Ohio Supreme Court needs to hear from Girard officials

A lawsuit has been filed by the city of Girard in the Ohio Supreme Court that seeks an answer to this question: Does a municipal judge have the authority to ban city council from using the courtroom when it is vacant?
Last month, we urged council members to take Judge Michael Bernard to the state's highest court after he informed council President Reynald Paolone that the legislative branch could no longer meet in the new court facility. The judge said at the time that personal attacks on the court led to the ban.
We applaud the lawmakers and Mayor James Melfi for not taking this abuse of power lying down. We also find it revealing that Bernard is now offering a completely different reason for his ban: Council's lackadaisical attitude toward courtroom security.
He contends that he is mandated by the Supreme Court to implement a plan to protect those using the court, but that council has ignored his wishes. The judge told The Vindicator last week that lawmakers would conduct meetings without proper security at the doors to the building, leave doors to the courtroom open and unlocked and fail to check the building for stragglers before leaving.
"They didn't even turn out the lights," Bernard said. "These are the reasons. I am not acting arbitrarily."
Serious charges
Those are serious charges being leveled against government officials, given the issue of homeland security, and they prompt these questions: Did Judge Bernard send the mayor and council a formal notice detailing the violations of his courtroom security plan? Did he seek a meeting with members of the two other branches of city government to try to come to an understanding?
We have no doubt that the justices of the Supreme Court will pursue that line of questioning, just as they will the issue of the ownership of public facilities, which are paid for with tax dollars. Why ownership? Because that's what the municipal judge is claiming when he decides who will and who won't use the courtroom.
We do not believe that Bernard has the right to prohibit legitimate public business from being conducted in the facility as long as it does not conflict with the court's schedule. But, that's for Supreme Court to decide.
While past decisions by the high court relating to the judiciary have shown a disturbing bias for fellow members of the bench -- the most glaring has to do with a court's right to demand whatever level of funding it deems reasonable -- we do believe that the issue in the Girard courtroom case goes beyond dollars and cents. It's about the ability of one elected official to hold sway over an entire city government.
As we said last month, the issue isn't about second-guessing Judge Bernard on the appropriate level of funding to ensure the proper administration of justice, nor about the executive and legislative branches blurring the lines of separation with the judiciary. It's about Bernard, who sees himself as judge and jury in his dealings with the other two branches.
And that is why the Ohio Supreme Court must take up this issue.
Finally, the justices should answer the following: Does a judge have the right to threaten other duly elected officials with arrest if they ignore his ban on their using the courtroom?