It’s open for debate whether a routine staff meeting for workers in the Trumbull County commissioners office to discuss in-house administrative issues should be considered a “public meeting” if it’s attended by a majority of Trumbull County commissioners.

If the commissioners are only observers at such a meeting, it could be viewed as an “information-gathering session,” generally exempt from open meeting rules.

For that reason, we previously haven’t pressed commissioners on this issue.

We know now that we should have.

Last week, two commissioners, Frank Fuda and Mauro Cantalamessa, gathered behind closed doors with office workers for a so-called “staff meeting.” The third commissioner, Niki Frenchko, was not invited and, it appears, intentionally was omitted.

What emerged from that meeting, according to a document time-stamped around the same time the meeting was wrapping up, is a letter of complaint aimed at Frenchko from the five office employees who met with Fuda and Cantalamessa. A sixth employee, not involved in the meeting, also signed the letter of complaint.

The complaint filed by employees Shara Taylor, Lisa DeNunzio Blair, Dawn Gedeon, Kelly Clarke, Christine Glenn and Paula Vivoda-Klotz, seeks an investigation for a “hostile work environment” and is addressed to Human Resources Director Richard Jackson.

Those allegations are extremely concerning. No accusation of a “hostile work environment” must ever by taken lightly. Let us be clear, we do not minimize the seriousness of the complaint nor the importance of a fair and thorough investigation.

But what also is concerning is that these allegations apparently were discussed and evolved from a secret meeting. Further adding to the suspicious nature of this meeting is the fact that Jackson also was invited to participate.

When Frenchko questioned the reason for the meeting, Cantalamessa told her it was “staff.” When asked, Jackson said the discussion was about “division of labor.” And when questioned, the women involved told Frenchko they were instructed not to speak about the meeting, but rather to refer questions to Jackson.

Ohio’s Sunshine Laws clearly define a meeting of a public body as a prearranged gathering of a majority of the members of a public body for discussing and deliberating upon public business. Based on that definition, this gathering appears to have been an improper public meeting. The public and the media were not notified, no minutes were taken and public business was discussed in a closed-door session.

Undoubtedly, the lack of public oversight and transparency will trigger speculation of wrongdoing, risking the public’s trust in its government. Any logical person even might question whether improper promises or even threats preceded the signed complaint. Sure, that might not have happened. But unfortunately, no one ever will know for certain because this meeting occurred behind closed doors.

If a need to discuss employee concerns truly exists, the proper way to handle it would have been to schedule an executive session during a regular commissioners meeting, then adjourn into the private discussion allowable under the state law’s personnel exemption.

Sadly, that did not happen.

In the future, we urge commissioners not to attend staff meetings but instead to allow supervisors to conduct those meetings. Considering this particular meeting has raised so many questions, we suggest any time commissioners intend to take part, even in just an “information-gathering” capacity, it should be treated as a standard public meeting.

editorial@vindy.com