Officials dispute who said what

Council says financial issues with the court prevent the hiring of more police.
By JOHN W. GOODWIN JR.
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
GIRARD -- Disputes, including differences in recollection between the municipal judge and council members, will have two courts ironing out their issues.
Several council members recently bristled at statements made by Judge Michael Bernard, regarding his decision to ban council from using the courtroom to conduct meetings.
Judge Bernard ordered council banned from meeting in the courtroom in May. Locks to the court have been changed, and council has been meeting in its old chambers in an adjoining building.
One point of contention is a statement Council President Reynald Paolone says the judge made when issuing the order prohibiting use of the court facilities.
Judge Bernard has said personal attacks on the court, including from Mayor James Melfi, led to the ban. The judge said he was separating the court from Girard's politics.
Paolone, however, said Judge Bernard said he would "bury him" -- in referring to Melfi and the city.
Judge Bernard said he "categorically denies" making such a statement, saying the use of such language is not indicative of his way of thinking.
Paolone, however, stands by his recollection -- saying at least two other council members heard the judge's comment.
"I will match my polygraph against Mike Bernard's any time and any place," he said. "I value my integrity more than anything in the world other than my wife."
What judge said
Judge Bernard said he is mandated by the Supreme Court to put in place a plan to protect those using the court -- something, he said, council did not take seriously.
Judge Bernard said council would conduct meetings without proper security at the building doors, leave doors to the courtroom open and unlocked, and fail to check the building for stragglers before leaving.
Councilman Tom Seidler said he's taken aback by the judge's comments.
Seidler said the judge told council members, during his initial invitation to use the court facilities in 2004, that the court facilities also belonged to council and the legislative body should have access to them. He said the judge's primary request was that a guard be positioned at the entranceway to the building.
Seidler said council created a second sergeant-at-arms position to accommodate the judge's request that someone be in charge of guarding the door. He said the second sergeant is present before meetings and always walks through the building afterward.
"Council has never received any comment from [the judge] remotely indicating there was a problem," he said. "He found it convenient to send letters out when he wanted more money but can't find it convenient to send some type of letter indicating there was a problem."
Council has taken the judge's ban to the Ohio Supreme Court, filing a writ of prohibition on behalf of the city against Judge Bernard.
Council members have also taken issue with two court orders from Judge Bernard over the last two years demanding more money for court operations.
Judge Bernard filed a writ of mandamus action with the 11th District Court of Appeals asking the court to order that his 2006 budget request be fulfilled.
Council said such orders, which are being appealed, are stopping the city from providing some vital services -- such as hiring additional police officers.
More police needed
Police Chief Frank Bigowsky told council last week that the police department desperately needs additional officers. He said hiring two officers and a dispatcher would be ideal.
"To continue like this, you are just rolling the dice. Sooner or later, the dam is going to break," he said.
Council had been considering moving funds from an overtime account into a wages and benefits account to allow for the hiring of additional officers. But council decided not to do so until the case concerning court funding is settled. Most members said any newly hired personnel would have to be laid off if the city loses that court case.
Council has repeatedly said the judge should live within his appropriations.
Nita Hendryx, a member of the fiscal oversight commission put in place to oversee city spending, recently gave commission members an account of court spending. She said the caseload in the court from 2001 to 2005 dropped by more than 36 percent, but court costs per case rose from $64 to $116.
Hendryx said the $600,000 in appropriations to the court for this year were based on the reduction in cases seen in previous years. Judge Bernard has issued an order for court appropriations to be increased to $905,000 for the year.
jgoodwin@vindy.com