Bangor Council passes hate speech resolve, censures Councilor Leonard

[1:34] Wayne Mallar: Unmuted. I can't hear you, Councilor Mallar. Yes, I finally can hear you. That's the first I heard from you. Great. I wasn't sure I had any volume from you. Thank you. All right, thank you. Awesome. [3:13] Susan Hawes: Okay, I thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I would move for result passage of Resolve 25-314. Okay, thank you. This resolve formally condemns hate speech in all its forms and recognizes a negative impact that hate speech, prejudice, racism, xenophobia, gender discrimination, and related forms of intolerance have on our community. The City of Bangor is deeply concerned about recent instances of the use of hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory language during Bangor City Council meetings, which has undermined the spirit of inclusivity and respect for diversity that is the foundation of the City of Bangor. The City of Bangor is further concerned that recent instances of the use of hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory language during Bangor City Council meetings will discourage robust civic engagement. The City of Bangor and its City Council urge the people of Bangor to stand in solidarity with one another and in support of efforts to condemn hate speech, discrimination, and intolerance, and hereby condemns individuals and organizations that promote and utilize hate speech, intolerance, and discrimination. Thank you thank you we have a motion we have a second questions comments counselor [4:32] Michael Beck: back thank you mr chairman i move to commit item 25314 to the advisory committee on racial equity inclusion human rights for its review and recommendation sir [4:45] Joseph Leonard: Second. We [4:49] Susan Hawes: have a motion. We have a second. The chairman counselor tremble normally i would be very supportive of this motion the problem I see is we're finishing this council is finishing its Council year and if this was even something where you think that committee way in differently than what's written here I would say that but it's pretty clear cut what the council needs to take for action I don't think we need the committee to come back and tell us yeah this is we agree this is what needs to be done i think it's pretty straightforward counselor beck thank you mr chairman i've [5:29] Michael Beck: Made this motion because this committee is the precise body we appoint to advise us on matters of racial equity, inclusion, and human rights. This was all falls squarely within their expertise. Without their review, I'm concerned about the public perception that the council is rushing to pass another nice words resolve and do damage control. Here's why I have that concern. Just last month, the advisory committee brought forward a substantive resolve, one that would have provided procedural clarity and comfort to a vulnerable part of our community. The same community that tonight's resolve seeks to protect. We voted it down. The argument used to kill that committee's recommendation was that our existing welcoming resolve was sufficient. Now, suddenly, that old resolve is not sufficient, and we are rushing to pass a new one. And we're doing it without even consulting the very committee we created for that exact purpose. If we're serious about this and we want this to be more than hollow words on a piece of paper, then we must do our due diligence. We must respect the committee we appointed and the work they do. Let's send this item to them. Let them to review it. Let them provide the recommendation and let's get this right instead of just getting it fast. This ensures the final product is substantive, not just a reaction, and I do urge my colleagues to support this [6:41] Susan Hawes: this referral. Thank you. Any other comments? First we have, we have to deal with this motion. [6:53] Carolyn Fish: Councilor Fish. I don't believe we have to send this to the acre Council because I believe that we're a democracy. We got this resolved language Friday. We had some time to discuss this or refer it. And I think it does take immediate action. I think it's reasonable, it's precise and direct. And I think that we have to address the issue immediately. [7:23] Susan Hawes: Councilor Haas. I will support the resolve and I'm not one that supports a lot of results, but I think we've seen too many incidents of hate-filled speech and actions that have brought discomfort comfort to people that are coming to speak with us as a council and to be free to speak. I do see that the resolve is really meant to be something that causes the council to take action. And my next encouragement for the council would be to, we need to look at the resolve, add some guidelines add some things of accountability to the steps that are overstepped for example and at that point i would see that would be a good a good project for that commission to work on with us so that we have something that we can all be proud of that does ask for accountability of people whether it's us or people in the audience and so i 'm not in favor of sending it to them now but i am in favor of the council passing it and then taking the next step to start the process with the new guidelines in conjunction with that commission. Any other comments? So we have a motion before us to move this on to the committee. Let's do a roll call vote. [9:01] Lisa Goodwin: Councillor Beck, yes. Councillor Deane, no. Councillor Fish, no. Councillor Hawes, no. Councillor Leonard, yes. Counselor Mallor, you're [9:19] Susan Hawes: on mute. One more time. No. Council [9:26] Lisa Goodwin: of Tremble, no. Council of Fornia, no. [9:30] Susan Hawes: Two yes, five no. The motion fails. So we have before us a motion and a second on the resolve. Public comment, and I'll remind people, please come up, state your name if you reside in Bangor, and I am going to limit it to three minutes. My [10:11] Michael Alpert: name is Michael Alpert. I live on [street], and I have an interest in the code of ethics. I wrote some thoughts down to clarify this for myself, and I'd like to share them with you. If it is okay, I will address my remarks directly to Consular Leonard. [10:34] Susan Hawes: Is that okay? He's talking about the other item on the agenda. Is that okay? So, right now, we're talking about the resolve regarding condemning hate speech. Is that what you're addressing? There's another item coming. Were you addressing that, or were you addressing the other item [10:55] Michael Alpert: about the censure, the censure? Okay, I'll come back when. But I will say that in terms of what happened, Mr. Ward's language and behavior have no importance this evening. In every way, he is beside the point. Hate speech is the point, but not his particular hate speech, and he needs to be forgotten. Thank you. Other [11:29] Susan Hawes: comments, Hillary? [11:37] Unidentified speaker: Simmons, resident of Bangor. First off, let me be clear, I do not support hate or discrimination of any form. Every person deserves respect and safety in our community. But I'm concerned that this resolve will, well intentioned, could have unintended consequences for free speech and open conversation. The line between hate speech and the speech we dislike can be blurred. If we start punishing or restricting speech simply because it offends someone, we risk silencing people who speak honestly, even when their opinions are uncomfortable or controversial. Healthy democracy depends on the freedom to disagree, to debate, and to challenge one another's ideas without fear of being labeled hateful for doing so. Instead of passing this resolve, we