Bangor Ethics Board hears testimony on Councilor Mallar's HPC conduct

[0:54] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I told them that there's something participating in this. [1:00] David Szewczyk: I assume it's one of them. I [1:08] Speaker A (unidentified): assume that anybody wants to go on again. [1:16] Lisa Goodwin: Lights are on. Everything's good. And member Bro is... [1:22] Speaker D (unidentified): Has he zoomed in? [1:23] Lisa Goodwin: He just called me to say that he is waiting for some sort of clarification or acceptance. One more minute, everyone. Yeah, I was just gonna say, I'm sort of, I feel like a fish. I feel like somebody watching a monitor. [Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you] for your patience, everyone. Just trying to make sure one of the board members [3:10] Speaker A (unidentified): Chris can get in okay. Yeah. [3:23] Lisa Goodwin: These are interesting because the last time I was having trouble with the glare, I just couldn't see, and I just told, oh well, you know, I was telling you, and Steven just chime in, interrupt, because I can't, I can't quite see the hand being raised up. Is he under the panelists? [4:01] Speaker F (unidentified): No. He's not under the panelists. [4:07] Speaker G (unidentified): Say it again. He's not under the panelists. You have to be added in. Yeah. So he's not under the attendees. Can I come back with you? Yeah. Do you have his number? Excuse me, everyone. [7:50] Speaker H (unidentified): Yep, very good. Yep. Ready. [8:07] Speaker F (unidentified): Yes. As Stevens. Right. This is just such a good end to deal with that. [8:18] Lisa Goodwin: Even you can, you can hear everything, and you can hear you. That's awesome. Yeah, that's great. Okay, good evening, everyone. This is a meeting for the board of ethics. We are in council chambers on March 31st, 2026. It is 5:37 p.m. We are working from an agenda this evening, and first on the agenda, as always, are the introductions. On Zoom tonight, we have Member Stephen Breaux, with me in Council Chambers. Go ahead, Stephen. [Speaker H (unidentified): Good evening.] With me in Council Chambers, Member Mark Eastman, Member John King, Member Cody Silkner, letter. Assistant city solicitor Grayson is legal counsel for the board recently, and old. I am member Shane Leonard and also the chair. Next up is electing the chair. Typically, we do this the first meeting of every new year. And though we did meet recently, it was a bit of an abbreviated meeting. We can handle this tonight quite easily. See, so I don't forget the criteria here. Just a couple things to remember as we go forward. Nominations should be from existing board members, of which they are all present, so that's good. That's going to make it easier. Nominations can be accepted or declined. Members have a nom, one nomination to make. So hypothetically, if for example Cody were to nominate John and John accepted, Cody could not continue to nominate Mark, Steven, etc. Again, hypothetically, if Cody nominated John and John declined that nomination, Cody still has a nomination to give. Members can nominate themselves. A nomination does not need to be seconded. Nomination is just fine on its own, and one like the floor is now open for discussion and nominations for chair to the Board of Ethics. [10:33] Speaker E (unidentified): All right, I'll nominate. I accept. So that's that. [10:39] Lisa Goodwin: I'm happy to keep doing the work for the board if the members agree to more discussion. Steven, as always, I'm just gonna keep checking in and make sure the audio and the video works. Yes, sir. [11:02] Speaker H (unidentified): And I second that, although I guess it doesn't need to be. [11:07] Lisa Goodwin: That's okay, thank you. I don't wanna swoop in too quickly and seem like a despot. [Speaker D (unidentified): But if, is] there a motion to move to vote? Is there a second? Second. Motion to move and vote has been made and seconded. Roll call vote, starting with you, Steven. This is for the nomination of Shane Leonard to be chair for the Board of Ethics. How do you vote? Aye. Mark? Yes. Yes. John? Yes. Cody? Yes. I don't have to abstain, do I? No. I vote for myself. It seems strangely ethical and unethical there. That's five votes for, none against. Thank you, everyone. Next up, again, that we would do every year, is the training from the Solicitor's Office. Tonight, the training will be done by the Assistant City Solicitor, Grace Ennis. [12:17] David Szewczyk: Us, and if you are ready, the floor is yours. Thank you. So I give this every year. Two of you I don't think I've met before, so I'm gonna go through this a little slower, but if you have any questions, let me know, and if you can't think of any questions and you think of one tomorrow morning, you can always call my office and I can talk to you. So I'll, I'll start with the Freedom of Access Act. So we call that FOA. It's a state statute that has two purposes. Actions of public bodies should be taken openly, and public records should be open to public inspections. The idea of FOA is that public proceedings exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. So there are two prongs, public proceedings and public records. Board hearings like this one are public proceedings. As such, they must be advertised and open to the public. It this was advertised by nary, so we have our office handles that accordingly. Section 4.1 of your procedural rules states that ex parte contacts between board members and the individual who is the subject of the ethics referral are not permitted, nor is any ex parte communication regarding a pending matter. So that would be like going out of the meeting and having a conversation with the app, well not the applicant, but the person that is the subject of the investigation. This means you should not discuss meeting matters with the individual who is the subject of the matter outside the meeting, or conduct any investigation on your own outside of publicly notice board meetings. Board members should not discuss board matters with each other outside of board meetings either. Section 5.3 of the rules states that the meetings are open to the public under FOA, except for properly convened executive sessions. So executive sessions close the public proceeding only for certain very specific statutorily authorized reasons. Some of these reasons your board might go into executive session would be to conduct an investigation regarding a public official under certain circumstances, consulting your board's attorney regarding the legal rights and duties of the board, or reviewing and discussing information contained in confidential records. These would be on the agenda as an executive session. Session, you won't have to know that you need to go into executive session. A motion to enter executive session must indicate the statutory basis and precise nature of the business of the executive session. The attorney advising your board can assist you in making the proper motion to go into executive session. No other matters may be considered during the executive session, and no official actions may be finally approved in executive session. Members of the board should discuss, should avoid Discussion of substantive matters verbally outside of a board meeting and by email, text, or social media, so this gets into records. The intent of the state FOA law is that actions and deliberations of the city and its boards be taken openly and that records of actions be open to public inspection. You may assume that any record that is in possession of the city of Bangor or any public official involving the business of the city is considered public unless a statute or other law makes that document not public. There are a number of statutes that create exceptions to these rules, but FOA is pretty broad, so it's safe to assume that any documents or communications created or received by a board member involving the business of the board is a public record. Written communications include texts, emails, social media posts, and messaging or any other electronic communication regarding city business. All communications regarding the business or activities of the city should be considered a public record, even if it's on your personal device. We do recommend that you create an email address that you use specifically for this board. If you do that, just like an email, a Gmail account or something, just a free email account. But if you do create that, you do need to let the city clerk's office know so that we can update your contact information in our systems. [Speaker A (unidentified): Moving] into decision making of the board, so the investigative function of this board has, sorry, the investigative function of this board, the investigation function this board has and its advisory opinions it is authorized to make are subject to due process requirements. Article four of the procedural rules spell out some of the due process considerations the board should follow. Due process is the requirement that legal decision making matters be resolved according to established rules and principles and that individuals be treated fairly. The commitment to due process requires that the board and its members proceed in a way that is unbiased, fair, and impartial. This means that board members may not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information, gender, identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, cultural group, or political status per section 33-5.1 of the ethics code. Article 2, section 2.2 of the procedural rules requires that all regular board members present at the meeting must vote on every item unless excused from consideration of an item because of a conflict of interest. Interest. So this gets into the code of ethics, which is you guys' code. So the declaration of policy under the code of ethics is that city employees, city counselors, and members of the city's boards, committees, and commissions are required to maintain a standard of conduct that would inspire public confidence and the integrity of the city's government. There's a section about conflict of interest. So board members are not permitted to participate to be in the deliberation or vote on any agenda item before their collective body in which they or a member of their immediate family has a financial or special interest other than an interest held by the public generally. Any board member who believes that he or she may have a conflict should disclose the potential conflict to the board before any substantive discussion is had on the agenda item. When in doubt, it's always best to err on the side of disclosure. Once a potential conflict is disclosed, the board should ask specific questions about the facts of that potential conflict. If there is a conflict disclosed, we will help you through what kind of facts you might want to ask about and that kind of thing. If the board votes by a majority of the voting members that a member does indeed have a conflict, that board member should give up his or her seat at the table and should not take any discussions, deliberations, or vote on the item. Getting into gifts, board members may not accept gifts, favors, or other things of value in return for a decision the board is making. Confidential information. If you receive information that is marked confidential, you may not use it for your benefit and you may not share it with others. It will be marked as confidential though, if you do receive it. Use of titles and disclaimers. Elected or appointed city officials may use their titles only upon the following circumstances: one, when doing so doesn't violate any other provision of the code of ordinances, state law, or federal law, and two, when a, the city council has specifically Authorized the official to speak on behalf of the city, or b, the information conveyed is consistent with the official position of the city and references to the appropriate decision by or a position of the city council or the decision of the applicable board, commission, or committee that makes the official position of the city, and c, when it is made clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in his or her own individual capacity and not on behalf of the city or the city council, board, committee, or commission. Disclaimers are required when there may be ambiguity regarding the capacity in which elected or appointed official is communicating, and the goal of the disclaimer is to remove the ambiguity. Statements may be things like, speaking as an individual, or, although I hold the office of blank, these remarks should not be interpreted as representing my office or the city of Bangor's official policy. Section 33-13.1B2C of the Code of Ethics makes it the public official's duty to ensure that there is no ambiguity about whether the public official is speaking in his or her individual capacity and on behalf of the city, the board, or the committee. Moving on to social media, which kind of falls under this, board members should not be perceived as representing the city in their social media posts. They could either disclose on their social media page or in their posts that they're speaking in their personal private capacity and not as a representative of the city. Board members should avoid posting their views on the city. Section 33-7.1 of the code of ethics provides parameters to be followed when using social media while working or during activities related to work for the public. Its purpose is to offer a way for the public to be able to distinguish between your personal opinions and comments made in your official capacity. Section 33-7.1d provides language you should use when using social media so the public knows you're expressing personal views and not any official view or the view of the board. I know that in my social media page I have in my bio that these are my own views and not the views of the city of Bangor, so I know that might have been a lot of information to take in. Does anybody have any questions. All right. Well, if you think of any, please feel free to reach out to me, [21:37] Lisa Goodwin: and I will get back to you with an answer. Stephen, do you, did you have anything for [21:43] Speaker H (unidentified): Grace while she was here? No, I do not. Nope. This sounds eerily familiar from what we've heard the last couple of years. So no, I am perfectly good with it. Although it's never bad to hear a refresher. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Next [22:08] Lisa Goodwin: up on the agenda would be the approval of our minutes from our April, excuse me, our March 4th, 2026 meeting in our packets and delivered to us any, if there's any discussion about anything that anyone saw wrong or needed to be amended, it here now. Otherwise, there's a motion to approve the minutes as they are. Seconded the vote to approve the minutes. Stephen, you would vote how? I affirmative. Yes. Mark? Yes. John? On, I'm a yes as well. That is approved. And now the unfinished business that [Speaker I (unidentified): would] be the council order 25-282, the city councillor Wayne Mallar's actions during the August 14th, 2025 historic preservation commission meeting. And first up on our procedure is to review you all the voluntary statements and records that we've been given. I know that, excuse me, I know that you may or may not have had the tangible copy, but there was a electronic packet mailed out and I would, I would assume at this point if there were any questions we had, this is where we would bring it up even though later in the in the procedure we have the board discussion, but that is after the fact. Right now, we have a question about only the packet [23:54] David Szewczyk: material, correct? Yeah, I mean, I would affirm that everybody's had a chance to review it, and if anybody had anything in addition that they'd like to see. [24:06] Lisa Goodwin: Okay. The floor is open for that. As Ed had said, is there any question about the information that we've been given or that we've had to review? Yeah. [24:18] Speaker G (unidentified): So when I was reviewing it earlier today, I have a question in regards to maybe getting another statement from Board Member Quinn in regards to statements that she'd said during the meeting because she seems to have a part in this whole situation and I just want to know from the statements that were given from Steve in regards to where the legal advice that she was given in regards to her vote on everything that was done during that meeting. During that meeting. And her not giving anybody, the staff or city staff or anybody, where she got that information from. So that would be on the left of the note, [25:24] Speaker I (unidentified): if that had any relations to connections [25:27] Speaker G (unidentified): with the councilman or the, contractors that are involved, that would be a conflict of interest right there and now [25:40] Lisa Goodwin: Is there anything should we should we address these one or collect if there are more? Yeah, I think collect if