Bangor council delays ethics decision on Mallar, rejects conflict motions against Beck and Faloon

[0:52] Wayne Mallar: Stay down, boy. Yeah. [Speaker B (unidentified): Booster.] Just leave him, just leave him, give him some food, he's had food, okay, good. [2:59] Susan Hawes: Evening, welcome to the City Council workshop. It's Wednesday, May 27th, by Christine. We are in, comes with papers around the table. We have City Manager Carollynn Lear, who just got up. We have Councillor Deane, Councillor Carson, Council Sling, Council Leonard, Council Beck, Count for Fish, and I'm Council Horse. We are going to have, we have one item, then we'll be going into executive session. After executive session, we will come back out. [3:42] Speaker B (unidentified): I just wanted to make sure I could unmute, counselor. [3:47] Susan Hawes: And with whatever comes out of that second, and then we have one more executive session to go. [3:53] Carolyn Fish: Back into, so we have a chair. Yes, ma'am, I know we have an agenda, but I also understand if we have a concern of a potential conflict of interest, it should be brought up immediately. So I request that I move to approve as my concern. Go ahead. After much conversation and looking at the review of the history of our immigration ordinance and where we're at, I feel we have a conflict of interest on council, particularly Council Member Beck and Councillor, I believe that it's been obvious from their own statements in public information, social media, that they have personal opinions in anti-ICE and have been at protests, have admittedly done so. Councillor Beck has gone outside of our municipal legal council, gone to the ACLU Bonnie and legal counsel without us as a council really having participation in that conversation to agree and authorize to include that type of council beyond our own municipal council who looks out for our municipality and our residents. So I feel that, you know, that was an undue process that should have been brought to council to have discussion and for us as a group to decide if we wanted to include that legal. Ordinance, development of that ordinance. Also, we have had multiple times our own council and departments bring concerns on the ordinance the way it's been amended and amended with concerns about potential funding. And when it's bought up, it's been addressed, address that it's, you know, no fear mongering, but in fact, these are true concerns that could affect the municipality, as well as the residents. And yet we keep coming back. So it's gotten to the point where I see it 567 times that it appears to me as though it's a personal, political bipartisan agenda and a conflict of interest. And I would like to bring that to the council my, feelings to the council to other members to see how they feel. Councilor Faloon also, I believe, through her political and anti-ICE preferences, brought in an ordinance that we did not pursue, but in fact, it was against the law and civil rights to not allow anyone who ever worked in law enforcement for government to not be hired by the city. So after consideration of looking at this ordinance and again, looking at polls done independently by local media in that 60 to 74% of our residents feel they want ICE and feel safer with ICE. And we've heard from residents that also that our immigrants feel safer with ICE. And we already have approved as a council LD 1971 that we agreed to accept that as a council body. And I believe that our manager has drafted up guidelines that we requested for our city and so right now our staff still does not have guidelines because we keep trying to amend this and keep bringing this up so I'm expressing after a lot of thought I really feel that this is not in the best interest of our citizens or our municipality and to me is a conflict of interest okay council letter just to [7:38] Joseph Leonard: clarify. Do you want to address both of them at the same time or separately? I think that to be [7:44] Carolyn Fish: fair, we should do it separately because Councilor Faloon should be able to cast her own vote as to [7:49] Joseph Leonard: if she feels that Councilor Beck has a conflict and vice versa. Okay. I guess I'll just succinctly add I don't see a conflict here. I'm just keeping it real. I mean, I think a big reason why this is the topic is because when we look back on the last election this was a massive political issue that a lot of constituents determined who they were going to vote for based off this so i don't really see as a political agenda i see as the will of the voter at the end of the day that's just me though so i won't i won't support that okay not 100 try to respond because what i heard was [8:29] Michael Beck: A conflation of both conflict but also arguments against coordinates itself. What I will say is that regarding seeking outside opinions, I think that's something we're all entitled to. That is part of what this is. I think also others in the same argument have said they too have checked with their lawyers and lawyer friends to get their own opinions, so I see this as no different. You know, as far as anything that I may have said, number one, anything I've ever said has always been with the disclaimer and we have evidence of said disclaimers. And as far as having opinions on things, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on something, because it's not about discriminating against people or anything like that. You know, if you don't appreciate the work that a federal agency does, that doesn't, you know, have any bearing on whether or not you want to take action to protect your city, so I don't see a conflict. But again, that's my opinion. [9:36] Susan Faloon: That was almost in unison, Castle. Floor. I also don't see a conflict. I mean, anything that I have participated in, you know, like outside this council, I've never done so like representing myself as a counselor. First of all, we are all entitled to our own political opinions outside