Montgomery County Board of Elections .^.. . ., Lc i ... 201 East Sixth Street Dayton, OH 45402 937-824-2811(phone) 937-824-2818 (fax) Stephen E. Klein (0014351) ... Lc iSUPRENiE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.,MATTHEW C. JOHNSON, et al.,

Relators,

V.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCLAYTON, OHIO, et al.,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 11-1945

ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS

VERIFIED ANSWER OF RESPONDENT,

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO

Robert E. Portune (0018098)Counsel of Record

Micah M. Siegal (0085347)Walter C. Herin Ifi (0088378)

GOTTSCHLICH & PORTUNE, LLP

201 East Sixth StreetDayton, OH 45402937-824-2811(phone)937-824-2818 (fax)

Stephen E. Klein (0014351)Counsel of Record

KLEIN, TOMB & COLLnvs, LLP240 Bohanon DriveVandalia, OH 45377937-339-3939937-890-6791 (fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Respondent,Clayton City Council

Victor T. Whisman (0008033)Counsel of Record

ASSISTANT MONTGOMERY COUNTY PROSECUTOR

Dayton-Montgomery County Courts Bldg.

301 West Third Street, 5t" FloorDayton, OH 45422

Attorney for Respondents,Montgomery County Board of Elections

Attorney for Relators,Matthew C. Johnson, et al.

II^^Î^

F

u .^^,

^ C;' €0I)

e UF COURT.^.._. ., Lc iSUPRENiE COURT OF OHIO

1

Now comes Respondent, Council of the City of Clayton, Ohio (hereinafter sometimes

referred to as "Clayton") and for its Answer to the Complaint of the Relators, Matthew C.

Johnson, et al., states as follows:

A. THE PARTIES

1. Respondent admits in response to the allegations in paragraph 1 of Relators' Complaint

that Matthew C. Johnson, Rebecca J. Johnson, Laverne J. Jutte and Mary E. Jutte are citizens and

electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio and constitute a Petitioners' Committee that sought

adoption of the three (3) ordinances appended to Relators' Complaint as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.


that the Respondent Council of the City of Clayton, Ohio exercises legislative power pursuant to

the Clayton City Charter and the laws of the State of Ohio but further states that its legislative

powers are not restricted solely to Articles III and IV of the Clayton City Charter.


that Respondent Montgomery County Board of Elections (hereinafter "Board of Elections") is

charged with carrying out specified duties pursuant to R.C. Chapter 3501 and other laws of the

State of Ohio.

B. JURISDICTION


that this Court has jurisdiction over this original action in mandamus pursuant to Article IV,

Section 2(B)(1)(b) of the Ohio Constitution and RC. 2731.02.

C. STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE INITIAL FILING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES WITHTHE CITY OF CLAYTON


that in accordance with Section 10.02 of the Clayton Charter, Relators filed three (3) proposed

ordinances with the Law Director of the City of Clayton by certified mail dated February 18,

2011 and fizrther states that the three proposed ordinances were included with the letter. (A copy

of Article X of the Clayton Charter is appended hereto as Ex. A).

CLAYTON PROVIDES ORIGINAL PETITION FORMS TO RELATORS


that by letter dated March 10, 2011 to Stephen E. Klein, the attorney for the Petitioners'

Committee, the Clayton Law Director responded to the February 18, 2011 letter from the

Petitioners' Committee by providing 100 printed originals of the requested petition forms.

Respondent further states that the Law Director's letter (Relators' Ex. 6) included the cautionary

recommendation:

Please familiarize yourself with the procedures set forth in Article X of theClayton Charter and the referenced provisions of the Ohio Revised Code relatingto circulation and presentation of the petition(s), the number of valid signaturesrequired, and the time limits associated therewith.

THE CIRCULATION AND FILING OF THE PETITIONS


that one or more Relators circulated the three (3) petitions but denies the remaining allegations of

paragraph 7 and specifically denies that the Relators obtained a sufficient and appropriate

number of valid signatures as required by Section 10.02 of the Clayton Charter.

3

8. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of Relators' Complaint that the

petitions were filed were filed on August 5, 2011 or that the petitions complied with Clayton

Charter Section 10.02 and further states that to its best knowledge and belief the petitions were

filed with the Montgomery County Board of Elections on or about August 8, 2011. Respondent

additionally states that Relators had had these petition forms since they had been sent to their

attorney on March 10, 2011.

INVALIDITY OF THE PETITIONS

9. Respondent states that included with the multiple part-petitions filed with the Board of

Elections were six (6) part-petitions that contained discrepancies between the total number of

signatures on the part-petitions and the number of signatures listed on the Circulator Statement as

having been witnessed by the Circulator. Specifically the number set forth on the Circulator

Statement on each of those six (6) part-petitions was less than the actual number of uncrossed out

signatures on the part-petitions. (Certified copies of the six (6) part-petitions containing the

discrepancies are attached as Ex. B-1 through B-6)

These attached part petitions evidence the following:

Ex # Number Of Actual Signatures Number Of Signatures IndicatedOn Part-Petition on Circulator Statement

B-1 30 29B-2 30 29B-3 30 29B-4 30 28B-5 30 29B-6 30 28

10. Respondent further states that included within the part-petitions filed by the

Petitioners' Committee were six part-petitions in which signatures were appropriately crossed

out by Circulator (and Relator) Matthew C. Johnson. [Certified copies of the six part-petitions

containing crossed out names are attached as Ex. C-1 through C-6]

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

11. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of Relators' Complaint that the

August 12 and August 24, 2011 letters from the Director and Deputy Director of the Board of

Elections indicated the sufficient number of required and valid signatures contained in the

petitions.

12. Respondent states that the staff of the Board of Elections had correctly determined

that the part-petitions which contained the incorrect circulator count were invalid under

applicable Ohio law as articulated in the May 27, 2011 directive of the Ohio Secretary of State

(copy appended hereto as Ex. D) (and were therefore not counted) and accordingly issued three

(3) letters dated August 12, 2011 (copies appended as Ex. E-1 through E-3) which confirmed that

the signatures on the valid part petitions did not meet the 888 signature requirement under the

Clayton Charter. Respondent further states that the Board of Elections prepared three reports

(certified copies appended as Ex. V-1 through V-3), which provide a detailed analysis of each of

the three petitions and show that none of which contained the required number of valid

signatures. These certified reports provide that each petition suffered from "2 [sic] Invalid Part

Petitions" and evidence the following:

Ex # Required Circulator Verified Valid

Signatures Signature Count Signature Count Signature Count

V-1 888 1045 993 881V-2 888 1044 992 877V-3 888 1044 992 864

These three certified reports also provide a final determination for each petition: "PETITION

PENDING: Required number of signatures NOT validated." (emphasis in original). To

counsel's knowledge, the Board of Elections never revised nor adjusted these reports or the

statistics contained within.

13. Respondent states that by letter dated August 15, 2011 to the Board of Elections

(copy appended as Ex. F), the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee took issue with the

Board's action and requested that the signatures on the invalid part-petitions be counted.

14. Respondent states that the Clayton Law Director responded by letter dated August 16,

2011 (copy appended as Ex. G) to the Board and provided reference to applicable decisions of

the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the invalidity of the contested part-petitions and requested

that the part-petitions continue to be rejected.

15. Respondent states that by email dated August 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM, (copy appended

as Ex. H) Asst. Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney Victor Whisman, as legal counsel for

the Board of Elections, advised that he agreed with the analysis submitted by the Clayton Law

Director and opined that the Board had "acted appropriately in rejecting the three part-petitions

in question."

16. Respondent states that by letter dated August 17, 2011 (copy appended as Ex. I) the

attorney for the Petitioners' Committee continued to seek to add the contested part-petitions to

the signature count.

17. Respondent states that later that same day, by email dated August 17, 2011 at 2:07

PM, (copy appended as Ex. J) Asst. Prosecutor Whisman, advised (a) that the "Board simply

checked the part-petitions submitted for validity and sufficiency in accordance with applicable

Ohio law"; (b) that he agreed with the Clayton Law Director "with respect to the Board's proper

rejection of the part-petitions in question"; and (c) that there was "no issue before the Board of

Elections."

18. Respondent states that notwithstanding the previous action of the Board, on August

23, 2011 at its regular meeting, the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee addressed the Board

during the time set aside for public comment and repeated his arguments for counting the

signatures on the contested part-petitions, essentially arguing that the use of the phrase "not

registered" or "not reg" was equivalent to "crossing out" a signature. Although no hearing was

conducted nor evidence or sworn testimony taken', the Board on a vote of 3-1 "moved to

reconsider those part petitions which were not counted and to count them" (Appended hereto as

Ex. K is a transcribed excerpt from the recorded Minutes of August 23, 2011 Board meeting).

19. Respondent states that notwithstanding this motion to reconsider and count the part-

petitions, the Board staff clarified to the Board members that their original determination that the

part-petitions were "invalid" was still in effect and not being modified. Betty Smith, the Deputy

Director of the Board engaged in the following exchange with Board member Dennis

Lieberman:

BSz So direction from the Board members ... you want us to go ahead and just

validate petitions or see how many signatures are on there?

DL I think all you have to do under the Charter is to give them the number ofqualified signatures.

BS And why I ask that is because of the voter registration system ... the waywe process petitions. So, your (sic) not asking us to validate the petition,you're just asking us to look at the signatures, validate those signatures

' No sworn testimony was taken to evidence that Matthew C. Johnson had "witnessed the

affixing of every signature" of all those who signed the contested part-petitions or to explain the

discrepancy. Since no formal hearing was conducted, Clayton was not given the opportunity to

cross examine or present sworn testimony in opposition thereto.

z BS is Betty Smith, the Deputy Director of the Board of Elections. DL is Dennis Lieberman, a

member of the Board of Elections.

and give a letter to the Law Director on those petitions that the circulatorcount was incorrect . .. these are the number of valid signatures that are

there?

DI, Yes, and they can determine what they want to do with that.

BS OK, thank you. (See, Copy of Excerpt appended as Ex. K).

20. Respondent states that the following day, in accordance with the directive from the

Board of Elections, the Board staff then counted the signatures on the part-petitions that had been

found to be invalid and issued a letter dated August 24, 2011 to Clayton's City Manager (copy

appended hereto as Ex. L) that listed the number of signatures verified on the six (6) part-

petitions but prefaced their finding with the words "we reviewed the submitted part-petitions that

were found invalid."

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF CLAYTON

21. Respondent states in response to the allegations in paragraph 10 of Relators'

Complaint that after review of both the August 12 and August 241etters from the Board of

Elections, the Clayton Law Director (in his capacity rather than on behalf of the City Manager)

issued a letter to the Petitioners' Committee dated September 2, 2011 (copy appended hereto as

Ex. M) stating that in light of the previous (and continuing) determination by the Board that the

submitted part petitions were invalid:

[TJhe City of Clayton does not view the collective correspondence from the Boardof Elections as constituting the necessary statement required by the Clayton CityCharter Sec. 10. 02 "indicating the number of required and valid signatures. "Nor do these letters constitute the necessary determination by the Board thatthese three Petitions are "sufficient" as required by Section 10.04.

Since this action by the Board of Elections is a condition precedent underClayton's Charter to further action by Clayton Council, the Council is unable totake the next step under the initiative process to determine under Section 10.04"whether all other requirements under Ohio law and this Charter have beenmet. " Thus Council cannot at this time provide notice to the Petitioners

Committee, nor can it specify deficiencies in the Petitions and whether thedeficiencies are capable of being cured.

22. Respondent states that after receipt of the September 2 correspondence, the attorney

for the Petitioners' Committee by letter to the Board dated September 7, 2011 (copy appended

hereto as Ex. N) requested further clarification of the Board's actions. To the best knowledge

and belief of Respondent, the Board did not respond to the request.

23. Respondent states that thereafter, the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee by letter

dated October 3, 2011 to Asst. County Prosecutor Whisman (copy appended at Ex. 0) requested

a "position statement" from the Board as to the cumulative effect of the Board's August 12 and

August 24, 2011 letters.

24. Respondent admits in response to the allegations in paragraph 11 of Relators'

Complaint that Victor Whisman, Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutor and attorney for the

Board of Elections sent a letter dated October 6, 2011 (Relator's Ex. 10) to the attomey for the

Petitioners' Committee with a copy to the Clayton Law Director but denies that the letter was

identified by Mr. Whisman as a "position statement."

25. Respondent states that in light of the content of Mr. Whisman's letter, and out of an

abundance of caution and desire to fully comply with its Charter, Clayton Council determined to

formally address the issue at its next regularly scheduled meeting on October 20 in accordance

with Clayton Charter Sec. 10.04(A) and by letter dated October 11, 2011 (copy appended hereto

as Ex. P) notified the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee of its intended action.

ENACTMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. R-10-11-48 AND NOTIFICATIONTO RELATORS TO CURE DEFICIENCIES


Complaint that the Clayton City Council reviewed the petitions during its Council meeting on

October 20, 2011 and adopted Resolution No. R-10-11-48 (copy appended hereto as Ex. Q)

which summarized the factual events involved in the matter and determined in accordance with

Charter Section 10.04(A)(1) that there still existed "deficiencies" in the petitions. In accordance

with the Clayton Charter, the Resolution notified the Petitioners' Committee that it had fourteen

(4) days in which to cure the deficiencies.

27. Respondent states that included in the Resolution was the following statement at p. 5:

Deficiency No. 2 - Regardless of whether the signatures on the petitions weredeemed to be "sufficient", none of the three (3) separate petitions have beendeemed to be "valid by the Montgomery County Board ofBlections as requiredby RC 3501.11(K) which requires the Board of Elections to "review, examine andcertify the sufficiency and validity of petitions ...."

Petitioners' Committee has fourteen (14) days in which to propose cures to thestated deficiency which may include (a) obtaining confirmation fromtheMontff_omery County Board of Elections that they have certified "the suffilciencyand validity of the petitions"; or (b) other cures to be submitted for review.

(emphasis supplied)

28. Respondent states that a copy of the enacted Resolution was served by fax and regular

mail on the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee by letter dated October 21, 2011. (Copy of

letter w/o attachment appended hereto as Ex. R).

29. Respondent states that in addition to service upon the Petitioners' Committee, a copy

of the Resolution was also served upon Betty Smith, Deputy Director of the Board of Elections

by letter dated October 21, 2011. (Copy of letter without attachment appended hereto as Ex. S).

30. Respondent states that the letter to Ms. Smith included a specific request that in the

event the Petitioners' Committee brought the matter back to the Board for further action, that the

matter be scheduled for formal hearing with the opportunity to introduce evidence before the

Board.

10

RESPONSE OF RELATORS TO NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES


Complaint that by letter dated October 26, 2011 (copy appended as Ex. T), the attorney for the

Petitioners' committee provided a response to Clayton Resolution No. R- 10-11-48 that purported

to respond to the deficiencies in the Petition set forth therein.

32. Respondent states that in his October 26, 2011 letter the attorney for the Petitioners'

Committee purported to respond to Deficiency No. 2 (the validity of the part-petitions) by stating

as follows:

Deficiency No. 2, being an allegation that none of the three initiative petitionshave been deemed valid by the Montgomery County Board of Elections asrequired by R. C. 3501.11(K)

A) This alleged deficiency is not genuine because the Montgomery County Boardof Elections has deemed all three initiative petitions to be sufficient, pursuant toR. C. 3501.11(K).

B) This alleged deficiency, if genuine, is not capable of being cured by thePetitioners' Committee. Any ambiguity perceived by the Clayton City Councilcould easily be clarified by the Clayton City Council submitting a request to the

Board ofElections. Nevertheless , counsel for the Petitioners' Committee hasrequested the Board of Elections to re-affirm its validation o(sufriciency of the

three petitions. The next Board meetinP is scheduled for November 7r .

(emphasis supplied)

FAILURE OF RELATORS TO CURE DEFICIENCIES

33. Respondent states that a regular meeting of the Montgomery County Board of

Elections was held on November 7, 2011 and attended by representatives of the City of Clayton,

including its Law Director, and Relator Matthew C. Johnson. The attorney for the Petitioners'

Committee did not attend.

34. Respondent states that prior to the meeting, its Law Director had confirmed with

Deputy Director Betty Smith that nothing had been filed with the Board by the Petitioners'

11

Committee or its attorney notwithstanding the representation in the October 26, 2011 letter (Ex.

T) that a request had been made to the Board to "re-affirm its validation of sufficiency."

35. Respondent states that during the November 7, 2011 meeting, Relator Matthew C.

Johnson was given an opportunity to speak but declined. No request for action by the Board was

made by the Petitioners' Committee.

36. Respondent states that although Clayton Council through its Resolution No. R-10-11-

48 had notified Petitioners' Committee of the listed deficiencies and suggested at least one

method to "cure" the stated deficiency, the Petitioners' Committee elected to do nothing and

sought no further action or confirmation of the validity of the petitions from the Board of

Elections.

DETERMINATIONBY CITY OF CLAYTONTO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON PETITIONS

37. Respondent states in response to the allegations in paragraph 14 of Relators' Complaint that

since the Petitioners' Committee and its attomey failed to file any request with the Board of

Elections to "re-affirm" its determination as to the validity and sufficiency of the petitions and in

light of the failure of Relator Matthew C. Johnson to make any statement at the November 7,

2011 meeting of the Board of Elections, the Clayton Law Director by letter dated November 7,

2011 (copy appended as Ex. U) advised the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee that it

deemed the position of the Board of Elections to be unchanged and that there has been no

certification by the Board of the "validity" of the three (3) petitions in accordance with R.C.

