Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record. Home addresses that residents give are left out of this page.
[0:03] Carl L. Sheline: Hello. Welcome to our Thursday evening special meeting. As always, we're going to kick things off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Administrator Kainrath, if you could please lead us.
[0:16] Bryan Kaenrath: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank
[0:32] Carl L. Sheline: you very much yes welcome to our special meeting this morning we received the resignation letter from councillor Iman Osmond Ward 5 on behalf of the city I want to thank councillor Osmond for choosing to step aside this choice is in the best interest of the city as we have important work ahead of us this decision allows city leadership to remain centered on the priorities that lie ahead I appreciate councillor Osmond for making this decision and I believe it that allows us to turn the page and move forward. During tonight's special meeting, public comments will be allowed during individual agenda items. As a reminder, it is three minutes. Please identify who you are and where you live. Also, for those watching at home, you can also send your comments to publiccomment at lewistonmaine.gov. Thank you all very much for being here. Madam Clerk, I believe we're ready to begin.
[1:22] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item number one, order. Discontinuing the investigation into the residency of former city councillor I Iman Osman requested action to approve the order discontinuing the investigation into the residency of former city councillor Iman
[1:36] Carl L. Sheline: Osman motion so moved councillor Chittum second by councillor Harriman we're joined here by our attorney mr. Marty Eisenstein is there anything you'd like to say for this agenda item mr. Eisenstein just that per just move the mic closer to you oh sure promise not to scream per the
[2:01] Marty Eisenstein: City Council's resolve on the evening of January 5th I retained an investigator to start the investigation in terms of the qualifications as a resident of Ward five of consular Osman the investigation began when we received the resignation because the city charter clearly provides that the resignation the vacancy is created upon resignation that is section 2.0 682 of the city charter we informed cons we affirm we confirmed to attorney Barry who was the investigator to discontinue the investigation and pencils down so that's
[2:57] Carl L. Sheline: where we're at now thank you very much questions comments from the council
[3:03] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is, I think, an obvious conclusion. I'd also point out that since former Councillor Osmond is no longer a member of this body, we have no authority to investigate. So this wraps it up and puts a bow on it. I appreciate the effort of the folks that put this resolved together. Thank you. We appreciate your work to, Mr. Eisenstein.
[3:28] Carl L. Sheline: Further comments, questions from the council, public comment for this agenda item, back to the council. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Madam Clerk, can
[3:43] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): you please reread the motion? Sure, the motion is to approve the order discontinuing the investigation into the residency a former city councillor Iman Osmond. Yes, word two, yes, word three, yes, word for, yes, word six, yes, word seven,
[3:59] Carl L. Sheline: yes, Mr. Mayor, yes. Motion pass the vote of seven to zero. Thank you very much.
[4:04] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Madam Clerk, item number two. Item number two to review the steps in the process to fill the vacant City Council seat from Ward five. Requested action to receive communication from the city attorney and to determine a course of
[4:17] Carl L. Sheline: action if necessary. Thank you, Mr. Eisenstein has provided a memo to us that's covered by attorney kind of privilege. Do you see any reason why we cannot make this public, Mr. Eisenstein? I think for full transparency you should
[4:34] Marty Eisenstein: make it public. It also causes me to admit in public that I made a mistake in the memo, so please bear with me. I on page one I were the word less appears in the third to last line, it should be more. I misquoted section 2.06c of the charter, so I apologize and fully embarrassed by that mistake,
[5:11] Carl L. Sheline: but thank you. We are all only human, so thank you very much. Madam Clerk, if we were to have a vote to make this document public do we need to suspend the rules for this? I don't believe so
[5:28] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): because it's all related to this agenda item, but I'll certainly defer to the city attorney on that.
[5:34] Carl L. Sheline: I don't think you need to suspend the bridge. Okay, I guess can we have a motion to make this
[5:40] David B. Chittim: document public? Councillor Chittim, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Without your guidance, Madam Clerk, I'm going to stumble through what I think is an appropriate motion. I move that after the aforementioned correction has been made to this attorney-client privileged communication the council released this for public purview. Second,
[6:06] Carl L. Sheline: yeah. Thank you, Miss Councillor Martel. Did you get all that, Madam Clerk? Can we please when you're ready can we call the vote sure council from word one yes word two yes word three yes word four yes word six yes word seven yes that's your mayor yes seven to zero in anticipation of all this staff has made copies so if we can get one of you to hand them out to everyone that would just be lovely does it look like everyone's going to be able to have a copy did everyone get it did everyone get a copy who wants a copy okay I think we're good mr. Eisenstein will we will let you present at this time sure I certainly won't read the memo word-for-word I'll
[7:25] Marty Eisenstein: try to go through the memo, and I did share the memo with all of its warts, namely the typo, with members of the City Council before the meeting, shortly before the meeting, so you didn't have a lot of time to review it. I can tell you that today has been a busy day once we learned of the resignation and what are the next steps. So point one is the resignation is effective on the date it was given and a vacancy is created. So now the number of members of the City Council are six, with the mayor filling in for that vacancy, and that's per section 2.0 682 of the city charter. Any questions at this point? So the city charter, in fairly simple terms, found again in section 2.06, the very same section that talks about the vacancy, spells out the alternatives in when a vacancy happens, and there are three subsections that may or may not apply. The critical ones are subsection C and subsections D. Subsection C says that if the vacancy happens more than one year prior to the next munis regular municipal election, I put in quotes the term next regular municipal election, that's a very important term in the Charter. It's used ten times, by the way, in the Charter. Ten times. If that happens, then a special, the vacancy shall be filled by a special election. However, if the vacancy occurs less than one year prior to the next regular municipal election, then there is a process spelled out to fill, quote, to fill the unexpired term of the vacancy, to fill the unexpired term. It's important to recognize that the unexpired term of Consular Osman expires not at the next election, but expires as a result of the following election in November of 2027, or until the first Tuesday in January, a first Monday in January of 2028. So my interpretation is that since the vacancy occurred less than one year prior to the next regular municipal election, we'll go into that in one moment, then the process under section 2.06 D is spelled out, and that process involves the City Council may appoint an eligible individual or person to fill the vacancy for the full term, for the remainder of the term I should say, and if it does not within that 30-day period, and the 30-day appear period expires on February 7 2026, then the mayor shall appoint an eligible interval individual within the next 10 days, and if by some chance the mayor does not appoint an individual, and if 60 days in turn pass, then the City Council in turn can appoint an individual, but there is no provision in the Charter for filling the position by a special election if the vacancy occurs less than one year or less than 12 months prior to the next regular election, unless one circumstance happens, and that circumstance is spelled out in subsection B, which occurs if by some chance at the election that we had in November of 2025 a candidate was not elected. The subsection B of the Charter, 2.06 B of the Charter, provides that the City Council at its election can either appoint an individual to fill the term or can hold a special election. That's the only provision that provides for a special election, subsection B and subsection C, no other provision. I looked at state law, what does state law say? There isn't a lot in state law about filling a position, but the most critical thing is if you see, if you look at footnote one, state law spells out that a municipality's charter prevails over any inconsistent state law in terms of when a vacancy occurs and how that vacancy is filled. So the bottom line is that the City Council needs to look at the city charter. You say, well, you know, something's wrong here, right? Somebody's going to serve for more than a year without being elected. I agree with you, there's something a little bit, there's a disconnect there, but the literal language applies, and what's really important to recognize is this is the same provision, 2.06 c and d are unchanged both before four amendments that were adopted in 2021 and after the amendments were adopted, and the reason why that is so very Important is that the amendments in 2021 was the first time that the city held provided for staggered terms for the city council as well as the school department, and it also provided in section 7.0 one of the Charter that instead of a regular municipal election taking place every other year, it specifically spells out that it takes place on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Great language of course, but in the first November of every or each year, so a regular election takes place every year. So when those amendments were adopted providing for staggered terms, the voters had the option, we could have amended 2.0 2.06 C and 2.06 D to substitute for the words one year prior to the next regular municipal election to say one year prior to the expiration of the term of the vacancy. That was not done. And that's telling because changing the charter is not up to the city council. It's either up to the voters pursuant to an amendment or to the voters pursuant to recommendations of a charter commission and to make a wholesale revision or rewrite of the charter. Those provisions warrant amended. What is really helpful, it's not in the memo, but it's what I did in terms of due diligence is I went back and looked at my notes and some back information, and I don't know if some of you recall the sequence of events, but the city had appointed a
[16:07] Carl L. Sheline: charter commission to do a wholesale, do you mind speaking to the mic please for
[16:11] Marty Eisenstein: our folks at home, to do a wholesale revision to the Charter and one of the their recommendations. One of their recommendations was to amend Section 2.06 to provide that if the vacancy in the office occurs 12 months or more prior to the expiration of the elected official's term, that then a special election is held. So what happened was the city council decided not to proceed by way of a revision, the City Council decided to proceed by way of amendments, which were its choice, and it had ten amendments, one of which was to provide for staggered terms and in addition provided for elections every year. There was no amendment to section 2.06 C or 2.0 60, so the language of the Charter governs, and you know as much as I think that the spirit of the law is that the voters should decide, that's not what the Charter says. And what the charter says is, more importantly, the spirit of the voters who voted on the Charter. It's not up to the City Council to change the will of the voters. It's up to the voters through an election adopting amendments or revisions to change the Charter. So with all due circumspection and understanding, that sounds like a lawyer's answer rather than what is fair. I'm not paid to decide what's fair. I'm paid to decide what the law says and to advise you what the law says, and this is what the law says: follow the Charter. And my favorite expression, and I hate to, I probably have used it before, is an expression of statutory construction announced by my favorite justice, Frankfurter. There are three principles of statutory construction: read the law, read the law, and read the law. And I've read that law not three times but 30 times in the last four hours, so happy to entertain any questions you have.
[18:48] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, Mr. Eisenstein. So just if I can just recap really quick, due to the changes that we made a few years ago and then without subsequent changes, we are not going to be able to have a special election. The council will actually need to appoint someone to fill this seat. Am I understanding correctly the process is
[19:08] Marty Eisenstein: the council may appoint someone. I should have made that clearer, by the way. The process, you have 30 days to appoint someone, which is by February 7th. The clock starts ticking today and you have by February 7th to appoint an eligible individual, an eligible person, sorry. And if the council chooses not to exercise that right, the mayor shall appoint an eligible individual within the next ten days. So but yes, you're right, you do not have a choice to do a special election. And according to my interpretation, thank you very much.
[19:49] Scott A. Harriman: Councillor Harriman. Thank you. So you said when the, when the Charter Commission happened, I'm sorry, the Charter Committee happened, review Commission, apology, committee, yes, sorry. So they did not, you said voters had the option to change 2.06 C and D but they did not, have voters did not have that
[20:19] Marty Eisenstein: Option put in front of them correct, so to give a more elaborate or protracted answer. The city started the process of looking at the charter through a charter review commission, which would have involved a revision, a wholesale rewrite of the charter, which was adopted many years ago, and the charter was in effect at the time as of 2012. Instead of doing that, the City Council chose not to do a revision, which would be under section 2 to 102 of 30 a MRSA, but they said we will do amendments. Those amendments were ten in number, and they were presented to the voters to vote on. None of those amendments changed sections 2.06 C and 2.0 60. So the voters at that time didn't have the option to install that provision about the time period triggered based upon when the term expires, as opposed to when the next
[21:34] Scott A. Harriman: regular general election is. So it seems like as another oversight by the review committee, of which there have been a few that have popped up since that happened. Yeah, I'm
[21:47] Marty Eisenstein: not sure if it was an over the oh, the review committee focused on that, but it didn't get translated to the city council. It may have been an oversight by the then city council as opposed
[21:57] Scott A. Harriman: to the review committee. What do you mean when you say it didn't get transferred to the city council?
[22:03] Marty Eisenstein: It wasn't made into an amendment proposed by the city council. So again, you know, it took me a while to understand the process of changing a charter. I was involved in changing the charter way back when, and the first process is to do a wholesale rewrite, which is a revision pursuant to a report of the charter review committee, and every year ending with one under the current charter, you're supposed to do a revision or appoint a charter review commission. The City Council in its wisdom decided not to do a revision. They decided to do the alternative for changing the Charter, which is an amendment, which is not a wholesale revision, and they put forth ten discrete amendments, which were voted it on and adopted by the by the voters in 2021. Okay, thank you, Councillor Chittim.
[23:11] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Eisenstein, for your diligence and your work. I fully agree with you that the charter very clearly spells out what the obligations and authorities of the council are. But I think what we have here is a question of textualism versus pragmatism in the interpretation of the Charter. You've admitted that personally you feel that there was an oversight. I think we all may feel that same way if the Charter is interpreted strictly, and there is no provision for a special election, then what we have in effect is seven individual members on the city council voting to choose a representative for nearly the full two-year term of voters in Ward Five. If the prohibition against a special election for vacancies occurring less than one year before the next municipal election is interpreted strictly, then there is no need whatsoever for Section 201C in the charter, which specifies what happens if there is more than a year left in the term, that becomes obviated. So it's apparent to me that there was an error on someone's part or somebody's part in adopting this charter. It seems clear to me, at least, that the intent was that if less than one year remains in the term of the council position which is vacant, then the City Council will appoint a replacement. That is crystal still clear to me as the intent, and what I'm saying is that again we're having a discussion on textual interpretation versus a pragmatic interpretation of the of the city charter. I would argue that the selection of a representative from Ward Five by seven people up on this days disenfranchises the voters of Ward. And I would argue that we should, in fact, look at the intent of the charter rather than the strict language. To that, I would ask you as a city attorney, what consequence, if the council up here decides that, in fact, we do want to hold a special election, contravening the words of the charter, what exposure does that have to the city and to the council?
