Gomez quotes the head of the public engagement committee, which has been meeting in PRIVATE, who himself runs a company in MEDINA COUNTY.
Though the public was not invited to two meetings McShepard said his panel held before Thursday, he said members always favored openness.
What took so long to communicate that to McCafferty and Zanotti?
“I think it was a matter of it being so early in the process that we hadn’t been able to have that discussion,” McShepard said. “It was just a matter of getting our ducks in a row.”
Sadly, no. ?Not according to what Zanotti and McCafferty said on WCPN Tuesday, when they explicitly said they would ignore Ohio open meetings laws.
McCafferty and Zanotti previously cited concerns that allowing reporters and non-volunteers at all meetings would discourage people from speaking candidly. They also worried about having media around when discussing sensitive issues such as layoffs and consolidation.
This process, having been held in plain violation of Ohio open meetings law until today, 3 months after it began, a law which the county’s own lawyer today said applies to the process, is fatally tainted. ?I applaud the ACLU for staying on this.
“We will be vigilant, as will the citizens,” Link said. “If we had to go to court on this, I think we would have a pretty strong platform to start from. … This might not be the end of it.”
It’s not the end of it. ?What if someone is laid off based on this transition committee’s recommendation? ?Why wouldn’t that laid off employee sue, alleging that the entire process was illegitimately conducted in violation of Ohio law? ?Why wouldn’t any entity sue to challenge the recommendations if they led to action that entity didn’t like? ?If I am elected to county council, I will oppose implementation of any recommendation from this committee, for the simple reason that it cannot be enforced, thanks to this process being conducted in clear violation of Ohio open meetings laws.