Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Values Resolve topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates a resolve to reaffirm Bangor as a welcoming community; roll call yields split response
Summary
Councilors discussed a proposed resolve reaffirming Bangor as a welcoming community; supporters said it would reassure vulnerable residents, opponents warned it could invite frequent policy statements and conflate local duties with national politics. A roll call on forwarding the resolve produced split votes.
Bangor City Council discussed a proposed resolve intended to reaffirm the city s a welcoming community and to disavow misinformation and hate speech, but councilors were divided over whether adopting such a statement is appropriate for the council to take on.
Council Chair Poletier introduced the item Jan. 27 and said the document is meant "in the same spirit" as annual goal updates and operating policies the council shares with the public. "This resolve is in that same spirit, just sharing with the community how we intend to operate as a council," he said.
Councilor Mallard said he was concerned about creating a statement where no problem currently exists and warned about "poking the bear." "If we don't need to do it, sometimes it's not necessary," Mallard said. Councilor Kirsch questioned how the council would define and police concepts like "misinformation," and raised concerns about the council taking positions that could be viewed as opinion-based.
Other councilors urged the item move forward. Councilor Trumbull said the resolve could reassure marginalized residents who may be "not at ease" given national political developments. Councilor Beck said the text does not compel policing and that "there's nothing here that requires us to police anything. It's just a statement that just says we are welcoming." Councilor Dean described the language as "generic enough" and said it reflects how many in the community feel.
The council took a roll call to determine whether to move the resolve to the full council for possible action. The recorded roll-call votes were: Beck (yes), Mallard (no), Trumbull (yes), Haas (no), Fish (no), Dean (yes), Fournier (no) and Leonard (yes). The transcript records a split sentiment in the roll call; a final disposition was not explicitly recorded in that segment. The chair noted that if the council chooses to move the resolve forward it would appear at the first full council meeting in February for potential adoption; the item is a resolve and does not amend ordinances or allocate funds.
Supporters described the action as a simple affirmation of values and a reassurance to community members who have expressed concern. Opponents said it risks expanding the council's agenda into symbolic or national issues and could invite many similar requests.
The council did not, within the recorded segment, adopt the resolve on the spot; staff explained that rules could be suspended if the council wished to adopt immediately, but no suspension was taken in the recorded discussion.
