Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Advisory Opinion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor City Board of Ethics approves amended findings in advisory opinion on Councilor Blaine Mallard
Summary
The Bangor City Board of Ethics voted unanimously April 16 to adopt amended findings of fact and an advisory opinion related to Council Order 25-282 about Councilor Blaine Mallard’s conduct at an Aug. 14, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission meeting; the board corrected wording and added a missing attendance line before finalizing the document.
The Bangor City Board of Ethics voted unanimously April 16 to approve amended findings of fact and a related advisory opinion concerning Council Order 25-282, which examines Councilor Blaine Mallard’s actions at an Aug. 14, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission meeting.
The board’s chair, Member Shane Leonard, opened the session in Council Chambers and asked members to review the electronic packet before discussion. Board members focused on wording in the draft findings—most notably in section 13—about whether the subject 'could remember' or 'could not remember' certain exchanges, and on a missing attendance line for Member John King.
Why it matters: The advisory opinion provides the board’s official account of factual findings that underlie any conclusions about whether conduct violated local rules; the written findings and the record together form the basis for those legal conclusions.
During the discussion, one member flagged a likely typographical error in section 13 and urged the text be corrected so it reads that the subject "could not" remember specific events rather than that the subject "could" remember them. A staff member advising the board said the record need only contain findings of fact sufficient to support the conclusions of law: "What you need is to have findings of fact that support the conclusions of law," the staff member said.
Board members also noted the attendance list in the draft omitted Member John King. The board agreed to adopt the findings with an amendment adding King to the attendance paragraph; the staff member said the name would be inserted the following morning so the board would not need to reconvene to fix the omission.
A member moved to approve the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law; the motion was seconded and the board took a roll-call vote. The board voted unanimously to adopt the amended findings and advisory opinion related to Council Order 25-282.
The meeting concluded with the chair thanking members and staff and noting the board will likely review procedure rules and collect feedback at a future meeting. The board adjourned thereafter.
