Judge Dellick's budget should be challenged

There's a word that aptly describes the 2004 budget request submitted by Judge Theresa Dellick of the Mahoning County Juvenile Court: Poppycock.
For the judge to stand before the county commissioners and say with a straight face "We're trying to do more with less, and this budget shows that" reveals either a bent view of reality or a healthy dose of arrogance. Either one is unacceptable.
Why would Judge Dellick revel in such verbal sleight of hand? Because she is confident that when the budgetary battle is joined, she'll emerge the winner. The big gun in her arsenal is an Ohio Supreme Court ruling.
For that reason, commissioners Edward Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock and David Ludt should spend their time not trying to reason with her or to forge a compromise but preparing for another court fight.
Reese, Sherlock and Ludt should not take anything for granted when it comes to legally challenging Judge Dellick's budget request. They should muster all the budgetary expertise at their disposal to show why Judge Dellick's request is unreasonable.
And they can start with a pretty strong argument: The $6.8 million that the juvenile court judge wants for 2004 is 20 percent higher than what the court will have spent this year.
Economic climate
In the current economic climate -- major budgetary cuts on the state and local levels -- a 20 percent increase in spending certainly meets the definition of being out of touch with reality. Her budget envisions a 3 percent wage increase for her employees, who have already received increases as a result of Judge Dellick's contending that they were shortchanged over the years.
It doesn't matter to the judge that Mahoning County government is imploding financially and that layoffs are coming.
It also doesn't matter to her that the county may well need a revenue boost -- which means asking the voters to approve a sales tax increase.
What does Judge Dellick think the reaction will be if she not only gets all that she's seeking in her budget request but then turns about and gives her employees a pay raise?
Has she not heard that in the private sector in the Valley pay increases are a long-forgotten concept and that labor negotiations these days center on words such as concessions, givebacks and copayment of health insurance premiums?
The juvenile court judge might be toying with the commissioners because she has the Supreme Court ruling as her prod. She got a huge increase in her budget this year after successfully suing the commissioners in the state's highest court. She ultimately received $5.6 million.
In ordering the commissioners to give Judge Dellick what she demanded, the justices were not only delivering a clear message that when it comes to the operation of the courts only the judges know best, but they were also making it clear that the bar has been set very high for proving that a budget request is unreasonable.
Nonetheless, the county commissioners must not roll over and play dead. If Judge Dellick gets what she wants, the other judges will follow suit.
It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that only the courts will be at full operating strength next year -- if all the judges in Mahoning County follow their colleague's lead.
Abuse of discretion
The commissioners have no choice but to prepare for another battle in the courts with Judge Dellick. They should argue the case that she has abused her discretion by making unreasonable and unnecessary demands.
They should also focus on the huge increases in funding for hospitalization, supplies, natural gas and for travel, seminars and conferences that are contained in her 2004 budget request.
A defender of Judge Dellick's had the temerity to suggest last week that this budget is not necessarily based on real projections but reflect some speculation on the part of the judge and her staff.
Given that, the commissioners would do well to ask Judge Dellick to submit a real budget -- and if she doesn't they can use that to show how unreasonable she has become with regard to her money grab.