty option, is public, or not public, but training, appropriate training. I'm not sure how better I can articulate this other than as a counselor, how can we better understand when we speak to the public, when we speak out to the process, how do we disclaim ourselves? How do we ensure that there's no ambiguity? How are we in compliance with 33 13 1 b and c? [38:22] Susan Hawes: Just one second, council. Back, I think what you're talking about a lot is in our council guidelines, and our guidelines is a meeting we're supposed to be having coming up mid-August for the council to look at those guidelines, strengthen them if we need to, lessen some if we need to, but we do have to do something with our guidelines. And that a lot of that is in there. And it's in that basic orientation training that we get about when do you use counselor? If you're gonna run an ad, how do you do that? Where do you put it? So I agree with you. The education does have to be spelled out. We can't just leave it. Go ahead. [39:05] David Szewczyk: Would it be training that your suggestion should be undergone with the legal department? Yes, maybe that could be specified training. Sure, joining them in [39:18] Michael Beck: my motion if that's what you, yeah, but to amend the motion to add other the training will be conducted with the legal department at the city of [39:30] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll second that. Okay. [39:34] Michael Beck: And then yeah, I would move my motion as amended. That's [39:39] Carolyn Fish: official in the beginning of the year. Don't we have the ethics as part of the orientation? So why wouldn't we just have them go through the ethics orientation again? With realtors we have, we have the ethics, we have 17 articles, and when you go to ethics a lot of times penalty is you take the three credit hour ethics even if you've had a few before, you're required to take that over again. And I know that the ethics class or part of the orientation is on ethics, so maybe we just take that same format which is part of the training we get and have it required to be reviewed. Are [40:29] Susan Hawes: you thinking or I thought you were going to say something? [40:32] David Szewczyk: I wasn't. Okay, yeah, the motions on the table and I don't know if it, if someone is to suggest, if counselor is suggesting that it be amended again, I [40:43] Michael Beck: don't know, but I just slept the council. Yeah, I would move my question. At least we could see where that, if there's no appetite for, you know, we fell and someone else can move emotion, but I would move my question. So then could you mind repeating it as you had tried to move it? Sure, the motion was to have staff prepare the order, you know, showing the findings of what was found violated, and then in regards to the penalty phase, to have councillor mallard engage or take a training with the illegal for the City of Angkor regarding appropriate use of Title I and disclaimer [41:33] Joseph Leonard: thereof. I will second that. [41:37] Susan Hawes: I move and second the discussion. [41:43] Susan Deane: Councilor Carson. To Councilor [41:46] Daniel Carson: Fish's point, it sounds like the ethics to just the way the motion sounded to me. I don't know what your interpretation would be, that the ethics training could be the training that people provides but [41:58] Michael Beck: without amending it. Yeah, I mean, just we keep ending up back here, so something needs to be done. We need to go back to school and learn how it goes, and however it takes to get that done, let's do it. Sure. [42:26] Susan Deane: Counselor Dean? Yes. Counselor Carson? Yes. Yes, thanks. Thank you. We'll see you though. Well, you know what, Mr. Dick Campbell's has since arrived. He's here to talk to you about the floor court loop event then, so I'm going to keep you out. Oh, this is finally, this is [43:13] Speaker G (unidentified): something an organization put together american heritage association we put together three years ago to bring scholarships into the four ports dango group being the most inland bucksport sears port and Castine. So we were pretty successful three years ago and filled the town of Bucksport to no parking spaces left. In Bangor we had the Coast Guard, the largest icebreaker, we had the Maine Maritime Academy tug, and we had a bird battle canoe under construction that we. This year, we have the Harvey Gammage, which is a student training vessel, trains 24 students for a period of a week, and they go on and learn all the rest and all about tall ships. But the most exciting part is this year in Bangor we have a six-person rowing canoe, rowboat, that has six people with the handler, and would love to see the councils competing against each other, kind of going in a rowing contest, between the counselors or designees. But we think that the course will be, and Trace has been very helpful, dock five, I guess it's called, apparently the lower dock, and then come up and around the drop of the Chamberlain back, does a chase boat, and in each of the row boats we have somebody that can train. Should be really exciting, and big long paddles, six people. We had, we had one of the boats in the parade on the fourth that got a lot of attention, but I