LEWISTON, Maine — The Lewiston City Council on Tuesday night heard emotional testimony from survivors, family members, and community advocates still grappling with the fallout from the October 25, 2023 mass shooting, but by the end of the meeting, councilors appeared poised to move forward with a memorandum of understanding with the Maine Resiliency Center rather than confront the still-unresolved controversy over the $1.9 million in charitable donations that went to nonprofits instead of directly to victims and their families.
The meeting, which centered on informational updates regarding services for families and survivors, quickly made clear that while counseling, support groups, and medical-related funding streams exist, many victims continue to struggle with the day-to-day financial damage caused by the shooting, including lost wages, inability to work, housing instability, and ongoing trauma that has made it impossible for some to return to anything resembling normal life.
That reality was laid bare during public comment.
One speaker, Lisa Jones, told the council she was speaking on behalf of a family member of a victim watching from home and stressed that the funds discussed during the meeting were tied largely to medical bills and mental health services, not the ordinary but crushing financial burdens survivors are still facing.
“The funds that were discussed tonight are all related to medical bills and mental health, but they don’t help anybody with their ongoing daily life,” Jones said. “The last council meeting, or the one before, we heard a man talk about being unable to pay his mortgage. So, the $1.9 million that was raised for victims that they still don’t have would go to things like that.”
That issue, the money raised in the name of victims that was instead distributed to nonprofits, hovered over the meeting even as city officials tried to shift the focus toward future coordination with the Maine Resiliency Center.
Danielle Parent, director of the Maine Resiliency Center, outlined the services her organization has provided since opening just 19 days after the shooting. She said the center has served more than 900 individuals, facilitated more than 220 support groups, hosted 133 community events, and provided counseling support, advocacy, and resource coordination. She also explained that the center cannot provide direct cash payments to victims and survivors but can help connect them with services and funding streams for counseling, medical bills, and other approved expenses.
Those funding streams include Maine’s victim compensation program, which carries a $15,000 cap, the Maine Mass Violence Care Fund, and federal anti-terrorism emergency assistance funding. But as multiple speakers made clear, that is not the same thing as helping a survivor who cannot work, cannot pay rent or a mortgage, or is living in a severely diminished condition because of what happened that night.
Survivor Bobbi Nichols delivered the night’s most powerful testimony, describing how her life has been shattered since the shooting.
Nichols said she lost her sister that night at Just-In-Time Recreation and was locked in an ambulance while her sister lay dead on the floor. She told councilors she can barely leave the place where she lives, has not been able to return to work, and eventually had to go on disability after fighting for a year and a half not to.
“What happened to me that night, I can never forget,” Nichols said. “What I seen that night, I can never forget.”
Nichols said she had gone to the Resiliency Center, but many of the offerings were not useful to her. Bowling, she said, is no longer possible after watching her sister be murdered in a bowling alley. Yoga does not help. Group-style recovery does not fit every survivor.
“What works for me doesn’t work for someone else. What works for somebody else doesn’t work for me,” she said.
She also made clear that financial help has not reached everyone who needs it.
“I haven’t gotten any financial help,” Nichols said. “There are other people that are hurting that are not getting help and they need help too.”
Nichols also condemned the nonprofit payouts tied to the victim fund, saying that while many organizations appeared in the aftermath of the shooting, 29 nonprofits “took money and walked away.”
“And you know what? That’s re-victimization,” she said.
Another speaker, Ryan Salvatore of Auburn, directly challenged the council over the distribution of the charitable funds, accusing city leaders of standing by while institutions collected money that had been raised in the name of victims and families.
“According to the Maine Community Foundation, 100% of the money raised was supposed to go to victims and their families,” Salvatore told the council. “Instead, you all stood by while institutions lined up beside butchered and massacred families for their share of the check.”
Salvatore said that while $4.7 million went to those directly affected, the remaining $1.9 million was split among 29 nonprofits. He argued that had the full fund been distributed directly to victims, the payouts could have been substantially higher and could have helped survivors facing immediate financial hardship.
That was the central moral and political issue hanging over the meeting: while city officials discussed process, outreach, and cooperation with the Resiliency Center, there was no indication the council was prepared to demand accountability for the $1.9 million already sent to nonprofits.
Instead, the council’s discussion turned toward having city administration work with the Maine Resiliency Center on some form of agreement or MOU to improve coordination and outreach.
Councilor Susan Longchamp said her goal was to make sure victims’ needs were being met and said the city was on the right path to make sure “no stone is left unturned.” Councilor David Chittum attempted a procedural motion related to an earlier resolve, but it died for lack of a second. In the end, the practical result of the meeting was that city administration will work toward a formal arrangement with the Resiliency Center and potentially return with that agreement at a future meeting.
What did not happen was any formal move to revisit, audit, challenge, or publicly account for the $1.9 million that many survivors and their supporters believe should have gone directly to victims and families whose lives were permanently altered by the shooting.
That omission stood out even more because the testimony made clear that the real unmet needs are not abstract.
They are mortgage payments. Rent. Lost income. Disability. The inability to work. The inability to leave the house. The destruction of routines, livelihoods, and families.
The council heard all of that Tuesday night.
Yet by the end of the meeting, the body’s clearest path forward was not accountability for the nonprofits that received money raised in victims’ names, but a future agreement with a service provider that, by its own admission, cannot write direct checks to those struggling to survive.
For many watching, that was the takeaway: Lewiston officials may be moving toward more coordination, but they are still avoiding the larger question of why $1.9 million that could have helped victims pay bills and stay afloat was allowed to leave their hands in the first place.