[26:02] Marty Eisenstein: I mean, that puts me in the position of telling you that you violated the Charter, but I will say that it's my opinion that you have zero authority to propose a special election, and any citizen of the city of Lewiston could make an argument that any election held and the appointment of an individual to fill that vacancy is invalid. What the consequences of that is, how that plays out in a court of law, I'm not sure. That's not, I'm not paid to describe that, but I am say that is one possibility.
[26:46] Joshua L. Nagine: Thank you, counselor. Naging, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in layman's terms, Mr. Eisenstein, we're saying that it's, it's pretty clear that the intent is not being met, correct? No, you believe that there was the intent to change the Charter to allow the City Council to appoint somebody to a two-year term, do you
[27:17] Marty Eisenstein: believe that to be the case? No, what I believe to be the case is when the city cut, when the city adopted amendments, they chose not to adopt an amendment to permit an election within one year of the term. They chose to retain the existing language of the statute, and my thought is that may not have been a mistake. That may have been an intentional decision on the part of the city council. The language is clear, an intentional decision to propose an amendment
[27:53] Joshua L. Nagine: the language is clear and I don't think that's a mistake. Okay, and just in, just to clarify, and yet the charter review committee, everybody who was a member of that committee is still alive today, right? I don't know. Yeah, no, I do know, and I watched all those meetings with great interest. I mean, again, it's just so disappointing that we have a flawed document that just creates a situation where we can't make a good choice. I mean, if elections don't matter, then what's the point?
[28:36] Marty Eisenstein: But the very point is that elections do matter. And the choice was made as to what to change in the charter. And you made a choice, the City Council and the voters made a choice in 2021 that they would change those ten, they would make those ten amendments, they wouldn't make the other revisions suggested by the Charter Review Committee. Whether that's a wise decision or not a wise decision, I'm not sure. When I say that, I say with trepidation, whether that follows the spirit of the law. My question is, the spirit of the law is that the voters should have an opportunity to weigh in on their choice of candidate and I'm very much concerned about that. At the same time, I'm very much concerned that the voters also weigh in on what the Charter says or doesn't say, and the voters made a decision to not include a change to section 2.06C and 2.06D.
[29:42] Joshua L. Nagine: Even though it's clear that at no point in time will there ever be a 12-month period or a one-year period for 206C to even apply?
[29:50] Marty Eisenstein: Well, for 206B, there could be a 12-month period both above, greater than, or less than in the case where the election did not prevail. So there could be a special election in that circumstance. Yes
[30:10] Joshua L. Nagine: Again, it's clear that a mistake was made in the process
[30:16] Scott A. Harriman: Back to you, councillor Herman. Thank you. You keep saying that voters chose not to do this, but they did not have that option. It was never presented to them. The committee, who I can't imagine intended for this to be the case because they didn't fix all the other references in the Charter that your interpretation obviates, there's, you know, there's no reason to specify some of these things when we have an election every year anyway. I also just don't think that, like, it's so anti-democratic for seven people, none of whom lives in Ward five, to choose who's going to represent someone from ward five for an entire term. I really, I really don't believe that the commission, I'm sorry, the committee, I keep getting the two mixed up, that they intended to allow for that because they did not fix any of the other issues in the charter that contradict that.
[31:23] Marty Eisenstein: So is it, is it undemocratic for, if the term is less than 12 months, for the city council to fill
[31:30] Scott A. Harriman: that position? It also is there, but that this is a significant change where it's
[31:36] Marty Eisenstein: the entire term. I mean, it's a fair point, that's a political point. My point is that I realize the voters in 2021 didn't have that option, but they could have rejected the language of section 7.01 to change the election to happen every year, and they could have rejected the staggered terms given that consequence. I realize that many of the, fortunately many of the residents are not lawyers reading with a fine-tooth comb every word of the document, but you have to, the democratic process is we adopt a constitution called the Charter and we live by that provision. Anything
[32:28] Carl L. Sheline: further, counselor Herman? It's just that
[32:31] Scott A. Harriman: the, I don't believe that voters, when they enacted staggered terms, were choosing to make it such that the council would choose their representative for an entire term, and I'm really not interested, as someone who lives in ward three, in choosing who represents the people of ward five for two whole years, an entire term. That person would be completely illegitimate in my opinion because nobody from ward five has selected them. It's just, it seems like to have to have an elected body from all the other parts of the city to decide who represents a different part of the city. It's just ridiculous.
[33:27] Carl L. Sheline: So I would like to remind council, excuse me. Mr. Eisenstein. Here's to provide a guidance and, yeah, we're not here to, yeah, he's here simply to provide guidance about the Charter as it stands right now.
[33:47] David B. Chittim: Yes, back to you counselor should have. Thank You mr. Mayor, and I appreciate very much that guidance from our city attorney. I too feel that were the intent of these amendments to have the council grant the council the authority to appoint an individual for two years, it would have eliminated the section that refers to more than one year before the next election. That to me evidences is errors in the crafting and the drafting of this document. I am fully prepared to say I know what the Charter says. I can read the words, I understand the language, I understand the specificity of the words. I think by now most people who have watched these council meetings for the past year appreciate that I am fully, I believe in the power of words. However, in this case, to me the evidence is overwhelming that those words were wrong, that they were presented by the council during the amendments to the public wrongly, and I believe that this council has the authority to say this document is wrong. In the interests of democracy and public participation, we elect to have a special election despite the specific language of the Charter. That's how I intend to vote on this issue. I appreciate your guidance and I enjoy listening to your arguments and your explanation. Thank you.
[35:38] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Nagine, so I'm willing to accept the fact that the, that the charter language is wrong. Like, I'm absolutely willing to accept the fact that what the intent was is not what the document is, right? And therefore we would have to accept that we appoint somebody for that term. I also know that this meeting was called originally because we were concerned about getting a special, a special election in place to coincide with the election for district 94 for the state house. Now that said, if it is the case that we have to exceed or violate the terms of the Charter, right, which I think would potentially open this up to liability, right, or accept the terms and appoint somebody, we have 30 days to do so. There's, there's no immediate need to appoint somebody tonight, for instance, right? You know, frankly, I'm incredibly angry at the flawed document that is our Charter. Over and over again issues keep coming up that just, we don't rule by Fiat, you know. Somebody had made a statement that like, what is this, Venezuela? Great question. Do six people get together in an eight-hour announcement and say, hey, this is your new leader? I'm not going to make this decision tonight at all. I would suggest that we adjourn until a regular meeting point can
[37:19] Marty Eisenstein: I just make one point.
[37:21] Carl L. Sheline: Sorry, yeah, then I wanted to add a quick comment, question. Yes, please continue, Mr. Rosenstein.
[37:26] Marty Eisenstein: What some of the counselors have suggested is rewriting the charter to conform with the spirit and to correct an error, but under state law there are only two ways to rewrite a charter. One is to revise it, or in two is to amend it, both of which require a vote of the citizens. So if the underlying principle is what is the will of the voters? I don't think it's up to a city council to do the rewrite of the charter as much as they, with all due respect, think that it's wrong and incorrect. You may well be right. You probably are right. But I don't think it's your role to do that. So sorry for that exchange. Sorry.
[38:20] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Yeah, at no point do I think that we should be ignoring your advice on this, and I also don't think that we should be violating the charter. I think that will open us up to liability, and I understand that we wish that things could be different, but they are not. Can you walk us through what would be your, if we proceeded and selected somebody, what should be the process for that? Oh, I think it's a good question and the clerk
[38:57] Marty Eisenstein: the city clerk and I discussed that I would go through a process of an application process. We have an application form here which we happy to distribute and set up a time by which people from Ward five with indicating why they're eligible, why they are residents of Ward five, all that stuff can apply and you set a deadline and for receipt of those applications and you do it a publicize that in a in an important way and while it's not the voters of Ward five selecting the individual it's at least giving the public an opportunity to come forward and say we would like John Jones or Sally Smith or Osmond's brother or whoever it is. It doesn't matter who it is, what matters is that they live in Ward five.
[40:02] Scott A. Harriman: Thank you. Yes, Counselor Herman. Thank you. I would just like to point out that we had the opportunity to do a thorough review of our charter a few years ago and that was shut down by the city administrator and four councillors at that point and that's why we end up with this half-baked thing we have here. Thank you.
[40:27] David B. Chittim: Chancellor Chittum process if the council elects to go with the appointment route. We have 30 days in which to make a decision. I like the suggestion of seeking interested applicants. Would the process of reviewing those applicants by the seven of us up here be done in executive session because it's a personnel matter or would it be done in the open, in public session?
[40:58] Marty Eisenstein: It's a great question. I would ask the applicant to say whether or not they you can do it in public session it's only it's the applicant's choice the applicant says I only want to do it confidentially then you have to decide whether or not to respect that request you would
[41:16] David B. Chittim: hypothetically then have some applicants being reviewed in executive session and others being reviewed in public session which makes it impossible to do an apples-for-apples comparison I would think well I think you could say you
[41:30] Marty Eisenstein: know are there certain items in your background that you would want us to redact but we would we want this to be a public process as an election is and we want at least the kind of information you would get that would get circulated in an election to be made public
[41:47] David B. Chittim: i think that's fair game would you envision a scenario in which the applicants for appointment would have an opportunity to speak to the public on their platforms a la campaign speech would you envision an opportunity for an inter candidate debate is a really good ideas I hadn't thought about it I hadn't you know I was
[42:16] Marty Eisenstein: trying to get to the charter and thinking about the next steps Kathy the city clerk and i did talk about the application process and you know but we hadn't gone as in depth in terms of rolling it out candidate reviews etc but anything to make it a public
[42:35] David B. Chittim: process is okay really warranted i would like to continue harping on the issue of having a special election. I'm aware that this meeting was called tonight as an emergency special meeting with scant more than the six hours allowed because we are under a time constraint. If we wish to consolidate a special election with the existing District 94 election, our timeline begins now. It is an extremely tight timeline and I think what I'd like to do is ask this council to address the question of whether or not we want to adhere to the strict language of the Charter or, and I'm going to, I'm going to put my own spin on this, do we obey the law or do we do the right thing? That's the question before us tonight and I would like to have the council put that issue to rest so that if the decision is to make an appointment, we can proceed along those lines and figure out what the next step in the process would be. So I guess in that light, I would move that the council schedule a special election to coincide with the House District 94 election on February, I believe it's 24th, Madam Clerk.
[44:04] Carl L. Sheline: Councilor Chinnam, I appreciate that motion but if we can recognize a couple other people before
[44:08] David B. Chittim: we do that would be great. Okay, fine, I reserve that motion then. All right, thank you. [44:14] Carl L. Sheline: Councilman Longchamps, then Councilor Najing. You absolutely obey the law.
[44:19] Susan G. Longchamps: I mean, you've got to be kidding me. I, anything that comes out of my mouth is not going to be
[44:28] Carl L. Sheline: pleasant. So you obey the law. thank you. Councilor Longchamps. yes, Councilor Najing.
[44:36] Joshua L. Nagine: I would just say this. One, we obey the Charter. The Charter is flawed. We obey it. We also push to change the Charter as soon as possible because there are serious issues with the Charter and we know this. I would also suggest that the process should be public. We shouldn't consider appointing anybody who wants to meet. There is no point in making my life that I have nothing is private anymore. My text messages aren't private, where I live is isn't private, like there's not a thing that a public official can keep private. And so ultimately, if somebody wants to be appointed to a position but only wants to meet an executive session, they probably shouldn't be applying for that position. I would just say that wholeheartedly. I also think that it would be nice, we can't guarantee it, but it would be nice if we could ask the person that we do appoint to consider stepping down after a year so somebody could be elected in the regular election. It would make me feel a little bit better. I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it because it's a horrible situation we're in right now, but you know, those are the things I would share and I would just say, you know, I think some people know that I'm extremely agitated at the situation that we're in because again, we're ruling by Fiat and even though we are elected officials Right, the whole process of the wards and why we have wards, and some of the complaints around the last counselor that got elected to that seat were about representation from the ward. And so if we're picking that ward member, it doesn't feel right at all. That said, I accept it, but I want to get out of here as quick as I can because at this point I'm, I'm also incredibly agitated. So Counselor Martel, did I see
[46:35] Bret Martel: your hand up yes thank you mr mayor i just part of this echoes the advice from the city attorney but i don't think it's fair to assume with voters may or may not have wanted or expected when they voted to adopt this charter or the amendments to this charter and i don't think it's any more democratic to disregard that by trying to force through a special election when the last thing that was voted on was this charter it's clearly defined we have advice from the city attorney and i think the only process is to move forward in that manner. I'd also say the only other option that doesn't entirely disenfranchise every Ward 5 voter who already did come out is to nominate the candidate that did receive votes from Ward 5 in a very tight race that was barely decided by a little more than a handful of votes. And I think that is how we maintain the letter of the Charter in front of us without entirely disenfranchising the voters of Ward 5.