of this council, and my understanding is that for there to be a conflict, there would have to be some kind of financial interest, and there certainly is not as [10:18] Susan Deane: far as people's personal political views. I think that's, I wouldn't say that's conflict. I think we're all entitled to our own views, however we bring them to Council. I do believe this is supposed to be nonpartisan, and I have felt that certain members have brought their political views to the DS and said things that probably shouldn't be discussed or should be discussed as a council, so we have a, an opinion, a collective opinion. So I feel that sometimes that is has overtaken our council, and I think it's probably because the political climate is such right now that people are feeling frustration. So I don't know about the conflict. I do, I do think that there might have been a conflict with you going outside council. I feel you should have, Michael, you should have gone to our city solicitor first, because he has had to go through everything numerous times to look at it from our city's standpoint and taken quite a lot of time to do it, so that's where I think there might be a conflict. I felt you kind of overstepped city solicitor. [11:33] Joseph Leonard: We don't answer to the city solicitor, though the city solicitor is supposed to give us guidance and supposed to give us legal opinion and legal advice, but he is not the final say on what we want to do. At the end of the day, if I want to, for example, propose that Bangor have it's a heartbeat bill, for example, to ban abortion in the city, that would not at all abide by state of Maine law, but we've seen throughout history that we've had legislation in other states pass law that would not, during the time Roe v. Wade, would not have at all settled. So it's been a precedent throughout American history where people have sought their legal guidance through other counsel as well. Because at the end of the day, there are some pieces of legal consideration that, you know, no offense to David, that's not what at all I'm trying to say about this, but he doesn't know every single facet of every single type of law that exists out there. I don't expect them to be a shout out to It's Always Sunny Philadelphia, an expert on bird law, for example. I mean, I use that as a silly example, but the point being is I'm probably going to want to go to someone who is experienced in bird law to get their opinion on whatever type of bird law that's associated with it. Like, I'm sure David can read up on bird law and get pretty well versed into it, but at the end of the day, and David, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your background is not in bird law, I would assume. No, he says no, so. [13:19] Susan Deane: I can respect that, and I realize he's not the final say, but I think out of respect,, has been and should have been asked for prior to all of this. I just think that we, you know, we've already agreed to do the LD 1971, which I have agreed with from the beginning. We haven't been able to implement the policy for employees yet because this is still up in the air. So we're kind of in limbo. I mean, we keep putting this off and putting this off. By the time we finally get it to a point where everyone's comfortable, I have a feeling that the state LD 1971 is going to be in effect, so I feel like we need to make a final decision on this, and I don't know if that, you know, I mean, the conflict is something and then the ordinance is another thing, I get that, but they kind of are intermingled, I [14:07] Susan Hawes: imagine since we're [14:09] Speaker B (unidentified): On the topic, I do think it's important when we think about going to outside counsel that we understand who the client is really clearly, right? And so the city is the client to attorney subject. He is the city's attorney. And when we hire outside counsel, the city is the client to that attorney. And that attorney is ethically bound to always act with the best interests of the city in mind. I think the real distinction that we need to be cognizant of and I'm not saying that it's bad or wrong but in this instance the ACLU is not treating the city as a client and so they are not ethically bound to consider the best interests of the city when offering their advice I think that's a fair their analysis [15:12] Carolyn Fish: In my point exactly looking back I just don't think it was I think we as a council collaboratively should discuss and agreed or almost voted on it to include that or not and again from the municipalities point of view for looking out for our best interest I felt that it was outside advice bought in special interest according to our charter and ethics is a direct or indirect interest having value particular to a certain individual or group whether economic or otherwise which value may accrue to Such an individual or group as a result of a passage or denial of any order ordinance or resolution to the approval or disapproval of the city council might be also a good time just to remind all counselors that it is unlawful for a person to coerce eliminate threaten or interfere with an individual for the exercise enjoyment of their rights granted and protected under this article in other words not to intimidate people that might not vote in your favor and with that it doesn't seem like we Have a convinced consensus do we vote on if we have a problem yeah second right has there been a second yet I've brought it up for discussion first but I guess I should make a motion yeah make a motion I'd like to make a motion that counselor I'll go with council back first counselor beck has conflict of interest on this article in the christian article [16:44] Susan Hawes: And I don't have it right in front of me why don't you have now on the screen let's see here I guess [Carolyn Fish: It's order 26095] On the app is there a second okay and we can second it we will be doing a roll call though [17:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Counselor dean you know that's a person no councilman yeah councillor leonard no COUNCILOR FISH YES COUNCILOR HAASE YES COUNCILOR MALLER YES FOUR NOES THREE YESES I [17:56] Carolyn Fish: MAKE A MOTION THAT COUNCILOR FALLON HAS CONFLICT OF UH INTEREST ON ARTICLE 26-095. [18:04] Wayne Mallar: SECOND WANT. [18:08] Speaker B (unidentified): IT AGAIN COUNCILOR dean no that's with carson no that's a learning enough come for that you know she's that's what in the [18:32] Susan Deane: future when we have things like this that come up if they could be brought up like Councilor Fish did in a meeting prior to an ordinance being thrown at us last minute, out of the blue. It just, I think out of respect for everyone, we need time to digest. And it seems like we are just being blindsided time and time again with these things. That's what really bothered me about this whole process. You know, I think we're putting on one thing, then something else comes up. We need more time. A lot of us have full-time jobs. We don't have time to be reading an hour before the meeting and trying to digest and figure it out and that's why I actually have a problem with not being able to send emails to everyone because you send it to one person and only one person knows I sent it to the city manager she knows but nobody else knows I think there needs to be some sort of change in how we communicate because oftentimes things are just coming at us out of the blue you wonder where they are they might sound good they might not we need to change in this it's not it's not working as far as I'm concerned might I clarify that would require a [19:40] Speaker B (unidentified): change to state law so it's the state open meetings law that requires that the council conduct business an open session where the public can observe and hear and so it's really state law that mandates that these things can't be [19:55] Susan Deane: discussed but at least it could be brought up like right now rather than yeah that's right and an ordinance an order or resolve coming up the night of the meeting right and out of respect I would appreciate that I've said it before you know I would do that for anyone else I wouldn't just throw something at you last minute and expect you to be able to make a decent decision the other piece [20:19] Susan Hawes: about this discussion I just want to it's it's words and definitions conflict is one thing but I think you touched on some of the other issues that people have commented on or felt or, you know, some of the terms that I've heard connected to some of the work I've turned in is intimidating, bullying, you know, and it's on that line of things that I felt that this was sometimes it appeared that it was trying to be rammed down the throats of the counselors and not having an honest, open discussion. Session. Now, part of that is, you know, can be tone of voice. And we've talked about that, when you get excited, appear somewhere, and it's loud. So there's, there's more than one way to look at a conflict as opposed to rather, your standard definition is, there financial gain? Probably not. But that's what we have to use. It's the language we have. [21:33] Joseph Leonard: You had your hand up. I just wanted to piggyback off of Council Deans and some of what you said as well. I mean, this is a discussion that we do need to have because the communication issues that this council has had, not just with this council but previous years councils, even before I was on, I'm sure, so you can speak to that as well. I know that I've been sort of boasting, not boasting, preparing this council for a discussion about how we look at our own municipal form of government in terms of Like how we organize, how citizens vote for us, potentially talking about how we want to have either an administrative or a full mayor, but that is on top of like how we want to talk about how we look at counselors times and respond to the time that they give with appropriate pay, for example. But I think the other thing that we need to talk about as well is just like you said, those communication issues. And I feel like that can be tied in to how we can get around that with how we discuss about how we want to operate as a local government in the future because it is going to be coming up. I'm just waiting until we get done with the budget to talk about it so I don't overwhelm you guys, but if you want, I'd be more than happy to include that in the discussion. If that's something that you guys want to include, I'm happy to talk to either one of you one-on-one to see if we can somehow include that. Councilman. [23:08] Michael Beck: I'm gonna push back a little on that. I'm a large man and I can't change that. I'm a passionate person, like me to change that. Twice I've been admonished for my volume, but the feedback I've received is that I'm not yelling. I'm a passionate person. In regards to bullying or trying to ram things through, this is our process, this is our Charter, this is Robert's Rules of Order, this is what we as a council agreed to, and if we don't change the rules, if suddenly that's no longer agreeable, then let's work On changing the rules, but I'm not going to apologize for using the system the way it's designed for the people of Bangor, and that's all I've ever done. [23:53] Susan Hawes: Ma'am, yes. [23:56] Susan Faloon: i just want to say i 've never felt bullied by counselor back but i find it interesting that he gets lectured when other counselors have done things and i'm not going to name names but in ethics committee meetings for example and crickets on that and so i just think we need to be consistent if we're gonna you know lecture counselors about their behavior [24:26] Carolyn Fish: Council Fish, I have personally had numerous conversations of people reaching out to me, and this isn't, I don't really, you know, this is an appropriate place that they can come back, but I do have to respond that I've had