have, see, I'll try to keep one if there's enough and only around, but this the two pieces, one is on the event with the schedule, and this card is doing nothing down though, but what we'd like to do in six races, and in those obviously we'd love to have the councils can be, but also the fire department maybe or police department, so we did send around emails [46:19] Susan Deane: soliciting interest. Robin is fielding everyone's responses, so I actually don't know [46:26] Speaker H (unidentified): Who's responding? Yes, yeah, but I will let you know. Okay, wonderful, but we really [46:34] Speaker G (unidentified): appreciate what the city does with their waterfront and Tracy's been wonderful. Well, the other thing we have is a drone show in Bangor. They'll probably go off with the Getchell Ice parking lot. So there'll be a drone show here and again in Bucksport. So that's pretty exciting. And the Harvey Gammage is coming up from Bucksport, probably a round trip and on it we'll have somebody who is well versed in the Penobscot expedition and they'll tell the stories and the demise of the work they were able to feet right at the big one so and those are all on the bottom of your waterfront you know one point in the legislature I sort of built into anything raised being displayed in the abutting towns and our historians didn't like that so we at least got the map so let's see Usually it has a map of okay thank you so much sorry not be here on my [48:07] Speaker H (unidentified): agenda piece but thanks so much for that I read the email but this rowing competition [48:13] Susan Deane: is that the one that's on Friday July 31st or is it Sunday August 2nd is that the growing competition on Sunday, though. [48:22] Speaker G (unidentified): Then there will be training. So first, of the day will be [48:28] Speaker H (unidentified): training. And I'll have Robin send around the email and [48:34] Susan Deane: pencil sitting here. Now they have context. Oh, sorry. [48:38] Speaker G (unidentified): Thank you so much. Thank you. [48:42] Susan Hawes: There's a caveat [48:46] Susan Deane: that if you intend to have any courtship, that you will have to do that. Yes. Okay. [49:09] Susan Hawes: We've got three executive sessions to do. If we could get a motion to go into number four, because there may be a portion of that we're going to do in here. [49:22] Daniel Carson: Madam Chair, pursuant to 1MRSA section 4056E, consultation with city solicitor regarding the rights and duties of the council, the June 22nd, 2026 council meeting. I'm going [49:37] Joseph Leonard: to do a quick point of order just so I can designate this to the council. So Madam Chair, I object to the scope of this motion. I have filed a formal written demand with the clerk and the city solicitor, I will provide copies of these reactions. While this council has a right to ask our attorney about general procedures, the chair's meeting control, or a member advocating their voting duties, this council is legally barred from discussing, evaluating, or debating my specific speech from June 22nd behind closed doors. Under one MRS save 45683, I have absolute right to a public hearing regarding my conduct. A subsection E attorney consultation cannot be used as a loophole to circumvent the state transparency laws. If a single councillor should attempt to steer that secret session into a debate about my words, I will immediately object, halt the session, and report the FOAA violation. Could [50:52] Susan Deane: you ask the question? Dr. Leonard, are you saying that you would prefer to have a [51:08] Joseph Leonard: regarding oh no so my regarding the words of that date if that was to be a subject matter in executive session which I do not know if that's if that was the intent or not but I just want to make it explicitly clear that if that is the case I am invoking my right to have that any other [51:34] Susan Hawes: questions good [51:38] David Szewczyk: Can I make a maybe a suggestion? Counselor Leonard has a right to have any investigation into his conduct conducted in open session. The executive session was actually made under a different section, the consultation with attorney regarding the rights and duties of the council. However, it could be that we could conduct the session that chair Hawes wanted to have an open session with the understanding that if certain issues come up, for example, if I am asked about some legal issues and it is not my advice that I give a legal opinion on those issues in public, we could preserve those for an executive session afterward or no executive session. But I think that Council Leonard does have a right to insist that investigation regarding any kind of potential punishment of him for the word that he spoke, he does have the right to have that investigation conducted in public if that's what he wants so it's kind of tricky because there were legal issues that relate to that but he doesn't want those to bleed over into his part so I would suggest that we could perhaps go forward in open session for now I know it was a motion already made there was a motion that wasn't seconded no there's been no second yeah not yet so I suppose the motion could be withdrawn if that's what we want to do I'm sure I've [53:39] Daniel