Opinion: Lorain’s Two Standards and the Elmore Example: A Blueprint for Order and Fairness – An Expanded Critique

By Frank L. Virtuous

The recent Lorain City Council meeting wasn’t just a display of procedural missteps; it was a stark illustration of how selective enforcement and perceived favoritism can shred the fabric of public trust. The twin issues of uneven public comment time limits and the disparate application of Ohio law have exposed a troubling double standard, raising serious questions about the integrity of local governance.

At the heart of democratic engagement lies public participation. Residents attend council meetings to voice concerns, share ideas, and stay informed. However, the fairness and transparency of public comment management, particularly the unequal application of time limits, has become a growing concern. While time limits are necessary for orderly meetings, the arbitrary granting of extra speaking time, as seen with JoAnne Zalenia, raises concerns about preferential treatment. This isn’t about denying anyone a voice; it’s about ensuring that all voices are treated equitably.

Council President Joel Arredondo, currently serving his eighth term and a lifelong resident of South Lorain, began the meeting by emphasizing the importance of decorum and adherence to established rules. A graduate of Admiral King High and Kent State University, with a long career in restaurant management and auto sales, President Arredondo’s dedication to the community is evident. His initial pronouncements of strict adherence to rules were intended to set a standard for an orderly and respectful meeting. However, subsequent events highlighted a systemic challenge in consistently upholding these rules.

Specifically, during the public comment period, JoAnne Zalenia was granted an additional two minutes to speak beyond the standard two-minute limit. This extension occurred without any explicit explanation or justification provided to the audience. This lack of transparency immediately raised questions about the criteria used to grant such extensions. Was it based on the perceived importance of her topic? Was it due to a pre-existing relationship with council members? Or was it a discretionary decision made on the spot? The absence of a clear rationale created an impression of arbitrariness and potential favoritism.

This selective enforcement breeds cynicism, suggesting that access and influence, rather than the merits of one’s argument, dictate who gets heard.

The First Amendment guarantees free speech, including participation in public meetings. However, this right is not absolute. Governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to preserve order, as clarified in cases like Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa and Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Commission. Lorain’s 20-minute public comment window, with a two-minute individual limit unless granted an extension, appears reasonable on paper. Yet, the lack of clarity on how extensions are granted, as exemplified by Zalenia’s extra time, raises significant equity questions.

This perceived favoritism, however, is merely a prelude to a more profound issue: the inconsistent application of Ohio Revised Code 2917.12. This statute, designed to protect the integrity of public meetings, prohibits actions that “obstruct or interfere with the due conduct” of such gatherings. Yet, the contrasting treatment of Garon Petty and Tia Hilton reveals a disturbing disparity.

Garon Petty, a journalist representing a local online news organization, faced trespassing and disorderly conduct charges after entering a council chamber area after the meeting had concluded. This action, while perhaps ill-advised, stands in stark contrast to the conduct of Tia Hilton. Hilton repeatedly refused direct orders from Council President Arredondo to leave the meeting. Moreover, she engaged in disruptive behavior by yelling at another resident, violating the established rules of a limited public forum where comments must be directed to the council.

This behavior, as defined by R.C. 2917.12, arguably falls under the statute’s prohibition against “any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct” of the meeting. It is important to note that while yelling at people during a city council meeting, even if not directly aimed at government officials, can still be considered disruptive behavior and could lead to legal consequences depending on local ordinances, as long as the yelling substantially disrupts the meeting’s order and prevents the council from conducting business effectively; this is generally not protected under the First Amendment right to free speech.

The State v. Schwing and State v. Brand cases have clarified that R.C. 2917.12 is constitutional and aims to prevent “substantial” disruptions, defined as “major, consequential, effective or significant” interferences. The Brand case specifically emphasizes that the statute’s intent is to “preserve the free speech of those conducting a lawful meeting by preventing others from disrupting it.”

