IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=... · 2 5. The Supreme Court of Ohio is vested with jurisdiction to hear an original action for a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

THE STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. JUDGE

GAYLE WILLIAMS-BYERS, ON BEHALF

OF THE SOUTH EUCLID MUNICPAL

COURT

1349 South Green Road

South Euclid, Ohio 44121

and

THE STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. CLERK

CHARDALE SUMPTER, ON BEHALF OF

THE SOUTH EUCLID MUNICIPAL

COURT CLERK OF COURT’S OFFICE


South Euclid, Ohio 44121,

Relators

vs.

THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID

South Euclid Municipal Complex


South Euclid, OH 44121

SOUTH EUCLID COUNCIL MEMBER

DENNIS FIORELLI





JOSEPH FRANK





RUTH GRAY




:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. _____________________

Original Action in Mandamus

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed June 26, 2019 - Case No. 2019-0864


JANE GOODMAN





SARA CONTINENZA





MARTIN GELFAND





JOHN OR JANE DOE



South Euclid, OH 44121,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP

Counsel of Record for Relators

GEORGE D. JONSON (0027124)

600 Vine Street, Suite 2650

Cincinnati, Ohio 44145

Tel: (513) 241-4722

Fax: (513) 768-9220

[email protected]

KIMBERLY V. RILEY (0068187)

14701 Detroit Ave., Ste. 555

Cleveland, Ohio 44107

Tel: (216) 221-4722

Fax: (513) 768-9205

[email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID

Respondent




MEMBERS OF SOUTH EUCLID CITY

COUNCIL: DENNIS FIORELLI,

JOSEPH FRANK, RUTH GRAY, JANE

GOODMAN, SARA CONTINENZA,

MARTIN GELFAND, AND JOHN OR

JANE DOE COUNCIL MEMBER

Respondents




mailto:[email protected]


INTRODUCTION

1. Relators Judge Gayle Williams-Byers (“Judge”) and Clerk of Court Chardale Sumpter

(“Clerk”) (collectively, “the Court”), in their official capacities on behalf of the South Euclid

Municipal Court (also referred to as “the Court” throughout this Complaint), bring this action

pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2731 against Respondents the City of South Euclid and its duly elected

members of the South Euclid City Council—Dennis Fiorelli, Joseph Frank, Ruth Gray, Jane

Goodman, Sara Continenza, Martin Gelfand and John or Jane Doe1 (“City Council” or

“Council”)(collectively, “City” or “Respondents”).

2. The factual statements contained in this petition are verified by Relators, and supported

by the Affidavits of Relator Judge Gayle Williams-Byers and Relator Chardale Sumpter,

attached to this Verified Complaint. Relators are suing each City official in his or her official

capacity.

3. Relators seek relief in mandamus against Respondents because they have placed the

Court at imminent risk of being financially unable to support its ongoing, reasonable, and

necessary operations.

JURISDICTION

4. The Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(b) vests the Supreme Court of Ohio

with original jurisdiction to grant a petition for a writ of mandamus.

1 Council Member-at-Large Jason Russell resigned his seat effective April 30; Mayor Georgine

Welo will appoint his successor in the near future. For the time being, Relator has captioned the

claims against the seventh Council member as being levied against “John or Jane Doe.” Pursuant

to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.06(B), Mr. Russell’s successor will automatically be substituted in his place

upon his or her appointment.

2

5. The Supreme Court of Ohio is vested with jurisdiction to hear an original action for a writ

of mandamus, and also to issue an alternative writ pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.01, et seq.

6. Relators have no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION—SOUTH EUCLID MUNICIPAL COURT

7. Judge Gayle Williams-Byers (“Judge”) is the sole duly elected judge of the South Euclid

Municipal Court (“the Court”), and she has served in that capacity since 2012.

8. The Judge appointed Chardale Sumpter to serve as the Clerk of Court on September 1,

2015.

9. As the Court’s Administrative and Presiding Judge, Judge Williams-Byers has

administrative oversight for the Municipal Court.

10. The South Euclid Municipal Court has territorial jurisdiction over an area with a

population of less than 100,000; therefore, pursuant to R.C. 1901.31(A)(2)(a), the Judge appoints

the Clerk of the Court, who serves at the Judge’s pleasure.

11. The Judge also appoints all other staff of the Court pursuant to R.C. 1901.32, 1901.33,

1925.01(B), and the inherent power of the Court—except the deputy clerks, whom the Clerk

appoints pursuant to 1901.31(H).

12. The Clerk of Court oversees the operations of the Clerk’s Office, and she serves at the

Judge’s pleasure; pursuant to R.C. 1901.31, the Clerk appoints the Court’s deputy clerks and sets

their compensation.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION – COURT FUNDING

13. The City of South Euclid—through its City Council—is the legislative authority of the

Municipal Court, obligating it to pay for all the reasonable and necessary expenses of operating

the Court.

3

14. The City’s financial obligations to fund the Court include, but are not limited to,

providing suitable accommodations for the Court (including the Clerk’s Office)2, its officers, and

employees; providing the compensation of needed staff to operate the Court; and providing

suitable facilities and supplies for the Court’s operations—including telephone, furniture, heat,

light, janitor service, and all other ordinary or extraordinary expenses that are advisable or

necessary for the proper operation or administration of the Court.

15. Ohio Municipal Courts, through their judges, have inherent power to order all the

funding that is reasonable and necessary to facilitate the administration of their operations. City

Council is obligated to appropriate the requested funds, unless it can establish that the court

abused its discretion by requesting funding that was unreasonable and unnecessary. State ex rel.

Wilke v. Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 60 (2000); State ex rel.

Morley v. Lordi, 72 Ohio St.3d 510, 511 (1995); State ex rel. Ray v. South, 176 Ohio St. 241, ¶ 2

syll (1964).

16. The determination of whether a Court’s funding request was reasonable and necessary is

determined only from a consideration of the request in relation to the factual needs of the court

for the proper administration of its business. The determination of reasonable and necessary

administrative expenses rests solely with the court, and another branch of government may not

substitute its judgment for that of the court in evaluating the court’s request. State ex rel.

Donaldson v. Alfred, 66 Ohio St. 3d 327, 329 (1994); State ex rel. Milligan v. Freeman, 31 Ohio

St.2d 13, 18, 285 N.E.2d 352 (1972); State ex rel. Wilke v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 90

Ohio St.3d 55, 61 (1968).

2 Throughout this Complaint, all references to the operation of the Court include the operation of

the Clerk’s Office as well.

4

17. The Court’s funding orders are presumed reasonable, and Council must rebut the

presumption in order to justify its noncompliance with funding orders. State ex rel. Weaver v.

Lake County Board of Commissioners, 62 Ohio St.3d 204, 205 (1991). A funding authority’s

refusal to obey a funding order obligates it to bear the burden of demonstrating the order

constitutes an abuse of discretion and that it is unreasonable. State ex rel. Durkin v. Youngstown

City Council, 9 Ohio St.3d 132 (1984).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION—MANDATORY AND DISCRETIONARY SOURCES

OF COURT FUNDING

18. The City is obligated to provide all reasonable and necessary operating expenses of the

Court. The City provides for the Court’s operating expenses by way of a budget resolution

passed by City Council in each fiscal year. This resolution appropriates money from the City’s

general fund to the Court.

19. The Court has entitlements to funding that supports its operations, independent of what

the City provides. For example, the State of Ohio is obligated to provide portions of the Judge’s

wages; and Cuyahoga County is obligated to provide portions of the wages of the Judge, the

Clerk, (Chief) Bailiff, and the Magistrate, as well as portions of the Judge and Clerk’s health

insurance benefits, if applicable.

20. Additionally, the Court has the discretion to pursue additional sources of funding, if it

chooses. The Court may elect to pursue these sources of funding to improve its efficient

operations, over and above what is reasonable and necessary to satisfy its basic needs. For

instance:

A. The Court may pursue grant funding from various sources, which may contribute

funds for various purposes, as permitted by the grant; and

5

B. The Ohio Revised Code authorizes Municipal Courts to enact local court filing fees

on a permissive basis, which generate special revenue funds the Court may use to

enhance its efficient operation, as permitted by law.

21. The South Euclid Municipal Court has pursued and received these alternative sources of

funding throughout the Judge’s tenure, including, but not limited to:

A. The Court has pursued and obtained grant funding for Fiscal Years 2016, 2017, 2018,

and 2019 from Ohio Mental Health and Addiction Services. The amount of the

Court’s OHMAS grant funding has varied throughout these years, and the terms of

that grant have permitted the Court to utilize the funds for a limited series of purposes

related to its Certified Mental Health Specialized Docket.

B. Throughout the entirety of the Judge’s tenure, the South Euclid Municipal Court has

continued her predecessor’s practice of maintaining a Court Computerization and

Computerized Legal Research Fund (“Court Computer Fund” or “Computer Fund”)

pursuant to Ohio R.C. 1901.261(A); a Computerization of the Clerk of Court’s Office

Fund (“Clerk of Court Computer Fund” or “Clerk Computer Fund”) pursuant to Ohio

R.C. 1901.261(B); and a Special Projects Fund pursuant to Ohio R.C.

1901.26(B)(1)(a). (Collectively, these will be referred to throughout this Complaint as

“Discretionary Funds” or “Court Discretionary Funds.”)

22. The Court’s Discretionary Funds work differently than the Court’s budgeted

appropriations from the City’s general fund:

A. Court Discretionary Funds may only be disbursed at the Court’s discretion, upon

the Court’s order, and in an amount that is no greater than the actual cost of the

ordered disbursement.

6

B. However, the Court is not permitted to open a bank account to maintain its own

Discretionary Funds. Instead, pursuant to R.C. 1901.26(B) and 1901.261, the city

treasurer—the Finance Director in South Euclid—is statutorily obligated to place

the Court’s Discretionary Funds into a separate fund, and she may only disburse

those funds following a proper disbursement authorization from the Court.

C. In this capacity, the Finance Director is a fiduciary of the Court’s Discretionary

Funds—she holds them in trust for the Court’s exclusive use and benefit.

D. The Court does not need to obtain the Finance Director or City’s consent to

expend these funds; rather, the Court has exclusive discretion over the matters for

which these funds may be expended, subject only to the restrictions in the statute.

E. Court Discretionary Funds cannot be used to reimburse a funding authority for

services they are obliged to provide the Court; they cannot be used “to replace

moneys and services otherwise provided by statute for the operation of the court.”

Rather, these moneys are intended to provide “additional funds” to the Court for

“special projects.” 1989 Ohio Op. AG No. 89-086.

F. Courts may not expend their Court Discretionary Funds to pay for services the

City is already obligated to provide. 2001 Ohio Op. AG No. 6. Rather, these funds

may serve to supplement those provisions, but not to replace them. 2015 Ohio AG

Op. 15, pp. 5-7.

23. Courts may, but are not obligated, to spend portions of their Discretionary Funds to

supplement their reasonable and necessary operating expenses, as they deem beneficial to the

Court’s effective operation. However, providing the reasonable and necessary operating

expenses of the Court remains the exclusive obligation of the City.

7

24. In some contexts, the Court may expend its Discretionary Funds on matters the funding

authority is responsible to provide. For example, courts may use Special Project Fund money to

acquire equipment, even though expenses related to acquiring equipment may also be included in

the court’s request for an appropriation of administrative expenses. When a court does not

request an appropriation for a purchase, it may later utilize Special Projects Fund money in the

place of money that could have been appropriated to the court. 2015 Ohio AG Op. 15, fn.5.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION—BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS

25. The City of South Euclid operates on a fiscal year of January 1 – December 31.

26. Each year, the Judge and Clerk collaborate regarding the operational needs of the Court,

and they prepare a single proposed budget to operate the Court, including the Clerk’s Office,

which the Judge submits to the City (through the Finance Director) in advance of its budgeting

and appropriations process.

27. Each year, the Judge provides the Court’s proposed budget to the City Finance Director,

in advance of the City Council’s budget hearings, for that information to be shared with Council

in evaluating its appropriations.

28. In each year of Judge Williams-Byers’ tenure, she has provided the Finance Director a

proposed budget that is divided into two parts: a Personal Services Budget (which accounts for

the wages, health insurance, and other fringe benefits of Court staff) and a

Material/Supply/Services Budget (which accounts for the materials and supplies, contractual

services, and other expenses the Court will incur to facilitate its operations). These two

categories correspond with the two categories of appropriations the City has issued to the Court

in its annual budget resolution.

8

29. The Court’s proposed budgets throughout the Judge’s tenure have provided details

regarding the total reasonable and necessary operating expenses of the Court, regardless of how

much of that overall figure the Judge has requested from the City.

30. In the “Personal Services” section of the proposed budget, Judge Williams-Byers

identifies each employee by name and title; his or her salary or hourly rate; and the portion of

those wages that will automatically be paid by other entities (e.g., the County and State provide

for portions of the Judge’s wages, and for portions of the Clerk and Magistrate’s wages); the

portion of any employee’s wages the Judge has arranged and/or elected to be paid from other

sources (e.g., grant funding, Discretionary Funds), if any; and the portion of employees’ wages

the Judge is seeking the City to provide from its general fund. Similarly, Judge Williams-Byers’

proposed budgets identify the particular contribution for healthcare benefits and other fringe

benefits she is proposing to be paid from the City’s general fund, and how much—if any—she

has authorized to expend from the Court’s Discretionary Funds or other sources.

31. The City Finance Director is responsible for distributing the Court’s proposed budget to

City Council in advance of its budgeting and appropriations process.

32. The City Finance Director prepares and distributes to City Council “Budget Books” that

identify the proposed funding that the Court and each City department are seeking from the

City’s general fund in that fiscal year.

33. The City Finance Director has elected to take the information from the Judge’s proposed

budget—which shows the Court’s overall operating expenses in each year—and only transfer the

portions the Court seeks from the City’s general fund into a worksheet that matches the format

used by City Departments. These worksheets show the Court’s prior appropriations and prior

expenditures of City funds, but they do not show the Court’s total projected operating expenses

9

(that include grant or Discretionary Funding), nor the Court’s total expenditures (as provided by

grant or Discretionary Funding).

34. City Council conducts hearings to determine the overall budget and its individual

appropriations to the Court, to the Departments of the City, and to all other recipients of its

funding. Council ultimately memorializes its appropriations in a budget resolution.

35. The City’s annual appropriations to the Court and to the Departments of the City come

from its general fund dollars. The City appropriates particularized amounts toward the Court’s

Personal Services line items (e.g., wages for full-time staff; wages for part-time staff; PERS;

Medicare, etc.) and Other Charges (e.g., office supplies, training, postage, etc.).

36. Whatever the Court fails to spend of these appropriations at the end of the fiscal year

must be returned to the City’s general fund, after which time the Court may no longer expend

those funds.

FACTS

37. On or about February 3, 2019, Judge Williams-Byers, on behalf of the South Euclid

Municipal Court (“Court”), submitted the Court’s proposed 2019 budget to Finance Director

Brenda Wendt, seeking a total contribution from the City’s general fund of $920,385 (attached as

Exhibit A). This proposed budget also showed contributions to the Court’s overall operating

expenses that would be paid by the State, Cuyahoga County, grant funding the Court

independently procured, and the Court Computer Fund (one of its three statutory Discretionary

Funds).

38. As in previous years, the Finance Director transferred the figures within the Court’s

proposed budget into a “Budget Book” worksheet to be circulated to Council at their budget

hearings, along with the worksheets submitted for City departments—which all followed the

same format. However, this worksheet only provided information to City Council regarding the

10

portions of the Court’s budget where it was seeking funding from the City’s general fund. It did

not show the Court’s overall operating expenses, nor what portions were being paid from the

State, County, grant funding, and Court Discretionary Funds.

39. On February 12, 2019, Judge Williams-Byers attended a City Council budget hearing,

where she provided a detailed explanation of her proposed budget, its contents, and the rationale

for its changes from the previous year (a recording of those proceedings will be submitted as

Exhibit B3).

40. Judge Williams-Byers entertained an extensive series of questions from City Council for

approximately 50 minutes, largely discussing the specific changes between 2018 and 2019 that

necessitated the $211,926 increase in City funding she sought since proposing the Court’s 2018

budget of $708,459 (see Exhibit B recording; see also 2018 budget, attached as Exhibit C).

41. Judge Williams-Byers provided extensive information within her proposed budget and in

response to City Council’s questions to support that the Court’s proposed budget for 2019 sought

appropriations that were reasonable and necessary to continue the Court’s operations.

42. Among other items, the Judge discussed the Court’s increased staffing needs, created by

its Mental Health Docket; its increased staffing needs for a deputy clerk to support the

processing of unclaimed funds and generation of an annual report; the increased cost and demand

of healthcare from Court staff; and the need to impose a 2% cost of living increase for the staff.

43. Council Member Gray indicated to the Judge that she would want to see what it would

look like if the Court had to cut its budget.

3 Due to the Court’s inability to submit audio files via its electronic filing system, this audio file

will be submitted via mail filing.

11

44. During this discussion, it became apparent that Council didn’t have—and hadn’t

previously been provided—the detailed proposed budgets the Judge had annually submitted to

the Finance Director (i.e., the ones containing the Court’s overall operating expenses). Rather,

they only had the Budget Book worksheet the Finance Director had prepared from the Court’s

proposed budget, which had only provided the specific requests for City funding.

45. Council President Fiorelli indicated that he had previously seen the more detailed style of

budget proposal the Court submitted to the Finance director each year—noting the clarity of the

color-coding and style she utilized—but he indicated that this form was not disseminated to all

members of Council in anticipation of their budget hearing. Finance Director Wendt indicated

she had not historically provided that information to Council in the Budget Books.

46. Members of City Council indicated that seeing this information would likely be helpful to

them in appreciating the overall person-by-person breakdown that shows the sources from where

each employee’s wages are paid. Ms. Wendt therefore indicated she circulated this information

to Council via e-mail during the meeting.

47. Council completed its inquiry at the budget hearing, indicating it would like to reserve

the right to follow up with added questions if they arose—and the Judge agreed to make herself

available to assist them if they had any other questions.

Judge Williams-Byers and Clerk Sumpter Discover Extensive, Unauthorized

Appropriations from Court Discretionary Funds—and They Immediately Alerted

Respondents.

48. Shortly after the budget hearing, in response to the request by Council to consider her

ability to cut her budget, the Judge inquired of the Finance Director about the balance of the

Court’s Discretionary Funds.

