Ethics Commission — Portland, ME
Date: 2026-06-02
Time: 17:30

ETHICS COMMISSION MEMBERS
 Carolyn Braun
 Peter Goldman
Tuesday, June 2, 2026 at 5:30 PM Jennifer Goodwin
City Hall Room 209 - In Person William Hayward
 Maria Maffucci
 Rosemary Paine
 Jennifer Wriggins




The Ethics Commission will conduct this meeting in person at City Hall in Room 209. A recording will be
available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ethics@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Ethics Commission meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda
packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is
submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).


AGENDA:

1. Call To Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting

 i. Meeting Minutes 4.28.2026
4. Unfinished Business

 i. Drafting Ethics Code
 a. Conflict of Interest update memo
 b. Political Participation Policy Memo
 c. Public Comment
5. Executive Session
 The Commission may enter executive session pursuant to 1 MRS sec. 405(6)(E) to discuss
 the Commission's legal duties in responding to an ethics complaint.
6. Hour Mark - 10 Minute Recess

7. Public Comment

8. New Business


 1
9. Next Meeting

10. Adjourn




 2

ETHICS COMMISSION MEMBERS
 Carolyn Braun
 Peter Goldman
Tuesday, June 2, 2026 at 5:30 PM Jennifer Goodwin
City Hall Room 209 - In Person William Hayward
 Maria Maffucci
 Rosemary Paine
 Jennifer Wriggins




The Ethics Commission will conduct this meeting in person at City Hall in Room 209. A recording will be
available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENT INFORMATION:
To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email ethics@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be
received by 12:00 pm the day before the Ethics Commission meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda
packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is
submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below).


AGENDA:

1. Call To Order

2. Roll Call

3. Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting

 i. Meeting Minutes 4.28.2026
4. Unfinished Business

 i. Drafting Ethics Code
 a. Conflict of Interest update memo
 b. Political Participation Policy Memo
 c. Public Comment
5. Executive Session
 The Commission may enter executive session pursuant to 1 MRS sec. 405(6)(E) to discuss
 the Commission's legal duties in responding to an ethics complaint.
6. Hour Mark - 10 Minute Recess

7. Public Comment

8. New Business


 1

 Page 1
9. Next Meeting

10. Adjourn




 2

 Page 2
ETHICS COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 26,2026
Anita LaChance Conference Room 209
City Hall, 2nd Floor


MINUTES

1. Call To Order 5:30pm

2. Members in Attendance:
​
 Carolyn Braun
 Peter Goldman
 Jennifer Goodwin (Absent)
 William Hayward
 Maria Maffucci
 Rosemary Paine
 Jennifer Wriggins (Absent)

City Personnel:
​ Rachele Millette (Associate Corporation Council) Abby Lombard (City Clerk)

Visitor : Zach Barowitz, Portland Resident

3. Approval of Minutes from 3/31/2026
​ Motion to approve minutes
 ​ Moved: Will Hayward
 ​ Seconded: Rose Paine
 Unanimously approved
 Amendments:​
 Jenny Wriggins was in attendance
 ​ Rosemary Paine was absent
 Motion to accept minutes as amended
 ​ Moved: Will Hayward
 ​ Seconded: ?
 Unanimously approved

​ Motion to approve minutes as amended
 Unanimously approved

4. Unfinished Business
 1. Drafting Ethics Code
 a. Political Participation Policy Memo




 Page 3
 Item 1a was not addressed

 Review and continued discussion of Draft - Conflict of Interest

​ ​ Carolyn and Jenny were were not able to meet to bring a definition of Conflict of
Interest to the commission

 Action Item: Carolyn and Jenny - reasonable draft of Conflict of Interest definition by
May meeting
 Action Item for Commission: Which types of independent contractor do we want to loop
into Ethics Code issues?
 Action Item: Rachel will consult with her colleagues about distinguishing between
different types of independent contractor relationships

5. Hour Mark - 10 Minute Recess

6. Public Comment
​ Zack Barowitz - Portland Resident

4. Continued discussion on Draft
 5th paragraph of preamble - “liberal construction”
​ Action Item: Will will fine tune language of “liberal construction”

 Maria presented the paragraph Sec. X-4. Gifts
​ All approved (without vote)

Discussion stopped at Sec. X-6: Privileges

7. New Business
​ There was no new business

8. Next Meeting June 2, 5:30 in person

9. Adjourn
​ Motion to adjourn
 Moved: Will Hayward
 Seconded: Rose Paine
 ​ Unanimously approved
 Meeting adjourned 7:25




 Page 4
 Chapter X CODE OF ETHICS

 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL

Sec. X-1. Preamble.

