The controversy surrounding Ward 5 school committee member Iman Osman’s residency erupted into a full-scale public reckoning Monday night, as residents and even fellow school committee members accused the board of deliberately avoiding accountability and refusing to enforce its own basic eligibility rules.
While the Lewiston school committee narrowly voted last week not to investigate whether Osman legally resides in Ward 5, the backlash has only intensified, and Monday’s meeting revealed a deeper crisis of trust.
Reporter Asks Osman Where He Lives — He Refuses to Answer
Before the meeting began, this reporter approached Osman, shook his hand, and asked a simple, direct question:
“Do you live in Ward 5?”
Osman looked me in the in the eye and said, “yes.”
But, when asked at what address, Osman refused to answer. The question was repeated; he still refused, stating only that the meeting was about to start.
The refusal is notable given that residency is the central issue in the complaint filed against him and the very subject the school committee voted not to investigate.
Osman’s Attorney Cuts Off Questions
Moments later, Osman’s attorney, Kieran Majerus Collins, who once served on the same school committee and is considered to be a prospective candidate seeking state Rep. Kristen Cloutier’s now-vacated District 94 seat early next year, stepped in to stop the conversation.
Collins claimed he was ensuring his client was not being harassed. The reporter clarified he was not.
That interruption, combined with Osman’s refusal to answer the most basic factual question at the heart of the controversy, fuels concerns that the committee’s decision not to pursue an investigation has effectively left the public with no answers and no transparency.
Committee Members Say the Board Failed Its Duty
During the public comment session of Monday night’s meeting, School Committee Member Janet Beaudoin – also considered a possible candidate for Cloutier’s state house seat – said that the board’s refusal to even investigate the allegations is a dereliction of duty.
“When a community member files a complaint, our responsibility is to ensure that due process is followed,” she said. Instead, she argued, the committee sent the message that it is “unwilling to uphold our own standards.”
Beaudoin stressed that Osman should have been barred from voting on whether to investigate himself.
“It is objectively impossible to be impartial when voting on a matter directly involving one’s own qualifications,” she said. “Recusal was the appropriate course of action.”
Her remarks underscored the emerging perception that Osman’s vote shielded himself from scrutiny.
Committee Member: Accountability Doesn’t Expire Just Because Terms Are Ending
Committee Member Megan Hird issued a sharper warning: that ignoring residency questions threatens the legitimacy of the governing body.
“This is not a trivial matter… It is fundamentally about integrity,” she said. “Our responsibilities do not expire because terms are ending. Accountability does not have an expiration date.”
Hird directly countered arguments that an investigation was unnecessary because Osman’s term is nearly over.
“Whether there are two meetings left or twenty, the truth still matters. Residency requirements matter. Fiscal responsibility matters. And most importantly, public trust matters.”
Hird made clear that the legitimacy of votes, policies, and financial decisions are undermined if the person casting them may not legally hold the seat.
Residents Demand Answers: “Why can’t he tell us what’s going on?”
Community members pressed the committee to explain how a residency complaint can be filed, publicly debated, and then ignored, all while Osman steadfastly declines to confirm where he lives.
Ronnie Parity voiced the frustration bluntly:
“I’m really disappointed in Ward 3 and 5! Why can’t he (Osman) tell us what’s going on?”
Others raised questions about conflicts of interest.
“Disclosure of a conflict does not remove the conflict of interest,” resident Lisa Jones said, and she criticized leadership for allowing Osman and the Ward 3 representative to vote on whether to investigate Osman’s residency.
Another resident put it more bluntly. Andrew Jones condemned the committee for refusing to even make eye contact with speakers, saying:
“Thank you for admitting that you don’t give a s*it what anyone here says,” while calling out Elizabeth Eames from Ward 3 and the chairman Megan Park directly.
Osman’s Attorney Hints at Legal Action — Without Disclosing He Once Served on the Board
Attorney Kieran Majerus Collins suggested the district could face legal consequences for last week’s motion to investigate Osman’s residency.
He claimed the board had “opened themselves and the committee and the district up to liability.”
Collins did not disclose his past service on the committee or that he is the attorney for Osman as he issued those warnings, a detail that raised concern among observers already troubled by conflicts of interest.
After the meeting adjourned, a Lewiston police cruiser was spotted in the parking lot as several individuals who spoke appeared to be involved in a dispute.
The Maine Wire has contacted Lewiston Police Department and will update this report once the department releases further information.
A Residency Scandal with No Answers and a Committee Unwilling to Ask the Questions
At the center of the controversy is a simple, unresolved issue:
Where does Ward 5 school committee member Iman Osman live?
Why does he continue to say he lives at 210 Blake Street, which was condemned after a federal drug raid in October 2024?
Why did Lewiston Mayor Carl Sheline appoint Osman to the school committee knowing about the drug raid and that the address was condemned and not deemed habitable by Lewiston code?
Osman refuses to say.
His attorney blocks questions.
The school committee refuses to investigate.
As Osman awaits being seated on the Lewiston City Council early next year, this residency scandal shows no signs of abating, Monday night’s meeting demonstrated.
Meanwhile, the public is left with no clarity on whether an elected official is lawfully serving in office. The controversy is now less about residency itself and more about the committee’s willingness or refusal to enforce basic standards of public accountability, both members and residents say.
