LEWISTON, Maine — Residents and elected officials returned once again to the Lewiston City Council chambers this week, urging city leaders to investigate the handling of millions of dollars raised after the Lewiston mass shooting, a tragedy widely regarded as the deadliest in Maine history, as frustration over the shooting fund controversy continued to spill into public comment.
Much of the testimony centered on the fundraising and distribution overseen by the Maine Community Foundation, with speakers arguing that survivors and families of those killed received far less than nonprofit organizations that were not required to help victims. Several residents framed the dispute not as an abstract debate over accounting, but as an ongoing emotional wound that has kept families from moving forward.
Amy Sussman, whose nephew was among the 18 people killed, delivered a pointed account of her attempts to get answers from city officials, and her growing anger at what she characterized as indifference.
Sussman told the council she is from Maine, has deep family ties to the state, and spends months there each year, though she said her residence is in Maryland. She said she emailed every member of the council last February laying out concerns about the fundraising and the distribution of the $6.6 million raised after the shooting.
Sussman said she detailed how 29 nonprofits received more than $65,000 each, while some who were shot and survived received about $30,000 or $32,000, and people who survived their attempted murder without being shot received $7,000. She said the nonprofits were not required to help survivors or families of those killed, describing the use of $1.9 million for nonprofits as a central injustice.
She told councilors that one member called her days after receiving her email but, she said, did not remember how she was connected to the shooting. Sussman said the councilor told her the matter would be investigated and that she would be contacted again, but she said no follow-up ever came.
Sussman also described a separate exchange with Council President Stephen Chittim, saying he expressed sympathy for her nephew’s death but dismissed the concerns as a “misunderstanding” while telling her he would investigate. Sussman said that “investigation,” as she experienced it, consisted of being looked up on LinkedIn twice, and she questioned what effort was made to examine the nonprofit grants or the conduct of the foundation.
Throughout her remarks, Sussman framed the controversy as a matter of dignity and accountability. She said the distribution of the money has re-victimized survivors and families and argued that, beyond the shooting itself, the handling of the funds amounted to a second tragedy. She said families and survivors did not know money was being raised for nonprofits from a fund she described as originally set up for victims.
Sussman accused city leaders of failing to use their influence to press for accountability, even as she said one nonprofit has now agreed to return an equivalent amount. She told the council that outcome could have been driven by city leadership, but she said officials chose to do nothing. She repeatedly challenged councilors to consider whether it was acceptable to take advantage of people at the worst moment of their lives and urged them to imagine the perspective of those who lost spouses, children, parents and siblings.
Other speakers echoed those concerns, arguing that donors believed the money would go entirely to victims and survivors. Several residents said the lack of transparency surrounding how the money was allocated and spent has prolonged trauma and undermined trust in public institutions.
State Rep. David Boyer (R) called on the council to take a more proactive role, saying the response to legitimate questions has felt dismissive. He warned that repeated public disputes over the fund can re-traumatize survivors but argued that transparency is necessary for the community to heal. Boyer said the public should be able to learn who received funds, how much remains, and what recipients plan to do with it, and questioned whether city leaders could say definitively that survivors’ medical bills are paid and that no one still owes money.
David Jones of Falmouth and a Republican candidate for Governor, told councilors he has attended meetings and repeatedly urged an investigation. He described speaking with a shooting victim who, he said, is facing additional surgery because wounds are not healing properly and will be out of work for months, adding financial pressure. Jones also described another victim who, he said, has lost the use of an arm. He said councilors have the power to demand a transparent investigation and repeatedly returned to the $1.9 million distributed to nonprofits, questioning how that money served survivors and families.
State Rep. Quentin Chapman (R) urged the council to formally demand that nonprofits return their grants and called for a full audit of the foundation’s handling of the money. He argued that the nonprofit agreeing to return an equivalent amount sets a precedent and said the city should amplify calls for accountability.
The tone inside the chamber grew increasingly tense as speakers criticized what they described as visible disinterest from some councilors. Several residents said Councilors Roy and Harriman did not look up during public comment, prompting at least one speaker to call them out directly.
Chittim attempted to end public comment after it exceeded the allotted time limit, a moment that drew renewed criticism from those who argued the council should be willing to hear extended testimony given the subject matter.
One city councilor, Linda Longchamps, offered an emotional response late in the meeting, apologizing for not speaking out sooner and pledging to begin asking questions and working to make the situation right. She said she would personally reach out to organizations and urge them to return the funds, adding that she had been told previously there was nothing she could do, a view she said she no longer accepts.
Despite repeated pleas, speakers said the council has not launched its own investigation, even as residents argued it has the authority and responsibility to pursue answers. For families and survivors, the unresolved questions surrounding the shooting fund have become what several speakers described as a second tragedy, one rooted not only in money, but in silence, delay and what they see as a lack of urgency from city leadership.
As residents continue to return to City Hall week after week, they say their message remains the same: accountability, transparency and action are still missing, and the community cannot heal without them.
