A Lewiston resident is calling for an independent, third-party investigation into both city officials’ handling of a school committee appointment as well as the expanding residency controversy surrounding the subject of that appointment, Ward 5 Councilor-elect Iman Osman. These questions stem from the fact that Osman’s address of record has been tied to a federal drug investigation and was condemned by city officials in October 2024.
During the Lewiston City Council meeting on Tuesday evening, Lewiston resident Lisa Jones asked the City Council to authorize an outside review of what she described as procedural and oversight failures connected to Osman’s appointment to the School Committee and the events leading up to his election to the City Council earlier this month.
[RELATED: Lewiston Residency Scandal Explodes as Citizen Prepares Challenge Against Councilor-Elect Osman]
At the meeting, Jones asserted that Lewiston Mayor Carl Sheline knew about the concerns involving 210 Blake Street in Lewiston, which is apparently tied to a methamphetamine investigation, before the city moved forward with the initial school board appointment and argued that the process was rushed ahead of the published deadline.
Jones said the public deserved a full accounting and urged councilors to “vote to open an investigation” into how the city handled ongoing questions involving Osman’s eligibility.
The activist resident has also pulled paperwork to formally challenge Osman’s residency and his qualification to represent Ward 5 as the city councilor elect. Jones’ challenge centers on Osman’s listed address being 210 Blake Street, the property implicated in a federal drug investigation and condemned by the City of Lewiston in October 2024.
Because the address was not legally habitable, Jones argues it is an invalid residence for a city council candidate under state law.
[RELATED: Who’s Leading Lewiston Anyway? Stunning Silence Echoes From City Hall as Osman Controversy Escalates]
In response to rising public outcry, Mayor Sheline has finally issued a detailed statement outlining what legal authority the city does and does not have before a councilor-elect is sworn into office.
“I’m aware that concerns have been raised regarding the residency of a councilor-elect,” Sheline said. “What is important to know is that he is a councilor-elect and not a sitting councilor. Under the city’s charter, there is no legal mechanism permitting the city to act prior to a councilor taking office.”
Sheline pointed out that Lewiston’s charter states that “the city council shall be the judge of the qualifications of its members and of the grounds for forfeiture of their office under the charter and state law.” He noted that such deliberations occur in executive session unless the member facing a challenge requests it be held publicly, but any vote must be taken in open session.
“Please note that the question raised is about an individual who’s not currently a member of the City Council,” Sheline re-iterated. “And so the council does not have the authority to judge the qualifications of a person before that person becomes a member of the council.”
Sheline said the city is not currently aware of any “violation of statutory requirements,” adding that while he understands the intensity of public interest, the city must follow its legal framework and “cannot impose standards or remedies that do not exist under law.”
“We remain committed to transparency,” he said, “and will continue to uphold both the integrity of the process and the limits of the council’s legal authority.”
It remains unclear whether the City Council will take up Jones’ request for an outside investigation into Sheline’s earlier appointment of Osman to the school committee or how the formal residency challenge to his address listing for city council will proceed once filed with the court.
The Ward 5 seat is scheduled to be filled at the council’s inauguration in January.
