By CHANDRA NIKLEWSKI

STAFF WRITER

April showers are one thing, but an Eagle Street neighborhood got more than they bargained for this morning.

Police reported a water main break in the 300 block of East Eagle Street at 6:50 a.m. today and the water department was on scene by 7 a.m.

"It's terrible. It's a flood," Norma Marshall, resident of East Eagle Street, said.

A spokesman for the water department, who asked not to be identified, said the broken main is 12 inches, the second largest main in the city.

"It's flooding everything out there," the spokesman said.

He estimated that six valves would have to be shut off before the problem could be properly identified and fixed and he believed the problem may have originated in a wooded area nearby.

All of State Street and part of Clark Street may be without water while the problem is being fixed, according to the water department worker. Clark Street may be closed off as well to traffic.

A water tower near the break is also contributing to the flooding by pushing the water out harder, the spokesman said.

As for how long the water department will be working, the spokesman said it could be only for the morning or it may be an all-day job.

"It's a very big main, there's a lot of damage out there and the hole is unsafe," the spokesman said.

He estimated the hole made by the water to be 6 to 8 foot in diameter.

Marshall said the water has already come into her crawl space and taken up all of her grass seed. Her next-door neighbor had water two inches from his door, she said.

"It has to be completely under his house," Marshall explained.

Marshall said the fields between State and Clark streets are also flooded.

"I've never seen anything like it," Marshall, who has been in her home for 45 years, said.

As for the amount of work that will take place in the area today, the spokesman said it's a big job and all the water trucks are going to be working on it.

"It's going to be a fun day," he joked.

Contact staff writer Chandra Niklewski at:

chandraniklewski@reviewtimes.com.

By STEPHANY SCHINGS

Staff writer

As Assistant Superintendent Constance Dorr prepares to finish her work at Fostoria Community Schools, the administration's work is just beginning.

Jo Hollingsworth, president of FCS' board of education, said the board was surprised and unhappy to hear of Dorr's decision to retire at this time, but they respect her decision.

"It was unexpected for us," she said. "We were hoping she'd stay on another year, but with her husband retired and her kids graduated, she just has some things she wants to do."

Dorr said Tuesday she plans for her last day to be some time at the end of May, though she does not have an exact date. She said she will be using her vacation days to finish work before the July 1 effective date of her retirement.

The board and administration have wasted no time searching for her replacement.

Following Monday's special board meeting, the board met in executive session partly to discuss this process.

First, Hollingsworth said, the district will hire an interim assistant superintendent.

"We'll want somebody in here as soon as we can so that person can work with (Dorr) and get caught up on what she's done," Hollingsworth said.

Superintendent Cynthia Lemmerman said she is currently searching for an interim assistant superintendent and hopes to find one as soon as possible.

With an interim in place, the board will be able to perform a "leisurely" search for a permanent replacement, Hollingsworth said.

"It's a pretty complicated search, and curriculum people are hard to find," she explained.

Hollingsworth said the search would be time-consuming as Dorr would be hard to replace, but hiring an interim first would allow the time necessary to do so.

"I believe in taking the time in filling the position when you have the time," she said.

The news of Dorr's retirement comes at a somewhat uncertain time for Fostoria Community Schools.

Lemmerman has stated she is actively applying for positions elsewhere.

Though she was not offered the most recent position in Sidney, Lemmerman is still in the running for a position in Wellington, leaving the possibility that the district could lose its two top administrators over the next year.

"I'm not overjoyed at the prospect, but we'll just make it work," Hollingsworth said of the possibility. "Naturally, we hope Dr. Lemmerman won't leave."

Hollingsworth said there is a possibility "to a limited degree" that Lemmerman will decide to stay at FCS.

If Lemmerman doesn't, however, Hollingsworth said the district will move on.

"It will make it awkward, but I think the strength of the board and the strength of the current incumbents will help," she said. " ...We can't defeat ourselves, you know."

