Critics speaking out against state proposal to expand court oversight of park districts

COLUMBUS

As the Ohio House of Representatives moves closer to a vote on a budget bill, critics of a proposed amendment that would expand the power of probate courts over park districts are speaking out.

The amendment to House Bill 49 stipulates that a probate court may “investigate matters involving the park district,” “impose duties or restrictions on a person or party who interferes with the park district’s purposes,” and may “tax the cost of proceedings as court costs to be assessed by the court in its discretion,” among other measures.

Opponents say the amendment is an attempt to silence citizens, such as those who rallied against actions taken by Mill Creek MetroParks leaders in the past.

Among the amendment’s critics is Tom Shipka, a member of the MetroParks board. Shipka submitted testimony to the House that details the public backlash against MetroParks leaders – first for the killing of Canada geese, then for staff dismissals last year – that preceded his time on the board. He noted, too, the changes sparked by public outcry, such as Mahoning County Probate Judge Robert N. Rusu Jr.’s creation of a citizens screening committee for board candidates, the board’s establishment of citizen advisory committees, and more.

“These initiatives have led to a significant decrease in public criticisms of park leadership and an evolving change in the relationship between park leadership and the community,” Shipka wrote. “The progress in Mahoning County shows that dissent should be welcomed, taken seriously, and used as a pivot to re-examine the policies and practices of park leadership.”

Some of the same Mahoning Valley residents who criticized MetroParks leaders during those episodes also are speaking out against the proposed amendment.

Read what they had to say in Saturday's Vindicator or on Vindy.com.