Conflicting stories have emerged from Mahoning County commissioners about who really was involved in the decision to fire Ricky Morrison.

Morrison is the county maintenance worker terminated days after it came to light that he was openly backing the political opponent of Commissioner Carol Rimedio-Righetti. He was later reinstated with backpay.

Now Morrison is suing, alleging commissioners violated his First Amendment rights. Morrison’s attorneys Subodh Chandra and Martin Desmond also allege commissioners violated Ohio Open Meetings Act Dec. 1 when Remedios Rimedio-Righetti and Commissioner David Ditzler allegedly voted during a private “staff meeting” to terminate Morrison. Commissioner Anthony Traficanti told The Vindicator that’s what happened, and he voted no.

But voting during an executive session violates Ohio’s sunshine laws.

An investigation into the firing conducted by new Mahoning County Prosecutor Gina DeGenova ended up assigning blame on county Administrator Audrey Tillis, not on commissioners, despite Traficanti’s statement.

Still, DeGenova said her investigation, which included individually questioning all three commissioners, resulted in a decision that Morrison was fired by county Administrator Audrey Tillis without authorization. In a subsequent court filing related to Morrison’s civil suit, DeGenova denies that “Mr. Traficanti told Ms. DeGenova that the county commissioners held a ‘secret meeting’ or that Ms. Rimedio-Righetti and Mr. Ditzler ‘voted to fire Morrison in retaliation.'”

However, Traficanti told The Vindicator that DeGenova “was well aware of my opposition to the firing…. I got it off my chest and felt better after telling the prosecutor everything. She was well aware of my opposition.”

On the other hand, Rimedio-Righetti and Ditzler have both been clear that commissioners do not vote in executive session, but rather they vote by resolution in public meeting.

We are extremely troubled by these conflicting stories and, further, at how DeGenova arrived at her conclusion to assign blame on Tillis.

What’s even more troubling and, yes, suspicious, is that DeGenova defended commissioners on this matter, placing blame on Tillis, around the time that they were making a decision on whether to appoint her to the prosecutor’s seat following another questionable meeting Nov. 17 attended by commissioners, Tillis, DeGenova and then-Prosecutor Paul Gains.

That meeting occurred one day before Gains publicly announced he was retiring. In fact, Morrison’s civil suit alleges that meeting also was illegal because the public was never notified in advance that it was going to happen and “none of the requirements for a public meeting or executive session were met.”

The lawsuit does not elaborate on the specific reasons why Morrison’s lawyers feel the Nov. 17 meeting was illegal.

First Amendment and media lawyer David Marburger has told our reporter Ed Runyan that he also believes these meetings are questionable, including the way in which the county commissioners participate in meetings labeled as “staff meetings,” which he describes as “misleading.”

Of course, Ohio’s Open Meetings Act prevents public officials from meeting secretly to deliberate on public issues without accountability to the public. No votes are permitted to be held in private session.

DeGenova states in a court filing in response to the lawsuit that she “never participated in or was aware of any alleged ‘cover up’ regarding Mr. Morrison’s termination and / or reinstatement.”

From our vantage point, DeGenova must offer the constituency of Mahoning County an even more in-depth explanation. Why does she believe it was Tillis – not commissioners – who was responsible for this firing? What conversation did she have with each of the commissioners in her investigation and why did she, apparently, believe Ditzler and Rimedio-Righetti over Traficanti? And why does she believe Ohio’s open meetings act was followed in both spirit and to the letter of the law with no illegal votes nor improper discussions behind closed doors?

After being newly appointed by the Mahoning County Democratic Party to keep the prosecutor’s post for at least a year, DeGenova needs to rise up and put all suspicions to rest by exhibiting full transparency.

She must understand that it is her role as County prosecutor to represent the people of Mahoning County, not just to represent the commissioners. If commissioners are doing something inappropriate, we believe it’s her responsibility to advise them of that.

editorial@vindy.com