12

49. Finance Director Wendt provided the Court with a figure that was much lower than either

the Judge or Clerk expected. Based upon the Court’s previous disbursements of Court

Discretionary Funds, the Judge and Clerk had both understood that a much larger sum should be

available in these funds.

50. Clerk Sumpter requested a copy of an “Audit Trail” report for 2018 that showed each

disbursement from the Court’s Discretionary Funds for that year.

51. On February 14, 2019, Clerk Sumpter provided the Finance Director with a summary of

disbursements from the Court’s Discretionary Funds that she did not recognize as proper; she

asked that Ms. Wendt review and expound upon the deductions (see Exhibit D, attached). These

totaled $64,200.16 ($41,061.44 from the Special Projects Fund; $5,967.65 from the Clerk of

Court Computer Fund; and $17,171.17 from the Municipal Court Computer Fund). Ms. Wendt

did not respond.

52. Mayor Welo responded to the Judge on February 15, 2019, indicating the City had

disbursed the Court’s Discretionary Funds to pay payroll, health insurance premiums, and other

fringe benefits. She indicated “This is not a new accounting practice but rather it is a consistent

practice….I had Finance Director Wendt research it back to 2008.”

53. Each year, the Court proposed and the City approved the appropriation of general fund

dollars to the Court to pay for its reasonable and necessary operating expenses—including

wages, health insurance, and other fringe benefits. However, in this correspondence, the Judge

and Clerk were first made aware that the Finance Director and her predecessors had disbursed or

oversaw the improper disbursement of Court Discretionary Funds to pay for a variety of these

same expenses, beyond what the Court had authorized in its proposed budgets.

13

54. Historically, the Finance Department provided the Court with monthly expense reports

that inaccurately showed the City’s budget appropriations to the Court were being disbursed each

month as the Court had instructed on its proposed budgets; however, in reality, these City

obligations were actually being expended from the Court’s Discretionary Funds.

55. This created a dynamic in a series of previous budget years whereby the Court

experienced an apparent surplus in its annual appropriations from the City, which it was then

obligated to return to the City general fund each year. That is, the practice of unauthorized

Discretionary Fund Disbursements resulted in an annual system whereby the Court requested

City funding for various expenses; the City made appropriations to provide for those expenses;

but those appropriations were illusory—they were never in jeopardy of being expended, and they

were always returned to the general fund instead of being used to satisfy the obligations noted in

the Court’s proposed budgets—because the Finance Director had been disbursing the Court’s

Discretionary Funds to pay a portion of these expenses instead, without the Court’s knowledge

or authorization.

56. This discovery also had the effect of revealing the inaccuracy of figures within the

expense reports and year-end reports from the Finance Department. These reports purported to

tabulate the Court’s “Actual Expenses” each year, but, in reality, the Court’s actual expenditures

were reflected in the figures appearing on those reports, plus the unauthorized disbursements

from the Court’s Discretionary Funds—which were undisclosed.

57. On February 19, 2019, the Judge and Clerk met with Council President Fiorelli and

Finance Chairman Frank to relay the Court’s concern regarding these misappropriations, and to

explain these findings.

14

58. Further, the Judge and Clerk advised Council Member Fiorelli and Council Member

Frank that the Court would be unable to rely on its Discretionary Funds to supplement or replace

salaries of Court employees in 2019—that, as originally submitted in the Court’s proposed

budget, these amounts must instead come from the general fund.

59. To date, City Council has taken no action to return these misappropriations to the Court,

nor is the Court aware of any effort by the City to assess the full extent of the City’s improper

expenditures from the Court’s funds (or, by extension, its actual operating expenditures in each

year of this practice). To date, the City has not produced the documentation to the Court that

would be needed to even assemble these figures, let alone provide any accounting of those

misappropriations.

60. To that end, City Council has been aware since February 19, 2019, that the Court does

not have the benefit of its Discretionary Funds; and it has been aware since that date that the

figures within the Finance Department’s reports about the Court’s actual expenditures each year

are inaccurate.

Without Any Additional Discussion or Exchange of Information with the Court After the

Prior Budget Hearing, City Council Cut the Court’s 2019 Budget by $283,251.

61. Notwithstanding the Court’s February 12 offer to address any added questions or

concerns regarding its proposed 2019 budget, as well as the extensive series of new information

the Court relayed to Council President Fiorelli and Council Finance Committee Chair Frank on

February 19, neither City Council nor any other representative of the City asked Judge Williams-

Byers to reappear before Council to provide further explanation, provide information, or engage

in a discussion regarding the Court’s 2019 budget proposal.

15

March 18, 2019 – Budget Hearing

62. On March 18, 2019, Council conducted a budget hearing in which they discussed the

Court’s proposed budget. (A recording of that hearing will be submitted as Exhibit E.4)

63. Council elected to cut the Court’s budget based upon the overall figure the Court’s

proposed budget sought from the City’s general fund.

64. City Council expressly declined to scrutinize individual proposed expenditures or line

items; rather, it elected to work backwards by identifying how much money it wanted to remove

from the Court’s budget; imposing that cut; and then leaving the Court to determine how it could

operate with reduced funds.

65. Council’s debate included discussion of how the “tail wagging the dog is not how it

works; the dog wags the tail—Council has the fiduciary responsibility to set the terms [of the

budget].” (See Exhibit E, 00:24:37.)

66. Council debated how it could reach its own determination of what constituted a

reasonable budget. It ultimately elected to take the amount of money it determined the Court had

expended of its 2018 budget, and add 3%.

67. Council reached its 2018 “actual expenditures” figure by referring to figures in the City’s

year-end summary reports, which were also noted in the Council’s 2019 Budget Book. Those

year-end reports inaccurately showed that the Court had expended $600,788.65 of its 2018

budget, and encumbered an additional $5,226.24, for a total of $606,014.89. To set the Court’s

2019 budget, Council then added 3%—for a total budget figure of $624,195.



16

68. In the Judge and Clerk’s meeting with Council Members Fiorelli and Frank on February

19, the Court provided an extensive series of information to apprise Council that its record of the

Court’s “actual expenditures” for 2018 and the many years prior were grossly under-reported—

those figures had not accounted for the unauthorized and improper disbursements of Court

Discretionary Funds that had been issued in lieu of the Court’s proper appropriations.

69. Further, in the Judge’s testimony before Council on February 12, she had apprised them

that they lacked a significant amount of information about the Court’s overall operating

expenditures in 2018 and previous years because they hadn’t been supplied with her detailed

budget (which included the figures coming from the State, County, Court Discretionary Funds,

and grant funds to support its operating expenditures), rather than the version the Finance

Director provided them (which only identified the portions of the Court’s overall operating

expenses that were being requested from the general fund).

70. In the February 12 hearing, the Finance Director indicated she had disseminated that

information to Council via email, and she advised Council that the Judge had provided this

detailed overview of the Court’s operating expenses since 2012. To that end, Council had—or

had access to— information regarding the complete financial picture of the Court for 2012-2019.

71. Council’s hearings demonstrate it imposed a 2019 Court budget based on inaccurate

projections of the Court’s 2018 actual expenditures (in light of the unauthorized Discretionary

Fund disbursements) and that it established the Court’s budget based upon what it believed the

Court’s general fund expenditures had been in 2018—not its total operating expenses (that had

17

included significant grant and Discretionary Fund contributions in 2018, which were

significantly reduced in 20195).

72. Council realized the 2019 budget had not accounted for all the same amounts of those

grant and Special Projects contributions that had existed in the 2018 budget, and referred to this

as a “clerical error” in which the Court had presented its “gross” personnel figures, rather than

“net” personnel figures—meaning figures that reduced the contribution of the City’s general

fund by providing these alternative sources of funding. They characterized the Court’s proposed

budget figures for 2019 as being “incorrectly reported” because they failed to include these

supplemental sources of income—which the Court had no obligation to contribute (and which, in

light of its discovery that its Discretionary Funds had been largely misappropriated, it had no

ability to contribute).

73. The Court’s omission of grant or Discretionary Funding in its 2019 budget was not a

clerical error or an incorrect reporting, nor was the Court’s budget a “gross” figure that the Court

intended to supplement with other funds. Rather, the wages for longstanding Court employees

whose role had always been essential for the reasonable and necessary operation of the Court had

historically had their wages paid by the City entirely, or with assistance from these alternative

funding sources. The fact the Court provided this assistance in a previous year did not obligate it

to do so prospectively, nor did it remove the City’s obligation to fund the entirety of those

wages, as reasonable and necessary expenses of the Court.

74. The Court intentionally submitted a 2019 budget that placed heavier reliance on the

City’s general fund because it has impending needs for a case management system that it intends

5 Some contributions from an OHMAS grant and the Court’s Computer Fund were still included

in the 2019 budget, but substantially less than in 2018; further, the Court pledged contributions

from its Special Projects Fund in its 2018 budget, but none in its 2019 budget.

18

to finance in 2020 as much as possible with Discretionary Funding. In order to accomplish this,

the Court needed to abstain from spending those funds in 2019 to accumulate sufficient funds to

finance this expense for the Court in 2020.

75. Council also failed to provide any adjustment to the budget that incorporated any of the

changed circumstances the Court discussed at the February 12 budget hearing or included in its

proposed budget, including, among other items the Court had presented:

A. its need for two additional employees—a deputy clerk and probation officer;

B. its need to increase the hours and responsibilities of staff;

C. its need to impose cost-of-living increases

D. the increased cost of healthcare and the increased number of employees electing to utilize

family healthcare instead of single or single healthcare instead of none; and

E. the increased cost to the Court of employee fringe benefits.

76. Finally, Council failed to recognize or anticipate that, in addition to having no obligation

to provide supplemental Court Discretionary Funds to support the reasonable and necessary

expenses of the Court, the Court had very little remaining Court Discretionary Funds as the

result of the City’s extensive and uncorrected misappropriations from those accounts. Even if the

Court had been willing to share in this expense, Council had been on notice since February 19,

2019 that the Court had very limited funds to contribute.

77. Council’s determination to cut the 2019 budget amounted to a determination that the

Court’s decision to expend substantially more money from the City’s general fund than it had in

2018 was the basis for the budget being “unreasonable.” City Council determined that, because

the Court’s proposed budget amounted to such a substantial increase to the City’s general fund

beyond 2018, they would remove approximately $300,000 from the Court’s 2019 budget.

19

78. Council discussed that, since it was advising the City departments to “cut back,” it could

impose the same restrictions upon the Court. It made the unilateral determination that the overall

amount assessed to the City general fund was unreasonable, and thereby determined that the

proposed budget as a whole was unreasonable.

79. City Council improperly failed to make a determination of reasonableness based upon

any analysis of the Court’s articulated operational needs and particularized allocations within its

budget for the proper administration of Court business, but only based upon the overall figure the

Court sought from the general fund.

80. Council was fully aware that its decision to make the cuts to the Court’s budget would

result in litigation, characterizing their decision as “asking for a fight.” (See recording, Exhibit

E.)

81. A Council Member suggested they go into Executive Session to discuss the Court’s

budget, before other members informed them that would not be an appropriate use of executive

session—noting they could only do that “once we get sued.” (See recording, Exhibit E,

00:57:38.)

The Court was apprised of the impending 2019 budget cuts and issued a funding Order and

Judgment Entry.

82. On March 20, 2019, Judge Williams-Byers received an email from Clerk of Council

Keith Benjamin that indicated Council proposed reductions in the Court’s 2019 budget in the

amount of $296,190.00 (see Exhibit F, attached). The proposed reductions were made without

any comment or input, or the opportunity for such, from Judge Williams-Byers or any

representative of the Court, and they did not take into account the need to increase the Court’s

budget for the reasons Judge Williams-Byers explained at the February budget meeting.

20

83. Judge Williams-Byers sought clarification and a response from Council in an email of

March 21, 2019, asking Council if it was under the belief that the Court’s actual expenditures in

2018 were so significantly below its 2018 budget of $708,459 that it had elected to fund the 2019

budget by adding 3% to what it believed was the Court’s 2018 expenses. (Exhibit F)

84. Council did not respond to her email.

85. On March 25, 2019, after obtaining no response to her earlier correspondence, Judge

Williams-Byers issued an Administrative Order and Judgment Entry, ordering that the Court’s

2019 budget, as submitted to Council on February 4, 2019 (i.e., for $920,385), shall constitute

the reasonable and necessary funding for the 2019 budget year for the Court (“Funding

Order”)(attached as Exhibit G). The Funding Order further ordered that any subsequent action

required to enforce the Funding Order due to City Council’s refusal or failure to comply with its

terms would result in an obligation for Council to reimburse the Court for its reasonable and

necessary expenses, including attorney’s fees, arising from enforcement of the Funding Order.

March 25, 2019 – Council Enters a Budget Resolution, Appropriating $637,134 to the Court’s

2019 budget, representing a cut of $283,251.

86. Council reconvened later in the evening on March 25, 2019, to finalize the 2019 budget.

(A recording of that hearing will be submitted as Exhibit H.6)

87. At this meeting, the Council adjusted the Court’s budget appropriation from the March

18, 2019 hearing—changing the figure from $624,195 (a cut of $296,190 to its 2019 budget) to

$637,134 (a cut of $283,251).

88. Council discussed and the Finance Director confirmed that their appropriation number

was based on Council’s records of the Court’s 2018 general fund expenditures, and that it hadn’t



21

included any consideration of the Court’s expenditure of its “special funds” (Discretionary

Funds) when arriving at this figure. (Exhibit H, 00:05:58 – 00:09:22.) In other words, Council

determined the Court’s 2019 appropriations by evaluating how much the City had expended from

the general fund in 2018, not how much it had actually cost the to operate the Court in 2018

(after including contributions from the general fund, Court Discretionary Funds, and grant

funding).

89. Moreover, Council’s determination of how much the City had expended from the general

fund in 2018 failed to consider how much the City had properly been obligated to expend from

the general fund yet hadn’t, due to the improper Discretionary Fund disbursements—thereby

basing its already-flawed analysis on a significantly inaccurate number.

90. Council’s 2019 appropriations to the Court were based on flawed calculations of the

Court’s 2018 general fund and overall operating expenditures; and it was based on the flawed

premise that they could make any determination of appropriations by limiting their review to its

prior general fund expenditures (even had those figures been accurate). Further, Council’s 2019

appropriations were based on an even more flawed premise—that the Court’s 2018 operating

expenditures (even had they been accurate, and even if they had included the Court’s additional,

discretionary sources of funding) could inform them of what the Court’s reasonable and

necessary operating expenditures were for 2019. Council selected a budget appropriation for the

Court that bore no relationship to its expressed needs in 2019, nor to the required deference to

the Court’s determination of what is reasonable and necessary to conduct its operations. Instead,

Council reduced the Court’s proposed budget by applying an “across-the-board” cut in its overall

expenses, and it expected the Court to arrive at its own plan for accommodating the substantially

reduced appropriation.

22

91. Council President Fiorelli indicated that Council would be evaluated for the

reasonableness of the Court’s 2019 appropriations, and Council Member Goodman indicated

“it’s reasonable because it’s comparable,” referencing Council’s inaccurate figures for the

Court’s 2018 general fund expenditures. (Exhibit H, 00:18:24 – 00:18:42.) Based on this logic,

Council maintained the proposed $283,251 cut to the Court’s 2019 proposed budget.

92. Council Member Goodman inquired into why the proposed figure to fund the Court had

changed since the last hearing, and a discussion between Council Member Fiorelli and Finance

Director Wendt determined they didn’t know. It was attributed to a clerical error, and was

followed by an extensive discussion of how Council arrived at the overall appropriation to the

Court. Council ultimately determined they didn’t have time to discuss it further because they had

to finalize the budget that night. Council Member Goodman ultimately recommended they set

the Court’s budget at the new number, “because that’s what’s [currently printed] in the budget

[worksheet].” Council ultimately agreed to keep the figure as it was, and “let mediation figure it

out.” (Exhibit H, 00:13:58; 00:17:00.)

93. Council ultimately selected an arbitrary appropriation figure that hadn’t even been

consistent with its own previous determinations of what was reasonable, yet it failed to include

any corrections.

94. Following that discussion, Council Member Goodman indicated “We’re not going to

change the Court,” at which point another Council Member replied, “That’s another thing for

mediation.” (Exhibit H, at 00:05:52.)

95. This reference to “another thing” referenced the fact the Court and City had impending

plans to discuss the redress of the unauthorized disbursement of the Court’s Discretionary Funds.

23

96. The City’s obligation to fund the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Court in 2019

(and the amount of what that obligation should be) has no relationship to the City’s obligation to

rectify improper disbursements from the Court Discretionary Funds (nor what the amount of

what that obligation should be).

The 2019 Budget Will Create Imminent and Certain Harm to the Fair Administration of

Justice In South Euclid.

97. The Funding Order entered by the Court is reasonable and necessary for the Court to

administer justice.

98. The reduction in funding imposed by Respondents inhibits the efficient continued

operation of the Court.

99. The Court’s 2019 budget ordered funding to retain two additional employees who had

been hired to continue its efficient operations—a deputy clerk and a probation officer. The

reduction in funding imposed by Respondents leaves the Court without sufficient funds to

compensate all Court employees through the balance of 2019.

100. The 2019 budget the City has currently approved lacks any funding for the newest

positions, and this will significantly inhibit the Court’s ability to operate (see Affidavits of

Relators for an extensive summary of the additional adverse effects that will result from failing

to correct the current 2019 budget appropriations).

101. The reduction in funding imposed by Respondents denies the timely and efficient hearing

of judicial cases at the Court.

102. Respondent City’s refusal to appropriate the reasonable and necessary funds for the

operation of the Court constitutes a violation of a duty specifically enjoined by law upon them.

103. The City is required to fund the administrative operations of the Court, including

providing the compensation and Fringe Benefits of the Judge and employees of the Court (less

24

the State and County contributions provided by statute—e.g., R.C. 1901.11, 1901.111, 1901.31,

1901.312, 1901.33, 1925.01).

104. The amount ordered by the Court is no more than necessary to operate the Municipal

Court. Respondents have sufficient funds and are able to provide the funding as ordered in the

Funding Order.

105. The return of previously appropriated or encumbered funds, or the shutting down of other

un-mandated offices or services is not an indication of the funding authority’s inability to pay.

State ex rel. Moorehead v. Reed, 177 Ohio St.4, 201 N.E.2d 594 (1964).

