Holding Local Government and the Press Accountable

Fellow Patriot’s,

Over the past several months, I have repeatedly attempted to address the Hillsdale City Council and the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners during public comment without publicly stating my name.

The issue has never been whether government officials know who I am. Most of them already do. The issue is whether a citizen’s ability to criticize and petition government may be conditioned upon publicly identifying himself or herself.

The response from local government has changed from meeting to meeting.

On May 4, 2026, the City of Hillsdale prevented me from speaking anonymously even though the city’s written rule stated that a speaker’s name was “requested.”

On June 1, the city again prevented me from speaking, had me removed from the meeting, and then amended the rule later that same evening to change the identification language from requested to required.

On June 23, the Hillsdale County Board of Commissioners prevented me from speaking without stating my name, and Hillsdale City Police removed me from the meeting. Statements made during and after that incident indicated that police or prosecutorial advice may have influenced the decision. I was also warned that repeating the conduct could result in criminal charges, arrest, or jail.

On July 20, I again attempted to address the City Council without stating my name. The amended rule remained in effect, and I was again denied the opportunity to speak. This time, however, four council members voted to allow me to speak. Despite efforts by the mayor and city attorney to prevent or limit that discussion, I was not removed. I remained peaceful, stayed in the meeting, and the meeting continued.

That sequence raises an obvious question:

If my conduct required physical removal at the earlier meetings, why did the same peaceful conduct not require removal on July 20?

It also raises a larger constitutional principle.

Government bodies may adopt rules for the orderly conduct of meetings. Those rules do not take precedence over state law. State law does not take precedence over the Constitution. The mere existence of a rule does not establish that the rule, its interpretation, or its enforcement is lawful.

This issue is especially significant in Hillsdale, a community known throughout the world because of Hillsdale College and its emphasis on the Constitution, limited government, civic responsibility, and the principles of the American founding. Hillsdale College alumni serve on the City Council.

The constitutional principles discussed in classrooms, speeches, publications, and fundraising appeals must also be applied when a citizen stands before his local government and asserts a right those officials find inconvenient.

The Attached Documents

Three documents are attached:

1. Story Pitch: Changing Enforcement of Hillsdale Public-Comment Rules
2. Proposed Written Interview: Anonymous Public Comment and Removal From Hillsdale Government Meetings
3. Verification Chronology and Source Guide

These documents were prepared for submission to a local news editor. They provide a factual overview of the events, a written interview format, and a chronology identifying the records and questions that should be independently verified.

They are also intended to serve another purpose.

These documents demonstrate a process that Hillsdale Conservatives and individual citizens can use to hold both local government and the press accountable.

How to Hold Local Government Accountable

Accountability begins with accuracy.

Citizens should document what government officials actually say and do, rather than relying on memory, rumor, or secondhand accounts.

When attending a public meeting:

• Obtain the agenda and the rules in effect before the meeting.
• Record the meeting when lawful and preserve the complete recording.
• Note the exact time of each relevant statement or action.
• Ask officials to identify the rule, statute, policy, or legal authority they are relying upon.
• Ask who made or authorized the decision.
• Ask whether legal counsel, law enforcement, or a prosecutor provided advice.
• Request important answers in writing.
• Preserve emails, letters, police reports, body-camera footage, minutes, and adopted resolutions.
• Compare what officials claim with the actual wording of the rule or law.
• Remain peaceful and avoid giving officials an unrelated basis to end the discussion.

The objective is not to create chaos. The objective is to create a record that cannot be easily denied, rewritten, or explained away later.

A rule should be quoted exactly.

A vote should be identified by member.

An order should be traced to the official who gave it.

A legal claim should be compared with the law being cited.

A change in enforcement should be documented and questioned.

When a government body changes a rule after enforcing it differently, that sequence matters. When officials claim removal is necessary at one meeting but decline to remove the same person for the same conduct at another, that inconsistency matters.

Accountability requires citizens to preserve those distinctions.

How to Hold the Press Accountable

The press performs an important public function, but it must also be held to standards of accuracy, fairness, and independence.

Citizens should not merely demand that a reporter “cover the story.” They should make the story verifiable.

Provide reporters with:

• A concise explanation of why the matter is newsworthy
• A dated chronology
• Original documents
• Complete video links and timestamps
• The exact wording of disputed rules
• The names and positions of relevant officials
• Specific questions for each party
• A clear distinction between established facts and disputed legal conclusions
• An opportunity for all sides to respond

The attached materials are structured in that manner deliberately.

They do not require an editor or reporter to accept my legal position before investigating the story. Instead, they identify the evidence, the competing explanations, and the questions that remain unanswered.

That is how responsible citizens should approach the press.

We should insist that reporters verify government claims rather than merely repeat them. We should also provide sufficient evidence for reporters to verify our claims.

When a publication declines to investigate, citizens should respectfully ask why.

When an article omits a material fact, the omission should be identified specifically.

When a government official is quoted, the underlying record should be reviewed.

When officials refuse to answer, that refusal should become part of the story.

When a publication makes an error, a correction should be requested with the supporting evidence attached.

The goal is not to pressure the press into adopting our conclusions. The goal is to require the same scrutiny of government officials that the press routinely applies to citizens, candidates, and private organizations.

A Model for Future Accountability

The documents attached to this letter can be adapted to other local issues.

For any significant government controversy, citizens can prepare:

A one-page or two-page story pitch

This should explain what happened, why it matters to the public, and what records are available.

A proposed written interview

This should present the citizen’s position through clear questions and answers while identifying the government’s likely response.

A verification chronology

This should list each event by date, identify the relevant records, and present the questions that officials and reporters must answer.

This structure prevents an important issue from being reduced to personalities, political labels, or accusations.

It directs attention toward the record.

It also makes it harder for officials to avoid accountability by claiming that the facts are too confusing or that the dispute is merely personal.

Our Standard

Hillsdale Conservatives should demand more than agreement from government officials. We should demand lawful, transparent, and consistent government.

We should demand more than favorable coverage from the press. We should demand accurate, independent, and complete reporting.

We must also hold ourselves to the same standard.

That means telling the truth even when the truth is inconvenient.

It means correcting our own errors.

It means distinguishing what we can prove from what we believe.

It means preserving evidence before making accusations.

It means remaining peaceful when government officials act improperly.

It means using the rules available to us without pretending that those rules are superior to the law or the Constitution.

The principles of constitutional government are not meaningful only when they protect popular speech, familiar speakers, or positions approved by those in power.

They matter most when government officials are asked to respect a right they would prefer not to recognize.

This situation is still developing. The attached materials will be provided to the press, and the supporting records will be available for independent review.

I encourage every member of Hillsdale Conservatives to read these documents, study the method used to assemble them, and apply that method whenever local government exercises authority without clearly explaining its legal basis.

Government accountability does not happen automatically.

A free press does not remain accountable automatically.

Both require informed, disciplined, and persistent citizens who are willing to document the truth and place it before the public.

in liberty,

Lance Lashaway
Member of the Hillsdale Conservatives.