Judge Bernard makes amends with mayor of Girard, council

Last week’s announcement by Girard Municipal Court Judge Michael Bernard that he’s transferring about $300,000 from special court funds to city government’s general fund has Mayor James Melfi tossing verbal bouquets at his former arch rival. The mayor’s high praise could also be the result of the judge’s decision to retire when his term expires in December 2011.

Regardless, Bernard’s generosity reflects a sea change in his behavior that should be acknowledged by critics of his past intransigence with regard to the funding of his court by city council.

Indeed, as Mayor Melfi tells it, he and the judge had a conversation recently during which the $400,000 or so in the special court funds was discussed. The money is generated by court fines, fees and other charges. Melfi was pleasantly surprised when Bernard agreed to funnel some of the money to the city’s day-to-day operation.

“I didn’t hear anything further from the judge until he appeared before council’s finance committee meeting last week and announced that he would be giving up around $300,000,” the mayor said. “That’s great news, and we’re grateful to Judge Bernard.”

We share the mayor’s feeling of goodwill toward the judge. Like Melfi, we have been harsh in our criticism of him over his belief that the judiciary has the right to demand whatever level of funding a judge deems necessary, and the mayor and council have an obligation to meet such a demand.

The battle came to a head in 2006 when Bernard filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court to set aside an appeals court ruling that rejected his demand for more money than council had appropriated. The high court refused to hear the motion. Bernard asked the court to reconsider, which it did not do.

In January 2007, in reaction to the municipal judge sending the city a bill for $28,000 from the lawyer who represented the court in its battle with council, we stated:

“ ... even after being turned down by the Ohio Supreme Court, Bernard persists in his ridiculous and counterproductive claim that council and Mayor James Melfi have shortchanged his court. The judge has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision not to hear his case.

“This is not the behavior of a responsible elected official. For that reason, we urge council to take Mayor Melfi’s advice and not pay the bill submitted by Atty. John B. Juhasz.”

We noted that the 11th District Court of Appeals had rejected his claim that council was required to give him the $905,000 he had demanded for the court’s operation for 2006. Council had allocated $600,000. A magistrate in the appeals court ordered both sides to reach an amicable funding agreement. Bernard reduced his demand to $871,388, while council concluded that $800,000 was justified.

Hard line

We took a hard line against the judge because it wasn’t the first time he had used his perceived judicial authority to steamroller the mayor and council.

In 2005, he gave 16 employees 6-percent pay adjustments — even while the court was facing a $250,000 budget deficit, and city government was in state mandated fiscal emergency.

Because of the emergency, there were across-the-board cuts in departmental budgets, and the unions representing city employees agreed to a pay freeze from 2004 to 2006.

Thus, while we applaud Judge Bernard for his decision to send $300,000 to the general fund, we are unwilling to ignore his past behavior. His obstinacy and his generosity are both part of his record as an elected official.