[47:50] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, Coach, or don't say Herman. Yes.
[47:55] Scott A. Harriman: I would just like to remind folks that the election for Ward 5 was a over six point spread in the results. That's
[48:07] Joshua L. Nagine: six percentage points. Thank you. Yeah, I
[48:12] Carl L. Sheline: mean at this point I like his you know without the danger of repeating myself I wish that things could be different they are not I think we follow the advice of our city attorney and then work to appoint someone and then you know David IT I OR SORRY COUNCILOR CHIDDUM I LIKED SOME OF YOUR IDEAS I THINK WE NEED TO YEAH AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION TO APPOINT SOMEONE TONIGHT THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS AND WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS IT SHOULD BE THOUGHTFUL AND THEN WE SHOULD STICK TO it. That would be my advice. Councilor Roy, were you going to say something?
[48:52] Michael R. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm the only one that hasn't said anything at this point. I mean, is there a world where we can appoint somebody for a length of time to give an election after you? I mean, is
[49:06] Marty Eisenstein: that crazy to do? It's not, unfortunately. Section 2.0 60 says you apply, you appoint the eligible individual for the remaining expired term, and that's why
[49:22] Michael R. Roy: I'm asking that question because again I want to make sure that, and there's no wiggle room for any
[49:27] Marty Eisenstein: of that, right? So I don't want to get into the, and you don't have domain, no thank you, but I don't want to get into the domain. I thought it was an interesting point that Counselor Nageen made, and you know you obviously can't require the candidate to say, nor should you even say that as a qualification when you interview somebody, but certainly if a candidate were to make that statement, that would, that would give you some comfort that, you know, they're only going to serve until the next election, but you can't ever require, coerce, implicitly persuade them of that. But I understand the point that he made.
[50:24] Michael R. Roy: And I appreciate that answer. And it just, for me, it's hard because, again, you know, I would, I don't want to go against any charter or the charter or anything like that, right? But I also would like the will of the people to be spoken to, right? You know, again, that's at the end of the day, like I've heard a lot of comments like I don't feel comfortable choosing for an entire ward, but at this point I also, I'm not gonna go against what has to be done, right? So again, I'm in limbo, I
[51:04] Carl L. Sheline: would like to go to public comment soon, councillors, but yes, Councillor Harriman, we're going to public comment soon, but not right this second. Members of the public, thank you, Councilor Herman. Yes, did you have something? Yeah, I just wanted to go back to
[51:17] Scott A. Harriman: UM YOU KNOW IF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE INTENDED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE THE ONES WHO CHOOSE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR AWARD FOR AN ENTIRE TERM THEN WHY DID THEY LEAVE 2.06C IN WHICH IS COMPLETELY MOVED BECAUSE THERE CAN NEVER BE A VACANCY IN AN OFFICE WITH ONE YEAR OR MORE PRIOR to the next election so why would they leave that section in there when it
[51:47] Marty Eisenstein: means absolutely nothing Charter Review Committee had nothing to do with the amendments the Charter Review Committee proposed revisions the amendments were proposed by the City Council they chose City Council at the time chose not to do revisions chose not to follow what the Charter Review Committee recommendation there were all sorts of comprehensive rewrites of the Charter one of those included the revision to section 2.06 see now if I want to be taught a logical with my City Council president colleague I would say you know what 2.06 C could apply. Let's say on October 15th, the city council candidate dies, and on November, whatever the date is of the election, 4th, he's elected. Did the vacancy happen on October 5th when he died, which is more than one year prior to the next regular general election? Yes, and therefore subsection C kicks in. So there is a reason or purpose in the event of a death, and we've had city councilors, elected city councilors who have passed. It's not unheard of. So I think there is, it wasn't superfluous in the charter.
[53:28] Carl L. Sheline: If I could. Did you have anything further? Yeah.
[53:32] Scott A. Harriman: If someone was in the situation you described, there is not less than a year before the next election because you said this person who is a sitting counselor who's also running for reelection hypothetically dies in October. THAT'S LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.
[53:53] Marty Eisenstein: I SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR ON MY HYPOTHETICAL. SOMEBODY RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL, SAY IT'S X, MR. X RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL DIES ON OCTOBER 5th. ELECTION IS HELD ON NOVEMBER 5th. MR. X IS ELECTED. DID THE VACANCY IN THE CITY
[54:18] Carl L. Sheline: Council happen I'm sorry Marty you're not being picked up by the mic oh yes
[54:23] Marty Eisenstein: thank you did the vacancy in this in the City Council happen on October 5th or when he was to be sworn in if it vacancy happened on October 5th there's more than one year to the next regular general election the next regular general election would be in November of 2027 not 2026 no because the person
[54:47] Scott A. Harriman: who's currently holding that seat holds that seat until january 4th or 5th of the next year so that doesn't work the vacancy the seat is currently held until you know if the if the election happens and nobody gets elected or this person who has died gets elected that seat is still full until january 4th 5th whenever the inauguration happens which will then be within a year of the next regular election so that the hypothetical doesn't work there the election and the inauguration are on separate on separate dates so there's not a vacancy that happens when an election happens I'm just saying 2.0 6c can never happen because we always we have an election every year so if the intent of whomever but these amendments forward was to allow the City Council to appoint people to entire terms why did they leave 2.06 see in there that's
[55:57] Carl L. Sheline: that's my question council Martel did you have something no I'm good yes counselor chittum did you have something well i yes i would love to
[56:14] David B. Chittim: Engage our council with this total logical argument, but not on council time. Perhaps we could get a cup of coffee and discuss this further. It occurs to me that section 206e he would allow for a special election. Were two more counselors to resign, we could then hold in compliance, in full compliance of the charter, we could then hold a special election.
[56:43] Carl L. Sheline: I have a couple of suggestions.
[56:44] Bret Martel: Can we take nominations?
[56:47] David B. Chittim: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anything further? No. Remember, I have a pending motion, but if you want to go to public comment, that's fine.
[56:56] Carl L. Sheline: We will go to public comment after. Councillor Nijin.
[57:00] Joshua L. Nagine: So I would just like to point this out to all of us. We've got an LCIP that we have to figure out how to remove $28 million from in order to hit the 80% rule. We've got a budget that if nothing changes in it increases our taxes by I believe 8% right now. We've got a re-eval that's coming. And again we're wasting like a humongous amount of time with like shenanigans and things that are procedural that have nothing to do with the parts of what we're supposed to be doing, you know. We just lost 200 jobs here in the city, like they're gone, like the policy that we're trying to set is being wasted with all of this stuff, and I just want to point that out, like we were spending a lot of time not governing the city and not setting policy, and this is another example of it.
[57:56] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Okay, we're now heading to public comment. If yes, three minutes, please identify yourself and then where you live. To good
[58:08] Michael R. Roy: evening, I'm at Roy Ward six. Well, interesting that a lot of you want to kowtow your words about our charter, which I've been standing here for was it four years now. The irony is apparently our legal firm has had amnesia, because they stood here Monday night saying not what the word shall actually means, negating any conflict of interest policies, laws, or standard practice. I was gonna say Councillor Nejean and Councillor and Harriman left two months ago recuse themselves for vote that hasn't happened on the school committee against their own policies, not the first time that a bad Charter has been forced on the public. Back in 2012, the county Charter, due to the county Charters Commission's attorney, mostly they, the three commissioners had to go to the legislature to fix it, which then a few years after the fact went to, you know, attorney Eisenstein will probably appreciate this, well Peter Brand might more, but which led to the whole lawsuit against the county individuals commissioners and pretty Much every town again the circle of firing squad of suing yourselves, which yes, we should be doing that. I just, well, the irony is that none of you are brought up. There's a divert, diversion in the charter, well many diversions, but one of them that count a vacancy in mayor and council is treated one way, school committee is treated another. Back in 2018, after no one ran for ward six for school committee, the council had to appoint, well appointed, not had to, but Mark Care, that's how Mark Care got on the school committee for that term and hence became chair. Well, and then the current member for ward one on the school committee got appointed for essentially a year and a half because there was a vacancy. It was that Bruce Damon resigned back in 2020. The next election wasn't until 2021. So there is this, all the other issues, there's this. And then Brandon Igeson gave an opinion in the charter review committee's report that they could basically do anything within the four corners, i.e., minor changes, but it is very plausible to argue that going from every other year to a yearly Minnesota election is not within the four corners of the charter and is a major structural argument, which Wilkin Wisbin, their attorney, has taken a whole different point on a charter.
[1:01:10] Carl L. Sheline: That's time. Thank you. Charter, thank you Arsula.
[1:01:17] Chrissy Noble: Claire Ward Five, follow the law or do the right thing. I would like to point out to all of you that doing the right thing would have been Iman Osman not being on the ballot in the first place. The rightful placeholder of that seat is Rinsel and Council Dajean. You say that you're worried about the budget and everything that's coming up. You have an experienced counselor sitting right here that received less than two dozen votes in the opposition, so you have somebody that's willing, experienced and ready, and it's my opinion that you use that. Hey,
[1:02:07] Public commenter: everyone, Janet Bowden, Ward Two, Mayor Chalene, your judgment has been consistently poor. You've rewarded people who prioritize your political party over the people of Lewiston. You talk about moving the city forward, but your opponents have brought us nothing, or I'm sorry, your appointments have brought us nothing but distractions, legal scandals and a total breakdown of public trust. I sincerely hope this council takes full advantage of this charter mishap and stop allowing the mayor to bully you. Around this is your choice. Lucky for all of you, there's an eligible candidate in this room tonight who's ready to serve and nearly won the November election. Anyway, Rin's soul is the obvious choice for appointment to this seat. It's time to stop putting ideology first and start putting Lewiston first. Please do the right thing this time. Elect Red Beth. Matthews, Ward Three. First, I want to start by saying that Rin's opponent was never legitimate by any means of the law. And I wanna make a clear distinction about democracy and disenfranchisement. They're constitutional. It's either a constitutional or a political argument. They are not how municipal law operates. The Lewiston Charter is municipal law. It's adopted by voters. It's governed by the situation explicitly. It uses mandatory language like shall, and it does not authorize discretionary alternatives based on value judgments. If someone believes the Charter itself is unconstitutional, the argument belongs in court. If someone believes the Charter is outdated, the remedy is a voter approved amendment, period. Until either of those things happen, the city is legally required to follow the Charter as written. Choosing not to is not interpretation, it's non-compliance. And every one of you took an oath to uphold. This Charter. Good evening. Larry Pease, Ward 5. Mr. Mayor, Councilors, administration, we talked about budgets, we talked about how expensive it's going to be this year, but yet we're willing to go out and spend more money to have another election when we have people qualified that was wanted the position, ran for the position, came close to winning that position. It's a no-brainer. I mean, it's really not a brainer, you know. You say you don't want to vote for appoint somebody because you're more five or four by three, you don't feel you have the right. We're not asking you to have the right. We're asking you to follow what happened. What happened was we had a candidate, met all the requirements, ran through the election, unfortunately lost the election, but now that person's out. Shouldn't we just able to follow in and say, hey, the next person that was in line, can they not just take that position over? It'd be like, how can I explain it? Rank choice voting. Voting, if that person didn't make it, the other one would get it, correct? Why can't we do the same thing here, same idea? You're gonna spend a lot of time, a lot of money, when you should be getting down to saying, okay, yes, we do have a charter problem, let's focus on that. Let's put somebody in that seat that has a ability, willing to serve, the experience, and let's go to the charter, let's fix that. That's what we need to do. We don't need to be spending money for special elections. I don't know what it costs, but I imagine it costs a few dollars to have an election. Time, money, everything. Why? We, you know, we have a candidate here, in Sewell. She ran in my position after I got out. I think she's more than qualified, we'd take just a vote, somebody make a motion to do it, and let it be done, then we can all go home and, excuse me, I'll go home and feel better that we had to actually put somebody where they're supposed to be. Thank you. My name is Lisa Jones, I live in Ward 2 and I own a business in Ward 7. I did not prepare public comment for tonight because I was operating said business right up until I came here. I've been taking notes while I've listened to you guys talk. I have to agree that it's disappointing that we are using a flawed document. I don't remember who said that, I wrote it when you said it, but we the public, who have had a problem for months and months and months with the Ward 5 candidate that was allowed on the ballot, we're told in writing by a bunch of people in this room including Scott Harriman, that we don't get to apply the laws as we want them to be, we have to follow what's written. So to see you all up there are trying to say, oh no, that's not what they meant for the charter to say. It's scary. It's terrifying. You guys are literally trying to change the laws to your own benefit. It looks like you're desperate to keep Wren out of that seat, is what it looks like. Just so you know, Ward 5 spoke. Ward 5 wants Wren. 230 people voted for Wren Sewell. The other candidate was never legal to be on the ballot. That fight is not done, I'm not giving that up. Pretty sure you all took an oath to uphold the Charter as written, not the way you want it to look written. Soul Word Five, I just want to know where all the argument was when we were deciding what the intent to return was. I didn't see any of you up there arguing then and deciding that you were just gonna decide for yourself what it meant, and now you're arguing what the Charter says. Where was that argument in October, because I ran that race. I was the only other candidate on that ballot, and we basically almost split the votes. That's 35 votes. So that's not a candidate that Ward 5 doesn't want. That's a candidate that was voted for. So I would really like to be considered for that Ward 5 seat. Andrew Jones, Ward 2. I figured I'd come up here and speak because I was apparently the only one not speaking. I will just echo a lot of things that have already been said. I'm kind of surprised to hear some counselors talk about dispensing with the Charter and doing what they see fit. I understand why you want to do that, but the Charter says what it says, and yes, it's a flawed document, and yes, it needs amendments. As Carl said, the people who worked on it are only human. And like everyone else has said, you have someone in this room, written Sewell, who is battle-tested and ready to go. Carl, you said when you appointed Scott Harriman back to the school board that he's a good choice because he's already been there, he knows the process, knows what they're doing, and ready to go as they go into budget season. Same thing with her in school. So I request that you choose we're in school for that seat. Thank you.
