LEWISTON — The City Council voted 4-3 on Tuesday night to censure Mayor Carl Sheline for a letter he drafted voicing the city’s support for a Portland housing nonprofit in what Councilor Rick LaChapelle said was a violation of the city and council rules.
Sheline wrote in the letter, which LaChapelle read in full at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, that “on behalf of the City of Lewiston,” he was “delighted to voice our support” for Portland-based Quality Housing Coalition’s grant proposal to expand their Project HOME initiative.
Project HOME is a tenant referral and management service that partners with landlords who rent to tenants transitioning out of homelessness or housing insecurity, according to the coalition’s website.
The coalition partners with 32 landlords renting to 200 households in Androscoggin, Cumberland, Kennebec, Sagadahoc and York counties.
Sheline said Tuesday night that “based on feedback I received, I withdrew the draft letter and it was never sent out.”
LaChapelle argued that regardless whether it was only a draft, Sheline’s letter was in support of a program that would negatively impact Lewiston.
“The primary goal of this group is to find housing for as many people (as) they can throughout the state of Maine, meaning they would send people to live in places like Lewiston and pay for the first month of rent and then stop,” LaChapelle said. “Now, it becomes Lewiston’s problem, and we must pick up the long-term tab for them.”
LaChapelle said that city spending on general assistance has increased year over year, according to information from City Administrator Heather Hunter, and there has been a recent influx of “asylum seekers, aka illegal aliens.”
“Now,” LaChapelle said, “the other issue is Mayor Sheline broke the rules of conduct we all signed just two weeks ago.”
LaChapelle said Sheline violated council protocols, which say, among other things, that “by practice,” as opposed to “by charter or ordinance,” the mayor “represents the views of the City to the media and other levels of government,” and “works to ensure that the work of the Council is coordinated, especially on major issues of importance to the community, and that sound lines of communication are in place within the council.”
LaChapelle said Sheline also violated two provisions in the city charter — 2.03 and 3.05 — that describe the powers of the mayor and council and mayoral noninterference with city administration.
“The mayor refuses to follow the guidelines set forth for the office he holds,” LaChapelle said. “At this point, I move we, as a council, censure Mayor Sheline for violation of our rules of conduct in the form of a motion.”
This was the final topic of the meeting, before the council went into two executive sessions. Because the resolution to censure was not an agenda item, meaning the public did not have prior notice, the council had to vote to suspend the rules before it could make a motion on the resolution.
“The council’s late-night suspension of the rules to bring up this surprise agenda item speaks to both their disregard for transparency and their willingness to waste everyone’s time,” Sheline told the Sun Journal on Wednesday. “It’s a new year, and rather than tackling city business and working together to solve our challenges, like workforce and housing, they insist on these petty maneuvers. Lewiston deserves better.”
Other councilors in support of the resolution said they agreed with LaChapelle’s characterization of Sheline’s actions.
Councilor Lee Clement said Sheline broke the noninterference clause in the charter by asking city staff members to help prepare the letter. Clement also said the mayor violated the duties of his position, as laid out in the council protocols, by not asking the council to approve the letter.
This was not the first time the mayor and members of the council have butted heads. In early January, Clement brought forward a proposal that would require mayors to remain “neutral and detached” during debates, and would prohibit mayors from expressing opinions on agenda items. The council ultimately tabled the proposal and agreed to discuss it further in an executive session.
During discussion Tuesday, Councilor Laurier Pease held up a copy of a proclamation the council signed at its Feb. 7 meeting that reads, “We want to emphasize that we respect each other’s views, including giving each member of the Council, including the Mayor, the opportunity to have a full discussion to equally share our views in a respectful way.”
Pease said that “after what I’ve been reading in the papers and seeing what’s going on, this is what it means to me,” and tore up the paper.
Councilor Stephanie Gelinas was opposed to the resolution “because I feel like we’re putting forth (censuring) something that wasn’t done,” which was “not legitimate.”
“I have never felt that we’re being served by a mayor who doesn’t care about the council,” she said. “That’s just not been my experience.”
Councilor Scott Harriman asked repeatedly for clarification on what actions justified the censure, at one point throwing up his arms in frustration when LaChapelle did not answer his questions. He said he did not see how the charter provisions cited were applicable.
“I’m still not seeing the connection between what action was taken. Seems like there was no action taken,” Harriman said, referring to the fact Sheline’s letter was never sent.
After a nearly 30-minute discussion, Councilors LaChapelle, Clement, Pease and Robert McCarthy voted in favor of censuring Sheline.
Gelinas, Harriman and Council President Linda Scott voted in opposition to the censure.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
