Citizen-initiated measure passes 5-1 after supporters argue it closes gaps left by state law.
Jul 08, 2026
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Window Panes Home and Garden.
BAR HARBOR—The Town Council has approved a citizens’ initiated ordinance that prohibits any potential town officials’ relationship with federal immigration enforcement, ICE.
The petition, entitled “Defining the Relationship Between Town Officials and Federal Immigration Enforcement,” passed the Town Council 5-1. Vice Chair Earl Brechlin voted against. Chair Maya Caines, David Kief, Joe Minutolo, Randell Sprague, and Deborah Vickers voted in favor. Steven Boucher did not attend due to a health issue.
Petitioners worried that the new state law “Clarifying the relationship of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies with Federal Immigration Authorities” was too limited in scope.
“Where the law falls short is in its failure to address indirect participation which, outside of mass immigrant extraction events, is actually the primary way people fall into deportation proceedings in our state. Indirect involvement occurs, for example, when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction and the detaining officer suspects or somehow becomes aware they are possible immigrants, then using that pretext to notify immigration authorities,” John O’Brien explained, Tuesday.
O’Brien spoke on behalf of the petitioners’ committee and he received applause from those attending when he concluded.
Brechlin, however, said the town had already updated and expanded its policies. He said he’d prefer to take the issue to the voters to decide, and though as a councilor he was philosophically uncomfortable with the Council itself approving it immediately rather than sending it to the voters.
The petition was brought forward by O’Brien, Tammy Richards, Gail Leiser, Phil Cole Worden, and Dr. Bethany Dumont. They’d collected more than 310 signatures.
For a citizens’ initiative to move forward, the petitioners must collect 10 percent of the Bar Harbor votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.
“I believe it is vitally important that our community communicate clearly that we will protect the Constitutional rights of all who live, work, and visit our town,” Gail Leiser, owner of Galyn’s and one of the petitioners said on Tuesday.
Leiser added, “I want international guests, seasonal workers, and folks from all over the world who have chosen to settle here to know that they are safe when interacting with local law enforcement and town officials.”
For Leiser, she wanted to know that the town’s current policy and how it practices that policy will be consistent even when there is changeover in staff.
“You’ve all heard the phrase ‘once you knew, what did you do?’ You know that we are in a time of unprecedented federal actions against non-citizens, regardless of their immigration status. As councilors, you have an opportunity, with this ordinance proposal, to do something — to say, ‘not on my watch,’” she said.
Her comments were also met with applause. They were the only two who spoke during the public hearing, though there’d been much public support and comment in previous meetings throughout the year.
The three-page ordinance states that it is “an amendment to the Town’s Code to protect the role of town officials, to expressly enforce the obligation of non-participation in federal immigration enforcement actions and thereby maintain the trust and support of the local community.”
It specifies that no town employee can assist, cooperate with, use town funds or resources to help “any federal agency in any immigration enforcement operation, except where legally required to do so by state or federal law or court order.”
It also specifies that employees or departments can’t allow any town facilities be used for immigration enforcement.
The proposed ordinance states that no town employees or departments can provide information for immigration operations, investigate or interrogate anyone for an immigration enforcement operation, or establish traffic perimeters during an operation.
It also says that Bar Harbor employees or departments can’t enter any contracts that would grant ICE enforcement authority to a town department/employees, or authorize the transfer or detention of someone for immigration enforcement.
It has some exceptions for investigations of human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, or firearms trafficking.
Bar Harbor and Mount Desert have both previously declared sanctuary status.
In 2017, after a citizens’ petition, Mount Desert voters declared 101-59 that the town would be a “sanctuary community.” The non-binding resolution hoped to “protect the independence of our local law enforcement by refusing to require police or town employees to serve as enforcers of federal immigration law.”
It was the first town in Maine to do so.
That same year, Bar Harbor residents voted 351-62 to support declaring that town a sanctuary community.
In April 2026, the Bar Harbor Town Council had affirmed the town’s policy regarding immigration.
JOHN O’BRIEN’S FULL STATEMENT
The enforcement of immigration law is a federal responsibility. Our concern, shared by any constitutionally minded person is the manner in which it is being done. Fundamental freedoms, guaranteed to all of us simply because we live in this country are routinely being denied during federal enforcement actions. To become engaged in such unconstitutional behavior is illegal for any of us. And, when the officers of a municipality become involved, it opens that municipality to suit and financial claims.
The new state law “Clarifying the relationship of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies with Federal Immigration Authorities” is an important step in safeguarding the rights of the international members of our communities and protecting law enforcement agencies from complicity in illegal actions.
But, the state law is limited in its scope, both in terms of the agencies whose role it addresses and the range of actions it considers. This is the legal opinion of the ACLU of Maine and several other communities who have taken it on themselves to address the shortcomings of the law. This is done by adding to the law’s protections through the passage of local ordinances. We are asking you to take the same step tonight by finalizing the process for the Initiative-Ordinance we have been working on for the last several months and whose terms have been vetted and found legally sufficient by our Town Counsel.
