LEADERSHIP ACTIONS
​​
COUNCIL MEETINGS
Whitehall City Council meetings have turned into an unprofessional environment that hinders effective governance. The meetings have become unwelcoming; citizens feel their voices are ignored or dismissed as merely nostalgic and resistant to change.
​​
Verbal Outbursts and Arguments:
Tensions frequently flare during the "Poll Public" and closing remark sessions. Residents have described Councilmember Lori Elmore as "looking like a bully" due to repeated "outbursts" and heated exchanges with both colleagues and citizens. She has been criticized for using insulting language toward fellow council members and the public, including referring to members of the audience as the “peanut gallery", and remarks have become so contentious that people chose to leave the meetings.
​
​
​
​
​​
​
​​
​
​​​​​​​​​​
Name calling and accusations:
-
Mayor Bivens was accused of calling Councilmember Morrison a liar when questioned about missing TIF payments owed to schools, despite Morrison having raised the issue months earlier.​
-
When questioned about council members being blocked from emailing the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP 9), the mayor downplayed the situation—claiming there were never real restrictions and that any issues were minor and already fixed.
-
However, this directly conflicted with statements from both a councilmember and the city attorney, who said they had in fact been blocked.
-
Instead of clarifying the discrepancy, the mayor:
-
Refused to authorize an IT report, declined any further investigation, Declared there would be “no follow-up”.
-
The mayor’s response came across as dismissive and unwilling to provide transparency, especially when faced with conflicting accounts from his own officials.
​
​
​
​
​​​​​​​​
​
​
​
​
​​​​​​​Laser focused on their agenda
-
city leadership has become narrowly focused on its own agenda, often overlooking concerns raised by residents. Community issues frequently cited include the high number of rental properties, road maintenance and repairs, incomplete development projects, concerns about overdevelopment and school capacity, rising property taxes—particularly impacting seniors—and the need for increased assistance for home repairs. Many residents also express a desire for broader public input in shaping Whitehall’s future, rather than decisions driven by what they view as a top-down approach.
-
Opponents further point to the creation of a political brand, “Team Forward Together,” associated with Mayor Michael Bivens and aligned council members Lori Elmore and Amy Harcar, as evidence of growing political division within city government. They argue this alignment reinforces a perception of centralized decision-making and limits inclusive representation of all citizen voices in policy discussions.
​​​​​​​​​​​
​
MAYOR
​
​
​Michael Bivens ran unopposed for Mayor of Whitehall in 2023 because of the withdrawal of his only significant potential challenger.
​
Withdrawal of Competition: Van Gregg, the city’s Public Safety Director at the time, was expected to run but dropped out of the race. Critics and community members later alleged a "deal" was made between the two, as Gregg was subsequently reappointed to his position after Bivens took office.
Bivens election
Despite running unopposed, Bivens faced a significant "undervote," where approximately 1,086 voters (nearly 28% of those who cast ballots in that election) chose to leave the mayoral line blank rather than vote for him. This lingering dissatisfaction contributed to the recall efforts launched against him in early 2026
Ohio Supreme Court Reprimand of Whitehall Mayor Michael Bivens. In 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio formally sanctioned and reprimanded Michael Bivens for actions he took while serving as Whitehall City Attorney during the controversial Enclave on Main housing development dispute.
​
What the Ohio Supreme Court Found
1. Illegal Refusal to Certify a Referendum Petition
Whitehall residents gathered signatures for a referendum petition to challenge city legislation granting tax incentives for the Enclave development.
Under Ohio law, once a petition is determined to be valid, city officials must certify the measure so voters can decide the issue at the ballot box.
The Court ruled that:
-
Bivens and the Whitehall City Council refused to certify a valid referendum petition
-
This action blocked residents from exercising their constitutional right to vote on the ordinance
2. “Bad Faith” Conduct
The Court went further and made a rare and serious finding:
Bivens acted in bad faith.
According to the Court, Bivens advised council to:
-
Repeal the ordinance that citizens had petitioned
-
Immediately reenact nearly identical legislation
This maneuver reset the referendum clock, effectively invalidating the citizens’ petition even though they had already collected signatures.
The result was that voters were denied the opportunity to decide the issue.
Court decision:
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2021/2021-Ohio-3134.pdf
Why This Matters
The ordinance at issue authorized major public subsidies for the Enclave on Main development, including:
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
• Financing through the Ohio Housing Finance Agency
• A 15-year, 100% property tax abatement (PILOT) approved by the City of Whitehall
By repealing and reenacting the ordinance, the city ensured the project proceeded with tax breaks without a public vote, despite residents submitting a valid referendum petition.
Why the Issue Resurfaced in 2025–2026
The Supreme Court’s finding became highly relevant again when residents attempted to use the same referendum process to challenge the Fairway Cliffs development.
Citizens cited the Enclave case as evidence that city leaders had previously used procedural tactics to prevent voters from deciding major development subsidies.
For many residents, the Enclave decision raised a fundamental question:
Should elected officials protect the public’s right to vote on major public subsidies — or find ways around it?
​