3501(K).

38. Respondent further states that it advised the Petitioners' Committee in the November

7, 2011 letter that since that lack of certification of validity constituted a deficiency that had not

been cured within the fourteen (14) day period required under Clayton Charter Section 10.04,

2

Clayton Council was not able to acknowledge the substantive validity of the initiative petition

and therefore would take no further action.

39. Respondent further states that it denies the remaining allegations set forth in

paragraph 14 of Relators' Complaint including the assertion that Clayton Council acted in bad

faith.

40. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 15 and states that Relators had a plain

and adequate remedy to cure the deficiency available to it, by seeking certification of the validity

of the petitions with the Montgomery County Board of Elections but (apparently concluding that

the Board of Elections would not change its position or rule that the contested petitions were

valid) elected to forego making any such request.

41. Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of Relators' Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FAILURE OF PETITIONERS COMMITTEE TOCOMPLY WITH OHIO ELECTION LAW

42. Respondent states that the Petitions submitted by the Relators failed to comply with

applicable Ohio election laws and thus makes Relators' Complaint subject to the affirmative

defense of illegality.

EXISTENCE OF AND FAILURE TO UTILIZE AVAILABLEAND ADEOUATE REMEDIES AT LAW

43. Respondent states that Relators had an adequate remedy available to them to confirm

that their petitions were valid under Ohio election law but failed to utilize such remedy.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Council of the City of Clayton, Ohio request that Relators'

Complaint in Mandamus be dismissed, for its costs herein and an award of attotney fees against

Relators.

13

Resizectfu.llv submitted

Robert E. Portune (001809

Counsel ofRecord

Micah Siegal (0085347)

Walter C. Herin 111 (0088378)

Gottschlich & Portune, LLP

201 East Sixth Street

Dayton, OH 45402

937-824-2811 (phone)

937-824-2818 (fax)

[email protected]

Attorneys for Respondent, Clayton City Council

14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, ex rel.,MATTHEW C. JOHNSON, et al.,

Relators,

V.

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCLAYTON, OHIO, et al.,

Respondents.

ORIGINAL ACTION IN MANDAMUS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER OF RESPONDENT,

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO

STATE OF OHIOSS:

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

The undersigned Affiant, Robert E. Portune, having been duly cautioned and sworn, herebystates and deposes as follows:

I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of Ohio and am in good standing withthis Court. At all times relevant herein, I have held the appointed position of Law Director of theCity of Clayton, Ohio. I have personal knowledge of the facts and allegations asserted inRespondent, Council of the City of Clayton, Ohio's Answer. All of the facts and allegations setforth therein are accurate to my best knowledge and belief, and the exhibits are true and accuratecopies of the documents they purport to be.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Robert E. Portune

Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, personally appeared the abovelisted affiant who being first duly sworn subscribed the aboveAfidavit in my pree this 30thday of November, 2011.

15 Micah M. SiegalNOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF OHIO

MONTGOMERY COUNTYMy commission never expires

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This shall certify that a true copy of the foregoing was served by hand delivery upon thefollowing counsel this ls` day of December, 2011:

Stephen E. Klein, Esq.

Klein, Tomb & Collins, LLP

240 Bohanon Drive

Vandalia, OH 45377

937-339-3939

937-890-6791 (fax)

klein(crktc-law.com

Attorney for Relators, Matthew C. Johnson, e al.

Victor T. Whisman, Esq.Asst. Mont. Co. Prosecutor5`h FloorDayton-Montgomery County Courts Bldg.301 West'Tkrird StreetDayton, OH 45422Attomey for Respondents, Montgomery County Board of Elections

16

RESPONDENT COUNCIL OF CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit Description

A. Clayton City Charter - Article X

B-1 through B-6. Certified copies of Part-petitions containing inaccurate Circulator

Statements

C-1 through C-6 Certified copies of Part-petitions containing "crossed out" names that were

circulated by Relator Matt Johnson

D. Ohio Secretary of State Directive 2011-17 (May 27, 2011)

E-1 through E-3. Montgomery County Board of Election Letters dated August 12, 2011

F. Letter from Attorney for Petitioners' Committee dated August 15, 2011

G. Letter from Clayton Law Director dated August 16, 2011.

H.

J.

E'mail from Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutor dated August 17, 2011

at 9:12 AM.

Letter from Attorney for Petitioners' Committee dated August 17, 2011

E'mail from Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutor dated August 17, 2011

at 2:07 PM.

K. Certified Copy of Excerpt from Minutes of August 23, 2011 Meeting of

Montgomery County Board of Elections.

L.

M.

N.

Letter from Montgomery County Board of Elections dated August 24,

2011

Letter from Clayton Law Director dated September 2, 2011.

Letter from Attorney for Petitioners' Committee to Board of Elections

dated September 7, 2011.

O. Letter from Attorney for Petitioners' Committee to Asst. County

Prosecutor dated October 3, 2011.

P.

Q•

R.

S.

Letter from Clayton Law Director dated October 11, 2011 to attorney for

Petitioners' Committee.

Clayton Resolution No. R-10-1 1-48

Letter from Clayton Law Director dated October 21, 2011 to attorney for


Letter from Clayton Law Director dated October 21, 2011 to Deputy

Director of Board of Elections.

Letter from Attorney for Petitioners' Committee dated October 26, 2011.

Letter from Clayton Law Director dated November 7, 2011 to attomey for


V-1 through V-3. Certified copies of reports prepared by Montgomery County Board of

Elections

2

INITIATIVE, REFEREtd®tJld AND RECALL

10.01 General Authority; Initiative And Referendum

Ordinances (but not resolutions or other enactments) shall be subject to referendum and initiative as

provided by the Constitution, the laws of Ohio and this Charter, provided however, that the Charter prevails as

to issues directly addressed within the Charter. The Constitution and the laws of Ohio shall not be construed

to add to or subtract from such Charter provisions.

10.02 Commencement Of Proceedings; Petitioners' Committee

No less than three nor more than five electors, may form a Petitioner's Committee, and may

commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing a proposed ordinance or the referred ordinance with

the City directed to the Law Director. After such filing, the City, through its Manager, shall provide the appropriate

petition forms to Petitioner's Committee. The Petitioners shall obtain the appropriate number of valid signatures

for the petition. An initiative petition must contain the signatures of not less than fifteen percent of the

number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the office of governor in the municipal

corporation. A referendum petition must contain the signatures of not less than ten percent of the number of

electors who voted at the last General election held for the office of governor in the municipal corporation.

After obtaining the signatures of the required number of electors proposing or requesting repeal of an

ordinance, the initiative or referendum petition shall be filed with the County Board of Elections and a copy

of such petition shall be filed by the Petitioners' Committee with the office of the City Manager and forwarded

to the Law Director. A referendum petition must be filed with the County Board of Elections within thirty

days after passage of the ordinance to be reconsidered. Once an initiative or referendum petition is filed as

provided herein, signatures supporting the petition may not be withdrawn. The Board of Elections shall be

requested to transmit the petition with a statement indicating the number of required and valid signatures to

the City, attention City Manager. The City Manager shall notify the Petitioners' Committee upon receipt of the

statement from the board of elections.

10.03 Referendum Petitions; Suspension Of Effect Of Ordinance

When a referendum petition is filed with the Board of Elections, the ordinance sought to be

reconsidered shall be suspended from taking effect. Such suspension shall terminate when:

(A) There is a final determination of insufficiency of the petition by the Board of Elections;

(B) The Petitioners' Committee withdraws the petition;

(C) Council repeals the ordinance; or

(D) Five days have elapsed after the Board of Elections certifies the results of the.official vote

on the question.

28

10.04 Action On Petitions; Initiative And Referendum

(A) Action by Council

(1) When an initiative or referendum petition has been finally determined to be sufficient by

the Board of Elections, Council shall promptly determine whether all other requirements under

Ohio law and this Charter have been met. If these other requirements have not been met,

Council shall notify the Petitioners' Committee within twenty one days specifying the deficiencies,

which deficiencies, if capable of being cured, must be cured by the Petitioners' Committee

within fourteen days thereafter. Upon determination by Council that the deficiencies were both

capable of being cured and have been cured, Council shall acknowledge the substantive validity

of the initiative or referendum petition by filing such an acknowledgement with the Board of

Elections within twenty one days after the City's receipt of evidence that such defects have been

cured and, thereafter, Councit shall take such action as is necessary to enable the Initiative or

Referendum to be submitted to the Electors in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and

Laws of Ohio.

(2) Council, at any time, may consider the proposed initiative ordinance or may reconsider the

referred ordinance by voting its repeal. If Council passes the proposed ordinance without any

changes in substance unless agreed to by a majority of the Petitioner's Committee, or repeals the

referred ordinance within twenty one days after the City's receipt of the notice from the Board

of Elections as provided in Section 10.02, the City Law Director and the Petitioner's Committee

shall file an. agreed Notice of Withdrawal with the Board of Elections.

(3) Alternatively, Council may acknowledge the substantive validity of the initiative or referen-

dum petition by filing such an acknowledgement with the Board of Elections within twenty one

days after the City's receipt and, thereafter, City Council shall take such action as is necessary to

enable the Initiative or Referendum to be submitted to the Electors in the manner prescribed by

the Constitution and Laws of Ohio.

(4) A Notice of Withdrawal or an Acknowledgement of Validity may be approved by Council via

a resolution.

(B) Submission to Electors.

The vote of the electors on a proposed or referred ordinance shall be held at the next regular

municipal election to be held not less than seventy-five days and not later than one year from

the date Council failed to pass or repeal the ordinance. If no regular municipal election is to be

held within the period prescribed in this subsection, Council shall provide for a special election.

The special election may be held on the same day and at the same time as a general or primary

election which occurs within the prescribed period.

(C) Withdrawal of Petitions

An initiative or referendum petition may be withdrawn at any time prior to the fifth day preceding

the day scheduled for th.e election by filing with the Board of Elections a request for withdrawal

signed by a majority of the members of the Petitioners' Committee. Upon the filing of such

request, the petition shall have no further force or effect, and all proceedings thereon shall be

terminated and any election held thereon deemed to be void and of no effect.

°i0e05 General Provisions

(A) Notice to Electors

Electors of the City shall receive notice of an Initiative or Ref'erendum election by publishing

and posting in accord with this Charter.

(B) Council Action Contrary to Initiative and Referendum

(1) Council shall not utilize an emergency ordinance to:

(a) Repeal or amend an ordinance enacted by initiative; or

(b) Re-enact an ordinance which has been repealed by referendum.

(2) Council may utilize a non-emergency ordinance to:

(a) Repeal or amend an ordinance enacted by initiative, if approved by the affirmative vote of

five or more members of Council; and

(b) Re-enact an ordinance which has been repealed by referendum, if approved by the affirmative

vote of five or more members of Council.

(C) If the County Board of Elections shall fail or refuse to perform any function it is requested to

perform under this Article X, the Clerk of Council shall so perform to the extent permitted

under law.

10®06 Conduct Of Elections; Initiative And Referendum

Elections on ordinances referred to the electors under the initiative and referendum procedures set

forth in this Charter shall be conducted by the election authorities and officers of the county or counties in

whieh the City is located under the provisions of this Charter as far as they are applicable. Where the Charter

is silent concerning the conduct of the elections on matters subject to the initiative or referendum, the

provisions of the Ohio Election laws shall be followed.

30

10.07 Recall

(A) The electors shall have the power to remove from office by a recall election any Council

Member or the Mayor.

(B) If the elected official shall have served at least nine months of the term during which recall is

sought and has not been subject to a recall election during that term, a petition demanding the

election of a successor to the person sought to be removed may be filed with the Board of

Elections. Said pefition may be circulated in separate parts, but the separate parts shall be filed

together as one instrument. Each part shall contain the name and office of the person whose

removal is being sought and a statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds

upon which removal is sought. Such petition for the proposed removal of a person serving at

large shall be signed by the number of electors which equals at least twenty-five percent of

the total number of electors who voted at the last regular municipal election in the municipal

corporation. Such petition for the proposed removal of a Council Member serving in a ward

position shall be signed by the number of electors which equals at least twenty-five percent

of the total number of electors in that ward who voted at the last regular municipal election.

Where not in conflict with this Charter, the form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition

shall be determined as provided in the general election laws.

(C) Upon filing, the Board of Elections shall determine the validity of'the petition on its face

and shall within ten days forward the petition to the Clerk of Council along with a statement

indicating the number of valid signatures needed and the number of valid signatures contained

therein. If the number of signatures is found to be sufficient, the Clerk shall promptly so certify

to Council and shall deliver a copy of such certificate to the officer whose removal is sought

making record of such delivery. The Clerk shall also send written notice to the person(s) who

filed the petition.

(D) If such officer shall resign within five days after the day on which such delivery shall have been

made, the officer shall be replaced in accordance with the provisions of vacancy in this charter.

(E) If sueh officer shall not resign within five days after the day on which such delivery shall have

been made, Council shall thereupon fix a day for holding a recall election, not less than sixty

nor more than seventy-five days after date of such delivery. If the proposed removal is on a

Council Member serving a ward, the election shall be held only in that ward. The election

authorities shall publish notice and make all arrangements for holding such election, which

shall be conducted and the result thereof returned and declared in all respects as are the results

of regular municipal elections. A recall ele,ction may be held concurrently with the primary or

general election or may be held as a special election as provided by law.

31

(F) The nomination of candidates to succeed each officer sought to be removed shall be made, by

filing with the Board of Elections, at least forty-five days prior to the recall election, a nonpartisan

nominating petition proposing a person for each said office, signed by not less than. fifty electors

of the municipality. Such candidate shall meet the qualifications for nomination of candidates

contained in this charter. In the case of a candidate seeking to succeed an officer serving from a

ward, the candidate must be an elector from that ward and shall file a petition signed by not less

than fifty electors of said ward.

(G) The ballots at such recall election shall, with respect to each person whose removal is sought,

submit the question: "Shall (name of person) be removed from the office of (name of office) by

recall?"; "For the removal by recall of (name of person)."; "Against the removal by recall of

(name of person)." Under each such question shall be placed the names of candidates to fill the

vacancy. The name of the officer whose removal is sought shall not appear on the ballot as a

candidate to succeed the officer's self or to succeed another officer being simultaneously

recalled. In any such election, if a majority of the votes cast on the question of removal are

affirmative, the person whose removal is sought shall be removed upon the announcement of

the official canvass of that election, and the candidate receiving the plurality of the votes cast

for candidates for that office shall be declared elected. The successor of any person so removed

shall hold office during the unexpired term of the successor's predecessor. If a majority of the

votes cast on the question of removal are negative or in the event of a tie vote, the person whose

removal is sought shall continue in their office and may not be subject to another recall during

the balance of the term during which recall was sought.

(H) Council is prohibited from appointing a person who is successfully recalled to a seat on Council

for a period of three years from the date of the recall election. A person who is successfully

recalled may not serve in an elective municipal office for a period of two years from the date of

the recall election.

(I) The method of removal provided in this section is in addition to such other methods as are

provided by this Charter and by law.

ARTIGLLE XI :PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AND MERIT SYSTEM

11.01 Merit System

(A) All appointments and promotions in the classified service of the City shall be solely on the basis

of merit and fitness, demonstrated, wherever practical, by open written competitive examinations

and/or other evidence of competence with respect to the duties of the position.

32

INITIATIVE PETITION(CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO)

Clayton Charter Article X; Revised Code 731.28-.41, 3501.38, 3503.06

NOTE: Prior to circulation of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance, a copy of such ordinance

must be filed with the City of Clayton, directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committeetd b

comprised of not less than three no

less than fifteen percent of the nuofficeof governor in the City oelectors proposing the ordinance,Board of Elections and a copy filManager, who shall than forward

NOTICE - Whoever knowinglysigns when not a legal voter, is I

To the City Manager of the C

We, the undersigned, electors o^`for their approval or reject'ion

following Ordinance:

s of the required number ofthe Montgomery Countyoffice of the Clayton City

ose to the electors of such City,' day of November, 2011, the

The following is a full and correetcopy of the title and texfof the prapo Ordinance:

ORDINANCE NO.

ZV -AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN TUE BOUNDARY

LINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROADUp SEX-4RATING TBE CITY OF CLAYTON AND THE CITYOF ENGLEWOOD= o^'`'

Ohio Revised Code•Section709.37 provides that any two adjoiningREAS ,m tpqg^prporations may, by ordinance of their respeciive legislative authorities, agree to achEie in t^C boundary line sepamting such municipal corporations, provided such change doesnot involve'the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other, and

WBERF.AS, Bobby L. Cooper, Cynthia A. Cooper, Laveme J. Jutte and Ivfary E. Jutte,being the four voters and/or owners inhabiting the territory identifted in Exhibit °A" (appendedhereto and incorporated herein by referenoe) are requesting a change in the boundary line alongWest Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4185 W. Wenger Road and 4221 W.Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of Englewood in order to obtain

(among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and

WIiEREAS, the City of Englewood has expressed a willingness to agree to said proposed

change in the boundary line;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCLAYTON, STATE OF OHIO:

I. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along West-WengerRaad-bechanged-inaccordancewiththe proposed boundary-line-describedin Exhibit...

