Editorial: The History of the Findlay Ad Hoc Committee and “The Few” responsible
Patty Klein
FINDLAY - What exactly happened that prompted Findlay City Council to create an Ad Hoc committee to change city council rules? According to leadership within the city council, the possible rule change came about due to “a few” whose comments were seen as disruptive personal attacks. Who are “the few” and what exactly did they do? There have been references to one or two people being the reason for the change at the final Ad Hoc committee meeting held May 13, 2024.
Perhaps one of these “few” is actually just resident, Haydee Sadler, as some have suggested. If so, what did she say that was an “actual disruption or personal attack” according to council? Which comment violated the city council rules? Mrs. Sadler has repeatedly spoken about the actions taken by Findlay administration and council members participating in leftist organizations, which many have commented appear socialist in nature, and following their initiatives. Comments like these, many could argue are philosophical government structures and not personal attacks. Mrs. Sadler also speaks about radiation from city-controlled utility equipment, posing a health risk to citizens. One must ask if inquiries into the health risks posed by city owned technology, such as smart meters, is truly such a disruption. Judging and restricting her concerns as conspiracy theories doesn’t alleviate her concerns as a resident, and further ignores growing scientific evidence. Whether you agree or not with Mrs. Sadler’s criticisms are her thoughts and opinions about the direction of Findlay City government and she has a right to express that.
As many are aware, previous meetings did not allow for public comment, however this meeting was opened up for residents to give their input on the new rules. Several residents spoke to the committee. One resident thanked the committee for backing off any radical rule changes after realizing the public was concerned about strong restrictions. Adding to the dissent, councilman Jim Niemeyer has even spoken against any rule changes. From his experience as a city councilman, he did not see the need to change anything because the format is still working well.
Conversely, committee chair, councilman Palmer thought the rule changes were needed but the ability to suspend rules where limitations have been placed will remain an option. A rule moving public comment to the end of city council meetings also concerned Mr. Niemeyer. He felt that making the public wait until the end of the meeting was inconsiderate and city business could wait until the public was heard.
Ultimately, at the meeting only one change was made, at the request of Councilman Dan DeArment who is on the Ad Hoc committee. Mr. DeArment had concerns about the new rule that prevented speakers from addressing members of the administration. He felt that the city council may not support this rule and may vote against all of the changes due to this particular rule. In the past, residents commented that this rule was created to protect the mayor from harsh criticism. Though DeArment wanted the rule removed, the rule was amended to read that any comments addressed to the administration must be related to a topic on the agenda.
Still others have taken more hyperbolic action. Police presence was felt at the first Ad Hoc meeting and at this most recent meeting the reason for it was revealed. Their presence was the direct result of councilman Hellmann. Ad Hoc committee member, Councilman Hellmann, has taken the advice of former Councilman Ron Monday and had police supervise the first Ad Hoc meeting because “people were pretty upset” illustrating he is either concerned over the reaction of people he claims to represent, or is possibly hoping the optics prove an entirely absent point.
Some may argue that Mr. Hellman is concerned over those “few” trouble makers, such as Renee Lequire. Speaker Renee Leguire and Angela Guthrie often address city council regarding the cities excessive use of grants. Their comments often include biblical and Constitutional foundations. Mrs. Renee Leguire’s previous comments included Biblical foundations. Or maybe Mrs. Angela Guthrie’s constitutional knowledge and Biblical worldview are just too much for City Council to handle. Maybe Mr. Delong’s numerical analysis of water rates felt dangerous, or perhaps comparing the toxic park plans to a Mercedes felt threatening? While one could not fully ascribe an answer to these questions, most can probably agree that Intimidation of constituents is not a good look.
At the May 21 City Council meeting, council accepted the recommendations of the AdHoc Committee by a vote of 7-2 in favor. The new rules will be trialed for a 2 month period before being officially adopted.