Carson: drawn my motion the [53:47] Susan Hawes: purpose of the order that was asked to be drafted was at the request of not only other counselors but citizens about the behavior and what we're going to do about it [54:07] Joseph Leonard: and is there anything we can do about it point of order just to clarify what behavior are we talking about here it would have been your the verbiage used [54:22] Susan Hawes: in that meeting and that's what you didn't want to talk about here [54:26] Joseph Leonard: Okay so verbiage as in the words that I used to define what it was that I was saying of a character yeah okay so the issue is not so much the behavior the issue is more so the words [54:45] Susan Hawes: themselves I would say yes okay thank you so it was brought forward for the council to discuss the council might have just said you know we've been this road before we can talk with the council over and see if we can come to an agreement or whatever or we can do nothing it so that was on there for executive session only to determine was it the will of the council to move forward and do anything with it then it would have been an agenda item at the next council meeting which it is not right now An agenda, it was just brought to the executive session to look at, to talk about, and go from there. So we [55:43] David Szewczyk: can talk about an open session, we can. Okay, so do you want me to go over what the chair has initiated? The whole discussion, and it pertained to the words that were used at the last meeting by Counselor Leonard, particularly, there are now 23 concentration camps that ICE has. And then later when Councilor Leonard went on to say some of those children that go to those concentration camps, somehow these adolescent girls get pregnant all of a sudden. And then those pregnant adolescent girls, for some reason, when they get pregnant in these ICE concentration camps, they all get moved to a single concentration camp where they allocate all of these new little girls that came into the ICE concentration camps, not pregnant, now they are pregnant. And then shortly thereafter, Councillor Leonard said this, meaning ICE is a criminal organization, but I don't expect our rapist pedophile fascist president to take any consideration this whatsoever. So I wanted to share with the council a council order that was issued 13 years ago that is involving some remarks that were made by, it's, it's a public order, so it's council order 13-227. So on that occasion, one of the counselors, in discussing a resolve that was taking a position against the proposed reduction in and revenue sharing made by the legislature's appropriations committee, that councilor made some remarks about then Governor LePage. And they are quoted in the council order. The council voted on June 24, 2013, that the remarks were inappropriate, offensive, and disrespectful to Governor LePage and the office of the governor. And they voted that though requested to do so, Councilor Longo did not retract his remarks nor apologize for them at the City Council meeting, and concerns have been expressed that the remarks were unprofessional and reflected negatively on the City Council and the city of Bangor as a whole, and said remarks have no place in the deliberations of the Bangor City Council. And so the council voted a formal censure against Councilor Longo for his inappropriate public comments about the governor's update at that meeting. I just wanted to call your attention to that, was essentially occurred 13 years ago about those remarks. Then as far as it was suggested that the council make a referral to the board of ethics on the issue of whether there are any violations, I would suggest to you that if that were going to be the case that there would be two code of ethics its provisions that the council could, make inquiry as to whether they are violated. That would be, did one of the inquiries would be, did council energy market violate section 33 dash one of the code of ethics, which states that the proper operation of democratic government requires city councilors to be fair and impartial and maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. Another ethics code provision that could be inquired about with the ethics board could be did Councilor Leonard's remarks violate section 33 to action 1.1 of the ethics code which states to meet this meet the purpose of this code the non-partisanship of city councilors is important for the public confidence in their conduct in fulfilling their duties in fulfilling their duties and obligations to the citizens of the city of Bangor, city councilors are expected to maintain the non-partisan structure and intent of Bangor's form of local governance, to this end city councilors shall conduct themselves in a non-partisan manner favoring no political party. Those were the two ethics code provisions that when it was asked that legal prepare a council order to send the issues to the board of ethics, those were the two that the legal department identified. [1:00:44] Michael Beck: A third inquiry though, [1:00:47] David Szewczyk: if this were to go to the board of ethics would be, if the ethics board finds that one or more violations occurred, what is the appropriate penalty to impose