106. The Respondents have failed and refused to comply with the Funding Order issued by the

Court.

COUNT I- SEEKING RELIEF IN MANDAMUS AGAINST CITY AND CITY

COUNCIL: 2019 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $920,385, PLUS ALL

ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN THIS DISPUTE

107. Relators incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

108. The factual statements contained in this petition are verified by Relators, and supported

by their Affidavits.

109. Relators have no claim or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Relators have a

clear legal right to the relief sought herein, and Respondents have a clear legal duty to provide

the funding the Court initially requested, and later ordered.

110. The Funding Order entered by the Court is reasonable.

111. Respondents have been represented throughout by the City Law Department, which has a

conflict of interest precluding their representation of the Court, and the Court required counsel to

pursue this matter on its behalf.

112. The Court’s funding order compelled the City’s payment of its attorney’s fees, costs, and

expenses incurred in pursuing this budget dispute, which Courts have inherent authority to order

25

to accomplish the funding necessary for the efficient administration of the court. State ex rel

Wilke v. Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 65, 2000-Ohio-13.

113. For all of the reasons stated above, Relators are entitled to a Writ of Mandamus requiring

Respondents to provide total operating funds in the amount of $920,385, for the Municipal Court

for the year 2019, as well as all the Court’s legal expenses (attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses)

associated with this dispute.

WHEREFORE, Relators pray for a Writ of Mandamus:

A. Directing Respondents City and City Council to appropriate to the Municipal Court a

total of $920,385.00 in operating funds for 2019, in the manner proposed in its 2019

budget (i.e., with $856,385 appropriated to Personal Services and $64,000 appropriated to

Other Charges – Material/Supply/Services, and the allocations enumerated in the Court’s

proposed budget);

B. Directing Respondents to pay the Municipal Court’s legal expenses incurred in

addressing all of these disputes, including, but not limited to, their attorney’s fees, costs,

and expenses; and

C. Directing all other relief to which Relators may be entitled.

Further, to the extent this Court determines the need to issue an Alternative Writ to receive the

presentation of evidence and briefing, Relators pray for an expedited Alternative Writ schedule

to ensure the expedient adjudication of this matter.

26

Respectfully submitted,

MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP

Counsel of Record for Relators

/s/ Kimberly V. Riley_________________


14701 Detroit Ave., Ste. 555

Cleveland, Ohio 44107

Tel: (216) 221-4722

Fax: (513) 768-9205

[email protected]

GEORGE D. JONSON (0027124)

600 Vine Street, Suite 2650

Cincinnati, Ohio 44145

Tel: (513) 241-4722

Fax: (513) 768-9220

[email protected]



29

PRAECIPE FOR SERVICE

To the Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court:

Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.02, please cause service of process upon the below

Respondents by delivering a copy of a Summons and Complaint (with all attachments), by

certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondents.

/s/ Kimberly V. Riley____________


Exhibit A

South Euclid Municipal

Court Proposed Budget

for 2019

Exhibit B

Recording of Hearing

of February 12, 2019

(to be submitted via

mail)

Exhibit C



for 2018

Exhibit D

Email Correspondence

Regarding Use of Court

Discretionary Funds

1

From: Judge <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 11:38 AM

To: 'Georgine Welo'; [email protected]; 'director Michael Lograsso'; 'Brenda Wendt'

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: RE: 2018 SEMC Expense Audit Trail Report, Special Projects, Clerk of Court Computer

Fund & Municipal Court Computer Fund

Mayor Welo,

Clerk of Courts Chardale Sumpter and I had a very fruitful meeting this morning with Council President Fiorelli and Finance Chairman Frank. I believe more depth would have been added to our discussion had Director Wendt appeared and participated. You may recall, Director Wendt initially indicated her unavailability at 8am. However, I was informed by Clerk Sumpter that she indeed was present in the building at 8am.

Notwithstanding your reply below, there is broad agreement that the matters at issue here are important and need swift resolution.

To that end, will you please take a look at your schedule and suggest times and dates, preferably this week for us to discuss this matter in person. Not only will this be helpful for the court, but it will also assist council in understanding some necessary issues that were raised during our morning discussion.

Thank you, Judge Byers

From: Georgine Welo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 5:33 PM To: 'Judge'; [email protected]; director Michael Lograsso; 'Brenda Wendt' Subject: RE: 2018 SEMC Expense Audit Trail Report, Special Projects, Clerk of Court Computer Fund & Municipal Court Computer Fund

Dear Judge Byers,

Please note the accounts below:

BUREA55 Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

MEDIC55 Medical Mutual of Ohio

2

PAYROL Payroll Gross Vendor

MEDICARE Medicare

PERS Public Employee Retirement System

All of the above are representative of accounts associated with payment of payroll for employees associated with the Court.

All payroll associated payments associated with the Court are charge in proportion to where the employee’s time worked is charged. Fringe benefits (PERS, Medicare, etc..) are allocated in the same manner as salaries and wages. Health insurance, dental insurance, life & disability and other fringe benefits are also allocated in the same manner as salaries and wages.

This is not a new accounting practice but rather it is a consistent practice. To verify that the Accounting Practice was not new and or changed in anyway, I had Finance Director Wendt research it back to 2008. In closing, these are not unfamiliar codes and or vendors but accounts that have been consistent on your South Euclid Municipal Audit Report since your administration took office in 2012. I am glad I could help. Sincerely, Georgine Welo, Mayor

-------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chardale P. Sumpter <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:47 PM Subject: 2018 SEMC Expense Audit Trail Report, Special Projects, Clerk of Court Computer Fund & Municipal Court Computer Fund To: <[email protected]> Cc: Judge <[email protected]>

Good Afternoon Finance Director Brenda Wendt,

Judge Gayle Williams-Byers spoke with you this morning regarding the above mentioned report and asked that I perform a cursory review to determine if all of the expenses listed were indeed expense authorized by the Court.

Upon my review I noticed there were several debited entries with codes that are unfamiliar to the Court or codes that customarily used by the Court. The Judge stated she would provide you with a list questions so this matter may be resolved in a timely manner for the scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 8:00 AM.

I am asking you to review the following Audit Trail Reports that were provided to Court from the Finance Department:

3

Special Projects Audit Trail Report – Account # 917.7790.52758, all five pages of the report. These pages reflect debit entries with such codes or vendors as BUREA60 MEDIC55,PAYROL ,MEDICARE and PERS. These are not codes or vendors that the Court uses when submitting an invoice for payment. I have estimated these unfamiliar codes or vendors total to $41,061.44 of expenses that the Court does not recognize.

Clerk of Court Computer Fund Audit Trail Report – Account # 917.7790.52756, both pages of the report. These are not codes or vendors that the Court use when submitting an invoice for payment. I have estimated these unfamiliar codes or vendors total to $5,967.65 of expenses that the Court does not recognize.

Municipal Court Computer Fund Audit Trial Report – Account # 917.7790.52757 all four pages of the report. These pages reflect debit entries with such codes or vendors as BUREA60 MEDIC55,PAYROL ,MEDICARE and PERS. These are not codes or vendors that the Court uses when submitting an invoice for payment. I have estimated these unfamiliar codes or vendors total to $17,171.17 of expenses that the Court does not recognize.

The Judge’s 2018 SEMC Budget submitted to Council for approval certainly does indicate some monies were to be used from the Special Projects Fund and the Computer Fund for the following SEMC Staff, Ray Adornetto and Gary Patrick both received a portion of their wages from the Special Project fund totaling $5,687.00 and Shallanna Agbomanyi and Jennifer McCown received a portion of their 2018 wages from the Computer Fund totaling $18,000.00. The budget does not indicate nor direct any other monies to be debited from these funds.

Brenda, the Judge is trusting you are able to expound on the unfamiliar codes or vendors found in the Court’s review of the Audit Trail Reports for 2018 reports and looks forward to the scheduled meeting. Please feel free to contact me at ext. 230 if you should have any questions or concerns regarding this important matter.

Chardale P. Sumpter

Clerk of Court

Please be advised my new email address is [email protected].

Phone number 216.381.2880 ext. 230

Exhibit E


of March 18, 2019 (to

be submitted via mail)

Exhibit F

Email regarding

impending 2019

budget cut

1

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:23 PM To: 'Keith Benjamin'; '[email protected]' Cc: 'Dennis Fiorelli'; 'Joe Frank'; 'Sara Continenza'; 'Jane Goodman'; 'Ruth Gray'; 'marty gelfand'; 'Jason Russell' Subject: RE: Budget Modifications Importance: High

Clerk Benjamin and Councilmembers,

Without addressing the propriety of adjusting the Court’s budget without inviting me to take part in the discussion, I first want to make sure I understand what is being said with this sentence “Reduce Municipal Court by $296,190. (2019 budget should be 3% higher than 2018 actual)”

Are you saying that the Court’s actual expenditures in 2018 were significantly less that the $708,459 that was approved for 2018, and that you have increased the actual amount spent by the Court in 2018 by 3% to come up with a 2019 budget of $624,195.00?

Respectfully, Judge Williams-Byers

From: Keith Benjamin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:01 PM To: Judge; [email protected] Cc: Dennis Fiorelli; Joe Frank; Sara Continenza; Jane Goodman; Ruth Gray; marty gelfand; Jason Russell Subject: Fwd: Budget Modifications

Dear Judge:

2

As Clerk of Council I am writing regarding items of discussion that took place regarding the 2019 Budget at the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting held Monday, March 18, 2019 at 7 pm. Council President Fiorelli has requested that I forward you the email below regarding revisions to the City and Municipal Court Budget for 2019. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Respectfully, Keith

keith ari benjaminthe city of south [email protected] ext. 234

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Russell <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:42 PM Subject: Budget Modifications To: Georgine Welo <[email protected]>, Brenda Wendt <[email protected]>, Keith Benjamin <[email protected]> Cc: Jane Goodman <[email protected]>, Joe Frank <[email protected]>, Ruth Gray <[email protected]>, Dennis Fiorelli <[email protected]>, Marty Gelfand <[email protected]>, Sara Continenza <[email protected]>

Dear Mayor and Finance Director,

City Council met tonight and made the following changes to the 2019 budget. These changes should be reflected in the ordinance for our agenda on Monday.

Reduce Police budget by $300,000 to reflect not hiring 3 officers in 2019. Reduce Municipal Court by $296,190. (2019 budget should be 3% higher than 2018 actual) Remove Transfer in from Fund 511 - ($94,000)

Add $60,000 to economic development Add $634,000 to Fund 408

Thank you,

Jason

Exhibit G


Court Order of March

25, 2019

Exhibit H


of March 25, 2019 (to

be submitted via mail)





COURT, et al.,

Relators

vs.

THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, et al.,

Respondents

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case No. _____________________

AFFIDAVIT OF GAYLE WILLIAMS-BYERS

MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP Counsel of Record for Relators

GEORGE D. JONSON (0027124) 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, Ohio 44145 Tel: (513) 241-4722 Fax: (513) 768-9220 [email protected]

KIMBERLY V. RILEY (0068187) 14701 Detroit Ave., Ste. 555 Cleveland, Ohio 44107 Tel: (216) 221-4722 Fax: (513) 768-9205 [email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID Respondent South Euclid Municipal Complex 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, OH 44121

MEMBERS OF SOUTH EUCLID CITY COUNCIL: DENNIS FIORELLI, JOSEPH FRANK, RUTH GRAY, JANE GOODMAN, SARA CONTINENZA, MARTIN GELFAND, AND JOHN OR JANE DOE COUNCIL MEMBER Respondents South Euclid Municipal Complex 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, OH 44121

1

Affidavit of Gayle Williams-Byers

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) )

STATE OF OHIO )

Gayle Williams-Byers, being first duly cautioned and sworn, states as follows:

1. I am submitting this affidavit, based on personal knowledge. I am competent to testify to

all matters stated in this affidavit.

2. I am the sole Judge of the South Euclid Municipal Court (“Court”) and have held that

position since 2012.

3. As the Court’s Judge, I am familiar with the Court’s reasonable and necessary funding

needs.

Proposed Budgets (2012-2019)

4. The Court’s proposed budgets and its practice in obtaining appropriations from its funding

authority—the City of South Euclid—have been the same since the beginning of my tenure.

5. In every budget year (which spans from January 1 – December 31), the Court submits a

proposed budget to the City Finance Director, to be shared with City Council, in anticipation of

City Council’s budget hearings.

6. The Court’s budgets all follow the same format: The proposed budget is broken into two

primary sections that parallel the two ultimate categories of appropriations in the City’s annual

budget resolution: The first figure is for the Court’s “Personal Services,” which later appear in the

ultimate budget resolution as “Personal Services,” and the second figure is for its

“Materials/Supplies/Services, which later appear in the ultimate budget resolution as “Other

Charges.” These two main categories are added to comprise the total appropriation for that year.

2

7. In the Court’s proposed budgets, it provides details about the following sub-categories

within each of the two main categories:

A. Personal Services Budget – The Court’s Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe Benefits

portion of the budget are combined to form a single “Personal Services Budget.” This

figure comprises the total amount to be paid from the City’s general fund for three sub-

categories: Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe Benefits:

(1) Wages for Full- and Part-Time Employees: The Court identifies each full- and part-

time employee, and their proposed wages. This section of the proposed budgets also

specifies the specific sources of payment for these funds:

a. City, County, and State Portion: Pursuant to various authorities, the wages of some

Court officials and employees are shared by the City, County, and State. For those

individuals, the Court provides a detailed breakdown in the proposed budget that

shows the overall wage of each individual, as well as what portion of that figure is

paid by the City, County, and State.

b. Longevity Pay: The City provides longevity pay for some individuals, which the

budgets specify under each relevant employee’s pay.

c. Grant Funding: In some years, the Court has secured grant funding. This money

may only be used to pay for items that the grant permits, which may or may not

include the option to apply some of those funds toward wages—it all depends upon

the terms of the grant. When a grant allows money to be applied toward employees’

wages, and when the Court has elected to utilize the grant money in that manner.

The Court will include a breakdown in the proposed budget that shows what portion

of the employee’s wage the Court is authorizing for that purpose. In those instances,

3

the Court notes which portion of the overall wage is to be paid from the City’s

general fund, and what portion the Court has arranged or authorized to be paid from

grant funding.

d. Court Fund Contributions: Finally, in some years, the Court has been willing to

utilize money from its funds established pursuant to Ohio R.C. 1901.26(B) and

1901.261 to contribute to the overall wage of an employee. In those instances, the

Court identifies the employees’ overall wages for that year; what portions are to be

paid from the City’s general fund and any other sources; and what portions the

Court has authorized to be paid from the its Special Projects Fund, Clerk of Court

Computer Fund, and Court Computer Fund.

e. Total City Wages for All Court Employees: At the end of the “Wages” section of

the proposed budget, the Court provides a summary of the total amount of full- and

part-time employee wages that are to be paid from the City’s general fund. This

figure combines the portion of wages due from the City general fund and Longevity

Pay. It omits the portion of wages due from the County or State, amounts designated

from Grant Funding (if any), and amounts from Court Fund Contributions (if any).

(2) Health Insurance “Break-Out” Per Employee: In the “Wages” portion of the proposed

budget, the Court notes whether each employee utilizes single or family health

insurance coverage. In a separate section of the budget, it lists each employee; their

type of coverage; and the cost of that coverage to the City. Additionally, the Court’s

proposed budgets specify the following:

a. City, County, and State Portion: The cost of Health Insurance for the Municipal

Court Judge and the Municipal Clerk of Court are shared by the City and County

4

pursuant to Ohio R.C. 1901.11(C), 1901.111, and 1901.312(C)(2)(a). Neither the

Clerk nor the Judge have utilized the City’s Health Insurance for several years now;

however, when one or both of us did, the proposed budget always included a

breakdown to show the overall cost of Healthcare Insurance, minus the County

portion, and the amount that was ultimately the City’s responsibility.

b. Opt Out - The City of South Euclid offers individuals who are eligible to use the

health insurance the alternative to receive a flat sum (that is less than the cost of the

insurance to the City) if they opt out of that coverage; therefore, the budget notes

which individuals are eligible for this payment instead of the higher expense of

either form of coverage.

c. Court Fund Contributions: In some years, the Court’s proposed budget has required

all Health Insurance costs to be paid from the City’s general fund. In other years,

the Court has authorized a portion of some employees’ health insurance to be paid

from the Court Computer Fund or the Special Projects Fund—and always in a

specifically defined amount. In those instances, the Court has expressly provided

the portion of the Health Insurance cost that was attributable to the City’s general

fund as well.

d. Total Health Insurance for All Court Employees: At the end of the “Health

Insurance ‘Break Out’ Per Employee” section of the proposed budget, the Court

provides a summary of the total cost for Health Insurance to be paid from the City’s

general fund. This figure combines the portion of Health Insurance expenses due

from the City general fund and the Opt-Out. It omits the portion of Health Insurance

due from the County (if any) and amounts from Court Fund Contributions (if any).

5

(3) Fringe Benefits: After the “Wages” and “Health Insurance” portions of the Court’s

proposed budget, it lists the projected expenses associated with Medicare, PERS,

Worker’s Compensation, Life Insurance, and Unemployment (“Fringe Benefits”).

a. Unlike wage and healthcare costs—which the Court can predict with some degree

of certainty before its proposed budget is due—there is always some degree of

uncertainty about the amount of Fringe Benefit figures prior to the budget hearings

because only the Finance Director can provide confirmation of these numbers.

b. Therefore, the Court has routinely listed these amounts with a series of asterisks

next to them, or some other indication that notes that the Finance Director needs to

verify they are accurate prior to the budget being finalized. Typically, I have

engaged in correspondence or communications with the Finance Director in

advance of the budget hearing—or at the budget hearing—to verify the accuracy of

those numbers.

(4) Total Personal Services Budget: At the end of the “Personal Services” section of the

Court’s proposed budget, it provides a total of the Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe

Benefits sub-categories that create one final “Personal Services Budget” figure that is

to be paid from the City’s general fund. This always comprises the total figure that the

City is responsible to provide from the general fund for Wages, Health Insurance, and

Fringe Benefits.

B. Material/Supply/Services: Second, the Court’s proposed budgets provide a separate,

second series of sums for its “Material/Supply/Services Budget,” which is comprised of

the sum of smaller categories of line-items for Materials & Supplies, Contractual Services,

and Other Charges.

