43
Controversial proposal expanding probate courts' power back as separate bill
YOUNGSTOWN
A legislative proposal that would impact park districts such as Mill Creek MetroParks is back under consideration by the Ohio House of Representatives.
An amendment that would have given probate courts broader powers over park districts was removed from the biennial budget bill being considered by state lawmakers. Now, the proposal is back as a separate bill.
State Rep. Bill Seitz, a Republican who represents a district in Hamilton County, introduced House Bill 218 last month and delivered testimony on it Wednesday to the state House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee.
Both the original amendment and Seitz’s bill stipulate a probate court may “investigate matters involving the park district,” “impose duties or restrictions on a person or party who interferes with the park district’s purposes,” and may “tax the cost of proceedings as court costs to be assessed by the court in its discretion,” among other provisions.
The original amendment drew criticism from some who said it was an attempt to silence dissenters, such as Mahoning Valley residents who in the past have voiced their opposition to MetroParks leaders’ actions.
State Rep. John Boccieri of Poland, D-59th, was an outspoken critic of the House Bill 49 amendment, and said he also questions this new piece of legislation.
“I’m very suspicious anytime you have to place language in a bill that [says it] does not violate any constitutional rights or freedom of speech,” Boccieri said.
A section of HB 218 that was not in the original proposal states: “Nothing in this section authorizes a probate court to take any action that infringes upon any rights of an individual or organization that are protected by the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution.”
Seitz’s bill features a few other new provisions, such as stating a “probate court shall not impede or interfere with the daily operations of a park district” and any actions taken under the proposed law would be “limited to injunctive relief or a declaratory judgement.”
In his testimony, Seitz said the change is needed because current state law that governs parks such as Mill Creek “does not provide explicit authority for probate judges should a dispute arise concerning the park district.”
Boccieri disagrees, saying, “It thrusts probate judges into very political and controversial matters.”