My First 100 Days on Township Committee

In just a few days, I will reach my first 100 days serving on the Mansfield Township Committee.

That is not enough time to solve every issue facing the township. It is not enough time to undo every outdated practice, challenge every old assumption, or move every worthwhile idea from discussion to action. But it is enough time to establish how I approach the job, what I believe local government should be doing better, and what residents can reasonably expect from me moving forward.

When I ran for office, I did so on a straightforward set of principles: transparency, accessibility, accountability, practical governance, and respect for the people who live here. I did not run to warm a seat, nod along, and treat township government like something residents are supposed to observe from a distance. I ran because I believe local government should be understandable, accessible, and responsive. These first 100 days have only reinforced that belief.

They have also made something else very clear: even simple, common-sense improvements can run into resistance when they challenge old habits or force local government to become more open than some people are comfortable with.

Still, progress has been made.

What I’ve worked on, what I’ve learned, and what comes next for Mansfield

A real acomplishment: making township audio easier for residents to access

One of the most practical accomplishments in these first 100 days has been helping move township audio toward easier public access by having it posted on the township website along with the agenda, bill list, and minutes.

That matters.

For too long, if a resident wanted to hear what happened at a meeting, the process could become more burdensome than it should have been. Public records requests should not be the default path for listening to public meetings when the township already has the material. Residents should not have to jump through unnecessary hoops just to hear what was said by their own government.

Making township audio more directly available is a win for transparency, a win for resident access, and a win for common sense. It also reduces unnecessary strain on the Clerk’s office. When information can be posted once and made readily available, that is better for everyone. It is better for residents who want to stay informed, and it is better for staff who should not be spending time processing avoidable requests for materials that can simply be made public in the ordinary course.

This is the kind of improvement I came in wanting to push: practical, useful, and grounded in the idea that township government should not make access harder than it needs to be.

And in my view, that is exactly the kind of thing local government should be doing more often.

My approach in these first 100 days

From the beginning, I have tried to approach this role seriously.

That means reading what is in front of me. It means questioning things that do not make sense. It means taking resident access seriously. It means being willing to revisit old policies and practices instead of automatically defending them simply because they have existed for a while. It means understanding that tradition can have value, but habit alone is not a governing philosophy.

It also means recognizing that local government should not feel like an ivory tower.

One of the strongest messages I heard from residents was that they often felt disconnected from their own township government. That is not a small complaint. In local government, public trust is built or lost in the day-to-day ways residents experience the institution. If people feel ignored, kept at arm’s length, or expected to simply accept decisions without explanation, that gap grows wider over time.

I believe the answer is not more distance. It is more access, better communication, clearer reasoning, and a stronger public-facing posture.

That belief shaped the efforts I made during these first 100 days, including not only what moved forward, but also the ideas that were resisted.

The first major attempt: hybrid town meetings

One of the clearest examples of that resistance was the idea of hybrid town meetings.

I supported exploring a system that would allow residents to observe and potentially participate more easily through a hybrid format. That does not mean replacing in-person meetings. It means recognizing that in 2026, local government should be capable of giving residents more than one way to access the public process.

People work late. People have children. People care for parents. People get sick. People have transportation challenges. Some people simply cannot make it to Town Hall at a fixed time on a weeknight, even when they care deeply about what is happening. Making government more accessible to those residents should not be controversial.

Yet that idea was shot down by Committeeman Brent Connelly, with the reasoning that attendance in the room is low, so it does not make sense to install the system.

That reasoning does not hold up.

If in-person attendance is low, one reasonable response is to ask whether public access should be expanded. Low attendance is not a reason to reject accessibility. If anything, it is a reason to take accessibility more seriously. When public participation is limited, the answer should not automatically be to preserve the same conditions and declare the problem solved. Sometimes low participation is itself evidence that the current setup is not serving people as well as it could.

What this moment revealed to me is that even modest efforts to modernize how residents access township government can be treated as unnecessary simply because the existing system still functions at a basic level. I do not think that is a good enough standard. Government should not settle for basic functionality when a better option exists and serves the public more effectively.

The second major attempt: creating a township facebook page

The same pattern showed up again when the idea of a township Facebook page was raised.

This should have been one of the easiest conversations to win. A township social media page is a basic communication tool. It is one of the most direct and practical ways to keep residents informed about agendas, meetings, schedule changes, public notices, events, emergencies, road issues, deadlines, and general township information.

The point is not politics. The point is communication.

Yet this idea was also shot down by Committeeman Connelly. His stated reasoning was that Facebook is useless and that all people do on it is complain about Trump.

Again, that does not hold up as a serious policy argument.

Every public communication platform has the potential for irrelevant comments. That is not unique to Facebook. People go off-topic in public meetings. They send irrelevant emails. They make unhelpful comments anywhere they are given space to speak. That is not a reason for government to avoid communicating. It is a reason for government to communicate clearly and manage the platform properly.

A township Facebook page is not about catering to nonsense. It is about reaching residents where they already are.

Whether someone likes Facebook personally is beside the point. The question is whether it is a useful tool for getting information out to the public quickly and efficiently. The answer to that is plainly yes. Used correctly, it becomes another channel for transparency and public awareness. It can reduce confusion, increase access to updates, and make the township feel more reachable to ordinary residents.

Rejecting a communication tool because people sometimes post national political complaints underneath public content is like rejecting a microphone because someone might say something annoying into it. The existence of noise does not eliminate the need for communication.