upon councilor Leonard? So those were the three inquiries that, legal department came up with should this matter be sent to the board ethics this was drafted at the chair's direction and i could hand out a proposed order if that's what you want to do in this workshop counselor [1:01:22] Joseph Leonard: so i just want to for first of regarding the censure regarding former counselor Charlie Longo when that censure was put forward that was more so a character statement that was made of the governor at the time and I don't think that anyone can really prove that what were his words that he was a quote-unquote drunk or [1:01:53] David Szewczyk: something. Well, I just didn't want to repeat them, but they are in the order and I could hand out [1:01:58] Joseph Leonard: the order to everyone that's the long goes in the room okay so if i can go further i mean one of the things that i would now i might need you to repeat the third one for me but so the first one regarding for a violation i would strongly suggest that we all before stating whether or not we want to send that to ethics was there anything that I said in that statement granted I will granted charged words but of those words is there any falsehood that I actually said in those statements and I can guarantee you there is no falsehood. So and then we're going, the second one I think it was regarding one party or another. I don't think I made a partisan statement based on one party or another. In fact, my comments came from a relation to what was the ordinance that we were talking about, which was the ICE ordinance. And my own personal issues that I saw with the organization that most people see with the organization, granted the current issue that we have this current day on July 13th, we already have another issue with ICE that happened in third. So I don't think that given those circumstances, it really was a partisan take I had because it was more so an issue I had in an organization that's clearly in violation of at least the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. States. And I would be hard pressed to be told that was otherwise. So I don't think I was really making a partisan statement. I was just again stating a fact at that point. But regarding the third one, could you state for me what was the third one? [1:04:20] David Szewczyk: The third one was a contingent one. It's just if the ethics board finds that one or more violations occurred, what is the appropriate communication point? [1:04:29] Joseph Leonard: Okay, all right, I'll, I'll consider that. Does [1:04:35] David Szewczyk: the chair want the previous council order i don't know if we want to look at it the council to look at it 's i mean it's a public document and it has the quote in it from the previous i [1:04:53] Susan Hawes: could go ahead so they have it. The real intent of the workshop tonight was for the council to have the information, have the discussion. It wasn't intended to be an actual, are we going to censor ourselves, are we going to send it to ethics? That wasn't going to happen tonight. Night, it was more just to get it out, have people a chance to talk about it, and then it will be on the agenda in two weeks, so we still have time to process, because if I don't sleep we're going to be coming up against time here really soon, and this is somebody's physical reputation can be, they're standing on council can be, whatever you want to call it, I think we want to give it fair vetting, and if that means moving it ahead a couple weeks to another workshop and then the agenda, we can do that, but there's all kinds of ways we could have done it. My biggest reason for wanting it on the table tonight was so that it would not be a surprise rise to anybody that came into the meeting next time and saw it on the table, because I think that's, that's inappropriate if we've got a problem or have an order for account that concerns [1:06:41] Susan Deane: council, they have the right to know. So yes, so if I'm understanding, you don't really want anyone's opinion this evening, you want us to mull this over and come back with an opinion as to what [1:06:58] Susan Hawes: No, you're free to give an opinion, certainly. And then what may happen is that we may have to hold on to something else. Do you have something that you want to? [1:07:14] Susan Deane: I would like to address council if I could, regarding the part of what you said. I support what you say, I believe you have a right to your opinions. My feeling though is that the way it was presented did show parts of it, because I think there are some people that were offended by what you said, some people heralded it, but some people were offended, and I think those that are offended would be more than conservative portion of this city. Could I have a clarification [1:07:49] Speaker H (unidentified): what words were? Am I allowed to say the words? [1:07:53] Susan Hawes: I think we're discussing. [1:07:58] Susan Deane: I'm a little confused what we're allowed to do here. I think calling the detention center's concentration camps was a little harsh. It's your opinion and maybe other people's opinions, but perhaps not the opinion of all of Bangor. [1:08:10] Joseph Leonard: So point of order, historically speaking, when