Girard's budget crisis will require extreme measures

If the 2006 budget appropriations approved by the state fiscal oversight panel remain unchanged, the city of Girard's general fund deficit will be reduced to $524,381. But that's a big if -- given the ongoing battle between Girard Municipal Judge Michael Bernard and Mayor James Melfi.
But there is a way the mayor and city council can ensure that fiscal discipline prevails: urge the Girard Financial Planning and Supervision Commission to put government on a month-to-month budget.
In fact, commission Chairman Paul Marshall said this week that members are contemplating such a move and will take a vote in January. The monthly budget next year would be based on this year's revenue.
"The commission has the power to set up a monthly revenue and expenditure schedule," Marshall said. "If the city violates that, then the financial supervisor has the power to say, 'you have to stay within this budget.'"
Those are exactly the words the executive, legislative and judicial branches of city government need to hear. We would strongly urge the commission to exert the power it has been given by state statute.
It's time for the city to get its financial house in order so the state-declared fiscal emergency can finally be lifted. Girard has been under state supervision since 2001, and while the flow of red ink has slowed over the years -- the deficit stood at $1.15 million at the end of 2004 -- much more needs to be done before the commission is able to certify that the general fund, the agency reimbursement fund and the capital improvement fund are in the black.
In addition, the city must prepare a five-year forecast of revenue and expenditures.
Fiscal discipline
The bottom line is that city government at all levels must show the kind of fiscal discipline that Judge Bernard seems reluctant to embrace.
When Bernard decided to give his employees a pay raise in August after all four unions in the city agreed to a pay freeze from 2004 to 2006, we used the word "irresponsible" to describe what he had done. Indeed, Bernard recently went to the 11th District Court of Appeals and secured an order that forces the city to pay an additional $49,000 in court expenses this year.
Such behavior merely feeds the negative perceptions taxpayers have about government and creates dissension when a spirit of cooperation is needed.
Given Bernard's refusal to be a team player, we believe direct budgetary supervision by the state commission is the only way to prevent him from raiding the treasury in 2006.
We are especially eager to see whether the Ohio Supreme Court would be inclined to reiterate its divine-right-of-judges principle in the face of Girard's economic crisis and the state fiscal commission's monthly revenue and expenditure schedule. We have long decried the pompous attitude of judges when it comes to funding their courts and have harshly criticized the supreme court for failing to recognize that in tough economic times all three branches of government have an equal responsibility to erase the red ink.