6

Budget Hearings (2012-2019)

8. My practice in every budget year (absent 2013 in which I had to attend to a family

emergency) has been to voluntarily attend the budget hearing of the South Euclid City Council to

discuss the Court’s proposed budget.

9. In each year I attend the budget hearing, I discuss the rationale behind the Court’s proposed

budget, focusing on any changes to its operations from the previous year that have resulted in

changes to its proposed budget.

10. In a variety of previous years’ budget hearings—if not in every year’s budget hearing—

members of City Council have asked questions about the Court’s three statutory funds—its Special

Projects Fund (pursuant to R.C. 1901.26), Court Computer Fund (pursuant to R.C. 1901.261), and

Clerk of Court Computer Fund (pursuant to R.C. 1901.261) (collectively referred to in this

affidavit as “Court Discretionary Funds”). Members of Council consistently ask questions that

demonstrate they expect the Court to authorize the expenditure of these funds to assume

responsibility for the reasonable and necessary operating expenses of the Court so it will ease the

financial burden on the City.

11. Throughout each year of my tenure, I expended Court Discretionary Funds for matters that

reduced the Court’s reliance on City funds for Materials, Supplies, and Contract Services. Because

these items were expended on an as-needed basis, they did not need to be enumerated in the Court’s

proposed budgets.

12. However, additionally, I authorized a significant sum of the Court’s Discretionary Funds

to be disbursed to provide for a portion of its Personal Services in each prior budget year of my

tenure. In 2016-2018, I procured substantial grant funding to reduce the City’s Personal Services

7

obligation even further. This practice served to reduce the City’s overall obligation by the

following amounts:

A. 2012 – Instead of proposing $696,132 in Personal Services from the City, I authorized

$69,940 in Court Discretionary Funds, reducing the City’s obligation to $626,192 for

Personal Services.

B. 2013 – Instead of proposing $619,165.76 in Personal Services from the City, I

authorized $64,059.76 in Court Discretionary Funds, reducing the City’s obligation to

$555,106 for Personal Services.

C. 2014 - Instead of proposing $597,505.73 in Personal Services from the City, I

authorized $52,399.73 in Court Discretionary Funds, reducing the City’s obligation to

$545,106 for Personal Services.

D. 2015 - Instead of proposing $662,472 in Personal Services from the City, I authorized

$49,521 in Court Discretionary Funds, reducing the City’s obligation to $612,951 for

Personal Services.

E. 2016 - Instead of proposing $659,753.36 in Personal Services from the City, I

authorized $86,234.36 in Court Discretionary Funds, and I obtained $21,208 in

OHMAS Grant Funding that permitted a variety of uses, but I authorized it all to be

applied toward wages, reducing the City’s obligation to $552,311 for Personal Services

(representing a total reduction of the City’s obligation by $107,442.36).

F. 2017 – Instead of proposing $706,120 in Personal Services from the City, I authorized

$43,682 in Court Discretionary Funds, and I obtained renewed OHMAS Grant Funding

that I again authorized entirely toward wages in the budget, in an amount of $21,208,

8

reducing the City’s obligation to $641,230 for Personal Services (representing a total

reduction of the City’s obligation by $64,890).1

G. 2018 - Instead of proposing $703,156 in Personal Services from the City, I authorized

$23,687 in Court Discretionary Funds, and I obtained an increased total of $40,000 in

OHMAS Grant Funding where I authorized nearly all of it ($35,000) to be used

toward wages, reducing the City’s obligation to $644,459 for Personal Services

(representing a total reduction of the City’s obligation by $58,697).

13. In a variety of previous years’ budget hearings—if not in every year’s budget hearing—

members of City Council have also inquired into the volume of fines, costs, and fees the Court can

generate for the City’s general fund. These questions have become contentious at times; I have

engaged in an extended, often heated, dialogue with Council about how the Court’s objective is to

ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice—and it is not to generate revenue for the

funding authority.

14. Throughout the past seven years, I have implemented a series of changes to the Court’s

operations that were necessary to improve the public’s access to justice and to protect their civil

rights. My objective was always to make these changes as cost-effectively as possible, but because

the focus of these changes was centered upon the administration of justice (and not the generation

of revenue or prevention of expenditures), some of these changes had the effect of increasing Court

expenses or decreasing its revenue. I have discussed most, if not all, of these Court developments

1 The Court’s proposed budget authorized $21,208 to be paid from the OHMAS grant, although I believe this year’s grant was only for $20,000—such that the pledge to provide $21,208 in grant funding to replace regular wages may have been inflated by $1,208. If that was the case, the overage was likely paid from the Court’s wage appropriations.

9

with City Council during annual budget hearings, and at other points throughout the year. These

include, but are not limited to:

A. Drug Court Partnership - In 2012, the Court partnered with the Cleveland Municipal Court

to establish Cuyahoga County’s first Suburban Drug Court program. Defendants whose

convictions might have otherwise generated revenue for the City through the imposition of

court costs, fines, and fees were instead enrolled in this problem-solving court, where they

enjoyed a significantly lower potential for recidivism, as well as a reduced potential for

harm to their community, family, finances, and personal well-being. A federal grant

provided defendants’ access to counseling and treatment, and all fines and costs were

suspended upon their program completion and graduation—generating less revenue than

if they were adjudicated through a regular docket. Further, because defendants’ cases were

being processed within the Cleveland Municipal Court, any revenue that was generated

from program participants remained with the City of Cleveland, not the City of South

Euclid. (Given the extensive resources and expertise within the established Cleveland

Municipal Court program, this was still a far less expensive and a far more effective

alternative than the South Euclid Municipal Court initiating and operating its own

autonomous Drug Court.)

B. F.R.E.E. Mental Health Docket - The Court developed the Fighting Recidivism by

Elevating Excellence (F.R.E.E.) Specialized Mental Health docket, Cuyahoga County’s

first and only suburban specialized docket of any kind. Similar to its Drug Court program,

eligible defendants must complete counseling and treatment, which increases the probation

burden on the Court (which increases its staffing costs), while at the same time reducing

incarceration, fines, costs, and fees paid by defendants (which decreases its revenue).

10

However, this program yields a far greater benefit to the community, to its litigants and

their families, and to defendants’ access to justice than administering their cases in the

ordinary course.

C. Increased Reliance on Bail and Probation Instead of Incarceration - The Court has

implemented a version of pretrial services using Risk-Assessment Tools to better determine

a defendant’s flight risk and community safety, rather than relying as heavily on

incarceration in anticipation of trial. This model provides for regular probation “check in”

for some defendants while cases are pending, along with providing assessments and

evaluations at the pretrial stage. I have likewise endeavored to place more offenders on

probation instead of resorting to incarceration. These adjustments have increased the

probation burden on the Court, increasing its staffing costs, while also providing improved

administration of justice to the public the Court serves.

D. Individualized Assessment of Fines and Court Costs – The Court does not automatically

assess the same fines and court costs to all offenders. Rather, I have sought to employ an

individualized assessment of a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing unduly

burdensome financial penalties that have less relationship to public safety than to raising

revenue. In many instances, I will consider alternatives to incarceration, fines, and costs

for indigent defendants who are unable to pay. This represents an improvement to ensuring

tenets of fundamental fairness and access to justice, but at a lower generation of revenue

than the Court’s past practice.

E. Night Court Docket – The Court initiated the first and only Night Court Docket in

Cuyahoga County, finding that defendants were less likely to avoid Court proceedings

when they had increased options to attend Court without interruption to their work schedule

11

or without facing the increased costs of childcare. This program has reduced the number

of warrants and probation violations, but it creates a modest increase to the administrative

expenses of the Court.

F. Housing Court Docket – The Court initiated a Housing Court docket, expanding the

responsibilities and staffing needs of Court personnel.

G. Full-Time Docket – The General Assembly converted the South Euclid Municipal Court

from a part-time court to a full-time court in 2000. However, when I assumed the bench in

2012, the Court was not conducting hearings on a daily basis, and it operated with a limited

number of full-time staff. I changed this by expanding the Court’s hours of operation,

offering the public increased access to the Courts on a full-time basis, but at higher

personnel costs.

Additionally, the South Euclid Police Department has an internal policy where they

initially charge both parties to a domestic violence event; and, at the onset of my tenure,

the City Law Department had a practice of prosecuting both defendants. I have since cited

ethical concerns with this policy and now require that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to

one of these cases or other, determining that the Law Department has a conflict that

precludes it from prosecuting both parties—as one was always the putative victim of the

other, arising from within the same event. This determination necessitated an expanded

series of hearings to accommodate the Special Prosecutor(s), as well as increased litigation

costs. However, I determined this was necessary to protect the fair administration of justice

for both parties to a domestic violence event.

15. Of these and other discussions I have had with City Council regarding the Court’s

obligations to administer justice versus generate revenue, the topic we have discussed the most

12

during budget hearings pertains to the Court’s assessment of fines and costs. This included an

extensive exchange of correspondence in 2016 and 2017 to this effect, a true and accurate copy of

which is attached as Exhibit 1.

16. These discussions notwithstanding, a regular theme of my hearings and communications

with City Council returns to answering inquiries about the Court’s ability to generate more revenue

for the City; limiting its expenses to an amount that is closer to operating within the revenue that

it generates; or spending more of its statutory funds (e.g., funding under R.C. 1901.26 and

1901.261) to finance the regular operating expenses of the Court.

Approved Budgets

17. Throughout my tenure as the Judge of the South Euclid Municipal Court, City Council has

approved my submitted budget in each year, with the exception of 2019.

18. In each year following my submission of a proposed budget and the conclusion of City

Council’s budget hearings, City Council has passed a resolution to fund a budget that includes

appropriations from the general fund to operate the Municipal Court, divided into the two large

categories outlined in my proposed budgets—a Personal Services appropriation (designated for

the Wages, Insurance, and Benefits portion of my proposed budget) and an “Other Charges”

appropriation (designated for the Material/Supply/Services portion of my proposed budget). A true

and accurate copy of the City Council’s final budget appropriations for 2012 – 2018, and its

preliminary budget appropriations for 2019 are attached as Exhibit 2. (The 2012-2018 resolutions

represent the final budget resolutions for each fiscal year, which were often different than the

original figure the City approved shortly after the Court’s participation in budget hearings—a

variety of circumstances, like departing employees’ PERS or sick leave payouts, Worker’s

Compensation or unemployment payouts that exceeded expectations, or other matters arising

13

throughout the year may have occasionally required adjustments to the appropriations before year-

end. However, in each of my years as Judge of the Court, prior to 2019, the Council passed my

proposed budget, as submitted. I only recall one occasion in which I explicitly sought added

appropriations during a budget year—after a change in the law increased the Court’s obligations

to provide counsel to indigent felony defendants.)

19. Further, a true and accurate copy of the Court’s portion of City Council’s year-end

Summary Reports for 2000-2018, and the Summary Report for 2019 through May 31, 2019 is

attached as Exhibit 3. (The red ink that designates the year of each Report was not on the original,

but added for clarity.)

20. These Summary Reports show each of the Court’s budget line items where the City

maintains an accounting for the Court’s appropriated funds. All these funds have a 101 prefix;

followed by a 7750 (the Court’s designated ID); followed by a five-digit number that corresponds

to the category of appropriations: Personal Services (wages, health insurance, fringe benefits)

begin with a 521, such that the accounts are enumerated 52101, 52103, 52106, and etc.; Contractual

Services appropriations have a number beginning with 523; Materials and Supplies begin with a

524; “Other” appropriations begin with a 527.

21. I now have information to unequivocally demonstrate that the figures in the Year-to-Date

(YTD) Expense, Unexpended, and Percentage columns of these Reports contain extensive

mathematical inaccuracies. However, the first column of these Reports (“Revised

Appropriations”) accurately shows the amounts City Council ultimately appropriated to the Court

in each budget year. These Reports accurately show the breakdown of the appropriations within

the smaller “Personal Services” and “Other” categories the Court requested in its proposed

budgets.

14

22. For those years in which the Court’s appropriations were adjusted throughout the year, the

final appropriations numbers in the budget resolutions changed as well; however, if the figures

didn’t change, the Summary Reports accurately reflect the appropriations. For example, in 2018,

Council accepted the Court’s proposed budget, and it did not revise the appropriations throughout

the year. The proposed 2018 budget (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4) proposes the City

appropriate $99,624 toward Medical Insurance; this was the amount that was ultimately approved

in the budget; and the figure in the first “Revised Appropriations” column of Exhibit 3 for 2018

shows this same figure. Similarly, Medicare is represented as $7,500 on both documents; Life

Insurance appears as $900 on both; Worker’s Compensation is represented as receiving a $7,760

appropriation in both documents; and so on.

23. The information in these Summary Reports—which also appeared within the Court’s

monthly Expense Reports—consistently showed appropriations to the Court that matched its

expectations regarding what the City had appropriated as part of the Court’s budget. The Court

relied on these reports and others with the contemporaneous belief they contained accurate

information.

February 3, 2019 - Proposed Budget

24. On or about February 3, 2019, I submitted the Court’s 2019 budget to Finance Director

Wendt, to be distributed to City Council, with a total budget of $920,385 (a true and accurate copy

is attached as Exhibit 5).

25. On February 12, 2019, I attended a City Council budget hearing, where I provided a

detailed explanation of the Court’s proposed budget, its contents, and my rationale for imposing

the changes from the previous year.

15

26. I entertained an extensive series of questions from City Council for approximately 50

minutes at this budget hearing, largely discussing the specific changes between 2018 and 2019 that

necessitated my proposed overall budget of $920,385, which sought $211,926 more from general

fund dollars than the $708,459 I had requested in 2018. Compare Exhibit 4 and 5.

27. A substantial portion of the 2019 “increase” to the Court’s proposed budget didn’t actually

represent an increase to the ordinary, reasonable, and necessary costs of the Court’s operational

expenses at all: Rather, the Court’s 2019 budget simply relied less on Grant and Court

Discretionary Funding to provide for the same Personal Services operating expenses that had

existed in 2018 and in previous years. This accounted for approximately $37,687 of the added cost

to the City in the 2019 proposed budget.2 In 2019, I proposed a contribution of $3,500 from Court

Discretionary Funds and $32,500 in OHMAS Grant Funding, for a total of $36,000, to Personal

Services, while seeking an additional $856,385 from the City for this purpose. This represented an

2 The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized paying Network Administrator/Deputy Clerk Agbomanyi $12,000 from the Court’s Computer Fund and $10,000 from OHMAS Grant funding, and only $20,000 of her $42,000 salary from the City. Her role was shared by two employees in 2019, and they collectively relied almost exclusively on City funding: The Court authorized $3,500 from its Computer Fund to supplement the $44,300 salary of Assistant Network Administrator/Deputy Clerk Tarter, and the rest to come from the general fund.

The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized $25,000 of Chief Probation Officer Martin’s salary to be paid from an OHMAS grant, with only $30,500 payable from the City. In 2019, $17,500 of her salary was directed to come from an OHMAS grant, with the remaining $41,310 coming from the general fund.

The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized paying Deputy Clerk/Assistant Network Administrator McCown $6,000 from the Court’s Computer Fund and $34,950 of her $41,850 salary from the City; it authorized paying Chief Security Bailiff Patrick $3,025 from the Court’s Special Projects Fund and $27,225 of his salary from the City; and it had authorized paying Security Bailiff Adornetto $2,662 from the Court’s Special Projects Fund and $23,958 of his salary from the City. However, I had proposed paying 100% of these employees’ salaries from City funds in 2019.

16

appreciably smaller contribution from the Court to the overall Personal Services figure than in

previous years, and a higher contribution from the City’s general fund. See paragraph 11(A)-(G).

However, it did not represent a change to these underlying operating expenses of the Court—the

expense remained the same; I had simply provided less Grant and Special Projects Funding to

offset the City’s obligation.

28. I had a very specific reason for contributing less of the Court’s Discretionary Funding to

its 2019 Personal Services budget than in previous years, which I explained in part at the February

12 City Council Budget Hearing: The Court intended to submit a 2019 budget that placed heavier

reliance on the City’s general fund because it has had significant and growing needs to upgrade its

antiquated case management system. Additionally, the Court had unsuccessfully applied for

technology grants for several successive years to add a probation kiosk to reduce the burden on

probation staff. I explained to City Council that the Court had these multiple technological needs

on the horizon, and it was endeavoring to implement or upgrade this system in the near future. I

hoped to reserve more of the Court’s Discretionary Funding in 2019 so I could increase those funds

and finance this system in 2020, relying as much as possible upon its Discretionary Funding and

possible grant funding to diminish the financial burden on the City. In order to accomplish this,

the Court needed to abstain from spending as many funds on staffing in 2019 to accumulate

sufficient funds to aid in financing this expense in 2020.

29. At the budget hearing, I also explained the circumstances necessitating the actual

differences between the Court’s 2018 and 2019 budget proposals, which amounted to

approximately $174,239—or the details within the budgets demonstrated these for themselves. I

noted that the “Material/Supply/Services” side of my budget had remained unchanged from 2018

to 2019, but a series of changed circumstances in 2019 had required increases to the “Personal

17

Services” side of the Court’s budget, all of which were a reasonable and necessary component of

maintaining the Court’s operations:

A. Increased cost of healthcare ($51,404.80) – I discussed with City Council that the cost

of single and family healthcare increased from 2018 to 2019. Additionally, an increased

number of Court employees had elected to opt in to the Court’s healthcare in 2019.

Finally, an increased number of Court employees went from the less expensive single

coverage to the more expensive family coverage in 2019. These are obviously increases

over which the Court has no ability to influence, control, or reduce the expense to the

City, and healthcare is a reasonable and necessary expense to fulfilling the operation of

the Court. These increases accounted for approximately $51,404.80 of the increases to

the 2019 budget.

B. 2% Cost of Living Increase ($6,033) - I discussed with Council that I imposed a 2%

cost of living increase for 2019—one that I advised Council I had planned to implement

in 2018, but I had deferred at the City’s request when it cited a financially depressed

condition. However, thereafter, the City implemented a 2018 increase for every City

employee in April 2018, retroactive to January 2018; but this increase specifically

excluded Court employees. Therefore, for 2019, I implemented the deferred cost-of-

living (COLA) increase I had intended to implement in 2018 for Court staff. This

accounted for approximately $6,033 of the proposed 2019 increases.

(1) These raises were reasonable and necessary to the Court’s operation because its

employees are already paid at rates substantially below their value to the Court, and

below the rate they could be paid elsewhere. The Court has had a number of

applicants decline to accept employment at the Court once learning its pay scale.

