NEW WATERFORD Man sues to have vote on dissolving village

Elections board workers said it's too late to have an August vote on the matter.
By D.A. WILKINSON
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
NEW WATERFORD -- A village resident has filed a lawsuit with the 7th District Court of Appeals to put an issue before village voters to dissolve the village.
Village council voted June 7 to reject petitions for the dissolution.
The lawsuit is against council, clerk treasurer/financial officer Michael Harold and Mayor Sherry Felger.
Kevin B. Todd of West Main Street was among the citizens who circulated petitions.
His lawyer, Atty. J. Bradley Allison, said Monday that about 185 people had signed the petitions. That's more than the 40 percent of the village population needed to get the issue on the ballot, according to the lawsuit.
Todd, through Allison, is asking that the appeals court issue a mandamus action, which is an order to compel public officials to do their duty.
The lawsuit says the appellate court, located in Youngstown, should direct the village to tell the Columbiana County Board of Elections to put the issue on a special ballot.
But county elections officials said that the deadline has passed to put issues on the special election in August.
Allison said his intention was that if the issue didn't go on as a special election, then it would go on the November ballot.
"It's up to New Waterford to decide when to call an election," Allison said.
Todd and others also circulated petitions in 2005 that did not make it onto the November ballot. Those petitions were circulated under a different section of Ohio law than the new request. Allison did not represent Todd at the time.
Election officials said Monday that they did not know why New Waterford officials decided to keep the issue off the ballot.
Past attempts
Under the 2005 bid, the signatures on the petitions were checked by the elections board and then referred to New Waterford. The 2005 bid was a ballot initiative, which would have placed a proposed ordinance to eliminate the village before voters.
The 2006 petitions were circulated under another section of state law.
After gathering the signatures, citizens presented them to council. Council met in executive session June 7 to discuss "personnel and pending litigation."
After ending the session, Village Solicitor Judy Carlin announced that the petitions to dissolve the village were not properly presented, apparently to village officials, and that council should not give them to the elections board.
Allison wrote to Carlin last week and stated that no prior submission was needed under state law.
He stated the 7th District Court of Appeals had decided a case in 2000 that is "exactly like" the one he filed.
Allison said he had not had any response from or communication with Carlin.
Allison also said in his letter that if the petitions were the reason for the executive session, that session probably was illegal since there was no pending or threatened litigation in early June.
Allison declined to say why his client is interested in dissolving the village.