Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor public commenters press council to restore Zoom access; exchange turns heated
Summary
At the Nov. 24 City of Bangor council meeting, multiple residents urged restoring remote (Zoom) public comment as a protected part of a limited public forum; one speaker made a serious allegation about a council member's past and was cut off. Legal and ethical arguments about camera mandates and enforcement were central to public comment.
Residents used the public comment period at the City of Bangor council meeting on Nov. 24 to press the council to restore remote (Zoom) public comment and to challenge the council’s February 2025 decorum policy.
Richard Ward told the council it had “unanimously voted to kill Zoom public comments,” called the decorum rules “a set censorship blueprint” and invoked recent court decisions to argue limits on profanity or offensive speech are not sufficient grounds to bar remote participation. During his remarks Ward said a city councilor had a criminal past and, when interrupted by the chair, ended his turn with an expletive: “go **** yourself.” The chair ended his remarks and cut off further comment.
Joe Bowman, who followed Ward, framed the issue as legal and ethical. Bowman said the council’s policy creates a limited public forum that allows the chair to enforce rules and remove disruptive speakers without banning remote access. “That designation is your legal shield,” Bowman said, and urged the council to use existing rules and empower the chair rather than adopt camera mandates that could deter people from participating for privacy or safety reasons.
Multiple speakers also focused on homelessness and service access in Bangor, tying the remote-comment debate to equity and access. Scott Pardi described a downtown “service community” where unhoused residents gather because essential services are concentrated there; Hillary Simmons and Jason Drake urged the council to combine accountability with better-funded, long-term services.
Councilors did not take a formal vote on the public comment rules at the meeting. Several members later condemned negative or personal attacks during the public comment period and expressed support for colleagues, but no direct factual response to Ward’s allegation about a councilor was recorded in the transcript. The meeting record shows the council is continuing its internal discussion of public comment policy.
What happens next: the council’s public comment policy has been under review since February 2025. No ordinance or formal change was adopted during this meeting; the council may resume deliberations in committee or in a future meeting.
