Findlay council may limit who can join debate

FINDLAY — Findlay Council may narrow the debate window during its meetings, a shift meant to reinforce that policymaking belongs to council — not staff or administrators. Council's Ad Hoc Committee on Rules and Procedures delivered its first draft of revisions to the full council under new business at its regular meeting on Tuesday. The rules review began in early January after Councilman Dan DeArment, R‑4, requested the formation of a special committee to revisit changes made during the prior term. DeArment said some of those revisions "didn't work out as well as intended." Council appointed L. Reed Needles, R‑at‑large, as chair, along with BJ Preston, R‑2, and Carol Smith, R‑3, to undertake the review. On Tuesday, members raised a handful of targeted edits of the draft. DeArment proposed strengthening wording in the Finance Committee section so the committee "governs"— not merely monitors — the city's investment policies, arguing the stronger language better reflects council's legal responsibilities. Members also suggested updating the rules so the president of council may call a committee of the whole directly, which now requires a majority vote of council. The draft also rewrites council's debate rules in a way that narrows who is permitted to participate. Under the current language, administrators and staff "shall be entitled to take part in the discussion of all issues before the council," a standing right that has long allowed directors and department heads to join debate directly when legislation affects their areas. In the new draft, that entitlement is removed. A revised sentence specifies that only councilmembers — not administrators —"shall have the right to debate," effectively eliminating the administration's ability to speak during deliberations unless they are being questioned or specifically recognized by council. During a Jan. 29 meeting of the rules committee, members worked through the debate section line by line and agreed to narrow who has standing to participate. The discussion centered on removing an automatic speaking right for administrators and staff, which the current rules grant. Under the rewrite, administrators would still be expected to attend meetings and answer questions, but their ability to enter debate would depend on recognition from the presiding officer rather than a guaranteed right. Law Director Robert Feighner Jr. said the change would give the council president the discretion "to not be forced to recognize folks outside of council… as opposed to a right, unwritten or written, mandatory." He added that nothing in the draft would prevent administrators from clarifying information when council misunderstands something, but such clarifications would occur only when recognized, not as part of a free‑standing role in debate. The idea, Feighner said, was to align the rules more closely with common parliamentary practice — "council would discuss, debate, make motions … and if they have a question, they [can] ask" the appropriate official. Under the proposed rules, the only people allowed to fully engage in debate would be council members themselves, while a long list of administrative officials would be restricted to answering questions or offering factual clarification when recognized. Those limits would apply to the mayor, auditor, treasurer, law director, safety‑service director, department heads, and any other administrative staff attending a meeting at the request of council or the administration. These officials could provide information but would not be permitted to enter into debate or advocate for a position during the council's deliberations. While the new rules remove the "right to debate" from the administration and staff, public comment may get a little easier. Much of the committee's early work focused on public comment—an issue council last revised in August 2024 after weeks of debate. At its Jan. 29 meeting, the committee agreed to move the general public‑comment period earlier in the agenda so residents no longer have to wait until the end of the meeting to speak. They also discussed revising the required speaker form so people with a legitimate stake in city business, such as those who work for or represent Findlay‑based companies, can more clearly identify their interest. The existing rules — four‑minute speaking limit, 60‑minute cap, and eligibility tied to residency or local impact — would remain unchanged. Council asked the ad hoc committee to prepare a clean copy of the revised draft reflecting the edits and to return it for further review at an upcoming meeting. No vote was taken.