there are more. Yeah, well, or did I guess wrong? [25:53] David Szewczyk: What my recommendation would be is I think right now to find out if there are any other members that want to pursue any further investigation or information. Okay, I think [26:10] Speaker A (unidentified): that's the best way to address the issue is that again [26:17] Lisa Goodwin: we can move these around as necessary. That's not quite board discussion, but that's discussion related to the voluntary statements that we have right. Okay, so keeping in mind that we're not going to discuss everything at this moment, as Ed has suggested and as John has pointed out, are there any other members present that have any other requests for anyone to hopefully make a voluntary statement or appear in person to go forward and this is this is not terribly unexpected because we have two new members and again to drop them into the middle of a meeting where they're just going by what members did five months ago, I understand is trying a bit of patience, but also to be fair to all the members present, maybe they've seen something or read something that we missed. So yeah, of course. And again, as I said, and I'm babbled to get to it, keeping the discussion only about this particular item at this moment, are there any other concerns or requests? I don't see. Stephen, I'm not the I see that as Dyer has raised her hand. This is a board discussion right at this moment. Dyer, I'm not I'm not ignoring you. But I would I would ask that you hold off a bit until we get to the public hearing part. If you don't mind, please. Even I was just about to say I can't see if someone raised their hand and then I saw that Edith had raised her hand [27:59] Speaker H (unidentified): so I'm sort of assuming that do or do not my only thing that I had wished might have been here would have been a statement from Ann Craig although I am not 100 certain how much more she would be able to add to the discussion and we are asking for voluntary statements if the city has reached out to her, communicated that to her, and she has not come forward, I am going to hazard that this is not a voluntary thing on her part that she cares to do. [28:45] Lisa Goodwin: Oh, excuse me, Stephen, go ahead, please. Please. Yeah. [28:48] Speaker H (unidentified): No, I am good with moving forward without asking for any other information, unless someone else has an idea and I'm willing to listen. Mr. [29:03] Lisa Goodwin: Warren, when I was communicating to you about the wishes of the board, there's no reason to assume as Mr. Brough, as member Brough has asked, I don't remember including Ann Craig in a request for a personal statement. Statement, there was no other opportunity. No one would have just come forward and said anything because we didn't ask that, right? And you truly, you succeeded in giving us everything we asked for, but we didn't ask for that. Okay. [29:35] Speaker D (unidentified): What it's worth, there was a planning staffer who was requested, asked if he'd be comfortable providing a statement and planning department was not comfortable providing that statement. [29:47] Lisa Goodwin: Stephen, if we proceed forward with this, I might understand that if we do ask for further statements, you'd like one from Anne. [30:00] Speaker H (unidentified): If she will voluntarily do it, yes. She would do it. Okay. [30:07] Speaker F (unidentified): There's no end to the discussion. I don't have any additional requests. It sounds like the staffer is not taking a statement. And that was going to be my next task. Yeah. I have no additional requests at this time. Yeah. [30:20] Lisa Goodwin: Sorry. I know. [30:21] Speaker K (unidentified): If public meeting isn't terribly public, we can't hear what the members are saying. [30:27] Lisa Goodwin: You can't hear us? Correct. Did you? Who did you not hear? [30:33] Speaker K (unidentified): Didn't hear much what he said. And not hearing what he said. Okay. Yeah. Raise their voices. It would be appreciated. [30:40] Lisa Goodwin: Sure, of course, thank you, of course, and John, do you mind going first? Yeah, okay, I'd like to see [30:47] Speaker G (unidentified): About getting Miss Quinn from the board a statement in regards to where she got the facts that she had stated in the meeting, legal advice, whether it was a conflict of interest between either the councilman or the contractor, just to clarify, just to make sure that there's, there's no other loose ends that we need to tie up. So that's what I'd like to see because it was a very prominent statement in Mr. Fallon's public statement. [31:23] Speaker F (unidentified): Cody, do you mind? No, all I said was I was going to request a statement from the planning staffer. It sounds like that's already been inquired and they're not comfortable [31:36] Lisa Goodwin: With providing a statement at this time. Yeah, better and sincerely like better. Yeah, I understand we're used to talking to each other and not projecting. And of course Cody's back is here, so he's talking to me. Yeah, one of the things that the board did, if I'm remembering things in order, is that we were, as Grace illustrated too, that we weren't to go off and do private investigations. We were to wait until the information was coming to us, and there was a list initially, and I remember I think the brain What we originally had asked for that original list was, and maybe this helps you guys, because I don't know if it helps you both, it also might remind everybody else, originally the ask was for the unmuted audio from the HPC's August 14th meeting if that was possible. We didn't quite know exactly how things were run at that point, and maybe though that meeting and recess still retained audio, the city manager's office could not provide that because when the meeting was in recess the audio was we Asked for if there was any video for the meeting, even though for the public that it was a black screen saying recess, if I remember that right, recess, there is no additional stored camera footage, so there was nothing there, but we asked for that. We asked for voluntary statements from the members and from Councilor Malheur, and there was a question, Stephen had a question about Rick Violette's statement, the one that we had some strikethrough portions of the written statement, and it was determined at that point that might have been a printing or a clerical error and that it wasn't necessarily designed to draw our attention to anything. But Mike Mayberry, former member of Mayberry, had also asked for the meeting minutes, which we have been given, but we did not have footage of the meeting at that point. So to John's point, we didn't know that there was any information that former member Quinn may or may not have, and again as that became available to us as a link that we were supposed to watch, and again this is all public information, but the board did its due diligence and did not overstep in that way. That is a request that I actually think is reasonable based on the time of when we were encouraged to watch the video, if there was anything again that sort of catches everything up and you both Have had the opportunity to say if there was more said things that you didn't know that we had pursued if there really was anything else to ask for this is the time to do it. I understand that extends this meeting beyond today's date because I don't do you have any suggestions or counsel for that to go forward. Yeah so here's here's [34:57] David Szewczyk: My suggestion I think first what you as a board should do is to decide as a board whether or not But you want to ask Ms. Quinn for a voluntary statement, and if that is the consensus of the Board that should be obtained, then the next question is, what do you do with the rest of today? And you know, your option is to go forward and then reconvene if and when that statement comes in or simply table things tonight till you have you know what the entire [35:37] Speaker G (unidentified): Universe right of your record well I do think since there's gonna be some public statements we should at least hear those we should at least go through some of the stuff get some questions answered but then still like postpone the actual findings until maybe like the next [35:58] Speaker E (unidentified): Meeting once we get information yeah I mean I think it's something we're gonna vote on whether we want it or not I don't think I mean it's it's only asking for a voluntary statement that we might not get anyway thank from all the others you [36:31] Speaker H (unidentified): Are not coming through oh they're like a [36:35] Lisa Goodwin: A microphone somewhere. There was no, there was one. Sorry. If I paraphrase that, sure, I guess Mark had just said, Mark had just said, Steven, that he's not sure that postponing to get a voluntary statement that we may not even get is the best way forward. I wonder if it's the board's feeling then that because we have members present who are here to talk and proceed as if we were finishing this evening that we shouldn't go forward the best that we can, and then ask for a voluntary statement from former member Quinn and see if we get it. [37:28] David Szewczyk: If you do that, I think you have to go through the entire set of steps that you need to go through for each meeting. In other words, review what you've received, reconvene public hearing and then have further discussion and a vote that if hypothetically we did [37:57] Lisa Goodwin: The meeting as it was planned for this evening and there was, there was no voluntary statement given. At our next meeting we could just proceed with the vote. Yeah, we have everything up to the vote finished, instead of asking everyone to come again, because the only thing different would be, again, presumably anyway, and I don't know, the only thing different between the conclusion of this meeting and the beginning of that next meeting would be a voluntary statement by former member Quentin. Right. But we would still, of course, we would have everything posted. Of course, we have to do the documents because we have to do that as our procedure. Procedure, we would allow for a public hearing. But if everyone here that was here for a public hearing spoke, then I mean, they could come back. [38:46] David Szewczyk: But yeah, I mean, hypothetically, because of the way that the procedural rules are written, I think you would have to go through, you would have to have a public hearing. But if no one came to speak that was not spoken before, or had spoken before. I mean, they don't get two bites with the app. I would think with the exception of Councilor Meller, because he has the option to go last and then address whatever has come before. [39:24] Lisa Goodwin: Sure. It's not quite that time, but I am curious. Yes, sir. [39:28] Speaker K (unidentified): Our statements are going to be based on the record that you have obtained or may obtain. Yes, so our preference would be if you want more information get that information so that we can have a public hearing so the public is involved and knows everything that you're considering. Yes, but get our information out and then get more information later. [39:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes, please, no suggestion. Yes, that's go. [39:59] David Szewczyk: Ahead, sorry Steve. I think it's a preliminary matter because a lot of what we're talking about is if this then that. I think a preliminary matter you ought to discuss whether or not you want to go forward and get a statement from Ms. Quinn. If you don't, then we just go forward tonight's plan and then if you do you got to decide how you want to structure. Okay, so because there are a lot of issues that we're going to attach to bring. [40:27] Lisa Goodwin: New evidence, I see the best way maybe then to, if all members agree, if there's a motion to end the discussion and vote to whether or not we inquire of former member Quinn and the board votes on that as we would go forward, is that amenable to everybody? Okay, the excuse me, is there a motion to end discussion and vote on this matter? Yes. Second, is there a second? Yes, thank you. [Wayne Mallar: Stephen.] In the matter of seeking a voluntary statement from former Historic Preservation Commission member, Quinn, how do you vote? No. Mark? No. John? Yes. Cody? Yes. Interrupt the roll to ask a clarifying question. Sure. If we proceed to get that, we will run the meeting the way it is scheduled for this evening and only potentially add that on. [42:05] David Szewczyk: Well, it's up to you whether or not you want to table it. Until you get everything and do it all at once or proceed tonight and then reconvene and find out whether or not there's going to be additional information on the record in the form of a statement from Commission Member Quinn? I [42:30] Lisa Goodwin: don't know. That would be three against and two for. In the review of any other statements and records, is there any other question or concern before we proceed negative thank you gentlemen anything no anything else from anyone no moving on to the next portion of that then would be your voluntary statements review all records requested I should have said in the beginning and I and I did not Prior to this meeting, there were no additional documents or record records given to me to you had not received any note from anybody at all. So everything that we had barring what we just discussed is present. So we are now at the public hearing portion of the meeting. For open the floor, just a couple things to consider. Anyone who comes before the board will have three minutes to speak and should direct probably that to me as the chair not anyone else in the galley or at the at the table if what else if I did the easiest of obvious things like the City Council has there's no personal attacks keep the discussion and the comment to the topic that's on hand and only on hand please if there is any repetitious behavior or any leeway in that your time may be paused while the chair interrupts to clarify or correct. If upon that moment, everything is fine, you'll have the rest of your time, otherwise you may forfeit that time. If these are amenable to you, then one at a time, please approach the podium, state your name, your place of residence, not your address necessarily, but your city or town, and the floor is open for the public hearing portion of this meeting. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Yeah, if we can, if we can go with Edith Dyer, who's got her hand raised, that was in the back of my head. I swear, I swear promise. I, [45:08] Edith Dyer: Sorry, it took me a second. Thank you. So just when I was thinking that my statement might have been long winded, I think it's, proving to be relevant based on the gaps in your evidence, considering I was at the meeting. First and foremost, my name is Edith Dyer. I'm Stephen Farren's wife. I live in Bangor. Quickly, from November through October of 2025, we've been dealing with the Historic Preservation Commission attempting to get a certificate of appropriateness for replacing our slate roof with a slate facsimile. An engineer recommended it be replaced. Our insurance company demanded that we replace the roof no later than June. Otherwise, our insurance would not be renewed. We were denied a Certificate of Appropriateness during our November appearance. We appealed to the Board. Starting with the Board of Appeals hearing, Councillor Wayne Mellor has taken an unusual, almost fanatic, interest in our roof. While I questioned the propriety of sitting Councillor appearing as an advocate before the Board that he has a hand in appointing, more significantly, Mr. Mellor appeared before the Board of Appeals and lied. He lied about two different matters. Waters first and advocating against anyone being allowed to replace the slate with asphalt, he said, and I quote, I believe historic preservation does not consider the cost of doing something. It is if it's much greater, that's not a consideration to use. That is absolutely incorrect. Preservation Brief 16, prepared by the Department of the Interior and used to guide HPC decisions, states on page 8 that substitute materials may be reasonable to consider where in kind replacement basement is prohibitively expensive. Second, Councillor Mellor also lied when he claimed the Historic Preservation Commission has never permitted slate to be replaced by a substitute material. There have been several such instances, including but not necessarily limited to 136 Broadway, 140 to 142 Hammond Street, 401 Pushaw, 17 Pond Street, 208 French Street, and the Waterworks. If Mr. Mellor is going to present information to the Municipal Board, at least he ought to not lie about it. Much more distressing is Mr. Meller's conduct at the most recent HPC meeting on August 14th. When it came our turn to agenda on the agenda, our representative asked for a brief recess in order to meet with Ann Craig and John Hamer. While my husband and our representative and Mr. Ms. Craig and Mr. Hamer met in the hallway, Counselor Mauer Meller completely unsolicited approached the members of the HPC who had reigned in their places. He stated that he wanted the HPC to know that the case was procedurally incorrect and shouldn't be heard in this venue. He argued that the case needed to be in superior court. He had a thick stack of papers with this official City of Bangor letterhead and it was evidence that he intended to distribute those documents. He also stated that the City Council disagreed with this case at the HPC level and wanted HPC members to reconsider the hearing our case that we should be denied the opportunity to be heard. He made it very clear that he was there on behalf of City Council and that he was a representative of the city. I'm unaware of the City Council ever having taken position taken a position on our attempt to get a certificate of appropriateness. We were we were certainly never notified of our roof being a City Council agenda item. I verbally requested that City Council or Mallory returned to his seat and stated that he was acting inappropriately for approaching the bench during a recess while the video and microphones were not recording. He denied in the inappropriate nature of his behavior and had to be told by Chairperson Chernovsky to return to the public seating area. While City Councillor Mallar was a [48:35] Lisa Goodwin: private sitting a citizen. Yes, I apologize for interrupting you. Your three minutes have come. Okay, thank you. Please would you please stay here for a moment if you if you don't mind. