It’s hardly any secret that conflict and controversy have swirled around Mill Creek MetroParks’ leadership and policymaking board for many years.

Over the past decade, for example, fair segments of the public have cried foul over the programmed killing of 238 geese, the deaths of hundreds of fish from a massive sewage discharge into Lake Newport, the flouting of the state’s open meetings laws and, through most of this year, the board’s approval to trim the park district’s herd of deer by allowing hunters and sharpshooters to harvest them.

In fact, state Rep. Lauren McNally, D-Youngstown, whose legislative district includes the park district, has been overwhelmed with complaints about the MetroParks since she took office last January.

“There’s no way I should be getting this many phone calls about these many issues with Mill Creek Park,” she told us recently.

To be sure, managing the district’s operations and its array of controversies requires strong leadership and a responsible policymaking board, one that holds itself fully accountable to the public it serves. Lest we forget, the 5,000-acre park system is funded largely by a countywide 15-year property tax levy.

That’s why we are disheartened by news that Robert Rusu Jr., Mahoning County Probate Court judge, announced last week he had reappointed two board members whose terms expire this month without having first launched a maximum visibility public outreach campaign for new candidates for the posts as has been done in the past.

The two reappointees — Jeff Harvey and Paul Olivier — themselves were products of vetting by a selection committee convened by Rusu in 2017 to screen all candidates after a highly transparent and well publicized appeal for candidates throughout the county. It’s true that both men may be well suited to retain their volunteer posts for new terms. Despite the controversies, several positive developments, improvements and growth have resulted under their watch.

Nonetheless a robust search for candidates may have yielded someone with even stronger potential for success in that role.

Enter McNally, who we believe is on the right track in introducing House Bill 323 in the Ohio General Assembly. According to her, that bill will help create more transparency, get the public more involved and create an out clause for removal of parks board members if needed — something that surprisingly is not an option in today’s board structure.

Specifically, HB 323 calls for four of the five park commissioners to be elected by public officials. One each would come from the city council of the largest city (Youngstown), board of trustees of the largest township (Boardman), council of the largest village (Sebring) and a member of the board of county commissioners. The fifth member would not need any elected positions. The county probate court judge still would make all of the final appointments.

Clearly McNally’s proposal would bring some directly elected leaders to the park commissioners’ table. But why not go further and amend the proposed appointment process to make all park board members be directly elected by the voters?

After all, the voters elected city and village council members, township trustees and county commissioners based on their abilities to manage a city, village, township or county — not necessarily on their prowess to oversee a park district.

Given the amount of controversy that has existed, such a judicial appointment could become a political headache to members who might serve well their primary constituents, but could face backlash for their actions within the park district. In some respects, it also could pose a conflict of interest.

That’s why we hope McNally and her supporters will explore the possibility of directly electing park district board commissioners. A side benefit to such a system would be freeing up valuable time of probate judges to allow them to focus singularly on what they were elected to do, which is oversee court issues.

Everyone could stand to benefit from eradicating the upheaval that sometimes mars the image of the park district. Once Mahoning County residents are assured that the Mill Creek decision-making board is representative of and responsive to the public it serves, the sooner distractions to carrying out the board’s major role of protecting our region’s largest and finest natural asset can proceed full speed ahead.