"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of

the City of Englewood.

y nomore than five electors. Thts petition must then be stgne.ho coted at the last r_ererat election held for the

7 rFY17r

We hereby designate the following petitioners as a committee to be regarded as filing this petition or its

circulation:

NANIE RESIDENCE

-h

ylg5 c.;-Lo;.t.^

Signatures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ink

SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCEADDRESS

CITY COUNTYD GNING

STREET AND NUMBER

^.,ti ^ i al 2

3.

4.

5. .; / ^^

^1 -^c a f^• ^

-^ B^- - ^

6'

,

z

s.^

eii

(A(_dt, n1 \

11. ..'^^ IG'^ ifJJUd£f^ GL G^'3^ ôn y ^

12.A4 - . r c .7t ^CL .GCLt G^_ l^^ 7 //

13.A J r

CJL/^^/L'vn PILRciI,)^ C G-/Cin .

ls. L°^

16.C l G v ',<',^û- ,f

17. {^CllG b tc ^l r1e l, /7 1ffr f 5/Y/i

18.° Z c vy- 6^

19.f^^ ^^ ^

J- .T^ u^. ^ 7 V 6

zo.

21. /-


CITY COUNTY DATEOFSIGNING

STREET AND NUMBER

22.'H

23.L u3 ^.3'^ - !G„r^ a ^SZ^^^ : ^GJ J"^^ ^

24.

25. , 3Â 'l

aC

26.

27.M CCU, k J<Or

k

zs.

29. 5 0/

30..-nu

lj- L , b4^ `6•La> ^ Lif

CIRCULATOR STATEMENT - Must be completed and signed by Circulator

"SQVwso., , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the

(Printed Name of Circulator)address appearing below my signature; that I am the circulator of the foregoing petition cont'aining

Z9 signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)iny knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant

to section 3501.382 of the Revised Code.

(Signatyfe of Circulator)

WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONFALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF A

I FELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE

V3%3 <ci.n,. -(Permanent resideny e address)

C,i,^ to., ,H °tssiS'

(City o Village, State and Zip Code)

0 If°

^

OG

If

U

U0

Ic0II

U

PQ


Clayton Charter Article R; Revised Code731

NOTE: Prior to circulation of amust be filed with the City ofcomprised of not less than threeless than fifteen percent of the ndoffice of governor in the City oelectors proposing the ordinanceBoard of Elections and a copy fitManager, who shall than forward

NOTICE - Whoever knowingly,signs when not a legal voter, is lia

To the City Manager of the City o

a copy of such ordinancea Petitioner's Committee

must then be signed by not

eneral election held for thethe required number of

the Montgomery Countyoffice of the Clayton City

We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8'h day of November, 2011, the


The following is a full and correct copy of the title and text of the proposed Ordinance:

Mw

wV

w

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN TI3E BOUNDARYLINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEPARATING'I'IIE CITY OF CLAYTON AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOB

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoiningmunicipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line sepamting such municipal corpomtions, provided such change doesnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other, and

WIiEREAS, Bobby L. Cooper, Cynthia A. Cooper, Laveme J. Jutte and Mary E. Jutte,being the four voters and/or owners inhabiting the territory identified in Exhibit "A" (appendedhereto and incorporated herein by reference) are requesting a cbaoge in the boundary line alongWest Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4185 W. Wenger Road and 4221 W.Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of Englewood in order to obtain


WHEREAS, the City of Englewood has expressed a willingness to agree to said proposed


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINF.D BY TfIE COUNCIi.OF TTi-IE C1TY OF

CLAYTON, STATE OF OFIIO:

'-----1. 'fhat, pursuant-toOhio RevisedCode Section 709.37, the boundary line along WestWenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundary line describediu Exhibit"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of

We hereby designate the following petitioners as a connnittee to be regarded as filing this petition or its

circulation:

NAME RESIDENCE

4 3/3 Câs-4 We.^. R.f( ta

g

4We.

^,

^^-^^'ê. ^


;:<


CITY COUNTY DATE OFSIGNING

STREET AND NDMBER

^l. S iz-!9

^^ ^,4^

^^ -^(G^ G'/^¢`^ î ;^(^lc^ZjC3 !^

î ^^6%-^'^•^

es P^

^^/ ^ e.rGU Cf" ^H, Lrwo^ i^n¢ 1 jt l I

C^^^ -'',.'° `G,...., ^6,Q5- C,v c'sco c T GNî'GEWooU ttô-/3 S l^.C^f

t E-IC^tr_ l f C¢ ^ Ya'^ ^•lZ.^

J3..a(. M r-3t-

61^^LIJkf, El^ W . e71

1

^ ^wes ^ ^ AJ^^^ IG P trH9Ufe/ Lft E nf/,-Lc=r 3ef-)^

Ffoni I S-I^-II

Ìc 31 1rn : . 2 -S^lyl-Nz&.

-fltmc TrX

Rcd)j ^, u 4'a fPooacd WoKA S H

p1lr7?,

r

SIGNATURE VOTINGRESIDENCEADDRESS


STREETANDNUMBER

2X'^^VW..3t^"L"^ ^ ! (ti1^`41`"^'" a corn e -

4'^

pC^2t wj,M1 ^^ ^J%-^^ ^^^^:^tvt _ ^^ ^ ' - c^ 3r'(_ +u f^. ^-1 ^(- II

G-.^ ^^ /Jf//.3`.^'" fîJ/ /3 .: .. !-^!

oll l "L 1

fY10 5l

w & 51i Z/

3I%2' ^^ Y^! / / l ^ ^ ^ } ^ L/..J .P'r.s Y "/ ` _ 1 /- ^

I , -,3


I, , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the

(Printed Name of Circulator)address appearing below my signature; that I am the circulator of the foregoing petition containing

z9signatttres; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of(Number)

my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant

to sectiotr 3501.382 of the Revised Code.

WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONFALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF AFELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE

^^/3!3 bJê„.. K-1(Permanent res'rflence address)

e.l, o /53S(Cit or Village, State and Zip Code)

sQ

°>' o

c4^R

«U W

z^ ^ zU

E+. .°r O . .

u

w

C..

o

x

o

^

G

u




must be filed with the City of Clayton, directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committee

comprised ofnot less than three nor more than five electors. Tkis petition must then be signed by not

less than 1"rfteen percent of th .. q•:. 1res

^y•^^ ^^^'r^ i"^` t General election held for the

office of governor in the Cit of the required number ofelectors proposing the ordin with the Montgomery County

Board of Elections and a cop. theoffice of the Clayton City

Manager, who shall than fo

NOTICE - Whoever knowingsigns when not a legal voter, is

We, the undersigned, electors ofor their approval or rejectionfollowing Ordinance:

ose to the electors of such City,' day of November, 2011, the

The following is a full and correct copy of the title and texfof the proposed Ordinance:

3 lN €i9l' 1#t P9

rR,[cnr.

.anw^'el r rr^ ._^

ier anl r=[^^:^ i-la, F.

\NuSTl"ix(,d3.

.ctp/; -^

. LRJD09JJ F,Oi;Ild

P

iClii

bur: and

c ;il^,7+y iti aat


circulation:

NAMERESIDENCE

-1313 i.3c,

RJ C 4^-

vi45sl^_6.7e.^L=,Ve_ „z S., L i

atures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ink

NV

SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE CITY COUNTYD GNIOG

ADDRESSSTREET AND NUMBER

e"`(^ ya s^ ^;. I z - ^ c X t b+ r/

2. /T^j.

3 q 501

41`-^

6.i 7-J1Nh7^

7/c,.

J* L^ 6^SbTe^pkf/w(hfPl Gln r M^ri^11^ a ^ 4.._ ,L r^5 ^ P • 'kL^ C."^ '^d ô.c 5 i/

12/

133

P ^

^14. ^ v l'i

15 wl n

16.f ^` z`^

. i .. ./

(<^ 3 /:vft.adaû^ Z17- z'o<zm^.^l,"^ ôâ_ `^.

17,^.

(^G`^Ci ^Fi4 ^ffurt^/^ Êc^,r,-u^l f2 tY>n y/

1$-;

20,i

21.

[r - ^ _. ^ ^^_^-. (^ -1 (^` `j-^c^. iti,. . ^ i_,. 1 . ir• /`^ ^^'^ _Tf^t,

SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE CITY COUNTY DATE OF'ADDRESS

STREET AND NUMBERSIGNING

2?5;1

^G/^-i1

23^

l24.,, . . , . .

6 t25i! /

am^26.,

27., 1CQ^^ ^r3a^ sk^ ^k br

\ 1 .

28.,3G^L^ ^ ^(î /Ê^( ^(f7^/~^ S 7 ^^ .

29.^^ ^,

30.

2 L,^,/t L^s


I, declare under penalty of electioti falsification that I reside at the(Printed Name of Circulator)

address appearing below my signature; thatl am the circulator of the foregoing petition containingZ9 signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signatme; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuantto section 3501.382 of the Revised Code.

WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONFALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF AFELONYOF THE FIFTH DEGREE

(Signatur,g'!of Circulator)

`/313 10, LJe"r XJ(Permanent residet ce address)

0.,, 0,^. H y 531S

(City or illage, State and Zip Code)

u ti

o

s

G

« C

ro YU •î [r]

a,

o

^

^ô

ww a^ U 0o {y ^ y

F" ,.î Q^

W ^.^'.

T

V



NOTE: Prior to circulation of anmust be fled with the City of Ccomprised of not less than threeless than fifteen percent of the noffice of governor in the City oelectors proposing the ordinanceBoard of Elections and a copy filManager, who shall than forward

NOTICE - Whoever knowingly, s

signs when not a legal voter, is lia

To the City Manager of the City o

a copy of such ordinancea Petitioner's Committeeust then besigned by noteral election held for thethe required number of

the Montgomery Countyoffice of the Clayton City

We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8"' day of November, 2011, the



ORDINANCE NO.

'AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARYLINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEPARATING TFIE CTFY OF CLAYTON AND TIIE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoining

municipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line separating such municipal corporations, provided such change does

not involve^the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other; and

WHEREAS, Matthew C. Johnson, Rebecea J. Johnson, Romie F. Daniel, ChristopherFraner and Megan Hurt, being the five voters and/or owners inhabiting the territory identified inExhibit "A" (appended hereto and. incorporated berein by reference) are requesting a change inthe boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4293 W.

Wenger Road and 4313 W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of

Englewood in order to obtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and


change in the bouudary line;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF

CLAYTON,STATE OF OH[O:

1. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along West

-- WengerRoad be-changed inaccordance with theproposedboundary linedescribedin Exhibit_"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

RESIDENCE

'I213 ^'.L1le " R4 F 1 la--

11 1i5 LV

jt9S

ÌIES(J (,^`•

\^nôn GI

e- I: ^,-, c,


SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE CITY COUNTY DATE OFSIGNING


2.

4.

^/

3

^-> ^

^^ ^^! U^y :.i'

3 [`.^/v ^

/3,' s

(i'%I /L^C^/G^:1(,(/n,,.

/ ``^T'J -/

^^1 ( C

6.^/

'' ^ 3 ^nese G{ êwoa: ^l^hh S^1z

s.3 J^ 1 6nej ea Le, Moaf^ rl2]1

9`1^ ,cJESCa

lo ^êT- ^sî^w Ma T cz it

il ^^^ ^ EsC îc^V tZ

13. L{ 6LS Wlt,((,Jdv^^

14. Î\_h^V., i^l.tJ,n ^ l.tr

azEIKLCL û r a AT 5--f%`1I

i7/.

ls. ^ ^ • ^ ^'c'^ ^

Ie,^^^20. ^21. r^^hl

SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE CITY COUNTY DATE OFSIGNINGADDRESS

_ STREET AND NUMBER

-22^l1.,,C^ ; ,^ ^^

23. c{^j,^K ... ^ .y;^^l^- c-. ^^-

^'dt^

24. ;..

25.3%D3 O7e'câ^ c7dFe fli"f ^^( !^= z L% <

26.`-`/f ^ C/ . ./ .

27^:.d

^'

@ &cvi8.^^ '^^J^ ^^rnF lz^ ^Y"-91

29.71/

30.^,; :^,a^ -^--CIRCULATOR STATEMENT - Must be completed and signed by Circulator

1, yut.^}^^„R.w a,-^M,ô- , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the


zs signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant



(Si^ture of Circulator)

'/s/J k: L 21 V4

(Permanent resldence address)

C) , ^-. e N Ì531S .(Citp or Village, State and Zip Code)

11





eomprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by notless than fifteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the

office of governor in the City of Clayton. After obtaining the signatures of the required number of

electors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery County

Board of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner'sCommittee with the office of the Clayton City

Manager, who shall than forward it to the Clayton Law Director.

(Note- the below notice must be printed in red)

NOTICE - Whoever knowingly, signs this petition more than once,signs a name other than his own, or

signs when not a legal voter, is liable to prosecution.

To the City Manager of the City of Clayton, Ohio:

We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approvalor rejection at the general election to be held on the 8°i day of November, 2011, the



^^

N

oY

w -.

Sl, € _?HrA'['0: `+^ '

IdE IS(DL]At):U::.5EIt I8(3f4.1e

0F t"'f,ArCtIM AN1 TI$F CdT'Y ilFT'!VBsd..F:'9U1)(41)

,^.^..^ ud^JCcbionru937pr<wsdayihatarvt4 1^:>ir+%_

.êt inaul,^^ lu cr<m-^trr;>.nhaua° w il^ C.itm^4:ni

nrur.iotpti ,apni:^.ti.ma

ISr',1 u.. i3r,vîtl 1 î ilip-;, Uami71rFG`> > ,t,mii.t'hi11i

4^1 = ^

^31'f^{1q

w pvnCeii

C i.-.A'=^ , iN S ^. i ! ,,7 r 111

i their rz,opccriv Ityjslauve aatr iif.s, agr ^ ta ri

pal oorp n ati n ;, prrr, r'.,.i sruh ch uge docsore !hsa hv t?-nt oi,; to flte,iLer: uud

^ N'L ftilline. E.1_rr.n= P_ Y I(jt,, 5:¢emne

tncurirUrated lt i t, k„ cr. .) a;e ; ..yîcs

,adsvdliibtitt thtc,.ir p i-alc,.,i.c ed^rûF )radr',d Snru d s, fiy ot t tlcworS,u

L aiA l 4>'fi SCI., aiShi

;Na r 1?? illt l:Ul


circulation:

rvt«}4^ - T,^^

NANIERESIDENCE

43i3 •c^.ôc ^ }^t C.^.. ^r...

4/ c .[ U„

SiQnatures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ink

SIGNATURE VOTING RESiDENCEADDRESS

CITY COUNTY^ GLTFNI^G

STREET AND NUMBER-

-

1. zrty1 --^

'-^2

2. , !C ".^3JJ ' ^'.SC^ ^lCh^r^^ - y ^^^

3. 95hc awâ.hJm C. - ^,^/ 4/90

4.scl

R£ ,2 C

6.

_ _^

3^^dtr l`dVva^

7U^^^^^trû^-S< <C,vC ^l^r^^jn3 lJ,ts r ^ ^ l3

pKS. c^

lo. t, ar^ le^^r^ PI GlaL, -bn

11.4-2^j/

12.

13.

14..G Dh G4 7J

15. `r

16. J^^/ G`

17.T

1

18.

19.

20.

21.

SIGNATURE VOTING RFSIDENCE CITY COUNTY DATE OFSIGNINGADDRESS

STREET AND NUMBER

22. N 51711123.^

a.i`^lS^^c^2r_. ^l ,-^^,,•^,A Tts e^ ^ ^^^^^f

25.26.

m5

^d

6111` ^ ^ 4

27. c ^rl ^^' y a

28.

29.

30.^â^ ^l^f^^ LmcFf _ Eh ^LG^^^ ^bt S ?

CIRCULATOR STAT'EMENT - Must be completed and signed by Circulator

h p1 t-}y,2, Sah^so^ , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the

(Printed Name of Circulator)address appea.ring below my signature; that I am the circulator of the foregoing petition containing

zy signatures; that I witnessed the affrxing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Nmnber)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of niy knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose siguature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant


WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONFALSIFICATION IS GUIL'CY OF AFELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE

(Signatu/e of Circulator

(Permanent reside ce address)

Cka.'10 Gt{ -15315(City or Village, State and Zip Code)



oroposing ordinance

mOust be filed with the tC'tyof Clayton,vdeected to the Law Director,

a by a Pet,tioner's k Committee

risedtiveore electors.

l sts pthan fifteentperce taof the number of el ctors who voted attthe last General election held for the

office of governor in the Cityof Clayton. After obtaining the signatures of the required number o

f

Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery Countyelectors proposing the ordinance, _ ^ ee_with the ofSce of the Clayton City

Board of Elections and a cop- the InitiativeManager, who shall than for

NOTICE - Whoever knowin

signs when not a legal voter,

To the City Manager of the

We, the undersigned, electors I'for their approval or reject


opose to the electors of such City,he8'n day of November, 2011, t

ORDINANCE NO. ^_--

ING TO A CIiANGE IN TIIE BOUNDABYEAN OI2DINANCE AGRE

s LINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROADCLAYTON AND THE CZTY OF ENGLEWOOD

N iirpARATBVG TEIE CITY OF

O J^7EREAS,

Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adJointng

ûniw^ corporations may, by ordmazice of their alrespective legislative authorities, agreee does

^n&^:tbe bouadary line separating such municip corporations,provided

to the other; and

p'O^'t inê thetransfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters,

m s,&liEREAS, Clarence H. PMllips, Rose M. Phillips, Clarence F. Phillips, Suzannethe territoryid Lee Phillips, being the five voters and/or owners inlrngce requesting a

d d hereto and incorpomted herein by efere) arephillips and Davìdentified in Exlubit A (appen e

change in the boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the three properties located at

4245W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into

the City of Englewood in order to

obtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and

WI3EREAS,the City of Englewood has expressed a willingness to agree to said proposed


NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF TI-IE CITY OF

CLAYTON, STATE OF OHIO:

1. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along WestWenger Road.-be changed in accordance wtththe proposed boundary line described in Exhibit

"A' appendedhereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

RESIDENCE

Rz"ê.u.a. Sn^-..•`^c•.

tures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ink

SIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE CITY COUNTY DATE UMSIGNING


.7

wn 1^tof4/

6. L

7.