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Just a few moments please. Does anyone on the board have any questions from Ms. Dyer. Ms. Dyer, I didn't explain this in the beginning, and I apologize. Thank you for exposing that I overlooked this. Anyone at the public portion of this meeting, the members of this board can ask follow-up questions. You are not obligated to answer any of these, but I neglected to say that. I apologize. I just want to make sure that before we're done, if anyone had any questions for you, they had a chance to ask. Understood anything then that's fine. Stephen, did you have anything that you would like to ask? [49:53] Speaker H (unidentified): Ms. Dyer, I do not. I have read through the portion of the testimony she did not get to. No, I do not. I had a couple of quick things for you, ma'am, if you if you don't mind. [50:11] Lisa Goodwin: You're still there. Okay. Yes. In your statement, you said that he stated that, excuse me, he stated he wanted the HPC to know that the case was procedurally incorrect and shouldn't be heard in this venue. Yes. You personally heard that or you were told someone, excuse [50:31] Edith Dyer: me, someone told you he said that? No, I heard it. I was in the front row and I was the only one that didn't go into the hall out of my out of the group which included my husband and Rick Violet and the two representatives of the city. You also and your statement said and [50:54] Lisa Goodwin: I just want to be clear about something that he had a meaning Mr. excuse me meaning Counselor Mallor he had a thick stack of papers with official City of Bangor letterhead. It was evident he intended to distribute those documents. You were there for the entire meeting, is that correct? [51:08] Edith Dyer: That is correct. Did Councillor Mallar distribute any documents? No, but he was intending to before asked to be returning asked to be asked to return to his seat, but it looked as if it was his intention to distribute them to the board members. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that if you were [51:28] Lisa Goodwin: present for the whole that if you saw or you did not. Oh yes, sure. Yeah, go ahead John. [51:40] Speaker G (unidentified): Now after that you said that Councillor Meller stated that the city council disagreed with the case. Did you hear that from him or were you told that kind of similar question to the other [51:49] Edith Dyer: part? This was all a part of the meeting that I was present for and sat in the front row, so I did have good audio of his interactions. [52:00] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay, and did he state why it was the city council had an interest in it, or did he just state that it was a city council disagreed with it? Did he say why? [52:15] Edith Dyer: He said that it was procedurally incorrect and that it shouldn't be heard in this venue. You he stated that it should be heard in the superior court. Okay. [52:30] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay. [52:35] Lisa Goodwin: Steven, last chance because I can't see you. Just want to make sure before well actually. [52:41] Speaker H (unidentified): I do have one question. That if you thought Counselor Millar was going to distribute a copy of whatever that he had in his hand, did you not ask for what he might be going [53:01] Edith Dyer: to present? To be honest with you, I didn't, for the main reason that he and his wife were both at the board, in front of the board members. I find Mr. Maller to be a pretty disturbing person, considering that he's been at every single hearing that my husband and I have ever taken a part of. He has an interest in everything that we're doing and every time that we have attempted to ask for improvements to our home and he has vehemently rejected all of them. I have no interest in speaking to him on a personal basis. [53:42] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay. Excuse me. Go ahead, Stephen. So it's fair to say that there's no love lost between [53:50] Edith Dyer: between either party all right very good I don't think that 's the point necessarily I just I just find him a per I didn't think it was appropriate for me to needle him and ask him for the papers it just I saw Bangor letterhead I saw him approach the bench with his wife it was inappropriate and that was my only job to point out that it was inappropriate appropriate before he was allowed to continue to speak during recess all right thank you thank you [54:23] Speaker A (unidentified): thank you ma'am is [54:28] Lisa Goodwin: there anyone else on zoom if so i assume just taking a cursory look here at the screen that we'll see a hand waved if there were another member of the public present i will look back again before we conclude is there anyone present in the gallery my [54:57] Speaker K (unidentified): name is Rick Violet I'm a general contractor there we go I'm a general contractor I helped Mr Farron deal with the issues regarding his roof first of all with respect to my statement to the city council I just reviewed it on my phone there were no strikethroughs on anything that I had I did present some proposed amendments to the ordinance that had underlines and strikethroughs but in terms of my statement there's nothing that was intended to be stricken or underlined Mr I'm going to pause your time for [55:32] Lisa Goodwin: a second in this copy of your statement well for example do you mind absolutely you come to me [55:39] Speaker K (unidentified): We will, we'll come to each other. I'm not entirely sure if this is the entirety of it, but this section here, this,, this, is a proposed amendment to the ordinance and strike through shows. What we proposed to have deleted from the ordinance underlining shows what we proposed to have added to the ordinance. That is not. My statement that is a proposed amendment that we worked on with a group of historic property owners. [56:05] Lisa Goodwin: I appreciate the clarification as the former board that were that were excuse me the former members who were reviewing this we may not see very many proposals like that so what it looked like to the members of that board was that those comments were stricken through [56:22] Speaker K (unidentified): So that well those are like I say those were not comments those were those are proposed amendments but fine are you ready to continue yes by all means I'm going to be brief first of all, I am not sure that I understand Mr. Maller's animus toward Steve Farron and Edith Thayer during the same time frame that Mr. Farron was seeking permission to change his slate roof to asphalt. A resident of West Broadway was attempting to do the same thing, was granted permission, and Mr. Maller didn't attend any of those meetings. So apparently maybe there's different rules that apply to Broadway versus West Broadway, but I don't know why he's had this infatuation with Mr. Farron. And I want to point out something that you folks were just instructed on by the Assistant City Solicitor. I want to call your attention to Ordinance 33-13.1B, which prohibits a counselor from using his or her official title and attempting to speak in behalf of the city when the city hasn't authorized him or her to do so. So that's inappropriate, and it was clear at that time, and I was in the hallway, I will admit that, but from what Mrs. Dyer is reporting, he was holding himself out as a counselor speaking for the council. We were instructed to come here by the city's attorney. We were prepared to go to Superior Court to appeal a ruling that had been made, and we were told to come back and do it again so that's what we did at the behest of the city attorney mr mallow's training as a counselor certainly his prior training as a member of the historic preservation commission suggested he knows better than to do what he did that's the end of what i've got to say and i've got a place to be at 6 30 so if you have questions i would appreciate them to be brief stephen [58:31] Lisa Goodwin: Do you have a question for mr violet [58:35] Speaker H (unidentified): No, I have read his testimony and see it sufficient any. [58:44] Lisa Goodwin: Members present have anything that they would like to follow up while we have Mr. Violet here? [58:48] Speaker K (unidentified): No questions for now. Given that we were limited to three minutes when we were before the council, Mr. Perron and Ms. Dyer spent more time focusing on Mr. Maller and I spent more time, as you can see from my statement, focusing on proposed amendments to the ordinance. You thank you sir is there. [59:22] Lisa Goodwin: Anyone else present who wishes to speak? [59:26] Hillary Simmons: Hillary Simmons, resident of Bangor. Let's be clear about the situation in Bangor. A property owner chose to replace the slate roof without following the requirements set in the city's charter and code. Those rules are not suggestions, they are mandatory. They exist for a reason. Ignoring them is a deliberate decision, not an accident. Now, instead of taking responsibility for that decision, this same individual is attempting to file an ethics complaint against a city councilor. This is not accountability, it is deflection. And quite frankly, it's absurd. Ethics complaints are meant to address legitimate concerns about misconduct in government. They are not a shield to hide behind when someone one fails to follow the rules themselves. Using the ethics process in this way cheapens it and undermines its purpose. You cannot disregard the law on one hand and claim ethical high ground on the other. That is not how accountability works. If we expect integrity from our elected officials, and we absolutely should, then we must also expect individuals to follow the same rules that govern everyone else. There cannot be one standard for the public and another one for those. [1:00:45] Lisa Goodwin: Who simply choose to ignore it. I apologize, I've stopped your time. I just want to be clear, are you is your public statement about the city's ethics or is it more on point to the issue. [1:00:59] Hillary Simmons: That we're dealing with the issue and why it's before the ethics board? So what I'm stating is this is a... [1:01:10] Lisa Goodwin: You seem to be, and again, I'm gonna, unless this is a strange row all of a sudden, you're gonna have the rest of your time. Yeah. It just seems that you're lecturing about the code of ethics and not the specifics of the issue itself that we're talking about tonight. [1:01:25] Hillary Simmons: It's about the complaint being brought against somebody. So if they're stating one thing as far as you didn't do X, Y, and Z, I believe there was a quote-unquote statement in the Bangor Daily News in regards to, I'll do what I want, the city can deal with me after. So if you're holding a city councilor responsible for a particular situation, in hand, we need to hold the person that made that complaint responsible for their dealings in this action, too. It's not a one-sided street. Street. [1:02:03] Lisa Goodwin: I interrupted you. Do you have your place? You may continue. So we also must expect [1:02:10] Hillary Simmons: Individuals to follow the same rules that govern everyone else. There cannot be one standard for the public and another for those who simply choose to ignore it. This situation is not complicated. The rules were in place. They were not followed and now the focus is being redirected instead of addressed. This is unacceptable. Thank you, ma'am. [1:02:32] Lisa Goodwin: Stephen, it's easy to start with you. Just again, as always, I just can't see from Zoom. Did you have any question at all for Hillary? No, I do not. Okay. Anyone present have anything that they would like to ask the [1:02:49] Speaker G (unidentified): Speaker? Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Simmons. So you clearly stated that the rules were broken in regards to the requests that they had for their slate roof, correct? Which rules were broken? You're staying up and broken that would cause a rift between Mr. the councilman and the parties [1:03:16] Hillary Simmons: was the was the application went how it should correct the historical board voted it down instead mr farron just decided i'm just going to remove the slate roof and put in on a new roof and i'll deal with the city after so essentially he was throwing the city's ordinances code charter out the window and deal with me later? Situation. Well that was a fun question. So now it looks to me on an outsider looking into this situation is this is payback. This is let's we didn't really hear anything. We're assuming that somebody came to a meeting with letterhead. Do you know how many things that I have printed for the city of Bangor that has the city of Bangor letterhead on it? I could bring in that whole and someone could say, oh well, you have a letterhead of the city of Bangor, you're going to distribute something. Did anyone see any official letters? Did they see anything? I mean, this is a he said she said and we're wasting valuable time that again, to begin, to begin with, it should never be here because the real person that violated the code and the charter of the city was never held responsible for their actions to begin with what we're here [1:04:54] Speaker G (unidentified): for so what we're here to discuss is the actions of Mr Ballard at that meeting approaching yeah so [1:05:00] Hillary Simmons: did you see any did paperwork get passed out that's that's what we're here to that's what [1:05:07] Speaker G (unidentified): we're here to do so it doesn't involve what miss the farron family has done it's we're talking about what was what the councilman had done whether or not he had broken the ethics committees that's the that's what the core of our discussion is so what i want to know is did he state what he what we're stuck with in the statements. Did he make any unethical or anything that broke the ethics rules in that meeting? Okay, I don't, the whole HPV, historical preservation stuff between then and now does not affect us. Whatever policies and whatever votes that they had, it doesn't affect us. We were here for what happened and what the ethical conveyance is. We find nothing wrong, great. right you find something that's a whole different story that's what we're here for not for a broad broke the this broke that it's we're here for a certain pinpoint situation that happened so if that if you know of any reason why he would approach the bench and make the statements he said i would love we would love to know if not i mean i'm done with my questions thank you [1:06:35] Speaker A (unidentified): that's perfectly i'm sorry then i just said i know you've been through the whole scenario point that's on you guys thank you yes [1:06:48] Sonya Mallar: My name is Sonya Maller and I live in Bangor. Mr. Maller and I came here to the meeting as ordinary citizens. Mr. Maller never stated that he was a counselor. Ms. Dyer is the only one that has ever stated at that meeting that he was a counselor. Mr. Maller had no paperwork to pass out to any members in attendance. Mr. Maller and I have served on the board, the Historic Preservation Board, before. We know the code, the rules, and what you need to follow. The next step for Mr. Farron was to take the court of the problem to Superior Court, which he chose not to do. The city itself violated its own code and everything by allowing Mr. Farron to return to several more meetings that had never been done before in the history of historic preservation. I lost my train