News / Articles

ADP Board Defends ADP Employees After Negative Comments at BOCC Meeting

ADP Board Meeting - December 9, 2025 

Meeting Details: The Automatic Data Processing Board (ADP) held a Special Meeting at 2:00 pm on December 9, 2025 in the Geauga County Auditor’s Office Appraisal Conference Room at 231 Main St., Chardon, OH 44024. Virtual access was available via MS Teams, and the agenda was provided in advance. Members of the public may attend ADP meetings virtually via MS Teams by emailing an invitation request to Auditor’s Office Chief Operations Officer Pam McMahan at PMcMahan@geauga.oh.gov. This Observer attended via MS Teams.

Public Comment: ADP does not have a written public comment policy. In practice, public comment is solicited at the end of the meeting.

Board Attendance:

• Auditor/Chief Administrator – Charles Walder

• Clerk of Courts – Sheila Bevington 

• County Commissioner – Carolyn Brakey

• Engineer – Andy Haupt 

• Board of Elections – Michelle Lane and Nora McGinnis

• County Prosecutor – Jim Flaiz

• Recorder – Celesta Mullins

• Sheriff – Scott Hildenbrand 

• Treasurer – Caroline Mansfield for Chris Hitchcock 

• Coroner – John Urbancic (absent)

• Common Pleas Court Judge - Observer Note - It was stated at the January 28, 2025 meeting that this seat will not be filled. 

ADP Staff Attendance: 

• Frank Antenucci – Chief Deputy Administrator

• Zach McLeod - Information Security Manager

• Mike Dorka

• Josh Holtz (virtual)

• Akshay Raikar (virtual)

• Katelynn Cellitti (virtual)

• Karen Murphy - CARE

Reviewer Note: ADP restructured into three groups earlier this year: Department of Advanced Technology and Applications (DATA), Department of Advanced Research & Cybersecurity (DARC) and Department of County Archives and Records Enterprise (CARE). More information on this restructuring is available in the March 4, 2025 ADP Observer Report.

Other Government Representatives:

• Carolyn Paschke - Court of Common Pleas Judge

• Matt Rambo - Court of Common Pleas Judge

• Randy Johnson - Court of Common Pleas (virtual)

• Velta Moisio - IT Director, Court of Common Pleas

• Pam McMahan - Chief Operations Officer, Auditor’s Office

Others Present:

• Allison Wilson - Maple Leaf 

• Anastasia Nicholas - Geauga Times Courier (virtual)

• Kathy Johnson (virtual)

• John Smith (virtual)

• This LWV Geauga Observer (virtual) 

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm by Mr. Antenucci. 

Minutes: Minutes for the July 15, 2025 special meeting, September 9, 2025 regular meeting as amended, and September 25, 2005 special meeting were approved. Approved ADP Minutes are posted online here through June 18, 2025.  

 

The Board took the following actions:

APPROVED - ADP equipment report list from August 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025. 

APPROVED - ADP purchases list from August 1, 2025 to October 31, 2025.

APPROVED - Windstream Enterprise Contract Renewal ($64,983) - Mr. Antenucci explained that this service was for internet access for the Sheriff’s Department, the Department of Emergency Services (DES) and the Geauga County Office Building (GCOB). The cost for this service is included in ADP’s budget. Mr. Flaiz pointed out that many services that are included in the ADP’s budget are services that are shared by others. Hambden Township also uses this service and reimburses ADP for the cost.

APPROVED - Auditor ISSG Inc. Annual Software Renewal ($246,800) - Mr. Walder clarified the charges were for only the licenses for the software. The cost of the migration to this new service was not included. This migration will be jointly handled by the Auditor’s Office and ADP staff. The software is used for the property appraisal process. Mr. Walder explained that all 53,000 parcels in the county, including improvements to properties, are maintained in the database. The software utilizes the data and combines with the property tax billing system. The results are then transferred to the Treasurer's Office where property tax bills are generated. 

Observer Note: The next 12 items all related to the Court of Common Pleas or the Clerk of Courts. Mr. Antenucci asked that they be addressed in bulk so one motion was raised for the approval of all 12 items at one time. All were approved unanimously.