numerous calls and conference conversations with not just residents but people of council that have felt bullied or harassed. So I'll leave it there because I don't think this is about Beck. I think we all are passionate about Bangor, we all have our ways of expressing ourselves, and we can all come to the table and be civil and have [25:01] Joseph Leonard: a conversation and try to do what's best for Bangor. That's all. I want to be cautious about using personalities because the people that might have said negative things about another counselor, we don't know one, what the totality of that population is, but also the words of what that is, and we've already had a counselor that was reprimanded by this Council for using personalities. So I think it's really important to not paint someone into a negative light, especially concerning that we've already dealt, let's just say, a punishment to people who have done that hypothetically in the past. So I would very much caution using that type of language. Great, but [25:51] Carolyn Fish: at the same time, I want to express what people have come to me, whether we like that language [25:57] Joseph Leonard: or not, it's what's been expressed. Well, if I can finish, the only reason why I say that is because I could say that about anyone on this council. I mean, I've had people reach out to me to talk about, if I'm being honest, every single person on this council, including myself, about things that we've done inappropriately or things that we've done in the not so correct way or the way that they saw as being wrong or misguided. But here's the thing, though, is that's a very slippery slope to talking about something that has no basis or foundation for us as a council to actually consider. So if we're going off of rumors, yeah, I'm gonna have to really push back heavily against that, even if those rumors are loud and boisterous, and yeah, no, I just, I really have to push back against anything. [27:06] Susan Deane: One quick thing, I don't want anyone to lose their passion. I mean, that's what makes us great counselors. I've said it about you before, Joey, when we were talking about things that maybe we didn't find appropriate. Passion is very important. That's why we're all here, and if we're not passionate about Bangor, then we shouldn't be here. So, and everyone has a different way of expressing it, so I understand that. And I think sometimes we have all done things that we probably wish we had handled differently. In all walks of life, but let's not lose our passion, okay? [27:42] Speaker B (unidentified): All right, city manager updates. All right, so I just have some brief updates before we go into executive session. So as a reminder, we can for the public this Saturday at 1130, the city's gonna be hosting a naming ceremony where we will be naming the Talbot Trail in honor of Gerald Talbot, who as you know is the first black legislator in Maine and recently passed. Councilor Beck will be speaking at that ceremony and offering remarks. And certainly everyone on council as well as members of the public are welcome to attend and to observe that. That. We are doing some planning just in case it's too rainy to be outside. So we sort of pull the trigger on that. We will communicate that out to everyone. Item number two on my list. I think we already let you know in passing that Senator Collins had included the airport's request for 4.2 million in congressional spending. We've since learned that Senator Collins has also included the police department's request for around $165,000 for forensic lab technology enhancements. I don't believe we've heard about the other two requests that we submitted, which was for Public Works and Parks and Rec. [29:14] Susan Hawes: So we'll keep you posted if you learn good news. [29:18] Speaker B (unidentified): And then an interesting little tidbit that I thought you would all be interested in. And we learned this week that film crews are in town, filming in the city for an episode of My Lottery Dream House. So hopefully that means that we're gonna be highlighted in an episode of that show coming up. Unfortunately, it was not me who won the lotteries. I will be here on Monday. That's all I have for manager updates. Do [29:53] Susan Hawes: we have a motion to go into executive session madam chair pursuant to one mrs section [30:00] Speaker B (unidentified): 4056 e consultation with city solicitor movely enter executive session safely [30:07] Susan Faloon: it sounds like there's a group [30:15] Susan Hawes: Councilman? Yes. Council Phillips? Yes. Councillor Leonard? Yes. Yes, we are in the second session down the hall. Yes, we won't do that. We'll be back up here because we're going to come back and wait for it. I [50:11] Wayne Mallar: think that's off. Chancellor Mallard, can you hear us? I can hear you. Yes, but wait, let me make a comment first. Don't shut the Zoom off because I don't know if I can get back on for the regular meeting, so be sure. I don't know if you can or not. Keep this. Oh, we will have to get out of this Zoom and [50:29] Speaker B (unidentified): sign into the other one, but I will get up right now and talk to you a bit about the challenge. [50:35] Wayne Mallar: Okay, thank you. Okay. [50:40] Susan Hawes: So we are back out of executive session. Please, did you solicitor subject, you have something you would like to start a discussion? [50:52] David Szewczyk: Yes, as you recall, by council order 25-282, there were issues referred to the board of ethics for an advisory opinion on issues of whether Councilor Maler's actions during a recess in the August 15th, 2025 historic preservation commission meeting constituted violations of the city's code of ethics. After the referral, the board of ethics held meetings, investigated by gathering additional documents and requesting and collecting voluntary statements from witnesses, held a public hearing where witness and public statements were given and questions were