Ozark City Council Votes to Set a Public Hearing to Consider Passing a Tax on Vaping; Votes to Approve Ozark Technology Center Lease with Avidron UAS, Inc….; Hears from Concerned Citizens at Regular Meeting
By: Jeff Devine
Contributions by Rachel R.
The Ozark City Council met on Tuesday. September 2, for its regular scheduled meeting.
Ozark City Council President Brenda Simechak opened by calling the Administrative Meeting to order.
City Clerk/CFO Chris Peters discussed the option of passing a tax on vaping, mentioning that the City of Dothan just approved such a measure today. The council voted to set a public hearing to consider a tax on vaping juice for Tuesday, September 16, at 5:00 p.m. If you are interested in making your voice heard on this measure, you should prepare to arrive early. The council meets on the 2nd Floor of Ozark Municipal Complex.
Next, the council considered the proposal of a lease between Avidron and the Ozark Technology Center. Director of Ozark-Dale County Economic Development Corporation (ODEDC) Holle Smith discussed the proposal, pointing out that, if approved, Avidron would pay $952 per month for the one-year lease. ODEDC manages the property for the city. Ozark Technology Center is used as a business incubator to help new businesses grow and expand.
Dothan Career Center visits the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month from 1:00 p.m.to 4:00 p.m. to assist people with job applications, resume building, and other needs.
Following this discussion, Simechak asked if any department heads or members of the audience had any questions about any items on the agenda.
Mrs. Winnie Frazier brought up her concern with board appointments made by the city council. She suggested that the council place announcements on the website or elsewhere so that when it is time to appoint members to various boards, interested residents can throw their name in the hat to be considered instead of, as Frazier describes it, the members of the council arriving at the night of the meeting with their minds essentially made up. Frazier said, “I would just like the council to be a little more proactive other than just having it on the website…and trying to get more citizens involved.”
Another citizen brought up concerns about Carroll High School students getting kicked out of the batting cages because of what he described as the “Leisure Services and three employees in particular who are causing problems with the baseball coach and the baseball players in the facilities.” He then called upon the mayor and council to void the current contract and draft a new one that is more favorable and reasonable for CHS baseball players.
Mayor-Elect Charles Ward then addressed the council, saying that he believes the problem could be resolved by simply coming together and having a friendly discussion to resolve the disagreements.
Then, Simechak called for comments from the members of the council. Council Member Winston Jackson took the opportunity to thank the citizens for choosing to re-elect him in last week’s election. Council Member Les Perault chose to bring attention to school sports. Simechak chose to bring attention to Flowers Center and the production of “Home Run,” which will play on September 13, at 7:00 p.m.
Simechak also took a moment to thank the citizens of Ozark for exercising their right to vote in the municipal election, adding, “Whether you voted for someone or not, everyone spoke on Tuesday. And so your new council and your new mayor are those who are in office. Please remain just as dedicated to your town and as involved as you have been prior to the election. I challenge everyone to do that because everyone loves to come up a couple of months before the election to get really, really involved, and why haven’t we done this…we’ve been here for five years doing this. We have been here every meeting. The question one year from now is, is our chamber going to be this full? I hope the answer is yes.”
During the voting session, the council unanimously approved the following
- Approving minutes from the Regular Council Meeting held August 19, 2025;
- Agenda-the agenda for the September 2, meeting;
- Item 5: To set a Public Hearing on September 16, 2025, to consider a vaping tax;
- Item 6: Approval of a Lease of the Ozark Technology Center with Avidron.
When the Council went to final comments, Jackson brought up concerns from a citizen who was upset that outgoing Mayor Mark Blankenship blocked the citizen on his official Facebook account as mayor. City Attorney Joe Adams then addressed the council and said he isn’t aware of a law that prevents the mayor from blocking a citizen.
The Dale County Chronicle conducted research on this issue, and according to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which has weighed in on two cases about whether government officials can block critics on their personal social media pages, City Attorney Joe Adams is mistaken.
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. V. Department of Commerce, SCOTUS found that public officials who post about topics relating to their work on their social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government, “and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment when they block their critics.”
In O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the 9th Circuit ruled that two California school board members violated the First Amendment when they blocked parents from their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts, since the accounts were closely tied to their official roles. The court said there was a “close nexus between the Trustees’ use of their social media pages and their official positions.”
But in Lindke v. Freed, the 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, finding that Port Huron City Manager James Freed did not act as a government official when he blocked a resident from his personal Facebook page, which he maintained on his own.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices sent Freed’s case back for reconsideration. Barrett called the issue a “difficult” one, “especially in a case involving a state or local official who routinely interacts with the public.” She emphasized that “Freed did not relinquish his First Amendment rights when he became city manager.”
Barrett explained that a government official’s social media posts are only considered government action if the official had the authority to speak for the government and was exercising that authority in the disputed post. For mixed personal/official accounts, deciding this will require “a fact-specific undertaking in which the post’s content and function are the most important considerations.”
She also warned that “the nature of the technology matters.” While deleting comments might affect only personal posts, blocking someone from a mixed page could also silence them on official posts. “A public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability,” Barrett wrote.
In a separate unsigned opinion, the justices also sent O’Connor-Ratcliff back to the 9th Circuit to reconsider under this new test.
This ruling is the first of several major cases last year about the intersection of government and social media.
Therefore, according to Supreme Court precedent, an elected official who conducts official business on social media may not block or delete citizens from access to those accounts. They are only allowed to block/delete spam accounts.
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE REPORT ON THE SEPTEMBER 16 COUNCIL MEETING, INCLUDING INFO ON THE VAPING TAX PROPOSAL.
