[ back ]
Deadlocked City Council puts judge on defense
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - January 15, 2009)
Deadlocked City Council puts judge on defense
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Chardon City Council disagreed last week on a request to shift a worker from one position to another at Chardon Municipal Court at no cost to the city.
Council voted 3-3 on the request by Chardon Municipal Judge Mark Hassett. The tie caused the motion to fail. Councilwoman Leslie Bednar was absent, leaving the deadlock on council.
Although some of the council members voting against the measure said they would likely approve it, they would only do so once they have the opportunity to have Mr. Hassett appear before them and explain his request. Some members of council said the appearance request is simply a waste of time.
"I think we need to give the court their own discretion," Councilman Philip King said. "I don't think we need to micromanage the court's budget in this regard. It's not going to cost us any money."
But Councilman Jefferey Campbell Jr. said he had questions about the request. He said he wanted reassurances that the city would not face future expenses from the court.
A letter, which council continually referred to, said that Mr. Hassett intended to move one employee to a court technology assistant position.
"This position does not require the hiring of additional personnel," Mr. Hassett said, emphasizing the "does not" in bold type and underlined. "We will be promoting a current employee.
"A portion of the employee wage and any additional compensation will be paid entirely out of the court computer fund and not from the general fund and at no expense to the city." Mr. Hassett again emphasized the "not" with bold type and underlining.
Councilwoman Mary Bramstedt called the letter a "blanket statement," saying she also wanted to know the exact cost of the move. She said she would like a contract signed by the courts to guarantee its word.
City Law Director James Gillette said the city did not have the authority to ask for a contract from the judge.
"We can't require the court to sign a contract that they're not going to come in and ask for an expenditure."
Councilman Robert Cromwell said the letter satisfied him as it clearly stated the city would bear no expense for the court's actions.
But, Mr. Campbell said, he still had concerns with how the future finances in the court may affect the city's budget.
"My concern rises over the overall budget," he said.
He said the court has been, in some years, behind in collecting fines and court costs and he wanted to be sure it was doing all it could to offset the expense to the city.
"If we're talking about hiring employees, it's important to see the overall perspective in this," he said.
Council President Karen Simpson said the letter clearly stated that the action did not involve hiring a new person.
Mr. Gillette said the court has adopted an aggressive approach to collecting fines and court costs, including hiring a collection agency to help.
Mr. Campbell said while he has heard that the court has taken an aggressive approach, he has yet to see evidence of that.
As Mr. Campbell continued to express his concerns with future court expenses, Mr. King continued to remind him the action council was being asked to approve did not cost the city anything.
"I don't agree with creating an issue where there is no issue," Mr. King said.
Mr. Cromwell said even if the courts do bring future expenses before council, council has the opportunity to reject those expenses.
Councilwoman Deborah Reiter said that because both sides could not agree, a "fair compromise" would be to bring the judge before council on Jan. 19. She said Mr. Hassett told city Manager David Lelko that he would be willing to meet to discuss the issue.
But, Mr. King said the meeting would be "wasting time."
"I don't think there's anything we're going to know today anymore than if we talk with them in a couple weeks or a couple months, other than it's not going to cost us and they have the money. What questions are we going to ask Mark Hassett that we're going to make a different decision today than then ... We're just delaying the inevitable."
Mrs. Bramstedt continued to insist that it was important to get the actual numbers involved.
Mr. Cromwell said it didn't matter. "What difference does it make. If it's a dollar or 20 dollars, it's not going to make a difference."
Mr. Campbell said Mr. Hassett's appearance would allow council to know what the court's future plans are for the computers.
Mrs. Simpson asked if Mr. Campbell was concerned with a "what-if" situation.
"Yes, it's important to me that a year from now they're not sitting $120,000 behind," he said.
After the motion to approve the court action failed, council voted to have Mr. Hassett appear at the Jan. 19 meeting.
Mr. Cromwell said he will be amused by the meeting. "I can't wait to ask a municipal court judge whether what he wrote in his letter is really true," he said. "I can't wait to do that."
Mr. Campbell said he remembers a time when the court threatened to throw council members in jail, because they would not approve funding for a position. He said he wants to fully understand the issue.
"I think it's nit-picky," Mr. King said.
[ back ]
