Fill in the blanks: These judges are _____

Fill in the blanks: These judges are _____

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.

That’s a lesson that we wish Mahoning County’s five general division Common Pleas Court judges would learn.

Unfortunately, Presiding Judge Lou A. D’Apolito and Administrative Judge John M. Durkin, joined by judges R. Scott Krichbaum, James C. Evans and Maureen A. Sweeney, have all decided that as long as they can order the county commissioners to give them more money, they’re not going to suffer the inconvenience of economizing.

Apparently judges are above being held to the same standard as, say, the sheriff, whose budget was cut. And, we can only surmise, their clerks or bailiffs ought not to suffer the indignity of layoffs or pay cuts. That kind of thing should fall to, say, sheriff’s deputies.

The arrogance of these judges is stunning.

There’s less money

The Mahoning County commissioners face budget shortfalls, which isn’t surprising. Any fool could understand that if the county’s main source of general fund income is the sales tax, when people stop buying things, the county’s bottom line suffers. For every $25,000 car that isn’t sold this year, the county will lose $250 in tax income compared to last year. Those kind of losses add up.

So the commissioners prudently budgeted 10 percent less this year than last.

The court spent $2,352,520 in 2008, and the commissioners allocated $2.1 million for 2009. In these economic times, when unemployment is growing, when the future of two of the largest employers in the Valley — General Motors and Forum Health — are in doubt, asking the judges to find ways to trim 10 percent from their budget doesn’t sound unreasonable. Places to start might be salaries, health coverage co-pays and pension co-pays, or some combination of those, along with whatever reduction in staff might be possible.

The judges were having none of it. They know that the Ohio Supreme Court stands ready to back them up in ordering the commissioners to provide whatever the judges say they need for the administration of justice. And so the judges got together and signed an order demanding that the commissioners provide them $2,399,269 — an increase of $46,749 over what it cost to run the courts last year.

We guess that extra 50 grand was just to show the commissioners who’s boss. “You want us to take a cut? We’ll make you give us more.”

Battle of words

And the icing on the cake was that the judges accused the commissioners of being arbitrary.

Well, if the commissioners are arbitrary for cutting the court’s piece of the pie by the same percentage it was cutting from other general fund accounts, what word might describe the judges?

We know what it costs to run the courts based on past practice, one judge harrumphed. Perhaps obtuse would be the word to describe judges who can’t see that today’s fiscal reality calls for something other than falling back on past practice. There’s nothing to negotiate, another judge declared, so perhaps the word would be arrogant. What’s the proper phrase to describe judges who think their administration of justice is more vital than the sheriff’s enforcement of the law? Self-important, perhaps. And the word to describe men and women who use their power simply because they have it is bullies.

The reader may notice that there aren’t any complimentary words being used to describe these five money-grabbing judges today. That’s because we can think of none. Perhaps the reader can think of better words — or worse.