 Portland’s government exists to serve the people. In order to do so effectively,
those who live or work in Portland must have confidence and trust in the integrity of
those in positions of service. The people of the City of Portland deserve elected and
appointed officials and city employees who maintain the highest ethical principles,
promote elevated standards of conduct, and avoid conflicts of interest, real or
perceived.

 It is with this intent that the City of Portland Maine has created the following Code
of Ethics, predicated on the values of honesty, fairness, equitable treatment and
balancing the needs of the community with those of the individual. Democracy depends
on a government that is impartial, transparent, and accountable to its constituents.

 A code of ethics is a set of rules that outlines clear expectations for
organizational business practices and behaviors. Such codes are based on values
intended to guide the employees and elected or appointed officials and to ensure that
they conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. Municipal codes of ethics strive to
establish principles that reflect a city’s core values, and define standards of conduct.

 This Code of Ethics is designed to foster an honorable culture throughout
municipal governance. It sets clear, minimum expectations for performance in the
service of the City of Portland. Inherently, ethical standards may require conditions
more rigorous than city or state laws and statutes.

 It is the legislative intent of the city council, in adopting this Code, that all
provisions and sections of this Code be liberally construed to protect and preserve the
peace, health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. Commented [1]: Will will edit

Sec. X-2. Definitions.

 a. Confidential Information. The term "confidential information" shall mean any
 information, oral or written, which comes to the attention of, or is available to, a
 public servant only because of their position with the City and is not a matter of
 public record, including, but not limited to information received and discussed
 during an executive session pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 405 et seq., information
 exempt from the definition of “public records” pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 402(3), and
 information otherwise designated confidential by statute.

 b. Conflict of Interest. Commented [2]: Jenny & Carolyn will draft



Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 5
 c. Financial Interest. The term “financial interest” shall include any interest with a
 value equal or greater than $2,500 or 5% interest in an entity, whichever is less.

 d. Interest. A benefit or advantage, including a benefit or advantage which may be
 one of control rather than of possession; an influence due to one’s personal
 importance or capability; a power of influencing the action of others; any
 financial, personal, or organizational stake that could influence - or appear to
 influence - one’s decisions or actions in their official role. Examples of an
 “interest” include, but are not limited to:

 i. A share, right, or title in the ownership of personal or real property;

 ii. A share, right or title in an undertaking, including a commercial or financial
 undertaking, or the like.

 e. Public Servant. The term “public servant” shall include officials, officers and
 employees of the city, including elected and appointed officials, members of
 boards and committees, independent contractors, and volunteers, whether paid Commented [3]: Consider Seattle definition of City
 contractor
 or unpaid.
 Commented [4]: Rachel to talk to legal team about
 f. Recuse. “Recuse” means to withdraw from a deliberation or discussion, or a vote their thoughts here

 or a decision, due to a real or potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. Commented [5]: Upon further review of Charter
 language, Ethics Code does not apply to independent
 contractors or volunteers
 g. Relative. The term “relative” shall mean an individual’s spouse, domestic partner,
 parent, child, or an individual with whom the covered individual has a significant
 personal bond that is or is like a family relationship, regardless of biological or
 legal relationship.

 ARTICLE II. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Sec. X-3. Conflict of Interest Policy.

