NEWTON FALLS — Following legal action filed by a village councilwoman, a judge granted a temporary restraining order blocking manager Pam Priddy from receiving a 50% raise.

Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge Andrew Logan will hear arguments Nov. 30 to determine whether Priddy’s new contract shall stand. Councilwoman-at-Large Julie Stimpert sought the temporary restraining order late last week.

Priddy’s new contract raises her salary from $60,000 to $90,000 and provides her with six weeks of paid vacation.

At question is whether the council vote approving the pay raise was legal because it occurred during a Sept. 11 special meeting which then-Mayor Ken Kline deemed illegal.

Stimpert and Councilman Kevin Rufener agreed with Kline and have claimed the meeting went against the village charter.

Rufener said the council meeting was not legal because the Sept. 11 meeting agenda mirrored a previously adjourned Sept. 6 council meeting. Kline said the charter bans special meetings from continuing previous meetings or duplicating anything on a previous agenda or legislation at a prior regular meeting.

After Kline declared the meeting illegal, he left the council session. The remaining council members attempted to declare a 15-minute recess during which Stimpert and Rufener exited the meeting and claimed any further action that night would be illegal. The three remaining council members, Tesa Spletzer, John Baryak and Gideon Fetterolf continued the proceedings after the 15-minute recess and took votes on various items, including first reading on an ordinance creating a new contract for Priddy.

OPINIONS ON VOTE

Attorney Bruce Wick of Westlake, who is a registered parliamentarian, assisted council at the meetings. He said the Sept. 11 meeting had a quorum of three council members, which allowed for first reading of ordinances at a special meeting.

Law Director Brad Bryan also had said the meeting was legal.

Baryak said legal opinions council has received indicate it was a legal meeting. He said Stimpert and Rufener left the meeting “unexcused.”

On Oct. 6, a required public hearing and second reading was given by a 3-2 vote of council on Priddy’s contract. Baryak, Fetterolf and Spletzer voted for the pay adjustment, while Stimpert and Rufener voted against.

Stimpert’s lawsuit claims that Priddy’s new contract is void and without effect because it had not been voted on and passed for a first reading as required by the village charter due to the invalidity of the council actions Sept. 11.

Several residents at that meeting and others have objected to Priddy receiving the $30,000 pay increase.

Baryak said Priddy deserves the increase. He noted she has worked to obtain grants and raise funds for road construction and projects that will lead to major improvements in the village.

He noted Priddy helped secure funds for the Scott Street sewer project and sought funding for the community center and river project.

Priddy has said council’s administration committee, which is made up of two council members, reviewed and recommended the increase. She said she worked eight months without pay when she was first brought in as manager and makes less than many of the community’s managers.

Both parties have agreed that the pay increase for Priddy will not be implemented until the outcome of the hearing.

A petition with 250 residents’ names was submitted to the village clerk earlier this month for a referendum on the ordinance that granted Priddy’s increase.