What’s going on?
Is this unethical? City councilor Jocelyn Leighton ran in District 1 in November and has since moved to District 3.
The city clerk, attorney and council have decided she can remain in her city council seat despite the language of the city charter. In fact, the charter does not permit more than three members of boards and committees from residing in one district. Yet, according to the city clerk, all seven city councilors could reside in one district. Why is city council above the rules?
They’re using the excuse, It’s always been done that way. Always being done that way doesn’t mean it should keep being done that way and does not make it right.
They’re also saying since city councilors are elected by everyone in the city, it’s OK.
Will they make such weak excuses for other behavior?
Jocelyn Leighton has a history of unethical behavior. So it’s no surprise she has no issues with the decision. She gets angry when her own constituents in her district, (1, that is), don’t agree with her. Going as far as mocking them with black-out poems.
She got together with Chris Kessler to attack a candidate for school board. As if she, or any of us, has lived a perfect life with no mistakes or bad decisions.
Now Dequa Dhalac, who on the city council and is the current mayor, is going to run for the state legislature. Is she giving up her seat on the city council? No.
How will she do both jobs at a high level? Victoria Morales says she can’t juggle life in South Portland and her family and do the job in Augusta. Is Dhalac going to be superwoman and read all the legislation cover to cover and make informed votes? Is she going to just vote party line without reading anything in Augusta or South Portland?
These decisions going on in South Portland are not right, not best and, at worst, unethical and a twisting of the city charter to justify their agenda. Why are certain people allowed to behave like they’re running a cartel? Like a good ol’ boys’ (girls’) network?
Kandi-Lee Hoy
South Portland
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less