 Public servants shall avoid any conflict of interest. A conflict exists when the
public servant’s loyalties or actions are divided between their interests and the interests
of the City. In addition, public servants must avoid the appearance of a conflict of Commented [6]: Discuss phrasing this as a general
 guiding principle and whether more specificity is
interest. Without limitation, some specific examples of conflict of interest follow: required after more is fleshed out in the
 various situations outlined below
 Commented [7]: Jenny & Carolyn will work on in
 conjunction with definition of conflict of interest
 Commented [8]: Members are going to look at New
 Jersey ethics code
 Commented [9]: Alternatively, Jenny would be direct
 here saying Conflict of Interest is not permitted, and
 then there is a definition of conflict of interest.
 Commented [10]: Suggested language changes are
 Peter's proposal


Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 6
 In plain language, the public servant must ask themself, “Could this matter or
decision benefit me, or could it be viewed to benefit me?” If the answer is “yes,” the
public servant has an interest in the matter or decision.

 This action [RECUSAL] is taken by a Public Servant who recognizes or Commented [11]: Peter strongly feels that this should
 stay in the definition section as an example of the
reasonably should recognize that their involvement in the matter could be biased or definition of recuse
perceived as biased. By way of illustration but not as a limitation, a Public Servant
should recuse themself

 i. where the Public Servant has a financial interest or other interest in the
 matter’s outcome;

 ii. where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the Public Servant’s
 participation in the deliberation or discussion, or vote or decision, will be
 biased or perceived to be biased.

In either situation, it does not matter whether the Public Servant is actually biased. What
matters is that even if the Public Servant does not believe they are biased, the
appearance of bias still undermines the integrity of Portland’s government.
Sec. X-3. Financial Interests.

 A public servant shall disclose any financial interest that they or their relative has
with respect to a matter within the scope of the public servant’s duties immediately upon
becoming aware of it to their supervisor or in a public meeting and shall recuse
themselves from participation in the matters related to that financial interest. A public
servant must file a written disclosure of the financial interest to the City Clerk within
three (3) business days of when they knew or reasonably should have become aware of
the interest, whichever is sooner.

 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the previous paragraph, no public
servant shall be prohibited from participating in the City’s municipal budget process,
including drafting, deliberations, and voting simply because they reside or own property
in the City; provided, however, that such public servant shall recuse themself from
drafting, deliberations, or voting on any particular line item in which they have a financial
interest distinct from that of all City residents or property owners.

Sec. X-4. Gifts.
 Commented [12]: or their agent?
 A public servant in the course of their position with the City shall not accept any
 Commented [13]: Check with legal team to see if this
gifts from a person or entity who has a contract, license, or permit with the City or is is all encompassing enough
seeking a contract, license, or permit from the City. A public servant in the course of
 Commented [14]: All encompassing - but include
 liberal construction language


Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 7
their position with the City shall not accept from any person or entity any gifts with a
total cumulative value of more than $50 in the course of a 12 month period.

Sec. X-5. Outside Employment.

 A public servant’s outside employment, i.e., compensated professional work
outside of their work as a City employee, shall not conflict with the duties and
responsibilities of their position with the City or the City’s interests. Any outside
employment activities that create conflicts of interest with the City, use city
time/resources for private gain, or impair the Public Servant’s performance of official
City duties are prohibited. Public servants of the City in their outside employment must
ensure that their outside employment does not discredit or conflict with the municipality.

Sec. X-6. Privileges or Special Treatment. Commented [15]: Stopped review here on 4.28

 Public servants are prohibited from using their City employment to secure special
privileges, exemptions, or preferential treatment for themselves, relatives, or friends.
Such actions constitute a conflict of interest. Public servants must not disclose
confidential information gained by reason of the official position, nor may they otherwise
use such information for his or her personal gain or benefit.

Sec. X-7. Post-Employment Restrictions.

 a. No disclosure of Confidential Information. Except as otherwise required by law,
 following the termination of their service to the City, no former public servant shall
 engage in or accept private employment or render services for private individuals
 or entities or engage in any business or professional activity when the
 employment, service or activity would require or induce the former public servant
 to disclose Confidential Information acquired by reason of their former official
 position.

 b. No conflict of interest. Except as otherwise required by law, for a period of one
 (1) year following the termination of their service to the City, no public servant
 shall engage in or accept private employment or render services for private
 individuals or entities or engage in any business or professional activity when the
 employment, service or activity conflicts with the City’s interests, business or
 affairs arising out of the public servant’s former official duties.

