Court-funding testimony ends

A decision will be issued next week.
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
GIRARD -- Testimony has concluded, closing statements have been made, and a decision will be rendered next week in the 11th District Court of Appeals case between city leaders and Girard Municipal Court Judge Michael Bernard.
Judge Bernard has issued two orders for additional funding for the court in 2005 and 2006. According to law, the city must show that the judge's request for additional money is unnecessary and unreasonable, or honor the request.
Magistrate Matthew Lamb of the 11th District Court of Appeals said he will render a decision in the case by next Thursday. Attorneys will then have five days to appeal the decision to a three-judge panel at the appellate court.
Testimony in the case wrapped up Wednesday with Mayor James Melfi and City Auditor Sam Zirafi taking the stand.
Warren Atty. Frank Bodor, representing the city, has long contended that the court, in light of the city's overall financial picture, is too heavily staffed. Testimony from the mayor supported that claim.
Decreased safety forces
According to Melfi, the city had 26 police officers and 17 firefighters before entering fiscal emergency in 2001. Those numbers dropped to 17 police officers and 12 firefighters after the city entered fiscal emergency, he said.
Melfi also said the city eliminated its free paramedic service, doing away with 10 part-time jobs, and cut seven other jobs in various city departments.
"It was probably the darkest hour in our city's history," he said.
City officials have said the judge did not reduce staff after the city entered fiscal emergency even with a reduced caseload in the court.
Melfi also told the court that management wages in the city were frozen after entering fiscal emergency and union negotiations resulted in pay freezes for all employees from 2004 to 2006. Bodor has said Judge Bernard was not being reasonable in issuing pay increases and bonuses to court employees in 2005.
Atty. John Juhasz, representing Judge Bernard, while cross-examining Melfi, pointed out that city employees were given pay raises in 2001, 2002 and 2003 based on contract agreements signed in 2000. Juhasz also suggested that the city has not followed certain money-saving aspects of its own financial recovery plan.
Zirafi told the court that Judge Bernard gave his staff a 9-percent wage increase and bonuses. He said the court could have saved about $40,000 had those raises not been awarded.
Zirafi also said the court could save the city about $49,000 per employee it would decide to lay off. A 2002 audit of the court suggested 4.5 employees be laid off.
Closing arguments
In closing, Juhasz said the court must be given freedom to operate as it sees necessary.
"If we are to have a [tripartite] system of government, we cannot get into a situation where the other branches destroy the judiciary by controlling the funding," he said.
Juhasz said the entire situation comes down to a determination as to whether the judge's request was necessary and reasonable. He said Judge Bernard had demonstrated the necessity of all his court employees and shown his demand for funding reasonable.
Bodor, in closing, said the judge, when given several opportunities to explain his request for funding, "stonewalled" city officials and in doing so was unreasonable.
Bodor said a 2002 audit of the court spoke volumes in determining the court had too many employees. He said the court's caseload went from about 11,000 to 7,300 -- something that demanded a reduction in staff. Judge Bernard called the audit "garbage."
"[The audit] did not work to his favor so of course he wants nothing to do with it," said Bodor.
According to Bodor, the case comes down to balance in funding city services and the court. He said Judge Bernard has not been sensitive to the city's delicate financial picture in demanding funds and should have been more willing to work with officials.
jgoodwin@vindy.com