Letter To The Editor: On Findlay City Council Procedure

The following was constructed originally as a comment to City Council and has been presented to TOR to be published as a Letter to the Editor.

BY SHAUN MASON

FINDLAY - This comment is not about the merits of the Heartland Forward partnership. Reasonable people can support or oppose that agreement. My concern is procedural and goes to the use of emergency authority.

Under Ohio Revised Code 731.30, ordinances ordinarily take effect after thirty days and are subject to referendum. Emergency ordinances are an exception. They are permitted only when immediate action is necessary for the preservation of public peace, health, or safety, and they have the effect of cutting off the public’s statutory right to seek a referendum.

Ohio courts give councils broad deference in declaring emergencies. But that deference is not unlimited. The Supreme Court of Ohio has made clear that an emergency declaration cannot be arbitrary or a subterfuge to avoid public participation. It must bear a reasonable relationship to an actual, time-sensitive necessity reflected in the record.

Here, the record does not demonstrate that necessity.

Ordinance 2026-010 authorizes a five-year economic development agreement. Neither the ordinance nor the mayor’s January 13th transmittal letter identifies any imminent deadline, funding loss, competitive forfeiture, or threat to public peace, health, or safety that would occur if the standard thirty-day period were observed.

In fact, the mayor’s letter describes a planned, strategic initiative: a multi-year commitment funded within the already-approved 2026 budget, with quarterly strategy reviews and long-term benchmarking. Those are the hallmarks of deliberate policy, not emergency conditions. The only reference to urgency is a desire to move forward “as soon as possible,” which reflects preference, not necessity as contemplated by state law.

Using emergency authority in this context has real consequences. The ordinance takes immediate effect, and residents are denied their statutory right to seek a referendum. That is not a technicality. It is a meaningful removal of a core accountability mechanism for a long-term commitment.

Again, this is not an argument against the policy itself. If the agreement is sound, it should withstand the normal legislative process and public scrutiny. Observing the thirty-day period does not prevent council from acting. It simply preserves the process the General Assembly intended for non-emergency legislation.

I respectfully urge the council to reserve emergency authority for circumstances where immediate action is clearly required and articulated on the record. Doing so protects both public trust and the integrity of council’s legislative discretion.

Thank you,

Shaun Mason