CLEVELAND, Ohio – Cuyahoga County Law Director Robert Triozzi has been commanded to appear before a Cuyahoga County grand jury later this month as part of an ongoing corruption investigation by the County Prosecutor’s Office.

The directive was included in a subpoena served this week on the administration of County Executive Armond Budish requesting county records. Fourteen earlier subpoenas allowed Triozzi to have requested documents delivered to the grand jury without making a personal appearance.

Why investigators commanded Triozzi’s appearance is unclear from the subpoena. The document states only that Triozzi is to appear before the grand jury with documents in two on Dec. 14 at 9 a.m. The grand jury meets in the County Justice Center.

Triozzi could not be immediately reached for comment.

Investigators have not spoken publicly about any aspect of their probe, which became public last January.

Unlike prior subpoenas, this latest one also seeks information pertaining to “elected officials” as well as officers and employees of the county. Investigators also appear to have expanded by asking for documents that would show whether county officials or employees were compensated for travel expenses by vendors who do business with the county.

The subpoena seeks the names of county officials or employees who were compensated by vendors, the dates of travel, the costs involved and the vendors who made the payments.

Also being sought are any opinions or related records generated by Triozzi or County Inspector General Mark Griffin concerning whether any elected officials, officers or employees of the county had a conflict of interest by accepting travel expenses from county vendors.

In addition, investigators want copies of any memos Budish or his chief of staff may have sent to officers or employees “analyzing” the county travel policy or the practice of accepting reimbursement for travel costs from vendors who do business with the county.

Sharon Sobol Jordan was Budish’s original chief of staff, but she resigned in February to take a new job. She was replaced by former Shaker Heights Mayor Earl Leiken.

A subpoena served early in the investigation sought details about the time Sobol Jordan took off from her county job to pursue an executive MBA at Ohio State University.

The most recent subpoena does not mention any specific elected officials or county employees, nor does it specify vendors. Previous subpoenas primarily focused on the actions of officials in the county’s troubled IT Department.

IT Director Scot Rourke and General Counsel Emily McNeeley were placed on leave early this year after their names appeared in subpoenas. And Deputy Chief Information Officer James Hay quit his $153,000 job in October amid a controversy over a $15,000 bonus he received.

Previous subpoenas served on the county have sought email communications involving Rourke and McNeeley, as well as information about their access to certain county contracts. Among the companies doing business with the county that have been named in subpoenas are OneCommunity and Vox Mobile, two businesses that Rourke helped start, and Hyland Software, which employs McNeeley’s spouse.

The investigation also extends to the county’s effort to integrate its fragmented computer system. The Enterprise Resource Planning project has been in the works since 2010 with up to $25 million allocated for its implementation.

The County Council awarded contracts to several vendors in connection with the ERP project. Two of the vendors were Ciber Inc. and Infor Public Sector Inc. Ciber filed for bankruptcy protection in April of 2017 and Infor took over the work Ciber had been doing.

The corruption investigation began after Cuyahoga County Internal Auditor Cory Swaisgood initiated a routine review of the IT Department in 2017. Budish acknowledged during his State of the County address in April of this year that county watchdogs, including Swaisgood and Griffin, triggered the investigation.

Swaisgood issued a scathing report in August that raised questions about McNeeley’s authority and oversight and pointed out a number of other deficiencies in the way the department was being run, including the handling of contracts.

“We appreciate the good work of the Internal Auditor,” Budish said in a written statement following the report’s release. “With the exception of issues relating to two employees (who are subject to a separate investigation). The legacy weaknesses identified in systems of IT and procurement have generally existed for years.”