we have the Japanese internment camps during World War Two, historically those are considered concentration camps. So what are we doing with these ICE detention facilities? You're concentrating human beings inside these facilities and suppressing their rights overall. So from a definition standpoint, no, that is accurate, but [1:08:41] Susan Deane: what I'm saying is I think some people may find that offensive. That's just understating what I mean. You feel one way but others feel another way, so that's that's where it looked a little partisan in my [1:08:51] Joseph Leonard: opinion. If I can respond, I can understand if some people are offended by facts, but that doesn't change the fact of the situation. We are concentrating people into that, literally, and I'm not going to baby my words around when we're all adults in the room. This isn't TikTok, this isn't YouTube, we don't have our words suppressed to us. Okay, I'm allowed to say whatever words I want to say. They might sound harsh, but that is literally a fact. These are [1:09:38] Susan Deane: concentration camps, and I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I just feel that the way it [1:09:43] Speaker H (unidentified): was said, it may be on, it was said just a little bit well. We just, I'm sorry, point of order, we [1:09:48] Joseph Leonard: established that it has nothing to do with the behavior early on. It has everything to do with [1:09:52] Susan Deane: the words. That was established, the way in which words are used, and tone sometimes changes the [1:09:59] Joseph Leonard: word. Well again, what the chair said earlier has nothing to do with the behavior, it has to do with the words that they use. So we're not talking about my behavior, which, if I'm being quite honest, I don't think my behavior was that out of line in [1:10:16] Susan Deane: the other, the other words. When you call President Trump a fascist pedophile, again, you have every right to feel that way, but he hasn't been convicted yet. And so that was said in a council setting about a president that obviously we don't care about, a lot of people don't care for him, but again, the orphan of Bangor still supports [1:10:40] Speaker H (unidentified): the president from, so I felt that showed partisanship. So again, point of order though. [1:10:47] Joseph Leonard: those the fascist one is just a fact i mean he is unilaterally doing things that are upending our entire system of government to the point of the pedophile comment yes there is no conviction that said though there is plenty of evidence some really harsh interviews i'm forgetting [1:11:18] David Szewczyk: her name her first name is katie i kind of make a point where i'm going to make the same point that i made when we were talking about counselor mallard's matter counselor leonard has a right to defend himself, but not participate in the debate about whether this should go to the... So the back and forth, I would say is not appropriate. I think the defense is, but the debate and that sort of thing should be the counselors other than council. [1:11:54] Joseph Leonard: But if I could clarify though, i don't think i am in a position where i'm defending myself at this point because there is no inquiry to ethics or there is no censure that's being determined though so i think we are in a discussion at this point so i don't see a reason why i couldn't participate in this discussion [1:12:17] David Szewczyk: well the discussion is whether the matter should go to the board of ethics is am i wrong about that the council was going to decide it and so that would be something that okay should not be participating in the in the discussion except i can see could also you'll have a chance to defend but i think i already said it so if i could just continue i just don't [1:12:43] Susan Deane: know how we can decide whether it goes to ethics if we don't have a discussion as to whether or not we felt the verbiage was inappropriate so that's why i wanted to bring it up because no one had said anything yet no i mean i just think we need to get this on the table and hash it out i agree [1:12:57] David Szewczyk: it should be brought up and discussed but what i was saying is that council leonard can speak to defend himself at the end i would suggest is appropriate and that the other counselors would discuss and i'm going to throw one more thing in just because it's if this were to go to the council the council could consider one other piece of rule or law that the ethics board would not be able to consider the council guidelines for example the council guidelines have been passed as a policy of the council and in the guidelines there's a provision that says members should act with civility and preserve order and decorum during municipal meetings i don't believe the ethics board would have jurisdiction to hear whether that was that provision was violated but i think the council itself would that's true [1:13:55] Susan Faloon: Actually, is the part that I was gonna like, I don't disagree with what you said, and I actually don't, my issue wasn't even with the language, because I think most of it's true. I would say it, for me it was more the delivery of it. Like, I would have just scaled it back a little bit, but like, I