IBJNews

Closed meeting angers wounded store clerk's family

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The family of a convenience store clerk critically injured in an October shooting harshly criticized an Indiana agency's decision to hold a closed-door meeting Wednesday with trade groups on efforts to boost safety at the 24-hour facilities.

Relatives of Marcella Birnell, a 38-year-old Village Pantry clerk who was shot in the head last fall during a robbery, said the first meeting on the topic should be open to the public.

"The family ... is outraged that the group has refused to listen to the voices of concerned citizens who wish to find reasonable solutions to safety issues for convenience store employees," Theresia Whitfield, a spokeswoman for the family, said in an email.

Convenience store trade groups, police and state officials met Wednesday at the Indiana Government Center South in Indianapolis to discuss the goals and a timeline for an effort to improve safety at the stores. Store upgrades to be discussed include more security cameras, bulletproof glass, alarms and better lighting.

State Rep. Ed DeLaney, an Indianapolis Democrat who pushed for the meeting, said the issue is an important one that affects store employees and consumers and should be vetted through an open process.

"We need to have a public airing of this issue, which really is growing," DeLaney told The Indianapolis Star.

"The exclusion of both the public and media from this dialogue will erode the public's confidence that their best interests are being considered through this process," he wrote in a letter to Department of Labor Commissioner Lori Torres.

DeLaney said Torres called him Tuesday evening after he sent the letter to explain why the meeting was closed. He said she told him some of the companies were worried that what they said during a meeting might hurt them if lawsuits are filed.

Department of Labor spokesman Bob Dittmer said members of the Convenience Store Working Group wanted their first meeting to be private so they could get organized "without the presence of others distracting them."

He said agency officials think the group is not subject to the state's Open Door Law, which requires most government meetings to be open. However, Dittmer said the group could have subsequent meetings that will be open to the public.

"That's for them to decide," he said. "One could certainly anticipate that that's the likelihood."

Dittmer declined comment on DeLaney's statement.

The Convenience Store Working Group said in a news release that its mission is to "facilitate the adoption and use of industry best practices for promoting worker safety and workplace violence prevention in 24-hour convenience stores."

DeLaney said he hopes the committee eventually will invite the public to be part of the discussion.

"We're trying to protect the public as well as employees," he said. "The public ought to be concerned about this."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT