×

East Liverpool: Both sides offer more information in traffic cam civil case

LISBON — The group East Liverpool Citizens Against Traffic Cameras and the city of East Liverpool both provided Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judge C. Ashley Pike with additional information about their arguments before he makes a decision in the civil case.

Both attorneys, Charles Payne for the city and Mark Hanni for the citizens group, on Thursday got a chance to talk about the remaining issues in the case, which mainly revolve around whether or not the citizens group should have filed a referendum or an initiative petition to try to repeal the use of traffic cameras. The citizens group filed an initiative petition with the city in 2017, but it was not placed on the ballot.

The ballot issue sought to prohibit the use of the traffic cameras, which began in the city on April 27, 2017, shortly after city council passed an ordinance setting up the traffic cam program. This prompted the citizens group to collect the signatures in July 2017. In a short letter dated Aug. 9, city Auditor Marilyn Bosco told the group she refused to certify the sufficiency and validity of the committee’s petition to the board of elections.

One of the reasons she gave was that the citizens group waited too long to file the petition. Although the paperwork was filed prior to the deadline to place items on the November ballot, Bosco cited a 2008 Fifth District Court of Appeals decision from a case in Stark County. That case involved the city of North Canton, but not traffic cameras. Bosco claimed as in that case the group should have filed for a referendum and not a initiative petition and all referendums must be filed within 30 days of the ordinance being passed by council.

While Payne and the city continue to use the Fifth District Court of Appeals case as their argument, Hanni’s argument includes precedent cases from the state Supreme Court. Hanni’s argument states those cases show an initiative petition is the proper way to negate an ordinance passed by council.

Payne argued against whether the Ohio Supreme Court cases being cited by Hanni were actually are the same type of cases as this one. Payne notes in this case council’s ordinance was not passed as an emergency, so the citizens group had 30 days to get the referendum in place before the law took effect.

Hanni argued that if that was the only way to handle this type of situation, then if an ordinance was passed and residents did not realize within 30 days how it would negatively impact them, then they would have no remedy after the 30 days.

A referendum can only repeal a law while an initiative can be used to both repeal a law and make a new law.

Hanni noted that if Pike happens to make a ruling in the next 10 days on the civil case, which was filed in late September 2017, then the citizens group would be able to act in time to get something on the ballot this November.

djohnson@mojonews.com

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today