Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents accuse Twinsburg police leadership of record tampering; council declines comment during litigation
Loading...
Summary
Two residents urged Twinsburg City Council to investigate alleged police-department misconduct and tampering with incident reports; councilmembers said they will not respond publicly while litigation is pending and encouraged external review where appropriate.
Colleen Rubin and Karen Clinton used the public-comment period at the Feb. 24 Twinsburg City Council meeting to call for outside scrutiny of the Twinsburg Police Department and its leadership.
Rubin, who gave her address as 2259 Sandalwood Drive, told the council she reviewed depositions and accused Police Chief Mason of a pattern of evasive testimony and failed supervision, saying his record "shows a credibility crisis, a policy crisis, a records crisis, and a supervisory crisis" and concluding that by his own testimony "he is unfit for command level leadership." She urged the council to explain the situation to residents or, if officials were knowingly negligent, to resign.
Karen Clinton read passages from the records-mandamus litigation and said depositions indicate incident reports were altered and that Lieutenant Tranowski was responsible for changes to at least one report. Clinton said she has contacted Summit County prosecutors and asked Mayor Sam, in his role as safety director, to seek Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) or other independent review so the public can trust investigations and records.
A councilmember who spoke directly after the comments said much of Rubin’s testimony was false. Several other councilmembers acknowledged the seriousness of the concerns but said they are constrained from responding while litigation is pending. One member said the administration had been advised by legal counsel to remain silent during the legal process and indicated the city expects to issue a public statement only after the litigation concludes.
The meeting record shows no council motion or vote to open an internal investigation during the public meeting. Council later moved into executive session to discuss appointment, employment, or compensation of a public employee or official; the public record does not indicate any formal personnel action was taken while the meeting was open.
The public commenters asked for specific steps: full, independent investigations of the records and accountability for anyone who altered official documents. The council did not commit to those steps at the Feb. 24 meeting.
What happens next: The council entered executive session on personnel matters at the end of the meeting and will determine any next public steps afterward. The residents who spoke said they will continue to pursue records and legal avenues.
