Judges won't give up power to determine funding levels

Mahoning County commissioners can huff and puff all they want about the unfairness of a system that gives one branch of government dictatorial powers when it comes to all things fiscal, but they won't blow the [judicial] house down.
Numerous rulings from the state Supreme Court and appellate courts have reaffirmed the inherent power of the judiciary to order funding that is reasonable and necessary to its administration of justice. And the justification for such a license to dictate? The Ohio Constitution.
That's why commissioners Edward Reese, Vicki Allen Sherlock and David Ludt, while well intentioned, are bound to lose in their quest to change the law so judges would be forced to justify their annual budget requests -- just as every county government department must do.
The justices of the Supreme Court will never permit such a dilution of judicial power. Why? Because the high court gets its funding from the Ohio General Assembly, and no chief justice wants to be put in a postion of having to have a bunch of legislators decide what the court should receive.
Thus, while state and local governments continue to confront decreases in revenue and increases in operating costs -- a recipe for layoffs -- the courts cling to the theory that they must be free from excessive control by other governmental branches.
The courts decide
The onus, therefore, is on the funding authorities -- general assembly, county commissions, city councils -- to prove that a court has abused its discretion by making unreasonable and unnecessary demands. And who ultimately decides whether the burden of such proof has been met? The courts.
So should commissioners Reese, Sherlock and Ludt abandon their effort to bring about any change in the current system of funding the judicial branch of government? Of course not. But they should face reality.
Rather than trying to revamp the law that gives the courts the authority to mandate budgets, they should seek the creation by the state legislature of a special commission that would review court requests for funding and decide whether they are reasonable.
Because the courts would have to abide by the commission's findings -- in order for the idea to work -- the Supreme Court and state bar association would have seats on the panel, as would the County Commissioners Association of Ohio and the Ohio Municipal League.
It would also be important to have the state auditor and private auditing firms as members. That's because the issue of whether a city council, county commission or the general assembly has the money to meet the demands of the courts must be determined using government accounting principles.
Such an independent commission would allow the parties in the budgetary fight to present their arguments. It would also eliminate the kind of public disagreements that have bubbled to the surface in Mahoning County as a result of Juvenile Court Judge Theresa Dellick and Probate Judge Timothy Maloney demanding a level of funding the commissioners have deemed unreasonable and irresponsible.
The Supreme Court, however, has ordered the commissioners to pay Dellick and Maloney what they sought when the county's operating budget was being developed.
Given that judges in Ohio are elected, their refusal to embrace the creation of an independent commission would be seen by taxpayers as an arrogant abuse of power.
We agree with commissioners Reese, Sherlock and Ludt that something must be done. But that something isn't a change in the law designed to give them the ability to tell judges to pound salt. It's not going to happen.