of thought now you excuse me have time, ma'am. do I have time? You're only at a minute and 40 seconds. Okay. So, Mr. Farron went ahead and decided what he wanted to do. Mr. Farron and his attorney, so to speak, went out in the hallway. There was a pause. Mr. Maller did go up to ask if there was a procedural, when he could ask a procedural question of the chairperson. Person. Mrs. Dyer yelled and screamed, Councillor Mellor is approaching the bench. And that's when all the excitement started to take place. Thank you. Any questions for me? [1:09:23] Lisa Goodwin: I'll find out for you ma'am. Just one second. Thank you. Okay. Steven, do you have any questions [1:09:31] Speaker H (unidentified): questions for Ms. Maller? I will abstain at present. Okay. [1:09:38] Lisa Goodwin: Other members, if there are any? John? [1:09:43] Speaker G (unidentified): No. I know you stated that he never stated that he was a counselor. [1:09:48] Sonya Mallar: That's true. He never spoke. He never got a chance to speak. So when would he ever said he was come to Lamala hypothetically if let's say the president [1:10:09] Speaker G (unidentified): walked in the building even though he didn't state he was the president we would all know by knowledge that he is the president so just because my question is do you think that it's assumed that yes he's a councilman so everybody knows as a councilman when he goes to the up to do you assume that would be okay when it's in recess to speak to them to speak to the board is it does that mean [1:10:41] Sonya Mallar: just because Mr. Maller is a council person he doesn't still retain being an ordinary citizen and cannot attend a meeting under the City of Bangor as a not an ordinary citizen is that what you're inferring I'm inferring that as a councilman that [1:11:07] Speaker G (unidentified): would it be correct knowing that you're a councilman and that the proceed vision of him going to the board during a recess may be perceived as unethical. Is that possible that you could see that? [1:11:25] Sonya Mallar: No, because he never stated anywhere in that meeting. And at the Board of Appeals meeting, Mr. Maurer and I both stated, we were citizens who had sat on the board of historic preservation before and knew the policy and procedure the code the what was supposed to take place and we were disturbed that was not taking place we have nothing against mr farron and miss dyer other than they're not following rules Okay. They're going against the code, they're defying the city of Bangor. And what's the sense to have these rules if they're not obeyed? [1:12:26] Speaker G (unidentified): Just to kind of ramble on. My question is, at any time, my question is, do you think that we should hold the councilmen and employees of Bangor to a higher ethical sense? [1:12:44] Sonya Mallar: He said nothing unethical. That's what you're here to find. It doesn't matter whether he's the council person or a citizen of the city of Bangor. He said nothing else unethical at that meeting. And the trouble all started when Miss Dyer yelled out in the meeting. Other than that, we were sitting in the back observing what was going on. Any other questions? Thank you. [1:13:22] Lisa Goodwin: Questions? Cody, anything you have to ask Ms. Meller? Let me put you on the spot. I can come back. Sorry. Yeah, could you come back? Of course. Mark, did you have anything that you thought to ask Ms. Meller? I had a couple things actually. When we were in here for the December in clarifying questions, if you don't mind, when we were here on December 17th in the chambers, you also stood up and addressed the board. Former Counselor Dan Tremble was here at that time. And one of the things, and I will, I will preface this by saying I'm not 100 positive. I was just trying to find it, but I don't want to waste your time while I fumbled it. YouTube. I'm fairly certain that you said at that time in regards to the council order regarding Dan Trumbull because former Councillor Trumbull's position was that he was acting on his own, not as a city councillor. I'm fairly certain your rebuttal was that everybody knows that you're Councillor Dan Trumbull. Do you remember making that statement? No. It's okay. No. It was you that made that statement. Yeah. Yeah. [1:14:44] Sonya Mallar: I didn't make the statement, so. That's why I asked. [1:14:47] Lisa Goodwin: And again, I heard somebody there and it was in succession. Thank you, Hilary, I appreciate it. The other thing that I caught that you said that you and your husband had been on the boards for a long time. Yes. And specifically the Historic Preservation Society. Yes. You said something just a little bit ago. You said that your husband approached the board [1:15:11] Sonya Mallar: to find out when he could speak, when he could ask a procedural question, because nobody had addressed anything and he just wanted to know when he could ask what the procedural question that he had to ask. So he approached to ask when he could speak and for what, and he never got it, that he never got a chance to ask the person that question. He just stood there. He never asked the question because Ms. Dyer yelled and screamed. [1:15:49] Lisa Goodwin: Being on the board, you would think you would know, and I'm speaking to you, I'm not speaking to your husband, but if you've been on that board, you would know when you're allowed to speak or when- [1:16:00] Sonya Mallar: This was the board of appeals. [1:16:03] Lisa Goodwin: Excuse me, I thought that this was- [1:16:04] Sonya Mallar: No preservation committee? No, so I know what the historical preservation rules are. Excuse me, did [1:16:13] Lisa Goodwin: someone correct me? Excuse me, hang on a second. I understand, ma'am. Please address the chair, which [1:16:19] Sonya Mallar: is me and only me, thank you. With the party then in the audience remain for making comments just [1:16:28] Lisa Goodwin: while i'm speaking please we can we can all thank you but of course we 're going to do the best we can i jotted down just a simple question which is when you're on other boards how often did you have recesses do you do you remember any are they sort of [1:16:45] Sonya Mallar: rare? Are they police? When you're on a board, we've had recesses. Yeah, some people get up and they ask questions sometimes of the board members. Yes, that has happened. That's not unusual. [1:17:01] Lisa Goodwin: Okay. Cody, I'd circle back to you if you- [1:17:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Sure. So it sounds like Mr. Maller went out to ask a question regarding when he could [1:17:14] Sonya Mallar: speak. Is that correct? He was going to ask a question. Could he speak? [1:17:23] Speaker F (unidentified): It wasn't going to- [1:17:24] Speaker H (unidentified): Folks, I am going to interrupt for just a minute. Okay. Hello. Hello. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Master control. Can you go back and turn the volume up a little bit? I am struggling to hear you folks. And I know it is not my device. The master volume feed just needs to be a little bit louder. Stephen, are you having any trouble hearing me right now? Right in this moment, no. When if people look down or away from the microphone, which evidently around the table is overhead, volume drops. Okay, thank you for letting us know. So and just turn the master gain up a bit and it should solve it. One second, Cody, please. [1:18:19] Sonya Mallar: Please, you need you people need to remember to speak up because some of you are back to us and we can't hear you when you're talking amongst yourselves as far as meeting is concerned. [1:18:37] Lisa Goodwin: Mr. Warren, is there anything that you can do on the game? I could work you can. Okay, Steven, we're [1:18:44] Speaker H (unidentified): gonna try. Cody, if you don't mind raising it a bit, I am sorry for interrupting this, but I am struggling to hear this and I know my device has much louder capability. Okay, no, it's good to [1:19:01] Speaker F (unidentified): know, thank you. Yeah, okay, please. Yeah, okay, sorry. Let me make sure I have my answer. So he did not go out to express his belief that the HPC should be focused on the Department of the Interior standards for historic preservation when deliberating or deciding? I'm sorry, I didn't hear all that and if you're going to show me something I have to get my glasses. So, Mr. Meller did not go up to express his belief that the HPC should focus on the Department of the Interior standards for historic preservation when deliberating or deciding? No. That's my only question. [1:19:37] Lisa Goodwin: You never got to ask the question. I just want to give you the moment to clarify because it's possible that I misunderstood when I asked about Mr. Maller approaching and there was some discussion in the galley. You said this was not at the HPC meeting, that this was not at the HPC [1:19:57] Sonya Mallar: meeting. So oh yeah I'm sorry it was okay I'm sorry it's okay because we're all talking about different meetings right we've attended quite a few and as far as Miss Dyer saying we attended all of the HPC meetings we did not there were a couple that we missed because we were away so we were not at all the HPC meetings normally a group or a person gets to bring their project to HPC and they can either they present it if they feel it's going to not pass they can withdraw it and come back at a different time it was voted on the first time down by HPC it went to the appeals board they voted it down and I don't mean to interrupt you I know the [1:20:59] Lisa Goodwin: history of this and I don't I don't mean to we have we have limited time for public I just I just [1:21:04] Sonya Mallar: wanted to make sure that you know that nobody I don't believe in the history of HPC had been allowed to bring back boy at three four times after it was turned down that was not appropriate [1:21:24] Lisa Goodwin: Yet if there are no other questions for Miss Mallard from the board thank you ma'am thank you [1:21:33] Speaker F (unidentified): to Grace's old spot please if that's okay yeah my [1:21:41] Stephen Farren: name is Stephen Farren and I'm a resident of Bangor as most people know even though I've never been a city councillor everybody knows who I am just as they know who all the city councillors are we also know that the other person that is speaking is Wayne Mallar's daughter she didn't have to introduce herself as that everybody already knew the reason as Miss Maller one second please ma'am please if you don't mind thank you please go ahead as Miss Maller has stated it could quite very well be unprecedented that my case ever went back to the HPC the reason for that was because of the actions of Mr. Mellor at our original appeals board which Ms. Mellor may be mistaking because they spoke at everything, spoke against, lied, as you've seen from other testimony, so that could be a whole big part of it. She's confused by what the facts actually are because she doesn't remember because it's been so many different things and they've got it all compounded and really have no idea. I'd like to thank you guys for being here dealing with this ridiculous situation because we can't get our city councillors to just behave as they should and do their job and let the rest of us do our own job. There were a lot of factors involving my house. I spoke with the city throughout the entire thing. There was nothing unethical on my part. Had there been, they never would have brought me back. They would have sent me to superior court. I actually offered to go and they told me no. We want to deal with this on our level because of the treatment I received from city councilor Maller and others in other committees and that is the reason. So thank you guys for your time. I hope you make the right decision. Thank you Mr. Farron. If you [1:23:24] Lisa Goodwin: don't mind just for a moment please, Stephen, do you have anything for Mr. Farron while he's here? [1:23:36] Speaker H (unidentified): After having read his statement, I am good with that. Thank you. Yep. Are there any members [1:23:48] Lisa Goodwin: who have a question for Mr. Farron while he's here? I just wanted to ask to clarify, you also [1:23:56] Speaker E (unidentified): weren't like for the actual events and questions, you were not there? [1:24:02] Stephen Farren: I was not. We were out in recess, which as everyone knows in any court of law or any committee such as this, when there is a recess you do not approach. That's that's very simple. As we know, Mr. Chernesky had to ask Mr. Maller to sit down. My wife did bring attention to it. She was not hollering and screaming, as I know she wasn't, because she's never hollered or screamed. She said I believe that I have, she objected to Mr. Maller going up after the conditions that we had already dealt with him in any situation where we go before any committee for anything. All we have done since we have lived in this house in the nine years is try to improve our house while houses around us crumble. We've invested hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars into maintaining our home only to have people like him tell me harass us and file complaints and come and do undue damage for no good reason at all. If Wayne Maller wants to Make a difference in this city. Why don't you fix up some of the homes that are crumbling and not attack the people who are actually making a difference and making Bangor better, which is something you are not doing, John. [1:25:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, you said in, you're saying in August you had a three to one vote in favor of granting the certificate of appropriateness, is that correct? [1:25:25] Stephen Farren: August, no, sorry, in July. Yes, and one of the members had to be recused because that was when Ms. Quinn, as we were talking about earlier, brought up that she had evidence that she had obtained through certain things. So I believe the July, it was never completed until it went from November, I think it started in November, went till October, so July and August we had to, I, that may be incorrect, I believe there was a vote in July and we paused it before it was ever completed because there was a conflict of interest, so it was, and there were only four people available each time in July and August, a committee of five, which unlike any other committee, the HPC requires not just majority vote, they require four out of five. If only four members are present, you have to get all four. So at that point, yes, probably July we stopped it and said, all right, we're going to wait for a panel of five people because it just makes more sense. And then again in August, when we either once or twice in August, again we couldn't get a full panel, so it wasn't until October that we were able to get a full panel, 11 months after we originally applied. Okay. [1:26:51] Speaker G (unidentified): And then you were okay with going to Superior Court, but you said the city told you to come back. [1:26:57] Stephen Farren: Yes. Okay, so that's why it was brief. Yes, the city reached out based on information that where my insurance company had demanded that my roof be replaced, we couldn't get a hearing before then, so we had to do, we had to do what we had to do to protect our home at that point from all enemies foreign, excuse me. [1:27:21] Lisa Goodwin: I was listening, thank you. Did you have anything for Mr. Farron? Thank you, Mr. Friend, thank you. Is there anyone else present who, and I don't mean you, counselor, speaking to everyone else, you'll obviously have an opportunity, me to speak if you wish to have it, is there anyone else who is not Councillor Mather present that would like to speak to the board? Would [1:27:59] Speaker I (unidentified): you like the floor? I'm, I'm [1:28:09] Wayne Mallar: not certain when the time I should speak is, after you make your decision, before, I mean, I don't care, I'll speak anytime. [1:28:19] Lisa Goodwin: Oh, Stephen, did you, well, one second. [1:28:24] Speaker H (unidentified): No, I'm good, this is before. [1:28:32] Lisa Goodwin: We close the public hearing part of the meeting. If you would like to speak, I would think that, I'll check with Ed to make sure, but this is probably the best opportunity for you to speak at this moment. Is that correct? Yeah, under [1:28:44] David Szewczyk: the procedural rules, the public hearing is conducted, all the public statements are heard by the board, and then if the person who's been charged wants to make a statement, they can do so after the conclusion of statements by other members of the public. So assuming there's nobody else that wants to make a statement to the board, now would be the time for you to make a statement. You want to make the call and whether anyone else wants to speak? Well I [1:29:17] Lisa Goodwin: won't make the call, I'll just ask one more time, and that includes anybody, I haven't been keeping an eye on Zoom, but has anyone else raised their hand that anyone has noticed? Last [1:29:29] Speaker H (unidentified): call for