1996 Recall

Filed under: — tkm September 28, 2005 @ 10:0 am
  • CLICK: RETURN TO HOME PAGE
  • Portsmouth, Ohio
    1996 Recall

    Mutilation—is defined as Defacement, Damage, Alteration, or Modification

    So whatever terms Ms. Aeh wishes to use to describe what she did in 1996 to petitions filed by taxpayers of Portsmouth it all comes back to Mutilation, and what ever terms the Supreme Court used in their ruling that Ms. Aeh stepped outside her authority in the defacement of petitions—it still all comes back to the word MUTILATION.

    CLICK: “MUTILATION OF PETITIONS”

    And they call this reform group terrorist’s!!!!!!!!!!

    Court Case & Documents:

    CLICK: 1996-1997 Supreme Court Case

    CLICK: Supreme Court Orders

    CLICK: Letter to Donini

    And Chief Horner wants to call US “Domestic terrorists”???? From what I see from documented facts the real terroists exist right with our own government officials!!!!!!!! When a common citizens (taxpayer) tries to enforce his rights through the local protective forces or the prosecutors office, County or City, they receive no respect.

    posted by tkm 1-13-06

    ____________________________________________

    I spoke with Jim Kalb yesterday about his part in the 1996 recalls.

    Here’s what he told me:

    1. Health insurance for Council Members was the primary issue in the recall effort.
    2. Kalb did not vote for the ordinance granting health insurance — it had been approved before he took office.
    3. He signed up for the insurance when he was elected.
    4. He had been in office for about 6 months when the recall petitions were filed and the charter bars recall during the first 6 months of a council member’s term in office. He believed the petition drive against him began before this six months was up. Though, it appears the petitions were turned in after the six months was up.
    5. He admitted that Jo Ann Aeh, city clerk, had provided him and the other counsel members photo copies of the original recall petitions, which he personally took door to door to speak with the signatories. Aeh also gave Kalb and others removal of signature petitions, which Kalb then had the original signatories sign. If someone signed the removal of signature petition, then Aeh removed their name from the original petition. According to Kalb, the removal of signature petition scheme had been used in a previous petition drive involving MRDD. In other words, they didn’t think up the scheme just to deal with the 1996 recalls. It had been done before.
    6. Aeh’s removal of these names meant that the recall peitition drive against Kalb (as well as others) failed to secure enough signatures.
    7. Rather than face recall in 1996, Ann Sydnor and Greg Bauer resigned from their position’s on city council. Bauer went on to run for Mayor. Sydnor just ran for council again, during the regular election — she was up for relection at the time. She won.
    8. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Aeh could not remove signatures based on the second petition drive by Kalb and others.
    9. The Supreme Court ordered that Kalb’s recall be put on the ballot. A special election was held in 1997 and Jim’s recall was voted down by the electors in his ward. He remained on council, with the backing of his ward.
    10. Thus, Jim Kalb does not credit Aeh and Kuhn (the legal counsel to Aeh who approved the second removal petitions) with having saved his political career. He believes the popular vote against his recall vindicated him.
    11. At first Kalb told me that Aeh had not done anything wrong, but he then admitted that the Supreme Court had in fact concluded that she had. The removal of signature petitions were illegal. And Kalb participated in this scheme, believing that since it had been done before it must be legal. It was Aeh who actually used her authority to strike the names of the original petitions. Kalb claimed that there was no criminal intent on the part of Aeh.
    12. Kalb wasn’t sure how the insurance issue was resolved, except to point out that council members are still eligible to receive health insurance.

    My thoughts on this: Aeh’s actions were not simply aimed at saving Kalb from recall. It was also done to protect the other council members and the city solicitor, David Kuhn, who were also subjects of the recall petitions.

    The city charter needs to be revised to take the power of approving petitions out of the hands of the city clerk. This is a job for the county Board of Elections.

    The city clerk serves at the pleasure of the city council. They can fire her. However, the city clerk can use her power over petitions to help shield elected city officials from recall. She did it in 1996 and she did it again in the case of David Malone in the most recent recall petition drive. She, not a court and jury, decided that Russ Cooper had perjured himself. And she used this decision to throw out a whole sheet of signatures — the majority of which had legitimate verifiable signatures. This thwarted Malone’s recall. Malone now owes his future political career to Aeh, Kuhn, and Chief Horner.

    It was Horner’s arrest of Cooper on perjury charges that enabled Aeh to throw out that petition sheet. But, I stick to my belief that Aeh did not have the power to determine that Cooper was in fact guilty of perjury and thus throw out the whole petition sheet. She should have just thrown out the petition signatures that did not match the signatures on file at the Board of Elections.

    Kalb may have survived his recall in 1996-97, but the voters of the city of Portsmouth have been denied the chance to vote on David Malone’s recall. And Malone now owes a major debt to Aeh and Kuhn.

    Andrew Feight
    Portsmouth Free Press

    A N D R E W F E I G H T
    9/8/2005
    ________________________________________________________

    It turns out that 9-11 is not just the anniversary of the horrible terrorist attacks but also the anniversary of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling known as Fite et al. v. Aeh.

    Back in September 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Portsmouth City Clerk, Joann Aeh had violated the Ohio Revised Code when she removed signatures from the recall petitions against Ann Sydnor and Jim Kalb. While the ruling only dealt with Aeh’s role in this because it was a writ of mandamus issue (a request to force a government official to carry out their legal responsibilities), Kalb also played a prominent role in the scheme to remove these signatures.

    Granted, Kalb claims he believed everything he was doing was legit. And, when his recall was placed on the ballot, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, he did survive. Nevertheless, the smearing of the recall petition circulators in 1996, just like that in the most recent campaign, served Kalb’s interests.

    According to Russ Cooper, who spoke at last night’s meeting of the municipal reformers, lawyers are currently looking into whether Aeh’s refusal to count valid signatures on the Malone recall petitions amounts to a violation of the Fite et al. v. Aeh ruling. Perhaps, David Malone’s recall will end up on the ballot, just as Kalb’s did, after another Supreme Court ruling.

    Andrew Feight
    Portsmouth Free Press

    A N D R E W F E I G H T
    9/11/2005

    DOCUMENTS:
    by tkm

    CLICK: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling

    CLICK: Supreme Court of Ohio Letter

    CLICK: Sheriff Donini Letter 7-14-1998

    No Comments

    No comments yet.

    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.