Controversy continues for Newton Falls mayor

By Ed Runyan

The mayor had resigned but then changed his mind.

WARREN — Pat Layshock was due to return to his seat as mayor of Newton Falls Monday night, but the city council meeting was canceled for lack of quorum.

The 11th District Court of Appeals ruled that Layshock should have been allowed to rescind his resignation in July. The city has notified the appeals court that it is likely to appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Councilwomen Catie Karl-Moran and Nancy Hoffman were the only two members of the five-person council present, Layshock said.

The council will meet again Dec. 7, the first Monday of December.

The city has also asked the court for a stay of execution, meaning it is asking that Layshock not be allowed back as mayor pending the outcome of the appeal.

Atty. Michael Rossi, who represents Layshock, said he “very seriously doubts” the court will take that action.

When reached by phone Monday afternoon, Layshock said he had confidence that the court would rule in his favor.

The appeals court ruled last Tuesday, about four months after Layshock announced at the July 6 Newton Falls City Council meeting that he was resigning effective Aug. 1.

Layshock left the meeting and didn’t return.

Layshock changed his mind, however, and two days later, he rescinded the resignation the afternoon before city council met in an emergency session and accepted the resignation.

Layshock and others have filed three separate legal actions since then, however, two of them asking that Layshock be restored as mayor. The third one, asking that the acting mayor and another council member be removed from office for actions relating to the resignation, was dismissed.

And Rossi said Monday morning that the one he filed in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, which also asked for Layshock to be restored to his old job, is probably moot as a result of the 11th District Court’s decision.

Atty. Rick Schwartz, Newton Falls law director, said he had no opinion on the ruling, which was rendered by Judges Mary Jane Trapp, Colleen Mary O’Toole and Timothy Cannon, because he had received a copy of it only Friday and hadn’t had time to review it thoroughly.

In the ruling, the court said it disagreed with the city’s position, as outlined by Schwartz, that resigning and leaving the meeting constituted “a complete abandonment of the office” since he was walking away from his primary function of running the council meeting.

Layshock didn’t say his resignation was effective immediately, the court noted. As he left, Layshock said he was leaving “for this evening.”

The court believes Layshock “still intended to exercise the powers of the office of mayor until Aug. 1, 2009,” and a mayor has the right to miss all or part of a meeting “without obtaining the permission of the council members,” the ruling said.

The ruling said Layshock wrote a letter to all members of city council, stating his desire to rescind his resignation and asked the council clerk, Kathleen King, to distribute them.

Council members didn’t receive that letter until after council voted to accept his resignation, but that fault lies with the clerk, not Layshock, the court ruled.

He added, “I look forward to completing this year controversy-free.” His term runs through 2011.

Rossi and Schwartz said legal fees associated with the suit brought in the 11th District Court will be the responsibility of each party.

runyan@vindy.com