Ruling: Girard, judge must compromise

Print Story

Email to Friend

Discuss this story

The panel's majority found the Girard court's funding request unreasonable.

By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.

VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF

GIRARD — City officials and Girard Municipal Court Judge Michael Bernard will have to come up with new figures for funding the court in 2006 based on an appeals court decision released today.

An 11th District Court of Appeals three-judge panel threw out an earlier funding order by a magistrate and called on city and court officials to reach an agreement on court funding.

Judge Bernard and city officials had been battling in court over two orders for additional funding issued by Judge Bernard — one in 2005 to increase funding by $49,000, and a 2006 order for $905,454. The city appropriated about $600,000 for the court in 2006.

Magistrate Matthew O. Lamb, of the 11th District Court of Appeals, partly sided with Judge Bernard, granting the court $780,000 to operate in 2006 and dismissing the city's claim for reimbursement on the 2005 order.

Judge Bernard objected to the magistrate's ruling before the appeals court panel consisting of Judges Judith A. Christley, Colleen Mary O'Toole and William M. O'Neill.

Judges O'Toole and Christley, as did the magistrate, determined that the 2006 funding request by the court was unreasonable, but said the magistrate abused his discretion by attempting to set an amount for funding of the court. The judges also said the $600,000 appropriated by the city was an insufficient amount to operate the court.

Judge O'Neill dissented from the majority opinion, saying the court's request for $905,454 was neither unreasonable nor unnecessary.

Must work it out

The appeals court decision did not set an amount for the city to appropriate the court for 2006, but instead called upon Judge Bernard to issue another funding request and asked the two sides to reach an agreement.

"Hopefully, once such an order is rendered, the parties will be able to properly communicate on the funding issue and will be able to reach an amicable solution," the order reads.

In his appeal, Judge Bernard said the city should not have been permitted to present certain items as evidence. The appeals court judges said the city should be permitted to admit any evidence pertaining to the reasonableness of the court's funding request.

The appellate judges also said the magistrate was correct in concluding that the burden of proof as to the reasonableness of court expenditures could vary depending on whether the judge or city controlled the funds in question — something else to which Judge Bernard objected.

Mayor pleased

Mayor James Melfi said he is happy with the court's decision. He said it ultimately will help the city move closer to emerging from fiscal emergency.

"The last piece needed for the fiscal recovery of this city is now in place," he said. "For many years costs relative to the court have done their share to put the city into fiscal emergency."

Melfi said the court will now have to make many of the same cost-cutting decisions the city had to make upon entering fiscal emergency such as layoffs, reductions in purchasing and possibly shorter work days.

Judge Bernard could not be reached to comment.

jgoodwin@vindy.com

Monday, September 25, 2006