Mental Health Board Seeks Prosecutor’s Opinion on Personnel Matter
The Geauga County Board of Mental Health and Recovery Services has asked Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz to weigh in on a debate regarding the future of Executive Director Jim Adams at their regular meeting April 20.
The Geauga County Board of Mental Health and Recovery Services has asked Geauga County Prosecutor Jim Flaiz to weigh in on a debate regarding the future of Executive Director Jim Adams at their regular meeting April 20.
The purpose of the executive session was advertised by the board as a discussion of “the succession Plan of Jim Adams, and to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, or demotion of a public employee or official, or the investigation of charges or complaints against a public employee, official, licensee or regulated individual pursuant to (Ohio Revised Code) Section 121.22(G)(1).”
That announcement resulted in a somewhat contentious debate between board members over the wording of the announcement, with some saying “succession planning” was not an allowed reason for an executive session.
Adding to the controversy was Adams’ request that the session be held publicly instead of privately.
Jennifer Malainy, board chairperson, argued the executive session was permitted under the ORC.
“Jim is not being released,” Malainy said. “We are just talking about a succession plan and I believe it should be a private matter.”
Adams responded, saying, “technically, you can’t go into executive session for a succession plan. You have to mention one of these things (appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion or demotion) – that’s all I’m saying.”
Prior to executive session, board member Martin Fay called for anyone potentially interested in Adams’s position to recuse themselves from the discussion.
“Ok great – does anyone want to take his position?” Malainy said.
“To clarify, there will be no action taken regarding Jim’s employment in this session,” board Treasurer Michael Petruziello interjected.
“Then what’s the point of going into executive session?” Fay asked.
“To discuss the succession plan,” Malainy said.
Ultimately, the motion to go into executive session was made without including the words “succession plan” and was reworded to follow ORC regarding personnel matters.
Malainy denied Adams’ request the session be conducted in public.
“If we are moving forward with charges or trying to terminate Jim, then he would be entitled to a public hearing under the ORC, but that’s not the purpose for which I’m going into executive session,” Malainy said.
“My point was, I’ve heard several times from several people that people were concerned about me,” Adams countered. “That they didn’t want to have this conversation in the public because of me – they were trying to protect me. I’m saying I don’t feel the need to be protected. I feel like if we really believe in transparency, I’m all for having it in the public.”
Following executive session, board members voting “yes” to contact the prosecutor for guidance regarding obtaining outside counsel were Walter “Skip” Claypool, Martin Fay, James Lee Holden, Kathy Johnson, Malainy, Steve Oluic, Michael Petruziello and Mary Ruth Shumway. Board members voting “no,” were Ann Bagley, Alberta Chokshi and Linda Miller. Vanessa Jensen abstained.
On the second motion to hire outside legal counsel if approved by the prosecutor’s office, there were seven “yes” votes — cast by Claypool, Holden, Johnson, Malainy, Oluic, Petruziello and Shumway. The five “no” votes came from Bagley, Chokshi, Fay, Jensen and Miller.
Board members Carolee Lesyk and Gregory O’Brien were absent.