don't have an issue with the language. I think just that, you know, like, yeah, we need to act with civility and preserve the order and decorum during municipal meetings, and you know, so I wouldn't agree with, you know, that it's just the, that it's the language itself that's [1:14:41] Michael Beck: okay my issue with doing these after the fact for things that were said in debate robert's rule says you handle that stuff during that meeting didn't get gaveled down not a single one of us point of ordered it just was allowed to happen and then now after the fact this feels just like pr cleanup and when it should have been handled that night you know and what was said was said i'm not in favor of any order i want to just move on with the city's business rather than trying to do damage control on something that wasn't controlled, that's how I feel. [1:15:23] Carolyn Fish: Castlefish, I say we send it to ethics. We have them, we've had many conversations about other comments made, and we said why don't we send them to ethics, that's why we have them. And a lot of people, I do believe that it did violate public trust. I had a number of people reach out to me, especially from our Jewish community, that was highly insulted by this one, and some of those accusations, whether we believe them or not, or like or hate our president, I just don't think this decorum and that type of verbiage or behavior is what our public should expect from us, so I say send me to council ethics and [1:16:04] Susan Hawes: we're having a meeting, so if you could, thank you, were you finished, yes, so our [1:16:16] Susan Faloon: on this, the one that was given to us as an example, other than, so I don't know a lot of the details around what was before the council other than the title of it, but it sounds to me, and I could be wrong, and perhaps Mr. Longo wants to correct me if I am, but it sounds like this, what he said at that time, maybe wasn't directly related to the issue at hand, but what was said by counselor Leonard, in my opinion, was directly related to the issue at hand, because it was the behavior of ICE, and that's what we were talking about, was ICE. So like, to me, these are not the same, because that was directly related to what we were debating as a council. Councilor [1:17:20] Carolyn Fish: Kirsch? I think his comments were directly related and directly related to President Trump and ICE. ways but so I do see the comparison okay [1:17:37] Susan Deane: my [1:17:41] Daniel Carson: my issue with what happened that night wasn't actually the language in your right to your opinions and we don't control we are a non-partisan body they take that very seriously I try to behave that way as often as possible but we don't control what is partisan we don't decide in this space we don't we right we could all talk about how much we love the color purple and tomorrow one of the two or seven 58 000 political parties decides that they love the color purple and suddenly purple is partisan and so i do have a lot of difficulty judging that kind of a question because we don't make the determination here my problem occurred when after the comment was made and there was back and forth with the gallery and i don't want to try to quote you specifically because i would fail at doing that but if i paraphrase what happened after somebody in the audience I think yelled out point of order and you may have said something like you don't have point of order here but there was a there was a back and forth and that was the piece I actually found to be in so I would not be in favor of referring this particular question to ethics but I do think it might be worth us thinking about like the council guidelines preserving decorum. And I think maybe that piece is for a discussion. Not although I don't like a punishment or anything like that. I'm just that's the piece I really had the issue with. [1:19:16] Joseph Leonard: And thank you for actually bringing that up, Council Carson, because it has nothing to do with the word i'll be very clear on that i think a reason why i felt well not even i felt like the reaction that i had to addressing the gallery was because if i'm being quite honest and i'm sorry counselor hawes i do have to address you i think you lost control of the meeting and i think you've been losing control of meetings for quite a number of them at this point and I remember one time you were not here for a council meeting and we had councillor Beck preside as chair over the meeting and not once did I feel that I had to engage with the public or not once that I feel like i had to engage with him to make sure that he was caught up on track and so i think what caused that situation to occur because i actually do agree counselor cars on that point i fully acknowledge that but i think the reason why we got there is because and i know this has been stated a number of times but i would like to see you do more moderating of these meetings in the future and be a bit more assertive, because when you do have people in the gallery that are shouting, saying point of order, or a number of times that other people have come out, it really does seem like these meetings are starting to get out of control. And the point of the chair is to keep control