1GMFl,S^^ Uwom E"t611^ S Z^^/^

9.^

\/Q^ ^!1

^^..,5'' `"'.^"`^"`" ^li$7 ^•+JLs5c v ^^Lcwâ9 ^!o T6 j rz t/

1. l^Y w^

^^

n1ou^ 5 Pfi

5=12-1L-2 Ca D^^^ tiCSCp ^r o-n dwY

1^. .1 ." .1 1 ^^/F3 'f 6^lfi^^ K^- ' Y -.

L^^-Vrl /P a s r^ f r

14. yE^-s ^ ^ P1t^:,.

16I N E,tIG C rr ieodl Naa^T

^(s ^( ârJ,bu,nr

^/i ^tuoavC (>f^ ^ ^^fL^ÎI

iH^ ^ ,

Iq//^ ^/^ i4'tY ^^^711^^^1^/t

y?C/3 _.(]-^^:

q /. J^ V ^

I97 .(p

^7/ ^^'(^^313VIJ^y ^hIA^CwPJ^ 2aC>/.^l ^ I ^ ^^

207

21.


STREET AND NUMBER


22

v^ ^-i^^•' >r ^) ^, ^9'l)A.^

23i S Y L l C?o()

/

v24J.^

^^ /^ ^^fJ M /^ 1..^^^î}-• ^°^^/^l./ .^."Z^-^^. .

26'5 /10/

N: 16t~ - rCillA^ _ ^1l

?^

2% il 71 =

3y7 z> / l ^/^


I, declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the


Z signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my Irnowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant

to section3501.382 of the Revised Code.

WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONy?/3 o. t , e

FALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF A (Permanent resi nce address)FELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE

ej., . YS31S(Ci or Village, State and Zip Code)



NOTE: Prior to circulation of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance, a copy of such ordinancemust be filed with the City of Clayton, directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committeecomprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by notless than fifteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for theoffice of governor in the City of Clayton. After obtaining the signatures of the required number ofelectors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery CountyBoard of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the office of the Clayton City


(Note - the below notice must be printed in red)

NOTICE - Whoever knowingly, signs this petition more than once, signsa name other than his own, m•



We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8°i day of November, 2011, the



o .m. _

W = w^

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARYLBVE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEPARATING THE CITY OF CLAYTON AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

WI-IEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides tbat any two adjoiningmunicipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line separating such municipal corporations, provided such change doesnot iavolve the tcansfer of territory inhabited by mon: than five voters, fmm one to the other, and

WHEREAS, Bobby L. Cooper, Cynthia A. Cooper, Laveme J. Jutte and Mary E. Jutte,being the four voteis andlor owners inhabiting the tenitory identified in Exhibit "A" (appendedhereto and incorporated herein by reference) are requesting a change in the boundary Iine alongWest Wenger Road such that the two properties tocated at 4185 W. Wenger Road and 4221 W.Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of Evglewood in order to obtain(among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and

V3IIEREAS, the City of Englewood has expressed a willingoess to agree to said proposedchange in the boundary line;

NOW, TIIF,REF'ORE; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCLAYTON, STATE OF OHIOc

1. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along WestWenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundary line described in Exhibit"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinauce ofthe City of Englewood.

We hereby designate the following petitioners as a committee to be regarded as filing this petition o

circulation:

NAME RESIDENCE

ma ^

Reb Jo

^-avÎne" 3u_tt-z

3t3 e o(4

isl w.

`ligs t,^. w ^

mar Jvxt^. ^{185 ^. Zd. ton oN


s



STREET AND NUMBER

1. ^ - f

2.- o'i^qP . F 2s ro,43 U f^7an T

.^^/^^`

3. 36 /Lz7, -7 ^ -l^

4.W(2 6a^

5.52-o-7 )qj ta

6.

8.

9 / l 7,^ !

12

^^13 .^_ ('j A ^`"7^;^ Si-lCî^ ^t\ •^, .Ì ?-/^-^^

14- TH

15.N<r^ ^3i•3^_c^^^," A^ve ^ `^^^ oa7 ? i^ i^

J reY,YJ

17.' ^ .^ ^1 a\ Et^^ ^r t

18.43 3 ^ ' f^ mo -r

19.

20.

2L


STREET AND NUMBER


22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

M.

29.

30.


I, S8\,r^., , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the

(Printed Name of Circulator)address appearing below mysignature; that I am the circulator of the foregoing petition containing

4%W / Cn signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to ttie best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant



'Y3/3 W. W

(Permanent resYdence address)

C1a 4S I(Ci y or Village, State and Zip Code)

2 7)

INITIATIVE PETITION(CITY OF CLAYTON, OIIIO)


NOTF: Prior to circulation of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance, a copy of such ordinance

must be filed with the City of Clayton,directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committee

comprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by notless than frfteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the


electors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be tiled with the Montgomery County

Board of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the office of the Clayton City



NOTICE -Whoever knowingly, signs this petition more than once, signs a name other than his own, or



We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8`h day of November, 2011, the



s

ar^^r=

u _.JE'W ^WY

Cw

sgdt_i

î ORDINANCENO.

AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARYLINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEPARATING THE CITY OF CI.AYTON AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjOiniiigto a

municipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislati =eod ^h agreechange does

change in the boundary line separating such munieipal corporati.ons, Pnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other, and

WI IEREAS, Bobby L. Cooper, Cynthia A. Cooper, Laverne J. Jutte and Mary E. Jutte,being the four voters and/or owners inbabiting the tercitory identified in Exhibit "A" (appendedhereto and incorporated herein by reference) are requesting a change in the boundary line alongWest Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4185 W. Wenger Road and 4221 W.Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of Englewood in order to obtain




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE'COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF


1 That, pursuant toOliro Revised Code Secn . on 709.37, thebouudary line along WestWenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundary line described in Exbibit"A" appended hereto and iacorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

N,pME RESiDENCE

Lav ^^ ^

YV\ar SJAj'2.

Cl

eia N

W.Wf

Signatures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ipk

SIGNATURE VOTIN'G RESIDENCEADDRESS

CITY COUNTY^ GMNG

STREET AND NUMBER

i. a0a }^nec^b^Kfl^ ^yfi^1 71^dt^' '^{ÎI

2 4 X.KIICt oNLfIQsI QÔG 4v+,C-` 62eriK A4 9A%70n, rv J ? e2 i

3.

4.

s.6.

7. y 7-1

8

9^10.

1.

12.

13. , . . ^ ' .

14.t i; l ^ i±n ^ 7 13^f

11s' a yr I Z t ^/1

16.

P17.

C n 1x4 7 13"11

-6L.

^^^ Y/^3 /l^sS^Cc.^^FCJ ^^.Yt^LlY^3

^/^ ^7j-^)


CITY COUNTYD GNING

STREET AND NUMBER

22. "1 . 3I a^<^ .-.. ^^- J

23. (^/ ^ ^J3^% 6 ^ô ;c<^^' t^ 2^ ô&;^zz^ , /ÌE^^/ )^ 7-- /'^ ^ ^

24.

`^,-

2s. 1 ^-r^-rl

26.SOI^^ ]lrv^1 //t7dz^ /1^4

8.

,A/t 51 5^ âvi'n^ G^ct ô^ Gc f 7!/ l(

o a6ti'1 -7-lLf-ll

/


I, m 3ktiew S y, s , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the


29 siguatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of




(Siknatureof Circulator)

yaia T^(Permanent resi nce address)

H H5315(Citaor Vlllage, State and Zip Code)

/U

INITIATIVEPETITION(CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO)


of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance, a copy of such ordinanctili onarcuNOTE: Prior to cmust be filed with the City of Clayton, directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committee

comprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by notless than fifteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the


electors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery CountyBoard of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the office of the Clayton City



NOTICE - Whoever knowingly, signs this petition more than once, signs a name other than his own, or



We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,

for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8'" day of November, 2011, the


The following is a full and cotxect copy of the-title and text of the proposed Ordinance:

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARYLINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEPARATING THE CITY OF CLAYTON AND TIIE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoiningmunicipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line separating such municipal corporations, provided such change doesnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other; and

WIIEREAS, Matthew C. Johnson, Rebecca J. Johnson, Romie F. Daniel, CbristopherFraner and Megan Hurt, being the five voters and/or owners inhabiting the territory identified inExhibit "A" (appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference) are re9uesting a change inthe boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4293 W.Wenger Road and 4313 W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorpomted into the City ofEnglewood in order to obtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and


change in the boandary line;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE ff ORDAINED BY THE COUTICIL OF THE CTFY OF


-- 1. That,pmsnant to-0hioRevised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along WestWenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundary line described in Exhibif"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

NAME RESIDENCE

Joh o i^.uu 1. C tn aN

f 5c7Y^(1at 4313 11J. U ^[{• C( ^b bN

St^-F-F CI185 W. C ti^ OFf

rYbs S^+e. ÌrS5l ^. er ^d . tv o t

Sianatures on this petition must be from only the City of Clayton and must be written in ink



STREET AND NUMBER

1. nt' '6 5

-1`f

2• ?/^/^t 5. JQ Sâ 3i/yX r a11

n

'la/I^

'J

-^7'

,^.5. 7fid r^6.

7

s.7N /

19•

lo^

12.'

'

^.

,^ ^ ^^^ S^^F^''-^NC,T _ ti^p;,^'. •-I ^^. ^tlr `

14.y . -71,t ict ^

15ry^ U^D 3/

dV^ J^JJ ô^.r14 %tv^

16.

1t aa ( uk ^v^ C1 ^^r YV^ ^^ ( I

ls.y3/30 er tt^ (^'10^1t 7/aG r^

19.

20.

21.


STREET AND NUMBER

CPCY COUNTY DATE OFSIGNING

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.


I declare under penalty of election falsification thafI reside at the


1 la signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of my knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purporCs to be or of an attorney-in=fact acting pursuant



z

0

nlf-^(Sigu ureofCirculator

(City r Village, State and Zip Code)

(Permahent residbfice address)

CIa 55





comprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by notless than fifteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the


electors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery County

Board of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the office of the Clayton City






We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Oliio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8`" day of November, 2011, the



> ^- `;; ORDINANCE NO.'U u

Lii^'^ AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARYN OF WEST WENGER ROADLINE ALONG A PORTIO

^kARATING THE CTTY OF CLAYTON AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

municipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line separating such municipal corpomtions, provided such change doesnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other; and

WHEREAS, Matthew C. Johnson, Rebecca J. Johnson, Romie F. Daniel, ChristopherFraner and Megan Hurt, being the five voters andlor owners inhabiting the territory identified inExhibit °A" (appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference) ace requesting a change inthe boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the two properties located at 4293 W.Wenger Road and 4313 W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated int.o the City ofEnglewood in order to obtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and



0WI3EREAS Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoining

NOW, TBEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CLAYTON, STATE OF OI-BO:

- -1. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Secfion 709.37, the boundary line along West

Wenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundaryline describedin ExhibitÀ" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

NAME RESIDENCE

Wl S^k., `/ I G5. W 2 G l N

b - k„s l3 W 64 C oNL <r. ^^ Fê LJC C

ma s,,^Fc t w 9^l c.Ia 1^,, t


SIGNATURE VOTINGRESIDENCEADDRESS


STREET AND NUMBER

00 fk,t^.L.E1zvk r7l I,;L/ ir2.

F6.C. -/yuc Y$^r'cC d^-G" ^// ^ 7rh ôrc^ ^ G2^3

3.

4.Z-a^d

5. ^y--

G^--• ^^. c, U ^" .,, ^l f^r/

L` l^

6.

7.

7.-/ Z-

1f9., IG ^' ^ ^/ê¢, rocK - f2 3YIC+'Jf -7 /^!

lo.-7 -

11. ^^ PJJ 2'^^ Y7^ N Le,r ,_1 P'1_â ^`f3X^

'

y

7 ^^L (-( 5 ( C

13.^qL; 5-))11-1 /I11^ 12:^"/^FCj v1^('

14.L t n > w'^:^f^'

15. . °. .^

S 1 vsH ti ,

. ,P

en JE U'D0d^ hlon ^ 7 l3 ^ 1(16.

^

/

17.i^ ):64 7/3-1/

20.

21.I ^^ - , YF^"' ^3 i /L'( 6^ ^ ^3 ^^

- ld'k e.l0.yA, , res:c kSIGNATURE VOTING RESIDENCE



23.

24.

25. 1 l

26. -^J ^^^ 3^l!!^^( ^ ^} ^^ lJ ^ 7- ^ ° ^

27. rIlt12S

ZA^d>I7L

29.

30. lÎ,\ Itio,^ i 7- lq-U

/


I, Vt'l'k}tizw 70V.nse , declare under penalty of election falsification that 1 reside at the

(Printed Name of Circulator)address appearing below my signature; that I am the circulator of the foregoing petition eontaining

29 signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all sigiers were to the best of



^^ WHOEVER COMMITS ELECTIONFALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF AFELONY OF THE FIFTH DEGREE

,s „^rea,^,R^,(Si atureofCirculator)

_y313 W W eê R^(Permanent residence address)

F' l ê nN H5315(City or Village, State atid Zip Code)

U





comprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by not

less than fifteen percent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the


electors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with theMontgomery County

Board of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the officeof the Clayton City



NOTICE -Whoever knowingly, signs this petition more than once, signs a name other than his own, or

signs when not a ^legal voter, is liable to prosecution.


We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8`h day of November, 2011, the



OY

ORDINANCE NO.t c^

.â <pN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARY^"-- LINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD33.

SEP^2ATING THE CITY OF CLAYTON AND THE CTTY OF ENGLEWOOD

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoiningmmucipal corporations may, by ordinance of their respeetive legislative authorities, agree to acliange in the boundary line separating such municipal corporations, provided such change doesnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other; and

WHEREAS, Clarence H. Phillips, Rose M. Phillips, Clarence F. Phillips, SuzannePhillips and David Lee Phillips, being the five voters and/or owners inhabiting the territoryidentified in Exhibit "A" (appended hereto and incorpomted herein by reference) are requesting achange in the boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the three properties located at4245 W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporeted into the City of Englewood in order to

obtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY 1ttr. COUNCIL OF TFIE CiTY OF

CLAYTON, STATE OF OIIIO:

- 1. That, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37, the boundary line along WestWenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed bouudary line described in Exhibit"A" appended hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

SIGNATURE VOT pDDRE DENCE CITY COUNTY DATEGNING

STREET AND NUMBER

2.î^y 3,^.SSl .SKdqn't.fJ 3x ^ l^sL rr/frYr' '7-l^_/r ,.

,3.

4.

5.

6.„ ar^n

7.

8. p^ YI t^rCe ^4^

! tr^ { 7-%^ 3

9.

10.

•e /. .

13.

14. .^ ^ ^

15^

^ ^ o;^^'1e a! S 3^^^^=.^, 3^ ^,^3

z aâ ,j n) on/ I 7-/ R -/rr

16. -

17.

18. 7 a6 r

1v.

zo.

zt.


STREET AND NUMDER

CITY COUNTVSIGNI NG

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.


I. declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the


u, signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sigu; and that every signature is to the best of iny knowledge andbelief the signahire of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant



0i7

c(^ gnatare of

^Circulator)

Y313 cJ. t.J e")(Permanent resi euce address)

Ct ^.w p^{ yS31S

(Cit or Village, Sta€e and Zip Code)

V



NOTE: Prior to circulation of an initiative petition proposing an ordinance, a copy of such ordinancemust be filed with the City of Clayton, directed to the Law Director, by a Petitioner's Committee

comprised of not less than three nor more than five electors. This petition must then be signed by not

less than fifteen pet'cent of the number of electors who voted at the last General election held for theoffice of governor in the City of Clayton. After obtaining the signatures of the required number ofelectors proposing the ordinance, the Initiative Petition shall be filed with the Montgomery CountyBoard of Elections and a copy filed by the Petitioner's Committee with the office of the Clayton City

Manager, who shall than forward it to the Clayton Law Director. <





We, the undersigned, electors of the City of Clayton, Ohio, respectfully propose to the electors of such City,for their approval or rejection at the general election to be held on the 8`h day of November, 2011, thefollowing Ordinance:

a es

^ orC+J ^r-

S w_.

ORDINANCE NO.