asked by the board. The board deliberated and voted and drafted written findings of facts and conclusions of law, incorporating them into an advisory written advisory opinion which the ethics board approved on April 16th. The board in its advisory opinion concluded that Councillor Mallar violated three provisions of the city's code of ethics, section 33-13.1b b, which states that city officials may use their titles only under certain specified circumstances, section 33, point, I'm sorry, 33-13.1c, which required disclaimers when there could be ambiguity regarding the capacity in which an elected official is communicating, and 33-1, which required the city council to maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence and the integrity of the city's government. The board's advisor opinion also concluded that Councillor Mallar did not violate section 33-13.1d, which forbids ex parte communications pursuant to the freedom of access act, and that he did not violate any other provisions of the code of ethics. So currently there are no written rules in place governing the procedure of the council should follow after the board of ethics issues a written advisory opinion, but a proposed edition of the ethics code will be presented to the council shortly that would provide guidance to the council upon receiving an ethics board ethics advisory opinion. The staff recommendation that is made is going to be is based on the options that are set forth in the and proposed ethics board ordinance amendment. There are alternative, there are options that the board has in terms of going forward. I think there has to be some action as opposed to a couple of the previous ones where there was a finding that there were no violation. One of the options was just taking out further action. I don't think that is one of the options after this type of a finding. The first thing the council could do would be to vote to rely on the ethics board's investigation and deliberate and vote on whether the city council finds that a violation or violations did or did not occur with respect to each alleged violation, and staff recommends that Counselor Mallard be given an opportunity to provide a statement and a defense to the allegations in deliberating and voting on whether the council finds that each of the alleged violations occurred. The council is not bound by the findings made in the ethics boards advisory opinion. The ethics boards decision is advisory only, and the council may choose to make findings that are or are not consistent with the ethics boards findings and opinions. Alternatively, the council could deliberate and vote on whether the council wishes to conduct its own investigation in the matter. In the event the council votes to conduct its own investigation in the matter, the council would then need to determine the parameters of the investigation, including but not limited to identifying which issues the council will be investigating, determining which individuals if any the council will request voluntary statements from, determining which additional records if any the council will request for a review, and identifying any other items needed in order to adequately complete the investigation of The allegations in the event the council voted to conduct its own investigation, staff recommended that Councilor Mallar be provided with an opportunity to speak on his own behalf and to offer a defense to the allegations, including the opportunity to request voluntary statements and seek and to seek, gather and present relevant documents for the council's review. In the event that the council votes and determines that one or more violations of the ethics code occurred, the council will need to deliberate and vote on the issue of an appropriate penalty, which staff suggests may include a number of different possibilities. Councilor Malheur is attending tonight via Zoom and is unable to attend in person. And so I'm gonna turn the floor back over to the chair at this point. [56:09] Susan Hawes: We did have a discussion about that. Council Leonard. [56:12] Joseph Leonard: Oh, I was, if you're gonna discuss that, I was just going to take it away if you want to. Okay, so I think it's really important for Counselor Mallory to be here for this, and so I don't think it's appropriate for us to talk about this while he's on Zoom dealing with his personal issues at home. And but we wish you the best way by the way, I mean, I hope you recover. So with that said, I don't know if we need a specific date for this proposal, but I would want to make a motion that we push this forward to a future date until Councilor Malheur can actually be here in person. [56:54] David Szewczyk: I would suggest the next regular council workshop. [56:57] Joseph Leonard: Okay, I would make that motion to move this discussion until the next regularly scheduled council workshop, providing Councilor Malheur is there. Second. [57:12] Susan Hawes: The movement seconded that we postpone this to the next council workshop, which is June's. Oh, the next, it will be the eighth. Okay, be June 8th. Is there any further discussion? We will do a roll call vote. [57:36] Susan Faloon: So, four if you'd like. [57:39] Speaker B (unidentified): Councillor Deane. Yes. Councillor Carson. Yes. Councillor Glove. Yes. Councillor Leonard. Yes. Councillor Bex. Yes. Councillor Fish. Yes. [57:46] Susan Hawes: Councillor Haas. Yes. Seven yeses. We will put the phone on this. Now, we'll need to go back. But I have a motion to go into executive session, please. [58:09] David Szewczyk: Yes, Madam Chair, pursuant to one MRSA section 4056C, consultation was solicitor and it will be entered [58:15] Susan Hawes: second, we will do a roll call vote, that's [58:24] Speaker B (unidentified): our dean, yes, that's our person, yes, that's our balloon, yes, that's our letter, yes, that's our bet, yes, that's our fish, yes. Counselor Maller? Yes. Counselor Haase? Yes. We are in a continued session.