In response to last week’s Ohio Supreme Court decision that ruled against their case, Oberlin Citizens for Responsible Development, an organization devoted to preventing a Wal-Mart superstore from being built in town, is attempting to overturn the ruling with the help of its lawyer, Gerald Phillips.

“It’s never over,” said Mark Chesler, a leading member of OCRD, despite the case’s defeat.

The case brought by OCRD insisted that approval for the Wal-Mart development agreement was unconstitutional on the grounds that Oberlin city council did not follow proper procedure. This refers to the council not allowing Oberlin residents to vote on the agreement before it was passed, instead using the emergency clause. Accordingly, OCRD argued before the Supreme Court that the development agreement should be placed as a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot so that Oberlinians could have a say in the matter.

However, the Sept. 27 ruling stated that the development agreement had, in fact, been legitimately passed on emergency and, most importantly, did not qualify as a referendum since the act was deemed administrative and not legislative.

In his motion for reconsideration filed last Friday, Phillips did not take particular issue with whether the emergency clause was used constitutionally. Instead, he argued that the case be reconsidered based on the premise that the matter was indeed legislative rather than administrative.

In his brief, Phillips said that, in this case, approving the development agreement was not an action required by law, but was rather an issue which citizens had the right to think and make an informed decision about. In this way, he said, citizens were deprived of this right.

“Accordingly, since contractual agreements by their nature are subject to the exercise of discretion and discretion is the hallmark of legislative action, [the passing of the development agreement] was a legislative act,” argued Phillips in the brief.

In addition, Phillips raised the point that the court’s ruling on OCRD’s case was based on previous court case decisions that were not comparable. He rejected the relevance of these earlier decisions on the grounds that they did not involve initiatives or referendums.

When questioned on OCRD’s confidence about whether the decision could successfully be overturned, Chesler believed that it could.

“They’re not just out of bounds, they’re inaccurate,” he said of his opponents, including the Supreme Court.

Phillips, however, is uncertain.

“I feel confident that our case is legitimate, but the odds are not in favor of [the Supreme Court] changing [its] mind,” Phillips said. “Legal issues are not black and white. This legal test is somewhat subjective, so the result is subjective.”

He also thinks that winning the case could help Oberlin in the long-term when faced with future development agreements.

In support of his cause, Phillips said that this was a case about “very valuable and powerful rights. [Referendum] is a way people can take back the government.”

Phillips ended his interview with The Review with a criticism of the city council.

“With the referendum on the ballot, at least [Oberlinians] would get a chance to vote,” he said.

“It was a done deal by city council,” he added, implying that the council was concealing information and being non-communicative in order to make a speedy decision.

“It’s harder to buy all the residents of the community than 11 council members,” Phillips said.