Judges should justify court order for space

It's no secret that we have long decried the dictatorial powers granted to judges through various opinions from the Ohio Supreme Court when it comes to the operation of the courts. For instance, while the heads of administrative departments must not only justify their budget requests, but must accept what the funding authority grants, judges have a trump card: the journal entry. This official court document says, in effect, that judges don't have to take "no" for an answer.
Such imbalance, in a system of government where the three branches, executive, legislative and judicial, are supposed to be equals, does create tensions.
In Mahoning County, the courts vs. the commissioners, who control the pursestrings, seems to have become a rite of fall (to coincide with the adoption of the budget.) This year, judges Theresa Dellick and Timothy Maloney filed court orders prior to the commissioners' adopting the general fund spending plan. Dellick, of the juvenile court, and Maloney, of the probate court, conveyed an unequivocal message to the commissioners: Give us what we're requesting or we'll see you in court.
However, commissioners Edward Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock and David Ludt made it clear that given Mahoning County's financial difficulties, caused in large part by the collapse of the state and national economies, they could not meet the judges' demands. Thus, court battles loom.
But that isn't the only journal entry Reese, Sherlock and Ludt must deal with. On Monday, the five judges of the common pleas court's general division let it be known that the third floor of the county courthouse belongs to them. Thus, once the county prosecutor's office moves out, all the administrative offices, which are now scattered, will be moved to the floor.
Future growth
As for why such a move is necessary, judges R. Scott Krichbaum, Maureen Cronin, Robert G. Lisotto, John M. Durkin and James C. Evans offered this explanation in the order: "The Court has determined that the current space configuration does not provide it with adequate accommodation for all present staff or opportunity for future growth."
While the judges do make a strong case for having the entire general division located on one floor, they have a responsibility as elected officials to provide a plan on the utilization of space and explain what they mean by "future growth."
Trying to shoehorn all the various county government offices into the courthouse has been a challenge not only for this board of county commissioners but previous ones. Indeed, six years ago, a special space allocation committee was appointed to deal with overcrowding in the courthouse. At the time, the judges of the common pleas court and the 7th District Court of Appeals complained that they could not administer justice effectively when they were stepping on one another's robes.
But the committee's work was stymied by the inability of the stakeholders to reach a consensus.
Today, however, the commissioners do have a plan for utilizing the space as it comes vacant -- the adjacent administration building now houses the board of commissioners and will soon accommodate the prosecutor's office -- but they can't just give in to the demands of the judges unless they know how the space will be used.
As Sherlock put it, the judges should have had a plan in place before staking a claim to all of the third floor space.
That is not an unreasonable position, seeing as how space is still a premium in the courthouse.
We would urge judges Krichbaum, Cronin, Lisotto, Durkin and Evans to provide the commissioners with the justification for taking over the entire third floor.