Sec. X-8. Use of City Property and Resources.

 Except where otherwise available to the general public, a public servant shall not
use City facilities or equipment for outside employment. Commented [16]: Just employment, or other personal
 uses? Is there any exception for de minimis uses?




Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 8
 No Public Servant shall use or permit the use of any City-owned property,
including but not limited to motor vehicles, equipment and buildings, for any private
purposes.
 A Public Servant shall not direct or request subordinates to use official time to
perform any activities for the local official's or employee's personal convenience, profit
or benefit. *
 A Public Servant may only use the City’s name, letterhead, logo, or seal when it
would be perceived as representing the City of Portland or the body as a whole and only
with prior consent of the Council or designee.
 Public Servants shall not utilize the City’s name, letterhead, logo, or seal for the
purpose of endorsing any political candidate, business, commercial product, or service.
Nothing herein shall prohibit a Public Servant from endorsing any of the above in their
personal capacity. A Public Servant may disclose the fact of their position provided it is
made clear that they are acting in a personal capacity and not as a representative of the
City
 *Nothing herein shall prohibit use of City buildings and equipment at rates and/or
on terms as may be established. Nothing herein shall prohibit the use of City equipment
or motor vehicles by Public Servants in accordance with written policies established by
the City Council, Mayor, City Manager or City department head concerned, nor shall this
code be deemed to prohibit private use of surplus City property legally disposed of by
the City or its departments in compliance with established procedures.
Sec. X-9. Political Activity.

 No city employee, city councilors, board members, or commission members shall
participate in any political activity that would be in conflict or incompatible with the
performance of their official functions and duties for the City. No city employee, city
councilors, board members, or commission members may use their official authority or
position for the purposes of influencing, interfering with, or affecting the results of any
election. They shall not use City facilities, equipment, materials or supplies to
communicate, organize, assist or advocate for or against any candidates for elected
office; including but not limited to their own candidacy, whether for a local, state or
federal office, and whether the employee is on or off duty at the time of such use. They
shall not solicit or accept funds or contributions from other City employees for political
purposes.

 Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any City employee from
participating in the political process in their capacity as private citizens or as candidates
for elected office.

 Employees who are working directly or indirectly under a federal funding status
must check with the Hatch Act Unit of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel as to the


Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 9
extent to which participation in state or federal political activity is allowed under Federal
law
 Candidates for and holders of elective office must follow Maine’s statutes on
disclosure and campaign finance
Sec. X-10. Loans. Commented [17]: Rose will draft




 ARTICLE III. CONFIDENTIALITY

Sec. X-11. Disclosure Prohibited.

 The unauthorized disclosure of the City’s Confidential Information or using
Confidential Information for personal profit or advantage is prohibited.

 All City personnel acknowledge that the Confidential Information is the valuable
property of the City. All City personnel further acknowledge that any disclosure of
unauthorized use of the City’s Confidential Information will cause irreparable harm and
loss to the City, or to the party entrusting the Confidential Information to the City, for
which monetary damages would be inadequate compensation.

 All City personnel understand and agree that by executing this Confidentiality
Policy they are entering into a special relationship with the City imposing a duty of
confidentiality upon them.

Sec. X-12. Insider Information. Commented [18]: At least one code also makes
 mention of "advance" information - separate from
 confidential information, which seemed akin to "insider
 “Insider Information” is a form of Confidential Information. Insider Information is information"
non-public information which comes to City personnel during their employment or during
the course of their association with the City. City personnel shall not use any Insider
Information, or reveal it to others who may use it, in connection with business
transactions related to the City or contemplated by the City. This applies not only to
non-public information relating to the City, but also to non-public information relating to
third parties such as individuals or businesses.




Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 10
Notes for Further Consideration

 ● Should there be a process where a public servant could suggest that another
 public servant should recuse themselves based on a real or perceived conflict or
 interest?
 ● Accountability officer
 ● Protecting confidentiality of complainants to the extent possible




Draft as of 4/28/2026




 Page 11
Memo to: Ethics Commission & Rachel Millette [5-19-26 8:47 PM]

From: Carolyn Braun and Jenny Wriggins

Re: Conflict of Interest Definition – Progress report

May 26, 2026

We have been working on drafting a definition of Conflict of Interest for Section X-2 (Definitions)
and Article II of the draft sent by Rachel as of 4-28-26. We understand that the process we all
are involved in must result in a code of ethical conduct for officials and employees. (Charter
Code of Ordinances, Article VIII Section 1-A). We have met several times and have made
progress in analyzing some of the issues and framing the necessary questions. The project has
turned out to be more complicated than we initially thought and it is taking us some time to work
through the options. While, initially, we followed the tempting path of one definition, one policy
for all, we now understand that drafting a single conflict of interest policy that applies to all is not
a fruitful way to approach the issues. Here are some of the questions we tried to figure out
answers to, and our answers.

1. What are the relevant existing laws and policies and who do they apply to?

 a. state conflict of interest law(s) 30-A MRSA 2605 Conflicts of Interest. This seems
 to apply to current and former officials only. (There are other related statutes that
 apply - on page 2 of the current code of ethics); some of them are related to the idea
 of conflict of interest. 17-A MRSA 3104 is called 'conflicts of interest: purchases by
 the state.' We are thinking we should incorporate these provisions as the current
 code of ethics does (and other municipalities do too).

 b.Portland Code of Ordinances Charter Article VIII Miscellaneous Provisions –
 Section 1.

 'No personal interest'. This does apply to employees as well as officials. This has
 been in effect since the 1980s and will remain in effect after the existing code of
 ethics is gone (per conversation w Rachel). It is not called a conflict of interest
 policy, but it is based on the idea of government actors behaving ethically and not
 taking advantage of their position. It talks about officials and employees not having a
 substantial financial interest in contracts and limits receipt of free services, and limits
 contracts. So what we draft has to be consistent with this. We don't think that will be
 a problem because it’s fairly specifically focused, and the conflict of interest concept
 extends more broadly. (Note this is distinct from the current Portland Code of Ethics
 which will no longer be in effect once the City adopts a new code) .



2. What are some Issues with drafting a single conflict of interest definition and policy?

 a. Looking for a definition: As we mentioned above, the commission’s task
 includes drafting an ethics code that applies to elected/appointed officials and to
 employees (department heads as well as line employees). We hoped to find a


 1


 Page 12
 useful model of a conflict of interest definition that would apply to all these
 categories of people associated with the city.

 b. But a straightforward definition covering all we need it to cover seems
 not to exist: However, we have not found such a definition. Some of the
 policies/codes apply only to elected/appointed officials (e.g. Vermont and Cape
 Elizabeth). So they aren't useful models for a policy that applies to employees as
 well. This is because the issues that may face employees will often be different
 from issues that may face elected and appointed officials. Some codes apply to
 both elected/appointed officials and employees, but not in simple ways. This is
 presumably because the power, responsibility, ethical challenges etc are different
 depending on the relationship between the individual and the city.

 c. One example is Bangor, and it’s complicated.. Bangor’s initial language
 (33-1) and purpose/standards of conduct language (Article II, sec. 33-4) broadly
 apply to elected/appointed officials and employees. But section 33-11 ‘Conflicts
 of Interest’ only applies to City Councilors,, board members, and commission
 members. And then one of the sections, 33-10, Representing third party
 interests before City agencies, is divided into two sections, each applying to
 different categories of people. Subsection A applies to City Employees and
 Subsection B applies to City Councilors. Other provisions may apply to some
 considerations of conflict of interest by employees (broadly construed) even
 though the technical definition does not apply to them. This seems to make
 sense, since the issues and challenges faced by different categories of
 employees are likely to be different. This also makes this project more
 complicated than we thought at first. Plus some codes do not have a conflict of
 interest policy per se that is called a conflict of interest policy,and/or do not define
 conflict of interest, but do have specific rules that apply to situations that could
 be called conflicts of interest, but are not called that in the code. (Other Codes
 like Seattle’s and Minneapolis, we think, have similar complexities with broad
 introductory language but specific carve-outs as well.)

