MAHONING COUNTY Judge to appeal ruling in feud

The matter will be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Judge Timothy P. Maloney will appeal an Ohio Supreme Court ruling that stopped him from holding a hearing Thursday to decide whether Mahoning County commissioners violated his court order.
Judge Maloney, of probate court, had been locked in a dispute with commissioners over funding for employee retirement contributions. He said commissioners transferred money within the probate court budget, without his approval, to cover the expense.
The judge ordered commissioners to restore the money they had transferred and to provide him with additional money for the retirement contribution.
When they did not do that, he summoned them to court, along with county Administrator Gary Kubic and budget director Elizabeth Sublette. A hearing was set for Thursday afternoon, during which the officials were to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court for their action.
Latest action
But late Thursday morning, the high court issued an order blocking Judge Maloney from holding the hearing. The order had been requested by Prosecutor Paul Gains, who represents commissioners. Judge Maloney has appointed attorneys John B. Juhasz and Mary Jane Stephens to represent him.
Juhasz and Stephens already represent Judge Maloney in a lawsuit he filed earlier this year against commissioners, seeking to force them to appropriate more money to the court.
Gains had argued in his motion to the Supreme Court that the retirement funding issue is actually a part of the overall budget lawsuit. The high court agreed, blocked Judge Maloney from holding the hearing and said it will decide the retirement issue with the lawsuit.
"With all due respect to Mr. Gains, I think he's barking up the wrong legal tree," Juhasz said, explaining why he'll file a motion asking that the high court's ruling be dismissed.
He said the question isn't whether commissioners should give the probate court more money, but whether they improperly transferred money they had already appropriated.
Juhasz said he had filed a response to Gains' request with the high court, but the justices apparently did not receive it in time to consider it before making a decision.
What commissioners said
At their meeting Thursday morning, commissioners were prepared to authorize payment of $12,741 to the probate court, which was the amount needed to cover the cost of the retirement benefit contribution.
They received word of the Supreme Court's decision during their meeting, about three hours before the scheduled hearing in probate court.
"We were prepared to take that additional budget appropriation to [probate] court with us," Kubic said. "We were under a court order to provide that funding. We can't ignore a court order."
But Gains said the high court's ruling put a freeze on everything until after it decides the overall budget lawsuit. Therefore, there was no need for commissioners to provide the additional funding, Kubic said.
bjackson@vindy.com