[1:10:06] Carl L. Sheline: Further public comment, Steve.
[1:10:11] Public commenter: Robinson, I am an award-winning investigative reporter and the editor-in-chief of the Main Wire, and my public comment today is that my reporter John?
[1:10:19] Carl L. Sheline: Where do you reside? I live in
[1:10:23] Public commenter: Brunswick. My reporter John Featherston, who has been covering this, as far as I know, comported himself as a gentleman. Earlier today he had vehicles driving around threatening him, intimidating him, making gun hand gestures at him. So I would just like to know what is the City Council going to do about issues like that, where someone who is conducting routine basic journalism is facing threats of intimidation and gun violence. We'll be going to the Lewiston Police Department to file a report after this meeting, just following the basic procedure, but I'd like to bring that to your attention because I think that's a pretty important matter. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
[1:11:05] David B. Chittim: I'm sorry yes councillor Chittum I was raising a point of order as to the relevance of this discussion we're discussing a particular agenda item not
[1:11:16] Carl L. Sheline: general public comment Thank You councillor Chittum further public comment for this agenda item going once okay public comment is now closed back to back to the council mr. Eisenstein is there anything that after hearing public comment is there anything that you'd like to say or address I have nothing to add okay comments questions from the council yes counselor long
[1:11:56] Susan G. Longchamps: champs yes again I think the Charter is very clear whether we like it or not it does seem very clear that there are some counselors up here that would like it to sway their way but the Charter is clear my opinion about who should be sitting there is not going to change it is Rensoul I think that there were two people running she didn't lose by very many votes I think she deserves to set up there she has sat up there with integrity the whole time I would like I would like to get this over with to be honest tonight I would like Rensoul To be the ward 5 councillor. I don't know how we would vote on that tonight Or if we even if we could but that's what I would like to see happen. What Harriman?
[1:12:59] Carl L. Sheline: counselors, please do that Council I Herman you have not been recognized. Thank Council Herman. Thank you I was apologizing to my call that I appreciate that you have still not been recognized. Oh in my opinion
[1:13:12] Susan G. Longchamps: We had two people running right? one that some would say shouldn't, some would say should. The reality is, he's not here anymore. Our election was very recent. As some stated, she lost by, I think, 30-something, was it 30-something votes, roughly? So, Ward 5 did vote. I would like to have Rensoul set up there. It is not going to change, AND THERE ARE OTHER COUNSELORS THAT RECENTLY SAID THEY WANTED HER TO SIT THERE, BUT FOR SOME REASON HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND. I WILL CALL THAT OUT LATER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE REN SOUL REPRESENT HER WARD AS SHE DID FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS WITH INTEGRITY. AND I HOPE MY OTHER COUNSELORS WOULD ALSO. THANK YOU.
[1:14:10] Carl L. Sheline: you thank you just really quick mr. Eisenstein what is your recommendation could the council as a whole if they wish to appoint someone tonight could they or that should really be moved to a different meeting what are what are your thoughts on that I'm on the counselors was long champs proposal to appoint somebody this evening yes is that yes your thoughts and comments on
[1:14:43] Marty Eisenstein: That well certainly not in the domain of legal opinion, but my thoughts and comments are that to try to replicate the virtues of an election, I would try to replicate the virtues of an election, which is to interview eligible candidates before you make that decision. That would be my recommendation. That's why I brought forward an application process. I realize there's nothing in the law or in the Charter to say that's the way for the City Council to proceed. It's open-ended as to how the City Council should proceed, but it would be my, that's my recommendation in light of the argument of the quote spirit close quote of the Charter, and to me it's a way to address the point that the words of the Charter should be followed, but to by all means to try to implement the spirit OF THE CHARTER, WHICH IS THAT VOTERS ELECT OR CHOOSE FROM ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES, THOSE TO REPRESENT THEM. THANK YOU.
[1:16:08] Scott A. Harriman: COUNCIL HERRMAN. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE RECEIVED YOUR MEMO 15 MINUTES BEFORE THIS MEETING STARTED. I DID NOT READ THAT MEMO UNTIL I WAS SITTING HERE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED, AND I DO NOT FEEL LIKE it would be it would be a service to the people of lewiston to make a decision right now only having known about this for about an hour and 20 minutes. sure i apologize for not getting
[1:16:41] Marty Eisenstein: it to you earlier, but i just learned about the meeting and the yes i'm sorry if i implied that it was your fault, but it's okay i just want the viewers to understand that i wasn't dilly DALLAS AND THERE ARE NO GOLF COURSES OPEN NOW RIGHT YEAH I WAS I JUST WANTED
[1:17:00] Scott A. Harriman: TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE ONLY HAD THIS INFORMATION AS A COUNCIL FOR
[1:17:05] Marty Eisenstein: ABOUT AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES I SHOULD HAVE POINTED THAT OUT AS WELL YOU'RE
[1:17:08] Carl L. Sheline: ABSOLUTELY RIGHT YEAH AND IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN 24 HOURS YES COUNCIL IMAN RESIGNED SO YEAH I UNDERSTAND AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD EFFORTS TODAY WE DEEPLY
[1:17:18] Marty Eisenstein: APPRECIATE IT YEAH AND I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU HAVE A MEETING TONIGHT because you have in my opinion the clock is ticking and there's a 30-day clock and I think you should make a conscious decision as to how to proceed and this is the start it's not I don't think it should be the end but it should be the start of the process so I think it's great that you were made yourselves
[1:17:42] Carl L. Sheline: available on relatively short notice we are here to this to discuss next step so yes thank you counselor martel did you have your hand up yes thank you mr mayor very much
[1:17:55] Bret Martel: Like Councillor Longchamps, my mind is not going to change on this. I believe the right person for the job is Rin Seoul. I believe that Councillor Neijin made a lot of great points. There is governing to be done. There is a lot on the plate of this council right now. I think that work needs to be done from a full council so that there is votes from that represent, there's a voter, excuse me, a representative from Ward 5 that got votes from the residents of Ward 5 and will vote for their constituents with integrity and respect. Again, Rensoul served without censure or punishment of any kind that I'm aware of. She started with dignity and integrity. I think she's an amazing an example of what a city councilor should be, regardless of how you feel about her political beliefs. If we're going to be trying to replicate a election without having an election, I think the only way we do that is by respecting the people of Ward 5 that did go out and vote for Rensole by bringing in new applicants and allowing someone that didn't take part in the application process to come in now shortly after the opportunity had presented Senate itself just recently to challenge for that seat entirely disenfranchises every single resident of Ward 5 as they're not going to have any say and that any new applicant would not have done anything to get the support of the Ward 5 voters. We would be looking to, if we appointed that person, any other applicant, we would be doing so in a way that Councillor Harriman said that he wasn't okay with, which was undemocratic. So we're going to take an applicant that didn't go through the candidate process, got zero votes from any Ward five resident, and we're going to stick them up here to represent Ward five for the next two years, and I just cannot get my head around that. I really don't care who comes for an application PROCESS. MY VOTE WILL BE FOR RENSOL AND IT WON'T CHANGE.
[1:20:11] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR CHIDDOM, DID YOU
[1:20:12] David B. Chittim: HAVE YOUR HAND UP EARLIER? YES, I DID. THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO SPOKE TONIGHT. YOU MADE SOME EXCELLENT POINTS. NOTABLY THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR ME TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE LAW IS FLAWED. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF a democracy to ignore a flawed law. You have raised some excellent points. I did swear an oath, which on retrospect I probably should not have done if I had read carefully and understood all of the ramifications of the Charter. I am going to say that your comments tonight swayed me. I am still very much opposed to simply following what I considered to be an erroneous document, a document that was not put together with foresight and with careful consideration. This harks back to a song that I've been singing for two years now, Words Matter. If we don't put documents together carefully, we end up with fiascos such as this one. I am in heart going to how do I say this I'm going to oppose or propose that we ignore the Charter, but I want you to know that I've heard you, that I do so with a heavy heart and with careful consideration. I think the right thing for me individually to do is to say we need to let the voters of Ward 5 speak. THAT'S NOT TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THE CHARTER. RECOGNIZING THAT MY VOTE MAY BE THE LONE WIND, THE LONE SONG IN THE WIND, THAT'S HOW I'M GOING TO PROCEED. BUT I DO WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO EVERYBODY WHO LET THEIR VIEWS BE KNOWN TONIGHT. THANK YOU.
[1:22:20] Carl L. Sheline: ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION, COUNCILOR CHIDDUM?
[1:22:24] David B. Chittim: YES, IF NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT I HAD INITIALLY MADE, AND THAT IS THAT WE SCHEDULE A special election to coincide with the district house district 94 election on february 24th
[1:22:37] Carl L. Sheline: second do we have we have a second i
[1:22:43] Bret Martel: guess i don't want to do that you're fine
[1:22:46] Carl L. Sheline: i'm sorry madam clerk did you get the motion the motion is for the city council to schedule a special ward 5 election i'm sorry can you say that again one more time
[1:22:57] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): city council would like to schedule a special election for the ward 5 city council seat
[1:23:02] Carl L. Sheline: and to hold that on February 24th I missed to move well so that was moved by Councillor chicken Chittum and Councillor Martel do you want to second yep that's fine sorry I was confused okay all right so now we have we have a second on the floor discussion on this motion by
[1:23:23] Scott A. Harriman: councillors Councillor Harriman thank you just a quick reminder for other counselors i know it's a new year i would appreciate if other counselors do not misrepresent what i say you can speak for yourself i will speak for myself thank you further
[1:23:41] Carl L. Sheline: Discussion on this motion. I urge the, I realize it's been moved and seconded, but I urge the council to, vote this down. We cannot be ignoring. Yes, Mr. Eisenstein, we're gonna wait. Counselors, if we can, may I make a point of order while we wait? Points of order are always
[1:24:29] Scott A. Harriman: allowed. Councillor Harriman, I suppose it does need to wait for our clerk and counsel, but I'm wondering at what point, at what point do motions become such that the, they need to either be on the agenda or rules need to be suspended to make them? I realize our agenda item is open-ended and says discussion and next steps, but typically when one makes a motion it has to either be on the agenda or we have to suspend the rules first. I think that can be bent a little bit when it comes to discussion and minor things like that, but as far as making a motion such as scheduling an election, that seems like something that is a, you know, something that has to be on an agenda or the rules have to be suspended first.
[1:25:23] Carl L. Sheline: Since you're here, Mr. Eisenstein, would you like to speak to that? Actually, sorry,
[1:25:31] Marty Eisenstein: council chairman, but what I wanted to speak to is the motion. If even if it were adopted, I'm not sure that would be the end all. You need to go through a special procedure under the charter in terms of scheduling the petitions and all that stuff, and that's what I was discussing with the city clerk. It's possible that it could happen, but you know, it's too late in the night for me to count all the numbers and the, you know, there's certain time by which petitions get it circulated and there are a number of different procedural hurdles to making sure the election is conducted properly. So my only point is that if you do decide that motion, you should really think about the next steps and maybe adjourn and talk to the, to this clerk on that score, and that backs up your point, Councillor Harriman, that if he had more time to look at that motion, you may have then seen that, you know, the timing and the counting, the time. So sorry for such a long-winded response to your question. Thank you.
[1:26:53] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, two points I would, in answer to your observations, I would amend the motion to say schedule a special election at the earliest opportunity. I have gone through the scheduling and I believe that it can be done on the 24th, but I recognize that, gee, I'm human and I make mistakes too, so I would amend the motion to say schedule a public meeting at the earliest possible time. I recognize that motion, that vote will very likely fail, so it's probably a moot point anyway. The second point I'd like to make, Mr. Mayor, is that you are now up here with us and you have a vote, for you to urge the council to act one way or another then gives us all the authority to say I urge the council to support a special election as soon as possible. So please remember, Mr. Mayor, that until this seat is filled you are OUR PEER AND YOUR URGING OF THE COUNCIL HAS AS MUCH EFFECT AS OUR URGING OF THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
[1:28:06] Carl L. Sheline: THANK YOU. UM, UH, COUNSELOR NAGY, I ASK THAT WE MOVE THE QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT TO MOVE THE QUESTION? YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A SECOND TO MOVE THE QUESTION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. I'm sorry, sir, could you just clarify for me
[1:28:33] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): please who made the motion to move the question? I'm sorry, say that again.
[1:28:37] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor Nagine, it was seconded by Councillor Chittim. I'd like to call a
[1:28:44] Scott A. Harriman: point of order. I don't see how we can have a motion on the floor that's not on the agenda, and when we have not suspended the rules to add items to the agenda, we can't be making this sort of decision with absolutely no transparency. This was not on our agenda, we've not suspended the rules so that we may add anything we want to the agenda, and I don't believe that it's legitimate to have such a motion on the floor at this point. Thank You, Councillor
[1:29:11] Carl L. Sheline: Harriman. Councillor, I'm sorry, Mr. Eisenstein, do you want to speak to the legality of this vote? So now I wish that I retain the agenda Kathy that I spilled water all over, so I know it's coming back to you. Thank you.
[1:29:35] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Mr. Mayor, if I could just comment while the city attorney is checking on that, I please, Madam Clerk, Councillor Chittim, I'm, I'm not comfortable that your motion is with the change in the wording of at earliest possible time is clear enough or even allowable. My understanding is that for a special election to be called, the city council needs to set the date and direct me when to do it and to do it, and then we will set the calendar accordingly, when nomination papers will be available, absentee ballots. Whatever, but I don't believe that a motion would be in order or binding that it would say at the earliest possible date and leave that up to me to decide. So just to let you know, thank you.
[1:30:26] Carl L. Sheline: We're, hold on one second counselor. Are you ready to weigh in Mr. Eisenstein?
[1:30:33] Marty Eisenstein: Yeah, I tend to agree with counselor Harriman that the agenda item was review of next steps in the process to fill the vacant city council seat from ward 5. I think a general sense of whether to pursue it by way of election or by way of appointment would be within that, within that scope, but any more details would have to be set for a
[1:31:09] Carl L. Sheline: separate meeting as to ways of proceeding. Thank you Mr. Eisenstein. Madam Clerk, what do you think about this idea as we do in budget, should we do a quick thumbs up about whether the council feels a special election is in order or whether we want to simply, you know, create a process where we fill the seat? Would you be comfortable with that?
[1:31:36] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): I'm not sure that 's my decision mr. mayor I mean the city attorney is here to answer questions for you or the city
[1:31:44] Bryan Kaenrath: administrator can comment, the attorney, but we have, you know, a motion on the floor and a vote in order. I don't think consensus is the way to go at this point.
[1:31:57] Carl L. Sheline: Mr. Eisenstein, but you're, you're saying this, we really should not be holding this vote, is that what I just heard you say a second ago or did I mishear you?
[1:32:08] Marty Eisenstein: my concern is that the agenda item the subject was to review the next steps and you know deciding to hold an election has all sorts of other implications when it is held what you direct city clerk to do and I'm not necessarily sure that 's within the scope of the agenda I look these are general terms they're not as clear as the murder but I think I'd be concerned that you're going pretty far afield making you know very significant tactical decisions as to ways of either holding a special election, when it's held, what you direct the city clerk to do, what the city clerk recommends. Understood, and you don't have her recommendations at this point. Would it
[1:33:09] Carl L. Sheline: be appropriate then to, you know, not vote per se, but just run across the days and ask counselors whether their preference is to hold a special election or to create a process to fill the seat, and then at that point we would have consensus that the clerk could work
[1:33:26] Marty Eisenstein: towards? Would that be appropriate? I think that and to ask the clerk to advise and for your next meeting as to path forward, either as a special election or as an appointment with recommendations.
[1:33:43] Carl L. Sheline: okay councillors so at this point I would like to start with the war one counselor and simply ask so whether what their preference is and then use that to ask the clerk to provide us guidance for the next meeting that does that sound appropriate mr. Eisenstein that's my recommendation yes okay all right COUNCILOR HERMAN AND THEN COUNCILOR CHIDDUP. THOUGHTS BEFORE WE DO THAT.
[1:34:14] Scott A. Harriman: MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT I ONLY RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION ABOUT 90 MINUTES AGO, AND I NEED TO DO SOME THINKING ABOUT IT BEFORE DECIDING EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS A NEXT STEP. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO ANY OF US OR TO THE PUBLIC, IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT, TO HAVE AN AGENDA WITHOUT THIS DECISION ON IT AND THEN TO TRY TO MAKE THIS decision with not much time to think about it and not any public process
[1:34:45] Carl L. Sheline: or transparency around it. Thank you. Yes councillor Chittum. Thank You mr. mayor.
[1:34:51] David B. Chittim: The reason that there is an urgency here is that the window between now and the next special election is as narrow a window as can be accommodated with the necessary steps that have to be taken before then. That's why we're having a special meeting tonight period hearing what the public has said reading the room so they say I'm going to withdraw my motion. I was I was contemplating simply moving that we hold a special election that would obviate some of the concerns expressed by the clerk but I'm hearing the city attorney say that even THAT IS PERHAPS TOO SPECIFIC GIVEN THE AREAS OF THE GIVEN THE DISCUSSION OR THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WAS PRESENTED SO UM I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND I HOPE THAT THE SECONDER WILL AS WELL.
[1:35:47] Carl L. Sheline: UNDER COUNCIL RULES YOU'LL NEED TO ALSO I MEAN YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO BUT UH ARE YOU WILLING TO WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND? YES. OKAY MADAM CLERK HAVE YOU NOTED THAT? YES THANK YOU. WE HAVE NOW NO MOTION on the table. Yes counselor long champs you may have already answered this but
[1:36:07] Susan G. Longchamps: again you know my decision is not going to change. I think the person that should be sitting there is a Rensoul. I would like to see if we could see who here on council you know sitting up here would agree to that. Can we do that? [Carl L. Sheline: I don't] I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT STEPS ARE OR IF THAT'S AN OPTION.
[1:36:32] Carl L. Sheline: CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT, MR. EISENSTEIN, SINCE YOU ARE
[1:36:36] Susan G. Longchamps: HERE? I DO KNOW THAT YOU SHARED YOUR OPINION, WHICH I APPRECIATE SO MUCH, BUT DURING THE FIRST TIME I ASKED. BUT AGAIN, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE ARE WASTING A LOT OF TIME. A LOT OF TIME IS WASTED. PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY GONE OUT AND VOTED. AGAIN, SHE LOST BY 35 VOTES. To someone that wasn't even residing in Ward 5, I feel like we could end this now, have someone sitting there that has sat there with integrity, that always put the city first in my opinion and her constituents, and move on to the bigger things that we need to deal with, which is our budget. So I would ask one more time that if we could see how many counselors would agree to that, do we have the votes for that? If we do, we all go home, our counselors sitting back up there that was sitting there that people went out and voted for, and we move on to the to the more important things that we need to be dealing with. That's my
[1:37:58] Carl L. Sheline: opinion. Thank you, Mr. Eisenstein. You were hesitant to have us vote before. Do your same concerns still apply to vote somebody in now? Or so I just want to make it clear that I have the
[1:38:12] Marty Eisenstein: utmost respect for the counselor. I don't mean to reflect an opinion that is negative, but I do mean to suggest that to me, my recommended motion is that the city council choose whether or not to follow section 2.06 d of the city charter and then schedule a meeting based upon the advice, with the next step being scheduled meeting based upon the advice and recommendation of city staff as to how to go about filling the special appointment. If they vote yes, if you vote no, then I think you need to vote to hold a meeting to decide the contours of a special election. Thank you.
[1:39:08] Carl L. Sheline: Madam Clerk, did you have something? Or administration?
[1:39:15] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): I don't know if it would resolve the issue or try to answer Councillor Long Champs intention that if a motion is presented now to direct city staff to put on the January 20th agenda a motion to appoint for the open seat, yes, a particular person or not, I mean, however you want to instruct the motion, but in order to I think meet the concerns of the city attorney but also accomplish what you're trying to do, which is to be as expeditious as possible, if the council voted tonight to direct city staff to put the appointment on the January 20th agenda and you could decide in your motion if you wanted to insert a name at this point or not, would that make sense?
[1:40:05] Marty Eisenstein: And I'm looking at the city attorney. Yeah, with this ramification that I think it's important to know if there's a majority of the city council that wants to follow the appointed process or an election process. That to me is a reasonable step that is contemplated by the agenda and the details whether or not, and then there would be a follow-up motion as to whichever step is followed or voted on as to the next step, whether it's a meeting on the 20th, if the decision is made to follow section 2.0 6d of the Charter to appoint a particular counselor, that's reasonable, but not to hold that motion this evening, okay.
[1:41:06] Carl L. Sheline: So I mean not to hold the decision this evening, right? Correct. So very clear a few minutes ago I planned on going. You want to ascertain right now whether the council is in favor of a special election or the appointment process, correct? Okay. Counselor for one, how do you feel about that, the appointment process? War to appointment process. Counselor for more three, I have only seen this information just recently. I'm going to abstain from this. Okay. Counselor, if the audience could please refrain from speaking, thank you. Counselor from ward four, appointment process.
[1:41:49] David B. Chittim: Counselor from ward six, is this a consensus or a vote? Yeah, I mean, I'm, it's consensus, it's consensus, I'm sorry, counselors, thank you. Does this consensus then form the voice of the body? THIS
[1:42:12] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): IS HOW WE SORT OF DO IT INFORMALLY DURING WORKSHOPS AND BUDGET SESSIONS. THE COUNCIL WILL GO AROUND AND INDICATE THEIR PREFERENCE FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT A FORMAL MOTION BEFORE THEM. THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST FOR PAST PRACTICE. IT COULD BE MADE INTO A FORMAL MOTION.
[1:42:33] David B. Chittim: I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO EXPRESS MY OPINION. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO REINSTATE MY MOTION, WHICH I FULLY EXPECT TO FAIL, THAT WE ADOPT THE SPECIAL ELECTION PROCESS. THEN WE CAN HAVE A FORMAL VOTE AND THE BODY CAN SPEAK AS A BODY.
[1:42:52] Carl L. Sheline: SO IF IT'S PHRASED IN THAT WAY, THANK YOU COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. IF IT'S PHRASED IN THAT WAY, MR. EISENSTEIN, WHERE WE ADOPT THE SPECIAL ELECTION PROCESS, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE AND FOR A VOTE? TO ME IT WOULD BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A
[1:43:09] Marty Eisenstein: special election process, but to adopt the route of the of holding a special election with details to follow in a separate motion and separate decision.
