PARKERSBURG – In response to a court filing dealing with the municipal charter’s process for recalling elected officials, Parkersburg’s city attorney said the language is plain that the potential removal of a council member requires signatures from 20% of all the city’s registered voters.

“Opinions regarding what is ‘reasonable,’ ‘logical,’ ‘illogical,’ ‘unworkable,’ or that which ‘harmonizes’ the Charter may well be taken if one were undertaking the exercise of drafting the initial Charter language,” City Attorney Blaine Myers wrote, referencing language used in a petition filed by a member of a committee seeking to recall Mayor Tom Joyce and Council President Andrew Borkowski. “However, it is not up to this Court to substitute its judgment regarding what the language of the Charter should be, or rewrite its provisions.”

The answer from the city comes after Parkersburg resident LaDonna Reid filed a petition in April in Wood County Circuit Court asking for a ruling on whether, in the case of recalling a council member, the charter’s requirement of a number of city resident signatures equal to 20% of those registered to vote in the last regular municipal election meant citywide or just in the specific council district. The charter does not distinguish between the two, although council members are only elected by residents in their district.

Twenty percent of all registered voters in the city for the 2024 election works out to approximately 3,684 signatures. Borkowski represents council District 8, which had a total population of 3,258 according to the last redistricting ordinance passed in 2022. The number of registered voters in the district in the 2024 election was not immediately available late Friday afternoon.

The petition argues the 20% figure should only apply to the district, since voters outside the district “do not elect the council member and may have limited familiarity with that official’s performance.” That might make someone outside the district hesitant to support a recall petition and hinder the ability of district voters to exercise the power of recall, it says.

The petition also cites an email from City Clerk Connie Shaffer that said she believed the district-based interpretation was correct. Noting that conflicts with the interpretation in a memo issued by Myers, which says the percentage should be from among all voters while acknowledging the district approach “may make sense,” the petition says the charter language is “ambiguous and subject to differing reasonable interpretations.”

In the answer to the petition to the court, Myers said the clerk “is not an attorney representing the city” and the memo should be considered in its entirety.

“Only the City Attorney can provide a legal opinion on behalf of the City of Parkersburg and there are thus no conflicting interpretations of the Charter,” the answer said. “Further, the Charter language is clear and explicit, and is not ambiguous.”

The answer said that while council representation is determined by district, “the framers and the voters who adopted the Charter nonetheless provided that a member of City Council can only be subject to recall by a Petition of 20% of the qualified voters of the entire City.”

The answer from Myers asks the court to dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment. If the court decides not to, it asks that an order be issued giving members of City Council 30 days to intervene in the civil action.

Myers noted he “cannot represent members of City Council in their individual capacity in this proceeding … but it is they who were duly elected and should have the right to express their position to this Court regarding any process seeking to remove them from office.”

Wood County Circuit Judge J.D. Beane had not ruled on the petition as of Friday afternoon.

Evan Bevins can be reached at ebevins@newsandsentinel.com.