Hollingsworth said this could also be a time to possibly review some of the assignments in the administration and restructure, though she was not referring to any particular changes.

When Dorr took over the previous assistant superintendent's position she also took over the duties of the director of special projects.

"As things change, some people have taken on more responsibility," Lemmerman said.

During changes in the district and as more programs and regulations are developed, Lemmerman said, the positions need to be examined and changed if necessary.

With Dorr leaving, Lemmerman and Hollingsworth said this may be a chance to review and change positions within the district.

"I think you don't just look at Dorr's responsibilities and take it and toss it in one person's direction or another person's direction," she said. "These things are probably opportunities. It will probably be an opportunity for us to revisit the administrative structure."

Lemmerman said the district will be reviewing the superintendent, assistant superintendent and director of student services positions to see if their responsibilities need to be reviewed or changed again in the future.

"We need to take a look at how we balance out all of the jobs here," she said. "And think about how we can best serve."

In the meantime, Lemmerman is leading an effort to find an interim assistant superintendent.

She said the interim superintendent would need to have experience in the area of curriculum and assessment as well as a superintendent's certificate from the state of Ohio.

Hollingsworth said the eventual search for a permanent replacement will be difficult.

"Oh my goodness, yes," she said. "(Dorr) took on many responsibilities and it's going to be very hard to replace her."

Several testing results will be coming back to the district over the next few months including results from the Ohio Graduation Test and Ohio Achievement Tests, as well as deadlines for grant applications.

All of these would be the responsibility of the interim assistant superintendent, Dorr explained.

"This is a very varied position with respect to all of the projects," she added.

Hollingsworth noted that Dorr is informed and Hollingsworth will miss her ability to be concise and informative when explaining programs or other information.

"It's been a real pleasure working with Dr. Dorr," she said. "And I will miss her thorough explanations of the local report card ... and I will miss her cooperation with the board and with me personally."

Hollingsworth noted that Treasurer Pam Barber is experienced in her position and will help the transition.

"She'd be there to smooth some of the waters," she said. "But I think it falls on the back of the board again."

Regardless of what happens, Hollingsworth said Dorr will be missed.

"I think there was some sadness because we know what she meant to this district," she added.

Dorr said the feeling is mutual.

"I have truly enjoyed my work here," she said. "And it's great I've been getting a lot of e-mails and congratulations from teachers in the district, and it's been great to hear that and get that affirmation."

As for the district, Hollingsworth reiterated: "With any change, you move on; and we'll do that and the district will do that."

Contact staff writer Stephany Schings at:

stephanyschings@reviewtimes,com

By SANDRA WHITTA

STAFF WRITER

In order to help others of closed parishes, members of Kansas St. James parish will continue their lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Toledo.

"We decided to continue forward. We will make an appeal," Steve Johnson, parish member, said.

In the original lawsuit, filed in June 2006, St. James parishioners argue the church, its contents and the land are the parishioners' property. After a ruling from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael Kelbley in favor of the diocese, the parishioners considered taking the case to the Third District Court of Appeals.

A part of the decision was based on finding funding to continue the lawsuit. Parishioners launched a fundraiser in late April to raise $50,000. Up until then, they shouldered the financial burden of the case, which was about $80,000.

By the end of the fundraiser, parishioners raised $13,600. While short of the original goal, the effort was encouraging, Johnson said.

The members received funding pledges from 15 states, some of which were accompanied by letters of support. Those pledges helped reinforce the parishioners' dedication to moving forward with the lawsuit.

"The reason we have fought so hard for this is we want to help others. We aren't in it just for ourselves," Ginny Hull, parish member, said.

Also fueling the decision was the parishioners being allowed back into the church to retrieve personal items Friday.

Prior to Friday, they hadn't been allowed in the church since March 6, 2006, when Bishop Leonard Blair ordered the doors padlocked. The parish closed in July 2005 as part of a larger restructuring effort, which eventually led to the closing of 16 other parishes in northwest Ohio. One of the reasons for the closings, the diocese said, was a lack of priests to conduct Masses.