should focus on education, open dialogue, and community building efforts that encourage understanding rather than restriction. We can teach people why respect matters without writing policies that might be used unfairly in the future. I believe If Bangor can protect both respect and freedom, we don't have to sacrifice one for the other. If the goal is to make this city safer and kinder, then let's do it by encouraging conversation, not by limiting it. For these reasons, I urge the council to reconsider or revise this resolve before moving forward. Let's make sure any action we take strengthens our unity and protects the constitutional rights of every Bangor resident. Remember, not very long ago, somebody came up here and called three council members white Christian neo-Nazis, and nobody did anything there. Thank you, have a good night. Thank you. [13:32] Justin Cartier: Justin Cartier, resident of Angler. I do speak in opposition of this resolve. Hate speech, unfortunately, is free speech. By trying to limit the free speech of the people of the city of Bangor, you're violating their constitutional rights and these certain inalienable rights as endowed by our creator. We can't, who becomes the arbiter of truth of what is hate speech? Is that the council? Is that Mr. Leonard? Who gets to decide what is hate speech and what is not? Which groups of people are we not allowed to speak out against, and which do we have to support? Is this not the very things that our fathers and forefathers fought for us to be able to choose and decide if we want to support a neo-Nazi or support a communist? Is that not our right as Americans? I don't support either of those ideologies, but I do support the people's right to choose. Don't take away their choice tonight. Thank you. Hi. [14:49] Mitchell Cooper: My name is Mitchell Cooper. I'm a I'm a resident of Bangor. I'm here to speak in support of condemning hate speech. Absent the committee review, I don't know if the resolve as written is the best way to propose it, but here we are. This time I did prepare something. Over recent weeks, our council meetings have been disrupted by hate speech and slurs directed at community members, including from self-proclaimed neo-Nazis seeking public office and his lackeys hiding behind Zoom screens. This is happening here in council chambers. It's abhorrent that someone openly embracing Nazi ideology is running for office in our city. I understand Councilor Leonard's frustration. Could he have maintained composure? Sure. I'm far more upset about what provoked that moment than the moment itself. When you watch your neighbors and your fellow councilors subjected to hateful slurs, meeting after meeting, anger is a human response. Our city staff, volunteers, and elected officials shouldn't have to endure this abuse while serving our community. I'm frustrated that it took Councillor Leonard's outburst to get us here. This hate speech has been happening for weeks, and frankly, based on previous statements from some councillors dismissing the value of these resolves, this feels like we're checking a box rather than taking genuine action. Which is exactly why I don't believe words alone are strong enough. Of we need to have actual real action require cameras to be on for zoom public comments implement pre-registration with verified identity for remote participants require a code of conduct acknowledgement before joining for public comment institute a three strike rule for hate speech stop allowing bad faith actors to leave and rejoin under different names to continue their harassment this is a moment that demands moral clarity from our elected leaders. There's no both sides to hate and discrimination. I look forward to hearing from each counselor tonight if you're willing to go on record opposing hate speech. We've heard comments about Nazis and I think it's important to call out that Nazis are the enemy in so many stories that we tell because of the hate that they represent. And thousands of Mainers died to defeat them in World War II. They deserve better than to have their sacrifice dishonored by cowards spewing hate in our council chambers. And let me be blunt, these people are abject losers. And you'll have to excuse me for exercising my First Amendment rights, but I think the dead Kennedy said it best, Nazi punks. Thank you. Anyone else? [17:39] Susan Hawes: If not, we have a motion. We have a second. We'll do a roll call vote. Oh, I'm sorry, we do have someone on Zoom. I'll get back to you. Hello? [17:59] Unidentified speaker: Can you hear me? Yes, can. [18:01] Susan Hawes: I have you state your name. Judy Streuer. I'm calling and you reside and you [18:09] Unidentified speaker: reside. I didn't know you're going to interrupt me during my meeting here. Okay. When I first [18:16] Susan Hawes: started this meeting i asked for a name and your residency if it's in bangor main sorry [18:24] Unidentified speaker: bangor main yes and i don't i don't wish to get my street address because the same reason i wish to keep my face off of video it is because i'm not asking for your i'm not asking for your [18:35] Susan Hawes: street address. I was just asking if you resided in Bangor. Thank you, sir. Am I free to use my [18:43] Unidentified speaker: my three minutes? Please do. Okay, thank you. I just started my stopwatch and some of my thoughts may not be, you know, perfect for the hate speech monitors in the audience and including the heavyset gentleman who just spoke and some of the women on the council there. We went order. [19:01] Michael Beck: Go ahead. The counselor back. Yes, the commenter is attacking a member of the audience. That's [19:07] Susan Hawes: that's out of order. Thank you. He's [19:14] Unidentified speaker: done. Okay. Hello. I didn't attack anything. He's done. I didn't attack anyone. Excuse me. All [19:24] Susan Hawes: right. I know we had one person in chambers. I [19:31] James Gallagher: was prepared to speak a little later, so I guess I'm going to talk about them both at the same time. Well, let's, let's focus [19:38] Susan Hawes: on one because that's what we're here for, is just this one issue. I got to speak about both at the [19:44] James Gallagher: same time. He made comments about Leonard at the same time, so I speak wider then. Okay, thank you. [20:01] Susan Hawes: There's a iPhone. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, can I have you state your name and residence? [20:15] Ryan Masano: Yes, I am Ryan Masano. I am not a resident of Maine, but I am a citizen of America, which since this is a First Amendment issue, this affects me. So on the issues of hate speech, a couple speakers earlier said it, you know, when we disagree with others, we could find what they say hateful, and that could mean anybody. I could have a problem with a group of any race or any religion, and that could be deemed as hateful even though those people may be doing wrong. So few of us have heard the word loxism. We've all heard racism and antisemitism, but loxism is a hatred of white people. We never hear that word. I think a hatred of anyone is wrong, and I don't understand why dislike of certain groups is strongly condemned, but dislike of the majority group is just fine. I don't think that's okay at all. And so I was just before I called in listening to what happened to the trial of Jesus and Socrates, and you know the term hate speech didn't exist back then, but if it did, that's what they were put to death for, hate speech. So are we not learning the lessons of history, that great men were put to death by, wait for it, mobs, a lot of people who felt severe discomfort because of one man who told the truth, and they didn't like that, and so they put them to death. That is why we have the First Amendment in America. Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth. So we have to be able to look past this. And also, the Supreme Court, which is not normally unanimous on anything, in 2017 ruled in Mattal versus Tam that there are no exceptions for hate speech in the First Amendment. All of them voted for that. Even the liberal left, like Bader Ginsburg, who is still on the court, they all voted that we cannot be making exceptions for hate speech, because, after all, you may find what I say hateful, but I may find what you say hateful. So what it devolves down into is whoever has power is going to decide who gets to say what, which is not the intention of the First Amendment. So am I still being heard, or did I go off? [22:45] Susan Hawes: No, you're good. Keep on going. [22:47] Ryan Masano: Okay, thank you. So I just wanted to make those few brief points, and also to say that we have got to defend the right of each individual to speak their mind. Now, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do not believe that the First Amendment defends profanity. It does not defend pornography or racial slurs. So on that, you're entirely within your bounds to shut down a speaker, because the founders of this nation would have shut them down too. And there's nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to someone's stating their idea, if someone wants to criticize any race, any religion, any religion, if you want to criticize times [23:30] Susan Hawes: up, yeah, thank you, we have somebody else on zoom, hello [23:41] Unidentified speaker: Do I, do I have three minutes? Please, that this is only from Banger. Yeah, if you could please state your name. Okay, well, that's part of this. Is I wanted to try to stay safe here. Micah Robinson. Go ahead, please. Okay, just recently we've seen across the country on in October of 2023 on the Anti-Defamation League and the APAC put together on anti-Semitism declarations that many government bodies adopted throughout the country. They just rubber stamped this written declaration given to them by the Anti-Defamation League to silence anyone that would have the nerve to criticize Israel during what began a two-year campaign of what many see as genocide in Gaza. This was very convenient for Israelis and Jews and Zionists that were supporting this genocide side to silence their opposition using a victimhood of hate speech, which is against the last caller said is there is no such type of speech to be omitted, and depending, it doesn't really matter what anyone's personal opinions are. If someone wants to criticize Jews or Israel or Zionism, that does not mean the same thing as physical violence. We've seen over and over again bodies is trying to conflate the speech and the ideas of hate that they say, and they try to put them the same sentence with violence and actions, and we've seen it also in the board earlier, and I'm not personally attacking anyone, but that was said earlier. So one of the people said that they grouped together the speech and the actions. Well, people have protected rights in this country to have, you know, expressions and to be able to come to government hearings like this and express themselves even if their ideas are not commonly held, and the problem is with one of the candidates running is that he can't come in and express himself without being the victim and the target of assaults, and that is something that we hear all of this hate speech and all this stuff conflating that with violence, but the violence that's being done is to the speaker whose idea isn't held by the people who are the thought police, and there are plenty of people out there who agree with Richard Ward in this case, and do we not get the right to express ourselves in public without people throwing things at us? And we just saw this guy get his neck shot recently, and we still are allowing councilmen in there to wear leather jackets and act like tough guys and throw pens at people. This is not safe for the public and for people, for members of the audience, that are suggesting that speech should be met with action and stuff like that. Well, those people are pushing this type of rhetoric that is causing the violence against one side of the political spectrum, and while complaining that they are the victims, and we've heard that before with the Jews, for instance, complaining they're the victims while they commit genocide for three years in front of the world's eyes. No one does anything but put another anti-semitism declaration through for them. When people say hey, what's up with this genocide, well you can't, you can't say that because that's the same as violence and you should, you should thank you, thank you. [27:11] Susan Hawes: Jessica. [27:15] Susan Deane: Hi there, I'm Jessica, I live in Bangor. I'm sorry Jessica, what's your last name? Rogers, thank you. Okay, I just wanted to say I understand why this measure was introduced and I share the frustration many people have felt after hearing some of the things said during recent meetings, but I'm concerned that the language of this resolution as written is too broad and could easily cross into restricting legitimate free speech. Over the past few meetings emotions have run high, we've seen zoom callers call in using slurs, promote extremist ideas, and even direct people to a website called Goyim TV, which features a swastika as a like and a cartoon Jew as a dislike. That kind of imagery is grotesque and has no place anywhere near our civic process, but the answer to hateful speech cannot be big wording that risks silencing people simply because what they say is unpopular. Free speech includes the right to say things others dislike. The First Amendment also gives the council tools to maintain order. You can stop someone who's making personal attacks, disrupting proceedings, or turning a meeting into a platform for hate. You don't need a new open-ended rule that could be interpreted to limit protected expression. And related to this, at a recent meeting, Richard Ward claimed that the Supreme Court has ruled that even hate speech is protected speech, and that a man in Los Angeles won $215,000 when he was silenced by the city council. That's misleading. The payment that a man received was a local settlement, and he was an activist who wore a Ku Klux Klan hood into a meeting. This was not him exercising free speech and being silenced, so it's quite different. And it's ironic that someone who would rail against snowflakes would also be suing the city because they feel offense at a pen being thrown and the middle finger being given. That's quite sad. I want to close just saying I want Bangor to remain open, transparent, and accessible, and I'd support updating the rules for public comment to verify callers are Bangor residents and not anonymous, and to stop someone who launches into any personal attacks or hate-filled rants unrelated to city business. But beyond that, speech, even unpleasant or imperfect, should say protected. Thank you. Thank you, James. [29:54] Susan Hawes: Holmont. Hello. [30:01] James Lamont: Can you hear me? Yes. Hey, good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak here tonight. I just, I just need, I sorry, I'm a resident of Bangor, and your name? James Lamont. Thank you. I'm not gonna take up too much of your time, I'm gonna keep it brief. Last week I gave a speech wanting to thank ICE, immigration, for everything they're doing for our country, and I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm getting to. That I'm getting