18

Further, the Court must at least keep the pace with increases to the cost of living to

prevent losing its existing staff. These all constituted reasonable and necessary

requirements to conduct its operations. I based this determination on my own first-

hand assessment, as well as the input of the Clerk of Court.

(2) The Court’s wages are sufficiently low that Court employees’ children have been

eligible for insurance coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program

(CHIP)—government-funded coverage for children in lower-income families.

(3) Many of the changes described in paragraph 13(A)-(G) increased the Court’s

staffing needs, including the need for an additional probation officer. The Court

received a resume from an applicant who had previously interned for the Court and

who would otherwise have been interested in pursuing employment there; likewise,

the Court wanted to hire this applicant, and it would have benefitted greatly from

his prior experience. However, he declined the position, citing his inability to accept

the Court’s low rate of pay. He ultimately decided to retain his position with the

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Probation Department.

(4) Another employee left the Court to accept another position, which she indicated

had been appealing because of its ability to pay substantially more than her wages

at the Court.

(5) A Deputy Clerk of the Court, who has a Bachelor’s Degree, continued performing

his duties while also taking on a portion of the work of the departing Network

Administrator; he understandably sought a pay raise to do so, but the Court was

only able to offer an additional $5,000 for this extensive added responsibility. I

19

based this determination on my own first-hand assessment, as well as the input of

the Clerk of Court.

(6) Finally, the Court needed to add another Deputy Clerk due to its significant backlog

in the Clerk’s office; it found a qualified employee with a Bachelor’s Degree, whom

it could only afford to pay $35,000, with a commitment to increase his pay by

another $5,000 upon completing his introductory period. This was a prerequisite to

securing his employment with the Court. I based this determination on my own

first-hand assessment, as well as the input of the Clerk of Court.

C. Increased Hours or Responsibility ($19,210) – The 2019 budget demonstrated that two

of its part-time employees performed added work or took on increased responsibility

in 2019, resulting in an overall increase to the 2019 budget by approximately $19,210:

(1) When the Network Administrator resigned, her duties were divided between a

Deputy Clerk, Tarter, whose duties changed to performing both his prior Deputy

Clerk duties, as well as a portion of the Network Administrator role. The Court

provided him a $5,000 pay raise to assume these added duties, which comprised a

$2,300 increase to the previous cost of the Network Administrator position. I based

this determination on my own first-hand assessment, as well as the input of the

Clerk of Court.

(2) The Court required a part-time Deputy Clerk, who had been paid $27,200 in 2018,

to work full-time in 2019, which increased his wages by $13,600 in 2019. I based

this determination on my own first-hand assessment, as well as the input of the

Clerk of Court.

20

(3) The Court’s sole probation officer in 2018 had overseen the development of the

Court’s Mental Health docket, and she had assumed a series of added

responsibilities as a result. In 2019, the Court required a second probation officer

to support these needs, adding supervisory responsibilities to her duties as well,

resulting in a pay increase of $3,310.

D. Two Staff Additions ($63,660) – At the budget hearing, I discussed my need to add

two full-time employees—a deputy clerk (which I proposed hiring at $30,000/year,

based on my own first-hand assessment, as well as the input of the Clerk of Court), and

a probation officer (whom I proposed hiring at $33,660/year), resulting in an increase

of $63,660. I described the Court’s need for each position to Council, and the necessity

for each role:

(1) The primary reason for adding a second probation officer arose from the Court’s

practice of moving away from incarcerating lower level nonviolent offenders,

increasing the use of diversion programming, and attending to the increasing

caseload on the Court’s specialized dockets.

(2) The primary reason for adding a Deputy Clerk arose from the substantial backlog

in the Clerk’s Office. I discussed the extensive amount of stale unclaimed funds

discovered in the Court’s recent audit, and the need to have an employee dedicated

to completing the requisite due diligence to complete that work. Additionally, I

discussed the added burden on the Clerk’s Office as the caseload on the Court’s

specialized dockets grew. Finally, I discussed how the staff of the Clerk’s Office

were so overwhelmed that the Court had been dilatory in completing its Annual

Report; I explained how this backlog was the direct result of the Clerk’s Office

21

having inadequate staffing in 2018. I based this determination on my own first-hand

assessment, as well as the input of the Clerk of Court.

E. Increased Cost of Fringe Benefits ($34,980) - The Court’s 2018 and 2019 budgets also

plainly revealed increased costs of fringe benefits (Medicare, PERS, etc.) between 2018

and 2019, totaling approximately $34,980. As in the case of Health Insurance, these

are mandatory expenses that the Court has no ability to negotiate away or reduce; they

are simply an unavoidable cost of meeting its operational needs.

30. These changes in 2019 comprised increases to the City’s obligations of approximately

$211,926 (including the $37,687 that had been the City’s obligation all along in previous years,

but had been supplemented by Grant and Special Projects Funding); this represented an actual

increase in the Court’s expenditures by $174,239 (the items in paragraph 28 (A)-(E) totaled

$175,287, but after factoring in other reductions and changes from 2018, this figure was reduced

to an overall increase of its expenditures to approximately $174,239. (See Exhibits 4 and 5.)

31. In this budget meeting, I explained that the expenses within the budget were all required to

maintain the fair, effective and timely administration of justice and that the funding sought within

the Court’s 2019 budget was reasonable and necessary to facilitate its operations.

32. Council asked a series of questions during this hearing, none of which challenged the above

proposals. I explained why I couldn’t reduce the items in the Court’s 2019 budget—especially

given how many of the increases arose from matters beyond the Court’s control (e.g., employees

electing to use the health insurance, or expanding their coverage), and how essential the added

staffing was to supporting the growing operational needs of the Court, especially noting the Mental

Health docket, which had been in place since 2015 with only one probation officer supporting that

work and all the other probation needs of the Court. I expressed my concerns about the Court’s

22

sole probation officer facing “burnout” if I continued to place so much responsibility on her,

without adding a much-needed additional staff member to support the Court’s extensive probation

caseload.

33. Council Member Gray asked me to consider to what end I could cut my budget or pay for

some of its requested appropriations from the Court’s Discretionary Funds. Notwithstanding the

Court’s ability to compel the City to fund its budget appropriations, I committed at the Court’s

2019 budget hearing to review all available Court assets to determine if the Court could assume

any more of its projected expenses from its Discretionary Funds than I had placed in the 2019

budget proposal.

34. Council completed its inquiry at the budget hearing, indicating it would like to reserve the

right to follow up with added questions if they arose—and I readily agreed to make myself

available to assist them if they had any other questions.

35. Council declined to contact me to seek any clarifications or ask any further questions after

this budget hearing.

February 2019: Discovery of Misappropriated Court Funds and Relaying This Information to Respondents

36. Shortly after the budget hearing, in response to the request by Council Member Gray, I

asked Finance Director Brenda Wendt to provide me with the balances of the Court’s three Court

Discretionary Funds accounts. She provided the Court with a much lower figure than I expected,

and when I discussed these figures with the Clerk of Court, she expressed her surprise as well.

Based upon the Court’s previous disbursements of Court Discretionary Funds, I had believed that

a much larger sum existed within those funds.

23

37. In response, the Court requested copies of more detailed “Audit Trail Reports” for 2018,

coordinated by Clerk Chardale Sumpter.

38. These Reports had to be accessed from the City because the Court is not afforded regular

access to bank records of its Court Discretionary Funds, or any other reports showing this level of

detail about its Court Discretionary Funds.

39. During her review of the 2018 reports, Clerk Sumpter and I discovered that the Court’s

Special Project Fund, Clerk of Court Computer Fund, and Municipal Court Computer Fund all

showed debit entries for codes or vendors not utilized by the Court and/or appropriately connected

to the given fund. For example, both the Court’s Special Projects Fund and the Municipal Court

Computer Fund showed entries for vendors including BUREA55, MEDIC55, PAYROL,

MEDICARE and PERS. These are not codes or vendors that we recognized as matching approved

allocations from those Court Discretionary Funds.

40. On February 14, 2019, at my request, Clerk Sumpter e-mailed the Finance Director a

summary of unauthorized expenses that appeared to have been improperly deducted from the

Court’s 2018 Court Discretionary Funds; she asked that Ms. Wendt review and expound upon the

deductions. These totaled $64,200.16 ($41,061.44 from the Special Projects Fund; $5,967.65 from

the Clerk of Court Computer Fund; and $17,171.17 from the Municipal Court Computer Fund).

Clerk Sumpter copied me on that correspondence. (A true and accurate copy of that email exchange

is attached as Exhibit 6.)

41. On February 15, 2019, rather than Ms. Wendt replying to Ms. Sumpter, South Euclid

Mayor Georgine Welo responded to Clerk Sumpter’s inquiry with an e-mail directed only to me,

Council President Fiorelli, Law Director Lograsso, and Finance Director Wendt. She indicated

that all of the vendor codes referenced in Clerk Sumpter’s summary were associated with the City’s

24

payment of various fringe benefits (e.g., Worker’s Compensation, Health Insurance, Medicare,

and PERS), and payroll for employees associated with the Court (see Exhibit 6, attached). Mayor

Welo explained that the City deducted Court employees’ fringe benefits, i.e., PERS and Medicare,

from the Court’s Discretionary Funds in the same manner it had deducted their salary and wages.

The Mayor further stated this had been the City’s consistent accounting practice dating back to at

least 2008.

42. The fringe benefit disbursements Mayor Welo had described as being paid from the Court’s

Discretionary Funds in 2018 had been specifically budgeted to be paid from general fund dollars

in its budget, and in previous years’ budgets—not from its Discretionary Funds. Moreover, the

City had appropriated general fund dollars to the Court for the purpose of paying these fringe

benefits in each of its previous budget years as well. (Exhibit 3.)


dollars to the Court to pay for its reasonable and necessary operating expenses—including wages,

health insurance, and other fringe benefits. However, this correspondence amounted to the first

instance where the Clerk and I learned that the Finance Director and her predecessors had

disbursed or oversaw the disbursement of Court Discretionary Funds to pay for a variety of those


44. The Finance Department provided the Court with monthly expense reports that

inaccurately showed the City’s budget appropriations to the Court were being disbursed each



45. This created a dynamic in a series of previous budget years whereby the Court experienced

a significant surplus in its annual appropriations from the City, which it was then obligated to

25

return to the City general fund each year. That is, practice of unauthorized Discretionary Fund

Disbursements resulted in an annual system whereby the Court requested City funding for various

expenses; the City made appropriations to provide for those expenses; but those appropriations

were illusory—they were never in jeopardy of being expended, and they were always returned to

the general fund instead of being used to satisfy the obligations noted in the Court’s proposed

budgets—because the Finance Director had been disbursing the Court’s Discretionary Funds to

pay these expenses instead, without the Court’s knowledge or authorization.

46. This discovery also had the effect of revealing the inaccuracy of figures within the expense

reports and year-end reports from the Finance Department. These reports purported to tabulate the

Court’s “Actual Expenses” each year, but, in reality, the Court’s actual expenditures had

comprised the figures appearing on those reports, plus the unauthorized disbursements from the


47. On February 19, 2019, Clerk Sumpter and I met with Council President Fiorelli and

Finance Chairman Frank to relay the concerns with these misappropriations, and to explain our

findings. Further, the Clerk and I advised Council Member Fiorelli and Council Member Frank of

the Court’s inability to contribute Court Discretionary Funds to supplement Court employees’

wages in the 2019 budget.


nor is the Court aware of any effort the City has initiated to assess the full extent of the City’s

improper expenditures from the Court’s funds. To date, the City has not produced the

documentation to the Court that would be needed to even assemble these figures, let alone provide

any accounting of those misappropriations.

26

March 20, 2019: Without Any Further Communication From the City After My Appearance at the February 12 Budget Hearing, I First Learned the City Intended to

Impose a $296,190 Cut to Its Budget; it Ultimately Imposed a Cut of $283,251.

49. After my February 12 appearance before Council, I was never asked to provide further

information or clarification about my proposed 2019 budget, nor did any representative of the City

seek my explanation, information, or discussion about the 2019 budget.

50. On March 20, 2019, I received an email from Clerk of Council Keith Benjamin that

indicated Council proposed reductions in the Court’s 2019 budget in the amount of $296,190.00,

adding “2019 budget should be 3% higher than 2018 actual.” (A true and accurate copy of this

correspondence is attached as Exhibit 7.) The proposed reductions occurred without any comment

or input from me, or the opportunity to address any questions of Council.

51. I sought clarification and a response from Council in an email of March 21, 2019, asking

Council if they believed the Court’s actual expenditures in 2018 were so significantly below its

2018 budget of $708,459 that it had elected to fund the 2019 budget by adding 3% to what it

believed was the Court’s 2018 expenses. (Exhibit 7.) I didn’t receive a response.

52. I knew that Council’s figures about the Court’s 2018 actual expenditures were grossly

inaccurate—and I had provided Council, through Mr. Fiorelli and Mr. Frank, with sufficient

information about the Special Projects misappropriations on February 19, for them to understand

that their 2018 figures were significantly inaccurate as well. However, no one responded to my

email or otherwise invited me to discuss the Court’s budget further.

53. In response, on March 25, 2019, I issued an Administrative Order and Judgment Entry,

ordering that the Court’s 2019 budget, as submitted to Council on February 4, 2019 (i.e., for

$920,385), shall constitute the reasonable and necessary funding for the 2019 budget year for the

Court (“Funding Order”)(attached as Exhibit 8). The Funding Order further ordered that any

27

subsequent action required to enforce the Funding Order due to City Council’s refusal or failure

to comply with its terms shall result in reimbursing the Court for its reasonable and necessary

expenses, including attorney’s fees, arising from enforcement of the Funding Order.

March 25, 2019 – Council Enters a Budget Resolution, Appropriating $637,134 to the Court’s 2019 budget, representing a cut of $283,251.

54. Council reconvened later in the evening on March 25, 2019, to finalize the 2019 budget.

55. At this meeting, the Council adjusted the Court’s budget from the figure it articulated in

the email to me on March 20 from $624,195 (a cut of $296,190 to the Court’s 2019 budget) to

$637,134 (a cut of $283,251).

56. Council’s budget appropriations bore no relationship to the Court’s expressed needs,

failing to take into account what it actually expended in 2018; what portion of these reasonable

and necessary expenditures were financed with grant or Special Projects moneys that failed to

relieve the City of the obligation to provide those funds in 2019; and what circumstances in 2019

warranted increased spending. To that end, Council passed a budget that failed to even inquire

whether I wished to seek a different distribution of the overall appropriation between Personal

Services and Material/Supply/Services—instead, they maintained the same appropriations to the

latter as 2018, and removed the entire $283,251 from the Court’s Personal Services Budget,

causing added hardship on the Court’s ability to continue its operations through the end of 2019

without added funding.

Adverse Effects of 2019 Budget Appropriations

57. The 2019 budget I set for the Court is based on the reasonable and necessary funding needs

for the Court in 2019.

28

58. If the 2019 Court budget is reduced, as proposed by the South Euclid City Council, it will

negatively impact the Court in a number of significant ways, including but not limited to:

a. The Court’s probation department will be reduced to one probation officer with an

overwhelming caseload. Under these circumstances, community control will be

limited and other sanctions more readily utilized, i.e., jailing.

b. The Court’s Specialized Mental Health Docket (F.R.E.E.) will be indefinitely

suspended while near 35 participating litigants will necessarily have their sentences

and cases re-addressed. Additionally, the Court will forego $40,000 in grant money

from OHMAS provided to offset program cost, salaries and benefits. The Court’s

F.R.E.E. docket is the only specialized docket in the county’s suburbs.

c. The Court security staff will be laid off, providing no security and limited oversight

usage of the magnetometer and wand devises used to ensure court safety. Despite

this task being transferred to South Euclid Police Department auxiliary police,

certain tasks including but not limited to warrant issuance, notice service, eviction

move-outs and jury management will be left undone.

d. On any given day, the South Euclid Municipal Court Clerk’s pool will receive

between 40 and 50 civil matters for filing and processing. Meanwhile, the Court

receives on average between 40 and 50 criminal complaints (including traffic

citations) for processing. During “peak times” of the year (i.e., warmer months),

the Court will see more filings. There are a total of six clerks to process theses

causes of action daily along with additional assigned tasks. The proposed cuts

would result in reducing the clerk staff to at most four clerks with work

redistribution instantly causing a slowdown in case processing. This will impact

29

case filings, calendaring, docketing, and management. All of these components

directly impact the fair administration of justice. I based this determination on my

own first-hand assessment, as well as the input of the Clerk of Court.

e. The Court’s Night Court Docket, the only of its kind in Cuyahoga County, will be

indefinitely suspended, thereby providing limited access to justice for litigants who

have daytime obligations and ordinarily benefit from this additional opportunity.

f. With the proposed reductions, the Court will run out of money, requiring layoffs

while cases pile up. These employees may not be available if/when the Court is

later in a position to rehire them, meaning the Court very well may be in a position

of having to hire and train a large number of employees at the same time, which

will in and of itself cause a backlog and severely hamper the fair administration of

justice.

Respondents Are Attempting to Accomplish Indirectly What They Cannot Accomplish Directly.

59. In 2016, City Council and Mayor Welo engaged in an extensive effort to close the South

Euclid Municipal Court and have its docket absorbed by a neighboring Court.

60. Representatives of City Council and the Mayor routinely discussed these proposals as a

measure to save money by minimizing the expense of operating its own Court.

61. These efforts included (1) attempting to change the South Euclid City Charter to eliminate

the South Euclid Municipal Court – until the City was apprised it lacked the legal authority to close

the Court in this manner; (2) passing a local Resolution requesting the Ohio Legislature and Ohio

Supreme Court begin the process of court consolidation to close the Court; and (3) lobbying a

Exhibit 1

Correspondence

between Judge Gayle

Williams-Byers and

South Euclid City

Council

1

Kimberly V. Riley


Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:21 PM

To: Kimberly V. Riley

Subject: FW: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

FYI

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

Please see below………

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 2:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

fyi

From: Chardale P. Sumpter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 8:50 AM To: 'Judge' Subject: FW: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

Good Morning Judge,

President Jane Goodman is asking questions with regards to the letter received from Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and needed answers to the questions in the attached e-mail.

