MAHONING COUNTY Jail compliance remains in dispute

The latest demands were an insult to the county, an assistant prosecutor said.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Mahoning County's request to be released from a federal court order governing its operation of the county jail apparently won't come easily.
Lawyers have filed a motion opposing the request, saying the county is still short of full compliance. They want to argue their case before Judge Peter C. Economus of U.S. District Court. They also want paid more than $95,000 for their time spent monitoring the jail over the past four to five years.
Lawsuit: Inmates sued the county in 1992, complaining that the poor condition of the former county jail on West Boardman Street violated their constitutional rights. They said the facility was overcrowded and understaffed.
A consent decree was established, which put the jail under the court's authority. It resulted in the building of a new jail on Fifth Avenue. After the new jail was built, lawyers for the inmates were permitted to monitor it to ensure its compliance with Ohio's minimum jail standards.
The county filed a motion earlier this month saying it has met all requirements set forth in the consent decree and asking that it be dissolved.
Assistant Prosecutor Thomas Michaels wrote in the motion that under a new federal law, the consent decree was subject to termination by either party after April 1998.
Contention: In his response, filed last week, Atty. Robert Armbruster of the Akron law firm Armbruster & amp; Kelley disagreed. The firm filed the original lawsuit in 1992 and has remained involved with the case.
"The [county] would have the court believe that termination simply involves a passing of time and the signing of an order of termination," Armbruster wrote in the motion. "Much more is involved." He did not return telephone calls for comment.
His motion says that the county was allowed to staff the jail with a minimum number of deputies during times of financial crisis brought on by loss of a sales tax. Now that the tax is back on the books, more deputies should be hired, the motion says. It does not say how many are needed.
It also says the county is deficient in training deputies to work in the jail.
The complaints did not sit well with Michaels, who thought an agreement had been reached to mutually end the order.
"I was highly offended by this," he said. "It was like a slap in the face."
He said the county is "thoroughly convinced" it is in compliance with the consent decree and does not agree with the latest demands. He said the county approached Armbruster's law firm about paying their bill and ending the court order.
"We said we wanted to get them paid, get this thing wrapped up and get them out of here," Michaels said. The county does not dispute that the firm is owed for its monitoring time. The bill submitted by Armbruster & amp; Kelley will be reviewed before it's paid.
Resolving the matter: County Administrator Gary Kubic and Sheriff Randall Wellington said they are still optimistic that the matter will be resolved without having to take it before a judge. County officials met last week with Armbruster to talk about a final settlement.
"We believe that the objectives of the consent decree have been met and we are seeking closure," Kubic said. "But we want to make sure that when it's finished, it's finished for good."
A county grand jury also does not think that the jail is understaffed. In fact, in its quarterly report, the panel noted that the ratio of three jail guards for each prisoner seems excessive.
bjackson@vindy.com