[ back ]
Petition against sewers fails legal scrutiny
(by Sue Reid - September 03, 2008)
Petition against sewers fails legal scrutiny
By SUE REID
As it stands, a referendum issue aimed at placing the question of extending sanitary sewers in the Maple Hill subdivision before South Russell voters next November will not move forward.
Village Solicitor David Ondrey said Tuesday that he has found three deficiencies in a petition circulated by residents. He presented his argument to village Fiscal Officer Danielle Romanowski in a letter dated Aug. 29.
The determination by Mr. Ondrey against the sufficiency and validity of the petitions followed a decision last week by the Geauga County Board of Elections, which determined that petition organizers met the requisite number of signatures. It concluded that 247 of the 266 signatures obtained were valid. Ten percent of the registered voters who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial election, which equals 198 signatures, were needed for the referendum petition.
In his letter, Mr. Ondrey stated that the petition "fails to include a full and correct copy of the title of the ordinance as required" by the Ohio Revised Code. "The language does not appear anywhere in the referendum petition."
Mr. Ondrey said the failure of the referendum proponents to file with the village a "certified copy" of the ordinance before circulating the petition for signatures," as required under state code, was another reason it was not sufficient or valid.
He said that, although the ordinance was stapled to the petition filed with the village Aug. 6, prior to circulation for signatures, the one signed by the electors and returned to the village did not similarly have attached a copy of the ordinance.
"I'm disappointed with the entire process," James Duber, a resident of Maple Hill Drive who presented the petitions to the village and was a member of the petition committee, said Tuesday. "In particular, this whole item about the certified copy. We requested that. I went to the Village Hall to pick it up. They said that's what it was when I picked it up. Apparently, that's not. That is the most disappointing part of the whole thing," he said.
"We were advised to do this in a particular manner, and we did it," Mr. Duber.
"The village is under no obligation or responsibility to advise anyone how to properly do either a referendum or initiative petition," Mr. Ondrey said Tuesday. "The way the petition was presented to Ms. Romanowski, if we had been advising them, it would have appeared to be closer to the proper way. They had a copy of the ordinance stapled to the petition they filed with Danielle," he said.
"I don't think that necessarily fixed their problems, but at least it might have given them an argument," he said, "but they didn't staple the copy of the ordinance on the petition they circulated with the voters for signatures."
Finally, Mr. Ondrey concluded in his letter that the petition was invalid, because it is "on its face, misleading and inaccurate," because it purported to set out the full title and text of the ordinance, but it did not.
"Specifically, five 'whereas' paragraphs of the actual ordinance are not reprinted on the petition," Mr. Ondrey said. "Thus, what is set forth is not in fact a full and correct copy of the text of the ordinance, even though it purports to be."
Mr. Duber said those were the same five paragraphs amended between readings. "We were told these didn't matter," he said.
"In the event that the circulators of the petition disagree with my recommendation and your decision to not certify the petitions," Mr. Ondrey concluded in the letter, "the circulators may pursue civil litigation seeking to obtain a court order requiring you to do so. Since this referendum would not take place until November 2009, in any event, there is ample time for such a legal challenge," he said.
"I believe, however, a court would necessarily reach the same conclusions I have in this matter and would therefore decline to issue such an order," Mr. Ondrey said.
"I do not believe she is in a position to certify the signatures now," he said of Ms. Romanowski. "The problems are pretty clear."
Arch Kimbrew Jr., director of the Geauga County Board of Elections, said last week that, if his department sees one referendum issue a year, "that's a lot."
Following the board's review of the signatures, Mr. Kimbrew said, it is then up to the village's fiscal officer to certify them to the ballot or not. "She would have to have reasons to not certify it," he said, such as it not being in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code.
"There are certain steps they have to take along the whole process," he said. "Those will be checked and scrutinized to see they follow the proper procedures."
If the petition had been successful in obtaining the referendum, the ordinance requesting that Geauga County Commissioners extend sanitary sewers would have been placed on hold until the November 2009 election.
Mr. Duber said the petition, along with an informal one circulated previously through the village, contained approximately 500 signatures. "There's obviously a lot of discontent," he said, "but not just one street but across the village. Both times, the village has tossed all of those signatures aside," he said.
"That's one of the more disappointing parts of this," Mr. Duber said. "They are ignoring the will of a large number of their residents. If they really wanted to move on with this and see what the village thinks about it, they can go against the recommendation and allow this to be certified."
[ back ]