 d. Other examples: New Jersey, Mass, NY: We have spent a little time with
 New Jersey’s rules: New Jersey’s Local Government Ethics Law applies in part
 to both local government ‘officers’ and ‘employees’ (NJSA 40A, §12-22.3
 Definitions) but also has provisions that make clear that ‘government officers’
 are not in violation of the law if they do certain things that have to do with their
 offices in connection with voting, making constituent requests and such (40A, §9-
 22.5.) Also the law only requires local government officials to file a financial
 disclosure statement (40A §9-22.6(a)(presumably not employees). We want to
 look more closely at this. Massachusetts has a chapter 268A which deals with
 conflict of interest for municipal employees which we also want to look at more
 closely (our materials from the first meeting had some explanatory documents for
 employees which was instructive but we want to look more closely at the actual
 statute. NYC’s policy also may be a useful thing to look at.

3. Next steps : We want to continue delving into the examples and continue thinking about the
structure of the ethics code. We could, like Bangor, divide some of the provisions into A and B;
one applying to employees and one applying to officials. We could also have separate sections


 2


 Page 13
for some of the provisions. We will continue working on this when we can in advance of the
meeting; but will not have time to draft the relevant documents.




 3


 Page 14
Memo to Portland Ethics Commission

From: Carolyn Braun and Jenny Wriggins

Date 3-6-26

Re: Political Participation Policy

Introduction: We have been tasked with working on a proposed political participation policy.
We started by looking at materials on the subject that had been drafted already. We continued
by thinking about what goals those materials were aimed at and, informed by the materials,
thinking ourselves about the goals of the materials and whether we thought those goals were
important for this part of the ethics commission’s work. We continued by drafting a possible
policy, and including questions for the commission to consider.

The policies we reviewed dealt with several themes and tensions. One theme was the
importance that city resources of all sorts (including city facilities, employees’ time and their
influence) be kept out of campaigns and elections. Another theme was protecting employees’
opportunity to run for office.

The reach of the policies to volunteers who weren’t appointees was not clear to us. Or, are all
volunteers appointees? Commented [1]: Many of the policies that I've seen
 don't anticipate volunteers. I'm not sure I would
I. reviewing what we had consider volunteers to be appointees, as there is no
 real appointment process

 1. Bangor Code §3.13 – Political Activities. This provision applies to city employees, Commented [2R1]: sounds good.
City Councilors, board members and commission members It begins with a general statement
that the people who are covered shall not participate in any political activity which would be in
conflict or incompatible with their official functions and duties. The policies do not define
political activity. The policies also do not define ‘in conflict or incompatible with.’ This general
introductory statement I take to be a broad statement of principle. The code section goes on to
say that ‘In conjunction therewith, no [covered person] may use their official position’ in certain
ways. I take the ‘[i]n connection therewith’ phrase to mean ‘in connection with their official
functions and duties.’ Then it goes on to mention contexts where official authority could be
improperly used in political ways, both general and specific. Covered people can’t use their
position to influence, interfere with or affect election results, or solicit or accept funds from city
employees for political purposes. No covered person can distribute pamphlets while performing
city business. But covered people can participate in the political process as private citizens and
in their private capacity and as candidates.
It doesn’t seem to apply to volunteers who aren’t board members or commission members (the
example of volunteer firefighters was mentioned at a recent meeting). Perhaps we have a
separate provision about volunteers who are not board members or commission members?


 1




 Page 15
 2. Portland City council Code of ethics. Two of these are relevant. They are quite
specific and as noted just apply to city councilors. First, city councilors shall not use their
positions to make threats or promises to get anyone to make political contributions or do any
political activity. (§9 p. 6). And second, councilors shall not ask various entities/people to make
a political contribution or engage in political activity. The off-limits entities and people are ones
that do business with the city, or has or is seeking a license, permit, grant or benefit or that has
done biz with the city during the past year. §10 p. 6.
 3. Portland’s personnel policy p. 31 A. Political activity.

