LEWISTON, Maine – The Lewiston City Council voted Tuesday night to formally censure Ward 3 Councilor Scott Harriman for what council leadership described as escalating unprofessional conduct during official city meetings, marking the third censure against Harriman during his time in office.
The resolution accused Harriman of interrupting fellow councilors, disregarding council rules, and allegedly directing obscene language toward another councilor during a recent workshop session.
The contentious debate exposed deep dysfunction inside Lewiston city government, with councilors openly accusing one another of harassment, retaliation, selective enforcement, and repeated misconduct while residents blasted the council from the podium.
Harriman denied directing an expletive at another councilor and sharply criticized Mayor Carl Sheline and Council President Scott Chittim for bringing the censure forward without first discussing the matter privately with him.
“Going straight to the most severe type of punishment without even communicating your concern is not how discipline or leadership is supposed to work,” Harriman said.
Harriman argued that council leadership has applied inconsistent standards when addressing misconduct on the dais, pointing to other incidents involving councilors that he claimed were ignored.
He described the censure effort as “petty and dysfunctional sniping” and argued the council should instead be focused on major city issues including taxes, public safety, housing affordability, economic development, and youth gun violence.
But multiple councilors said Harriman’s conduct had become a recurring problem that could no longer be ignored.
Councilor Bret Martel said the latest incident was part of a much broader pattern of behavior.
“This is not a once-off, someone lost their temper,” Martel said. “This has become an escalating behavior that has continued to go unchecked.”
Martel also said Harriman routinely interrupts fellow councilors, speaks over residents during public comment, ignores the mayor’s attempts to restore order, and repeatedly disrupts council proceedings.
Mayor Sheline said the issue before the council was specifically centered on Harriman allegedly directing obscene language toward another councilor during a public meeting.
“It wasn’t just about the situation, it was directed at a councilor,” Sheline said.
Sheline said multiple individuals in the room heard the comment, even if the microphones did not clearly capture it.
Council President Chittim defended his decision not to privately approach Harriman before the censure was introduced, saying previous one-on-one discussions had produced “absolutely no progress.”
“I have spoken one-on-one with Councilor Harriman on many occasions,” Chittim said. “Each one of those occasions has met with absolutely no progress.”
Councilor Susan Longchamps, while ultimately supporting the censure, criticized council leadership for failing to first address the matter directly with Harriman.
“As our Council President and our Mayor, as a leader, you have failed if it is actually true that you did not go to Mr. Harriman and discuss this,” Longchamps said.
Longchamps also acknowledged concerns about professionalism on the council, saying elected officials are expected to conduct themselves appropriately while serving on the dais.
The public comment period quickly turned combative, with several residents blasting Harriman and describing him as an embarrassment to the city.
Resident Adam Jones told councilors the vote was about accountability and standards, not politics.
“If this censure is approved, it will be the third formal censure of Councilor Harriman,” Jones said. “Three censures, not one, not two, three.”
Jones argued that repeated controversies surrounding Harriman were damaging public trust in city government.
Another resident, Andrew Jones, accused Harriman of abusing his authority and called for harsher penalties beyond repeated censures.
“This is his third censure,”Jones said. “Does he get a punch card? Does he get something after 10?”
Lisa Jones, another resident who addressed the council, said Harriman’s behavior had become “an elephant in the room” at City Hall and accused him of repeatedly disrespecting fellow councilors, residents, and the mayor during meetings.
Tuesday night’s censure follows two previous formal censures issued against Harriman during his tenure on the council.
According to statements made during Tuesday’s meeting, Harriman’s first censure stemmed from allegations that he used media appearances and public platforms to slander fellow councilors.
His second censure involved allegations that he used a third-party messaging application to conduct private communications related to council matters outside public view, raising concerns about transparency and potential violations of public meeting laws.
Despite the growing criticism, Harriman maintained Tuesday night that he was being unfairly targeted while other councilors faced no consequences for their own conduct.
After extensive debate, the council voted 4-3 to approve the censure. Councilors Naimeh, Noble, and Harriman voted against the resolution.
Following the vote, Harriman again raised concerns about what he described as ongoing harassment and threats from other councilors and asked when those matters would be addressed by council leadership.
Mayor Sheline declined to engage further, stating the council still had remaining business on its agenda.