"c ¢ ^,:AN ORDINANCE AGREEING TO A CBANGE IN THE BOUNDARYe e°^ z LINE ALONG A PORTION OF WEST WENGER ROAD

SEIIJRATING THE CITY OF CLAYTON AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

WHEREAS, Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 provides that any two adjoiningmunicipal corpomtions may, by ordinance of their respective legislative authorities, agree to achange in the boundary line separating such municipal corporations, provided such change doesnot involve the transfer of territory inhabited by more than five voters, from one to the other; and

WHEREAS, Clarence H. Phillips, Rose M. Phillips; Clarence F. Phillips, SuzannePhillips and David Lee Phillips, being the five voters and/or owners inhabiting the territoryidentified in Exhibit "A" (appended hereto and incorpomted herein by reference) are requesting achange in the boundary line along West Wenger Road such that the three properties located at4245 W. Wenger Road be encompassed and incorporated into the City of Englewood in order toobtain (among other benefits) municipal water and sewer services; and



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF


---1-That,-pursuant-toOhioRevised Code Section 709.37, theboundary line along West .. .... ..Wenger Road be changed in accordance with the proposed boundary line described in Exbibit"A" appended hereto and incorpomted herein by reference, subject to approval by ordinance of



circulation:

NAME RESIDENCE

a.k^+cw So^n^c-,Y3 ^3 W. We.. U^ C' r^t-- 6{'

6 ccA ^S .^so^. ^13 W . w eV. ^ C.lo. l^

^K J f JJ \CC'" ^1 CJ. W C VN C'\a MIA

P'Arnr Ju^' Z q l 5t•^.W Cla. ^^


0


CITY COUNTYD GTS NG

STREET AND NUMBER

^^^( L( ^7^^^ r? ^Ct /^Gl^"^!IC7 l^r^^C 1>Cit^^v l- ^}/Z Y^ 2^ 1217 /

2^"''T 71e2/11'

^ ^^

^ ^14c vc^7 ^rl ?'a^^^q^ '

r

zso6.

l G^'/^z^^^^^J Z^z

k50 hc^ Z^ ^ 7,t2 tt

X,j .f^•^ ^-^^ ^/

L:7^-^^^^ 13- 1+ r r

%Jz{>z. /1 >,ta.

J kA ' , ^ Pib3'p r ) ^ ^ ( ^

14 ^ ^ 12^ t^c ^< cd aC^ ^c -13-/

^^/.^ Gy3an^s^<<s^ ^^S^cwan ,^wf ^^3 ^,

194 . /'^t L /_^wû•S/2Lr^C' ( ' '^ /^L.l^^ l (^

20. ^ ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3 /^

^ C^^^" ' ^. ^^^6

. ^^^3^^/^

^ }.lok rn C(ay,c^ re5^..:^


CITY COUNTYSIGNINOG

S'fREETANDNUMBER

22.

23.

24.

IV410 ^ tî 3 i(

^`/^ X ^Ctq ^^ ^F l y

28.- ^ r,29.

30. J^ u^ 5 i 5 a S aul n cr. uc Y-b1n (N1 nV i. 7 t ^( l i


1, W1 kkb. .1 , declare under penalty of election falsification that I reside at the


'4 q signatures; that I witnessed the affixing of every signature; the all signers were to the best of

(Number)my knowledge and belief qualified to sign; and that every signature is to the best of niy knowledge andbelief the signature of the person whose signature it purports to be or of an attorney-in-fact acting pursuant



(Signa ure of Circulator)

<13/3 W. w.^(Per=nanent residdnce address)

t t „ 01-I `^5315(Ci or Village, State e and Zip Code)

Ili

^

li^l

ba.°:

III 0

U

III

III

U

L'

^

z iiO

^po ^

v

JON HUSTEDOHIO SECRETARY OF STATE

i BZ) EAST BROAD STfiE6T, 161'ki FLOOnCOLIiMOUS'.ONIO 43215 USATt:C (877)767-6446 FA7c: (6i4) 644-0649tvww.sos.sr.rre. oH. ua

LyIRI'sCTIVE 2011-17May 27. 2011

TO: COUNTY BOARDS OF ELI3CTIONSM<rMT3ERS, DIR)rC'1 URS, DEPUTY DiRLCTORS

RE: Instructions Regarding the lixamination and Verification of State Issue Petitions

SU-NIhIA12Y:

'1'his Directive provides County t3ourds of I3lections with specilic instructions oo examining andvalidating statewide initiative, refcrendum, and constitutional amendment petitions consistentwith R.C. 3501.11(K)_

INSTRIICTIOINS

t. CIRCULATORS

A. Qualifications

A circulator of an iiTitiative or referendum petition governed by state law does t)othave to be an Ohio elector or an Ohio resident. (Nader• v. 6tnrlnaell. 545 F.3d 4 59 (6 s

Cir. 2Q08))

Some convicted felons are probibited from circulating initiative or referendunipetitions. (Ohio Altorrte)l Cencrtr! Advrsc»)r Qpinion 20I0-02j. 5[ate law does notrequire a circulator to provide key data points (e.g., date of birth, social sccuritynutnber, drivers lice.nse number, etc) that constitute "satisfactory evidence" that theindividual who circulated a petition in any given county is indeed thc santc individualwho may be tisted in one crruuty's local voter registration database as cancelled dueto incarccration of a felony conviction.

When verifying petitions, boards of elections should presume that a circulator isqualified to eirculate petltions, unless there is "satisfaetory evidence" that theindividual is not qualified. Any protests against a circulator"s qualifications shouldbe made before the Ohio Sttpreme Court as described in Section Vil below.

B. Circulator's Statentent

Eiach parr-petition must contain a circulator's statement (identified on the part-petitioa as

Directive 201 I 17 lnstructions Reeardinu the Examination and Verification of State lssue Petitions Paee 2 of 6

the "statement of the solicitor") that includes the following completed information(R.C. 3519.05):

• The number of signatures witnessed by the circulator,• The circulator's signature,• The circulator's permanent residence addresst, which does not have to be an

Ohio address, and• If the circulator was employed to circulate the petition, then the employer's

name and address including street name and number, or post office boxnumber, city, state, and zip code

The board must review each part petition to determine that information required as apart of the circulator's statement is entered on each part petition. The board mustaccept the circulator statements of part-petitions at face value unless there areinconsistencies with the number of signatures witnessed (see below) or withinformation about the circulator across part petitions reviewed within a single county(i.e., the circulator writes different permanent residence addresses on different partpetitions).

If the circulator reported witnessing fewer than the total number of uncrossed outsignatures submitted on the part-petition, then the board must invalidate the entiregart-netition (Rust v. Ltrcas Cly. Bd of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 141, 841N.E.2d 766, (Ohio 2005)).

E;ram !e: The circulator's statement indicates 20 signatures witnessed, butthere are 22 signatures on the petition, none of which were crossed out prior tothe petition being filed. This part petition must be rejected.

If the circulator reported witnessing the same or more than the total number ofsignatures not crossed out on the part-petition, then the board must not invalidate thepart-petition for this reason alone (State ex reL Citizens for Responsible Taxation v.

Scioto Cty. Bd oj Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167, 602 N.E.2d 615 (Ohio 1992)).Instead, the board must review the validity of each signature as usual.

Exam fe: The circulator's statement indicates that the circulator witnessed 22signatures, but there are only 20 signatures on the petition.

II. PROCESSING VOTER REGISTRATIONS

' State law does not define "permanent residence address" for purposes of circulating issue petitions. A countyboard of elections should presume Ihat the address provided by the circulator is the circulator's permanent residenceas the statement is signed under penalty of election falsification, which is a 611h degree felony. To the extent that anentity other than the board believes that the circulator's written permanent residence address is not accurate, aninfonnal objection or formal protest is not properly before a board of eiections and should be ftled with the Ohio

Supreme Court as described in Section ViI below.

Directive 20I I 17 Instructions Reggrdin the Examination and Verification of State Issue Petitions Pase 3 of 0

All county boards of elections must process all new, valid voter registrations and changesof names andlor address to existing registrations received by the board or the Secretary ofState's office as of the datc the petition was filed with the Secretary of Statc beforeverifying the signatures on the part-petitions. (R.C. 3501.38(A), 3519.10, and 3519.15)

These registrations are effective as of the date filed with the Secretary of State. (R.C.3501.38, 3503.19)

Registrations gathered as a part of the petition process are to be submitted to the office ofthe secretary of state or a county board of elections within ten days after that registrationform is completed (R.C. 3599.11 (B)(2)(a)). Any otherwise valid voter registration formreceived in violation of this section, but received by the close of registration, should beentered into the county's voter registration database,

III. SIGNERS

A. Qualifications

Each person who signs a petition must be a qualified elector of Ohio and registered tovote at the address provided on the petition as of the date the state issue part-petitionis examined by the board. (R.C. 3519.10)

B. Signatures

Except as provided in R.C. 3501.382 (elector's name signed by an attorney in fact),each signature must be an original signature of that voter. (R.C. 3501.38(B),3519.051)

The signature must match the signature on file with the board of elections. A boardmust not invalidate a signature because an elector signed using a derivative of his/her

first name, if the board can confirm the identity of the elector (Slate ex rel. Rogers v.

Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 193, 594 N.E.2d 576 (Ohio 1992)).

Example: Name derivatives are acceptable (Bob instead of Robert, Peg instead ofMargaret) and lack of middle initial or inclusion of middle initial is acceptable.

For identification purposes, the elector may print his or her name on the petition in

addition to signing in cursive his or her name to the petition. A printed signaturealone, with no cursive signature, is allowed only if the elector's signature on file withthe board is also printed. (R.C. 3501.011, 3501.38, 3519.10)

The signature must be written in ink. (R.C 3519.05; 3519.051)

The petition must contain the elector's voting residence including the house numberand street name or RFD number (rural free delivery), and the appropriate city, village,or township. The elector's ward and precinct are not required. A post office box does

Directive 201 I 17 Instructions Re a^rdinb the Examination and Veriticati no of State Issue Petitions Page 4 of 6

not qualify as an elector's residence address. If an elector's address given on thepetition differs from that on flle with the board, then the board must invalidate thatsignature.

An elector's signature must not be invalidated solely because "non-signatureinformation" (e.g., the elector's printed name, address, county, or the date of signing)was completed by another person. Non-signature information may be added by aperson other than the elector, at the direction and in the presence of the petitionsigner, which should be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary (State exrel. Jeffries v. Ryan, 21 Ohio App.2d 241, 256 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio App.10 Dist. 1969).

No one may sign a petition more than once. If a person does sign a petition more thanonce, after the first signature has been marked valid, each successive occurrence ofthe signature must be invalidated.

Note: Most software systems deployed by county boards of elections are capableof electronically recording decisions on the validity or invalidity of each signatureon a petition and tracking for duplicate signatures over time (including in thoseinstances where petitioners are permitted to file supplemental petitions after aninitial finding by the Secretary of State (hat the petition lacks sufficient signaturesneeded to fulfiil the requirement). These systems should be able to track morethan one petition at a time. Additionally, these software systems should be able toproduce an electronic file and a printed report of the names, addresses, andvalid/invalid code for every signature reviewed by the board. If your countysoftware system cannot provide any of these, or the board does not use thatsystem component, please contact the Elections Administrator to ensure anadequate method that adequately and accurately records information to fulfillreporting and tracking standards.

C. Attorney in Fact

A registered elector who, by reason of disability, is unable to physically sign his orher name to a petition may authorize a qualified individual as an attorney in fact tosign the elector's name to a petition in accordance with R.C. 3501.382.

A qualified person who has been appointed as an elector's attomey in fact under R.C.3501.382 may sign that elector's name to the petition paper in the elector's presenceand at the elector's direction. The board must compare the attomey in fact's signatureon the petition with the document on file with the Board office (Form 10-F or 10-G).

In order to sign a petition on behalf of a registered voter as that person's attomey infact, the Board must have a completed Form 10-F or 10-G on file. Other types ofpower of attomey documents, filed with a court or some other agency, will not allowan individual to sign election documents on another's behalE The properdocumentation must be on file with the Board of Elections.

Directive 2011-17lnstructions Re ae rdin¢ the Examination and Verification of State Issue Petitions Pa ea 5 or6

If a person who has not been designated the attomev in fact for elections purposessigns another oerson's name to a netition then the Board must , at a minimum,invalidate that si ne ature. If the Board determines that the circulator allowed someonewho they knew was unqualified to sign on another person's behalf, then the entirepart-petition must be invalidated. (R.C. 3501.38(F))

D. Dates

Each signature must be followed by the date it was affixed to the petition paper. (R.C.3501.38(C) and 3519.10)

The board must not invalidate a signature solely because its date is out of sequencewith other signatures on the same part petition.

E. Illegible Signature

The board must invalidate illegible signatures. A signature is illegible only if boththe signature and address are unreadable, such that it is impossible for boardpersonnel to query the board's voter registration system to check the signature againsta voter registration record. State ex rel. Owens v. Brunner, 125 Ohio St.3d 130, 926N.E.2d 617 (Ohio 2010).

F. Ditto Marks

Ditto marks may be used to indicate duplicate information, e.g. date, address orcounty. State ex rel. Donofrio v, Henderson, 4 Ohio App.2d 183, 211 N.E.2d 854(Ohio App. 7 Dist. 1965).

G. One County per Part-Petition

Each part-petition should contain signatures of electors of only one county. (R.C.3519.10)

If any part-petition contains signatures from more than one county, then the Secretaryof State determines the county with the most signatures on the part-petition, and onlysignatures from that county are to be reviewed. If, upon review by a county board ofelections, the board believes that a part petition was improperly forwarded to thecounty, the Director and Deputy Director should contact the Secretary of State'soffice, which will review the part petition again.

The board must invalidate signatures from any other county. (R.C. 3519.10)

H. Non-Genuine Signatures

A board of elections must not invalidate an entire part-petition based solely on thenumber of non-genuine signatures it contains. Only if a circulator knowingly allows

Directive ns ardina the Exa nama on eaa ification of State Issue Petitions Pa¢e 6 of 6

an unqualified person to sign a petition, should the entire petition be invalidated.(R.C. 3501.38)

The Ohio Constitution as amended in 2008 provides that the Ohio Supreme Court hasoriginal, exclusive jurisdiction over all challenges to state issue petitions and signatureson those petitions. No protests may be filed with county boards of elections concemingstate issue petitions. Any challenge to a petition or signature shall be filed with OhioSupreme Court not later than ninety-five days before the day of the election.

It is not proper for a county board of elections to be influenced in its validation of partpetitions or signatures contained on them by opinions, communications or informationnot originating from the Secretary of State's office or the board's statutory counsel: itscounty prosecuting attomey.

If you have any questions, please contact the elections attomey assigned to your county.

Siacerely,

11444VJon Husted

IV. MARKING SIGNATURES

t t-t7

If a signature is valid, place a check mark in the margin to the left of the signature on thepetition paper.

If a signature is invalid, indicate why it is invalid by writing in the margin to the left ofthe signature the appropriate code symbol for the reason the signature is invalid (seeattached).

It is advisable to use a red ink pen for making marks by the board.

V. CERTIFICATION

After the board staff has examined all the parts of the statewide issue, referendum, orconstitutional amendment petition circulated in your county, you must certify yourfindings to the Secretary of State. Once the ce^rtification form has been completed, countyboards of elections must promptly return the form to the Secretary of State's office.

Once certification forms have been transmitted by all of the county boards of elections,the Seoretary of State will determine the validity and sufficiency of the petition andprovide the constitutionally and statutorily required notices to the committee for thepetitioners. If the Secretary of State determines that the petition is insufficient, thecommittee will have ten additional days after notification to file additional signatures.

VI. CHALLENGES/PROTESTS

Diceclive 201.1-17 irtstmctio2s Reaardine the Examination and Verification of State Issue Petitions Pa ef 7 of fi

CODE SYMBOLS FOR VALIDATING SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS

Each signature must be individually examined. If a signature is valid, place a check mark at the leftmargin beside it.

If a signature is not valid, please indicate the reason by using the following initials or, if no set of initialsapplies, an explanatory notation:

CIR Circulator signed as an elector on the part-petition he or she was circulating. (This invalidatesthe circulator's signature as a signer, but not the entire part-petition.)

DUP "Duplicate signature." The person has signed more than one part-petition or twice on the samepart-petition.

ILL "Illegible" applies only if oth the signature and address are unreadable, such that it isimpossible for board personnel to query the board's voter registration system to check thesignature against a voter registration record.

NA "No address." The signer's complete address must be provided: house number and street nameor RFD, and the appropriate city, village, or township. Ward and precinct information is notrequired.

ND "No Date." The petition does not indicate the date on which the signature was affixed.(liowever, acceptable are: month-date-year, month-date, date out of sequence with othersigners' dates, ditto marks.)

NG "Not Genuine." The signature on the petition does not appear to be the genuine signature of theperson whose signature it purports to be when compared to the signature on file with the boardof elections as of the date the board checks the petition.

NR "Not Registered." The signer is not registered to vote. Each person who signs a petition papermust be a qualified elector as of the date the board examines the petition.

NRA "Not Registered Address." The address provided on the petition paper is not the address on filewith the board of elections as of the date the board examines the petition.

OC "Other County." The signer is a resident of some other county. Do not cross out signature oraddress; instead, place code at lefl margin.

P "Pencil." The signature was written using a pencil.

