A sergeant with the Trumbull county sheriff's department is on leave, but the department and the county's human resources department are so far keeping secret who the sergeant is and what the reason may be. 

Sheriff Mike Wilson told 21 News on Wednesday that information would need to come from the county's HR director, Alexandra DeVengencie-Bush. 

On Thursday morning, DeVengencie-Bush sent an email that also included Sheriff Wilson and chief deputy Dale McDorman to the 21 Newsroom confirming that Wilson had placed a sergeant on leave "due to an ongoing and active investigation," but declined to name the public employee, citing both a collective bargaining agreement and a portion of the Ohio revised code exempting some law enforcement records from public disclosure. 

Those two citations in DeVengencie-Bush's email read :

Per the OPBA Collective Bargaining Unit 2 (Commissioned Sergeants and Lieutenants) Article 12 Section 3:

When an employee is charged with or is under investigation for contended violations of departmental/administrative rules and regulations, reasonable efforts consistent with applicable law shall be made to withhold publication of the employee’s name and extent of the disciplinary action or contemplated until such time as a final inter-departmental ruling has been made and served on the employee.
 
Per ORC 149.43 (A)(2) Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records Exemption:
Confidential law enforcement investigatory record means any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature.
 
21 News responded to that email by pointing out that the collective bargaining agreement would not supersede public records laws and that the section of the law being cited was incomplete, noting that the entire section reads: 
 
(2) "Confidential law enforcement investigatory record" means any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, but only to the extent that the release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure of any of the following:
(a) The identity of a suspect who has not been charged with the offense to which the record pertains, or of an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised;
(b) Information provided by an information source or witness to whom confidentiality has been reasonably promised, which information would reasonably tend to disclose the source's or witness's identity;
(c) Specific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product;
(d) Information that would endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel, a crime victim, a witness, or a confidential information source.
 
21 News reiterated the request for this information pertaining to the sergeant, who is a public employee paid with taxpayer funds, adding that if the exemption is related to b., c., or d., that any information disclosing confidential witnesses or tactics could be redacted and that if the exemption pertains to subsection a., that it would mean there is a criminal investigation. In that case, there would have to be an original incident report with some police agency which would, in itself, be a public record and they could send that in response. 
 
DeVengencie-Bush replied that they are aware of the law, but that the department is " also required to fully assess to what extent that the release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure of any of the below cited in the ORC. Nonetheless as stated below, we have requested the more specific information be provided by the Sheriffs Office whom I’m sure will be more than happy to fulfill what is required per law within a reasonable amount of time."
 
21 News will continue to follow up to determine who in the department is on paid leave and what for and will update as more information is provided.