to that. I just, after giving the speech, I was absolutely disgusted by the actions of one of the city councilors there. I do not want to name names, but we all know who it is. I just know that if I had been there and given that speech in person and I got mad at somebody and threw a pen at somebody, or threw something off of the desk or on the, you know, and was flipping people off, I would have been, I'm not sure you're getting to the point here on this [31:10] Susan Hawes: resolve. You're talking about a council member. That's not what we're talking about here. Are you going to get to the point, or should I move on to the next person? Sorry [31:30] James Lamont: about that. I'll get to the point. Can you refresh my memory on the actual resolve, please, while I still have time? [31:38] Susan Hawes: It's on the agenda, condemning speech commonly referred to as hate speech. Oh, [31:44] James Lamont: okay. Well, a few things about that. I understand if there's slurs and swearing going on, it might just disrupt the meeting, but even if you're doing it in a non-violent matter and just sticking to the speech part, you're allowed to criticize, you're allowed a certain amount of swearing. It is protective free speech, and hate speech is still protected free speech. Just like I could be up there in person, and I don't, it's still protected free speech, especially if I gave out a website, goyim tv.com, or any Other website like that is protected free speech. Any kind of hate speech is still free speech. Hate speech is just as made up word and yeah everybody should go to go mtv.com. Thank you that's enough. [32:39] Susan Hawes: Geez the next the next speaker the next speaker the next the next speaker Bangor Maine can I have you please state your name and if you reside in Bangor. [33:12] Unidentified speaker: Amy Jamie Johnson Bangor Maine I'm calling about Angela Walker I believe that's not what we're here to talk about. Okay why is that allowed to kill white all right. [33:25] Susan Hawes: All right that's enough there is no public comment anyone else in the in the room seeing none we have. A motion we have a second I'll ask for a role point of information I guess from the city attorney chairman a lot of speakers have said that you know we can't outlaw hate speech and I've read this a couple of times it doesn't sound like we're gonna prohibit anybody from saying anything we're condemning what people are saying this doesn't prohibit anybody from saying anything does it. [34:02] David Szewczyk: Unless I write it wrong that's correct this resolve does not prohibit any speech that it condemns hate speech and the standard of what is going to be cut off at a first of all this is a limited public forum one of the things that it's limited to is city business and there's a standard that is in play as to what is not allowed during comments on a particular item and during general public comment and that standard is not that's a that is can be followed and should be followed this resolve. Doesn't prohibit any speech it condemns the speech thank you thank you we. [34:51] Susan Hawes: Have a motion we have a second any other comments from council seeing none if there are no objections councillor Dean thank you. [35:04] Susan Deane: A couple of weeks ago I brought up the inappropriate zoom callers which I think we're seeing more and more of and as far as hate speech hate speech can mean a lot of things what we're seeing tonight is inappropriate vulgar definite hate speech it is directed to individuals it's directed to groups it's directed to certain counselors so this is what we are condemning so I am in favor of the resolve and I think it's where we need to start thank. [35:43] Susan Hawes: You any other comments seeing none we have a motion we have a second resolve 25-314 would have passage oh Wayne I'm sorry roll call vote councilman Beck yes council of Dean yes council of Fish yes. [36:08] Lisa Goodwin: Yes. Councilor Haas? Yes. Councilor Leonard? Yes. Councilor Malheur? Yes. Councilor Trimble? Yes. Councilor Fournier? Yes. Eight yes, zero no. [36:26] Susan Hawes: Resolve 25-314 as passage. [36:33] Lisa Goodwin: 25-313 order centering City Councilor Joseph Leonard for inappropriate public gesture and action at October 27, 2025 City Council meeting. Councilor Fournier. [36:45] Susan Hawes: Year thank you madam clerk this order would censure counselor Joseph Leonard for inappropriate public gesture and action he made at the October 27th meeting of this year at the regular city council meeting at the October 27th meeting city council meeting and while conducting the city's business at the dais counselor Leonard raised his middle finger toward and threw a pen across the room in the direction of a member of the public in attendance at the meeting. This disrespectful behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the council. City council members are required to act with civility and preserve order and decorum during city council meetings and to maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the city's government. Section 33-1 of the City's Code of Ethics requires that City Councilors maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the City's government. Section 3C of the City Council Guidelines, which have been adopted by the Council as a City policy, require Council members to act with civility and preserve order and decorum during municipal meetings. Section 5 of the City Council guidelines provides that the proper operation of democratic government requires that city councils maintain a standard of conduct that will inspire public combat confidence in the integrity of the city's government. Counselors Leonard's gesture and action fell well short of these required standards of conduct. I'll make that motion. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Council Bet. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move to [38:48] Michael Beck: postpone order 25313 indefinitely. Seeing [38:57] Susan Hawes: no second motion fails. Ask for public comment again. Everyone if they could state their name whether they reside in Bangor and let's keep it [39:16] Michael Alpert: to three minutes. My name is Michael Alpert. I live on [street] in Bangor and I'll address this is to all of you. Councilors, when Bangor residents voted for you, it was a contract. When you said you would serve the public, in effect, you agreed to the following two restrictions. One, you pledged that you would make pragmatic decisions based on reason, decisions that would benefit the whole community. Your interests in yourselves, your families, or your friends needed to be beneath your interests in the general welfare. And two, you pledged to respect the basic integrity and humanity of every resident and visitor in our community, which means that you promised not to shame any member of the public in your official capacity. Regardless of what that individual might believe or lawfully express in council chambers or anywhere else. To refrain from humiliating others is part of your obligation. I feel that these two components of public service are what needs to be considered this evening. At issue is good respectful governance. It is not just a possible rebuke to Councillor Leonard's recent behavior. Thank you. Thank you. [40:56] James Gallagher: Well, this got a little heavier. Good evening. My name is James Gallagher. I'm a Bangor resident and a downtown business owner. I want to begin speaking directly to anyone in this community who experienced prejudice and discrimination. If anything I said last Monday left you feeling hurt or unsupported. I'm truly sorry. Apparently the callers real, but