SHELBY — Charlie Roub said the final decision on a proposed charter amendment should be made by Shelby voters.
Roub, the city’s 1st Ward councilman, was referring to legislation which calls for an extension of the filing deadline for Shelby candidates from 75 days to 90 days.
“It should not be to us (council) to make that decision for them,” he said Monday. “I trust the voters in Shelby and I trust they’ll do what they think is right for them.”
In order to be placed before Shelby voters on the Nov. 4 general election ballot, council must approve three readings of the ordinance and pass the legislation upon its final reading.
City council took its first step in getting the proposal to voters Monday night, unanimously passing the first reading 4-0. Fourth Ward Councilman Nathan Martin was absent from Monday’s meeting.
The proposed legislation will be read for a second time at council’s next regular meeting, which is set for 7 p.m. on July 7 at the Shelby Justice Center, 29 Mack Ave.
Mixed feelings
An ordinance with arguably the same language as that currently proposed was denied last July by City Council.
Discussions among councilmembers revealed mixed emotions on the matter, which remained ultimately unaltered when the proposal was reintroduced last month.
According to the Shelby City Charter, amendments must receive a two-thirds vote of the council to be submitted to the city’s electors. Roub and councilmembers Steve McLaughlin and Eric Cutlip voted in favor of sending the proposal to voters last July.
Fourth Ward Councilman Nathan Martin and 2nd Ward Councilman Derrin Roberts cast the two dissenting votes.
“I guess I’ve fundamentally failed to see what has changed in the previous year that would require a different result,” Martin said last month. “What has changed in the last 360 days that should change our mind?”
McLaughlin — who sponsored the denied proposal last July and is again sponsoring the current attempt — said in June that a 90-day filing deadline would sync Shelby with all other government entities in Richland County.
“Currently our citizens have only one day to challenge or contest someone’s petition, so this (90-day filing deadline) would give our citizens 15 days versus one day,” he said previously.
‘Shelby voters are disenfranchised,’ says Board of Elections director
Richland County Board of Elections Director Matt Finfgeld and Jane Zimmermann, Board of Elections deputy director, returned to the Shelby Justice Center on Monday to address council.
Finfgeld explained that Shelby ballot issues have a 90-day filing deadline, which is in sync with the rest of the county. If Shelby candidates had a 90-day filing deadline, it would create consistency, he said.
“It’s not just about us (Board of Elections),” the director said. “Shelby voters are disenfranchised because the law reads that if you want to protest a candidate’s petition, you have to do that by the close of business of the 74th day.
“The issue comes in when your (Shelby’s) filing deadline is the 75th day and our board doesn’t meet until the following day. There is no time for Shelby residents to ever challenge a candidate’s petition.”
Ohio Revised Code Section 3513.05 gives qualified electors the ability to file a protest against “the candidacy of any person filing a declaration of candidacy for party nomination or for election to an office or position.”
“There’s many reasons why a petition can be challenged,” Finfgeld said. “It’s not a big deal until one is to be challenged and the resident doesn’t have that right to challenge that petition.”
(Below is a PDF showing the proposed charter amendment legislation discussed Monday night by Shelby lawmakers.)