If the number of signatures on a part-petition is more than the number indicated by the circulator, theentire part-petition is invalid.

When invalidating an entire part-petition, indicate the reason for rejection on the front of that part-petitionand separate it from any valid part-petitions. Do not invalidate a part-petition for the sole reason thatit does not contain any valid signatures; It is a valid part-petition, but it contains zero, or no, validsignatures.

After checking an entire part-petition, write on the right side of the front page of each part-petition boththe number of valid signers and the initials of the board employee who checked the part-petition.

451 West Third St.Dayton, OH 45422-1501Phone: (937) 225-5656Fax: (937) 496-7798

MONTGOMERYWebsite: www mcboe.orK C 0 11 N T Y

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

August 12, 2011

Mr. David Rowlands, City ManagerCity of ClaytonP.O. Box 280Clayton, OH 45315-0280

RE: Initiative Petition for 4185 and 4221 Wenger Road

Dear Mr. Rowlands,

BOARD MEMBERSGregory M. Gantt, ChairmanDennis A. LiebermanThomas J. Ritchie, Sr.Kay C. Wick

DIRECTORSteven P. Harsman

DEPUTY DIRECTORBetty J. Smith

As per the City of Clayton law director and the City of Clayton Charter, Section 10.02,"[a]n initiative petition must contain the signatures of not less than fifteen (15) percent ofthe number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the office ofgovernor in the municipal corporation." The total number of votes cast for Governor in2010 in the City of Clayton was 5,918. Fifteen ( 15) percent of that number is 888.

In reference to the Clayton initiative for 4185 and 4221 Wenger Road, we determinedthat there are a total of 881 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Betty J. fir4nith,Deputy Director

cc: Robert E. Portune, Clayton Law DirectorVictor T. Whitman, Assistant Montgomery County Prosecutor

451 West Third St.Dayton, OH 45422-1501

Phone: (937) 225-5656Fax: (937) 496-7798

Website: www mcboe.or

August 12, 2011

lwlg

MONTGOMERYC O lI N T Y

BOARD OF ELECTIONS


RE: Initiative Petition for 4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Road

Dear Mr. Rowlands,




As per the City of Clayton law director and the City of Clayton Charter, Section 10.02,"[a]n initiative petition must contain the signatures of not less than fifteen (15) percent ofthe number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the office ofgovernor in the municipal corporation." The total number of votes cast for Governor in2010 in the City of Clayton was 5,918. Fifteen (15) percent of that number is 888.

In reference to the Clayton initiative for 4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Road, wedetermined that there are a total of 877 valid signatures on the submitted part

petitions.


Betty J. L%nith,Deputy Director


451 West Third St.Dayton, OH 45422-I501Phone: (937) 225-5656Fax: (937) 496-7798

Website: www mcboe.or

`•r^,^ll^

MONTGOMERYC O U N T P

BOARD OF ELECTIONS

August 12, 2011


RE: Initiative Petition for 4245 W. Wenger Road




Dear Mr. Rowlands,

As per the City of Clayton law director and the City of Clayton Charter, Section 10.02,"(a]n initiative petition must contain the signatures of not less than fifteen (15) percent ofthe number of electors who voted at the last General election held for the office ofgovernor in the municipal corporation." The total number of votes cast for Governor in2010 in the City of Clayton was 5,918. Fifteen ( 15) percent of that number is 888.

In reference to the Clayton initiative for 4245 W. Wenger Road, we determined thatthere are a total of 864 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions.


Sincerely,

Deputy Director

PLetty J. S,


KLEIN, TOMB & COLLINSLLr

124 West Main Street Stephen B. Klein 240 Bohanan DriveT1oy, Ohio 46373 Jeremy M.1bmb Vandalia, Ohio 45377Fax (937) 440-1659 Chrry( L. Collit+s Faic (937) 890-6791

Tel (937) 339-3939www.kto-law.com

August 15, 2011

1VIg. Botty Smith, Depnty DirectorIvlontgotnery County Board of $lections451 W. Third StreetP.O. Box 8705Dayton, OH 45481

Ite: City of Clayton Initiative Petitions

Ms. Smith:

As attorney for the petitioners committee oirculating the above-referenced initiativepetitions, I ant in receipt of oopies of your tbrea notices (attaohed).

It is my understanding that the subitlitted petitions coatained over one thousandsignatutes and that the basis for your count of registered voters' sigaatures being less than 888, isbecause you counted noi of the signatures on thrce of the part petitions (attached). If'true, it ismy opinion that these part-petritions should be deemed valid and counted.

I fucther understand that the reason you declined to verify the signaturas of said part-petitions is because you did not believe that the ciroulators complied with Revised Code SeeGlon3501.38(G), resulting in a violation of Revised Code Saction 3501.38(13)(1.).

However, as statod by the Supreme Court in Rust v. Lucas County Board of Elcotions.108 Ohio St.3d 139, @ 111:

Rust's part-petitions did not comply with R.C. 3501.38(E)(1), beoause thecircalators' statements specified ntmtbers less than the aetuat autube.rs ofsigoatures contained on the part-petitions. The purpose oi'this reqtrimtuent is toprotect against signatures being added after the circulator's statement is made.

Ms. Betty SmithAugust 15, 2011Page'l^vo

and Q.¶14:

But Rust could have complied with all of the requirements of R.C.3501.38(E)(1) by stl'iking the signatures of persons he had discovered to beunquali£ied before subni.itting the petition to the board of elections. See R.C.3501.38((f) ("The oiroulator of a petition may, before filingit inapublic office, std.lCefrom it any signature the eiroulaYor does not wish to present as part of the pctition");C+afa e v rnt. heter v_ tnrnin Cty. Bd Of Eleetiona (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 480, 484,756 N.E.2d 649. Thns, Rust was not left without any ;remedy when he discovered,before filing the petition, that an unqualified person bad signed it.

As is apparent from the tbree part-petitions in question, the eirculators clearly identified andstruck (as "not reg.") the signatures they did not wish to present as part of the petitions• llaus,Revised Code Seet[on 3501.38(0) was effectively invoked.

Therefore, the petitioners committee ucgently and respectfully request that the Board ofElections count the signatures of any and all registered voters contained in said three part-petitionsand inelude them in the total count of registered voters approving theso three initiative petitions.

Sincorely,

SEK:fm^.eet Steven P. I-Iatsu ►an

Robert E. Portune (Via'f'elefax: 937-824-2818)Victor T. Whitman (Via Telefax: 937-225-4822)1vls.tt Johnson

GOTTSCHLICH & PORTUNE , LLPAttolneys at Law

TheArmory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone:937-824-2811Facsimile: 937-824-2818

August 16, 2011

Ms. Betty Smith, Deputy DirectorMontgomery County Board of Elections451 West Third StreetP.O. Box 8705Dayton, OH 45481-8705

Re: City of Clayton - Initiative Petition

ROBERTE.PORTUNEBu zz@gp l aw d ayton. com

Dear Betty:

This is in response to a letter dated August 15, 2011 from Stephen E. Klein, attorney forthe Petitioners Conunittee, seeking to have the Board of Elections reconsider its rejection ofseveral part-petitions submitted by circulator, Matthew Johnson. Mr. Klein's letter takes issuewith the Board's conclusion that these part-petitions failed to comply with R.C. 3 501.3 8(E)(1)

which states:

On each petition paper , the circulator shall indicate the number of sienatures

contained on it, and shall sign a statement inacte under penalty of electlon falsificationthat the circulator witnessed the affixing of every signature, that all sigtters were to thebest of the circulator's knowledge and belief qualified to sign, and that every siguature isto the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief the signature of the person whose

signathrre it purports to be ....(emphasis supplied)

The attachments to Mr. Klein's letter (and the actual part-petitions submitted)demonstrate that the number of signatures set forth on the Circulator Statements was less thanthe number of actual signatures contained in each part-petition. Those part-petitions show the

following:

Number of Actual Signatures onPart-Petition

Number of Signatures IndicatedIn Circulator Statement

30 2930 2830 2930 28

30 2930 29

Because there were more signatures on these part-petitions than indicated by theCirculator, there was no way for this Board to determine which signatures the Circulator actuallywitnessed, whether the signers were qualified to sign or whether the signatures were those of thepersons whose signature they purported to be. Accordingly, the inconsistency between theCirculator's statements and the actual number of signatures on these part-petitions wasappropriately found to be in violation of R.C. 3501.38(E)(1) and caused these part- petitions to

be rejected.

The Board's action was appropriate under the directive of the Ohio Supreme Court inState ex rel Rust v. Lucas County Board of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005 Ohio Lexis 2503

which states at 141:

The parties agree that the Secretary of State, the state's chief election officer, has

instructed boards of elections that R C 3501.38 reguires that if the number indicated

by the circulator is less than the actual number of sianatures, the entire part-petition must be invalidated. (emphasis supplied)

But notwithstanding the clear directive in State ex rel Rust, Mr. Klein argues on behalf ofhis client Petitioners Committee, that the "circulators clearly identified and struck ... thesignatures they did not wish to present as part of the petitions". Mr. Klein asserts that thosesignatures that have the printed reference "not reg" written prior to the signature should bedeemed constructively "struck" by the circulator and removed from the petition. By treatingsuch signatures as being effectively struck per R.C. 3501.38(G), Mr. Klein asserts that theCirculator's statements would then comply with R.C. 3501.38(E)(1).

R.C. 3501.38(G) states that:

(G)'1'he circulator of a petition may, before filing it in a public office, strike from it anysignature the circulator does not wish to present as a part of the petition.

But to "strike" a signature requires that it be "crossed out". See, State ex rel. Citizens forResponsible Taxation v. Scioto County Board of Elections, 65 Ohio St.3d 167 at 172 where theOhio Supreme Court endorsed action by the Secretary of State which had:

[I]instructed respondents here to reject an entire part-petition only where the circulator

states a number "less than the total number of uncrossed out sienatures" (emphasis

sic) and to, in effect, overlook discrepancies in the number of signatures "tn all other

instrmces." (emphasis supplied and in original).

There are no signatures on the subject part-petitions that are crossed out. There are nosignatures on the part-petitions that are "stricken" in accordance with R.C. 3501.38(G). Rather,in each of the part-petitions attached to Mr. Klein's August 15, 2011 letter, the circulator states anumber which is "less than the total number of uncrossed out signatures" contained within the

part-petitions.

2

The notation "not reg" is not equivalent to "crossing out" a signature and therefore cannotbe deemed to constitute a "strike" of the signature. Under the authority of R.C. 3501.38(E)(1)and the Ohio Supreme Court's directives in State ex rel Rust and State ex rel Citizens forResponsible Taxation, these part-petitions must therefore be rejected in their entirety.

Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your continued assistance.

Sincerely,

Robert E. PortuneClayton Law Director

cc:Stephen M. Klein, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners' Committee

Steven P. Harsman, Director, Montgomery County Board of Elections

Victor T. Whisman, Esq., Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutor

City of Clayton

3

Gottschlich & Portune Matl - Ke: city ot utayton ana inntauve reuuvn^,

Robert Portune <[email protected]>

Re: City of Clayton and Initiative Petitions1 message

Vic Whisman <[email protected]> Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:12 AMTo: Robert Portune <[email protected]>, Betty Smith <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected], Steve Harsman <[email protected]>

Ladies and Gentlemen: I had just finished dictating a brief letter on this subject to Steve Klein when Buzz'e-mail came through. Rather than send that letter, I will simply utilize this medium to say that I concurcompletely with Buzz' analysis. "Striking" a signature from a petition is accomplished by "crossing it out" or"lining it out" - not by making some marginal notation, i.e. "not reg." This position is supported by the caseswhich Buzz has cited, as well as by common usage and definition. It is also, unquestionably, the opinion ofthe Secretary of State, as noted in said cases. It is, therefore, my opinion that my client, the Board ofElections, acted appropriately in rejecting the three part-petitions in question. Vic Whisman

»> Robert Portune <[email protected]> 8/16/2011 4:17 PM >>>

Dear Betty:Attached is a letter in response to the August 15 letter from Steve Klein, attorney for the Petitioner'sCommittee.Please let me know if you need anything further. An original of this letter is in the mail to your office.

Thanks,Buzz Portune

Robert PortuneGottschlich & Portune, LLPThe Armory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, OH 45402937-913-0200 Phone937-824-2818 Faxhttp•//www.aplawdayton.comNOIICE: This message, and any attachments, may contain confidential informatlon that is legally privileged and protected. If you are not the

intended recipient, you may not use, read, copy, fonvard or disdose this message or its attachments. if you have received this message in

error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of the message and any attachments from your system Immediately.

TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: Any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including attachments) was not intended or written to be

used, and it cannot be used, by you for the purpose of (1) avoiding any penalty that may be imposed by the Intemal Revenue Service or (2)promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. If you would like such advice, please

contact us,

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=ab428c479c&view--pt&search=inbox&th=131 d7e... 8/17/2011

19e/l//LUL1 LU.V^ 111.++^-a

KLÎ.N., T^^^ ^ COLLINS

124 West Main. Street Stephen E. Klein 240 Boharran DriveTroy, Ohio 45373 Jeremy M. Tomb Vandalia, Ohio 45377Pax (937) 440-1659 Cheryl L. Collins Fax (937) 890-6791

Tel (937) 339-3939www.lctc-law,coAn

August 17, 2011

Ms. Betty Smith, Deputy DirectorMontgomery County Board of Bleotions451 W.'fhirdStn..otP.O. Box 8705Dayton, OH 45481

Re: City of Clayton Initiative petitionsMs. Smith:

fn response to Mr. Portune's August 16°i Letter and Mr. Whisman's opinion to you, pleaseconsider the following observations:

More than one thousand citizens of Clayton want these initiated ordinances to be placed on the

November ballot.

Clayton's city council surely does not seek to ini}ynge on their citizens' right to vote.

It is the statutory duty of the Board of Election to facilitate the people's rigbt to vote, whilemaintalning the intogrity of the voting process.

Apparently, the Clayton city council believes that the Board of.Elections is not able to ensure theintegrity of tho voting process If the Board accepts the tally of the six part-petitions in question. Myclients disagree.

The only issue before the Board of Elections is whether these six part-petitions comply withRevised Code 3501.38(.13)(1), the ole, purpose of which statute is "to protect against signatures beingadded after the circulator's statement is made". See State ex rel. Citizens for Resnnnsible Taxation v.Scioto Cty. Bd, of Bleotions (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 167.

These six part-petitions d•o allow the Board to detetmine that no signatures were added after thecirculator's statement was made. Therefore, tile valid signatures on these petitioos should be included inthe offloial tally.

SEK:fincc: Steven P. Harsman

Robert B. Portune (Via Telefax: 937-824-2818)Victor T. Whittnan (Via Telefax: 937-225-4822)Matt Johnson

Gottschlich & Portune Mail - Re: Hi Everyone,ragc i Ui .

Robert Portune <[email protected]>

Re: Hi Everyone,1 message

Vic Whisman <[email protected]> Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:07 PMTo: [email protected], [email protected], Steve Harsman <[email protected]>, Cathie Merkle<[email protected]>, Betty Smith <[email protected]>Cc: Robin Lehman <[email protected]>

...Ladies and Gentlemen: In response to the attached letter from Stephen Klein, and for purposes ofclarification, there is no "issue before the Board of Elections" with regard to these petitions. The Boardsimply checked the part-petitions submitted for validity and sufficiency in accordance with applicable Ohiolaw, and transmitted the results to the City of Clayton pursuant to its Charter. Having done that, theBoard's role with respect to this matter is at an end. The Board does not take directions from the CityCouncil with respect to the discharge of its statutory responsibilities. And, while I may agree with the CityLaw Director with respect to the Board's proper rejection of the part-petitions in question, and appreciate

his input, again, for purposes of clarification, that opinion was not sought by the Board, either at the time ofpetition review, or at any time thereafter. The Board's actions have been solely guided by applicable Ohiolaw, and its interpretation thereof, which, as I have previously stated, in my opinion, is correct. I certainlyunderstand that the circulators of these petitions may not be happy with this particular outcome. However, Iwant to make it perfectly clear that, there is nothing currently pending before the Board which could alter orchange thatoutcome. The Boards role with regard to this process has been completed.

>>> Cathie Merkle 8/17/2011 1:19 PM >>>Hi Everyone,I have attached the response letter from Klein.Thanks.-Cathie

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=ab428c479c&vievv pt&seareh=inbox&th 131d8f:.. 8/17/2011

August 23, 2011Motion Regarding the Clayton Initiative Petitions

DL: I will move to reconsider those part petitions which were not counted andto count them.

TR: I'll second the motion.GG: AII in favor say aye.GG: Aye.DL: Aye.TR: Aye.KW: Ney.GG: Motion carries.BS: So direction from the Board members...you want us to go ahead and just

validate petitions or see how many signatures are on there?DL: I think all you have to do under the Charter is to give them the number of

qualified signatures.BS: And why I ask that is because of the voter registration system...the way

we process petitions. So, your not asking us to validate the petition,you're just asking us to look at the signatures, validate those signaturesand give a letter to the Law Director on those petitions that the circulatorcount was incorrect...these are the number of valid signatures that arethere?

DL: Yes, and they can determine what they want to do with that.BS: Ok, thank you.