[1:43:20] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Madam clerk, did you get all that? Basically to follow that, to proceed with a special election route of holding a special election and then having a
[1:43:31] Carl L. Sheline: follow-up motion with the logistics you're saying at this meeting or a
[1:43:37] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): DIFFERENT MEETING I BELIEVE THAT MOTION IS BEING MADE RIGHT NOW BY COUNCILOR
[1:43:41] Carl L. Sheline: CHIDDOM IS THAT CORRECT WELL RIGHT BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FOLLOW-UP VOTE THE
[1:43:44] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): FOLLOW-UP VOTE IF THIS MOTION PASSES THEN THE FOLLOW-UP MOTION WOULD BE
[1:43:50] Carl L. Sheline: LOGISTICAL ITEMS YES UNDERSTOOD THANK YOU IS THAT ARE YOU AGREEABLE TO THAT COUNCILOR CHIDDOM TO
[1:44:00] David B. Chittim: HAVE A MOTION SEE I FULLY EXPECT THIS MOTION TO FAIL SO I think this argument is let's just do it let's just do it i would i would like to dispense with it if we could have a second if not then the motion dies for lack of a second
[1:44:14] Carl L. Sheline: do we have a second for this motion we do not have a second i'm i plan on continuing
[1:44:24] David B. Chittim: pulling the council councillor chittum would you like to now answer with councillor harriman i We have 30 days to make a decision. I'm not prepared to make a decision tonight
[1:44:39] Carl L. Sheline: Councillor from Ward 7
[1:44:42] Bret Martel: Yeah appointment process and I'd also like to move that we hold a formal vote on it right now
[1:44:51] Carl L. Sheline: Madam clerk, did you get that? second
[1:44:56] Scott A. Harriman: Point of order the to move that we have a formal vote on it. Can you can you clarify your motion please yes I would like to move that we have a formal
[1:45:05] Bret Martel: vote to adopt the appointment process in section 2.0 6
[1:45:12] Carl L. Sheline: I was mr. Einstein do you
[1:45:16] David B. Chittim: have any thoughts on this no I will I will I will second that 's that's the positive of I already did yeah counselors please speak when recognized
[1:45:27] Carl L. Sheline: thank you yes we did already have a second madam clerk did you get all that
[1:45:32] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): If I could just get some clarification councillor Martel, it's basically to move to implement section 2.0 6d in the Charter
[1:45:39] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, thank you It's been second by councillor longchamps. Yes. Thank you. Ma'am clerk, please call the vote
[1:45:47] Scott A. Harriman: Point of order there has not been public comment on this and there has not been council discussion on this [Carl L. Sheline: Council discussion at] council Harriman could we have clarification on? what the what the result of this vote will do and when the next steps will happen and what the next steps will be
[1:46:13] Carl L. Sheline: mr. Eisenstein this vote will express the will of the council that we should move forward with the appropriate appointment process which then we will then discuss after this vote but will likely have a future agenda item am i understanding that correctly
[1:46:30] Marty Eisenstein: i understand it perfectly and i would envision probably a second motion to direct staff to report on methods process
[1:46:47] Carl L. Sheline: to implement the appointment process thank you did you have anything further counselor herman
[1:46:55] Scott A. Harriman: Yes, I guess I just don't know when is this going to happen and where. What I'd like to understand what I'm voting on before voting on it. What so my second
[1:47:10] Marty Eisenstein: motion is not what you're voting cut now, but if I would put the second motion I would add to report to the City Council on or before the meeting City Council meeting on the 20th of January given the fact that you have from today to make a decision so that's the context if
[1:47:38] Carl L. Sheline: I may please continue guns I remember so are
[1:47:41] Scott A. Harriman: you suggesting that information be included in the motion? No we don't
[1:47:48] Marty Eisenstein: have i mean i have this piece of paper yeah it hasn't been fully vetted and discussed but it needs to be fleshed out to do in my opinion to do a responsible job and so the second motion would be to direct staff to report to you at either a specially scheduled meeting or a meeting on the 20th as to the appointment process but that would occur only if you go down the first route which is to go through the city clerk section 2.0 6d and go through the appointment process that to develop an appointment within 30 days of today okay I just want to make sure that we're that
[1:48:42] Scott A. Harriman: we're doing this in an open and transparent way and not that we're selecting someone at a meeting that was called with six hours notice and in which we have only seen the information for about 90 minutes now about what our what our path forward is so I would I guess I understand what you're saying I would appreciate if there's some clarification as to when this is going to happen and that it is not going to happen immediately following this vote it won't happen tomorrow no the question is tonight
[1:49:16] Marty Eisenstein: you need or tonight the question is you need to decide as a city council what you think is appropriate as to when you want staff to report the staff may be able to tell you city clerk may be able to tell you what their opinion is as to when they can report to you on an appointment process whether it's next week or whether it's the 20th but that's up to you given the fact that you
[1:49:40] Carl L. Sheline: have 30 days to make the appointment okay thank you mr mayor one second administrator counselors if i may this vote that has been or i'm sorry this motion is put forward by COUNSELOR MARTELL AND SECOND BY COUNSELOR LONDON IT'S JUST TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND THEN WE WILL HAVE A SECOND MOTION TO DETERMINE THE DETAILS TO ASK THE CLERK YES UH ADMINISTRATOR CANRAFF AND THEN COUNSELOR I THINK STAFF WE'RE JUST
[1:50:10] Bryan Kaenrath: SEEKING SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE INTENT OF THE MOTION. IS THE INTENT OF THE MOTION TO UH SCHEDULE SOMETHING ON THE NEXT MEETING ON THE 20TH TO ACTUALLY MAKE AN APPOINTMENT possibly with a name, or is the intent to begin a process whereby we then interview candidates and develop a longer process to be completed within 30 days? because i think the intent is a little unclear. what we heard council longchamps and martel say is a little bit different than what we're hearing about a longer process with interviews application period etc. so can we get a clarification on what the intent of the motion is? yes right madam clerk can you please read
[1:50:49] Carl L. Sheline: the motion that you have that we have before us. which motion? so there are two motions, the motion
[1:50:54] Bryan Kaenrath: made by council martel and i think we understand what the motion is but the intent right of those who made the motion is a bit unclear from what we're hearing. so maybe councillor martel and or longchamps can clarify what your intent is with this motion. yeah yes sorry mr mayor
[1:51:16] Bret Martel: yes I my intent of my motion is to vote on adopting the appointment process. I also would like to ask the city attorney, I do understand your recommendation for an application process, is it within the power of the council if someone was to move that we did nominate a name tonight and vote on it? is that within the power of this council whether or not it resides within your recommendation? I
[1:51:47] Marty Eisenstein: I would have concerns given the agenda item Voting on that and voting on an appointment this evening. Yes
[1:51:57] Bryan Kaenrath: So you just break it councillor Martel is it your intent to Put something on the next agenda to make the appointment that evening potentially with a name
[1:52:09] Bret Martel: I'm prepared to do it tonight. But yes, we could do it next meeting if that's what you're my following motion would be to appoint her in Seoul after we if we were to adopt the appointment process and I would like to see that done tonight
[1:52:24] Carl L. Sheline: councillors if I may we're starting to get late so I would like to thank
[1:52:40] Susan G. Longchamps: you so
[1:52:47] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): mr. mayor that's just the building alarm that was triggered by the cleaning crew or something so it'll be turned off in a minute I believe. yeah somebody stripped
[1:52:55] Carl L. Sheline: an alarm somewhere in the building got it was set accidentally at this point in time. for those at home i do not believe we're in any danger it's a little loud but okay so i would like to get through this vote to simply acknowledge that we want to move forward with an appointment process and then we can discuss the next motion if that's okay councillor naging
[1:53:22] Joshua L. Nagine: Jean: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just gonna point out that it's taken us an hour and 55 minutes to get to the point where we're agreeing to follow the
[1:53:30] Carl L. Sheline: Charter that's in front of us. If God, yeah, there can, if the audience could please refrain from clapping, that would be great. Thank you. We are now going to public comment for this motion. Andrew
[1:53:50] Public commenter: Jones, Ward 2. I just want to point out that these are extraordinary times, and we need you guys to move with extraordinary speed, and if there are counselors that can't keep up, then perhaps they should sit this one out. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Matthew Egren, Ward Four. I didn't think I'd make it back in time for this meeting because I was up in Harmony, Maine today, but I did, because it's taking you guys two hours to get to the point, as Josh said. Now a couple things I'd like to say. One, our attorney needs to speak into the mic so that people at home can hear him, because I was listening on YouTube coming down, and we only about half the time can understand what the attorney was saying. But on the on how to do this with, look back at when Luke Jensen resigned from the council. There was a, we filled out an application, which was the same application we used to serve on boards. There were five of us who applied. I was one of them, to fill out the rest of Luke's term. When it got done, it came back to the council. The council nominated the people that they wanted to put forward. After they did that, then they made a consult, made an agreement on who they were gonna sit. There were five of us who put in our paperwork. You have, I would announce it tonight that you want to have papers in for the 20th, so on the night of the 20th you guys can by that point review or have these papers in front of you so you can review and vote at the first meeting in February, which is under your 30 days. Otherwise this position becomes a meritorial appointment. You think it's unfair that seven of YOU WOULD GET TO VOTE, ONE OF YOU GETTING TO APPOINT SOMEONE IS TRULY UNFAIR. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I'M WILLING TO TELL YOU HOW IT WENT WITH LUKE'S IF ANYONE WANTS TO ASK ME AFTER THE MEETING.
[1:56:04] Carl L. Sheline: SO I'LL BE HERE FOLLOW THE CHARTER UH AND UM ONE SECOND BEFORE WE HAVE THE NEXT ONE WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVE LOST OUR TIMEKEEPER MADAM CLERK ARE YOU IN A POSITION TO UH RECORD PEOPLE'S TIME or operate the computer as it turns out yes I think we can we're going to plan B for timekeeping okay please continue sir our seller Claire or five so this is not
[1:56:36] Chrissy Noble: Rocket science, people. And you guys seriously, if you any of you are on social media whatsoever right now, the opinion of this council is a cluster F clown show is what they're reporting. This is crazy right now. You have Councillor Martel that would like to nominate Councillor Soul and you've had Councillor Longchamps second it. They are asking the attorney is yes or no, can this be done tonight? It's not an opinion they're looking for, it's a yes or no question that they're looking to have answered. That's it, thank you. Further?
[1:57:20] Public commenter: Public comment, Lisa Jones, Ward 2. Again, my thoughts are not organized. There's been talk up there about whether or not things are democratic and choosing someone would be undemocratic and I just keep reflecting on the fact that someone was on the ballot that shouldn't have been there in the first place and now we're no longer doing that investigation. So if we had followed through with that investigation and had the proof that he was never valid to be on the ballot, then we had one valid candidate who received 230 votes. I don't understand why you would wanna open it back up. Wren did the work to collect the signatures. Wren campaigned, people voted for her. I really don't understand why you would even consider opening it up to the public and people who didn't choose to run for that seat previously. You know Scott, you ran unopposed so it doesn't, you didn't win either, so like if Written had been on the ballot alone, like she should have been, your attorney's advice is inconsistent. I mean the word shall meant something different Monday night when I was the topic of discussion. He's the one who told Kathy to let Osmond on the ballot because he intends to return back to 210 Blake. It's still not an apartment. This is a clown show, it's nationwide now. Do the right thing guys, come on.
[1:58:45] Carl L. Sheline: For Madame Clark, you are recording. Thank you, I appreciate you. Please continue sir.
[1:58:53] Michael R. Roy: i haven't started but i will continue thank you again matt roy award six to matt agran's point we don't have to we spent over two is it over two hours now well two hours now reinventing the wheel as Matt Eggman pointed out there is a application form currently oh which we haven't even advertised for the Ward 5 school committee vacancy and we have that process we have as of December we had a whole list of vacancies that you guys didn't haven't filled yet or the mayor hasn't filled yet even the Two priority for the two vacancies that have existed for about a month now since mid-December for the Board of Assessment review, which will come very important come this spring when the assessment, the reval, is completed in the potential for multiple meetings, and there's only three valid members of that board currently. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and having this Apple, it is Thursday night, City Hall is closed tomorrow. Last I checked, it is still within the rules and policies of the city. Council, that requests for agenda items have to be in by noon on Wednesday so the agenda can be formulated, the PDF generated, and posted by third, by the end of business Thursday. The 20th is probably not, if we're going to actually have an application and people fill out applications, that isn't feasible for the 20th.
[2:00:38] Public commenter: Beth Matthews, Ward 3. We do not need to sit here and decide what you're gonna do when you have a charter that every single one of you has taken an oath to uphold. And Councilor Chittim, you mentioned that you wish you had not. And if that is truly how you feel, you should be stepping down and resigning. I repeat, Ward 5. CAN I ASK THE CITY CLERK A QUESTION?
[2:01:18] Carl L. Sheline: JUST CONTINUE WITH YOUR COMMENT AND THEN WE WILL ADDRESS IT
[2:01:22] Public commenter: AFTERWARDS. I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR THAT POSITION FOR WARD 5. WAS THERE FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE AND THEY JUST DIDN'T QUALIFY IN TIME, OR WAS THERE JUST THE TWO OF THEM AND THAT WAS IT? IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE IN WARD 5 THAT ARE REALLY WILLING to run serve, you're just spinning wheels, that's all you do is spinning wheels, and can end up costing the city money. Thank you further
[2:01:53] Carl L. Sheline: public comment. Public comment is now closed. Back to the council. Did you have anything to add, Mr. Eisenstein? No, coming in loud and clear, I appreciate it. Madam Clerk, did you have anything at this point? I would like to vote on this soon. Is there any discussion among the council before we vote
[2:02:18] Scott A. Harriman: guns Laramie, if we could please restate the motion before we vote on it, that
[2:02:22] Carl L. Sheline: would be appreciated, thank you. Absolutely, Madam Clerk, if you could please restate the motion and then call the vote. Yes, I'm Mr. Man, the motion is
[2:02:30] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): to move to implement section 2.06 D of the city charter councillor from Ward WORD ONE?
[2:02:37] Carl L. Sheline: YES. WORD TWO? YES. WORD THREE? YES. WORD FOUR? YES. WORD SIX? YES. WORD SEVEN? YES.
[2:02:44] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): MR. MAYOR? YES. MOTION PASSED BY VOTER 7-0.
[2:02:47] Carl L. Sheline: ONE SECOND, COUNCILMEMBER LONGCHAMPS. WE HAVE NOW ESTABLISHED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN APPOINTMENT PROCESS. WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR A MOTION NOW THAT FOLLOWS MR. EISENSTEIN?