What this attempt showed me is that resistance to modernization is not always dressed up as some deeply reasoned principle. Sometimes it is simply waved off with dismissive logic, and that is expected to be enough.

The third major attempt: amending Ordinance 2018-02

Another issue I pursued during these first 100 days was the amendment of Ordinance 2018-02, dealing with cell phone, audiotape recorder, and camera use during open public meetings.

This was not an abstract concern. It went directly to the relationship between government and the public, and to whether the township’s rules reflect the spirit of openness that public meetings are supposed to embody.

What stood out in this discussion is that even the town attorney indicated that the ordinance probably should be changed. Committeeman Connelly himself stated that it probably could be reworded. That alone should have been enough to justify movement. If the township attorney says it probably should be changed, and a sitting committeeman says it probably could be reworded, that should not be the end of the conversation. That should be the beginning of the fix.

Instead, the motion died on the table.

The theory advanced was essentially that because the ordinance is eight years old, it should just be left alone.

I do not believe that is a serious way to govern.

An ordinance does not become sound simply because it has been on the books for a number of years. Age is not a substitute for clarity. Longevity is not proof of wisdom. The fact that a law has existed for years does not answer whether it is properly written, whether it is too vague, whether it is overly broad, or whether it is consistent with the level of openness residents should expect in a public meeting setting.

If anything, once concerns are raised and even municipal officials acknowledge that rewording may be appropriate, that is precisely when the township should act. Responsible government should not wait for a problem to become bigger, or for an ordinance to be enforced in a more controversial way, before deciding to clean up language that already appears to need attention.

This issue was important to me because public meeting rules should be clear, objective, and respectful of the rights of residents to observe and document their government. The public should not have to decode vague standards or wonder whether ordinary activity around recording a meeting is being judged by language that even township officials admit could be improved.

The motion dying on the table said a lot.

It said that acknowledgment of a problem is not always enough to produce action. It said that some people are more comfortable living with questionable language than engaging in the work of improving it. And it reinforced something I have already seen more than once in these first 100 days: meaningful reform can die not because it was disproven, but because too many people are willing to let inertia win.

A pattern has emerged

Taken one at a time, each of these efforts could be written off as a normal disagreement.

Hybrid meetings. A debate over cost or practicality.
Ordinance reform. A debate over timing or drafting.
A township Facebook page. A debate over usefulness.

But when you put them together, a pattern becomes difficult to ignore.

I supported easier access to meetings. That was resisted.
I supported revisiting ordinance language that even township officials acknowledged should probably be changed. That died.
I supported a modern communication tool for residents. That was dismissed.
I helped push a real transparency improvement by making township audio easier to access. That moved.

That contrast matters.

It shows both what is possible and what the obstacles are.

There are clearly some things that can get done when they are framed in a practical way and rooted in obvious public benefit. But there is also a recurring resistance to changes that make local government more accessible, more public-facing, or more transparent in ways that challenge the old comfort zone.

That is one of the biggest lessons of these first 100 days.

Silence matters too

Another thing that has stood out to me is not just who speaks, but who often does not.

In these moments, one of the most visible patterns has been Committeeman Brent Connelly stepping in to oppose access, modernization, or reform-oriented ideas, while the other committeemen often say very little. Residents notice that. I notice that.

Silence in government is not neutral just because it is quiet.

When weak reasoning is enough to stop an idea, and few others on the dais engage it, challenge it, or offer a more thoughtful response, the result is the same as open opposition. The proposal dies. The barrier stays in place. The township moves on without making the improvement.

It is about describing what residents can plainly see: ideas aimed at making township government more accessible are not always getting serious discussion before they are brushed aside.

That should concern anyone who cares about public trust.

What these first 100 days have taught me

These first 100 days have taught me that good government is not automatic.

Transparency is not automatic.
Accessibility is not automatic.
Modern communication is not automatic.
Even small reforms can face outsized resistance when they require government to become more open, more flexible, or more responsive.

They have also taught me that practical improvements still matter, even when they seem small to some people.

Posting township audio with the agenda, bill list, and minutes may not sound glamorous. But it changes how residents interact with their government. It makes things easier. It reduces friction. It respects the public’s right to know. It proves that common-sense transparency measures are possible.

That is why I view it as a meaningful accomplishment.

At the same time, these first 100 days have shown me that the fight for better government is often not about some dramatic showdown. More often, it is about whether someone is willing to keep asking why things are done the way they are, whether they still make sense, and whether the residents are truly being served by the answer.

That is the standard I intend to keep applying.

What comes next

My direction has not changed.

I want township government to be easier for residents to follow.
I want public information to be more accessible.
I want communication to be more direct and more modern.
I want ordinances that affect public participation to be clear and defensible.
I want the public to feel less like it is trying to peer through a wall and more like it is dealing with a government that understands it works for them.

That means I will continue pushing for transparency improvements. I will continue questioning outdated logic when it is used to block reasonable ideas. I will continue supporting practical tools that help residents stay informed. And I will continue approaching this role as an active representative, not a passive occupant of a chair.

These first 100 days have given me a clearer picture of both the opportunities and the obstacles.

They have shown me that some things can move.
They have shown me that some things die too easily.
They have shown me that pushing for good government is worth doing even when the answer is no.
And they have shown me that Mansfield deserves better than reflexive resistance to common-sense reform.


- Michael Bollard, Township Committeeman

Exchange about amending Ordinance 2018-02 @ 04/08/26 Meeting