451 WcstThirdSt.Dayton, 0H 45422-1501Phone: (937) 225-5656Fex: (937) 496-7798

Website: W W w mOhoCOr4

August 24, 2011

11

MONTGOMERYC 0 t7 N T y

BOARD OF ELECTIONS


RE: Clayton Initiative Petitions




Dear Mr. Rowlands,

As directed by the members of the Board of Elections at their August 23rd meeting, we reviewedthe submitted part petitions that were found invalid due to the incorrect circulator signature

count.

Below is a list of the total number of signatures verified on the above mentioned part petitions:

4185 and 4221 Wenger Roado Part petition 21 = 27o Part petition 23 = 27o Signatures verified = 54

4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Roado Part petition 4 = 28o Part petition 13 = 27o Signatures verified = 55

4245 W. Wenger Roado Part petition 7 = 28o Part petition 12 = 28o Signatures verified = 56

Feel free to contact me if yot have any questions.

elSi y,nceti

Steven P.Narsman I Betty 9.tSmith,Director Deputy Director


GOTTSCHLICH & PORTUNE, LLPAttorueys at Law

The Armory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone:937-824-281IFacsimile: 937-824-2818

September 2, 2011

Petitioners' Committeec/o Stephen E. Klein, Esq.Klein, Tomb & Collins, LLP240 Bohanan DriveVandalia, Ohio 45377

Re: City of Clayton - Initiative Petition

Dear Steve:

ROBERT E. [email protected]

On or about August 9, 2011, a Petitioners Committee filed three (3) separate InitiativePetitions with the Montgomery County Board of Elections seeking to place legislation on theballot that would require the City of Clayton to permit the owners of seven (7) parcels ofproperty located at or near Clayton's boundary with Englewood to detach from Clayton and

become part of Englewood.

After reviewing the Petitions, the Board of Elections issued three (3) letters to the City datedAugust 12, 2011 which stated that these petitions contained the following

In reference to the Clayton Initiative for 4185 and 4221 Wenger Road, we determined that there are a total of

881 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions (emphasis in original).

In reference to the Clayton Initiative for 4245 W. Wenger Road, we determined that there are a total of 864

valid signatures on the submitted part petitions (emphasis in original).

In reference to the Clayton Initiative for 4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Road, we determined that there are a total

of 877 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions (emphasis in original).

By letter dated August 12, 2011, and in my capacity as Clayton Law Director, I advised theBoard that in light of the insufficient number of valid signatures on the three Petitions therecould be no determination by the Board of Elections that the initiative petitions were sufficient. Ifurther advised the Board that there could be no referral of these Petitions back to the City ofClayton for further action by its City Council and that the failure of the Petitioner's Committee to

file valid Petitions had concluded this matter.

Thereafter, by letter dated August 24, 2011, the Board issued a subsequent letter that stated:

I

As directed by the members of the Board of Elections at their August 23rd meeting, we reviewed thesubmitted part petitions that were found invalid due to the incorrect circulator signature count.



4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Roado Part petition 4= 28o Part petition 13 = 27o Signatures verified = 55


A$er review of the August 12 and August 24 letters from the Board of Elections, I can statethat the City of Clayton does not view the collective correspondence from the Board of Electionsas constituting the necessary statement required by the Clayton City Charter Sec. 10.02"indicating the number of required and valid signatures". Nor do these letters constitute thenecessary determination by the Board that these three Petitions are "sufficient" as required by

Section 10.04.

Since this action by the Board of Elections is a condition precedent under Clayton's Charterto further action by Clayton Council, the Council is unable to take the next step under theinitiative process to determine under Section 10.04 "whether all other requirements under Ohiolaw and this Charter have been met". Thus Council cannot at this time provide notice to thePetitioners Committee, nor can it specify deficiencies in the Petitions and whether the

deficiencies are capable of being cured.

Also, so there is no misunderstanding as to time limits and deadlines associated with thisprocess, please note that the untimely filing of the Petitions with the Board of Elections by thePetitioners Committee' has effectively ensured that this matter could not be placed on theNovember 8, 2011 ballot, even if the signature requirements under Clayton's Charter had beensatisfied. Even if it is assumed that the Board's August 24, 2011 letter triggered the 21 day timeperiod under Charter Section 10.04(A) (a proposition which Clayton rejects), Council's nextregularly scheduled meeting at which it could have considered passing the requested ordinancesper Charter Section 10.04(A)(2) was not until September 1, 2011. There are only 68 daysbetween September 1 and the November 8 election date. Clayton Charter Section 10.04 states

that:

The vote of the electors on a proposed ... ordinance shall be held at the next regular municipalelection to be held not less than seventy-five days and not later than one year from the date Council

' These petition forms were initially provided to the Petitioners Committee by Fed Ex. dated March 10, 2011.

2

failed to pass ... the ordinance. If no regular municipal election is to be held within the periodprescribed in this subsection, Council shall provide for a special election. The special election may beheld on the same day and at the same time as a general or primary election which occurs within theprescribed period.

Accordingly, even if the Board of Elections could determine sufficiency and advise the Cityof the number of required and valid signatures, and assuming no other defects would preventputting the issues on the ballot, any election on these matters cannot take place on November 8,2011 but rather would have to be scheduled at a future date as a Special Election.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Please notethat I will be out of the office from September 4 through September 14 so if you have anyquestions in the meantime, please contact Asst. Law Director, Martina Dillon at my office.

Sincerely,

Robert E. PortuneClayton Law Director

cc:Steven P. Harsman, DirectorMontgomery County Board of ElectionsVictor T. Whisman, Esq.Asst. Montgomery County ProsecutorCity of Clayton

3

Victor T. Whisman, Esq.Asst. Prosecutor301 W. Third Street, 4`h FloorP.O. Box 972Dayton, Ohio 45422-0972

KLEIN, TOMB & COLLINS1_LP

124 West Main Street Stephen E. Klein 240 Bohanan DriveTroy, Ohio 45373 Jeremy M. Tomb Vandalia, Ohio 45377Fax (937) 440-1659 Cheryl L. Collins Fax (937) 890-6791

Tel (937) 339-3939www.ktc-law.com

September 7, 2011

Steven P. Harsman VIA TELEFAX: 937-496-7798Director, Board of Electi6s451 W. Third Street^ ^P.O. Box 8705Dayton, Ohies 45481-8705

jZ Re: City of Clayton Initiative PetitionsMr. Harsman:

You were copied with Mr. Portune's September 2nd letter to me wherein he opines thatyour August 12a` and 24th letters do not constitute:

(1) the necessary statement required by the Clayton City Charter Sec. 10.02 "indicatingthe number of required and valid signatures" or (2) the necessary determination by theBoard that these three Petitions are "sufficient" as required by Sec. 10.04

If Mr. Porlune's opinion is correct, the Petitioner's Committee respectfully requests thatthe Board amend, revise or supplement its notice of determination as to the sufficiency of thethree initiative petitions.

If Mr. Portune's opinion is not correct, the Petitioners' Connnittee respectfully requeststhat the Board confirm that its August 12th and 24`h notices are legally sufficient to satisfyClayton Charter Sec. 10.02 and 10.04.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

SEK:$ncc: Victor T. Whisman

Robert E. Portune 3

Matt Johnson

117/e.LLtqll 1G:10 DAroMwrDl

KLEINF TOMB ^ COLLINS...,_.. .......... ... i.i r

124 West Main Street Stephen E. Klein 240 Bohanan DriveTroy, Ohio 45373 Jeremy M. Tomb Vandalie, Ohio 45377Pex (937) 4.40-1659 Cheryl L. Collins Pax (937) 890-6791

Tel (937) 339-3939

www.kto-law.com

October 3, 2011

VIA '1'ELE1t'''AX: 937-225-4822

Victor T. WhismanAsst. Prosecuting Attomey301 West'1'hird StreetP.O. Box 972Dayton, OH 45422

Re: City of Clayton Itaitiative Petitions

Vic:

As you may have sunnised, I am in the process of drafting a petition for a writ ofmaudamus to be filed with the Ohio Supreme Court. Judicial action is necessary, now that thepetitioners have verified that th.e Clayton City Council will take no action on the three initiatedordinances.

Therefore, I have to determine who the appro,priate respoudents should be and, accordingto the attached letter from Buz Portune, he opines that the 13oard of Elections should be arespondent, inasmuch as he asseverates:

After reviewing your fax dated September 16, 201.1 and my Ictter to thePetitioners' Committce dated September 2, 2011, I have no reason to change theconclusions set forth in my letter of September 2. As stated therein, in myoa.pacity as f.aw Director, I do not view the collective correspondence (August 12and August 24) from the Motltgotnery County Board of Elections as constitutingthe neoessary statement required by the Clayton City Cbarter / Section 1:0.02"indicating the number of required and valid signatures). No do those lettersconstitute the necessary determination by the Board that the three Petitions are"suffieient" as tequired by Section 10.04.

Victo.r T. WhismanOotober 3, 2011Page Two

I. do not agree with Mr. Portune's opinion but I do want all necessaty pattJes to participatein the mandamus action. Therefore, I ain soliciting a position statement from the Board ofGleotions as to whether its August 12t1 and 20 correspondence to the Clayton City Council:

a) 'tndicate "the number of requixed attd valid signatures" as ref®ren.ced in ClaytonCity Council Charter Section 10.02, and,

b) co.nstitute the Board's detetmination that the petitions at® "sufficient" asreferenced in Clayton City Charter Section 10.04.

I will be seeking to have the mandamus action plaa®d on an expedited docket of the Courtso I am respectfully requesting your response by the end of the week.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

SEK:fmEnc.cc: Robert E. Portune (Via Tolefax: 937-824-2818)

Matt Johnson

GOTTSCHLICH & PORTUNE, LLPAttorneys at Law

The Armory201 Fast Sixth StteetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone:937-824-2811Facs imi le: 937-824-2818

October 11, 2011

Via Fax 890-6791 and Regular Mail

Stephen E. Klein, Esq.Klein, Tomb & Collins, LLP124 W. Main StreetTroy, OH 45373

ROBERT E. PORTUNEBuzz®gplawdayton. com

Re: City of Clayton, Ohio and Matkew C. Johnson, et al.

Dear Steve:

Today (October 11, 2011) I received a letter dated October 6, 2011 from Vic Whisman,Asst. County Prosecutor and legal counsel for the Montgomery County Board of Elections.

In light of the content of Mr. Whisman's letter, Clayton City Counsel will meet onThursday, October 20, 2011 (the next regularly scheduled meeting) to review the now statedposition of the Board of E4ections and to proceed in accordance with the requirements of the

Clayton City Charter and applicable Ohio law.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert E. PortuneLaw Director, City of Clayton

cc:City of Clayton

CITY OF CLAYTON, OHIO

RESOLUTION NO. R -10 -11 - 48

A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO CLAYTON CHARTER SECTION 10.04 PROVIDINGNOTICE TO PETITIONERS' COMMITTEE OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR

PETITIONS AND PROVIDING A FOURTEEN (14) DAY PERIOD FOR THECOMMITTEE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFICIENCIES HAVE BEEN

CURED

WHEREAS, by letter dated February 18, 2011, Mr. Matthew C. Johnson, Ms. Rebecca J.Johnson, Ms. Laverne J. Jutte and Ms. Mary E. Juttee advised the City of Clayton that theseindividuals had formed a Petitioners' Committee and were commencing initiative proceedings byfiling three (3) enclosed proposed ordinances with the City of Clayton, directed to its Law

Director; and

WHEREAS, the first of the three (3) proposed ordinances represented that Matthew C. Johnson,Rebecca J. Johnson, Romie F. Daniel, Christopher Franer and Megan Hurt were five (5) votersand/or owners inhabiting territory purported to comprise two (2) separate parcels located at 4293W. Wenger Road and 4313 W. Wenger Road and proposed that the boundary between the Cityof Clayton and the City of Englewood be adjusted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section709.37 to detach those properties from the City of Clayton and incorporate them into the City of

Englewood;

WHEREAS, the second of the three (3) proposed ordinances represented that Clarence H.Phillips, Rose M. Phillips, Clarence F. Phillips, Suzanne Phillips and David Lee Phillips werefive (5) voters and/or owners inhabiting territory purported to comprise four (4) separate parcelslocated at 4245 W. Wenger Road and proposed that the boundary between the City of Claytonand the City of Englewood be adjusted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 to detachthose properties from the City of Clayton and incorporate them into the City of Englewood;

WHEREAS, the third of the three (3) proposed ordinances represented that Bobby L. Cooper,Cynthia A. Cooper, Laverne J. Jutte and Mary E. Jutte were four (4) voters and/or ownersinhabiting territory purported to comprise two separate parcels located at 4185 Wenger Road and4221 W. Wenger Road and proposed that the boundary between the City of Clayton and the Cityof Englewood be adjusted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 to detach thoseproperties from the City of Clayton and incorporate them into the City of Englewood;

WHEREAS, the February 18, 2011 letter requested that the Clayton City Manager provide theappropriate petition forms to the Petitioners' Committee in care of their attorney, Stephen E.Klein and requested that they be provided by March 11, 2011;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.02 of the Clayton Charter, the City prepared and had printedappropriate petition forms including printed reference to Clayton Charter Article X and OhroRevised Code Sections 731.28-.41, 3501.38 and 3503.06, and by letter dated March 10, 2011delivered 100 original petition forms to the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee along with a

cover letter requesting that the parties "familiarize yourself with the procedures set forth inArticle X of the Clayton Charter and the referenced provisions of the Ohio Revised Code relatingto circulation and presentation of the petition(s), the number of valid signatures required and thetime limits associated therewith;"

WHEREAS, on or about mid Apri12011, representatives of the City inquired as to whetheradditional original petition forms were needed by the Petitioners' Committee and upon beingasked for additional forms, delivered the remaining 100 original petition forms to theCommittee's attotney;

WHEREAS, the part-petition forms were filed with the Montgomery County Board of Electionson August 8, 2011;

WHEREAS, on August 9, 2011, staff from the Board of Elections contacted the Clayton LawDirector and asked for his opinion under the Clayton Charter how many valid signatures wererequired for an initiative petition and whether the stapling of the proposed ordinance to thepetition rather than it being typed thereon was a problem;

WHEREAS, by letter dated August 9, 2011, the Clayton Law Director advised the staff of theBoard of Elections that either 888 or 903 valid signatures were required depending upon how thevoters in the last gubernatorial election were counted and that while stapling was potentiallyproblematical and typing is preferred, the stapling of the proposed ordinance to the part-petitionswas acceptable;

WHEREAS, the staff of the Board of Elections then counted the petition signatures, determinedthat several part-petitions did not comply with Ohio statutory requirements and proceduresapproved by the Ohio Secretary of State and issued three letters dated August 12, 2011 advisingthat the required number of signatures was 888 but that:

(a) "In reference to the Clayton initiative for 4293 and 4313 W. Wenger road we determined thatthere are a total of 877 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions." ( emphasis in original);

and

(b) "[n reference to the Clayton initiative for 4245 W. Wenger Road we determined that there are atotal of 864 valid signatures on the submitted part petitions." (emphasis in original); and

(c) "In reference to the Clayton initiative for 4185 and 4221 W. Wenger Road, we determined thatthere are a total of 881 vatid signatures on the submitted part petitions." (emphasis in original);

WHEREAS, in response to the letters from the Board of Elections, the Clayton Law Director

advised the Board of Elections by letter dated August 12, 2011 that regardless of whether therequired number of valid signatures was 888 or 903, none of the Petitions filed with the Board of

Elections contained sufficient signatures, the Board of Elections was not able to finallydetermine that the petitions were sufficient or refer them to the City for further review and actionand that Clayton therefore declined to accept the referral or delivery of the petitions from the

Board of Elections;

WHEREAS, by letter to the Board of Elections dated August 15, 2011, the attorney for thePetitioners' Committee took issue with the Board's action in not counting certain part-petitions

2

because of the inconsistency between the number of signatures on the part-petition and thenumber set forth on the circulator's statement and set forth his legal arguments for his position;

WHEREAS, by letter to the Board of Elections dated August 16, 2011, the Clayton LawDirector responded to these allegations and citation of legal authority for not counting those part-petitions at issue and by email dated August 17, 2011, the Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutorand legal counsel for the Board of Elections stated that "I concur with (the Law Director's)analysis". The Asst. County Prosecutor further stated that in his opinion his client, "the Board ofElections acted appropriately in rejecting the three part-petitions in question";

WHEREAS, the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee submitted a submitted a subsequentletter to the Board of Elections dated August 17, 2011 setting forth additional support for hisposition and again asking that the disputed part-petitions be included;

WHEREAS, the Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutor and legal counsel for the Board ofElections responded by email dated August 17, 2011 to the letter from counsel for thePetitioner's Committee and stated:

For purposes of clarification, there is "no issue before the Board of Elections" with regard to thesepetitions. The Board simply checked the part-petitions submitted for validity and sufficiencV in

accordance with applicable Ohio law and transmitted the results to the City of Clayton pursuant toits Charter. Having done that, the Board's role with respect to this matter is at an end. (emphasis

added)

I certainly understand that the circulators of these petitions may not be happy with this particularoutcome. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that, there is nothing currently pending beforethe Board which could alter or change that outcome. The Boards role with regard to this process

has been completed.

