43
Judge Belinky suing commissioners over funding
Photo
Judge Mark Belinky
Photo
Paul Gains
Commissioners can’t defy a reasonable funding order, the probate judge says.
YOUNGSTOWN — With the year’s midpoint fast approaching, Judge Mark Belinky of Mahoning County Probate Court wants the appellate court to force the county commissioners to quickly give him the $915,715 budget he demanded for this year.
“I was concerned that time was of the essence. We are already into June,” Judge Belinky said Tuesday afternoon. “We need a resolution of this quickly.”
The judge noted that almost three months have passed since he issued a judgment entry March 6 ordering that his court receive that sum from the county’s general fund. Judge Belinky filed his complaint in mandamus Tuesday with the 7th District Court of Appeals. The complaint asks the appellate judges for an expedited review of the case.
The 25-page lawsuit was signed by John B. Juhasz, who is Judge Belinky’s county-funded lawyer. Attached to it is a seven-page affidavit signed by Judge Belinky, which explains his budget demand.
The commissioners allocated $694,833 from the general fund to the probate court this year — a figure Judge Belinky said was insufficient to meet the court’s needs. The probate court spent $762,859 last year from the general fund, which is the county’s main operating fund.
Judge Belinky said he has had some informal discussions with with County Commissioner David N. Ludt suggesting a settlement figure that “wasn’t anywhere near sufficient.” Judge Belinky said he doesn’t remember the exact figure Ludt suggested. Ludt could not be reached to comment.
“I’m disappointed in his behavior,” Paul J. Gains, county prosecutor, said of Judge Belinky. “His figures do not add up.” Gains will defend the commissioners in this case.
“Under the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, court funding orders are presumed to be reasonable under Ohio law,” Judge Belinky’s lawsuit said.
“The board of county commissioners is obligated to appropriate the requested funds, unless the board of commissioners can establish that the probate court abused its discretion by requesting funding that is unreasonable and unnecessary in light of the court’s needs,” the complaint said.
Gains noted, however, that the county’s sales tax receipts have declined in recent months. “We are in a deep recession.”
Citing a recent letter, in which Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of the Ohio Supreme Court urged judges to be realistic in the budget process during tough economic times, Gains said he believes the state’s top court might take the state of the economy into consideration in determining what constitutes reasonable funding if the case were to be appealed there.
In his complaint, the judge said the $915,715 he ordered is less than the $922,196 ordered by his predecessor, Judge Timothy P. Maloney “and found reasonable and necessary by the Ohio Supreme Court” when Judge Maloney sued the commissioners six years ago.
To reduce the demand on the general fund, Judge Maloney relied on the court computerization, dispute resolution and indigent guardianship funds to pay some employees. As a result, available balances in these funds, which are derived from court filing fees, steadily have declined.
“The use of these funds for basic ongoing salaries is not a proper use,” of these funds, which state law restricts for specific uses, Judge Belinky said in his affidavit. The judge acknowledged, however, he still pays one employee each out of the computerization and dispute resolution funds.
When he took office in December 2007, Judge Belinky said he found the court understaffed and has since hired two employees to bring the court staff to 17, which is still three employees below the court’s previous staffing level.
Probate court employees got 3 percent pay raises in January 2008 and January 2009.
The probate court issues marriage licenses, distributes inheritances and orders guardianships for certain elderly and mentally disabled people.
Atty. Robert Budinsky, appeals court administrator, said the county commissioners have 28 days to answer Judge Belinky’s complaint, unless the judges direct otherwise.
Any oral arguments will be set after the answer is filed, he added. “It is certainly entitled to prompt consideration,” Budinsky said of the case.
milliken@vindy.com