LEWISTON — A majority of councilors appeared to favor a proposal this week that would require elected officials to swear by their place of residence in order to ensure they continue living in the ward in which they were elected.  

If ultimately approved, all would-be elected officials would have to deliver a sworn “affidavit of residence” to the City Clerk’s office by the last day nomination papers are due.

Once elected, the ordinance would also require officials to notify the City Clerk of a change of address within 10 days.

Councilor Lee Clement said he brought the proposal forward after being contacted by “a number of people over my term,” who have questioned whether elected officials were living at the residence that was listed on their nomination papers.

The City Charter stipulates for each elected board that elected or appointed officials must forfeit their seat if they move from the ward in which they were elected or appointed.

Clement said as of now there is nothing that requires elected officials to report a change of address, and that his proposal would change that.

“Recognizing we didn’t really have any means of enforcement here, I did some research and suggested that we craft this ordinance,” he said. “It gives us a little more transparency in things, and less apt to get questions from people.”

At least two councilors and Mayor Mark Cayer referenced previous instances when a change of address was not divulged, but did not offer details.

The only councilor to speak out against the proposal was Alicia Rea, who said she believes it could be an extra burden on renters. She said prior to moving into a house, she moved five times within the city, all within the same ward.

“Having to go through this process every time would have been onerous to me,” she said. “I personally have a lot of trust in my colleagues, here and on the School Committee.”

She also said there’s only been a few instances when officials had to relinquish their seat due to moving, and “they owned up to it.”

In response, Jensen said the ordinance would only require notifying the clerk if the official had moved out of their ward, not if they were moving to another residence within the same ward.

But, he said, he thinks that should also be required.

“I find it very insulting to the people if someone moves out of their ward and still tries to represent it,” he said, adding he didn’t know of an instance where that happened.

Cayer said there was a recent time when an elected official had moved from their ward, and “wasn’t so quick to let people know they had moved.”

“Ever since I’ve been involved in public life, there’s been questions of elected officials not living where they say they are, so it is an issue that occurs,” he said.

At-large positions, like the mayor and on the School Committee are only impacted if they move out of the city.

Jensen, who advocated for making the language stronger, also said he sympathized with other young people who may be considering public office.

“On the same hand, for young people and renters like myself, it is extremely tough to serve in public office in the current system that we have,” he said. “It really does seem in the city’s best interest to create at-large council positions unless you’re not going to have young people like me serve.”

The City Council is made up of seven councilors, one from each ward.

He said as a renter, he could be informed by a landlord that he has to move out, and have to spend more than 10 days finding other housing within the same ward.

“At that point, do I have to resign my seat?” he said.

The most recent elected official in Lewiston to resign their seat due to moving out of their ward was former School Committee member Ryan Donovan, who resigned in November 2020 when he was 23.

The comments from Jensen mirrored some previous talks among the council over potential City Charter updates.

A Charter Review Committee tasked with determining potential changes is underway, but if the proposed changes are deemed substantial, a full Charter Commission and public referendum would be required.

Rea asked if the Charter Review Committee should look at the language to be incorporated into the City Charter, rather than through an ordinance.

City Clerk Kathy Montejo said language added into the City Charter is more difficult to remove or amend than in an ordinance.

“Typically we don’t put forms like this in a charter just because of the inability to amend it as easily,” she said.

A majority of councilors supported the measure, and Clement said he’d like to have the ordinance passed prior to the upcoming municipal election in November.