LEWISTON, Maine — The Lewiston City Council voted to suspend its investigation into Iman Osman’s residency at 210 Blake St. soon after he resigned from office, a move that ended the formal inquiry but sharpened lingering questions about how the city handled and failed to confront an address discrepancy that residents say was obvious long before Election Day.
Osman resigned in disgrace, less than 48 hours after being sworn in and less than 24 hours after pleading not guilty to two stolen gun charges. With Osman gone, councilors moved quickly to shut down the residency investigation they had only recently authorized.
To many Lewiston residents, the problem was never just Osman. It was the system that let him through.
The dispute centers on 210 Blake St., an address residents say Osman did not actually live at, and which had been condemned in October 2024 following a federal drug raid while Osman was living there. Residents and at least a few city officials raised concerns about Osman’s residency as far back as December 2024, when Mayor Carl Sheline appointed him to the School Committee, according to accounts given to this reporter.
By the fall of 2025, Osman declared he was running for City Council and still listed 210 Blake St. on his campaign filing paperwork. Residents say the discrepancy was widely known inside City Hall, by the mayor, members of the City Council, code enforcement staff and the city clerk’s office, yet nothing was done to halt the process or force a public resolution before ballots were cast.
Much of the outrage has focused on City Clerk Kathleen M. Montejo, whose office plays the central role in administering local elections. Critics argue that if officials knew a candidate was listing a condemned building as his address, the city should have stopped and verified residency before allowing the election to proceed.
Instead, residents say Montejo maintained that Osman intended to return to 210 Blake St. But months later, residents point to what they describe as a glaring contradiction: there is still no visible sign the building is being repaired to the point it could be lived in again.
This reporter has been to 210 Blake St. more than ten times and has not observed any work being done to address the condemned status. Residents say that reality makes the city’s position, that a future intention to return should settle the matter, feel like an excuse rather than oversight.
Residents also fault the City Council for staying silent even as the controversy grew. They argue that even if the clerk’s office did not act, elected officials who knew the address was condemned could have demanded verification, pressed city departments for clarity, or publicly flagged the discrepancy before Osman was sworn in. Instead, residents say, the city waited until the situation spiraled into a crisis.
The council’s handling of the city charter has become another flashpoint. In the days leading up to the election and afterward, residents say council leaders repeatedly insisted they had to follow the charter and that their hands were tied. Yet, at the special meeting convened as the controversy exploded, several councilors signaled they wanted to disregard the charter, residents said, a reversal critics say undercut the city’s earlier justification for inaction.
Now, some residents and local officials are directing blame beyond the clerk’s office and onto the city attorney, arguing the legal advice given to City Hall helped produce the very crisis officials claimed they were trying to avoid.
Ryn Soule, a former city councilor and possible appointee to the empty Ward 5 seat, said the city attorney bears greater responsibility for the decision to allow Osman to remain on the ballot.
“While many residents place blame on the city clerk, I believe the greater responsibility lies with the city attorney,” Soule said. “The city attorney advised the clerk’s office to allow Iman Osman to remain on the ballot, seemingly to avoid the possibility of litigation. While avoiding the possibility of litigation while avoiding court may have been the intent, the cost of that decision has been significant. The integrity of City Hall, the clerk’s office and our local election process is now being questioned by many residents, which is deeply concerning.”
In a portion of a letter written to the Lewiston City Council and obtained by the Maine Wire, Lewiston resident Maura Murphy said “there is nothing whatsoever in the Lewiston City Charter that hints that everything and everyone should be filtered through partisan, ethnic, racial and religious overlays. In fact, it is the exact opposite, in U.S. governance and certainly in Lewiston, we come together, hold offices and participate in decision-making and exercise our First Amendment rights despite our “identities”. Our systems of governance are NOT tribal, “might makes right”, mob rule endeavors; despite our many imperfections, this is what sets us apart from many, many countries on earth. And this is why so many people from all over the world want to come to the United States.
“Rather than capitulating to fraud and haphazard, hypocritical rejections of the law you swore to uphold, it is time for the Lewiston City Council to put all partisan, political and identity politics-based orientation aside and recommit to carrying out the business of the City of Lewiston.”
For critics, the suspended investigation is not closure but avoidance. They argue the probe was needed not just to evaluate Osman’s eligibility, but to establish a public record of what city officials knew, what guidance they relied on, and why they allowed a candidate to run and win while listing a condemned address.
Lewiston now faces the practical task of filling the Ward 5 vacancy. But residents watching this unfold say the larger task is rebuilding public trust and proving the city’s election safeguards mean more than accepting an address on paper, even when that address is a condemned building with no visible path back to being lived in.
This drama is not over, as applications for the empty Ward 5 seat are due by Wednesday, Jan. 14 to the clerk’s office and will be reviewed by the City Council at its meeting on Tuesday January 20th. That meeting will likely be a must watch one.
