Your area Not set — showing everywhere
Issue · Bangor, ME

Councilor Ethics Violations and Discipline

Council must decide penalties and procedures for members found to have violated conduct standards, raising questions of accountability and decorum.

Overview

Council ethics violations emerged from remarks by Councilors Malloy and Mallard, prompting referrals and penalty discussions. Developments progressed from referral in April to penalty consensus and deferral in July. The Council continues to weigh accountability measures against free speech and procedural questions.

Background

The issue of Councilor Ethics Violations and Discipline arose on April 28, 2026, when the Council addressed controversial remarks by Councilor Malloy on non-English speaking students and immigration status. Public commenters expressed strong views ranging from calls for resignation to defenses of integrity. Council members debated the appropriateness of an ethics referral, leading to passage of a resolve clarifying that the remarks were personal and an order referring the matter to the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion.

This referral set the stage for later developments. On July 13, 2026, the Council took up the Ethics Board's findings against Councilor Mallard for violating section 33-1 on maintaining standards of conduct. Councilors debated whether to apply proposed new penalty options such as training or removal from committees or adhere to the current code, and whether the Chair has authority to remove members from committees. A consensus emerged to direct staff to prepare an order including a penalty of training with the legal department.

The same July 13 meeting also addressed potential disciplinary action or referral regarding Councilor Leonard's June 22 remarks about ICE. A debate occurred on whether the comments were partisan ethics violations or protected speech, with discussion of handling in open session, executive session, or referral to the Ethics Board. Due to time constraints the full discussion was deferred to a future meeting or special workshop.

These sequential steps illustrate the Council's ongoing effort to establish consistent procedures for addressing conduct violations while balancing accountability with questions of decorum and authority.

How it unfolded
Council passed a resolve clarifying Councilor Malloy's remarks were personal and an order referring his conduct to the Board of Ethics for an advisory opinion after debate on First Amendment rights versus professional conduct.
2026-04-28City Council
Council reached consensus on a motion directing staff to prepare an order following the Ethics Board's findings against Councilor Mallard, including a penalty of training with the Legal Department; also deferred full discussion of potential discipline for Councilor Leonard's remarks to a future meeting or workshop.
2026-07-13City Council
Arguments in favor
Referral to the Ethics Board provides a formal process to determine if conduct violated city code.
city-council 2026-04-28
For
Training with the Legal Department addresses violations of standards regarding use of titles and disclaimers without harsher sanctions.
city-council 2026-07-13
For
Clarifying that remarks are personal helps maintain council decorum and public perception of impartiality.
city-council 2026-04-28
For
Key voices
“Defended his remarks about ICE as factual and non-partisan.”
Councilor Leonardcity-council 2026-07-13
“Argued he has a legal right to a public hearing regarding his words and that an attorney consultation cannot circumvent transparency laws.”
Councilor Leonardcity-council 2026-07-13
What's next

The Mallard matter is expected to return to the Council for a formal vote in approximately two weeks; Leonard discussion to be revisited at a future meeting or special workshop.

ethics boardcouncilor mallardcouncilor leonardcouncilor malloy