Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public outcry over councilor's hot-mic remarks; immigration ordinance postponed
Summary
After public commenters condemned a councilor's hot-mic remarks about multilingual students, the council postponed an ordinance constraining employee engagement with federal immigration enforcement to allow further legal review and department-level analysis.
A wave of public comment at the April 13 Bangor City Council meeting focused on remarks attributed to Councilor Mallor and the city's proposed limits on employee cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Hundreds of residents who turned out or logged on urged the council to respond after what several speakers described as "hot-mic" comments. "Mister Mallor is wrong, and hate like this has no place on this council," said Rose Pompey, a Bangor multilingual teacher, during general public comment. Laura Whitman, another multilingual-learner teacher, cited the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982) and warned that schools may not ask students about immigration status and must provide access to education.
Mitchell Cooper, a homeowner, told the council a local board of ethics had found the councilor violated the city's ethics code and urged consequences, saying the remarks demonstrate contempt for a small group of students and calling for the councilor's resignation.
Those public concerns intersected with council action on an ordinance (26-095) that would set limits on the city's role in federal civil immigration enforcement and direct employee behavior. City legal staff and department heads raised practical and legal questions: Airport Director Jose Saavedra told councilors that the airport maintains active agreements with federal authorities, including Customs and Border Protection, that could complicate or conflict with the ordinance's terms. The city solicitor reported that legal review and departmental input identified multiple outstanding concerns with both the original draft and a subsequently proposed revision.
After discussion, the council voted 5-4 to postpone ordinance 26-095 to the April 27 meeting to allow more analysis and possible revision. The motion to postpone was taken to permit further review of grant assurances, airport agreements and implementation details, the solicitor said.
The council did not take any disciplinary action against the councilor during the meeting; public commenters asked the body to consider ethics or other responses. Several residents noted potential impacts on community trust if municipal interactions with immigrants were perceived as conduits for federal enforcement.
Next steps: the ordinance will return to council on April 27 after additional legal and department review; public comment or amendment may follow.