The purpose of the State law is to clarify and restrict the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. It expressly prohibits our police from participating in enforcement actions when the primary purpose is the enforcement of immigration law. Further, the new law prohibits inquiry into the immigration status of any person except in the case of investigation into serious crimes.
Where the law falls short is in its failure to address indirect participation which, outside of mass immigrant extraction events, is actually the primary way people fall into deportation proceedings in our state. Indirect involvement occurs, for example, when someone is stopped for a traffic infraction and the detaining officer suspects or somehow becomes aware they are possible immigrants, then using that pretext to notify immigration authorities.
Another serious omission in the law is that it does not address the role of employees not engaged in law enforcement. Specifically, it does nothing to restrict the collection of citizenship status information. The collection of such data may be required by state or federal law or for participation in local programs or services. But when it is not legally required to be done, it should be avoided. When the data exists, if federal immigration authorities request it, it must be provided. The availability of this information leads to the easy identification and locating of the immigrant members of communities, a practice used with devastating effectiveness for the targetted abductions taking place in cities like Lewiston and Portland. Our ordinance proposal specifically bans all indirect participation in immigrant enforcement actions by any Town Officers.
There are a number of other considerations related to our proposal that we ask you to keep in mind.
First, our local ordinance ensures durability for the state law. Should the state law be repealed or its terms compromised by future legislative action, our local law containing all its provisions would remain in effect.
As to the legality of our proposal, our Town Manager reported on the Proposal’s Legal Sufficiency in his memo to you of June 12. Manager Smith advised that Town Counsel had been consulted and had advised there is no apparent conflict with the Town Charter or applicable state and federal law. What this means is that the proposal is fully vetted and legal. Also, keep in mind, it contains no penalties or enforcement provisions: compliance with its terms will follow existing personnel management policies.
Our proposal would help ensure constitutional protections at all times for all persons visiting or living among us. There is an issue raised by some that we are putting “targets on the backs” of the very people we are trying to help; that by asserting the Constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us, we are somehow jeopardizing their safety. This argument implies we are willing to disregard the rule of law at the very time it is most needed. Our constitution is intended not simply to ensure the rights of the few during good times, but to guarantee essential freedoms for all, all of the time. You demonstrated your commitment to this principle to support the Constitutions of Maine and this Country when you took your oath of office a few weeks ago. Your approval of this ordinance maintains that commitment.
Finally, I ask you to consider how much more time and energy you are willing to devote to this subject? It took the signature collectors for our petition only 2 ½ weeks to collect 385 signatures showing there is strong citizen support for this initiative. Should you decide not to approve, the Town faces the time-consuming process and expense of placing it on the November ballot. From recent primary voting we can see there is strong liberal advocacy in our community. The likelihood of a citizen vote to approve is great.
As you did with your thoughtful approval of the Order for early implementation of the state law back on April 21, I encourage you to show support for the rights of all our community members and respect for public trust by approving our proposal now. We are not doing this for some advantage that any of us who work on this project will receive. We are asking your support for our friends and neighbors, for the international workers who help keep Bar Harbor a thriving community. We ask you to join us in supporting them.
Thank you.
GAIL LEISER’S FULL STATEMENT
My name is Gail Leiser. I live on Kebo Street here in Bar Harbor. I also own and operate Galyn’s restaurant on Main St.
I am one of the petitioners of the citizens’ initiative ordinance proposal before you tonight.
I believe it is vitally important that our community communicate clearly that we will protect the Constitutional rights of all who live, work, and visit our town.
I want international guests, seasonal workers, and folks from all over the world who have chosen to settle here to know that they are safe when interacting with local law enforcement and town officials.
As a citizen of Bar Harbor, I want to know that current policy and practice doesn’t end when the good folks currently leading our town departments depart and new people are hired to replace them.
You’ve all heard the phrase “once you knew, what did you do?”. You know that we are in a time of unprecedented federal actions against non-citizens, regardless of their immigration status. As Councilors, you have an opportunity, with this ordinance proposal, to do something — to say, “not on my watch”.
Thank you.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
To read the ordinance and review the Council packet.
Bar Harbor’s Latest Citizens’ Initiative Focuses on Immigration Enforcement.
·
Jun 17
Some Residents Continue To Push Bar Harbor to Codify Restrictions on ICE Cooperation
·
Mar 18
Bar Harbor Residents Push to Block Potential Local Cooperation With ICE
·
Feb 18
What Does Sanctuary Status Really Mean for Local Towns?
·
December 4, 2024
HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY
When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other.
We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going.
If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship.
It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light.
Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now.
Thank you so much for being here.
Founding member information can be found here.
Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you.
Discover more from Bar Harbor Story
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.