Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Trumbull County commissioners accept fact-finding report on corrections bargaining

Trumbull County commissioners · May 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

On May 4, 2026 Trumbull County commissioners voted to accept a fact-finding report on collective bargaining between the county and OPBA Unit 3 (corrections officers) after an executive-session review of bargaining strategy under ORC 121.22(G)(4).

Trumbull County commissioners voted May 4 to accept a fact-finding report on collective bargaining negotiations between Trumbull County and OPBA Unit 3, the corrections officers bargaining unit for the county sheriff.

The special meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m.; the presiding official said the purpose was "discussion and considering acceptance or rejection of a fact finding report regarding the collective bargaining negotiation between Trumbull County and OPBA Unit 3, correction officers employed by the county sheriff." The clerk then called the roll, and Messrs. Malloy, Hernandez and Bernard were recorded as present.

A commissioner moved to enter executive session under Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(4) to "prepare for, conduct and review negotiations and the collective bargaining strategy for the Trumbull County Sheriff's Department." The motion was seconded and the board recorded votes in favor from Malloy, Hernandez and Bernard, after which the board reconvened to open session.

After returning from executive session, a commissioner moved that the board accept the fact-finding report on the negotiations between the county and OPBA Unit 3; the motion was seconded and again passed with Malloy, Hernandez and Bernard recorded as voting yes. The transcript does not include the text of the fact-finding report, its recommendations, or any additional conditions attached to the acceptance.

The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn carried with the same recorded votes. The record does not identify who seconded the initial executive-session motion by name; where the transcript records only "Second," this summary notes the action but does not attribute the second to a specific person.

No further steps, dates for follow-up or details of the fact-finding report were recorded in the public transcript provided.