APPROVED - Clerk of Courts SHI Quicken Licenses ($223) 

APPROVED - Clerk of Courts Samsung Subscription ($600)

APPROVED - Clerk of Courts Vista Solutions net DMS ($7,000)

APPROVED - Courts Vista Solutions Imaging System ($5,370)

APPROVED - Courts Logicalis Patch Cables ($492)

APPROVED -  Courts Vista Solutions Group Annual Renewal ($32,926) 

APPROVED - Courts Faronics Deep Freeze Renewal ($950)

APPROVED - Common Pleas MailerSend Annual Renewal ($336) 

APPROVED - Common Pleas Stenograph LLC NexGen Writer ($6,299)

APPROVED - Common Pleas Dex Imaging Copier ($28,335)

APPROVED - Common Pleas BISDigital License ($5,200)

APPROVED - Common Pleas International Institute for Learning, Inc. ($74) - Ms. Bevington asked about the requirements for approval of IT-related training. Mr. Walder explained that they approve these expenditures to better track IT training which they report to the State.

APPROVED - Courts Expert IT G3 License ($93) - Mr. Walder voted not to approve this item. He stated that there had been accusations in the past that he was somehow related to this business, a business he said he knew nothing about. 

APPROVED - Recorders Fidlar Software Agreement ($250,000) - Mr. Antenucci explained that the vetting process to replace the current in-house Recorders’ software solution, which has been in place for at least 10 years, was now complete.  He said that a decade ago the Recorders Office was allowed to go outside the system due to issues with ADP at the time. The current tool requires a separate network and dedicated servers. Ms. Mullins noted that the County Commissioners were scheduled to review the product in next week’s meeting. Mr. Antenucci stated that the new solution will allow the Recorders Office to be fully integrated into the ADP network, making processing more efficient. The DARC team did a full security review of the recommended solution. Mr. Walder noted that the software migration fees will be paid by Fidlar. Observer Note: The process to identify a software solution to replace the current Recorder’s in-house solution was discussed at the September 25, 2025 ADP Special Meeting.

APPROVED - Sheriff Brite GVS ICV Systems & Modems for Vehicles ($50,922) - This was approved without discussion.

APPROVED - Archives & Records RC-2 Retention Schedule and RC-2 Auditor’s Budget Commission Retention Schedule - Ms. Murphy said that both of the RC-2 schedules were replacing outdated information.

DISCUSSED - Tyler Technology Jury System Solutions Meeting Update - Judge Paschke reviewed the county’s transition from an outdated “legacy” jury management system to a Tyler Technologies jury system, explaining why the change was made, what implementation has looked like, and what issues remain.

The prior jury system was old, no longer updated, and heavily manual. The Court of Common Pleas mailed roughly 5,100 juror summonses annually, then relied on staff to manually sort and enroll returned paperwork. After a key employee retired around 2022, leadership opted to modernize rather than replace the position and continue using a legacy system. The court conducted due diligence by contacting multiple similarly situated counties, learning that jury systems typically require training and customization rather than working “out of the box.”

The county went live on the Tyler Jury Management System in September 2023, and it took time before it was in full use. Tyler provided training, including an in-person trainer and a “sandbox” practice environment with exercises. Training logs were cited to show Court of Common Pleas staff repeatedly used the training environment, while municipal court participation was minimal. Additional paid training was purchased when a new employee took over jury responsibilities; municipal court was invited but did not participate.

Municipal court reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with the system and later requested jury lists. The Court of Common Pleas attempted to work with municipal court on a proposed multi-step plan to “turn off” features causing issues but believed municipal court declined to engage. 

Early “growing pains” with the system included:

• Jury questionnaire formatting/field issues: Tyler corrected some but not all of these issues, and staff ultimately learned to fix or manage the forms themselves. 

• Excessive automated text notifications (e.g., a juror receiving repeated messages), attributed to system settings and user workflow mistakes, especially when an inexperienced new staff member was utilizing the system. 

• Reports of people showing up when they should not have, linked to notification settings and/or user configuration.
  

Despite these issues, Judge Paschke reported recent jury trials proceeding without problems and stated the system is now working better. Mr. Flaiz concurred that the new system was working better now.

The initial purchase cost was described as roughly $50,000. The annual license renewal was presented as time-sensitive. A failure to renew would force the county back to manual processes or require a new, expensive system and another lengthy conversion/implementation cycle.

At the September 25, 2025 ADP meeting, there had been discussion of tabling approval to allow collaboration on issues, but concerns were raised about the approaching renewal deadline. It was suggested that responsible parties: 1) present information on whether issues were due to the software itself or to user training/configuration, and 2) propose solutions. Observer Note: See  LWV Geauga Observer Report for the September 25, 2025 ADP Special Meeting, in which Judge Terri Stupica from the Chardon Municipal Court discussed concerns with the Tyler Jury Management system.