Chardale P. Sumpter

From: Jane Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 3:21 PM To: [email protected]: Re: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

Dear Ms. Sumpter,

Thank you for forwarding the letter.

2

Would you please ask Judge Williams-Byers to respond to these questions? When Council begins budget hearings after its recess, this issue will undoubtedly be raised. Any advance preparation would be appreciated.

1. When a South Euclid law is broken, and a judgement is rendered that involves a fine, it is understood that the City is the damaged party. Is it proper, then, that the City receive the proceeds of that fine as compensation for the wrong done to it?

2. If the fine, instead, remains with the court to cover its own expenses, how is the City compensated? 3. In order to seek a judgement against an offender where a fine is the compensation, the cost of having personnel from

the police or housing department prepare for a court appearance and then appear in court is borne strictly by the City from its general fund. If the City pays those costs, but then is not compensated by any fines charged to the offender and collected by the Court, how does the Court expect the City to continue to pay the above-mentioned employees to enforce our laws?

Answers to these questions will help me as a Council member explain the situation to constituents who believe that when they pay a court-ordered fine their fine goes to the city to support the work of the police or housing department that enforces our laws.

The accusation that cities too often see their courts as revenue generators completely ignores the fact that cities need funds in order to enforce their laws before a case ever makes it to court. Fines are not solely there to punish offenders or change behavior, they are also there to support their enforcement personnel and pay for remediation of damage done, where necessary. That seems to get lost in these discussions.

Thank you,

Jane GoodmanPresident, South Euclid City Council, Ward 4cell: 216-496-7694

From: "Chardale P. Sumpter" <[email protected]> Organization: South Euclid Municipal Court Reply-To: <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:46 AM To: Jane Goodman <[email protected]>, Jason Russell <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Ruth Gray <[email protected]>, Marty Gelfand <[email protected]>, Edward Icove <[email protected]>, Joe Frank <[email protected]>, Michael Lograsso <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: PDF Document South Euclid Council, Law Director, Finance Dir. 0726217.pdf

Good Morning,

Judge Gayle Williams-Byers asked that I forward you a copy of this letter from The Supreme Court of Ohio, from Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor.

The Judge found this letter addressed to The Honorable Dave Yost – Ohio Auditor an interesting read.

You may address any questions or concerns regarding this letter to Judge Gayle Williams-Byers.

3

Chardale P. SumpterClerk of Court

Please be advised my new email address is [email protected] number 216.381.2880 ext. 230

1

Kimberly V. Riley




Subject: FW: Collection Process for South Euclid Municipal Court

FYI

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Collection Process for South Euclid Municipal Court

Please see attached.

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:12 AM To: '[email protected]'; [email protected]; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; [email protected]; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Collection Process for South Euclid Municipal Court

Councilmembers,

As a follow up to our conversation from Monday regarding this court’s process of collection of fines and costs once imposed, please find it outlined below. Further, please note the additional request for demographic information related to staff composition.

- Defendants who at the time of sentencing are imposed a financial penalty (fine and court cost) have the opportunity to request time to pay. If/when this request is made, a payment arrangement is granted for with payment due in 30 days. A $25 fee is assessed for the payment arrangement.

- If the Defendant’s balance is less than $300, a minimum payment of $50 must be paid on each due date until the full amount is satisfied or unless an ability to pay hearing is held and good cause is shown for why the balance cannot be paid.

- If the Defendant’s balance is more than $300, a minimum payment of $100 must be paid on each due date until the full amount is satisfied or unless an ability to pay hearing is held and good cause is shown for why the balance cannot be paid.

- With each installment, the defendant signs a new payment agreement - “Ability to Pay” hearings are held on the 1st and 3rd Friday morning of each month at 9am to determine the

status of outstanding payments for defendants who are either unable or unwilling to pay. The determination is made at the time of the hearing.

Capital Recovery is the collection agency still engaged by the South Euclid Municipal Court. Upon previous use, cases had been forwarded to the company for collection which added an additional 30% fee once collection actions were initiated. However, our current case management system had not properly excised out or “flagged” those defendants who were on and abiding by payment arrangements, thus improperly forwarding their cases as well to collections.

Demographics of the South Euclid Municipal Court staff:

2

Total employees: 13 (includes full and part time employees)

Males: 46% Females: 54%

Black: 46% White: 46% Other: 8%

Residents: 62% Non-residents: 38%

I am hopeful that this information answers some of your questions.

Judge Byers

1

Kimberly V. Riley




Subject: FW: U.S. Department of Justice Letter Concerning Fines and Fees Practices

Attachments: Fines and Fees Dear Colleague Letter 3-14-16.pdf

FYI

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:00 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: FW: U.S. Department of Justice Letter Concerning Fines and Fees Practices

Please find attached.

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:00 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: U.S. Department of Justice Letter Concerning Fines and Fees Practices

Councilmembers,

Please fine attached a recent communication forwarded to me from Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor. Additionally, I wanted to provide the below authority for the sake to clarity to our prior discussions regarding this similar matter.

Have a great day, Judge Byers

With regard to civil collection methods for fines and court costs, O.R.C. 2929.28(D) provides that judgment may be executed as any other civil judgment including:

A) Executions against the property, O.R.C. Chapter 2329 B) Executions against the person of the debtor, O.R.C. Chapter 2331 C) Proceedings in aid of execution, O.R.C. Chapter 2333 D) Attachment of the debtor’s property, O.R.C. 2715 E) Garnishment of the debtor’s property, O.R.C. Chapter 2716 F) Order for the assignment of the debtor’s wages, O.R.C. 1321.33

O.R.C. 309.08. Prosecuting attorney shall cause execution to be issued for the fines and costs, or costs only, as the case may be, and faithfully shall urge the collection until it is affected or found impracticable to collect.

2

Note: As a civil judgment, court costs would be treated like any other civil judgment as subject to the limitations of a judgment becoming dormant under O.R.C. 2329.07(A)(2) and subject to being revived.

See also: State v. Magruder, No. 2007-G-2799, 11th. Dist., 2008-Ohio-2137. Court costs in criminal cases are judgments subject to reviver in accordance with O.R.C. 2325.15

State v. Jones, No. CA2000-02-015, 12thl Dist., (2000). Revivor of dormant judgment to collect court costs against an inmate serving a prison term of 25 years who received a settlement from the Lucasville riot case.

From: Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 4:05 PM To: Williams, Gayle Franciene Subject: U.S. Department of Justice Letter Concerning Fines and Fees Practices

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a letter that the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) recently sent to each chief justice of a state’s highest court outlining its emerging concerns with state and local court practices regarding the assessment and enforcement of fines and fees, particularly against indigent persons. I ask you to carefully review the letter. Since its investigation of the Ferguson Municipal Court in Missouri last year, the USDOJ has taken an increasingly keen interest in this topic as have other justice system entities. Of particular concern are (1) court practices that routinely impose impossible financial burdens on those least able to pay, and (2) the practices of others that, in effect, make revenue collection and not justice administration the hallmark of a high performing court. I currently serve as chairperson of a national commission convened by the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators tasked with examining impediments to access to justice, identifying practices that may violate constitutional standards, and making recommendations to improve the justice system with respect to fines and fees practices. Should you have any recommendations on this matter, I welcome hearing from you.

As we all know, the vitality of our justice system is directly impacted by the public’s trust and confidence in that system. Lacking the executive’s power of force or the legislature’s power of the purse, as Alexander Hamilton once observed, the judiciary is left with only the fairness and integrity of its judgment. Ensuring the fairness and integrity of that judgment is the greatest responsibility we as judges have to our state, this nation, and our fellow citizens, regardless of their station in life.

Sincerely,

Maureen O’Connor Chief Justice

1

Washington, D.C. 20530

March 14, 2016

Dear Colleague:

The Department of Justice (“the Department”) is committed to assisting state and local courts in their efforts to ensure equal justice and due process for all those who come before them. In December 2015, the Department convened a diverse group of stakeholders—judges, court administrators, lawmakers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, advocates, and impacted individuals—to discuss the assessment and enforcement of fines and fees in state and local courts. While the convening made plain that unlawful and harmful practices exist in certain jurisdictions throughout the country, it also highlighted a number of reform efforts underway by state leaders, judicial officers, and advocates, and underscored the commitment of all the participants to continue addressing these critical issues. At the meeting, participants and Department officials also discussed ways in which the Department could assist courts in their efforts to make needed changes. Among other recommendations, participants called on the Department to provide greater clarity to state and local courts regarding their legal obligations with respect to fines and fees and to share best practices. Accordingly, this letter is intended to address some of the most common practices that run afoul of the United States Constitution and/or other federal laws and to assist court leadership in ensuring that courts at every level of the justice system operate fairly and lawfully, as well as to suggest alternative practices that can address legitimate public safety needs while also protecting the rights of participants in the justice system.

Recent years have seen increased attention on the illegal enforcement of fines and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country—often with respect to individuals accused of misdemeanors, quasi-criminal ordinance violations, or civil infractions.1 Typically, courts do not sentence defendants to incarceration in these cases; monetary fines are the norm. Yet the harm

1 See, e.g., Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department(Mar. 4, 2015), http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/ferguson_findings_3-4-15.pdf (finding that the Ferguson, Missouri, municipal court routinely deprived people of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and other federal protections); Brennan Center for Justice, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry(2010), available at http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Fees%20and%20Fines%20FINAL.pdf(reporting on fine and fee practices in fifteen states); American Civil Liberties Union, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’ Prisons (2010), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf(discussing practices in Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, and Washington state).

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Office for Access to Justice

2

caused by unlawful practices in these jurisdictions can be profound. Individuals may confront escalating debt; face repeated, unnecessary incarceration for nonpayment despite posing no danger to the community2; lose their jobs; and become trapped in cycles of poverty that can be nearly impossible to escape.3 Furthermore, in addition to being unlawful, to the extent that these practices are geared not toward addressing public safety, but rather toward raising revenue, they can cast doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal and erode trust between local governments and their constituents.4

To help judicial actors protect individuals’ rights and avoid unnecessary harm, we discuss below a set of basic constitutional principles relevant to the enforcement of fines and fees. These principles, grounded in the rights to due process and equal protection, require the following:

(1) Courts must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fines or fees without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful;

(2) Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants unable to pay fines and fees;

(3) Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on the prepayment of fines or fees;

(4) Courts must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees;

(5) Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections;

(6) Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release; and

(7) Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors.

In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race or national origin.

2 Nothing in this letter is intended to suggest that courts may not preventively detain a defendant pretrial in order to secure the safety of the public or appearance of the defendant. 3 See Council of Economic Advisers, Issue Brief, Fines, Fees, and Bail: Payments in the Criminal Justice System that Disproportionately Impact the Poor, at 1 (Dec. 2015), available athttps://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf (describing the disproportionate impact on the poor of fixed monetary penalties, which “can lead to high levels of debt and even incarceration for failure to fulfil a payment” and create “barriers to successful re-entry after an offense”). 4 See Conference of State Court Administrators, 2011-2012 Policy Paper, Courts Are Not Revenue Centers (2012), available at https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2011-12-COSCA-report.pdf.

3

As court leaders, your guidance on these issues is critical. We urge you to review court rules and procedures within your jurisdiction to ensure that they comply with due process, equal protection, and sound public policy. We also encourage you to forward a copy of this letter to every judge in your jurisdiction; to provide appropriate training for judges in the areas discussed below; and to develop resources, such as bench books, to assist judges in performing their duties lawfully and effectively. We also hope that you will work with the Justice Department, going forward, to continue to develop and share solutions for implementing and adhering to these principles.

1. Courts must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fines or fees without first conducting an indigency determination and establishing that the failure to pay was willful.

The due process and equal protection principles of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit “punishing a person for his poverty.” Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 671 (1983). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not incarcerate an individual solely because of inability to pay a fine or fee. In Bearden, the Court prohibited the incarceration of indigent probationers for failing to pay a fine because “[t]o do otherwise would deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine. Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 672-73; see also Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 398 (1971) (holding that state could not convert defendant’s unpaid fine for a fine-only offense to incarceration because that would subject him “to imprisonment solely because of his indigency”); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 241-42 (1970) (holding that an indigent defendant could not be imprisoned longer than the statutory maximum for failing to pay his fine). The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), holding that a court violates due process when it finds a parent in civil contempt and jails the parent for failure to pay child support, without first inquiring into the parent’s ability to pay. Id. at 2518-19.

To comply with this constitutional guarantee, state and local courts must inquire as to a person’s ability to pay prior to imposing incarceration for nonpayment. Courts have an affirmative duty to conduct these inquiries and should do so sua sponte. Bearden, 461 U.S. at 671. Further, a court’s obligation to conduct indigency inquiries endures throughout the life of a case. See id. at 662-63. A probationer may lose her job or suddenly require expensive medical care, leaving her in precarious financial circumstances. For that reason, a missed payment cannot itself be sufficient to trigger a person’s arrest or detention unless the court first inquires anew into the reasons for the person’s non-payment and determines that it was willful. In addition, to minimize these problems, courts should inquire into ability to pay at sentencing, when contemplating the assessment of fines and fees, rather than waiting until a person fails to pay.

4

Under Bearden, standards for indigency inquiries must ensure fair and accurate assessments of defendants’ ability to pay. Due process requires that such standards include both notice to the defendant that ability to pay is a critical issue, and a meaningful opportunity for the defendant to be heard on the question of his or her financial circumstances. See Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2519-20 (requiring courts to follow these specific procedures, and others, to prevent unrepresented parties from being jailed because of financial incapacity). Jurisdictions may benefit from creating statutory presumptions of indigency for certain classes of defendants—for example, those eligible for public benefits, living below a certain income level, or serving a term of confinement. See, e.g., R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-20-10 (listing conditions considered “prima facie evidence of the defendant’s indigency and limited ability to pay,” including but not limited to “[q]ualification for and/or receipt of” public assistance, disability insurance, and food stamps).

2. Courts must consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants unable to pay fines and fees.

When individuals of limited means cannot satisfy their financial obligations, Bearden requires consideration of “alternatives to imprisonment.” 461 U.S. at 672. These alternatives may include extending the time for payment, reducing the debt, requiring the defendant to attend traffic or public safety classes, or imposing community service. See id. Recognizing this constitutional imperative, some jurisdictions have codified alternatives to incarceration in state law. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 42-8-102(f)(4)(A) (2015) (providing that for “failure to report to probation or failure to pay fines, statutory surcharges, or probation supervision fees, the court shall consider the use of alternatives to confinement, including community service”); see also Tate, 401 U.S. at 400 n.5 (discussing effectiveness of fine payment plans and citing examples from several states). In some cases, it will be immediately apparent that a person is not and will not likely become able to pay a monetary fine. Therefore, courts should consider providing alternatives to indigent defendants not only after a failure to pay, but also in lieu of imposing financial obligations in the first place.

Neither community service programs nor payment plans, however, should become a means to impose greater penalties on the poor by, for example, imposing onerous user fees or interest. With respect to community service programs, court officials should consider delineating clear and consistent standards that allow individuals adequate time to complete the service and avoid creating unreasonable conflicts with individuals’ work and family obligations. In imposing payment plans, courts should consider assessing the defendant’s financial resources to determine a reasonable periodic payment, and should consider including a mechanism for defendants to seek a reduction in their monthly obligation if their financial circumstances change.

3. Courts must not condition access to a judicial hearing on prepayment of fines or fees.

State and local courts deprive indigent defendants of due process and equal protection if they condition access to the courts on payment of fines or fees. See Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 374 (1971) (holding that due process bars states from conditioning access to

5

compulsory judicial process on the payment of court fees by those unable to pay); see alsoTucker v. City of Montgomery Bd. of Comm’rs, 410 F. Supp. 494, 502 (M.D. Ala. 1976) (holding that the conditioning of an appeal on payment of a bond violates indigent prisoners’ equal protection rights and “‘has no place in our heritage of Equal Justice Under Law’” (citing Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 258 (1959)).5

This unconstitutional practice is often framed as a routine administrative matter. For example, a motorist who is arrested for driving with a suspended license may be told that the penalty for the citation is $300 and that a court date will be scheduled only upon the completion of a $300 payment (sometimes referred to as a prehearing “bond” or “bail” payment). Courts most commonly impose these prepayment requirements on defendants who have failed to appear, depriving those defendants of the opportunity to establish good cause for missing court. Regardless of the charge, these requirements can have the effect of denying access to justice to the poor.

4. Courts must provide meaningful notice and, in appropriate cases, counsel, when enforcing fines and fees.

“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950); see alsoTurner, 131 S. Ct. at 2519 (discussing the importance of notice in proceedings to enforce a child support order). Thus, constitutionally adequate notice must be provided for even the most minor cases. Courts should ensure that citations and summonses adequately inform individuals of the precise charges against them, the amount owed or other possible penalties, the date of their court hearing, the availability of alternate means of payment, the rules and procedures of court, their rights as a litigant, or whether in-person appearance is required at all. Gaps in this vital information can make it difficult, if not impossible, for defendants to fairly and expeditiously resolve their cases. And inadequate notice can have a cascading effect, resulting in the defendant’s failure to appear and leading to the imposition of significant penalties in violation of the defendant’s due process rights.

Further, courts must ensure defendants’ right to counsel in appropriate cases when enforcing fines and fees. Failing to appear or to pay outstanding fines or fees can result in incarceration, whether through the pursuit of criminal charges or criminal contempt, the imposition of a sentence that had been suspended, or the pursuit of civil contempt proceedings. The Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant be provided the right to counsel in any criminal proceeding resulting in incarceration, see Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373 (1979); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37 (1972), and indeed forbids imposition of a suspended jail sentence on a probationer who was not afforded a right to counsel when originally convicted and sentenced,

5 The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1981), when it prohibited conditioning indigent persons’ access to blood tests in adversarial paternity actions on payment of a fee, and in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 107 (1996), when it prohibited charging filing fees to indigent persons seeking to appeal from proceedings terminating their parental rights.