we've all heard the same voice before a fake image, no real identity, no confirmation of even whether they live here or not and then the slur and another one tonight a word used to break people down to silence and erase them one counselor laughed and the le the rest of you stayed quiet the laughter was a privilege and the silence speaks volumes hate speech is unacceptable period it should not take a meltdown to get a response thank you to counselor dean for trying to address these issues weeks ago but nothing changed we can't keep reacting to hate after people are harmed we must enforce standards before someone gets hurt. A pen thrown into an audience, a vulgar gesture towards the public. A refusal to stop when asked by the chair. That was not a frustrated citizen, that was an elected official. And it shifted the focus away from the real crisis happening in this room. Accountability can't be selective. We cannot condemn one kind of harm while excusing another, simply because we like the person responsible. Last week's meeting should have paused just like tonight. A clear statement should have been made. The public should have been protected. So what does a resolve against hate speech accomplish if nothing changes, if there are no consequences, if hateful callers continue to be giving a platform with without any verification of who they are? This chamber should be the strongest public forum for solving problems. Last week it became the opposite. I am exhausted watching this room turn into a circus. I'm not here for theatrics but because Bangor deserves better. We need to ask whether we are truly setting people up for success or setting them up to fail. When city program leaders call in support, is it because the location is right or because they want the problem out of their area? These are not attacks. These are necessary questions. Right now we're giving the media a show while the real issues go unsolved. Headlines and paywall profits from dysfunction while residents pay the cost. Bangor deserves a city council that leads, protects, and listens. And if the circus must continue, maybe we should start selling tickets and use the revenue to lower our property taxes. Tomorrow Bangor chooses our future. Let's show up, stand together, and move the city forward. Thank you. Thank you. My [43:40] Scott Party: name is Scott Party. I am a citizen of Bangor. I stand here in unwavering support of Bangor City Councilor Joe Leonard following the action to try to censor him. The chair's decision, spurred by Leonard's forceful denouncement of hate speech during a public meeting, is a profound and disappointing misdirection of priorities. Council Leonard's action, while perhaps unconventional in presentation, were driven by a necessary and moral imperative to protect the integrity of the City Council meeting and the dignity of all Bangor residents from bigotry and intolerance. The attempt to equate an impassioned reaction against white supremacist rhetoric with a violation of decorum is fundamentally flawed. When confronted with malignant hate speech, the kind that threatens the safety and inclusivity of our community, a swift, visible, and unequivocal rebuke is not merely appropriate. It is counselors' moral duty. Leonard's condemnation rightly prioritized the defense of democratic and human values over strict procedural adherence. The censor sends a dangerous message. message. The silence of bureaucratic tepidness is preferable to vocal stand against hate. We urge the City Council, or I urge the City Council, to reconsider this action and recognize Councilor Leonard's courage. His defiance in the face of intolerance exemplifies the leadership our community needs and deserves. He has shown that there are lines a councilor must not allow to be crossed of civility you know i had ai help me write that with my ideas so there's words in there that are hard to pronounce sometimes but in all seriousness i think this has become a show and i think this crap has to kind of end you know and i know both counselor fournier and counselor trembler are all done right off and you know this kind of looks bad it's a bad show thank you thank you hillary [45:57] Unidentified speaker: simmons resident of bangor what happened at last week's meeting mattered not just to the council but the character of our city we saw we all saw it a public commenter used hateful white supremacist language words filled with division and fear. Counselor Joe Leonard reacted with anger, throwing a pen and making an obscene gesture towards the audience. Now I understand that frustration. Many of us felt the same outrage hearing that kind of hate spoken in this chamber. But when we hold a public office, we carry a higher responsibility. Leadership isn't about matching anger with anger. It's about showing strength through composure. What makes Bangor strong isn't the loudest voice or the angriest reaction, it's our ability to stay calm, respectful, and united even when faced with ugliness. If we want people to believe in this council, then we must show them what respect looks like, especially when it's hardest to do so. I'm asking this council to reaffirm that we expect what we expect from our leaders, and to set clear standards for conduct for both the public and our elected officials. Let's protect our meetings from hate speech, but let's also protect the integrity of this chamber. Councilor Leonard's heart was in the right place, standing up against hate, but his actions weren't. We can condemn hate without losing control. That's how real leadership looks. So let's move forward, not with blame but with purpose. Let's make sure Bangor stands as a city that rejects hate, values respect, and leads with courage and grace. [47:46] Brendan Davison: I did not think I would be making it here tonight due to a prior appointment, but I'm glad I did. It's Brendan Davison, I live in Westside Village, and I want to say thank you to Councilor Leonard. Councilor Leonard is the only member of this council that has shown any spying, no offense intended, in the face of fascists disrupting and antagonizing this community. At the mean before last,, I was personally singled out by the same fascist agitators who disrupted the meeting. Thank you, Councilor Leonard, for doing the right thing. And shame on every fascist that needs to be driven out of our town. They are not welcome here. They have never been welcome here. No passer-on. [48:37] Mitchell Cooper: This is even more frustrating after the comments that I've heard tonight. My name is Mitchell Cooper. Again, I'm a resident here in Bangor. And I'm here to speak against the censure of counselor leonard. I need to ask the council a question. What standard are we actually upholding here? Counselor leonard made a rude gesture and threw a pin. That's a behavior we're formally condemning tonight. Meanwhile, we've allowed hateful and disgusting speech to continue in these chambers for weeks into tonight without equivalent disciplinary action. It isn't about whether counselor leonard's actions were appropriate. They probably weren't, but it really doesn't matter. This is about proportionality and priorities. This censure cites section 33-1 requiring counselors to maintain a standard of conduct that inspires public confidence in the integrity of our government. I'd argue that failure to protect residents from hate speech does far more to damage public confidence than an impolite gesture ever could. We voted on a resolution tonight and that's a good first step, but words on paper don't protect people in real time. Where are the immediate consequences for those using homophobic and racist slurs