 This has four paragraphs that aren’t numbered. The fourth and part of the first
paragraphs confirm that employees can be members of political organizations, attend political
meetings, vote, and seek nomination or election to any non-partisan office in municipal govt
(City or School office). The second part of the first paragraph specifies that when an employee
is campaigning for office, they shall not use city facilities, equipment and supplies for their
candidacy or discuss their own campaign with city personnel during the workday or use any
work time for campaigning.
 The second paragraph says employees may not use their position, facilities, etc to support
or work against any candidate for elected office (including their own candidacy) whether or not
the employee is on or off duty.
 The third paragraph says employees can’t use their influence publicly for or against any
candidate for municipal elective office. Can’t circulate campaign literature, or ‘be in any way
concerned with’ soliciting or receiving subscriptions, contributions etc from anyone on behalf of
any candidate. If any employee is running for office this does not apply, but the paragraphs
about not doing elective activities at work and not using one’s influence as a city employee or
city facilities for one’s candidacy do apply.



 4. Minneapolis – 15.110 Political Activity (p. 8)

Section (a) is similar to Portland City Council §9, except includes employees as well as officials
– officials and employees must not use authority or influence to compel anyone to join or apply
for membership in any political organization, to pay or promise to pay a political contribution or
take part in political activity.

(b) candidates for and holders of elective office must follow MINN statutes on disclosure and
campaign finance

© officials, employees and candidate must not use city facilities, property, funds personnel, city
logo or seal or other city resources to engage in political activity.



 2




 Page 16
Cape Elizabeth, Vermont, Mass, Seattle – didn’t seem on point.

Preliminary thoughts re policy –

-applies to elected and appointed people and employees
-Minneapolis is good but seems too narrow.
-perhaps putting together Portland city council w Portland personnel policies/

-to be continued.
 Commented [3]: may be able to shorten this by saying
 no elected or appointed City officials or employees
 Commented [4R3]: So we took this from the Bangor
2. DRAFT POLICY code. We are still not clear on exactly who our code
 covers beyond elected and appointed officials. For
(Bangor,Lewiston, Portland Personnel Code) example, what about Hearing Officers?
 Commented [5]: What if they rent a space for a
 campaign event but pay for it as would any other
No city employee, city councilors, board members, or commission members shall member of the public?
participate in any political activity that would be in conflict or incompatible with the Commented [6R5]: Portland’s personnel policy reads:
performance of their official functions and duties for the City. No city employee, city p. 31 A. Political activity."The second part of the first
councilors, board members, or commission members may use their official authority or paragraph specifies that when an employee is
 campaigning for office, they shall not use city facilities,
position for the purposes of influencing, interfering with, or affecting the results of any equipment and supplies for their candidacy or discuss
election. They shall not use City facilities, equipment, materials or supplies to their own campaign with city personnel during the
 workday or use any work time for campaigning.
communicate, organize, assist or advocate for or against any candidates for elected The second paragraph says employees may not use
office; including but not limited to their own candidacy, whether for a local, state or their position, facilities, etc to support or work against
 any candidate for elected office (including their own
federal office, and whether the employee is on or off duty at the time of such use. They candidacy) whether or not the employee is on or off
shall not solicit or accept funds or contributions from other City employees for political duty." So the question still stands, can they rent
 space?
purposes.
 Commented [7]: I want to think about this one a bit. I
 think the no solicitation part makes sense, but I'm
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any City employee from participating in the worried that not accepting donations from City
political process in their capacity as private citizens or running as candidates for elected employees may inhibit those employees' first
 amendment rights. I'll do some digging on this issue
office. and see what I can find.
 Commented [8]: It felt like a verb was missing here,
Employees who are working directly or indirectly under a federal funding status must but this may not be the right one.
check with the Hatch Act Unit of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel as to the extent to
 Commented [9R8]: We thought that "their capacity as
which participation in state or federal political activity is allowed under Federal law private citizens or as candidates...." made sense, but
 we're not opposed to adding "running."
Candidates for and holders of elective office must follow Maine’s statutes on disclosure and Commented [10]: I also like the language in some of
 the other policies I've seen that refers employees to the
campaign finance Hatch Act, where applicable. For example, South
 Portland has language in their political activity policy
 that says "Employees who are working directly or
 indirectly under a federal funding status must check
 with the Hatch Act Unit of the
 U.S. Office of Special Counsel as to the extent to which
 participation in state or federal political activity is
 allowed under Federal law."

 3




 Page 17
Page 18