Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
XENIA, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
Now comes Plaintiff X for his cause of action against City of Xenia, Xenia City Council
Factual allegations
State Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 1 and is bound by general and specific
with the Greene County Board of elections, and have not completed form 30-D,
07/2005.
individually and through proxies, for the purpose of passing a proposed ballot tax
current taxing authority, income tax levy and city management practices and
document titled “Securing Xenia’s Future,” marked “Exhibit A,” which informed
the public that “the budget is balanced and the city is in good financial standing.”
7. On or about August 17, 2009, Defendants issued a press release, marked “Exhibit
B,” announcing that they will “approach the community with a request for
8. On or about October 28, 2009, Defendants issued a press release, marked “Exhibit
C,” in which it informed the public that Wright State University has been retained
in order to conduct a phone survey, which would assist Defendants with “setting a
10. The aforementioned Wright State University survey included questions related to
taxation, such as “which types of ballot initiatives they would support in the future
11. The aforementioned Wright State University Survey contained biased questions
12. Defendants had a hidden agenda and used the aforementioned “Citizen Perception
Survey” as a means to illegally bypass Ohio and Federal election law and use
taxpayer funds to assess, align and create an election strategy for facilitating the
passing of a tax levy and ballot initiative during the May 4, 2010 election.
13. On or about January 7, 2010, Defendants held a special session meeting aimed at
discussing a “potential levy.” Meeting minutes are attached and marked “Exhibit
E.”
14. That during the aforementioned meeting held on January 7, 2010, Councilman
Louderback said, “… to go from 1.75 to 2.25 percent income tax is not out of the
question; he felt people are tired of paying property taxes and the survey
indicates that. An income tax is a better way to go [we] have to pay attention to
15. That during the aforementioned meeting held on January 7, 2010, Councilwoman
Felton said, “…she was called to take the survey, and she felt the questions were
very biased”
16. That during the aforementioned meeting held on January 7, 2010, Mayor Bayless
said “ [we] need to keep the survey results in the forefront and figure out a way
17. On or about January 14, 2010, Defendants passed ordinance 10-02 calling for an
increase of the income tax levied on Plaintiff from a current rate of 1.75% to a
rate of 2.25%; the proposed increase was assigned the nomenclature of “Issue 7”
by the Greene County Board of Elections and will be placed on the ballot for the
18. On or about January 30, 2010, Defendants held a Special Budget Session meeting
Avakian Consulting, a public policy and political marketing firm located at 1215
services to the City of Xenia.” Minutes of the meeting are marked “Exhibit F.”
19. That during the aforementioned Special Budget Session meeting, Defendants
a proxy to promote, market and push ballot Issue 7. Councilman Louderback said
“…he was a little confused. Was the consultant hired to help pass the levy, to
help enhance the city’s image, or a combination of both? Mr. Percival said the
better the city’s image and the more information that is out there, the better the
20. That during the aforementioned Special Budget Session meeting, Defendants
help pass the levy. Councilman Smith asked if “the goal was to pass the levy or
improve the city’s image. Mr. Percival said both. Councilman Smith asked what
the number one priority was. Mr. Percival did not think one could be done
without the other; the priorities are completely and totally tied together.
Councilman Smith said some Council members would love to work on the levy
campaign, but they can’t do that. Mr. Percival thought there would be a role for
Council to lay through the video and other things. The image, marketing, and
promotional campaign will be directly tied to the levy campaign; you can’t
separate the two. President Felton said Council is not allowed to knock on
doors to try to sell the levy, but they can talk to various groups about the levy.
Councilwoman Caupp said your mother, your preacher, etc., can talk about the
levy.”
21. That during the aforementioned Special Budget Session meeting, Defendants
help promote, advertise and push the levy to residents: “Mayor Bayless asked if
there were any fact sheets. Mr. Percival said yes; one will be mailed with the next
utility bills. Mayor Bayless asked Mr. Bazelak if he could e-mail it to her because
she will be speaking at a group that she felt would ask questions. Mr. Bazelak
said he could do that, but they wanted to first run it be the consultant to make
for the amount of $25,000 with Avakian Consulting. Copy of the contract is
24. That the aforementioned contract with Avakian Consulting was made for the
purpose of advertising and ensuring the passage of the ballot initiative, known as
Issue 7.
25. On or about January 28, 2010, Defendant’s contacted Joel Gagne of Avakian
Consulting via e-mail, marked as “Exhibit H,” making it evident that the sole
purpose of the Avakian engagement with the Defendants was to promote the tax
behalf of the Levy Committee, I am excited to move forward with our campaign.
Chris [Berger] will send you a text this evening after the Council meeting to let
you know what they decide. In the spirit of thinking positively, please find
26. On or about February 1, 2010, Defendants’ agent Michelle Johnson sent an email,
marked “Exhibit I,” to Avakian Consulting asking for a review of a levy bullet
point flyer in order to meet deadline for utility bill mailing: “Congratulations on
being awarded the contract…have you had a chance to review the bullet-point
flyer? We have to move on that ASAP to meet the utility bill vendor’s timeline.”
27. On or about February 10, Joel Gagne of Avakian Consulting sent an e-mail
recommending that “Legal Council said the City Council can not mention the
levy. Did he/she write anything up in regards to this? If yes, can you please send
it to me?”
28. On or about February 11, 2010, Defendants’ agent Michelle Johnson sent an e-
from Avakian Consulting titled The Do’s and Don’t’s and Talking Points,
writing, “I have also attached the final version of the buletpoint flyer that is being
sent out tomorrow to all Xenia residents in their utility bills (almost 10,000!) …
Finally, the slogan Joel [Gagne] is recommending for the campaign is Keeping
Xenia Safe.”
29. On or about February 12, 2010, Avakian Consulting helped Defendants create an
insert or flyer, marked as “Exhibit L,” which was printed on Xenia City stationery
and was used by Defendants to gain support for the passage of proposed tax
increase from voters via the “safety factor” advised on by Avakian Consulting;
the flyer was mailed to Xenia City residents together with monthly utility bills.
30. On or about February 26, 2010, Defendants, with the help of Avakian Consulting,
talking points.
being actively distributed by the Defendants via verbal, written and electronic
Election law.
COUNT I.
VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
32. Plaintiff incorporates Rhetorical paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set out herein.
33. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 715 and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 717
Defendants have no general or specific authority to carry out surveys for the
ballot initiative.
34. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 715 and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 717
(b) Permanently enjoin Defendants from disbursing public funds for the
(c) and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II.
35. Plaintiff incorporates Rhetorical paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set out herein.
37. Defendants are in violation of Ohio Revised Code 3517.13 by failing to file a
(c) and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT III.
MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
38. Plaintiff incorporate Rhetorical paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set out herein.
corporation’s situation to the public and spending $4,000 of public funds on the
State University.
(f) and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT IV.
FRAUD
41. Plaintiff incorporate Rhetorical paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set out herein.
42. Through a chain of fraudulent actions, for the past 10 months, Defendants
fraudulently led Plaintiff and general public to mistakenly assess the city’s
financial situation as “dire” or the city being in a fiscal “emergency” for the
purpose of creating panic and facilitating the passage of a ballot initiative, known
as “Issue 7.”
43. Through a chain of fraudulent actions and under false pretense, Defendants built
Elections from placing “Issue 7” on the ballot for the May 4, 2010
election.
(b) and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted
___________________________