Lewiston Mayor Carl Sheline has called for the resignation of newly elected City Councilor Iman Osman following an indictment handed down by an Androscoggin County grand jury. The charges against Osman include receiving stolen property and theft by unauthorized taking. These charges are tied to firearms allegedly taken from two separate estates between November 2023 and October 2024. The attorney general’s office claims that Osman knowingly received firearms he had reason to believe were stolen.
While officials emphasize that Osman is presumed innocent until proven guilty, Mayor Sheline believes his continued presence as a council member is problematic. “Stepping down would be the right thing to do,” he said, highlighting the need for local government to function without distractions from serious legal controversies.
Osman’s situation grows more complex with questions surrounding his residency. He was elected to represent Ward 5 on the City Council after narrowly defeating incumbent Eryn M. Soule-Leclair by just 35 votes. However, as the indictment outlines, Osman claims to live at 210 Blake Street in Lewiston, a property that has been condemned since October 2024 due to a drug raid that involved chemical agents. This raises significant concerns about whether he meets the residency requirements to represent his constituents.
Despite the gravity of the allegations, the Lewiston School Committee, where Osman also serves, has chosen not to conduct an investigation into his residency claims. A resolution presented during a City Council meeting acknowledged public concerns regarding Osman’s living situation, arguing that the council has the authority to assess the qualifications of sitting councilors.
Osman has refused to disclose his current residence to the public, citing concerns for his safety and alleging harassment. His attorney asserts that Osman plans to return to the 210 Blake Street address following renovations. However, the lack of transparency regarding his actual living situation continues to fuel community skepticism about his ability to adequately represent Ward 5.
The state’s definition of residence determines that a person’s home is where they have established a principal fixed residence, understanding that temporary absences do not affect this status. Yet, questions linger about Osman’s commitment to his ward, especially since he has not publicly confirmed a legitimate place of residence or provided a timeline for his return to the condemned property.
This situation raises concerns about the integrity and transparency of elected officials and the expectations citizens have for their representatives. It begs the question: How can a council member effectively serve a community when their own status as a resident is in question? Additionally, sentiments from local officials and the public indicate a growing concern about what this controversy means for trust in local governance moving forward.
"*" indicates required fields
