Residents say Vandalia referendum petition lacked Ohio-required language; county elections office flagged paperwork

Residents and petitioners at a Vandalia City Council meeting questioned the city’s handling of a referendum petition form, saying it omitted statutory language required by the Ohio Revised Code and that a letter intended for petitioner Tamela Weatherhead was not delivered.

A resident (name not specified) said the petition form provided by the city did not include required explanatory statements and called the omission "totally irresponsible." The resident said they contacted the Montgomery County Board of Elections, which "were really appalled at what paperwork we were given," and urged the council to address the issue.

City staff responded that the form "comports with the charter, which it does, and with the chapter in the Ohio Revised Code dealing with referendums and initiatives," and noted the red warning language required by statute appears on the form. The staff member (name not specified) added they had not reviewed a separate nominating‑petition section that contains circulation language for candidate petitions.

During the exchange a petitioner raised whether legal counsel had reviewed the form. The presiding officer declined to answer whether legal counsel was consulted. The resident said it was "totally unacceptable" that citizens might feel required to hire an attorney to verify materials the city provides.

The resident also said a letter that should have been delivered to Tamela Weatherhead was handed to another person and not mailed or emailed to Weatherhead. The resident said a man identified in the discussion as having accepted the letter on behalf of the petition committee — referenced variously as "Mr. Hogan" and "Mr. Hoeghorn" in meeting remarks — said he would deliver it, but committee members did not receive written notice from the city until the petition was rejected.

Speakers said they had raised the matter with the Montgomery County Board of Elections during the county’s handling of the petition, and that county staff found the form and its condition problematic compared with petitions the county normally receives.

No formal vote or council action on the petition paperwork was recorded in the transcript. The meeting record shows an extended public comment exchange in which residents criticized the city’s distribution and handling of the referendum materials and requested clarification or correction.

The transcript also records repeated refusals by the presiding officer to answer whether legal counsel reviewed the documents; city staff said they had checked the form against the charter and the relevant Ohio Revised Code provisions but did not identify a legal opinion in the meeting record.

The discussion covered three distinct concerns: whether the petition form omitted statutory circulation language, whether the red statutory warning language required by the Ohio Revised Code was present, and whether a notice intended for petitioner Tamela Weatherhead was delivered as the committee expected. Speakers said county elections staff had been contacted and described the county’s reaction as strongly critical of the paperwork they had seen.

No council member is recorded in the provided transcript taking a formal vote, issuing a staff directive, or announcing a corrective step on the record. The exchange ended with public comment concluding and the meeting adjourned.