[2:03:01] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): I
[2:03:08] Marty Eisenstein: think an appropriate motion given the desire for transparency is to request city staff to make recommendations to the council as to a quote process close quote for the council to follow whether it's appointment of a person or whether it's taking applications all of which should be done by a date certain so that the City Council could then decide on a candidate on or before February 7th the date i would look to advice from the city con from the city clerk and the city administrators to how long it would take to report the different methods what your schedules are like but that
[2:04:15] Carl L. Sheline: would be the general framework of a motion i agree completely would a counselor like to make SUCH A MOTION COUNCILOR OR UH WELL I SAID THAT I RECOGNIZE YOU UH AFTER THAT IS THERE ANYTHING
[2:04:30] Susan G. Longchamps: YOU'D LIKE TO SAY COUNCILOR LONGCHAMPS NOT ABOUT THIS RIGHT HERE BUT AGAIN I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT I'VE ASKED AND STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN A CLEAR PATH OF ANYONE REALLY ACKNOWLEDGING MY QUESTION mind speaking into the mic acknowledging my question or which direction i go in you know again i would like to vote today to have our council or put back on ward 5. voters have already voted i am prepared tonight to do that i understand our city attorney has advised us or his personal opinion i respect that but tonight i think we need to put our counselor back on ward 5. if it is impossible to do that then i want it on an agenda i'd like it as an agenda item to nominate rensole for ward 5 council is that clear enough
[2:05:28] Carl L. Sheline: thank you counselor long clear for staff counselor chidam did you have something well i
[2:05:34] David B. Chittim: was going to make the motion that was suggested by corporate council and that is to direct staff to recommend a process to city council so that on january 20th i believe is our next meeting this council will then take action on that recommendation that leaves enough time i think for final action by this council to be done within the 30-day period and I think that suffices mr. attorney I
[2:06:17] Marty Eisenstein: think it does given the fact and you can incorporate consular long champs and consular Martel's preference which is the alternatives for the decision on the 20th is whether to go through and a point the prior counselor to the position or to entertain applications to be prepared and provided to the city council honor before the end of the month with the notion that you would entertain those applications if you take the second route on or before the 7th of february i haven't looked at CALENDAR WHEN THE MEETING IS IN FEBRUARY
[2:07:02] Carl L. Sheline: UH SO THAT IS THAT UH THANK YOU MR EISENSTEIN UH
[2:07:06] David B. Chittim: COUNCILOR CHINNAM IS THAT A MOTION THEN WELL I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO PRECLUDE ANY OTHER CANDIDATES I HAVE NO OBJECTION AT ALL TO COUNCILOR SOLE RESUMING THIS SEAT NONE WHATSOEVER BUT I THINK THAT IT'S UP TO THIS COUNCIL TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED We've had an election. The election was won. The individual has resigned. The seat is open. I think it's within the purview of this council, and I'd argue that even tonight, albeit the agenda wasn't clear, to say we would like to reseat Councilor Soule. However, I think that given the fact that the Charter gives us 30 days to make this decision, given the fact that there is an opportunity for people to express their opinions to the City Council, that it's appropriate that staff come back to us with a recommendation on the 20th of February, January I mean, as to how we proceed with selecting candidates for the ward 5 position. Thank you counselor. So is that just to
[2:08:22] Carl L. Sheline: be absolutely clear, is that a motion that you're willing to make if that motion comports with
[2:08:28] David B. Chittim: the city attorney's advice and is it sufficiently clear to staff? Yes Mr. Rosenstein. Are you Mr. Mayor?
[2:08:38] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): I'm so sorry to interrupt, I do apologize, please continue. That counselor Longchamps made a motion but it didn't receive a second and then Councillor Chittim made a motion and it didn't receive a second, so out of respect for Councillor Longchamps I just wanted to sort of backtrack Mr. Mayor or recommend that you backtrack because I believe, and certainly Councillor Longchamps please correct me, but I believe your motion Councillor Longchamps was to nominate TO DIRECT STAFF TO PUT A MOTION ON THE JANUARY 20TH AGENDA TO APPOINT RIN SOLE AS THE WARD FIVE CITY COUNCILOR THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT THANK YOU
[2:09:19] Carl L. Sheline: COUNCILOR, THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT, MADAM CLERK. AND THAT HAS NOW BEEN SECONDED. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU IF NECESSARY. COUNCILOR TRUDEAU, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU, POLICIES FOR THAT. OKAY, CAN YOU, WE HAVE A SECOND, COUNCILOR, I THINK WE'RE MOSTLY STRAIGHT. DISCUSSION FROM THE COUNCIL ON THIS MOTION. COUNCILOR CHIDDOM.
[2:09:41] David B. Chittim: DOES THIS PRECLUDE ANY OTHER CANDIDATES?
[2:09:46] Susan G. Longchamps: I'M NOT GOING TO ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER CANDIDATES. WELL, HE WAS ASKING ME. SORRY, GO AHEAD.
[2:09:50] Carl L. Sheline: I THINK HE WAS ASKING STAFF. WELL, HE WAS LOOKING AT ME.
[2:09:54] David B. Chittim: ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK, IS THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGY. INDEED, THANK YOU.
[2:10:02] Carl L. Sheline: OKAY. MADAM CLERK, DOES THIS PRECLUDE OTHER CANDIDATES?
[2:10:05] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Well, if the motion on the 20th is to appoint Ren Sol to the Ward 5 City Council seat, then I believe that motion could be amended and another name could be inserted, if that's the wish of the Council. The motion obviously could be voted down. I mean, once the motion is on the floor, it's within the control of the Council, and the Council can decide to change that motion via amendment, vote it down, adopt it, however you decide to dispose of that amendment.
[2:10:35] Carl L. Sheline: UNDERSTOOD, MADAM CLERK. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT DOES. EXCELLENT. COUNSELOR HARRIMAN.
[2:10:45] Scott A. Harriman: I AM NOT PREPARED TONIGHT TO INSTALL SOMEBODY TO THIS SEAT. I WOULD PREPARE TO SEE, SORRY, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE AT OUR MEETING ON THE 20TH THAT WE HEAR FROM STAFF AS TO HOW WE proceed with this with a an application process and then we have another meeting scheduled for February 3rd which is still within the amount of time that we have to appoint somebody and then so at the 20th we could introduce to the public the process that we're going to use they have two weeks to absorb that and to apply if they would like and then on the third we could entertain Whatever nominations councillors put forward and vote on them at that point. That's how I would prefer it to proceed. That gives the public the most opportunity for input and for comment. It doesn't, it doesn't make this decision up to only a handful of people who do not live in the ward. That is an in question and it doesn't cut people out of a process because this meeting was called with only a handful of hours notice and We only received the information a couple hours ago, so I prefer Something on the 20th, and then we can take a vote on February 3rd tells our aging
[2:12:17] Joshua L. Nagine: So thank you, Mr. Mayor, but there's a couple of pieces here. One, this resignation and the following meeting that we're in right now, very short notice. On the 5th, this hall was filled with people supporting the person that they voted for who won the election, who has since resigned, and also supporting the person who took the second place position. I'm not in any way, shape, or form at this moment looking at this room thinking that this is a representation of Ward five. Just want to point that out. It's not. And so I'm not willing to go through the process of picking a nominee today for a vote on the 20th without the opportunity to get feedback from Ward five residents. I don't feel that we've had enough time. So I accept the process because we have to follow the Charter, and I and I and I'm asking for a window to get some feedback from the public, because no matter how you look at this, is an ugly process. This whole thing has been an ugly process from the moment that the candidate who did was duly elected for the seat was indicted for weapons charges. Everything's been difficult, and there's no winning here at all. So I think we should make it as transparent as possible. Thank you.
[2:13:56] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Martel, did you have something? Yeah, I we are due to it's our job to uphold
[2:14:06] Bret Martel: the charter. I don't see in the charter, and correct me, the any process laid out for the appointment, or that we have to take applications or anything else. And I think it's disingenuous to think that someone that didn't do any of the petition collecting, any of the CAMPAIGNING, DIDN'T GET ANY VOTES, AND IS NOW GOING TO COME IN AT THE LAST SECOND AND CONVINCE FOUR PEOPLE ON THIS DIAS THAT DON'T LIVE IN WARD FIVE TO ELECT THEM, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE HOW THEY GAIN THAT SEAT. I DON'T WANT ANY PART OF THAT PROCESS EITHER. RIGHT. UH, IF COUNCILORS COULD REFRAIN FROM
[2:14:43] Carl L. Sheline: SPEAKING WHEN THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZED. THANK YOU. UH, COUNCILOR CHIDDOM. THANK YOU. UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN
[2:14:50] David B. Chittim: why we have to have a report back from staff. The charter gives this council the authority to appoint. If we simply request tonight that applications be submitted, we can review those applications. We don't need to have a layout of process. We can simply review those applications on the 20th, and if there is sufficient desire, we can make an appointment based on those applications on the 20th. And as I said before, if that's Councilor Soule, I'm perfectly happy with that. But I do think that we need to review anyone who is interested and take into consideration that the majority of Ward 5 voted for a candidate who has since resigned. So I don't know that we need to have staff report back to us on a process. I think if we simply announce tonight and have staff publicize that applications are being accepted for eligible candidates for city council for ward five then we can receive those and take action as soon as the 20th of january thank you councillor long
[2:15:56] Carl L. Sheline: Champs, did you have something? No? Okay, all right. At this point, Madam Clerk, can you please
[2:16:06] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): reread the, motion? Sure, the motion is to direct staff to place on the January 20th agenda and the appointment of Renssel to fill the Ward 5 City Council seat. At this
[2:16:20] Carl L. Sheline: point, councillors, we're gonna go to public comment and then we'll come back and then for more questions and discussions and then take a vote after that. Public comment is now open. Marcel LeClaire, Ward 5 again. Iman
[2:16:33] Chrissy Noble: Osman was not eligible to be on the ballot in the first place so you say that you want to hear from the Ward 5 voters you have heard from the Ward 5 five voters had he not been on the ballot she would have run unopposed just as councillor Harriman did and I wouldn't expect him to take his eyes off of that computer screen and actually pay attention to constituents that are speaking that he's done all night long but again you have heard from the ward five voters over and over and over and again this evening. You, I've heard Council Long Champs this last time around saying that she wanted to vote tonight and it was seconded and they wanted to know if this was able to happen tonight, a yes-or-no question, and again it gets skirted and it is an opinion. It's not an opinion they're looking for, it's a yes or no. Can we vote on this evening? And I would urge every other counselor up there to vote HER IN. YES.
[2:17:40] Public commenter: I HAVE A QUESTION. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR THAT POSITION, DO THEY HAVE TO GET 50 SIGNATURES? DOES IT HAVE TO BE PUT IN AT THE SAME TIME OR DO THEY HAVE A TIME PERIOD AFTER THEY PUT THE APPLICATION IN TO GET IT? CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
[2:18:01] Carl L. Sheline: JUST CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUESTION AND WE WILL ADDRESS
[2:18:04] Public commenter: THE QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. THAT IS THE QUESTION, MR.
[2:18:06] Carl L. Sheline: MAYOR. SORRY, CONTINUE WITH YOUR SPEAKING TIME IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
[2:18:11] Public commenter: Say, okay, the question is if I went up there and I grabbed an application, would I have to go out and get 50 signatures to make that application valid, or would I just, you know, fill it out?
[2:18:26] Carl L. Sheline: We will have staff address questions after public comment. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Hi.