during meetings? Where is the enforcement that stops bad faith actors from exploiting zoom system to harass community members and elected officials? This censure tells our community that we care more about decorum than we care about safety. It tells vulnerable residents that their counselors and impassioned defense of them, however imperfect, is less tolerable than the hate speech that provoked it and that we heard again tonight. If we're going to hold our elected officials to a standard of conduct, then we also need to hold everyone in this chamber to a standard of conduct. You can't selectively enforce civility while giving a pass to those to promote hate. Counselor Leonard stood up against hateful, disgusting behavior in our council chambers. And if that's censure worthy, then this council's priorities are seriously misaligned. Vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. [50:43] Adam Baker: My name is Adam Baker, and I'm a resident of Bangor. First off, I'd like to give my sincerest gratitude to Councilman Leonard tonight. Without him and his actions last week, the council would have just brushed past the hate speech and ideological hate that was said last meeting. I am proud of him for standing up for Bangor and its citizens. Though the majority of you now seek to condemn him, I believe that not speaking or not doing anything in those kinds of moments is far more hurtful and damaging than anything that Councilor Leonard has done. I ask you all, I ask you all, how many censors does Councilor Leonard have to go through to realize the damage you caused to your reputation and the faith of the Bangor City Council? How many pounds of flesh must you take from Councilor Leonard for you to be satisfied? I also find it completely hypocritical that the council is going to be censoring Councilor Leonard for acting against hate speech, while also making a statement being against hate speech. You cannot play both sides while condemning one of your own, and that speaks a lot of in any sense for you. Do thank you. Thank you. [51:50] Justin Cartier: Justin Cartier, resident of Bangor. The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, beginning the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. In fact, violence merely increases the hate. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love. Can do that. Martin Luther King, it's the third time I've read that quote here in these chambers. It seems even more appropriate tonight than it has in the other times I've read it. The last, it wasn't that long ago we were sitting here centering Mr. Leonard for costing the city a hundred and fourteen thousand dollars and in turn costing the taxpayers of the city of Bangor a hundred and fourteen thousand dollars. What is this outburst gonna cost the city that was merely inches away from being an assault that the city would have been liable for? Instead it's a disorderly conduct. I don't know what the charges will be. I hope they'll be lenient on Mr. Leonard, but how many times are we going to lean on doing the right thing the wrong way? You know the, in the 13th century the Magna Carta made a bold effort to describe common law, and that's the common laws where we, where we derive our bill of rights. It's certain inalienable rights that's endowed by our creator. You know the 1776 declaration of independence boldly claimed that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And even if people are spewing hate speech, we can't be attempting to assault them and using profanity to fight away their profanity. We need to try to welcome them and bring them loved and hopefully get them to see through the hate that they're living in. You know I hope we don't have to meet again soon to do this, but it's unfortunate that the censure obviously was not effective for Mr. Leonard, because here we are again, as one of the previous speakers said, speaking about centering Mr. Leonard because of his actions that are costing the city and costing the people of the city. You can do better. We expect better. Thank you. [54:33] Samantha Casella: I get nervous doing things like this, so just bear with me. Samantha Casella, Bangor resident. I'm here today not as a concerned resident, but as a mother whose child is with me here tonight. You guys already saw I had to leave the room once. I'm glad I wasn't at the meeting when all of this happened. Just a quick note on the Zoom comments. I do believe the platform is being abused. I could see it tonight night when someone pronounced Bangor incorrectly. They're leveraging this for hate speech and making comments that are just entirely unrelated to the agenda, and it's derailing the agenda. We're here for discourse, right? And just the time spent with these disruptive outbursts is just a grave waste of time for everyone involved. It's just the intended purpose is being missed and it's I think it's adding to the fatigue and just disrespect for the meetings participants in response to the behavior that followed I was deeply disappointed as a parent I'm teaching my child the value of respectful disagreement and to listen even when we disagree when we come to a public forum like this we expect the leaders of our community to model that same behavior when council members yell swear aggressive gestures what message are we sending to our young voters does it teach them that when something goes wrong you lose your cool that's a standard we shouldn't accept for bangor unrelated i work with an animal shelter i have to make tough decisions too and i want to sometimes lose my cool but i can't have to keep my head on my shoulders this type of behavior erodes our trust in you it's something that undermines the seriousness of your roles in this council i know it's a natural emotion but you just gotta do better so please recommit tonight to upholding that standard of decorum and mutual respect and in a closing statement as a mom i'm not mad i'm just disappointed [57:03] Susan Hawes: thank you anyone else in chambers i see a couple hands on we'll start with christopher nolan yeah [57:34] James Lamont: hello i'd just like to start off by saying i really hope [57:38] Susan Hawes: can i can i can i please interrupt and if you could please state your name and if you reside died in Bangor. [57:49] James Lamont: My apologies. I'm Christopher Nolan. I live in the downtown Bangor area. I would just like to start off by saying I really hope the city council sees the importance of censoring one of their members for their outbursts last week. I truly believe that we can all disagree on speech that we don't like, but on the other hand, it's kind of a two-tiered justice system if i as a speaker decided to approach the podium in any type of aggressive manner throwing things making obscene gestures to people we could all agree that a local officer would probably be hauling me out of there with disorderly conduct charges and possible assault i mean throwing things at the audience that's absolutely disrespectful respectful and, Unnecessary and violent, especially when somebody is just happening to be in the room that they do, that they disagree with someone who is running for city council. Like that is, it's despicable and we need to not be doing any of those things. We need to not allow those things to slide because how is that fair to anyone else? Anyone else would have gotten arrested and, fuck. [59:08] Susan Hawes: Box all right geez. I can't remember what did we shut this guy off earlier okay I'm not going there Jack Whiteson I'm kind of concerned we'll start off with Mr Whiteson I'm not going to recognize Micah can you hear me I can hear you if you could state your name