Chelsea City Council Holds Special Meeting to Address Ruddock’s Controversial Remark

Chelsea City Council hosted a special meeting on March 31, 2025 to address the resulting backlash of Councilmember Ruddock’s controversial remark made on March 17. After the pledge, Mayor Pacheco addressed the incident.

Pacheco said that she was speaking for herself as the mayor, not on behalf of the council, when she said she found Ruddock’s statement, released before the meeting, to be sufficient in regards to his actions. She brought up that there have been concerns previously about uncivil comments towards councilmembers during meetings, and she wants to continue striving for civility and betterment in the community. 

Pacheco cited the First Amendment before going on to say, “However, note that there is a caveat here. Not every type of speech is protected. One may not incite violence or defame other people. […] I feel that we all should be doing whatever we can to uphold this rule of law. If you believe you should be able to speak your mind at public comment or protest things you don’t like, or be able to access a free press or tell the government, us, in this case, that you have a grievance, then you believe in the First Amendment too, which includes listening to things you might not agree with that people say in public meetings.”

Afterwards, she allowed time for Ruddock to read his statement aloud to the public, which read in part, “I stand before you not to diminish the seriousness of my remark on 17 March, but to clearly and unequivocally elaborate the principles that led to it. I also stand before you to take full responsibility for my words and actions. I own them.”

In the following public comment, Susan Ervin raised concerns that Ruddock’s words at the March 17 meeting demonstrated that he was not suitable for a government position, quoting Principles of Good Government by Matthew J. Bransgrove and the Chelsea City Charter. In its third chapter, the charter states that “the city shall have council-manager non-partisan form of government,” and Ervin suggested that Ruddock had not approached the public comment in that manner.

Gaye Morgenthaler, who Ruddock’s controversial comment was directed at in the initial March 17 meeting, agreed with Ervin.

“I’m not your problem,” she said. “I am making you aware of the fact that you really have a problem.”

Morgenthaler raised concerns of “ad hominem” attacks by the Council that could result in people not being able to speak freely to their government representatives.

Despite the concerns raised by previous speakers, the public comments that followed included several local residents expressing belief that Ruddock’s apology was sincere and enough of a response to the situation.

“I’m impressed with the ability of our city government to focus on what matters to a city and what matters to all of the constituents, including those of us in the townships,” said Renee Heberle. “And I’m continually stunned, no, impressed, by that focus.”

Herberle implored the council to move on from Ruddock’s comments and return that focus to other community topics.

David Bloom raised concerns about bullying and harassment by the public at meetings, playing clipped council and public comments over music while declaring his support for members of council. Reemphasizing her earlier speech, Mayor Pacheco requested public comment remain civil and courteous, asking Bloom to turn off the “soundtrack” for the rest of his statement. He did so and reiterated his support for the council.

Public comment concluded after eight speakers, and the council moved on to their last item of business.

Pacheco’s statement and the March 31 meeting in full can be found at Chelsea City Council’s website.