In My Opinion - by Bob Ruth
August 4, 2026 — Bob Ruth
Grove City’s blue-ribbon task force on data centers has gotten off to a chaotic start.
Ever since its maiden meeting on Wednesday (July 29), twists and turns have enveloped the group.
Kindig’s remarks stunned many open-government advocates. Kindig, who was hired about six months ago to lead the Community Relations Agency, had quickly built a reputation as a strong proponent of open government. For instance, a link on the city’s website explaining the issues surrounding data centers is viewed as being thorough and unbiased. Kindig oversaw the creation of the data center link.
The fact that the identities of task force members might be withheld from the website appeared to be out of character for Kindig, according to many open-government advocates. Adding to the puzzlement, In My Opinion found that all the names of members of 12 other citizen committees, task forces and boards are publicly available on the website. That’s a total of more than 60 names.
In addition, the names of all the task force members have appeared on several Facebook postings by citizens.
Some early confusion is to be expected. After all, the task force is tackling one of the most controversial and emotional issues the city has faced in years. Strong feelings are held by both sides.
But the turmoil generated earlier this year by a proposed 310-acre data center in Grove City is all the more reason for the task force’s activities to be seen as fully transparent and devoid of back-room manipulation.
Luckily for the city, Councilman Omar is expected to play a leading role on the task force. The soft-spoken 25-year-old has a knack for de-escalating ticklish situations. The way he guided a one-year moratorium ordinance through City Council is viewed as a masterclass in political persuasion. Omar’s ordinance, which has halted consideration of the mega data center until at least June 2027, also created the task force.
During the moratorium period, the task force is expected to hear from advocates and opponents of data centers. The panel then will make recommendations for regulating the complexes.
Because City Council wants to ensure a wide range of input from the public, half of the task force’s 16 members are non-elected citizens. The other half consists of City Council members and a Pleasant Township trustee, all of whom hold elected offices.
Kindig explained that City Hall is concerned about potential threats to task force members. “One person has already resigned (from the task force),” Kindig said.
As of now, task force members’ identities are not posted on the city website where they could be accessible with a click of a button on a laptop. A decision on posting names on the website will be made later, Kindig said.
In My Opinion understands security concerns. Anyone who threatens a member of a public body should be criminally prosecuted. There is no excuse for such threats, especially in a democracy.
But democracies also have a responsibility to be open with the public. Unlike dictatorships, democracies exist through the will of the people. And the people have a right to know how their governments operate.
Allowing the public to easily Identify task force members through the click of a button is an important part of governmental transparency. The identity of each task force member should also include a brief description of the individual’s background.
Such backgrounds would allow the public to better understand the makeup of the task force. For instance, members affiliated with building trades unions or high-tech companies might favor data centers. Construction unions in Ohio generally endorse data centers because they create jobs for their members. High-tech companies involved in computers and artificial intelligence are the main users of data centers.
On the other hand, people affiliated with consumer, environmental and conservation causes often oppose data centers because the complexes allegedly cause pollution and drain electric and water resources.
Governmental openness is also an issue involving the video- and/or audio-recording of task force meetings. Written minutes provide only summaries – mere fractions – of discussions among task force members.
A member or witness testifying before the task force could lie, exaggerate, utter questionable or misleading comments, etc. and later deny saying them. A word-for-word recording would assist in holding such a person accountable for his/her comments.
Traditionally recordings also assist note-takers in compiling written minutes. If a clerk’s notes are incomplete, the clerk can refer to the recording for clarity. Also, it allows the public to assess the accuracy minutes. They also allow people who are unable to attend a meeting to review what was said at the proceedings.
The Bottom Line: It’s all about openness in government. Let the sun shine in.
