Giving court budgets priority may be constitutional, but it's bad policy, bad politics

It is not unusual these days to hear the words court and arrogant in the same sentence. But Mahoning County juvenile and domestic courts, aided and abetted by the Ohio Supreme Court, have given new meaning to arrogance.
While other courts in Mahoning County subjected themselves to the normal budgetary process, Juvenile Court Judge Theresa Dellick and Probate Court Judge Timothy Maloney decided to do things their way.
They told commissioners how much they wanted and refused to budge. When commissioners balked, the judges went to the Ohio Supreme Court and seven compliant justices accommodated them.
We suppose this was to be expected. The justices were not about to allow something as mundane as the county commission's need to be fiscally responsible come in the way of a judge's presumed right to set priorities -- not only for his or her own court, but, in effect, for the entire county.
Asked and given
In Judge Dellick's case, she had asked for $6.9 million, but was allocated $4.6 million. Judge Maloney demanded $922,196, but was budgeted $750,000. The Supreme Court gave them what they asked for.
Now the county, which was described by Auditor George Tablack even before the court ruled as on the verge of bankruptcy, must take $2.5 million from other departments and operations.
And what will the bulk of this money the courts demanded be used for? Pay raises for court employees. The judges claim that their employees are underpaid to the extent that it is unfair to the employees and endangers the courts' ability to retain and attract workers.
Who's kidding whom here? If every employee in both courts quit tomorrow the judges would be unable to handle the crowds of job seekers at their doorsteps -- with or without the raises.
Is it fair that Judge Dellick's employees were paid between 5 percent and 21 percent less than employees in other courts? Perhaps not. But for whatever reason, her predecessor had allowed salaries to fall behind. Perhaps he was undervaluing his loyal employees, or perhaps he had a better sense of what represents an adequate wage in this area.
But clearly, fair is not the word that is going to come to mind for county employees in other departments who lose their jobs so that employees in the juvenile court can get 20 percent raises.
The law is designed to ensure that courts are able to function, that county commissioners provide the courts a level of funding that is necessary to administer justice. Are Judges Dellick and Maloney saying that their courts have not been functioning? Have they been doing any less than dispensing justice in recent years? No. It's just that they wanted more for their courts and their employees -- and they wanted it now.
No surprises
Everyone would like more. And we suspect that if you asked most taxpayers whether they would rather have more money in their pockets or whether they would rather pay some county employees full-time salaries for working less than 40 hours a week, they'd opt to keep their money. If you asked taxpayers whether they should pay more so that county workers can avoid co-pays for premium health care and pension plans, the taxpayers would think it perfectly fair for county employees to share the burden.
The courts play a dangerous game when they use the law to demand preferential treatment. When they allocate extravagant increases for themselves in the name of fairness, while other departments are economizing and other employees are being laid off, they risk an ugly backlash.
The Supreme Court has given Dellick and Maloney the legal power to enforce their will on the commissioners. Prudence would suggest that they not do so. True fairness demands that they not.