The court’s position was that, while the Tyler system has required training and customization and had early issues largely tied to configuration and user adoption, it is functioning better now. The main unresolved tension involved municipal court’s reported dissatisfaction, limited participation in training, and communication gaps. Judge Paschke concluded saying there was no action needed; she wanted to provide the Board with background on the jury management system. The Board emphasized the practical need to renew to avoid reverting to costly or manual alternatives. 

Regular Business: Mr. Flaiz expressed strong concern about statements made at a recent Board of County  Commissioners (BOCC) meeting regarding ADP (Automatic Data Processing), describing these statements as inaccurate, misleading, and harmful to employee morale. He was particularly frustrated that no one publicly defended ADP employees during the meeting and emphasized that ADP staff are employees of all elected officials—not of any single individual—and therefore deserve collective support. Other Board members commented that they felt the comments at the BOCC meeting were targeted at Mr. Walder and his leadership of ADP, not ADP employees specifically. Observer Note: See video of the December 9, 2025 BOCC meeting here. 

Mr. Flaiz continued, rejecting claims of “exorbitant” ADP salaries and providing comparative data:

• ADP supports approximately 1,100 users with 17 IT staff at a lower average hourly rate than other county IT departments, such as Court IT and the Sheriff’s IT.

• ADP employees are comparatively underpaid relative to peers across the county.

• Several county positions under the Commissioners’ hiring authority earn significantly more than ADP leadership, yet are not similarly scrutinized.

Mr. Flaiz stressed that public criticism of employee compensation, especially when inaccurate, constitutes unfair “cheap shots” that undermine morale and professionalism. The discussion highlighted frequent off-hours and weekend work by ADP staff, often due to facility or infrastructure issues outside their control. He argued that employees required to work outside normal hours should be fairly compensated with overtime or comp time and that it is inappropriate to criticize overtime without acknowledging the circumstances necessitating it.

Mr. Walder expressed concern, saying that ADP employees being placed “in the crosshairs of a political fight is not right.” He noted:

• Publicly calling out employees or groups by name creates fear about job security.

• This approach is inappropriate in any enterprise and damaging to retention.

• ADP employees consistently respond to emergencies and cross-departmental needs without deflecting responsibility.

Examples were cited of past lawsuits, threats, and repeated public criticism directed at ADP staff, which were characterized as excessive and demoralizing.

Sheriff Hildenbrand, who attended the BOCC meeting, stated they were unable to defend ADP publicly because they lacked detailed data, particularly regarding overtime and salary comparisons. There was agreement that:

• If Board members are expected to defend the budget, they must be provided with clear, comparative information.

• Better communication and transparency are needed to equip Board members to respond to public criticism.

Mr. Flaiz reviewed the county budget process, noting that the county-wide budget was approved by the Commissioners in July. The Budget Commission reviewed it before September 1, as required by law. ADP’s budget followed additional statutory steps. All elected officials represented on the ADP Board voted for and approved the ADP budget, making it a shared responsibility. 

It was noted that only one (Ms. Brakey) of the three County Commissioners attended the Commissioners’ review of the ADP budget in May/June this year.

The Board discussed conducting a formal review of ADP salaries:

• Comparing ADP compensation to other county IT staff and to surrounding counties.

• Holding an executive session early in the new year to review the data.

• Using this information to inform future budget discussions and reduce misinformation.

At the conclusion of the discussion, several Board members apologized to ADP employees for the public discourse and reiterated appreciation for their work, professionalism, and responsiveness. The consensus emphasized that political disagreements should be directed at leadership or policy, not at employees, and that continued public attacks risk losing skilled staff and weakening county operations.

Public Comment: Mr. Antenucci asked for any public comments/questions. Ms. McGinnis noted that this meeting was Michelle Lane's last ADP meeting since she will be retiring as Director of the Board of Elections (BOE) at the end of the year. Ms. Lane thanked the ADP team for their hard work and support of the BOE during her tenure. She described a recent event when the power to the GCOB went out over a weekend. The back up generator was not connected to the BOE offices, and they were not told the power went out. On the next work day, a BOE employee noticed a loud hum coming from the server room, and ADP was called. They came immediately and found that the room had reached 91 degrees due to the power outage. They immediately addressed the issue, preventing a possible loss of critical voter information and BOE’s link to the Secretary of State’s office.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 pm.

Next Meeting: The next scheduled meeting of the ADP Board will be an Organizational meeting on January 12, 2026. 

Minutes when posted are available here: Meeting Minutes | Geauga County Automatic Data Processing

Virtual Meeting Information: Contact Pamela McMahan at PMcMahan@geauga.oh.gov.

Observer: Carol Benton

Editor: Gail Roussey

Reviewer: Sarah McGlone

Submitted: December 12, 2025

The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.