Summary
In Rudes, we said that a claim for a writ of mandamus to compel court appropriations may become moot when the year for which the appropriations are requested has ended.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Weaver, v. Lake Cty. Bd. of CommrsOpinion
Nos. 83-1828 and 84-530
Decided December 28, 1984.
Courts — Mandamus to compel appropriations for budget requests — Writ allowed, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County.
IN MANDAMUS.
These cases arise from separate complaints in mandamus filed in this court and in the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County. Since the cases involve common issues, they have been consolidated for disposition.
In case No. 83-1828, relator-appellee, Hon. Merrill B. Rudes, is the Ottawa County common pleas judge for both the probate and juvenile divisions, and relator-appellee, Hon. James E. Thierry, is the Ottawa County common pleas judge for the general division. Respondents-appellants, Helen J. Rofkar, James A. Mazur and Darrell W. Opfer, comprise the Board of County Commissioners for Ottawa County.
On January 3, 1983, appellees (hereinafter "courts") received a memorandum and appropriation form from appellants suggesting a seven percent maximum increase in the salaries of court employees for the year 1983. However, the court employees were given a salary, cost of living increase of eight percent. The courts then submitted their appropriation requests on the forms received.
On March 3, 1983, in response to the county auditor's projection of funds available for general appropriation, the appellants issued a memorandum to the courts indicating that declining revenues necessitated drastic cutbacks in projected appropriations. Among the measures the appellants instituted county-wide were: a hiring freeze, a freeze on pay increases for six months, curtailment of travel expenses, and a prohibition of purchases of new equipment for county officials.
On March 10 and 11, 1983, the courts presented reduced amended requests for appropriations to appellants as follows: $256,950 for the general division; $81,900 for the probate division; and, $98,000 for the juvenile division.
On March 30, 1983, appellants adopted an "Appropriation Resolution" in which they appropriated the following amounts to the courts: $212,500 for the general division; $57,500 for the probate division; and, $94,555 for the juvenile division. Since the amounts appropriated by the appellants were significantly reduced from the amended appropriation requests submitted by the courts, it became apparent that the funds for the probate division would be exhausted by September, and that the funds for the general and juvenile divisions would be exhausted by November. This being the case, representatives from the courts and appellants met several times during May 1983 in order to resolve the budgetary discrepancies. These contacts, however, failed to succeed in resolving the matter.
On May 24, 1983, complaints for writs of mandamus were filed in the court of appeals by each division of the court of common pleas against the appellant commissioners. The complaints sought an order requiring the appellants to appropriate the sums found by the courts to be reasonable and necessary for the operation of the courts for 1983.
Appellants filed answers and cross-complaints, pro se, while the courts submitted depositions on their own behalf. The court of appeals then consolidated the cases for disposition.
In a split decision, the court of appeals granted the courts their requested writs of mandamus on October 14, 1983. The court of appeals held that the appellants failed to meet their burden in demonstrating that the courts abused their discretion in submitting a budget that was unreasonable and unnecessary.
The court of appeals granted a stay of proceedings to allow appellants to appeal. The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
In case No. 84-530, relator, Hon. James E. Thierry, is judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Ottawa County, General Division. On April 3, 1984, relator filed this original action in mandamus seeking an order from this court requiring respondents, Helen J. Rofkar, James A. Mazur and Darrell W. Opfer, the Ottawa Board of County Commissioners, to appropriate those funds relator deems "reasonable and necessary for an orderly and efficient administration of the [c]ourt * * * for the fiscal year 1984."
Relator's complaint alleges that on March 23, 1984, he submitted a written, amended request to respondents, to appropriate $274,008 for the general division for fiscal year 1984. Relator further alleges that on March 28, 1984, respondents unanimously passed a resolution appropriating only $258,326 for the general division for 1984.
On May 18, 1984, relator filed a motion for default judgment based on respondents' failure to file answers or other responsive pleadings. Relator submitted two affidavits in support of his motion, pursuant to Civ. R. 55.
On May 24, 1984, respondents filed a letter with this court explaining their motivations in appropriating an amount less than that requested by the relator. The letter stated that negotiations had taken place between both sides, but that a resolution of the matter had not been agreed upon. Attached to this letter from respondents were several supporting documents which the respondents deemed relevant for this court's ultimate decision.
Messrs. Shuster, Graves Kohli and Mr. Gene W. Graves, for appellees in case No. 83-1828.
Messrs. Kline Corogin and Mr. Dale A. Kline, for appellants in case No. 83-1828.
Mr. Gene W. Graves, for relator in case No. 84-530.
Mr. James A. Mazur, Mr. Darrell W. Opfer and Ms. Helen J. Rofkar, pro se, in case No. 84-530.
In case No. 83-1828, appellants argue that a writ of mandamus ordering appropriations for 1983 is moot on January 1, 1984, and will not be enforced. It is appellants' contention that such enforcement by this court would be a vain act.
Although the appellants may be technically correct, we agree with the appellee courts that a court does not lose jurisdiction to determine the issues involving questions of great public interest. See Wick v. Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. (1932), 46 Ohio App. 253, and Overesch v. Campbell (1953), 95 Ohio App. 359 [53 O.O. 317].
With respect to the crucial issue before this court in both causes, it is beyond dispute that it is within the inherent power of courts of common pleas to require funding of their services and programs at a level that is both "reasonable and necessary" to the administration of their business. At the same time, it is the duty of the board of county commissioners to provide such funds, unless the commissioners can prove that the court abused its discretion in submitting a budget that is both unreasonable and unnecessary. State, ex rel. Foster, v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs. (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 89, 90 [45 O.O.2d 442]; State, ex rel. Giuliani, v. Perk (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 235, 237 [42 O.O.2d 366]; State, ex rel. Johnston, v. Taulbee (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 417, 422 [20 O.O.3d 361]; State, ex rel. Durkin, v. Youngstown City Council (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 132, 134; State, ex rel. Arbaugh, v. Richland Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 5, 6. The commissioners herein are erroneous in intimating that this burden of proof resides with the courts in order to show that their appropriation requests are reasonable and necessary.
We find in both causes that the commissioners have failed to sustain their burden of proof in showing that the submitted budget requests were both unreasonable and unnecessary, and thus, amounted to an abuse of discretion.
While we appreciate the dilemma that the commissioners encounter in promulgating a budget during difficult economic times, we are compelled to remind the commissioners that the courts must not be held hostage to competing interests when the courts, in their discretionary power, submit budgetary requests that are reasonable and necessary.
Therefore, in case No. 83-1828, the judgment of the court of appeals allowing the writs is affirmed. In case No. 84-530, the writ is allowed.
Judgment affirmed in case No. 83-1828.
Writ allowed in case No. 84-530.
FORD, SWEENEY, LOCHER, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
HOLMES, J., concurs in judgment.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., not participating.
FORD, J., of the Eleventh Appellate District, sitting for W. Brown, J.
Encompassing the commentary of my dissenting opinion in State, ex rel. Arbaugh, v. Richland Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 5, 7, and adopting the same to the facts herein, I concur in the judgment.