[2:18:36] Public commenter: i'm lisa jones but i don't want to speak on my own behalf at this moment i have public comment from a ward 5 BUSINESS OWNER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ FOR THE RECORD. I'M GOING TO READ EXACTLY WHAT SHE WROTE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KIMBERLY CRAIG AND I OWN A BUSINESS IN WARD FIVE AT 216 EAST AVENUE LOUISTON. I AM WRITING TO URGE ALL OF YOU TO UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT A POINT REN SUEL TO HER WARD FIVE SEAT. SHE HAS MORE THAN PROVED HERSELF TO BE AN ASSET TO THE CITY OF LOUISTON AND HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO BE PRESENT FOR ALL THE city residents, not just her Ward 5 constituents. She has worked well with all councillors and staff of the City of Lewiston. She has been at all events and responds to the needs of her constituents and city. In my opinion she legally won her seat for a second term. Months have gone by with nothing but bad press locally and nationally and yet another bad mark on Lewiston. It's very upsetting that any of this was allowed to happen in the first place and it could have been prevented, but here we are. In order to restore trust and get ready to work and move forward, please vote to put Wren Sewell back into the Ward 5 seat she has earned and deserves. Let's move on and get to work. She's more than ready to continue what she has started here. Lewiston needs her. Beth Matthews, Ward 3. I've already said before that Wren's opponent was not valid. He never should have been on the ballot. His signatures alone draw questions. And here we are talking about language that doesn't even exist in the charter while you're ignoring language that actually exists. And it's painful to sit here and listen to you argue semantics, and not just semantics, but you're inventing language that doesn't exist so that it appeals to your own ideology. And one point that I do want to point out for everybody to remember is that this is a nonpartisan charter, so whatever your ideology is shouldn't even be on the table to begin with, Matthew. Egren board for to answer Larry's question when we did Luke's, no, we didn't have to get 50 signatures. We just had to fill our application. We had maybe a week, maybe two, it went before the council. They called the names of the people. I did not get Luke's seat because I served on the Appeals Board and they were afraid it was going to be too hard to get me back on the Appeals Board at the time. But I wasn't one of the candidates that was considered up there. You could tonight announce your applications, get them on the 20th, make your decision on the 20th. It's not that hard. It already exists. What we used the last time was the same thing we used to apply for boards in the city, not that difficult. No need to reinvent the wheel tonight or wait two weeks and reinvent the wheel then you're pushing in February, your 30 days council of chinum, you had that right answer on that was one of the things you did say correctly tonight. The rest of it I'll be honest, I'm very disappointed in your interpretation of words because you and I agree words matter. Now whatever you do, let's wrap this up. Tonight if you have to schedule a special meeting next week then let's do that next week, but it is almost 830, you guys have been here for two and a half hours going in circles. I know because I listen to you on YouTube on the way here. You guys just can wrap this up tonight, figure out what you're gonna to do and you all can go home and wait till the next meeting I wasn't gonna speak again because I do not want to drag this out any longer, I'm getting really tired, but I just was hoping that tonight you all would make the logical decision to throw ring back on this council where she belongs so that next week when our next meeting on the 20th you can hopefully make a decision as to who you're appointing to our school committee because the longer you wait to appoint somebody to this committee it means the longer that we're waiting on the school committee for a full committee and we have orientation stuff to do, we have things that need to get done and we are ready to go. So I really implore you guys to make a decision already, please. Further public
[2:23:46] Carl L. Sheline: comment back to the council, anything? Councillor Martel, yes, I would just like
[2:23:55] Bret Martel: To reiterate that both Councillor Longchamps and I have both asked for a vote tonight, and I think if we did that and we got the four votes for Wren, that it would make the rest of this moot and we could move on. And if it doesn't, then I suggest that we rapidly schedule for the 20th and put her name on as a nomination, and then if we need to take applications, we take applications, but we can put all this to bed
[2:24:19] Scott A. Harriman: tonight with four votes council harriman yes i thought i'd address it for the public's clarification since it's come up twice now but i did not run unopposed for this seat and my second point is that I am NOT prepared tonight to install someone in this in the ward five seat without any public process or notification for a vacant seat that is
[2:24:45] Carl L. Sheline: that is about 12 hours old. Councillor Nei Jean, so
[2:24:52] Joshua L. Nagine: again our first meeting on the fifth, many people showed up to speak for then Councillor Osmond. Right now this morning, Councilor Osmond resigned. The vast majority of Ward 5 residents, I would bet, don't even know that the representation that they elected is no longer there. The opportunity to give some time and space to communicate to the public, what is actually happening, is incredibly important for transparency sake. That's one piece. It's also, not beyond my noticing, that the chair of the Republican Party for Lewiston is here. One of the candidates is here. The main wire is here. And so when we're talking about something being partisan or not partisan, it certainly looks like there is some partisan action there. Regardless, I'm not willing to vote somebody in this evening. There has to be a process that allows the Ward 5 residents to know what
[2:26:02] Carl L. Sheline: actually happened. Thank you Councillor Nagine. I do believe that in this meeting that was supposed to be discussing next steps, it would be premature to select somebody. Further comments before we vote?
[2:26:19] David B. Chittim: Councillor Chittim, yes, please clarify what the motion is, Madam Clerk.
[2:26:23] Carl L. Sheline: Clerk, again if you could please read it. The motion is to direct city staff to
[2:26:27] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): place on the January 20th agenda the appointment of Renssel to fill the Ward
[2:26:33] Carl L. Sheline: 5 City Council seat. Anything further? Councillor? Should have no, sir. Final
[2:26:40] Scott A. Harriman: Thoughts, Councillor Harriman. Yes, I just, I just want to ask fellow councillors to keep the public in mind, keep transparency in mind here. We've had issues as a city with transparency, and it seems to have been going backwards in the last several months or so. And I would just ask that we make sure that we are working for the public here, that they are allowed input on this decision, and that we just do not immediately react and install someone in
[2:27:15] Carl L. Sheline: an empty seat that just became empty today thank you further comments before we vote madam clerk madam clerk please call the vote council from word one no word two yes word three
[2:27:34] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): no word four no ward six no word seven yes mr mayor no motion failed by a vote of two to five
[2:27:45] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Councilor Chiddom, are you prepared to make your motion?
[2:27:51] David B. Chittim: WELL, IF I CAN REMEMBER, YES, I AM. I MOVE THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT THAT APPLICATIONS FOR WARD FIVE COUNCIL SEAT ARE BEING RECEIVED AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND THAT we take action on this on the agenda item, I'm sorry, on the agenda for January 20th.
[2:28:22] Carl L. Sheline: Second. Thank you, Councilor Nguyen, Councilor Chittim. Do you see any problems with this motion, Mr. Eisenstein? Zero. Okay, Madam Clerk, did you get all that?
[2:28:33] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): I did, to direct staff to make announcements that the applications are being accepted for the Ward 5 City Council seat effective immediately.
[2:28:43] Carl L. Sheline: Yes, thank you. Discussion among Councilors. Yes, Councilor Harriman. I believe Councilor
[2:28:50] Scott A. Harriman: Chiddom's motion included a date in it.
[2:28:52] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): Yes, I apologize, thank you. And to have those applications for appointment on the January 20th agenda. Thank you. Sorry about that.
[2:29:00] Carl L. Sheline: Thank you. Thank you, Councilors. We're now heading to public comment for this motion.
[2:29:08] Public commenter: Matthew Agron, Board 4. I do only have one question. How are you taking your applications? Are you going to use the standard board appeal the what we use for boards, or you create a whole new packet which the attorney has up there? These things need, you're going to need to decide those tonight as well. Thank you. Our
[2:29:32] Chrissy Noble: solar Claire Ward 5. I just wanted to add to that. Is there going to be anyone that is going to verify addresses and the legitimacy of said applicants? Because you really dropped the ball on that last one. Further
[2:29:50] Carl L. Sheline: public comment back to the council. Further discussion. Yes,
[2:29:55] Joshua L. Nagine: Councillor Neji. This is germane to the entire discussion but not to the motion in front of us right now, so I'm wondering should we vote or should I
[2:30:05] Carl L. Sheline: Mention this, we'll vote, and then we will, yeah, we will, we'll still have time before we adjourn. Any other comments from councillors? Questions? Madam Clerk, please. call the vote council from word one yes word two yes word three yes word four yes word five i'm sorry word six yes word seven yes mr mayor yes seven to zero thank you very much madam clerk
[2:30:36] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor in Aging, yes. I would just ask that, I know that staff has been under quite a bit of stress due to all of the things that have been happening recently in the in the publicity that's coming towards the city. I do think it's important that we're clear about what this process is to the public and make it so that so that it's as clear as possible for people to understand what's actually going on. Ultimately, you know, I think the expectations of the Charter that aren't there are an issue and explaining why we're going through this process, I think, is important, so I just want to point that out. And I already know that you're already, you know, batting back reporters and every other thing while you're trying to do your regular jobs, but as long as the message from city hall is consistent that this is the process that we've adopted and it's and it's constitutional, it follows the charter, and it makes, you know,
[2:31:38] Carl L. Sheline: sense, I would appreciate it. Anything you'd like to say, Madam Clerk? So just
[2:31:45] Unidentified speaker (City Clerk): for clarification for folks that the application, if the council wants to use the current application, the application link is on the website. It's the same application that you've seen regarding Planning Board, Finance Committee, all of our boards and committees. There is a section on there that applicants can state why they're interested in serving, their experience, and so forth, so you can receive that as far as a deadline for the applications. If you want the applications in your agenda packet, which I'm assuming you do, the deadline will have to be Wednesday the 14th at 4 p.m. So Wednesday, January 14th at 4 p.m. will have to be the deadline because we will need to distribute the agenda packet on Thursday the 15th. So it is a short turnaround time, so if that's acceptable to you, I'm sort of stating that publicly now so folks realize that it's a very short window. The city can work with, or the city clerk's office can work with, a communication director to get information out on social media and press release as soon as possible so folks are aware. Thank you, Madam Clerk. A
[2:32:53] Carl L. Sheline: huge shout out to our communication director, who's, Mr. Mayor, yeah, and I'll
[2:32:58] Bryan Kaenrath: Just that as soon as possible can be as early as tomorrow morning or tonight as far as getting word out. We're currently getting word out as we speak. I'm just saying it's not going to be until next week.
[2:33:10] Carl L. Sheline: We understand the staff will move speedily. Understood. Yeah, I see no problem with using the application. That's already online and I think by next Wednesday makes a lot of sense, Counselor Long Champs, yes.
[2:33:27] Susan G. Longchamps: Sorry, I would just like to thank our city attorney for all the advice that he gave tonight. I really do appreciate it. I'd also like to thank John from the Main Wire for being here and I would also like to apologize to the audience for what one of our counselors said about the Republican Party. I think that's very unfair. I think it [Marty Eisenstein: Yes, I] Don't think it was right to point people out and I'm starting to wonder what is a gender is. Thank you.
[2:34:01] Carl L. Sheline: Counselor Chiddom, did you have something?
[2:34:04] David B. Chittim: Yes, I did. I'm wondering, given the constraints, which frankly I had forgotten about of the Wednesday before the Tuesday, whether the Council feels that having a deadline six days hence is sufficient. And I would like to actually poll the Council to see whether six days is enough or whether there's an interest in holding perhaps a special meeting the week after the 20th which would be the 27th.
[2:34:36] Carl L. Sheline: Okay excellent thank you Madam Clerk there's no we would have to re-vote because the motion was pretty like clear correct the motion included the date of the 20th right okay yeah I mean I'll start first time I'm I understand that the timeline is accelerated but I'm okay with that yes.
[2:34:56] Joshua L. Nagine: Counselor AG so one thing just answer your question really quickly I think that the six-day window is fine it's true that you know what we're looking at right now is some disarray here for sure and the quicker we get this done the better I would also say that this was a point that was brought up about rank choice was which was interesting and also some of our charter flaws you know there is a possibility that maybe we talk about if somebody steps down or is removed the second person that is Elected takes that position right if it's in the Charter it makes sense whatever however we work this out so that it so that there's a process that's clear the issue that we have right now is that there was an elected official this morning who's gone and so therefore for appointing somebody tonight that is wild as far as representation or communication and transparency is for that for that ward thank you if audience members
[2:36:01] Carl L. Sheline: COULD PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HERMAN, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO. OKAY. I AT THIS POINT AND JUST LOOKING AROUND THE TABLE, EVERYTHING'S FINE WITH THE TIMELINE FOR PEOPLE. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. MOSTLY GOOD. COUNCILOR HERMAN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING NOW?
[2:36:22] Scott A. Harriman: YEAH, I WOULD COMMENT ON THE TIMELINE. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE QUICK. I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE APPLICATIONS NEEDED TO BE IN THE AGENDA PACKET, BUT I MEAN, I WILL ACCEPT A SIX-DAY WINDOW OVER A SEVERAL-HOUR WINDOW OF NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC.
[2:36:47] Carl L. Sheline: SORRY, MADAM CLERK, IS THERE any thing that you need further for us in terms of Kirk clarification or next steps or administration? mr. Eisenstein, anything you'd like to add before you wrap this up? yeah I just
[2:37:08] Marty Eisenstein: wanted to follow up City Council presidents comment about moving the date by which things in the packet need to be out to the City Council. I don't know how immutable that date is. in other words, can you say Friday is the date for the last date for getting the stuff in the package? I don't know, I'm just asking the
[2:37:31] Carl L. Sheline: question. no I would be happy to answer that. we are now closed on Fridays and so the packet used to come out on Friday and now comes out on Thursday and so all the deadlines moved up a day. does that yeah I mean it is logistical at this
[2:37:48] Marty Eisenstein: point. so one other thing just for the sake of the record i do have a bunch of these forms and i've looked at the forms they seem perfectly reliable so you can go with the forms which
[2:37:59] Carl L. Sheline: are on the website and get applications from people. the what you're holding right now is that simply a printout from the website madam clerk? okay so if somebody would like a paper copy right this second they can get one after the meeting or they can fill it online. thank you. thank you. final thoughts from councillors and thank you for everything. yeah oh and I got interrupted but director Morris thanks for all of your
[2:38:27] David B. Chittim: help. councillor Chittum yes I just want to point out that the deadline is established in council rules and I suspect that if the council wished to extend the deadline by a day it would severely inconvenience city staff but is IN WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COUNCIL TO DO THAT. I'M NOT SO yeah THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I APPRECIATE
[2:38:48] Carl L. Sheline: YOU BRINGING THAT UP BUT I AM NOT SUGGESTING UH WE DO THAT UM FURTHER THOUGHTS BEFORE WE CALL IT A NIGHT COUNCILORS UM YEAH I SOMETIMES THINGS TAKE THE TIME THAT THEY TAKE I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S FEEDBACK THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE'S FEEDBACK UH MR EISENSTEIN YOU 'VE been fabulous and staff and madam clerk thank you very much madam clerk do we need a motion to adjourn I would like to a motion to adjourn councillor Chittum so move councillor should I'm second by second by councillor in aging madam Clerk, please call the vote, yes,, thank you all, good night, Lewiston