Attempt to cancel council canceled

CELINA - Mercer County Board of Elections members on Tuesday struck down an effort to recall four Celina City Council members who last month voted against legislation that would have outlawed abortion in Celina.

Adhering to the opinion of county assistant prosector Andy Hinders, board members unanimously moved to reject petitions and deny access to the ballot a recall of council members June Scott, Mike Sovinski, Myron Buxton and Eric Lochtefeld.

The petition filers were Ken Lange, Tom Sanford and Sarah Bellman, according to board of elections director Kristi Rable. A separate petition for removal through a recall election was filed for each council member.

Hinders in a letter to board of elections chairman Craig Klopfleisch based his opinion in part on Ohio Supreme Court decision State ex rel. Lockhart v. Boberek which determined how a recall petition filed under Ohio Revised Code section 705.92 - referenced in each of the four petitions - should be reviewed.

The Supreme Court concluded that the ORC section's provisions go into effect only if they have been adopted by the voters of a municipal corporation as part of a home-rule charter, Hinders indicated.

In the absence of a city charter that authorizes the use of recall regarding municipal officers, the four petitions for recall of the city councilors should be rejected and denied access to the ballot, Hinders wrote in the letter.

No Ohio Revised Code section, state statute or city of Celina ordinance or rule exists providing for the recall of Celina elected officials, board members agreed. Citing the lack of any legal basis or authority under law authorizing the use of recall of municipal officers, board members voted to reject the petitions.

Petitioners could appeal the board's decision through the county common pleas court, Hinders said.

"Now I strongly suspect that my opinion at that point would become a judgement of the court but it remains my opinion until that time," Hinders said.

The petitions were filed shortly after council members voted 4-3 against legislation that would have made Celina a sanctuary city for the unborn and effectively outlawed abortion in the city. Scott, Sovinski, Buxton and Lochtefeld all voted against it.

"The effect of this decision is that for recall to be available as an option the electors of the city of Celina must have approved a charter which contains a provision authorizing recall," Hinders wrote in his opinion letter. "If not the petitions have no authority under the municipal laws of the city of Celina."

Each Ohio municipality, Hinders continued, is permitted the option to establish its own foundation document similar to a constitution. Citing the Ohio Constitution of 1853, Article 18, Hinders noted once a charter is framed, it "shall be submitted to the electors of the municipality at an election to be held at a time fixed by the charter commission and within one year for the date of its election."

There is no evidence to suggest Celina has a charter, though board of elections documents show there was an attempt to form a charter for Celina that was rejected by a vote of 976 to 854 in a May 5, 1970, primary election.

"There was an attempt back in '70 to charter the city of Celina and that might have created a recall option," Hinders said at Tuesday's board of elections meeting.

No copy of the proposed charter, however, was found among the board of elections' records, Hinders said.

"Since all documents refer to 'a charter,' rather than a charter revision or modification, the conclusion is that this was the initial attempt at providing a charter for Celina," Hinders wrote in the letter.

Moreover, Celina Mayor Jeff Hazel stated no charter for the city can be found, Hinders wrote.

Hinders also referenced a section of the Ohio Secretary of State's elections official manual that states the use of recall is significantly limited, available only in a municipality whose voters have adopted both a form of limited home rule - a charter or one of the plans of government outlined in ORC chapter 705 - and the recall process as part of that home government.

A review of each of those plans of government - commission plan, city manager plan and federal plan - "quickly eliminated them as the particular plan for the City of Celina," Hinders wrote.

"Recall is not available in a statutory municipality or in a limited home rule municipality that has not adopted the recall process," Hinders wrote. "Additionally, recall is not available for state, township or district offices, or for county offices, except in a county that has adopted a limited home rule charter that specifically provides for the recall."

Stated grounds for removal of council members, per the petition language, were "disregarding the stated will of the majority of the residents of the City of Celina; sending the wrong message to the born children in Celina regarding the value of human life and the worthiness of the protection of life; putting unborn children at risk of being murdered within the city limits; and putting businesses at risk of having an abortion facility located next door to their place of business."