-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
Supreme Court appoints official to oversee Youngstown Muni dispute
Tweet
Kobly
YOUNGSTOWN
After 16 months of inaction, the Ohio Supreme Court appointed a master commissioner to oversee a long-standing dispute over new court facilities between the three municipal court judges, and the city’s administrators and council.
An effort to resolve the issue through mediation failed in April 2010, and the case went back to the Ohio Supreme Court a month later.
The last legal action in the case was Sept. 7, 2010, when the Youngstown judges submitted a reply brief.
“I’m thrilled that something happened [because the case] sat there doing nothing for a long time,” said Elizabeth A. Kobly, the municipal court’s presiding and administrative judge. “It’s been frustrating for all of us. I’m very encouraged there is some movement. This is great, fabulous.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday selected Andrew Campbell, a master commissioner in its office of legal resources, to receive evidence from both sides and make “all necessary determinations and rulings” related to the case, according to court entry.
The court will make the final decision on the case, said Bret Crow, a court spokesman.
The three municipal court judges filed a complaint in May 2009 with the high court demanding the city administration and council be compelled to provide the court with “suitable accommodations.”
“We’ve been awaiting the court’s decision and they’ve decided they need more evidence,” said city Law Director Anthony Farris. “I don’t know what the master commissioner will need and require. We’ll wait for his request. He could have a hearing or ask for additional information. He has very broad latitude in asking what he wants. We expect to hear from him quickly as to what he wants us to do. The resolution might not be quick.”
The judges want the city to spend $8 million to renovate the city hall annex, on the corner of Front and Market streets, as a new courthouse. The city countered with a scaled-down $6 million renovation. The two sides haven’t been able to resolve the dispute.
Municipal court is on the second floor of city hall, 26 S. Phelps St. The judges have complained about the court facility for about 15 years.
The complaints from the judges about the court include security problems, it’s too cramped, not clean and poor ventilation has caused health problems for those working there.
The security issue came to a head during a July 14, 2010, brawl in the hallway between family members of a suspect and murder victim. In May 2011, about 20 current and retired law-enforcement officers were hired to handle security at city hall, replacing workers for a security-guard company.
Comments
Any decision to spend $8 million on yet another court facility in the county should take into consideration the population decline and whether the City can justify the need for a municipal court.
The City of Youngstown has a population of less than 67,000 and lost 18.3% of its population between 2000 and 2010. The population of the City in 2000 was 82,026 but by 2010 it had dropped to 66,982, a loss of 15,044. If that rate of population decline continues, the City will fall below 50,000 residents in less than 10 years.
The expenditure of $8 million for a city court would be as shortsighted as the expenditure of $182 million by the City of Youngstown for new school buildings for less than 7,000 students.
While the judges certainly deserve security in a dangerous environment, it is important that this problem be addressed within the larger context of the need to consolidate and improve the county courts system.
This situation should serve as an incentive for the consolidation of the county court system into a more efficient and less costly organizational structure. According to news reports and the conflict between City Prosecutor Macejko and County Prosecutor Gains, the city charges most of its crimes as state offenses, thus avoiding the need for the city to pay the costs of prisoners in the county jail.
The Mahoning County General Fund, which funds the criminal justice system, spends in two years what the Trumbull County General Fund spends in three years, mainly because of the costs of the criminal justice system. And in Trumbull County which has only two county district courts compared to four in Mahoning County, there is an effort to further consolidate that system.
The Boardman district court is five miles from downtown Youngstown, and five miles from the Canfield district court. The Canfield district court is five miles from the Austintown district court which is seven miles from downtown Youngstown. Campbell and Struthers also have municipal courts which serve the same purpose as the Youngstown court.
City and County leaders need to follow the example of Trumbull County in consolidating the system, which should solve the problems for the city and at the same time save the taxpayers money.