and whether you reside in Bangor. [59:50] Unidentified speaker: Yeah, you just said my name. And by the way, that Micah person, he spoke earlier and there were no problems. Do you get to restrict people's speech just for their names now, just off the cuff? [1:00:00] Susan Hawes: Okay, that's enough. We'll see you. [1:00:13] Richard Ward: Richard Ward. All right, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Obviously, you know who I am, Bangor resident, the infamous Richard Ward. And I'm here, I'm trying to speak. Are you gonna let me speak or what yeah I just said thank you okay well you know I find it really disrespectful that you guys are censoring people who are trying to speak the previous guy that just spoke I didn't hear him cuss I didn't have him I didn't hear him swear even cussing is protected speech the constitution the ACLU has all come out and said that you know people have the right to address their grievances and that's if they want to use cuss words well I might think it's unprofessional to come up there and just say the cuss word that's what they can do if that's what they choose to do and cutting them off is violating their civil rights so what's so [1:01:04] Susan Hawes: what's before us here is about the censure of counselor Winter are you yeah talking about that okay if you if you could get to the point then well the point is you keep cutting people [1:01:18] Richard Ward: off and what here 's my point let's get to the point i'm getting to my point if you'll stop talking where every citizen has the right to exist without fear of counselors in our last meeting i sat silently in the gallery i said nothing yet joseph leonard exploded an unprofessional fury and threw a pen flipping off people in the audience trying to assault a taxpayer a citizen a city council candidate for simply being president a room where his fragile eagle felt threatened this wasn't a debate This wasn't, this was intimidation, pure and simple. Free speech isn't just for polite words, hate speech, cussing, the ugliest opinions you can imagine, they're protected. The First Amendment doesn't come with a comfort clause. If Leonard can't handle himself professionally without swinging and wigging out, he has no business on the council. We must protect even the speech that we hate, or we protect none at all. Joseph Leonard is assisting it too, that's enough, I [1:02:16] Susan Hawes: I'm, I'm gonna cut off the zoom. I just not seen anything, was that all of them? I'm gonna call it and just say we're not doing zoom for the rest of the night, okay? So what's before us is the centering of Council Leonard, and I want to make sure Councilor Leonard has something to say if you want. I know you can't vote, I will defer to the rest of the council. Okay, thank you. Comments [1:03:06] Michael Beck: That's Rebecca. Earlier tonight I made that motion to suspend indefinitely because I worry about us not getting the intended outcome here. I mean, let's be honest, we, nobody has any business this showing the middle finger and throwing pens, that's not what we're here to do. But this didn't happen in a vacuum, right? Like this wasn't somebody who was upset because we denied a zoning change or, you know, we gave him some unfair parking tickets, you know, this is something that, you know, I don't even think was Intended when those code of ethics were written, it wasn't even conceived, you know? And so it was a very human reaction to vile white supremacist hate speech. Now, it has to be talked about and it has to be addressed. And when the idea of a special meeting was first floated, I thought it would be a conversation and I understand that the decision was made to switch to a full censure. I wish I could have been a part of a conversation about writing that censure and here's why. The censure itself, it's redundant. Redundant, it cites section 33-1 of the court of ethics and section 5 of the city council guidelines, which is a copy and paste of 33-1, and it acts as if they're separate standards, but it's not, it's the same standard, and it just looks like we're trying to pile on and pontificate. And on that specific charge we've heard from the public both sides of it, some people say, you know what, that hurt my public confidence in the government when he did that, others said, yeah, it improved it. I, when we quote 3c And we say, well, they have a requirement to act with civility and preserve order and decorum. That phrase, preserve order and decorum, really, you could censure all of us then. We all sat here silent. We did, we did nothing to act, and we all have the power to, as we've shown tonight on Zoom, that we've all took turns calling it out, and we didn't. And not to excuse the counselor for his behavior, but that same section we cite, it opens the door to the argument that when Council Leonard faced with the very hate speech that this council claims to condemn, he believed he was acting in the best interest of the citizens by standing up to, by any means necessary. You know, it says right in there, will at all times base their decisions on as a counselor and how they will affect the best interests of the city of Bangor and its citizens. If I could, and I'm not making this motion, but if I could, I would amend to strike everything after the title and say this, we as a council do not condone flipping the middle finger and throwing a pen, and therefore we censure, not pontificate, not get into it, because it just feels like tonight we're censoring the fire alarm and using a squirt gun on the fire, and that's not the message I think we intended to send, and I just wish that the censure order was written better. Thank you. Thank you. [1:06:14] Susan Hawes: Counselor Tremble. Thank you, Mr. I actually think the lab in agreement with Council Back. I think this is what this actually does. I, a lot of people had some great comments, and I think that the woman that's here with his child had the best comments, that we need to set a better example as a city council, and I think it's this council that needs to take the action. It's not appropriate for us to pass it on a new council that's going to have three new members that weren't part of, that were part of that meeting last week. But this is not about Council Leonard's actions against hate speech, it's just about his actions. I mean, if Council Lennon and one other thing, he was asked to refrain by the chair and he disregarded the instructions of the chair, which is just as bad as throwing the pen and giving an obscene judge to the audience. We have order as a council, we have rules, we have guidelines, and when the chair says somebody's out of order, they cannot just raise their voice. Can you speak louder and Louder until they're out speaking the chair that we just looks like a circus here and that's so inappropriate. So ignoring the chair the inappropriate gesture towards the audience throwing the pen all those together I think are appropriate for this action night and you know what's what's the point of the action why are we going to censure somebody we've censured somebody twice before it hasn't changed the behavior but not to censure an individual I think not what can would look like we're condoning that behavior I think the council has to make very clear that we don't that we condemn that behavior so I don't think this behavior this century is going to have any impact on changing anybody's behavior but I think it's going to make it very clear that the council expects more fellow counselors that they act in a more appropriate manner when dealing with the public and I think we all we're outraged I mean it's not easy to sit here sometimes