Tensions Rise Again at Findlay City Council

BY PATT KLEIN

Emotions flared once again at the March 5 Findlay City Council meeting. Residents and city council are at odds about what is allowed during the public comment portion of a council meeting.

At the February 20 council meeting, resident Haydee Sadler presented a list of Republican values to demonstrate that city council and administration are following socialist plans instead of representing the mostly Republican residents of Findlay. During Haydee’s four minutes before at the podium, she was gaveled down by Council President John Harrington. Harrington who accused Sadler of using false and salacious language toward the Mayor of Findlay, Christina Muryn. Sadler was asked to reign in her comments or have a seat.

Harrington warned all in the audience that city council time was not a time to “beat up on the Mayor” and any more harsh words would result in residents being removed from the meeting.

Sadler began her time at the podium on March 5 by citing the Supreme Court case of 1964, New York Times v. Sullivan judicial quote,

“This nation was founded on the profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues shall be robust, uninhibited, and wide open, and that it may include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasant sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Sadler then went on to speak about her belief that the City of  Findlay is laying all the groundwork for a 15-minute smart city, which the mayor denies is their plan.

The next speaker for public comment was a resident new to the livestream of city council meetings. Mr. Michael Arabucki approached the podium and expressed his disappointment in seeing the February 20th scolding of Sadler and questioned if Mr. Harrington understood the constitutional right to free speech. Using only three minutes of his time, Mr. Arabucki returned to his seat. Mayor Christina Muryn was absent from the meeting leaving Mr. Harrington as acting mayor and Mr. Grant Russell as Council President Pro Tem.

Mr. Russell commented on Arabucki’s statements, explaining that city council is a business meeting and that council rules prohibit promoting political candidates and advertising. He explained that another rule prohibits personal or slanderous attacks, and disruptive behavior. Russell explained that a resident “can not be told what to do on the public square” but in city council meetings, rules can be applied.

Councilwoman Holly Frische apologized to Arabucki and asked that he be allowed to respond to Russell’s comments using his last minute of public comment. Mr. Arabucki’s final statement was that city council  “policies do not overrule our first amendment rights.” The comment was met with applause from the audience.

Request for an ad hoc meeting of appointed council members was listed on the agenda. Council woman Holly Frische asked for an explanation of the need for this committee meeting. Russell explained that after the bad look of the last council meeting, eight of ten council members asked for an ad hoc committee to address needed  changes to the rules. Frische asked what the goal was for the changes. Councilman DeArment commented that the goal was “to improve public input.” His explanation was met with laughter from the audience.

City Council passed the request for the ad hoc meeting but a date and time was not set during the meeting.