by David Miller
Loveland, Ohio – On Sunday, May 8, Councilman Andy Bateman wrote to Loveland Magazine with dismay he has over our recent story about “Mound” at site of proposed Parking Garage in the Historic District” and asked us for a correction.
Here is what we wrote in our story: “After (Lauren) Enda and Scovanner gave speeches during the open forum at Monday’s council meeting, there was also no discussion between Council and the City Manager. She said on Monday that she did not hear back from either Kennedy or Bateman after she sent them the report.” (“Questions arise about possible Native America remains and “Mound” at site of proposed Parking Garage in the Historic District”)
Bateman did however respond on the same day after he received Enda’s initial email, acknowledging he received her email. You can read his response below. He did communicate more fully with Enda the day after the council meeting when Enda expressed disappointment with the communication coming from City Hall.
We owe Mr. Bateman a correction and an apology. Loveland Magazine did double-check the facts in dispute and we got it partially wrong. He is certainly correct that we should have gone further and checked with him directly. Loveland Magazine did contact City Manager Dave Kennedy before publishing the story and we should have also contacted Mr. Bateman.
We also thank Mr. Bateman for allowing us the chance to report more accurately.
Mr. Bateman wrote on Sunday evening:
Dear David,
Several people in the community have approached me about an article you wrote recently. The article published on 4/28/2022 is titled; “Questions arise about possible Native America remains and “Mound” at site of proposed Parking Garage in the Historic District”, and within the body of the article there is a claim which I wish to have corrected.
Citing your article; After Enda and Scovanner gave speeches during the open forum at Monday’s council meeting, there was also no discussion between Council and the City Manager. She said on Monday that she did not hear back from either Kennedy or Bateman after she sent them the report.
Please see the forwarded email chain which clearly demonstrates a timely response regarding the inquiry.
Furthermore, both Mr. Kennedy and I provided an email to Ms. Enda regarding our reasoning for not speaking immediately on the issue. Below is the transcript of my email which was sent to Ms. Enda on 4/26, the day after the Council Meeting and two days before your article was published.
Lauren,
Following the original email, I consulted with Mr. Kennedy at the HP&P meeting and I also brought this matter to two members of the commission. Both members have had past experiences with archaeological surveys. They each expressed a need for additional information. I agree with Mr. Kennedy that we need to do a fair amount of work behind-the-scenes before a topic or issue becomes an official agenda item.
I know you’re passionate about local issues and I appreciate the commitment to finding more information. Open Forum is the perfect venue for you and other residents to voice your perspectives to council on any topic, particularly those not on the meeting agenda. However, I am not in favor of council members using this section in the agenda for engaging in an open dialogue. Other council members may opt to use this section as a means for back-and-forth. but I don’t believe that is its purpose.
As the garage is in the Historic District, I assure you that this information would be discussed whenever an application would be before the commission for work to be performed on this site.
This topic may come up sooner; but it should be thoughtfully researched so that the discussion is based on data pursued by staff and other subject-matter experts.
Thanks for working with us.
Andy
David, as you can see, I provided timely and reasoned responses to her inquiries as did our city manager. You know me well enough to reach out if you had questions pertaining to this issue, yet you didn’t. I wouldn’t have noticed this had your readers not contacted me asking why I didn’t respond to and/or forward the email. I hope these emails show a different picture. Whether you choose to correct the article or provide an update is your decision. But I’m a little disappointed that you published an article which described an alternate version of the events than what actually transpired.
Andy Bateman
Councilmember
City of Loveland
Here is the email string Batemand included in his correspondence Sunday evening:
From: lauren enda <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2022 10:36 PM
To: Bateman, Andrew <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Possible “mound” site
[ EXTERNAL SENDER ]
Andy,
I appreciate you getting back to me. What a crazy thing, eh? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Take care,
Lauren
From: Bateman, Andrew <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:50 PM
To: lauren enda <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Possible “mound” site
Lauren,
Thank you for digging this up. I will certainly let my colleagues on HP&P know about the report and will converse with Mr. Kennedy as well regarding the findings and possible courses of action.
Hope you’re doing well and enjoying warmer weather (when we are lucky).
Andy
Andy Bateman
Councilmember
City of Loveland
From: lauren enda <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 2:05:25 PM
To: Kennedy, Dave <[email protected]>; Bateman, Andrew <[email protected]>
Cc: lauren enda <[email protected]>
Subject: Possible “mound” site
[ EXTERNAL SENDER ]
Dave and Andy,
Attached is the document that I received earlier this week from Beth Sullebarger, a Historical Preservation Consultant. Hamilton County Community Development hired her in 2019 in response to a funding request from Loveland to tear down the two houses where the proposed garage will be built. In her report, she includes a map from 1849 labeled “mound” and further states that,
“There is some potential, however, for archeological resources on the property, based on the 1849 plat of Loveland, which identifies it as being the location of a “mound” and owned by W. J. Ballard. The 1870 map shows the property as owned by “T. T. Heath,” who was a Union General in the 5 th Regiment, Ohio Cavalry, during the Civil War and an attorney. See maps below. (Neither of these maps shows a dwelling in the current location, nor does the 1891 atlas.) It is not known whether the “mound” remains or is an Indian mound, but it is possible. The area appears topographically similar to other areas with Indian mounds. Locations on a bluff or hill overlooking a flat river or creek bottom always have high probability for prehistoric sites of all time periods. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the need for an archeological survey is recommended prior to new construction if a federal permit or funding is involved.”
Andy – I have already spoken to Dave on the phone about this and am sending to you as a member of the Historical Preservation and Planning Commission. Please share with the other members as I do not have their addresses.
I will answer any questions you may have for me.
Lauren