Yet, the council’s actions suggest a selective interpretation of this statute. While Petty faced legal charges for his post-meeting actions, Hilton, who repeatedly defied orders and disrupted the meeting with disruptive yelling, seemingly escaped consequence. This disparity raises serious questions about the evenhanded application of the law and the council’s commitment to upholding the integrity of its meetings.

This is not a mere technicality. The perception of a double standard erodes public trust and undermines the legitimacy of local governance. When citizens witness selective enforcement, they question whether the rules apply equally to everyone. This is not just about Lorain. It’s a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency, consistency, and fairness in public institutions.

Now, let’s look at a contrasting example: Elmore, Ohio. Their approach, meticulously detailed in their ordinances, provides a starkly different model for managing public participation. Elmore’s rules establish a dedicated time for public comment, limiting remarks to that specific portion of the meeting. This structured approach, unlike Lorain’s seemingly ad-hoc method, ensures that public input is valued but does not derail the council’s agenda.

Furthermore, Elmore mandates that individuals seeking to address the council must first be recognized by the chairperson and provide their name and address for the record. This requirement promotes accountability and transparency, ensuring that public comments are attributed to specific individuals. This level of transparency is sorely lacking in Lorain.

Most importantly, Elmore sets a clear time limit of five minutes per speaker, unless a majority of the council votes to waive this requirement. This rule, combined with the stipulation that remarks must be confined to one subject and that personalities must be avoided, creates a framework for respectful and focused dialogue. Critically, the Elmore ordinance also provides for the removal of individuals who violate these rules, ensuring that order is maintained.

In contrast, Lorain’s approach appears haphazard and discretionary. The arbitrary granting of extra time to certain individuals, without clear criteria, undermines the principle of equal access. The inconsistent enforcement of R.C. 2917.12, as evidenced by the disparate treatment of Garon Petty and Tia Hilton, further erodes public confidence.

To restore public confidence, Lorain City Council must take immediate and decisive action. First, they must establish clear, written procedures that explicitly outline how to request extended time and the criteria for granting it. This clarity would provide a fairer process for all citizens. Second, they must ensure that R.C. 2917.12 is applied consistently and fairly, regardless of an individual’s background or affiliations. Third, they must acknowledge the importance of decorum and ensure that all participants adhere to the rules of the meeting. They should look at the Elmore example and implement clear rules, time limits, and enforcement.

Furthermore, the council should document and report why extra time was granted to a speaker in each meeting’s minutes. This would ensure that the rules are being applied fairly and consistently. The criteria for extra time should be publicly available, allowing all citizens to know how they can request extra time and why some are granted more than others.

Failure to address these issues will only further erode public trust and undermine the very foundation of democratic governance. Lorain’s citizens deserve a council that upholds the principles of fairness, transparency, and equal treatment under the law. Anything less is a betrayal of public trust. The initial emphasis on decorum by President Arredondo underscores the need for greater clarity and consistent enforcement in public comment procedures.

It is important to clarify that this writer is not suggesting that Tia Hilton, or any individual, should be charged with a crime. Rather, the intent is to highlight the disparities in how the law is enforced and to emphasize the necessity of providing clear guidance to citizens regarding expected conduct and the distinction between permissible actions and criminal offenses. By ensuring transparency and consistent application of rules and laws, the council can foster a more equitable and trustworthy environment for public engagement.

However, the questions linger: Why did Councilwoman Mary Springowski, Council at Large break standard protocol and call for a vote to grant JoAnne Zalenia extra speaking time? Would she have extended the same courtesy to Garon Petty, a frequent and vocal critic of the council? Would she have done the same for any citizen, regardless of their relationship with council members? The integrity of our government hinges on the consistent application of rules and the unwavering commitment to equal treatment for all. Transparency is not a suggestion; it is a mandate. Lorain’s citizens deserve answers, and they deserve a council that upholds the principles of fairness and accountability, without exception.