anyone. Yeah, go ahead Stephen, and now we can move on to the formality and acknowledge that it's time for Mr. Millar to speak. Yeah, I believe so. Is there anyone else left? [1:29:46] Lisa Goodwin: Okay, seeing none, Mr. Mallon, that would be for you, sir. It might be a bit redundant to ask you to state your name and your residence, but please. [1:29:55] Wayne Mallar: My name is Wayne Mallar and I live in Bangor. [1:29:59] Lisa Goodwin: I beg your pardon, sir. I'm so very sorry. Do you mind if I ask one thing? Go ahead. Mr. Maller is not subjected to the three minute rule, or is he? [1:30:09] David Szewczyk: It's part of the public hearing. [1:30:10] Lisa Goodwin: It is part of the public hearing. [1:30:12] Wayne Mallar: And you just closed the public hearing, I believe. [1:30:15] Lisa Goodwin: No, it's not. You would be the last speaker. I wanted to give you the last, [1:30:19] Speaker D (unidentified): I wanted to give you the last slide. [1:30:20] Lisa Goodwin: Okay, because he is named in the output that council order, right? If you don't mind, sir, I apologize, I should have asked that before we just told you. Okay, I just don't want to give you time that is too short, or for all I know maybe you're just here to answer questions, you know, you don't plan to take the three minutes anyway, but my best thoughts after I've already voiced something else, I assume it's three minutes, but I just want to make sure the [1:31:07] David Szewczyk: Procedural rules indicate that the chair shall open the floor to any individual desires to speak on the issue, who shall be limited to three minutes to give their comment, and board members may ask questions when the speaker is finished. Somehow, Steve, could you hang on for a second? One second. Yeah, I just want to finish reading the procedures. The person who is the subject of the request for advisory opinion shall be given the opportunity to address the statements made during the public hearing and board members may ask questions for the persons when they are finished speaking. So it's not explicitly subject to the three minute [1:31:54] Lisa Goodwin: limitation. It seems like it's the chair's discretion because if Mr. Maller got up and had to address in some form of rebuttal everything he's heard, that could reasonably take longer than three minutes. Well, it's always the [1:32:06] Speaker H (unidentified): here's the description anyway. So even, what were you going to say? I do, would absolutely not be in favor in limiting the time that someone has to defend themselves against ethical charges. To limit THEIR TIME, I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT IN FAVOR OF. I UNDERSTAND. [1:32:38] Lisa Goodwin: WELL, MR. MALLER, DID YOU HAVE A PREPARED STATEMENT OR DID YOU WANT TO TAKE JUST QUESTIONS? YOU WANT TO DO A BIT OF BOTH? WHAT WOULD YOU BE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH, SIR? [1:32:46] Wayne Mallar: I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS FIRST AND THEN I'LL MAKE A STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, SO IT'S BETTER FOR ME TO HEAR FROM YOU FIRST. WELL, WE WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING THAT [1:32:59] Lisa Goodwin: you want to share with us about the council order regarding. I'll share everything, but go ahead and [1:33:04] Wayne Mallar: ask questions and then we can go proceed from there. Okay, you can ask questions at any time [1:33:13] Lisa Goodwin: even when I'm speaking, questions based on what your statement would be. I don't want to make it sort of the fish, you know, the snake eating its own hair and tail like an orboros, but would you [1:33:23] Wayne Mallar: mind giving your statement first, sir? Well, I prefer the questions, but if you insist, well [1:33:29] Lisa Goodwin: Well, does anybody object to asking questions first for Mr. Maller, or would the board like to hear, it's not just my decision, would the board prefer hearing it in a reverse order? [1:33:41] Speaker E (unidentified): I think it doesn't say anything. [1:33:47] Wayne Mallar: Okay. Seems like it. Well, I'm just thinking about it for time. It's easy, you've heard everything from everyone and I'm not gonna dispute everything that everyone has said. I mean, that's kind of redundant. So if there's anything that you people in particular want to hear about, that would be more appropriate and be more just for clarity. [1:34:11] David Szewczyk: Procedures say the person who is the subject of the appeal shall be given the opportunity to address the statements made during the public hearing, and board members may ask questions to the persons when they are finished speaking. Speaking. So that indicates that if you want, Mr. Mallory, if you want to give a statement, that would be up to you. But if you decide not to, just let the board ask questions, then you would have waived your opportunity to make a statement. [1:34:44] Lisa Goodwin: If you, if you have a statement that you'd like to make before the board asks questions of you. When you begin, I'll start the timer. You would have three minutes to use. [1:34:57] Wayne Mallar: Well, I mean, I don't want to take the three minutes to waste time. I mean, I'd prefer to have you ask the questions. You know, I'm not going to dispute anything that's been said because it makes no sense. It's a he said, she said. But if you want to discuss the problem with [1:35:14] Lisa Goodwin: the three minutes wouldn't eat up the answering questions time. No, I understand that. But up three minutes is just if you have something that you would like to tell the board before their questions begin about anything, if you wanted to, not in addressing anyone in the dais, but addressing the comments that you've heard this evening to the chair, you have up to three minutes to do so. All right, I'll address, obligated to do it, I'm not, I can't make you do anything, it is your purview to do so, and I want to give you that opportunity. [1:35:44] Wayne Mallar: I'll address some of the questions that were asked earlier, some of the comments that were made. I'm going to start your time. Good, so now for the three minutes, sir. I was present at several meetings when there is a recess, I approached and talked to Ann Quinn, who I've known for years, and I assume during a recess obviously there are no minutes taken and there's no televised. At that same time, I asked the chair when it would be appropriate for me to ask a question about procedures. I'd been on the HPC board. I understood the procedures that we'd followed. I didn't know if things had changed. It had been probably 10 years since I'd been on the board. My wife had been on after I was. That's basically all that was said. There was nothing said about, I have papers here that I'm going to hand out to everyone because I don't like what's going on. No, I just questioned some things that were happening, and that's why I asked for time to ask a procedural question. That's all I have to say. I didn't represent myself as the counselor because I didn't get a chance to speak. [1:36:56] Speaker E (unidentified): So questions I'll answer. Well, I have a question. Sure, you just have that both ways now. You just said that you said things and that was all that was said, and then after that you said, but I didn't [1:37:11] Wayne Mallar: get a chance to speak. I did not get a chance to speak is correct. I, we were in recess when I spoke to Ann Quinn, and we were in recess when I approached the chair to ask when would be the best time to bring up a procedural question. So no, I didn't get to speak. I never stood at the podium and spoke. Yeah. [1:37:32] Lisa Goodwin: I misheard something. I thought that's what you said as well, so during the recess [1:37:38] Wayne Mallar: During the recess I spoke to Ann Quinn and I asked the chair when would be an appropriate time to bring up a procedural question. Yes. I mean a recess is a recess. It's not a, during a recess at Congress they go up in the hall and talk about who knows what. But I did, and I also talked to Reardon. [1:38:05] Speaker E (unidentified): If you spoke during the recess, so. [1:38:08] Wayne Mallar: I was not mute during the recess, no, I did speak. It was a recess. I mean, I don't think during recess, if I, no matter who I was, I don't think I have to sit mute. I think I'm allowed to speak to people that are there. I mean, I went over, I think I also spoke to a gentleman that had given a talk at a meeting that I go to, I had mentioned some things to him, talked about the meeting that he'd been to. And I don't think at that meeting, but I might've also talked to the doctor at that meeting because I had known him for a while, but I didn't talk about anything that was going on at the meeting, other than asking when it would be more appropriate to bring up a procedural question. [1:39:01] Lisa Goodwin: John, did you have a question? I wasn't sure if you were. [1:39:06] Speaker G (unidentified): You said you spoke to Ms. Quinn. Yes. Any time during that conversation, did it involve anything to do with the issue of the Farah family? [1:39:19] Speaker D (unidentified): The issue of what? [1:39:21] Speaker G (unidentified): With the issue at hand during that meeting. Did it involve anything at all with that? [1:39:25] Wayne Mallar: Not that I remember that we've as I said I've known her for a long time. You know she's just a friend. I haven't seen her for a while. I want to speak to her. Well I may have said I was there to support her but that's all. I didn't tell her how to vote or give her any you know anything like that or tell her that the council had sent me in. It's, I mean, for someone to assume the council had sent me because I had a paper that had a seal of the City of Bangor, it is a little questionable. Sorry I didn't have a paper to hand out. Any notes I get from the city are on letterhead paper. The agenda is on letterhead paper. I guess I shouldn't be carrying anything around, is [1:40:15] Lisa Goodwin: there anything approach on at this moment? No. Steven, did you have anything to ask Counselor Maller at [1:40:22] Speaker H (unidentified): this point? No. Okay. [1:40:31] Lisa Goodwin: Counselor Mallory, did you, according to Edith Dyer's statement, you, at that recess, you approached members of the HPC who remained in their places and allegedly said that this case was procedurally incorrect and shouldn't be heard in this venue? [1:40:54] Wayne Mallar: I asked when it was time when I could ask a procedural question. I couldn't determine whether it was procedurally correct or not until I had the ability to ask the question. And yes, I did approach the, you know, the, yeah, to speak with Ann first and then I talked with Rob and I talked to the chair. [1:41:18] Lisa Goodwin: At any point, did you, as Edith states, that you said that this was procedurally incorrect and shouldn't be heard in this venue? [1:41:27] Wayne Mallar: Not that I remember. I may have, but I don't remember it. I don't think, was there a recording of the during the recess? That would be on there if I had spoken. [1:41:40] Lisa Goodwin: There doesn't seem to be. The board has asked for it. There wasn't anyone meeting is muted. [1:41:46] Wayne Mallar: Well, it's, it, this is a moot point, but I also asked for it and never received it, so. Asked for what, sir? Oh, for the, for the recordings that you were giving you and didn't get them, so. [1:42:01] Lisa Goodwin: Did the, did the chair, former chair Chernofsky, did he ask you to return to your seat? [1:42:11] Wayne Mallar: He may have. I don't recall. All I know is I was never called on to make a statement from the chair. The chair never recognized me in an open meeting. [1:42:21] Lisa Goodwin: You obviously are a city councilor and you have meetings frequently. Yes. Are there recesses frequently or at all? [1:42:29] Wayne Mallar: We haven't had a recess recently. I think in the past we may have had a couple, but not a lot. No. And when we have a recess, we usually mix with the people that are there and talk about things. [1:42:39] Lisa Goodwin: Not unusual, it's not unusual for members in the galley to approach the dais and speak with councillors during. Recently, it is not. Go ahead, Stephen. No, okay. Circling back to all members present, is there anything further that anyone would have to ask Mr. Maller while he's here? Thank you, Mr. Maller. This would end the public hearing part of the meeting. I see no reason not to end it at this point then. I don't have to. There's no vote for that. That's a procedural motion. It is now time for the board's discussion, with everything that we have and have been given previously and this evening. The floor is open for the board to discuss the matter at hand. This is always a tricky thing because there's the procedural rules say that there are times for executive session. It is my opinion and I would love that to counsel against or for this. I think it would be prudent to ask the board if, and I'm asking, I'm asking this, Stephen, I think it would be prudent to ask the board if they wish to go into an executive session now, knowing that executive session is not on our agenda, but that doesn't preclude us from potentially at least, even if the executive session is momentarily, even if it's just three minutes, to confer in an executive session to make sure that we are not going to wish that we were in an executive session. Do you have any suggestions or guidance for whether that is a good idea, a bad idea, [1:44:59] David Szewczyk: or your role on that as it is? The things that can be discussed in executive session are very limited. Yep. And by statute, it would be discussions for consideration of the employment, appointment, assignment, duties, promotion, demotion, compensation, evaluation, disciplining, resignation, or dismissal of an individual or group of public officials, appointees, or employees of the body or agency, or the investigation or hearing of charges of complaints against a person or person subject to the following conditions, an executive session may be held only if public discussion could be reasonably expected to cause damage to the individual's reputation or the individual's right to privacy would be violating any person charged or investigated must be permitted to be present at an executive session if that person so desires excuse me any person charged or investigated may request in writing that the investigation or hearing of charges or complaints against that person be conducted in open session a request if made to the agency must be honored and for any person bringing charges complaints or allegations of misconduct against the individual under discussion must be permitted to be present [Speaker A (unidentified): it so the] problem as I see it about going into executive session at this point in time is that it doesn't cover board discussion or board action on the charges or the evidence because the evidence has already been heard in public session, and the board cannot take any action in executive session. The board has to come out of executive session before it can vote. [1:47:15] Lisa Goodwin: I took, and I may be wrong, of course, correct me. I took member Eastman's, I'm not gonna say it that way. I have a concern about the next five minutes. And I wanted to make sure I'm not stepping too far off of something to ask the board to potentially vote to go into a brief executive session, knowing that we're not going to vote on anything. I just want to make sure I want to make sure that, of course, we have no ability to talk about the livelihood of the termination of duties. these. All I'm worried about is the potential and maybe I'm overthinking. That would be a damage to reputation and if in executive session we're clear all we do is come out of executive session and say everything we said in executive session potentially anyway and then vote. You can go into executive [1:48:10] David Szewczyk: session to seek advice from counsel. So if you want to go into executive session to have a discussion with me on those issues that would be permitted deliberation. An executive session [1:48:25] Lisa Goodwin: for advice of counsel wouldn't just be the chair it would be the members as well yes do I hear a [1:48:31] Speaker H (unidentified): Motion. Hold on, excuse me. Steven, go ahead. Would it be possible for us to ask Counselor Millar himself if he wishes to waive his right to executive session? The very premise of it is that it could be damaging to his reputation. If Counselor Millar believes that he has done nothing wrong and that there is no further information to be gained by our discussions in public or behind closed doors, one way or another, and that it will not affect his quote, reputation, will he allow us to remain in public? Comment? I would ask he approach the bench. [1:49:32] Lisa Goodwin: It's a good question. Technically, we could call for an executive session, and Consular Mallard could say, I don't want an executive session, and we wouldn't have to get out of our seats. Right. So I guess we can bypass that. [1:49:46] Speaker