LETTER TO EDITOR: Citizen Says “Please bring back constitutional rights to Fostoria!”

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dear Editor,

The City of Fostoria is attempting to violate constitutional rights once again. A proposed ordinance scheduled for its third and final reading on June 17 would grant unchecked authority to the Safety Services Director and other officials to control access to city buildings and property without providing any clear legal standards, due process protections, or accountability. This comes after the city was previously called out in local newspapers for posting unconstitutional signs prohibiting recording and photography in public buildings—signs that were only taken down after public exposure, despite nearly a year of my personal efforts warning the mayor and other officials. Now, on the anniversary of the Fourteenth Amendment being passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, the city is pushing forward with yet another attempt to suppress rights the Constitution was written to protect.

Below are excerpts from the proposed ordinance, followed by a detailed breakdown of how each section violates the U.S. Constitution. This analysis highlights serious civil rights concerns that demand public attention.

Please bring back constitutional rights to Fostoria!
Section 109.02(a)
“No person shall enter or remain on any city-owned, controlled, or leased property without the consent of the Safety Services Director or his/her designee.”
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. It gives a single official unchecked power to decide who may enter public property without any standards, criteria, notice, or appeal process. This denies fair procedure and invites arbitrary exclusion.
—
Section 109.02(b)
“No person shall record or photograph on or within any city-owned, controlled or leased property without the prior consent of the Safety Services Director or his/her designee.”
Violates the First Amendment as prior restraint. Public photography and recording in publicly accessible areas are protected expressive activities. Requiring prior permission is an unconstitutional restriction on speech and press rights.
—
Section 109.02(c)
“Violators may be subject to removal and/or criminal trespass charges as defined in the Ohio Revised Code.”
Violates both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The ordinance criminalizes constitutionally protected activity and imposes penalties without due process — no notice, no hearing, no appeal, and no clarity about legal thresholds.
—
Section 109.02(d)
“City officials may request identification or reason for presence on city property.”
Violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the First Amendment right to anonymous public engagement. Citizens cannot be forced to disclose identity or purpose to access public buildings unless under reasonable suspicion or lawful necessity. Compelling answers to government questioning also violates the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.
—
Section 109.02(e)
“The Safety Services Director or his/her designee shall determine hours of access and may restrict access for operational needs.”
Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This grants vague, discretionary power to restrict access without notice, policy, or legal standards. It enables arbitrary, viewpoint-based denial of access and retaliation against dissenters.
—
Section 109.02(f)
“Any person who refuses to comply with a lawful directive to leave may be removed or prosecuted.”
Violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. When such “directives” are issued in retaliation for protected conduct or without lawful basis, it constitutes abuse of authority. Without clear limits, this section enables unconstitutional enforcement against peaceful dissent.
—
Section 109.02(g)
“This ordinance does not limit the city from enforcing any other ordinance or regulation.”
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s fair notice requirement. This vague catch-all clause fails to notify the public of specific rules or standards, allowing hidden or arbitrary enforcement. It compounds the ordinance’s overall due process violations.

Dear Editor: I am writing to endorse Judge Best for November 7. She is the BEST choice.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Dear Editor:

I am writing to endorse Judge Best for November 7. She is the BEST choice. She has held the job since last December and has done a fine job. Judge Best stepped up when there was a vacancy in the Court, leaving a long and successful career in prosecution to fill a need in the community for a fair, honest, and ethical Judge. In less than a year, she has addressed many of the issues in Municipal Court. She has restored Municipal Court’s involvement with the PIVOT Court. Along with Judge Alt and Judge Shuff, Judge Best helps offenders become productive citizens of Seneca County. Judge Best works hard for the community. Over 5000 cases have been through Municipal Court since the beginning of her tenure, including traffic tickets, criminal matters, and civil cases. The vast majority of these cases were handled by Judge Best. Municipal Court has an extremely busy docket. Ethically, she had to abstain from some cases because they were cases that she was actively prosecuting when appointed. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires such action to protect the rights of the involved parties and requires the assignment of visiting judges assigned by the Supreme Court in those cases. She attended two weeks of mandatory Ohio Supreme Court training sessions for new judges and kept the Court running during that time through the use of visiting judges. Without those judges, the Court could not process any cases during those required training days, as Judge Best was appointed to a Court without a magistrate, like our other Courts.

Looking at this further, you will see that this saved Seneca County funds. A full time magistrate requires full time pay and benefits. The use of visiting judges only cost the City of Tiffin (the budget for the Court is through Tiffin) and Seneca County less than $11,000. Some magistrate salaries exceed $100,000. In past years, Tiffin-Fostoria Municipal Court has paid more than that solely for Acting Judges. For conflict cases, which every Judge in a small community will have, all Judges are required to request Visiting Judges, even when they have acting judges or magistrates. Anyone stating otherwise could be either disingenuous or misinformed. It appears, based on statements that the democrat opponent of Judge Best has publicly made, that perhaps he simply wants to confuse the voters into thinking there is an issue where there is none. Judge Best has dedicated her career to public service. She often uses her life as an example to others for what hard work can achieve. She is truly an example of the American dream where everyone is allowed to aim high and achieve
 their goals.

I encourage you to vote for Judge Best on or before November 7 so that she can continue to make the important improvements to our Municipal Court.

Susan Platt
President of Seneca County Republican Women