of the meetings at that point. And so I completely agree with your point, Counselor Carson, that was probably inappropriate for me to do that, but at the same time I think we do need to have a bit more show of force when it comes to deliberating and leading these meetings. [1:21:30] Susan Hawes: Valid point. However, that has been tried before, and if the person that it is being tried on doesn't accept that and the behavior becomes worse, what would you want then? You want them removed? Do you want a prime example? You were gaveled on one occasion right here, and your behavior and your demeanor and your attitude became worse, and that's, that's when you engaged with the person in the back of the room. [1:22:13] Joseph Leonard: So at the risk of point of order, are you talking during the time when I was illegally censured the second time? Is that what you're referring to when I was talking to a gallery member? No. Okay. So you're completing the 22nd, June 22, when I was engaging with the gallery. Okay, thank you. [1:22:33] Susan Hawes: So, I mean, it's a matter of, it's a call shot, because I have seen Council Beck get angry. He won't usually take it to the next level like you have done. You can see it in him when he gets angry. [1:22:53] Michael Beck: Don't make this about personalities. I don't get angry. I get passionate. But when you say things like that, I feel like an attack. No, it's not an attack. [1:23:01] Susan Hawes: We're just trying to explain what's going on. I have nothing to do with this. You don't have to [1:23:05] Speaker H (unidentified): bring me up. He's the one that brought you up. I did not. A point of order. I did not bring Council [1:23:11] Susan Hawes: back down but if you're not going to respond when you are gaveled gathered down then what do you what would you want the chair to do at that point that's not up to me though that's [1:23:26] Joseph Leonard: up to you the chair you have the authority to dictate whether or not the person is gaveled is to be removed we do technically are supposed to have a sergeant at arms if meetings do get completely out of hand you do have the ability to actually say sergeant of arms please remove this person from the door so you do have that authority and you know i disagree with the way that at the time chair pelletier gaveled me out of order and told me to leave the room but the thing is she ran the meeting she had the right to do that and while i immensely disagreed with her doing that while i was being illegally censured i complied and most people i think would comply well [1:24:15] Susan Hawes: sir i don't know what to want to do your hands kind of went up together [1:24:20] Susan Faloon: Thank you. I don't know what I was going to say. So I agree with some of that and how the meeting went down. I just wasn't sure if we were discussing all of that in this meeting or if that should be in an executive session because there were other behaviors during that meeting that I have an issue with. But I thought we were talking about Councillor Leonard in this open session. [1:24:55] Carolyn Fish: Likewise, I think we should stick to the point of this meeting, which was going to be executive session, which I thought was the proposal of sending what happened on June 22, to ethics. Am I wrong? Or is that was not the point of this meeting? [1:25:15] Susan Hawes: that was going to be a discussion if that was something the council wanted to do to [1:25:21] Susan Deane: send it to ethics or so the topic of the executive session is the june 22nd 2026 so i just think [1:25:31] Carolyn Fish: we're kind of getting off on yes [1:25:37] Susan Deane: if the topic is the june 22nd 2026 council meeting then that meeting would entail the entire meeting, not just councilor Leonard. So I would disagree if it needs to be an open session, it can be an open session. I would prefer all of this to be an executive session, but this is where we are. So just councilor Leonard exercised his right to have the portion of the conversation relating to him in public session. If there are other items to discuss, we can still go into executive session. I'll add a note on time. I think it's pretty clear that we want to do my city manager evaluation today. It's fine, we will schedule that for a future meeting. So if you'd like to go into executive session and discuss other issues, that is fine. I don't feel we have enough time to discuss the issues that we might have from the June 22nd, 2026 meeting because I think that's going to be a long discussion. [Speaker H (unidentified): And I] might suggest that perhaps a workshop isn't the right place given the time limitations. Perhaps we want to put that on as a special workshop before committee meetings next Monday. I think Courtney would still appreciate a motion to go in perspective session about a contract, however, and that should be relatively free if [1:27:14] Susan Hawes: everyone would agree with that. I would [1:27:19] Daniel Carson: move that pursuant to whatever I say section 4056D on the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 714 contract that we entered executive session. Second. Thanks. We're going to second it. We're [1:27:32] Susan Deane: home and 13, yes, that's the first. Yes,, we are in this.