and listen what people have say it's not easy to listen to these zoom calls and not react but it's what you have to do sometimes So thank you thank you counselor Hawes I think that for me the one thing that hasn't been brought up is the impact that it had on the people that were here to speak that night and I've had several people approached me after the fact and say that outburst made them feel threatened. It made them be fearful of what was going to happen next. And some have even said they're not sure that they would feel comfortable coming back and speaking again for fear of something like that happening now that to me is probably the biggest reason that I will support a sensor is that we need to somehow get a hold of ourselves and each other and realize we have people coming here to talk to us about things that are very important to them there's people that particular night, we had a lot of people here that have had different forms of PTSD, that have had addictions in their lives, that there were all kinds of fears that were brought up. And I think we need to take some control of that. Now, whether it will change anything, I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. But I think if the council doesn't stand up and say enough is enough, this is what we expect of ourselves and of each other up here, then we have that right to expect that from each other. And if that person cannot do it, or any of us can't, then we need to figure out a way that we can fit into the rules and regulations. So I think you're right, council trouble. If we don't do something, it looks like we're just going to turn a blind eye, let it fall where it may, and we're going to have more meetings like this after more meetings like this. Personally, I'd like to have us talking about what are the goals going to be for the city next year, what are the new counselors wanting to bring to the council, other than sitting here and really listening to some of the rhetoric that we've had to listen to in the past few meetings. So I will support it based on it really is the only tool that we have as a council in our toolbox that we can use to maybe get somebody to look at the way they're responding but I don't want the citizens to feel that they can't come here and be heard, or be fearful of what might happen of something they might say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Counselor Fish, I'm [1:11:13] Carolyn Fish: in support of this center. It is the third center that stems from basically the same behavior of anger and not being able to control it. I believe the citizens of Bangor that voted for us can expect and should expect better behavior. We should be adults and we should be able to control our behavior. I am one of the counselors that have been called in this very room a white, fascist, Nazi, Christian. Did that feel good? No. Was it true? No. But it was said more than once, and I didn't throw a pen, and I came back with my own statement, and I related to that was hate speech, I didn't like it, and that I was not going to accept it without commenting back. We need to preserve order and decorum. The voters of the city deserve that and should expect that from us. The censure is just our way of saying we do not approve of this behavior and I'm voting for it. Thank you. [1:12:23] Susan Deane: Councilor Deane, thank you. Councillor Leonard has described himself as passionate more than once, and I would concur. He's a very passionate person. I think that's what makes him a great counselor, but sometimes that passion can lead him into areas that are a little bit risky. He's, he cares great greatly about the citizens of Bangor, especially the unhoused and the underprivileged, and I think he is truly out for the benefit of everyone. The caller incited a response in Counselor Leonard that was inappropriate. I wish he could have contained himself because, in my opinion, what you said at the very end of the meeting was very poignant, and if you had just left it to those comments, we wouldn't be here tonight. So I am sorry to say that I will have to support the censure because the behavior was inappropriate, but what was behind it did was appropriate. Yes. [1:13:38] Susan Hawes: I was just gonna hold on one second. I didn't know if Counselor Maller had something to say or not. He may not. No. [1:13:51] Wayne Mallar: All I'd like to say is I think it's unfortunate when we reach a point in time where we have to Center a member of the council. As the center rules read now, it's really just a lot of fluff because nothing can happen for it's just we're airing a dirty linen in public, and I'm not sure that's the most important thing the counselor should be working on. I have mixed emotions. I'd, I would like to support Council Leonard and I would like to support the council as a whole too, but I'm undecided at this point in time. I'll have to make a decision before the vote. Thank you, councilman. Obviously. [1:14:42] Joseph Leonard: Excuse me. Thank you all for coming out tonight, and I'll make my statement very brief. I stand here confused and frustrated by this censure. We're talking about punishing one obscene gesture mine made in response to hate speech. A person known for white supremacist views was allowed to spew hateful remarks at our meeting. The chair didn't stop it, and I wasn't even allowed to reply when it happened. Under our rules, any counselor can respond to public comment, yet my right to answer was denied died. only after I spoke out did my colleagues even bring up the censure instead of focusing on the real issues Bangor faces we're debating a moment of frustration meanwhile important City work goes on without our attention our municipal workers struggle with low pay and tough conditions yet this Council spends its energy on policing gestures rather than helping our community we've all seen other counselors break rules without consequence leaking confidential info rewriting votes or cozying up the special interest money and go unpunished. In fact, when I pointed out a couple of years ago how an outside pack bought influence in our elections, I was the one censured for speaking the truth. I'm not going to apologize for standing up against Nazism or hate. I refuse to accept criticism for denouncing bigotry. If speaking out against hatred is wrong, then shame on us all. Bangor deserves better leadership than this. Our city government is not working as it should. We have a broken ward system that lets big donors control outcomes and only part time counselors, which means only part time results. It's time we open our charter, create a citizen review commission, and consider a full-time council or even an elected mayor. We need officials who know the rules and dedicate 100 percent to serving residents, not their own interests. Let's focus on real solutions, fair representation, transparent elections, and strong leadership to solve our problems. Bangor deserves action and integrity not more empty gestures and political games. I hope this council will recognize that and work on meaningful reward for forms [1:17:24] Susan Hawes: instead. Thank you for listening. Thank you. I just want to point out that this isn't about what you said. This is about raising your middle finger and throwing something across the room. That's what this is about. We have a motion. We have a second. Roll call vote. That's LaBeck no. That's Ladeen yes. That's a fish yes. Counselor Maller are no. Council of tremble yes. Council of fournier yes. Five yes, two no. Thank you. Order 25-313 has passage. That brings us to the end of the meeting. If there's no nothing else to come before us, We are adjourned.