H (unidentified): Can he also step up and waive his rights to the executive session if he himself is not worried about damage to his reputation? If he stands by his testimony, his remarks, and his reputation, then if he himself admits he is not aggrieved, then who are we to try to go into executive session? [1:50:18] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. I mean, I would say that we should go into executive session. I would, but I'm trying to prove it to talk to counsel in regards to some of the clarifying some of the stuff that way it's right, you know, a little bit more personal between us having to, you know, yell across the table. But again,, you know, if he wants to waive his right to the second session, that's on him, but I would prefer to go into executive session. Sure. [1:50:55] Lisa Goodwin: Cody, do you have any input on it before we... Right. [1:51:00] Speaker F (unidentified): I also would prefer to go to executive session, okay, before moving forward. [1:51:04] Lisa Goodwin: Counselor Milo, do you have a preference for how this proceeds for the next few minutes? If we go into an executive session, well, excuse me, sir, do you have a preference for how this proceeds? [1:51:19] Wayne Mallar: Not really. I mean, I'm confused as to why you want to go into an executive session. Are you going to allow me to sit in on it, or is it just going to be the board? [1:51:30] Lisa Goodwin: When we go into an executive session, the person named in the council order is allowed to sit. It I don't have a problem except oh except if it is a procedural inquiry to the council if it if [1:51:43] David Szewczyk: It's a request for advice from council then it would just be the board of me so to answer your [1:51:48] Lisa Goodwin: Question as the chair, what I'm trying to do is make sure beyond any question that things are done fairly for all parties involved, and that includes, I think that there is a small reasonable chance that in the questions that we might have now, you could shrug it off if I hypothetically I said I don't like this and I think he did this and you can be like I don't care what you think, maybe there is no damage to your reputation, but as the chair of this committee I'm trying to make sure that is cleanly represented, that's why I'm considering going [1:52:22] Wayne Mallar: into a vote for the executive session. I don't have a problem with you going into executive session, if you need to talk to counsel, I'd have you, I'd have a problem with you going into executive session, if you're going to discuss a decision at a point in time. [1:52:41] Lisa Goodwin: If I understand everything right together, and I think we're about to move to vote for this, we're just going to confer with legal counsel about mostly a procedural effort. And we're not going to make a vote, we're not going to be doing decisions, we're going to do that in public as we've done everything in public thus far. Yeah, I don't have anything to hide, I didn't have a problem with that. Do I hear a motion from the board about going into [1:53:06] David Szewczyk: an executive session with council for the purpose of, thank you, for the purpose of obtaining [1:53:14] Lisa Goodwin: legal advice? Second. Seconded. The motion has been moved and seconded. Again, my best ideas are always after the fact. If we go into an executive session, Mr. Warren, do we go to the public in room or do we ask everyone to evacuate this room? No. [1:53:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Traditionally, what happens is that a board, commission, committee would go into the public. [1:53:43] Lisa Goodwin: You have Zoom capability there or in order to get Steven Brough into that, I'm going to call him on my phone and put him on speaker. [1:53:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Speaker. We weren't aware ahead of time that you were considering an executive session, so no executive session Zoom has not been set up. Putting him on speaker in the executive [1:54:05] Lisa Goodwin: session is, there's no problem with that. No problem. The motion has been made. There's a vote. Stephen, how do you vote? The vote is to go into executive session at this moment for legal counsel. Yes, I will vote affirmative. Thank you. Yes, John. Yeah, God, I vote yes. Excuse us while we do this. I don't expect it to take very long. I would appreciate everyone, and this is no, this is not meant to be playful or coy at all, please stay in your seats. No one approach the table here, and that's just because we have items that we have here for ourselves. Even hang on one second, I'm going to make a phone call to you. Yeah, now in this room [1:55:07] Speaker A (unidentified): I've ever done it so [1:55:26] Speaker I (unidentified): in [1:55:40] Lisa Goodwin: a second I'm going to call you on the phone. I'm going to ask you, I'm going to ask you to mute the microphone for your Zoom call, please. Yeah, in fact, in fact, do that right now even before I call. [1:55:59] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes, you got it, and coming right up. That'd be a heck of an executive session where everyone in [1:56:06] Lisa Goodwin: the room just sort of, that's like an old 80s movie, right? We're all sort of listening at the door. I would caution everyone in the room that it appears that the microphones are live for the meeting as they go. Anything said is still being recorded, so you're right back. Thank [2:01:17] Wayne Mallar: it was a year down. Wow. We're getting into this all-stay-in-your-style mass. [2:01:27] Speaker I (unidentified): We're getting into this all-stay-in-your-style mass. It was a long time. We [2:01:35] David Szewczyk: didn't do anything there. It was a long time. I think it counts. It counts. It counts. It counts. It counts. I don't know why [2:01:48] Speaker I (unidentified): we were doing it. [2:01:51] Wayne Mallar: I mean, it got to the state of everyone. Yeah. That's what happened. We had a lot of... [2:04:15] Speaker D (unidentified): a good long time. How are you? Thank you. Good. Thank you. Good to see you. Good to see you. [David Szewczyk: like downtown] I don't mean to, you know, not follow through and speak with so many, but our planning officer Anya Collette, she's the landowner to the downtown parking lot. We may need to scrimmage our approach to enforcement measures. Yeah. Okay. One particular. Okay. Okay. I will, I'll ask. Okay. Yeah. All right. And see if we can send it in time. I will. Okay. kind of reporting it was that I have somebody that person right. Oh, okay. All right. If she has a loaded schedule, Hillary, she may deflect. She may ask staff to speak. I don't know, but at [2:06:48] Speaker A (unidentified): the very least I'll apologize. I don't know what, I just feel like [2:06:57] Speaker D (unidentified): okay, and I have your email, so I'll be sure to follow up to complain about taking this to current or not, just an inconsistent approach to enforcement. Oh, I see. Okay. All right. I'll be sure to ask. [2:08:08] Speaker A (unidentified): Thank you very much. Appreciate it. [2:09:12] Speaker D (unidentified): These windows are pretty. Yeah, maybe not so much now. [2:09:22] Speaker A (unidentified): And I was going to say, I was thinking... [2:09:25] Speaker D (unidentified): You want me to try and lower it now? [2:09:27] Speaker A (unidentified): No, I just wanted to see if that was the thing that would do for some kind of... [2:09:34] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, but it does feel warmer in here tonight. [2:09:37] Speaker A (unidentified): I can't let go. [2:09:39] Speaker D (unidentified): You've got to like get four layers of stuff. Yeah, and that [2:09:47] Speaker A (unidentified): happened after a few weeks. [2:10:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Well frankly, that makes sense, that much farther issue, you know, come closing time they can go by 5 30. They'll reduce the, yeah, they'll lower the heat, but I think they do it, yeah. [Speaker A (unidentified): But the] main, you may issue those is seeing if you could be a little warmer during those council meetings, yeah, and committee meetings, yeah, okay, yeah, let me, let me bring that to, well, [Speaker A (unidentified): one] thing that does, one thing that does help, that we have a post caption, so for those people watching remotely, yeah, if, yeah, do you normally sit on the monitors, the closed caption, well, the company we've worked with who provided all the audio visual equipment we've had, I think as you're probably aware, we've had a real back and forth, and they've made some improvements to the audio, but it seems like those soft-spoken people, it's still, yeah, it's still not capturing, yeah, right, oh right, yeah, forget about it. Yeah, we do have sort of an audio enhancement to the... What's our feedback? So yeah, it's an ongoing thing with that then, or the, so we'll see what we can do, but it's been a weird, but when it comes to the heat, let me, let me see what we can do about that. You're bumping that up. But I'm wondering though, as it heats up outside, the AC is going to kick on in here. Is that going to keep it cold? I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. I'll look it up. We've had some issues. We have like nine, pretty much, heating units. Yeah, like five on top of the building, four behind. [2:14:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Is that cold because of the rust? [2:14:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, like before those unions like that, there was some issue, I think we've since got to realize, but you know, to not even, I'm a year old. [2:14:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Oh, okay. We lost that guy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I said, even in a year. [2:15:05] Speaker D (unidentified): We came back here in August. [2:15:08] Speaker A (unidentified): So it's been a [2:15:11] Speaker D (unidentified): year. Okay. Well, anyway. Oh, no, our... No, we were certainly most impressed with our. But let me see what we can do about that. That door button back there we [Speaker A (unidentified): are having] some issues with a few of the monitors being disconnected, but that's a good point, I'm not sure, I mean, this, having at least this one has been helpful to me to kind of [2:19:23] Lisa Goodwin: use the cameras, but that's a good question, I'm not sure. [2:19:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Those are wrong, we [2:19:31] Lisa Goodwin: never use those when we're sitting there at a meeting. Well, sometimes the presentations don't [2:19:37] Wayne Mallar: Oh, Houston, look at the big one. [2:19:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, I thought for presentation, you'd have another story [2:19:52] Wayne Mallar: here. You know what I'll do? I'll donate my money back to them. They'll cut the budget by 10%. [2:20:02] Speaker D (unidentified): Back to the city? Yeah. Do you think that's equivalent to your paycheck of 10%? [2:20:08] Wayne Mallar: No, but I think it's the principal of the thing. Yeah. The school department's asking for a 10% increase. As far as I'm concerned, they get no increase. 10% they should look at a new position they want they want I think they want to get the chance to speak English, read English already. It's not a disability. We do not have to finish and they're probably all illegals anyway. That's what the cultural authentic oh yeah they don't they don't know how to say anything but 10 percent [2:21:03] Lisa Goodwin: David you can you can make a five again yeah we're good Stephen are you are you present something Stephen this was all just a bruise to make it a little bit excited there he's muted Stephen you're you're muted which is good but we're back there we go great thank you David thank you everybody for your patience it is appreciated thank you we are back from executive session and picking up at the discussion of the board because we entered executive session maybe I have to say for the record that The floor is now open for board discussion regarding council order 25282. At this stage the members of the board should as they feel fit to ask discuss amongst ourselves. There will be no further input from anything at this point except Mr Wool right we're not that there's no other stage where or suddenly any new information comes in, it's just we discuss and then we make motions based on our discussion and where we are. [2:22:46] David Szewczyk: Yeah, and just for clarity, Council Order 25-282 poses four questions to the board and you should vote on each one. [2:23:00] Lisa Goodwin: Each and every one in order as we- [2:23:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yes. [2:23:07] Lisa Goodwin: Would it does it is it the board's wish that we sort of talk about everything all at once or would it be advantageous to sort of take these questions one at a time and maybe direct our discussion in [2:23:20] David Szewczyk: That way is there a benefit I, what do you think, for my suggestion? Yeah, it's only a suggestion. Is that all of these questions relate to the same set of facts, right? And the board has heard conflicting evidence regarding what happened at the HPC meeting. So I think it makes sense for the board to discuss the events of the HPC meeting, make factual findings, and then decide whether or not those facts violate the provisions of the code that were referred to you by the council. Okay, I mean you won't have to make different factual findings. [2:24:03] Lisa Goodwin: It's fine for each individual question. Excuse [2:24:12] Speaker E (unidentified): me, raise something up if I can. I'm just [2:24:17] Lisa Goodwin: wait a minute. No, excuse, no, this is in a second, I'll, you will talk to me in the hall, but you're, yeah, I understand, I want you to, sir, please, with all due respect, to my attention, I understand, in all, with all due respect, please don't say another word, thank you, I don't [2:24:36] David Szewczyk: after recess for this, no, but you have to come with me, well, no, I don't think you should have any further contact with anybody, the record's closed, yeah, I agree, I understand, I understand. [2:24:53] Lisa Goodwin: Okay, I apologize. Okay, who should that be reporting to you? Could you, could take, well, there is a period of review, but that's usually only for the person named in the council order, they have three days. What I have has nothing to do with anything you have there, it's a, sir, I, you can't even hint about, you, yeah, I apologize, and do I, please take this the way I mean it, but you cannot continue to talk to me about this, I think if you would like to stay, well, I'm not going to make you [2:25:29] David Szewczyk: state, let me put it this way, if you have an issue that gives you some concern about the conduct of the hearing, issues, concerns, everyone including, well, the records, the records closed, yeah, the board is going to discuss and make factual findings and vote on the referred questions based on the record as it currently stands, sure, if you have a concern about that, you should, you're going to have to address it then, it's, it's nothing and it's nothing to interrupt the [2:26:15] Lisa Goodwin: me before, and I appreciate you have an, opinion on that, I could be wrong, I would suggest that tomorrow if there was anything to be done, you take it up with the city solicitor's office and then also in conjunction with the city manager, yes, I wish I could give you more, but I know I cannot, that's, that's good information, thank you, I appreciate it, and I appreciate the excitement for something, yeah, but we can't proceed with anything, I could give us, thank you, back to the board discussion please. Anyone is there any discussion do we have? [2:27:14] Speaker H (unidentified): Stephen you're still there right yes I am yes absolutely. [2:27:27] Lisa Goodwin: It may be there's there's no rush to anybody and there's no there's no push here maybe everyone's just reviewing and trying to get their thoughts in order I'm not gonna force anything and it'll come everyone should feel free the floor is open everyone should feel free to just speak when [2:27:47] Speaker D (unidentified): they're ready in [2:28:00] Speaker H (unidentified): the interest of public disclosure I would remind perhaps the public that it is at this point not our job to offer an opinion on the reasons why Mr Farron has been engaged in this long a conflict with the city it's literally on the merits of the ethical behavior of Mr. Millar the how one feels on the house and the roof itself frankly is immaterial. [2:28:55] Speaker G (unidentified): 33-13-1C, 2C, when it's made clear that it will be with the officials speaking and not going to happen in the entire city or people in the Conventional Committee, that made clear during any of this discussion that it happened? [2:29:18] Speaker I (unidentified): [2:29:21] Speaker H (unidentified): John could you give me that reference again please the number yeah 33-13 dot one. [2:29:30] Wayne Mallar: To see