6

see Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 662 (2002). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, defendants likewise may be entitled to counsel in civil contempt proceedings for failure to pay fines or fees. See Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2518-19 (holding that, although there is no automatic right to counsel in civil contempt proceedings for nonpayment of child support, due process is violated when neither counsel nor adequate alternative procedural safeguards are provided to prevent incarceration for inability to pay).6

5. Courts must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate procedural protections.

The use of arrest warrants as a means of debt collection, rather than in response to public safety needs, creates unnecessary risk that individuals’ constitutional rights will be violated. Warrants must not be issued for failure to pay without providing adequate notice to a defendant, a hearing where the defendant’s ability to pay is assessed, and other basic procedural protections. See Turner, 131 S. Ct. at 2519; Bearden, 461 U.S. at 671-72; Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314-15. When people are arrested and detained on these warrants, the result is an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. Rather than arrest and incarceration, courts should consider less harmful and less costly means of collecting justifiable debts, including civil debt collection.7

In many jurisdictions, courts are also authorized—and in some cases required—to initiate the suspension of a defendant’s driver’s license to compel the payment of outstanding court debts. If a defendant’s driver’s license is suspended because of failure to pay a fine, such a suspension may be unlawful if the defendant was deprived of his due process right to establish inability to pay. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971) (holding that driver’s licenses “may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood” and thus “are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment”); cf. Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 113-14 (1977) (upholding revocation of driver’s license after conviction based in part on the due process provided in the underlying criminal proceedings); Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 13-17 (1979) (upholding suspension of driver’s license after arrest for driving under the influence and refusal to take a breath-analysis test, because suspension “substantially served” the government’s interest in public safety and was based on “objective facts either within the personal knowledge of an impartial government official or readily ascertainable by him,” making the risk of erroneous deprivation low). Accordingly, automatic license suspensions premised on determinations that fail to comport with Bearden and its progeny may violate due process.

6 Turner’s ruling that the right to counsel is not automatic was limited to contempt proceedings arising from failure to pay child support to a custodial parent who is unrepresented by counsel. See 131 S. Ct. at 2512, 2519. The Court explained that recognizing such an automatic right in that context “could create an asymmetry of representation.” Id. at 2519. The Court distinguished those circumstances from civil contempt proceedings to recover funds due to the government, which “more closely resemble debt-collection proceedings” in which “[t]he government is likely to have counsel or some other competent representative.” Id. at 2520. 7 Researchers have questioned whether the use of police and jail resources to coerce the payment of court debts is cost-effective. See, e.g., Katherine Beckett & Alexes Harris, On Cash and Conviction: Monetary Sanctions as Misguided Policy, 10 CRIMINOLOGY & PUB. POL’Y 505, 527-28 (2011). This strategy may also undermine public safety by diverting police resources and stimulating public distrust of law enforcement.

7

Even where such suspensions are lawful, they nonetheless raise significant public policy concerns. Research has consistently found that having a valid driver’s license can be crucial to individuals’ ability to maintain a job, pursue educational opportunities, and care for families.8 At the same time, suspending defendants’ licenses decreases the likelihood that defendants will resolve pending cases and outstanding court debts, both by jeopardizing their employment and by making it more difficult to travel to court, and results in more unlicensed driving. For these reasons, where they have discretion to do so, state and local courts are encouraged to avoid suspending driver’s licenses as a debt collection tool, reserving suspension for cases in which it would increase public safety.9

6. Courts must not employ bail or bond practices that cause indigent defendants to remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to pay for their release.

When indigent defendants are arrested for failure to make payments they cannot afford, they can be subjected to another independent violation of their rights: prolonged detention due to unlawful bail or bond practices. Bail that is set without regard to defendants’ financial capacity can result in the incarceration of individuals not because they pose a threat to public safety or a flight risk, but rather because they cannot afford the assigned bail amount.

As the Department of Justice set forth in detail in a federal court brief last year, and as courts have long recognized, any bail practices that result in incarceration based on poverty violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See Statement of Interest of the United States, Varden v. City of Clanton, No. 2:15-cv-34-MHT-WC, at 8 (M.D. Ala., Feb. 13, 2015) (citing Bearden, 461 U.S. at 671; Tate, 401 U.S. at 398; Williams, 399 U.S. at 240-41).10 Systems that rely primarily on secured monetary bonds without adequate consideration of defendants’ financial means tend to result in the incarceration of poor defendants who pose no threat to public safety solely because they cannot afford to pay.11 To better protect constitutional rights while ensuring defendants’ appearance in court and the safety of the community, courts should consider transitioning from a system based on secured monetary bail alone to one grounded in objective risk assessments by pretrial experts. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 23-1321 (2014); Colo. Rev. Stat. 16-

8 See, e.g., Robert Cervero, et al., Transportation as a Stimulus of Welfare-to-Work: Private versus Public Mobility, 22 J. PLAN. EDUC. & RES. 50 (2002); Alan M. Voorhees, et al., Motor Vehicles Affordability and Fairness Task Force: Final Report, at xii (2006), available at http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/About/AFTF_final_02.pdf (a study of suspended drivers in New Jersey, which found that 42% of people lost their jobs as a result of the driver’s license suspension, that 45% of those could not find another job, and that this had the greatest impact on seniors and low-income individuals). 9 See Am. Ass’n of Motor Veh. Adm’rs, Best Practices Guide to Reducing Suspended Drivers, at 3 (2013), available at http://www.aamva.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=3723&libID=3709(recommending that “legislatures repeal state laws requiring the suspension of driving privileges for non-highway safety related violations” and citing research supporting view that fewer driver suspensions for non-compliance with court requirements would increase public safety). 10 The United States’ Statement of Interest in Varden is available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/02/13/varden statement_ of_interest.pdf. 11 See supra Statement of the United States, Varden, at 11 (citing Timothy R. Schnacke, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, FUNDAMENTALS OF BAIL: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR PRETRIAL PRACTITIONERS AND

A FRAMEWORK FOR AMERICAN PRETRIAL REFORM, at 2 (2014), available at http://nicic.gov/library/028360).

8

4-104 (2014); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 431.066 (2015); N.J. S. 946/A1910 (enacted 2015); see also18 U.S.C. § 3142 (permitting pretrial detention in the federal system when no conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and safety of the community, but cautioning that “[t]he judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person”).

7. Courts must safeguard against unconstitutional practices by court staff and private contractors.

In many courts, especially those adjudicating strictly minor or local offenses, the judge or magistrate may preside for only a few hours or days per week, while most of the business of the court is conducted by clerks or probation officers outside of court sessions. As a result, clerks and other court staff are sometimes tasked with conducting indigency inquiries, determining bond amounts, issuing arrest warrants, and other critical functions—often with only perfunctory review by a judicial officer, or no review at all. Without adequate judicial oversight, there is no reliable means of ensuring that these tasks are performed consistent with due process and equal protection. Regardless of the size of the docket or the limited hours of the court, judges must ensure that the law is followed and preserve “both the appearance and reality of fairness, generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also American Bar Association, MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 2, Rules 2.2, 2.5, 2.12.

Additional due process concerns arise when these designees have a direct pecuniary interest in the management or outcome of a case—for example, when a jurisdiction employs private, for-profit companies to supervise probationers. In many such jurisdictions, probation companies are authorized not only to collect court fines, but also to impose an array of discretionary surcharges (such as supervision fees, late fees, drug testing fees, etc.) to be paid to the company itself rather than to the court. Thus, the probation company that decides what services or sanctions to impose stands to profit from those very decisions. The Supreme Court has “always been sensitive to the possibility that important actors in the criminal justice system may be influenced by factors that threaten to compromise the performance of their duty.” Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 810 (1987). It has expressly prohibited arrangements in which the judge might have a pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the outcome of a case. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927) (invalidating conviction on the basis of $12 fee paid to the mayor only upon conviction in mayor’s court); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62 (1972) (extending reasoning of Tumey to cases in which the judge has a clear but not direct interest). It has applied the same reasoning to prosecutors, holding that the appointment of a private prosecutor with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case constitutes fundamental error because it “undermines confidence in the integrity of the criminal proceeding.” Young, 481 U.S. at 811-14. The appointment of a private probation company with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of its cases raises similarly fundamental concerns about fairness and due process.

* * * * *

9

The Department of Justice has a strong interest in ensuring that state and local courts provide every individual with the basic protections guaranteed by the Constitution and other federal laws, regardless of his or her financial means. We are eager to build on the December 2015 convening about these issues by supporting your efforts at the state and local levels, and we look forward to working collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure that every part of our justice system provides equal justice and due process.

Sincerely,

Vanita Gupta Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Lisa Foster Director Office for Access to Justice

3

general, it would be an unnecessary and unfair burden to prohibit judges from appearing before governmental bodies or consulting with government officials on matters that are likely to affect them as private citizens, such as zoning proposals affecting their real property. In engaging in such activities, however, judges must not refer to their judicial positions, and must otherwise exercise caution to avoid using the prestige of judicial office.

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:38 AM To: 'Jane Goodman' Subject: RE: Meeting with Council?

Very well.

Judge Byers

From: Jane Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM To: Judge Subject: Re: Meeting with Council?

Judge Byers,

Yes, but not only revenue, the focus is the difference between revenue and expense.

The question really is, if the fines and fees that come into the general fund via the court from people who break our laws go right back into the operating costs of the court, then it would appear that the city has neither a way to recover the expenses that the city bears to bring those people to justice (the police, building/housing personnel, prosecutors, etc.) nor a benefit.

In other words, it seems to many that the purpose of levying fines and fees is solely to support the operations of the court, with the city not only a bystander but also a contributor, insofar as we have to contribute additional monies from the general fund to cover the court’s operations.

It would be in your best interest to explain why we’re not better off moving to a consolidated court where the amount of fines and fees we would receive, and the expenses we would avoid by not having to cover the court’s facilities, would be considerably more than the share of the costs we’d pay for operating said court.

I think that that is the gist of the matter from a financial standpoint. Beyond that, the public, right or wrong, thinks that fines they pay for breaking the law go to the city whose laws they have broken, and not to the court system to adjudicate other people’s cases.

Be well,

Jane

From: Judge Byers <[email protected]> Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:55 PM To: Jane Goodman <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Meeting with Council?

4

President Goodman,

Thank you for the clarification. If I appreciate the context of your email and primary concern being raised here, the general heart of the February 8th discussion will be related to revenue production/generation by the court. If I also understand your inquiry properly, you desire for me to explain or defend the Court by providing the prior year’s financial records in advance. Correct?

Thank you,Judge Byers

From: Jane Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 12:25 PM To: Judge Subject: Re: Meeting with Council?

Dear Judge,

What we’re looking for is 2015 financials, as in revenue, expenses, what came into the city general fund and what went out of it for the court. As you know, a major issue that’s involved in the proposal to merge is the cost to the city of operating the court. So we need to see what that net cost was in 2015. The budget you attached only has expenses but not revenue, so there’s no way to estimate what revenues you expect to offset the expenses.

The discussion will focus on:

What it costs the city to continue to operate our own court; What the benefits are to our residents of having our own court; Why those benefits might not be provided were we to merge with a combined court; Why the change to your court schedule that requires the city to provide more prosecutor time. I’m also curious to learn why we’ve always been told during budget hearings that Council has no control over

expenses related to the court, especially compensation for employees of the court, when the Ohio revised code – 1901.33 – says they are to be paid compensation “that the legislative authority prescribes.” If you can enlighten us on that, I’d appreciate it.

Basically, this is your opportunity to make your case as to why our municipal court should not (or should) be merged with another court.

Jane

From: Judge Byers <[email protected]> Date: Monday, January 11, 2016 at 9:46 AM To: Jane Goodman <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Meeting with Council?

President Goodman,

5

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding this inquiry. I am available on Monday February 8th at 6:30pm. If I am correct in understanding your request for “financials,” I am attaching the 2016 proposed budget for the court. This is what the court has submitted to the finance director in preparation for the upcoming budget hearings.

With regard to your upcoming meeting, will you please provide me with the specific areas or questions that you would like to discuss. This will not only help to shape our conversation but will also provide me with enough context to ensure that any necessary supporting or explanatory documents are made available to council.

Thank you,Judge Byers

From: Jane Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 9:26 AM To: Judge Byers Subject: Meeting with Council?

Dear Judge Byers,

Are you available to come and meet with Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting before the January 25 full Council meeting, to talk with us about the resolution regarding merging municipal courts?

We have a Safety Committee meeting at 7:15 that evening, so if you could meet with us at 6:15, that would be good.

We need to hear from you, in person, as we consider this resolution. We’ll also be meeting with Mr. Lograsso, and the departments that would be affected by such a move (police, housing, etc.) and possibly with other judges in the area who administer combined courts. We need to have a better picture of the implications of such a merger.

If you’re not available on the 25th, please let me know if February 8 at 6:30 works better for you. We intend to complete our study of this by mid-March, so it’s important that we have your input early in the discussions.

It would also be helpful if we could have your financial information for 2015 as soon as possible. We’ll need it for our budget hearings anyway, so even rough numbers would help.

Thank you,

Jane

Jane GoodmanPresident, South Euclid City Council, Ward 4cell: 216-496-7694

Exhibit 2

South Euclid Final

Budget Resolutions

(1997-2018); 2019

Budget Resolution (3-

25-19)

Exhibit 3


Court Year-End

Summary Report

(1997-2018); Summary

Report for May 31,

2019

BFMEXPCY 2019/06/13 09:42:12 CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID 5.4.0 Page: 1

Expense Account CurYr Only

AS OF: 06/13/2019

STARTING ACCOUNT: 1017750 ENDING ACCOUNT: 10177509999999999

ACCOUNT Description Revised App. YTD Expense Unexpended Encumbrance Unencumbered % Remn

101-7750-52101 SALARIES & WAGES 184,210.00 145,976.99 38,233.01 0.00 38,233.01 20.76101-7750-52103 PART TIME 102,486.00 100,932.38 1,553.62 0.00 1,553.62 1.52101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 39,000.00 30,832.34 8,167.66 0.00 8,167.66 20.94101-7750-52160 HOSPITALIZATION 32,990.00 30,486.51 2,503.49 0.00 2,503.49 7.59101-7750-52162 INSURANCE 550.00 518.40 31.60 0.00 31.60 5.75101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 4,400.00 905.85 3,494.15 0.00 3,494.15 79.41TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 363,636.00 309,652.47 53,983.53 0.00 53,983.53 14.85

101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,000.00 2,978.04 21.96 0.00 21.96 .73101-7750-52342 LEADS 300.00 240.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 20.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,300.00 3,218.04 81.96 0.00 81.96 2.48

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 10,480.00 5,444.94 5,035.06 3,566.70 1,468.36 14.01101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,862.32 137.68 0.00 137.68 1.38101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,290.54 709.46 0.00 709.46 23.65101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 174.50 1,825.50 0.00 1,825.50 91.28TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,480.00 17,772.30 7,707.70 3,566.70 4,141.00 16.25

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 3,000.00 2,860.48 139.52 33.50 106.02 3.53101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 800.00 532.40 267.60 0.00 267.60 33.45101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 6,063.84 3,377.00 2,686.84 355.63 2,331.21 38.44101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,700.00 1,117.00 3,583.00 0.00 3,583.00 76.23101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 3,549.50 2,447.12 1,102.38 0.00 1,102.38 31.06101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,320.00 967.83 1,352.17 0.00 1,352.17 58.28TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,433.34 11,301.83 9,131.51 389.13 8,742.38 42.78

101-7750-52999 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 529 OTHER FINANCING SOUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00

TOTAL 7750 MUNICIPAL COURT 412,849.34 341,944.64 70,904.70 3,955.83 66,948.87 16.22

TOTAL 101 CASH ACCOUNT 412,849.34 341,944.64 70,904.70 3,955.83 66,948.87 16.22

TOTAL REPORT: 412,849.34 341,944.64 70,904.70 3,955.83 66,948.87

2000



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 SALARIES & WAGES 164,500.00 158,959.43 5,540.57 0.00 5,540.57 3.37101-7750-52103 PART TIME 117,500.00 102,105.94 15,394.06 0.00 15,394.06 13.10101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 541.91 1,458.09 0.00 1,458.09 72.90101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 39,000.00 31,689.74 7,310.26 0.00 7,310.26 18.74101-7750-52160 HOSPITALIZATION 32,048.00 28,258.28 3,789.72 0.00 3,789.72 11.83101-7750-52162 INSURANCE 550.00 524.80 25.20 0.00 25.20 4.58101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 4,350.00 3,693.57 656.43 0.00 656.43 15.09TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 359,948.00 325,773.67 34,174.33 0.00 34,174.33 9.49

101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,500.00 3,126.27 373.73 0.00 373.73 10.68101-7750-52342 LEADS 300.00 240.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 20.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,800.00 3,366.27 433.73 0.00 433.73 11.41

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 13,566.70 11,053.99 2,512.71 1,139.88 1,372.83 10.12101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,014.92 985.08 0.00 985.08 9.85101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,181.40 818.60 0.00 818.60 27.29101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 374.70 1,625.30 1,500.00 125.30 6.27TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 28,566.70 22,625.01 5,941.69 2,639.88 3,301.81 11.56

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,033.50 2,937.35 1,096.15 0.00 1,096.15 27.18101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 308.72 691.28 0.00 691.28 69.13101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 5,355.63 527.75 4,827.88 0.00 4,827.88 90.15101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 3,015.00 1,985.00 0.00 1,985.00 39.70101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 3,000.00 1,988.06 1,011.94 1,000.00 11.94 .40101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,000.00 1,266.07 733.93 22.10 711.83 35.59TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,389.13 10,042.95 10,346.18 1,022.10 9,324.08 45.73




TOTAL REPORT: 412,703.83 361,807.90 50,895.93 3,661.98 47,233.95

2001



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 SALARIES & WAGES 168,000.00 159,607.48 8,392.52 0.00 8,392.52 5.00101-7750-52103 PART TIME 128,230.00 101,855.33 26,374.67 0.00 26,374.67 20.57101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 3,000.00 237.44 2,762.56 0.00 2,762.56 92.09101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 40,600.00 35,413.71 5,186.29 0.00 5,186.29 12.77101-7750-52160 HOSPITALIZATION 38,000.00 34,018.70 3,981.30 0.00 3,981.30 10.48101-7750-52162 INSURANCE 750.00 716.80 33.20 0.00 33.20 4.43101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 5,450.00 1,181.58 4,268.42 0.00 4,268.42 78.32TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 384,030.00 333,031.04 50,998.96 0.00 50,998.96 13.28


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 11,139.88 4,718.25 6,421.63 2,892.50 3,529.13 31.68101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,727.68 272.32 0.00 272.32 2.72101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 2,900.00 1,941.80 958.20 0.00 958.20 33.04101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 3,500.00 1,821.76 1,678.24 0.00 1,678.24 47.95TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,539.88 18,209.49 9,330.39 2,892.50 6,437.89 23.38

