Urso appeals firing in lawsuit against Mantua officials

The recently fired chief of Mantua police, Joe Urso, has appealed his dismissal in Portage County Common Pleas Court, arguing that the village council hearing against him was unfair and that he was denied due process.

Seeking to regain his post, which he had held since November 2017, Urso’s Oct. 30 court filing names the Village of Mantua, Mayor Tammy Meyer and the village council.

After a 12-hour hearing that began Oct. 21, Mantua Village Council voted 5-1 on the early morning of the next day to relieve Urso of his position as Mantua’s top cop.

Meyer had levied six allegations against Urso, claiming he violated the village’s nepotism policy, interfered with efforts to supervise a female officer with whom he has a personal relationship, took his vacation at the same time as the female officer, inadequately followed through with his own performance evaluation, allowed employees’ children and dogs in the station, did not increase MPD staffing to 24/7 coverage, and neither trained nor supported MPD’s school resource officer.

All the allegations related to village administrative policies and employee conduct, not criminal charges.

Urso’s administrative appeal makes several assertions about the conduct of the hearing that led to his dismissal:

• Village Solicitor William Mason, who presided over the hearing, is employed at the same law firm (Bricker Graydon) as Brad Bennett, who represented the village during the proceedings.

• “Village Council was permitted to consider unverified, unsworn, written statements without any ability to cross-examine the authors of those statements.” Overruling Urso’s attorney’s objection, Mason allowed Bennet to read into the record what he alleged to be sworn affidavits by former police dispatcher Jennifer Lintz and Mantua Police Sgt. Alfred Gilbert who did not attend the hearing. Neither statement was favorable to Urso.

• Urso was denied the opportunity to confront his accusers.

• Village council effectively denied the public its right to participate in the hearing by not opening the floor to public comment until approximately 5 a.m., 11 hours after the hearing began. By that time the crowd of over 70 onlookers had dwindled to about 25.

Urso is also asking for “any other relief that the court deems just and appropriate under the circumstance,” including restoration of benefits and vacation time, back pay, legal costs and attorney’s fees.

Neither Urso nor his attorney, Eric Fink, were available for comment. Meyer did not respond to The Portager’s request for comment, and Mason declined to comment, saying he had not yet seen the filing.