Brewer to consider disciplining unruly councilors

BREWER – The city soon may have some new methods for publicly chastising – and removing – unruly council members.

During a public hearing set for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, residents will have a chance to sound off on a proposed charter amendment that would give city councilors the power to remove one of their own under specific circumstances.

Councilors also will conduct a first reading of a proposed ordinance change that would pave the way for the public censure of members who engage in conduct unbecoming a city councilor, but not egregious enough to warrant removal from office.

As things stand, the city’s sole means for dispensing with councilors who do something offensive to the public is the citizen-led recall process, which requires voters’ signatures and a special recall election, but no specific cause for recall.

The two proposals to be considered during next week’s special council meeting would give the council the authority to hold individual members accountable for their actions, according to Mayor Michael Celli, who developed both proposals in collaboration with City Solicitor Joel Dearborn, City Clerk Arthur Verow and fellow councilors.

Research on the removal of elected officials conducted by Dearborn and Verow turned up other Maine municipalities that have removal provisions, Dearborn said Tuesday, citing Freeport, Kennebunk and Waterville as examples.

Celli said this week that developing the means for making individual councilors accountable for their actions has been a priority of his since he was elected last November. He acknowledged that the council has had a code of ethics for several years, but pointed out that it “lacked teeth.”

Though rarely used, removal measures do exist elsewhere, Celli said, pointing out that Congress and this state’s elected lawmakers have such provisions.

Michael Starn, a spokesman for the Maine Municipal Association, estimated that five to 10 of the 75 to 80 municipalities with charters in Maine have some kind of removal or forfeiture-of-office provision. The difference between the two, he said, is that forfeiture provisions determine what circumstances render officials ineligible for office but stop short of actual removal.

“What this does is allow members of the city council to judge the qualifications of their own members,” Starn said, adding that removal usually is “an absolutely last resort. It’s more of a deterrent.”

Councilor Larry Doughty, a self-professed city watchdog often at odds with the council majority, said he believes he is the target of the two proposals.

“Oh, absolutely, they’re aimed at me,” Doughty said, pointing to an incident almost a year ago in which he was called on the carpet for releasing confidential information.

Celli said the proposals were not aimed at any particular councilor and would apply to all. He also said councilor accountability was a topic of discussion among councilors before he was elected and before the incident involving Doughty arose.

At the center of the controversy Doughty brought up was an ambulance bill erroneously sent to a Brewer firefighter injured while on the job. Doughty gave a copy of the bill to a local television reporter. Under state law, personnel records containing medical and mental health information are to remain confidential.

Though Doughty acknowledged then that he probably was wrong in showing the bill, he said he did it because he was concerned that two earlier ambulance bills he claimed were submitted to workers’ compensation could have an adverse effect on the city’s premium costs.

Celli said special care was taken to ensure the removal option “will not be used as a political weapon or as a form of revenge. That’s not my intention. I really feel that when an elected official puts the city at financial or legal risk or puts the city in a bad light, that official ought to be punished in some fashion, no matter who it is.”

Dearborn said implementing the removal option would require a citywide referendum. The referendum could occur as soon as Nov. 6, if councilors decide Tuesday to put the issue on the ballot.

According to the removal proposal, a city councilor could be ousted by unanimous vote of the other members – after notice and a hearing – for any of the following reasons: failure to qualify for office under the city charter or any state or federal law; committing an action expressly prohibited under the city’s charter, codes and ordinances; knowingly disclosing information that is confidential under state or federal law; being convicted of a crime of moral turpitude; or being convicted of a felony.

In contrast, the council can adopt the censure provision without a public vote after first and second readings, according to Dearborn and Verow.

If the council approves the censure proposal, members could be publicly chastised for the following reasons: prolonged, unexcused absence from council meetings; repeated tardiness; violations of meeting procedures, such as repeatedly interrupting fellow councilors; discourteous remarks to the public, city employees or other councilors; public disclosure of information discussed or obtained during executive session; failure to comply with the section of the city’s charter, codes and ordinances setting forth the city’s chain of command; inappropriate use of any information obtained through any memorandum from any attorney representing the city; disclosure of information deemed confidential by state or federal law; conviction of a crime of moral turpitude; or a felony conviction.

A resolution of censure would require sponsorship by two members of the council, according to the council order. The councilor targeted for censure would have to be notified in writing of the detailed reasons for the resolution at least 48 hours before the meeting at which the resolution would be considered. Censure would require a hearing and a unanimous vote before it could be implemented.