any [2:29:43] Speaker G (unidentified): discussion about that I don't know how you want to how we don't feel about that. [2:29:50] Speaker F (unidentified): I think we should chat about whether the if we would have reasonable knowledge that Malheur was, Councilman Malheur was approaching in the capacity of a councilman, there may be potential that it was not clear that he was approaching as a private citizen, especially with multiple instances of, or sorry, multiple accounts of potentially bringing up documents with city of Bangor letterhead. I would imagine that the councilman should ensure that when he is speaking that he is speaking as an individual as it's as it's discussed. [2:30:37] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah. The disclaimer is the key part, I think. [2:30:44] Speaker A (unidentified): Can you remember to speak up please? [2:30:47] Lisa Goodwin: We will try. Thank you. [2:30:49] Speaker A (unidentified): Well [2:30:54] Speaker G (unidentified): when it comes to just to kind of clarify it so you can hear we're talking about we're talking about the disclaimer because of a key as a council member it has to be clear and unambiguous that he is not speaking on the behalf of the city, that's what I'm trying to get a discussion about because of, you know, the disclaimer, the part C to C is very broad, the disclaimer kind of narrows it down. So that's what I'm trying to get a discussion with them in regards to that. [2:31:40] Lisa Goodwin: One of the things that was of concern when I watched the HPC meeting was that when it was done, former member Quinn seemed to be saying things that were, for lack of a better term, corroborating things that are in Edith Dyer's statement. Counselor Maller said that when he spoke to this board this evening that he wasn't disputing things, but he didn't have a specific recollection of saying that. It didn't seem to me, after hearing from him in that regard, that he approached Ms. Quinn to talk about the Red Sox, for example, or something else. It seemed, in some ways, putting this puzzle together where we don't have the center with the metaphorical puzzle. We just have the border of things that were given to us or statements that we've been given. The somewhat important part of that meeting was muted and blacked out. So is it a coincidence that somebody in the galley said that Councilor Mallar went up and started speaking to the members of the board and that they had overheard it and then suddenly the board is the committee is back in session and the person that Councillor Meller said he went to speak says something that was allegedly said to her? I don't know. I don't know if that's a coincidence. I know that we can only go by the things that we have here, but I'm just trying to put the puzzle together and I would politely ask we can hear you as we're discussing. If you don't mind, if you have stuff to say, perfectly fine to say it, but please say it out of here. We it's distracting. And I should have said something earlier. I apologize. That's on me. We're trying but equally lower your voice. Don't please don't disturb anymore. Thank you. I would take this time to say something as well that I hope is helpful for the city manager's office. You guys have done a great job giving us all the stuff that we asked for. One of the things that I'm going to hope is put into our findings of fact, or at least brought to the city council's attention, somehow is going forward, if there is a recess, I don't think that the mics should be on. Who wants to catch all that you're in recess. And this is not a criticism of anyone who was working the meeting that day. But I think we've discovered that there's a small problem here. I think that the suggestion that I would make, that hopefully others would potentially support, is that if there is a recess going forward, that the footage stay live. And of course the mute button is very helpful because what's being said is of no coincidence, of no gathering to the public at large, because business isn't being done on the city's behalf. This meeting might have been a little easier served, and again not a criticism because it's not anything anyone could have done if the mics were off. And allegedly Councillor Mallar approached the bench, excuse me, approached the daison. You admitted that you did. We could have seen who you approached and asked them earlier and had other avenues to pursue the findings of fact. I think it's a mistake for whatever the city is using as footage to make those blind spots happen, just in case. I don't know this will ever happen again, but it happened once, and that would certainly help going forward. And actually as a small side, I don't know if in using Zoom anyone uses breakout rooms or not. I know that breakout rooms are helpful for when people use Zoom for litigation or education. And if I were a teacher and this was a group and this was a group and everyone had their own project on Zoom, I could actually create a separate small room in the bigger room to have them do their work. Again a breakout room is only good, but I don't know how that works for, I know what I don't know and that's a lot, but I don't know how that works for the city's business. Maybe that isn't an option, but going forward I thought that might be of help. Well [2:36:39] Speaker E (unidentified): so i think that in what we have that we're supposed to look at, breaking this down, seems really difficult, between is anything theoretically a violation of B and if not, is it C and if not is D or is it both of them or is it, does it make more sense to kind of be B and C together or something like it's very weird what, you're supposed to be looking at and what precisely is the violation if something is well [2:37:23] David Szewczyk: It could be all, some, or none, but I mean, I think, I think that your point of it is to address the questions from the council, which number one asks about a violation of B or C. Number two is whether or not it's a violation of D. Number three is whether or not there's a violation of the head goal provisions is 33-1, and four is whether or not there was a violation of any other provision of the code of ethics. So, you know, this factual scenario that you're looking at could give rise to a violation of one, some, or none of those four referred questions. I [2:38:21] Speaker E (unidentified): think, you know, I just want to say, I think on both sides of the statements that we got, there was a whole lot of information about boobs and what should or should not happen with them. And I guess whenever you're involved in the story, you want to be able to say your piece or whatever, but I just wanted to make it clear, as we maybe have already, that it just doesn't matter for this exact situation. whether the roof project should have been approved whether somebody did something without approval that they shouldn't do whether they should be at some place at a certain time or whatever the question we have is really just specific about this exact thing happening and you know the one side could be completely wrong about it doesn't make any difference the other side could be completely wrong and in this case trying to look at the facts that we have i've i find it very hard to not look at the statement of what Counselor Millar allegedly said. And moments later, somebody on that committee basically saying that. And so then the question is, it an ethical violation if he did say that? And there wasn't a statement, really, it was I don't remember saying, not maybe I did, whatever, and I have to pick a fact, I guess, that I think is more supported, and I think that I find it pretty credible that there's a statement that something was said, which is then followed up with somebody on the committee who gets admitted that person was talked to in this time, and then the person follows up and says that same thing as soon as they're out of recess. So I feel like I lean toward having to find that 's what happened. And then now is that an ethical violation? And I guess giving this, that we have to look at BCD, I guess, to some extent, the general maintaining a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the city's government, which seems incredibly broad and nebulous anyway. But it seems to me that if you take maybe B and C together, and I'm not 100 sure of D and exactly what I'm supposed to get out, but if you take B and C together, it seems like somebody who is a city councilor should not be approaching people on a committee and telling them stuff about what they're supposed to be deciding. I guess whether they're supposed to be deciding out of it at all. [2:42:12] Speaker G (unidentified): Was it pretty much just making their face, you know, [2:42:16] Speaker I (unidentified): out of record? [2:42:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Do we really truly believe that the intent and spirit of the law is that essentially every time someone speaks in some form of government in which they are not involved that they must say these are my own private statements? Yes, because that's what it says. [2:42:46] Speaker G (unidentified): That is the ethical, that is the code of ethic and a disclaimer that they have to, whether it is in session or out of session, yes, the perceived decision is what my main concern is, perceived. I don't, you know, nobody said at any time this is my own, my own statement, so my lawyer did not say that, his daughter said nothing about that, the all the records from all the other statements that was never mentioned at all. I think that's a big, you know, a big thing because it's clearly states and even as our lovely lady who taught us tonight having that disclaimer, my thoughts are my own opinion, not that of the main city of Bangalore, there's a clear way of not getting yourself into a situation that's like this and [2:43:48] Speaker H (unidentified): I won't necessarily disagree with the way the it actually is worded, I'm I'm trying to speak more to what our opinions are on the intent of the wording. Well, [2:44:11] Speaker G (unidentified): the intent is pretty clear. [2:44:12] Speaker H (unidentified): I mean there's no, it's black and white, the intent that he has no, well no, I that in order to clearly define that, I mean where does one draw that line that, I mean we literally would expect someone to approach a group in a meeting and make a statement such as that, it would have to be made, yeah. [2:44:49] Speaker A (unidentified): Yes, because [2:44:52] Speaker G (unidentified): if that was not made, if that was made, [2:45:01] Speaker H (unidentified): I mean, I'm reading the words on the statue, and I'm just slightly grappling with, okay, at what point would you stop? I mean, should someone have a embroidered golf shirt with that on it? I mean, it almost seems like we've gotten too far off in splitting hairs on this. [2:45:41] Lisa Goodwin: I am of the mind that, well, I'll say it this way as I started. I take your point. People don't talk like that. People don't walk up often. Most of the time, strangely, I do. I was talking to someone the other day about the work that we're doing on the board, but I represented the thoughts that I had in that moment very clearly as saying, I'm not talking to you as the chair of the ethics board. And I think if I understand your point, you know, are we expecting people to just identify all the time and stand before people and say, by the way, I'm only talking to you as a citizen, not as a city councilor or a chair or etc. Yes, but it almost proves the rule. You know, the rule is here to prevent an ambiguous misrepresentation. And if perhaps Counselor Maller had, if there was a record of Counselor Maller perhaps saying, I'm just talking to you as Wayne, I'm not a counselor, I'm not here on any official business, maybe that makes conversations between people really weird. required. But this rule is sort of showing why it's required, because it could potentially look like his influence is seeping in. And without clarification, now we are left to suss out things that are either forgotten, not recorded, or picking one person's statement over the other. I understand what you're trying to say and I know that the majority of people don't live in that world but I think the rule is here because this is an instance that proves where it would have been very handy had [2:47:36] Speaker E (unidentified): it been followed. Well yeah I think also as we just went over in our training right like the point that we have in here about saying it all the time or whatever is that the onus is on the person to avoid the ambiguity and if there is any possibility of ambiguity then it's up to them to make that clear right and right and you know further on the point does that mean that every time you talk to somebody you have to say that like forever no but when you're a city councilor walking up to somebody on a committee during a break I think maybe there is ambiguity and you're talking to them about how they should or shouldn't do things in this committee that's not you know an outrageous example where everyone has to constantly say that they're not talking as a city council that's like the specific circumstance where I think maybe more than any other time you probably should when you're talking to people specifically about stuff that this committee is doing and you're there and it's you know Basically, city business, and you're a city councillor, then make it clear. [2:49:20] Speaker G (unidentified): Admission that they've gone to the meetings that had reference to this specific issue, you know, they, as per their statements, they've been very vocal about the what should happen, so definitely I would think that if you would have said something like that, you know, by talking to you about the cases, seeing how you do it, I've talked to you in a while, you know, that right there, I mean, that would work just as fine in my opinion to cover that disclaimer. But because that was never vocally, nobody's ever vocally said that they said that, you're kind of now looking at it like, well, [2:50:09] Speaker I (unidentified): did he not, you know? [2:50:14] Speaker G (unidentified): It's because of the perceived vision of how much he, how vocal they've been in regards to that, you know, I think that should have been something [2:50:25] Speaker I (unidentified): that should have been obvious, yeah. [2:50:33] Speaker F (unidentified): I mean with artsy, I think the heart of the question is was this an instance where there could be ambiguity, and I think that's really, you know, the grouping issue aside, I think the discussions that we've had so far it's leading, it's leading to almost regardless of what was discussed, I feel like was approaching the bench and discussing period is that a moment where we could have a potential lapse in ethics in this, in this meeting, I think it's, I do wish we had the statement from the staffer, but I understand their concern, their comments, You know, I think are crucial, but unfortunately not the same from them. because they seem to be an unbiased party in this, in this event. I'll leave it at that for part C for now. [2:51:42] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, one of our last actions, as a committee, was advising on a situation where we had a counselor at the time Dan Tremble collecting signatures, and we made the determination that no, although he did not identify himself one way or the other, that no, it was assumed that because he was doing this in his business and not using his title, that was perfectly okay, shouldn't we be applying the same criteria here, counselor Tremble then did not have to identify that he was speaking on his own behalf, why is this situation any different? [2:52:41] Speaker G (unidentified): I think because it was a city function, it was a city board meeting where councilor Trimble on his own time, not in a city setting or at a board meeting, was assisting a friend. So I think that's the complete difference because what he did to get the signatures had nothing to do really to do with an immediate board decision that was happening in the city of Bangor's building. That's the big difference is that he was out of the building, not in a formal meeting, where this is at a formal meeting inside the building in the council chambers. Even though it was in recess, it's still a considered a board meeting. You're still at this test. That's still a [2:53:41] Lisa Goodwin: You know, that's that's the difference. Yeah, I'd push back a little, Stephen. I would say that if Counselor Tremble had taken paperwork out for former, excuse me, I you know, hang on one second, Stephen. I don't want to say this again, so I will only say it one more time. If you have something to say to each other, please exit this room and say it to each other quietly. The last thing I- I'm right out to you guys. [2:54:11] Hillary Simmons: No, you won't. We're not- Since First Amendment, right? Away from that. [2:54:14] Lisa Goodwin: We are not hearing from you at this