The ability to retrieve the items came about as part of the outcome of the common pleas court decision.

"We worked out an agreement with the diocese," Johnson said.

That agreement allowed parishioners to get their musical instruments, books and other belongings as well as the church pews and rosary used in the prayer vigil the parishioners conducted prior to the church's closing.

Entering the building, the parishioners were unsure what to expect. Because the building stood vacant for two years without heat or electricity, members were expecting plaster, paint and other damage.

"It was amazing. It was like time stood still. Nothing was disturbed at all. There wasn't even any dust," Johnson said. "It was a pretty easy decision after seeing that."

Hull said she was surprised at the condition of some of the items like the guitars.

"They were very surprisingly three steps high," she said, explaining as guitars sit with tension they normally go low. "I have no explanation for that whatsoever."

Hull said there were "a lot of little unexplained things" like a clock still running on a battery more than two years old.

"It was almost like God was taking care of us," she said.

Although the parishioners decided to make their appeal, it has yet to be filed with the court, Johnson said, adding he is unsure when it will be filed.

The diocese declined comment on the pending appeal.

"I can't comment on something that hasn't happened," Sally Oberski, director of communications for the diocese, said.

While being displaced has been hard on the parishioners, there have been some positive outcomes, Hall said.

"We have grown spiritually and we have grown in knowledge," she said.

The members are continuing their effort to raise money for the appeals case. A donation form for the St. James parishioners' cause is available on their Web site at: http://www.stjameskansas.org.

Contact staff writer Sandra Whitta at:

sandrawhitta@reviewtimes.com

By SANDRA WHITTA

STAFF WRITER

Six residents are calling for a halt to the demolition of the 1884 Seneca County courthouse.

In their appeal case with the Ohio Supreme Court, the residents recently filed a request for a temporary injunction. If granted, the injunction would stop the commissioners from moving forward with demolition plans, John Barga, attorney for the residents, said.

The residents are also waiting to hear if the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.

"There is nothing stopping the commissioners from demolition, even if the Supreme Court takes our appeal. If the Supreme Court is going to take our appeal, I wouldn't want anything destroyed," Barga said of why the injunction was filed.

The injunction request would stop the commissioners from demolition prior to the case being heard and up until a decision is made by the court, he said.

Injunction requests to the court are not common as there is often nothing to protect, Barga said.

"The main point for the injunction is to maintain the status quo. Let's face it, if they demolish the courthouse, it is gone," he said.

Mark Troutman, one of the attorneys for the commissioners, agreed injunctions are uncommon for the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court doesn't sit as a court of original jurisdiction on its cases, so the court doesn't generally consider prohibitory requests like the plaintiffs made," he said.

However, the residents argue the injunction is needed as demolition of the courthouse would cause irreparable harm.

The residents' request for injunction emphasizes the historic significance of the building. To stress the importance of the injunction, due to the aggressive demolition schedule, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit Monday in support of the injunction.

"This courthouse really belongs to the people of Ohio not just Seneca County," Barga said.

Commissioners argue they should be allowed to move forward with what people want ­— demolition and construction of a new courthouse.

"We wish the plaintiffs would come to the realization that the people and majority of Seneca County have spoken," Troutman said.

As for when the court will make a decision on the injunction or the case as a whole, both attorneys said they didn't know.

"They do not really have time lines they follow. I would like to have one today," Barga said.

However, through Troutman's experience with the court, it normally takes 60 to 90 days for the court to decide if it will take a case from the time of the defendant's response regarding jurisdiction. The commissioners' response is due to the court May 7. The response to the injunction is due May 5.

"It is fair to say we could expect a decision in July," he said. "We don't expect the Supreme Court to do anything else other than deny it like two other courts have done already."

Contact staff writer Sandra Whitta at:

sandrawhitta@reviewtimes.com