WHEREAS, despite the representation from their legal counsel that there was nothing currentlypending before the Board which could alter or change that outcome, on August 23, 2011, at thenext regularly scheduled meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, during thepublic comment section of the meeting, the Board members took comments from counsel and astatement from Matthew Johnson, (none of which testimony was under oath) and then on a voteof 3-1 approved a motion "to reconsider those part-petitions which were not counted and to

count them." -

WHEREAS, the Board members specifically refrained from asking the Board staff to "validatethe petitions" but rather confirmed with staff that they were just asking them to:

[L]ook at the signatures, validate those signatures and give a letter to the Law Director on thosepetitions that the circulator count was incorrect ... these are the number of valid signatures that arethere ...(and) ... they (the City of Clayton) can determine what they want to do with that.

WHEREAS, the staff of the Board of Elections then counted the part-petitions and issued aletter to the City of Clayton dated August 24, 2011, stating:

3

"As directed by the members of the Board of Elections at their August 23`d meeting, we reviewedthe submitted part-petitions that were found invalid due to the incorrect circulator signature count.



4293 and 4313 W. Wenger Roado Part petition 4 = 28o Part petition 13 = 27o Signatures verified = 55


WHEREAS, after review of the Board of Election's August 12 and August 24, 2011correspondence, and in light of the Board's previously stated (and unchanged) position that thepetitions were invalid due to the issue with the discrepancy between the number of signaturesand the number listed on the circulator statement, Clayton's Law Director by letter datedSeptember 2, 2011, advised the attorney for the Petitioners' Committee that:

[T]he City of Clayton does not view the collective correspondence from the Board of Elections asconstituting the necessary statement required by the Clayton City Charter Sec. 10.02 "indicatingthe number of required and valid signatures". Nor do these letters constitute the necessarydetermination by the Board that these three Petitions are "sufficient" as required by Section 10.04.

Since this action by the Board of Elections is a condition precedent under Clayton's Charter tofurther action by Clayton Council, the Council is unable to take the next step under the initiativeprocess to determine under Section 10.04 "whether all other requirements under Ohio law and thisCharter have been met". Thus Council cannot at this time provide notice to the PetitionersCommittee, nor can it specify deficiencies in the Petitions and whether the deficiencies are capable

of being cured.

WHEREAS, the attomey for the Petitioner's Committee sent additional correspondence to theBoard of Elections staff dated September 7, 2011 and thereafter to the Asst. Montgomery CountyProsecutor as legal counsel for the Board of Elections dated October 3 requesting a statement of

position from the Board;

WHEREAS, by letter dated October 6, 2011 the Asst. Montgomery County Prosecutorresponded to counsel's October 3, 2011 request and in his capacity as representative of the Boardof Elections may now have arguably asserted or at least implied on behalf of the Board that thepetitions are sufficient, notwithstanding that the Board may still deem them to be invalid;

WHEREAS, as a result of the October 6, 2011 letter, Council has now elected to take furtheraction under Section 10.04 of the Clayton Charter, reserving however its continued right to assertthat the initiative petitions have not yet been "finally determined to be sufficient by the Board of

Elections";

4

WHEREAS, under Section 10.04 of the Clayton Charter, Council is to determine whether allother requirements under Ohio law and this Charter have been met and if not to notify thePetitioner's Committee within 21 days, specifying the deficiencies which (if capable of beingcured) must be cured by the Petitioners' Committee within fourteen days thereafter;

WHEREAS, while Council is aware of numerous legal issues with the three (3) proposedordinances both under Ohio Revised Code Section 709.37 and other applicable statutes, whichissues will require resolution through subsequent judicial determination in the event of enactmentor approval thereof of these proposed ordinances, Council is aware of only two (2) deficienciesunder the Charter and applicable Ohio election law applicable to these petitions and describesthem as follows along with options available to Petitioners' Committee to submit cures to the

stated deficiencies:

Deficiency No. 1- Contrary to the provisions of Section 10.02 of the ClaytonCharter, a single Petitioner's Committee has submitted petitions for three (3)separate proposed ordinances rather than just "a proposed ordinance".

Petitioners' Committee has fourteen (14) days in which to propose cures to thestated deficiency which may include (a) selection of which of the three (3)petitions it desires to submit to the voters; (b) legal citation as to why all three (3)proposed ordinances can lawfully be submitted by one (1) Petitioners' Committeeunder Charter Section 10.02; or (c) other proposed cures to be submitted for

review.

Deficiency No. 2- Regardless of whether the signatures on the petitions weredeemed to be "sufficient", none of the three (3) separate petitions have beendeemed to be "valid by the Montgomery County Board of Elections as requiredby RC 3501.11(K) which requires the Board of Elections to "review, examine andcertify the sufficiency and validity of petitions ...."

Petitioners' Committee has fourteen (14) days in which to propose cures to thestated deficiency which may include (a) obtaining confirmation from theMontgomery County Board of Elections that they have certified "the sufficiencyand validity of the petitions"; or (b) other cures to be submitted for review.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF


1. That Council specifically rejects the alternative set forth at Charter Section 10.04(A)(2) toenact any of the three (3) ordinances proposed to be enacted by the petitions submitted by the


2. That Council hereby provides notice to the Petitioner's Committee of the deficiencies in theirPetitions and advises them that they have fourteen days (plus three days for service) specificallyby close of business on Monday, November 7, 2011 to submit evidence that the deficiencies

have been cured.

5

3. That in accordance with Charter Section 10.04(A)(1) Council shall take such action as isappropriate upon receipt of further submission from the Petitioner's Committee,

4. That service of a copy of this enacted Resolution shall be promptly made by the Clerk or herdesignee by facsimile transmission and regular mail to legal counsel for the Petitioners'Committee.

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 20, 2011.

AUTHENTICATION:

May

PPROVED AS TO FORM:

ffice of Council) Clerk of Council

7

Law Director

CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION

This shall certify that that the text of the above referenced enactment or a summary thereof waspublished once in the following newspaper and a summary posted in three places of publicaccess as designated by Council.

Name of newspaper Date of publication

CLERK

CERTIFICATION

This shall certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. R-10-11-48enacted by Council on October 20, 2011, is recorded in the permanent minutes andrecords of the City of Clayton, Ohio, and remains in full force and effect as of the date ofthis certification.

Clerk of Council

Dated: 1 p -a,a - I (

6


The Armory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone: 937-824-2811Facsimile: 937-824-2818

ROBERT E. PORT[[email protected]

October 21, 2011

Via Fax 890-6791 and Regular Mail


Re: City of Clayton, Ohio and Mathew C. Johnson, et al.

Dear Steve:

As we discussed, I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution enacted by Clayton Council at

their meeting last evening. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

I

Robert E. PortuneLaw Director, City of Clayton

cc:City of Clayton

Ml8fifi4•m.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm4,mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmma •m••^ ^•• • • ••••••••• • •P.01 ^

^ TRANSACTION REPORT ÔCT-21-2011 FRI 07:38 AM K

^^ FOR: Gottschlich & Portune 9378242818

^^^^^

^ SEND ^^

^ DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP ^^^

^ OCT-21 07:33 AM 8906791 5' 16" 8 FAX TX OK 013 ^^^

^ ^

^ TOTAL 5M 1 6S PAGES: 8 ^


201 E. Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402-2836

Telephone (937) 913-0200

Facsimile (937) 824-2818

Fax Cover Sheet

TO: S-teê K/'g ;`3

FAXNO: 7

FROM: ^ L ^ZO2/^ UNC^

RE:Ci3

DATE: / o_a/- //

# PAGES: j (including cover)

NOTES/COMMENTSi

SêvP

e,4 5e See

CONPIDENTIALITYNOTICE

The documents accompanying this fax iransmission cantain confidential infonnatlon of the sender which is Iegallyeprivileged. The infarmation is intended only for the use ofthe individualbutioo orethe tekeng ofoany aaiotnhnincended recipient, you are hereby noti8ed thaz nny disolosure, copying, distr'i i

immediately notify us by telephon em arrege t for return of the original document to u sw^ this fax in erroq please


201 E. Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402-2836Telephone (937) 913-0200Facsimile (937) 824-2818

Fax Cover Sheet

TO: S --t G' 3 e /(--^ 16?i-63

FAXNO:7

FROM: ^ L 7 Z^lCTG/!

RE: )q/

DATE: Ja_o

# PAGES: 9 ( including cover)

NOTES/COMMENTS:

S^2v '^27 A- c a--l ^ ^^

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The documents accompanying this fax transmission contain confidential information of the sender which is legallyprivileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not theintended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action inreliance on the contents of this faxed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, pleaseimmediately notify us by telephone to arrange for return of the original document to us.


TheArmory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone: 937-824-2811Facsimile: 937-824-2818

October 21, 2011


Ms. Betty Smith, Deputy DirectorMontgomery County Board of Elections451 West Third StreetP.O. Box 8705Dayton, OH 45481-8705

^.

^^

..,

C-) Tlrn N (7

Re: City of Clayton - Initiative Petitions n, „G

Dear Betty:

Enclosed please find a copy of the Resolution enacted by Clayton City Counc:f thei'rjmeeting on October 20, 2011. In the event that the Petitioners' Committee brings this matterback to the Board of Elections for further action, we request on Clayton's behalf, that the matterbe scheduled for formal hearing with the opportunity to introduce evidence on issues before theBoard.

Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your continuedassistance.

15, ZZ,-Robert E. PortuneClayton Law Director

Attachmentcc:Steven P. Harsman, DirectorMontgomery County Board of ElectionsVictor T. Whisman, Esq.Asst. Montgomery County ProsecutorStephen E. Klein, Attorney forPetitioners' Committee

co

KLEIN LAW OICE FA 01104

3812612011 11:51 9378506795

KLEEIN. , ToMB & C^.^ LL^ NI-)

TrQy, .Fa:i {937149

Te[ (939) 309,-3939

wwwA Ia.w.com

Roben E. P%aw eetos, City o:t' Cla;rtrnn2011Dag,

W Porhez?e:

This letta coesstituwRtsolrat%onNo.It-1Cr-11 8 (eieed ca11y

t?e^' tencv No- j be' atZegatwri d6xat rhe C Ckcmceri.ttee frorra,^"s7MS m e?re than one }s gaosedor dinance tioith;

ciency, if genuineatthisti,

and * ve reading o

by the

pzohilrititg a .. ' 'o s'e with do City.

C) 's alleged d, ' ay hasthe 3110111 notice ppended ucaeto.som #cr be apgtlic,al7dd d res.lev

D) The Ctaytaat City Cou€tset is ed m ast3.ie Claernan Citi9 el eswed tb.e 3/10l1 t notice to'

onuaat`lm he.in:tetttion to have the Petitioners' Cs" 6le and tho P'tiomers' Ca

2408 hanari T,7ifiveFo 45377

S[72^ PaftdQT3er$ '

nncil es nvz dmced by1-known d would

w tow.exCU:tee zely upon saiddid, in Fact, sely v;we11- o. aud w

11:51 5376906791PAGE 82104

e of the three s"rtraiat }etiti. heeaz deezrzed

Flections as required ts}t XC^ 350I..I]M.

ot genuine becausenetitioas to be snfficu prm

County Board ofKC.35QJ.11(K).

paMe urbeing bytliePeiStaoners'ayton Cit,y Comoil oudd easily 1-- clarifiod

idationNoveeetber 7th

ONC1 LSICII'1

935 registexpressed ,.4185 and 4221

920 regs,expressed .4245 W. W,

932 regitexpres4293 and 4

Said propony sen

ed 3ay thea3d property . . . ei

Wowood, Mareovdz,of revenues to Clay*tom

The Petitioners' Ctllw the etpressed wi

to ffie . of Mactions, N ..

Cla:yton (47 reld oa the

Clayton (44 madon the anc

esrger Road propcrties.

Otelia'. Thorefore, the Mdoom' Comtniteee cameatly requc. piy vith Clavton Charter 10,04(AX1) an d acknowled

10/ 2612f111 M51 9378906791

Robett E. FortuneOcwbcr1'age I'hrue

5-4F#22)

K4,EZN LAW : Id:E PAGE 03104

F M 937-924

10126I2H11 11:51 9378906791

C 'T'T^^HU . .. & POR'T Eg LI,PAvarn at iaavv

Tâe A201 ODa;toe;0TekphTclap .Fecsim£tL

(o b'tep7l7.ert P. K3ei240 I3oiSS.n3tt i eti.. dat" OH 45377

tn .#r2iole X o

rf Clayton,. Ohio and Ntat m C. Johnson. et al.

ee (3) Pet?ir^70937.

L'.rsder Sectian 1002 of .'cYe X{copy achodsne in my statr7s as Law Director of tkte City

by tlre City Ivianages to I3sa^vit^`^t priate pedtiFe ua, 18 letter reeluegc 3 00 tthesc forms be. pm

m and stato <'t$ attL.?;itet

i.tt ooCity of Ctapton, approisrie&cirng tendered to you. t+s lcipl

c[ the referestotd provisi of the tJhio Revised Code zela ' to cir. cula#ion and

E T F. POEt'CU

propased csrd'n ces were

ers' Commits' committee ' your

ard of FI. ticr M and on be 'o'£tbeUeen pmparcd and printed

PeCtfioners' Camm'ttee,

PI e femiliarxze yc . elf with the p ures set foztla in A.rfie,le X of tlac Claytoti

Oil ot tne

t'nd I faave beett tt'

cc:City ofClaytonEnolofiure - Pet9tioar Fo m- - I }t}


The Armory201 East Sixth StreetDayton, Ohio 45402Telephone 937-913-0200Telephone: 937-824-28I 1Facsimile: 937-824-2818

November 7, 2011



Re: City of Clayton, Ohio and Mathew C. Johnson, et al.

Dear Steve:

On October 20, 2011, the Council of the City of Clayton, Ohio enacted Resolution No. R-10-11-48 which set forth two Deficiencies in the three (3) initiative petitions submitted by yourclient Petitioners' Committee seeking to place three (3) boundary adjustment ordinances on theballot and requesting a response as to how these deficiencies could be cured. A copy of thisResolution was provided to you by faxed letter dated October 21, 2011.

You responded by letter dated October 26, 2011 to both listed Deficiencies. With regardto Deficiency No. 2 (the "validity" of the petitions) you stated that "counsel for the Petitioners'Committee has requested the Board of Elections to re-affirm its validation of sufficiency of thethree petitions" and further stated that "[t]he next Board meeting is scheduled for November 7."

Representatives of the City of Clayton, including myself, were in attendance at themeeting of the Board of Elections at 11:00 AM on Monday, November 7, 2011. Prior to themeeting, I confirmed with staff that nothing had been filed with the Board by the Petitioners'Committee. And, during the meeting itself, although your client, Matthew Johnson was inattendance and given an opportunity to speak, he said nothing to the Board and made nopresentation or request to the Board. The meeting was conducted and then adjourned with norequest having been made by the Petitioners' Committee to the Board and no further actionhaving been taken by the Board regarding these election issues.

Accordingly, the position of the Board of Elections remains unchanged and there hasbeen no certification of the "validity" of three (3) petitions in accordance with R.C. 3501.11(K).Since that lack of certification constitutes a deficiencyl that has not been cured within the

t Since Deficiency No. 2 constitutes a fundamental uncured defect preventing any further action by Clayton Council,there is no need to address your response to Deficiency No. I since even if your response constituted a°cure" theother Deficiency effectively prevents further action.

required fourteen (14) day period set forth in Section 10.04 of the Clayton Charter, no furtheraction will be taken by Clayton Council on any of these petitions.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Robert E.I'ortuneLaw Director, City of Clayton

cc:City of Clayton

2

u

A M

w

A mN ^m.i b ti

O

^ x

vo ^ 0 a

"o .I O O O

ms + YuuUG7mY

p roNroW

W N N N

fq Gm IC wLYY

q .H Gl ro ro NW VI

ro

^N VYl ^ W Sa'O'Ox> G How1

ww ° mwm00

'M N ^ >uwv

°J

u

o Y22 N

o w

"

$ ro

q G

W

m+' >

4oA'nry"nHAAA o z

a^^ aâaâ m °F

^

ÔNNI ^NNm

•IWC

0

^0

mA Mro

u waw a r

U - bl N ._..p..

p m my N O m•i y

ONL ^ m

m O N. ^ CCq C.

^y W 07a ^ Y+O N

P y vmN

o

.N O O ONuciu uu u

ooa N î • y w.ww ^^ '^ m AJ W 'a 'a 'J G nN Nw c^ N ^ m

...i s^ u

.u

'0." Q " Nqûa mN m"w

H V ^N mm

z rommm âmom ^,m.^ , v m

^ ^

. a o v ro a o a2 y " p W J^.ri H

mam^ N G

a m wN

wwOo +

>^ h WN Y'^'M'J LWWa^WD VO ^^ ^ w V ni o.rIN.U17W ^J

^ `L Z N 'O ^' N N N W

Q t'^, m om. C vJ JJ N CP'O s^

p^ .]qyOnînR a0 0 N .. .. .. ..

[iAQqQra^ ôLi F rp HHHHri^H

m â

N

v

ro

pH z

mp m

9

LL

V

CW

l.m

a ^ ei MG

q30'n rn v, v O b^ u N

vHtlÔ aUiZvîC 3 .o v ti N ^ O

wu.nti w ma

Nron> tnwmCOm

Montgomery County Board of Elections .^.. . ., Lc i ... 201 East Sixth Street Dayton, OH 45402 937-824-2811(phone) 937-824-2818 (fax) Stephen E. Klein (0014351) ... Lc iSUPRENiE COURT

Documents