point, ma'am. And the last thing that I want, you can say it, and I will ask you to leave. The last thing I want to do is start ejecting people from this chamber, but I will have silence in the galley. The time for public comment to which you participated in has come and gone and [Speaker F (unidentified): Distract, ma'am, conversation] And I and he has absolutely been quiet since then, and I'm asking him to be quiet now as well. He needed to be corrected, and I appreciate him taking the correction. If you don't think you can take this correction, I would ask you to leave, but I don't want you to make me have you leave, and that's the difference. Please, I can't ask you any more politely than that. Thank you, Stephen. I would push back slightly in that, and that I would say if Dan Tremble when taking out paperwork for Cara Pelletier, I don't know if I say Cara, I wish somebody would correct me, Cara, thank you, I apologize for engaging the galley after I just told them to be quiet. My best ideas are Always after I say I'm not allowed if Mr. Trumbull had been taking out papers for Ms. Pelletier and then proceeded to get signatures in City Hall, maybe even in the council chambers, then I would think you've got an interesting point beyond what I think you're trying to make. And I take your point, but I think, as John said, I think there's a lot of difference there between that instance where we heard from Councillor Trumbull who took the paperwork to his business and then left his business to go do other business and then patrons came in. I can agree that maybe we don't see that the same, but I see that being a bit different if [2:56:11] Speaker H (unidentified): he had been, if he had been Paula, actively politicking in an attempt to get someone elected within City Hall, all I would agree with that. Yeah, all right, and again I don't want to distract the work that [2:56:31] Lisa Goodwin: we're trying to do. Again, we're not trying to talk about a council order that we've done our findings, [2:56:38] Speaker H (unidentified): correlation in saying that we need to be consistent with how we've, we some of us ourselves [2:56:48] Speaker K (unidentified): themselves have recently ruled. Yeah, I appreciate that. One [2:57:12] Lisa Goodwin: of the things that I keep coming back to, and I don't want to monopolize this discussion, please others engage of course when you're ready, but part of our packet contained information that the city manager's office got us, and one of the things in there it said that counselor Maller made the argument that the HPC was not allowed to table discussion of an application brought by resident Stephen Farron. And then later, again, I'm not trying to tie too many red strings together. But Councillor Mallar said he didn't disagree with any of the things that were said tonight, and that he offered his perspective on what he did do and didn't do for the best of his recollection. It just, to circle back again, it just seems like there was some opportunity there if Councillor Mallar wished to say, I'm not here as a city councilor, I'm here just to shoot the breeze. But apparently, several of the things that allegedly happened at that meeting were not city related. And it just raises the question of ambiguity. And if there, if there was a way to do a different thing, it was not chosen. [2:58:33] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I think also to go back to the point that, you know, was brought up about this other thing that happened with Dan Trimble, and I wasn't here, so I don't even know exactly what that's all about, except that what you guys said right now. But I would, I would maybe argue in that, trying to talk about those two things and how you might think about both of those things, I think if somebody gets out things to sign, takes him to his work, leaves him there as people come in, and I don't even know if that's what happened, but that's what was just said happened, so yeah, whatever. In that case, there is a non-city-councilor version of doing that, I think, is like legitimate, right? Regular people can do that. Yeah. I think that if we find that what was said to a person on the committee was something about how this should not be here, and this is how this committee should act. Act, I'm not sure that there's a non-city-counselor version of doing that. I don't know that there's a legitimate, I'm just a regular member of the public, and while you're on recess, I'm going to come up here and tell you how to do your business, like, I mean, maybe there is, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like, now I'm just acting as a regular person, and what I'm going to do acting as a regular person is telling you how to run this committee or what you guys should be doing on this committee, that seems like it already creates a distinction for me between those two examples. [3:00:36] Speaker G (unidentified): In that email that he referenced, it says verbatim, other HBC members were at the site and heard the counselor's remarks, even though they didn't come up with a voluntary statement. That right there, I mean, that's just the issue at hand, and that's why I'm here. So, I mean, according to the system planner, the counselor made arguments that HCC was not allowed to table a discussion of an application bought by residents to confirm it. I mean, there's not much else you can say. One [3:01:16] Lisa Goodwin: of the things that hopefully we keep in mind as we near the end of navigating through this is the information that we have been given to us in statements and in person and applying that to the Code of Ethics. There are going to be some things that we don't know, like Member Eastman said just a few minutes ago, like, I don't know what allegedly Counselor Maler said to someone, except that he admitted to being there and approaching and talking to them, and he's known them forever. Could have been anything. People that were there said that they overheard certain things, and it doesn't sound like it was nothing. It sounds like it was city business. If we take that and we believe those statements and we apply it to the Code of Ethics, are [3:02:10] Speaker D (unidentified): they telling us something? [3:02:14] Lisa Goodwin: And as we're working through and as I'm listening to everyone and talking, that's what is in my head. I'm trying to say, this is what I know. This is what Councillor Malheur agreed and doesn't remember or didn't agree to. And how do they line up? That's just me thinking out loud, I think. [3:02:37] Speaker A (unidentified): How are we doing? Do you have future fun? Okay, thank you. Yeah. [3:02:53] Lisa Goodwin: Stephen, are you, how are you doing over there? Fine. No. [3:03:04] Speaker H (unidentified): I am slightly conflicted on this a little bit, honestly. I'm still wrestling with it in my head. [3:03:15] Lisa Goodwin: Yeah, you can, you can make that motion and we'll see if it, we'll see if the members agree and if they do, then we will. And if they don't, we're, you know, it won't at this stage and we'll, I. [3:03:27] Speaker E (unidentified): I have a question and I don't know it's like specifically kind of council question, but I'm like really stuck on D here. It does not seem like since the way this is, we have to vote specifically on D, right? I am not sure that it seems like anything in D. [3:03:50] David Szewczyk: D really has any area then that's what you have to find the facts that you have found do not constitute a violation of 3313.1 D. I just, I don't know, am I missing something? [3:04:09] Speaker E (unidentified): But it's like freedom of access act. Well, you know, I mean again, that's various, you guys. [3:04:16] David Szewczyk: You guys talked about the actual nature of 33 one, right? That's really what D sounds like as well, I guess, since it just seems too majestic. Yeah, right. And like I said, you can find that the facts as you've found them do not constitute a violation of subsection D. Yeah, they've asked us to look at. [3:04:44] Lisa Goodwin: Four, it's possible we come back with none, one, two, three, four. It doesn't preclude the others, right? D doesn't, if we didn't find D and hypothetically found one, then that would be just we found one. Did I step on your question tonight? I didn't know, okay. John, if you wanted, again, like I said, there's any motion, I just feel like it's, you know, don't ask a question you can't take the answer of. If somebody makes a motion and it doesn't pass, it just doesn't pass. It's not like a demerit, it's just we keep talking, but if that's yours to make, you might make it. [3:05:30] David Szewczyk: The only thing that I would suggest is that we've got to have findings on four separate provisions of the ordinance, so what I would suggest is that each motion be addressed. [3:05:48] Lisa Goodwin: To each party and whatever, right? Okay. [3:05:55] David Szewczyk: Yeah, so if you look at the first, the first question referred to you is whether or not Councilor Beller violated sections 33 13.1 B or C perhaps. [3:06:16] Lisa Goodwin: Once the motion is made, if I understood John right, John's just making potentially the motion to end discussion and move to vote, right? And in that conversation, thank you, and in doing that, then we shouldn't be discussing it anymore, we should just be voting. So is it, well, the motion was not [3:06:38] Speaker H (unidentified): seconded, dude, right? No, he was just wondering, yeah, it wasn't made. I was just, I think you [3:06:43] Lisa Goodwin: know, maybe before we get to that, we just quickly go over the question, you know, so we sort of know, or maybe if anyone doesn't, maybe I'm the only one that needs to reread. You want [3:06:53] David Szewczyk: want to make a, yes please, thank you, sure. And I think probably even the way question one is phrased, you probably ought to break that down into two separate, I was just going to ask you that [3:07:05] Lisa Goodwin: because it's asking two parts to one question is it 's a compound question did potentially counselor maller violate this or that instead of this comma that comma so my suggestion would [3:07:18] David Szewczyk: would be that someone make a motion that councilor Meller either did or did not violate section 33-13.1 B. And [3:07:36] Speaker E (unidentified): is everybody done discussing? [3:07:39] Lisa Goodwin: We'll find out if the motion's made. [3:07:42] Speaker G (unidentified): Right, I'll make a motion in discussion in regards to one dash one, question one, section 33-13.1 B. has been, well I didn't, in the discussion and to vote is [3:08:04] David Szewczyk: that what you're asking for? I think you get to make a motion either one way or the other that it was a violation or not a violation in [3:08:11] Lisa Goodwin: discussion, did it go into, oh I put that, I put that in his head, I wondered if we had to end discussion [3:08:16] David Szewczyk: to move to phone, I don't think it, well listen, okay, somebody's going to make a motion, okay, and they'll be seconded or not, and then there'll be discussion on the motion, so I don't think actually have to make a motion to discussion, okay, so [3:08:34] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll make a motion to proceed with voting on section 33-13.1b, and it's the motion again that either that there was not a violation [3:08:47] David Szewczyk: not a violation [3:08:49] Lisa Goodwin: should you say, okay, so the motion is that there was a violation from councillor Maller violating sections 33-13.1 section b, is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded, so now we vote [Speaker A (unidentified): Oh, the] vote is for only this section. It is not for section C. It is just for 33-13.1B and a roll call vote. Stephen, how do you vote? Yes. Mark? Yeah. And then John? Yes. Yes. Yes. Let me guess. Discussion of 33-13.1 is not going to come up again. We're done. [3:10:10] Speaker G (unidentified): I'll make a motion for Question 1, Section 33-13-1, Part C, that there was a violation. [3:10:22] Lisa Goodwin: Seconded. Motion has been made and seconded. That language is fine. Yes, roll call vote. Steven, only for 33 13-1 section C, how do you vote? No. [3:10:47] Speaker H (unidentified): Mark? [3:10:50] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. John? [3:10:53] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Cody? Yes. I mean yes. Order one 33-13.1 section C is now behind us. Working [3:11:12] Speaker G (unidentified): to vote note on question two violated section 33-13.1d. There was no violation. The motion has been [3:11:24] Lisa Goodwin: made that there was no violation by Councillor Mallar for 33.13, excuse me, 33 section 13.1 on part D. Is there a second? Second. Second. We have a roll call vote. Stephen? Yes. Mark? Yes. John? Yes. Cody? Yes. Yes. 33-13.1, subsection D is behind us. That would be for both questions one and two. There are two questions remaining. [3:12:15] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, so we're looking for a motion to vote now on the thing that says three. Yes, okay, so [3:12:28] Speaker D (unidentified): move that we vote. That's [3:12:40] David Szewczyk: probably fine. Yeah, again I'm sorry I missed, were you moving that [3:12:45] Speaker E (unidentified): there was a violation or no violation? I'm moving that there is. Okay, or there was, but do I have to [3:12:52] Lisa Goodwin: people? No, the motion has been made that Councillor Mallar was in violation of section 33-1 of the ethics code. Is there a second for that motion? Second. Proceeds to a roll call vote. Stephen? Yes. Mark? Yes. John? Yes. There's five yeses. I focus there's [3:13:25] David Szewczyk: one question left that the council order pertains to us and that is four. Okay, well I moved for vote on [3:13:35] Speaker G (unidentified): question four, whether Councilor Mallory violated any other provision of the code of ethics, but he did not violate. Did [3:13:44] Speaker H (unidentified): you hear that clearly, Stephen? No, please repeat that. The motion [3:13:50] Lisa Goodwin: made was that Counselor Mallard did not violate any other provisions of the code of ethics as pertaining to the fourth question sent to us in the council order. The motion was made. There needs [3:14:03] Speaker H (unidentified): to be a second if it proceeds. Yeah, I was like that he did not violate. That's correct. That motion has [3:14:12] Lisa Goodwin: been made and seconded. So the question before the board is whether or not Councillor Mallar did not violate any other provisions of the code of ethics. Stephen? [3:14:23] Speaker H (unidentified): How do you vote? No. No. Mark? Yes. John? Yes. Yes. Salim? No. Three to two. He did. No. No. [3:14:44] Lisa Goodwin: Did not. Yeah. He did not. Right. That's the end of the board and that concludes that business. Correct. Is there any new business left, excuse me, is there any new business before the board? One, even do you have any new business that you're aware of that is before the board? I do not. Moving on to other business. Is there any other business before the board? [3:15:38] David Szewczyk: I'll just say that I will prepare findings of facts and conclusions of law based on your deliberations and vote. I recall the ordinance you have to vote on that within 30 days, so I'll try and get that out to Shane for his review within seven to ten days or so. There's been a [3:16:00] Lisa Goodwin: weird, there's been a small bit of confusion. It's not a major thing. Maybe you would know as your, as your history and doing the work that you're doing. I was asked if the board had signed that findings of fact and we had sent two to the council without signatures. The city solicitor's office seemed to think that was fine if that's what we were doing. Are we supposed to sign that as a board, like a literal signature? Yeah, we can do it. I had that discussion with [3:16:31] David Szewczyk: Dave. You did. Okay, and I can tell you the board of appeals, we signed them. Okay, but it's not a requirement anywhere in the ordinance or a statute that has to be, so you just have to vote up and then the minutes will reflect that they were either approved or not. Might start competing [3:16:49] Lisa Goodwin: with the board of appeals. They might start signing. I told Mary in the solicitor's office if she needed us to sign things, like I'll take it around or I'll sign it as the chair. I don't know, I just didn't know if there was a thing that it's, it's not required. Excuse me, and so there is Stephen, I apologize, I've been here a while. Did I circle back to you about other business? [3:17:13] Speaker H (unidentified): No, you did not, but I do not. Okay, [3:17:19] Lisa Goodwin: well, this meeting's adjourned. [3:17:23] Speaker K (unidentified): Thank you, everyone. To adjourn. We'll just adjourn. [3:17:25] Lisa Goodwin: Well, I think it's one of the things I can do. I'd like to hear what's down in- Yeah, right, yeah, you can- [3:17:30] Speaker H (unidentified): Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Stephen. Good evening.