LEWISTON, Maine — The Lewiston City Council voted 5–2 Tuesday night to give final passage to an amendment to the city’s administrative ordinance governing how municipal departments and employees may interact with federal immigration enforcement, capping off yet another heated debate over a measure that has deeply divided the council, residents, and city leadership.
At the center of the dispute was a single word with major consequences: whether city employees could cooperate with federal immigration enforcement when such cooperation was “authorized,” or only when it was “required” by law.
Councilors ultimately sided with the stricter language, approving an ordinance that limits cooperation unless it is legally required by state or federal law or by judicial order.
The vote came after councilors were informed that the version of the ordinance originally included in the agenda packet was outdated. City staff clarified that the correct version, the one distributed to councilors and emailed earlier in the day, reflected the amendment adopted at the prior meeting, changing the operative word back to “required.”
Council President Chittim underscored that point early in the discussion, making clear that the council’s final action was on the version using “required,” not “authorized.”
The debate quickly turned to concerns raised by Lewiston Police Chief Carly Conley, whose objections to the process and the language shift were read into the record by Councilor Martel.
In her letter to the council, Conley said she was disappointed with the recent process surrounding the ordinance and respectfully asked councilors to reconsider the language change. She noted that when the ordinance was first introduced, she had been asked for feedback by Councilor Chittim because the police department would be the city entity most directly affected by the policy.
According to Conley, the department would be the one most often required to comply with the ordinance’s provisions and would likely be responsible for investigating potential violations. She said her concerns were rooted not in politics, but in the practical realities of how laws and policies are actually implemented.
Conley warned that the ordinance, as revised, raised challenges because it differed from the police department’s existing policy and came just ahead of a forthcoming state law that will take effect in the near future. She also expressed concern that the ordinance, and especially the way it had evolved, could send the message that the council lacked trust in the police department.
That concern became one of the central fault lines in Tuesday night’s debate.
Councilor Martel said she had spoken with Conley earlier in the day and said the chief indicated that, aside from Martel and Councilor Noble, no one else on the council had reached out to her after she sent the email. Martel argued that the council had solicited the police department’s input in good faith, only to ignore it when it no longer aligned with where the majority wanted to go.
Martel again described the ordinance as “performative,” saying the handling of the chief’s feedback made it appear the outreach to law enforcement had been little more than window dressing.
Others on the council raised similar objections.
Councilor Longchamps said she wished the chief had been told earlier if her suggested word change was never going to stand. In her view, asking for the chief’s input and then reversing course contributed to the perception of distrust, not just toward the department as a whole, but toward Conley personally.
She argued that when it comes to law enforcement and public safety, elected officials should be cautious about substituting their judgment for that of police professionals. In her view, residents’ concerns matter, but public safety policy should not be shaped in a way that sidelines the expertise of the department that will actually have to carry it out.
Still, supporters of the ordinance insisted the measure was not a rebuke of the police department.
Councilor President Chittim said he appreciated Chief Conley’s email and wanted to assure both the chief and the department that the ordinance did not reflect any lack of trust or faith in their work. But he said councilors are ultimately accountable to residents, and he argued that the overwhelming message he had heard from constituents was that the ordinance should keep the more restrictive “required” language.
That argument was echoed by several members of the council majority, who said the ordinance is meant to establish clear boundaries and prevent municipal employees from exercising discretion in immigration enforcement matters.
Councilor Nagine similarly pointed to a separate section of the ordinance that preserves cooperation when there is a valid judicial warrant or when the Lewiston Police Department is investigating serious crimes such as human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, or firearms trafficking. He said the ordinance is intended to mitigate risk to the city while drawing a firmer line around municipal participation in immigration matters.
Nagine also argued that ambiguity in the word “authorized” was one of the chief problems with that wording. In his view, it left too much room for interpretation about who gets to decide what is authorized and under what circumstances.
For opponents, however, that was exactly the problem.
