Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Flood Public Comment to Back Councilor Amid Ethics Review
Summary
Dozens of residents turned out at the May 18 Ellsworth City Council meeting to oppose what they described as an ethics inquiry or punitive action against Councilor Steve O'Halerin, urging the council to let voters decide and criticizing city spending and process.
Dozens of residents used the public-comment period at the City Council meeting on May 18 to rally around Councilor Steve O’Halerin as the council prepared a special meeting to consider an ethics-related matter. Speakers repeatedly urged the council not to remove an elected official and to respect electoral outcomes, describing O’Halerin as a frequent critic of spending who ‘‘asks the tough questions’’ on behalf of taxpayers.
Supporters called for transparency and for process that respects notice and public hearings. Gordon Workman, who opened the public-comment period, asked the council for a legal opinion about a licensing renewal and later urged officials to ‘‘get a hold of your representatives’’ on dam relicensing — comments made in the same public-comment block that quickly shifted to defense of O’Halerin. Several speakers noted the procedural limits on expulsion, pointing to City ordinance Chapter 40 as the threshold for formal removal actions and saying expulsion was not on the current agenda.
Why it matters: The outpouring reflects a politically engaged electorate and ramps up public scrutiny for the city’s next meeting on the matter. Council staff emphasized that the special meeting that followed would not be a public hearing and that public comment about the matter could be made during the open public-comment segment before that closed session. Citizens repeatedly framed their remarks as protection of representative government — ‘‘let the people decide’’ was a frequent refrain — and several warned of recall efforts or electoral responses if the council moved to remove an elected member without clear, legally grounded cause.
What the council said and did: Chair Lions read guidance clarifying procedures for expulsion under city ordinance chapter 40 and emphasized that expulsion requires specific notice and public-hearing steps. Councilors acknowledged the heavy turnout; no formal action related to expulsion was taken during the regular meeting. The special meeting to consider the alleged violation proceeded separately and was not open for public comment, per the chair’s statement.
Community context: Commenters tied their concerns to broader frustrations — rising taxes, recent city spending, perceived lack of responsiveness — and described O’Halerin as a voice for taxpayers. Speakers included long-time residents and business owners. Several raised separate operational concerns about city services, including business licensing, parks, and tax burdens, indicating the debate over the councilor has become a proxy for wider dissatisfaction.
What’s next: The council moved to a special meeting on the matter following the regular session; that meeting will determine whether any formal discipline or other action proceeds. The council reiterated that expulsion has discrete legal steps and that any such move would require the public hearing and notices that were not part of the May 18 regular meeting.