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 2,189.85 1,810.15 0.00 1,810.15 45.25101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 317.28 682.72 0.00 682.72 68.27101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,000.00 186.00 2,814.00 0.00 2,814.00 93.80101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 2,922.00 1,078.00 0.00 1,078.00 26.95101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 4,800.00 2,183.32 2,616.68 2,169.80 446.88 9.31101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,322.10 2,057.51 264.59 204.26 60.33 2.60TOTAL 527 OTHER 19,122.10 9,855.96 9,266.14 2,374.06 6,892.08 36.04

101-7750-52999 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTIN 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00TOTAL 529 OTHER FINANCING SOUR 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00



TOTAL REPORT: 436,491.98 364,271.76 72,220.22 5,266.56 66,953.66

2002



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 12,892.50 11,831.71 1,060.79 789.36 271.43 2.11101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 8,921.56 1,078.44 0.00 1,078.44 10.78101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,100.00 2,983.37 116.63 87.00 29.63 .96101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 761.00 1,239.00 0.00 1,239.00 61.95TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,992.50 24,497.64 3,494.86 876.36 2,618.50 9.35

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,300.00 4,222.72 77.28 0.00 77.28 1.80101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 778.29 221.71 0.00 221.71 22.17101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,100.00 147.15 2,952.85 0.00 2,952.85 95.25101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 3,918.00 82.00 0.00 82.00 2.05101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 5,169.80 4,009.80 1,160.00 0.00 1,160.00 22.44101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,704.26 2,569.20 135.06 12.50 122.56 4.53TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,274.06 15,645.16 4,628.90 12.50 4,616.40 22.77


TOTAL 7750 MUNICIPAL COURT 503,116.56 440,789.94 62,326.62 888.86 61,437.76 12.21

TOTAL 101 CASH ACCOUNT 503,116.56 440,789.94 62,326.62 888.86 61,437.76 12.21

TOTAL REPORT: 503,116.56 440,789.94 62,326.62 888.86 61,437.76

2003



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 8,789.36 6,612.59 2,176.77 168.63 2,008.14 22.85101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 13,000.00 12,773.39 226.61 0.00 226.61 1.74101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,337.00 2,798.95 538.05 298.50 239.55 7.18101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 656.69 343.31 0.00 343.31 34.33TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 26,126.36 22,841.62 3,284.74 467.13 2,817.61 10.78

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 3,473.50 526.50 0.00 526.50 13.16101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 649.56 350.44 0.00 350.44 35.04101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,250.00 804.00 2,446.00 0.00 2,446.00 75.26101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 4,315.00 685.00 310.00 375.00 7.50101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,512.50 759.87 1,752.63 38.36 1,714.27 68.23TOTAL 527 OTHER 17,762.50 10,001.93 7,760.57 348.36 7,412.21 41.73




TOTAL REPORT: 498,148.86 427,048.61 71,100.25 938.69 70,161.56

2004



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 6,168.63 5,786.19 382.44 108.48 273.96 4.44101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 15,000.00 14,518.26 481.74 0.00 481.74 3.21101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,798.50 3,026.80 771.70 0.00 771.70 20.32101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 315.95 684.05 0.00 684.05 68.41TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,967.13 23,647.20 2,319.93 108.48 2,211.45 8.52

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 2,142.98 1,857.02 50.00 1,807.02 45.18101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 464.40 535.60 0.00 535.60 53.56101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,310.00 3,991.00 1,319.00 0.00 1,319.00 24.84101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 99.99 900.01 0.00 900.01 90.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,538.36 538.77 1,999.59 0.00 1,999.59 78.77TOTAL 527 OTHER 13,848.36 7,237.14 6,611.22 50.00 6,561.22 47.38




TOTAL REPORT: 468,946.69 422,090.45 46,856.24 158.48 46,697.76

2005



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 8,108.48 3,680.26 4,428.22 3,916.48 511.74 6.31101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 14,000.00 13,743.01 256.99 0.00 256.99 1.84101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,924.30 75.70 0.00 75.70 2.52101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 386.88 613.12 0.00 613.12 61.31TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 26,108.48 20,734.45 5,374.03 3,916.48 1,457.55 5.58

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 3,050.00 2,908.50 141.50 50.00 91.50 3.00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 686.72 313.28 0.00 313.28 31.33101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 5,526.89 473.11 280.00 193.11 3.22101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 99.99- 1,099.99 0.00 1,099.99 110.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,000.00 736.71 1,263.29 0.00 1,263.29 63.16TOTAL 527 OTHER 13,050.00 9,758.83 3,291.17 330.00 2,961.17 22.69




TOTAL REPORT: 490,466.48 442,885.47 47,581.01 4,246.48 43,334.53

2006



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 206,500.00 205,556.51 943.49 0.00 943.49 .46101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 126,500.00 111,855.67 14,644.33 0.00 14,644.33 11.58101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 231.38 1,768.62 0.00 1,768.62 88.43101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 46,500.00 44,119.60 2,380.40 0.00 2,380.40 5.12101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 2,800.00 2,792.35 7.65 0.00 7.65 .27101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 63,000.00 59,436.53 3,563.47 0.00 3,563.47 5.66101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 650.00 480.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 26.15101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,100.00 6,918.90 2,181.10 0.00 2,181.10 23.97TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 457,050.00 431,390.94 25,659.06 0.00 25,659.06 5.61

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 400.00 308.99 91.01 0.00 91.01 22.75101-7750-52310 COPIER LEASE 2,700.00 2,244.07 455.93 0.00 455.93 16.89101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 205.00 149.50 55.50 55.50 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,500.00 2,958.65 541.35 0.00 541.35 15.47101-7750-52342 LEADS 500.00 120.00 380.00 0.00 380.00 76.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,305.00 5,781.21 1,523.79 55.50 1,468.29 20.10

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,000.00 7,638.47 361.53 59.46 302.07 3.78101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 15,000.00 14,541.59 458.41 0.00 458.41 3.06101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,800.00 3,730.89 69.11 0.00 69.11 1.82101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 1,000.00 240.95 759.05 0.00 759.05 75.91TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,800.00 26,151.90 1,648.10 59.46 1,588.64 5.71

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES / MEETIN 1,100.00 865.00 235.00 0.00 235.00 21.36101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,900.00 1,473.90 426.10 0.00 426.10 22.43101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 395.34 604.66 0.00 604.66 60.47101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 2,561.00 3,439.00 0.00 3,439.00 57.32101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 900.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 100.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 495.00 345.17 149.83 0.00 149.83 30.27TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,395.00 5,640.41 5,754.59 0.00 5,754.59 50.50




TOTAL REPORT: 503,550.00 468,964.46 34,585.54 114.96 34,470.58

2007



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 228,000.00 210,913.28 17,086.72 0.00 17,086.72 7.49101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 131,000.00 113,800.57 17,199.43 0.00 17,199.43 13.13101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 88.03 1,911.97 0.00 1,911.97 95.60101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 58,000.00 53,574.69 4,425.31 0.00 4,425.31 7.63101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,235.00 4,547.30 687.70 0.00 687.70 13.14101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 70,000.00 68,358.75 1,641.25 0.00 1,641.25 2.34101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 620.00 432.00 188.00 0.00 188.00 30.32101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,650.00 6,660.61 989.39 0.00 989.39 12.93TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 502,505.00 458,375.23 44,129.77 0.00 44,129.77 8.78

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 500.00 476.87 23.13 0.00 23.13 4.63101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 3,700.00 3,446.29 253.71 0.00 253.71 6.86101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 550.00 493.65 56.35 40.00 16.35 2.97101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 2,200.00 1,871.00 329.00 0.00 329.00 14.95101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,550.00 6,887.81 662.19 40.00 622.19 8.24

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9,700.00 9,644.80 55.20 0.00 55.20 .57101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 16,600.00 16,428.19 171.81 0.00 171.81 1.04101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 4,000.00 3,789.63 210.37 0.00 210.37 5.26101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 1,300.00 1,194.47 105.53 0.00 105.53 8.12TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,600.00 31,057.09 542.91 0.00 542.91 1.72

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,033.87 466.13 0.00 466.13 31.08101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,450.00 1,135.00 315.00 0.00 315.00 21.72101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 161.58 838.42 0.00 838.42 83.84101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 3,762.00 2,238.00 97.00 2,141.00 35.68101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 10,150.00 6,092.45 4,057.55 97.00 3,960.55 39.02

101-7750-52999 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 529 OTHER FINANCING SOUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00



TOTAL REPORT: 551,805.00 502,412.58 49,392.42 137.00 49,255.42

2008



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 242,145.00 241,595.12 549.88 0.00 549.88 .23101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 117,100.00 113,329.06 3,770.94 0.00 3,770.94 3.22101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 49,600.00 49,519.44 80.56 0.00 80.56 .16101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,319.00 5,007.74 311.26 0.00 311.26 5.85101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 74,600.00 73,992.38 607.62 0.00 607.62 .81101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 614.00 457.60 156.40 0.00 156.40 25.47101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 5,700.00 5,612.57 87.43 0.00 87.43 1.53TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 496,078.00 489,513.91 6,564.09 0.00 6,564.09 1.32


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10,000.00 9,752.97 247.03 0.00 247.03 2.47101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 20,500.00 20,302.47 197.53 0.00 197.53 .96101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 4,612.19 387.81 128.46 259.35 5.19101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 36,000.00 34,667.63 1,332.37 128.46 1,203.91 3.34

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,000.00 1,686.68 313.32 0.00 313.32 15.67101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,110.00 390.00 0.00 390.00 26.00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 210.65 789.35 0.00 789.35 78.94101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 4,844.00 1,156.00 221.00 935.00 15.58101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,000.00 7,851.33 3,148.67 221.00 2,927.67 26.62




TOTAL REPORT: 549,678.00 537,899.48 11,778.52 391.74 11,386.78

2009



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 244,058.00 243,720.66 337.34 0.00 337.34 .14101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 131,000.00 112,788.24 18,211.76 0.00 18,211.76 13.90101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 1,900.00 32.25 1,867.75 0.00 1,867.75 98.30101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 52,788.00 48,186.82 4,601.18 0.00 4,601.18 8.72101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,467.00 5,044.55 422.45 0.00 422.45 7.73101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 84,432.00 83,022.78 1,409.22 0.00 1,409.22 1.67101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 938.00 853.40 84.60 0.00 84.60 9.02101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,541.00 5,925.16 1,615.84 0.00 1,615.84 21.43TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 528,124.00 499,573.86 28,550.14 0.00 28,550.14 5.41

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 600.00 509.53 90.47 0.00 90.47 15.08101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 750.00 655.35 94.65 58.67 35.98 4.80101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 2,500.00 1,847.00 653.00 0.00 653.00 26.12101-7750-52342 LEADS 900.00 450.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 50.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,750.00 3,461.88 1,288.12 58.67 1,229.45 25.88

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11,800.00 2,358.52 9,441.48 5,940.94 3,500.54 29.67101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 22,000.00 19,020.94 2,979.06 0.00 2,979.06 13.54101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 4,112.86 887.14 0.00 887.14 17.74101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 40,800.00 25,492.32 15,307.68 5,940.94 9,366.74 22.96

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,550.00 1,491.00 59.00 50.00 9.00 .58101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,299.49 200.51 0.00 200.51 13.37101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 380.50 619.50 0.00 619.50 61.95101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 1,873.50 4,126.50 0.00 4,126.50 68.78101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 65.00 935.00 0.00 935.00 93.50TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,050.00 5,109.49 5,940.51 50.00 5,890.51 53.31




TOTAL REPORT: 584,724.00 533,637.55 51,086.45 6,049.61 45,036.84

2010



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 244,545.00 244,183.61 361.39 0.00 361.39 .15101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 121,600.00 110,824.62 10,775.38 0.00 10,775.38 8.86101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 44.72 1,955.28 0.00 1,955.28 97.76101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 53,696.00 49,526.11 4,169.89 0.00 4,169.89 7.77101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,561.00 4,988.77 572.23 0.00 572.23 10.29101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 104,512.00 104,037.16 474.84 0.00 474.84 .45101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 571.00 530.40 40.60 0.00 40.60 7.11101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,589.00 7,162.30 2,426.70 0.00 2,426.70 25.31TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 542,074.00 521,297.69 20,776.31 0.00 20,776.31 3.83

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 650.00 524.75 125.25 0.00 125.25 19.27101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 1,000.00 863.29 136.71 2.28 134.43 13.44101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,000.00 1,838.00 1,162.00 0.00 1,162.00 38.73101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 450.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 25.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,250.00 3,676.04 1,573.96 2.28 1,571.68 29.94

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11,750.00 9,324.15 2,425.85 209.26 2,216.59 18.86101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 22,000.00 16,322.09 5,677.91 0.00 5,677.91 25.81101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 3,181.45 1,818.55 451.00 1,367.55 27.35101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 40,750.00 28,827.69 11,922.31 660.26 11,262.05 27.64

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,000.00 1,012.47 987.53 0.00 987.53 49.38101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,000.00 325.00 1,675.00 0.00 1,675.00 83.75101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 357.75 642.25 0.00 642.25 64.23101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 1,577.50 3,422.50 0.00 3,422.50 68.45101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,000.00 3,272.72 7,727.28 0.00 7,727.28 70.25




TOTAL REPORT: 599,074.00 557,074.14 41,999.86 662.54 41,337.32

2011



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 347,173.93 343,460.65 3,713.28 0.00 3,713.28 1.07101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 105,876.07 105,876.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 200.00 158.19 41.81 0.00 41.81 20.91101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 18,970.00 15,728.58 3,241.42 0.00 3,241.42 17.09101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 62,778.00 59,261.69 3,516.31 0.00 3,516.31 5.60101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 6,529.00 6,432.17 96.83 0.00 96.83 1.48101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 107,844.00 82,030.68 25,813.32 0.00 25,813.32 23.94101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 800.00 591.60 208.40 0.00 208.40 26.05101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 10,730.00 6,883.09 3,846.91 0.00 3,846.91 35.85101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 50,000.00 16,504.28 33,495.72 7,854.08 25,641.64 51.28TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 710,901.00 636,927.00 73,974.00 7,854.08 66,119.92 9.30

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 998.56 998.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 365.27 365.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 731.45 356.20 375.25 0.00 375.25 51.30101-7750-52333 DRUG SCREENING 100.00 78.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.00101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,795.28 2,398.03 397.25 0.00 397.25 14.21

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,800.00 8,520.61 279.39 251.95 27.44 .31101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 19,000.00 16,371.99 2,628.01 2,610.00 18.01 .09101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 3,500.00 3,140.65 359.35 0.00 359.35 10.27101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 4,000.00 3,850.18 149.82 134.52 15.30 .38101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 104.72 0.00 104.72 0.00 104.72 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 35,404.72 31,883.43 3,521.29 2,996.47 524.82 1.48

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 6,487.33 6,398.68 88.65 0.00 88.65 1.37101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 841.67 841.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 750.00 734.06 15.94 0.00 15.94 2.13101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 2,588.00 1,412.00 0.00 1,412.00 35.30101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 6,804.00 6,619.83 184.17 184.17 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 18,883.00 17,182.24 1,700.76 184.17 1,516.59 8.03




TOTAL REPORT: 767,984.00 688,390.70 79,593.30 11,034.72 68,558.58

2012



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 346,548.95 346,548.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 34,343.52 34,343.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 54,012.59 54,012.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,408.21 5,408.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 95,817.73 90,679.40 5,138.33 0.00 5,138.33 5.36101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 829.60 20.40 0.00 20.40 2.40101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,341.00 8,887.58 453.42 0.00 453.42 4.85101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 12,000.00 4,756.97 7,243.03 2,332.85 4,910.18 40.92TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 558,322.00 545,466.82 12,855.18 2,332.85 10,522.33 1.88

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 900.00 550.14 349.86 0.00 349.86 38.87101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 359.03 359.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52333 DRUG SCREENING 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,959.03 1,509.17 449.86 0.00 449.86 22.96

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6,470.79 4,672.79 1,798.00 673.97 1,124.03 17.37101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,704.44 16,704.44 8,000.00 8,000.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,375.23 21,377.23 9,998.00 8,673.97 1,324.03 4.22

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,124.94 375.06 141.24 233.82 15.59101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,000.00 560.63 439.37 0.00 439.37 43.94101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,270.00 1,270.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,554.93 445.07 0.00 445.07 22.25101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 20,000.00 16,056.40 3,943.60 0.00 3,943.60 19.72101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 14,270.00 14,270.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 2,195.74 1,149.48 1,046.26 0.00 1,046.26 47.65TOTAL 527 OTHER 42,235.74 35,986.38 6,249.36 141.24 6,108.12 14.46




TOTAL REPORT: 633,892.00 604,339.60 29,552.40 11,148.06 18,404.34

2013



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 348,400.00 336,743.39 11,656.61 0.00 11,656.61 3.35101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 75,818.00 51,267.95 24,550.05 0.00 24,550.05 32.38101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 60,013.00 53,386.09 6,626.91 0.00 6,626.91 11.04101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 6,216.00 5,523.72 692.28 0.00 692.28 11.14101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 100,831.00 96,051.02 4,779.98 0.00 4,779.98 4.74101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 816.00 816.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 10,717.00 8,217.03 2,499.97 0.00 2,499.97 23.33101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 100.00TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 614,811.00 552,005.20 62,805.80 0.00 62,805.80 10.22


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,000.00 6,475.72 524.28 0.00 524.28 7.49101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 18,000.00 15,453.48 2,546.52 0.00 2,546.52 14.15101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,200.00 21,929.20 3,270.80 0.00 3,270.80 12.98

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 795.37 704.63 40.00 664.63 44.31101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,000.00 925.00 75.00 50.00- 125.00 12.50101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,050.00 1,050.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,588.62 411.38 0.00 411.38 20.57101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 21,000.00 17,406.11 3,593.89 725.00 2,868.89 13.66101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 2,950.00 2,391.32 558.68 0.00 558.68 18.94TOTAL 527 OTHER 29,500.00 24,156.42 5,343.58 715.00 4,628.58 15.69




TOTAL REPORT: 671,111.00 599,329.41 71,781.59 715.00 71,066.59

2014



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 322,065.00 304,997.99 17,067.01 0.00 17,067.01 5.30101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 105,576.00 77,292.93 28,283.07 0.00 28,283.07 26.79101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 5,093.43 5,093.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 65,000.00 52,753.69 12,246.31 0.00 12,246.31 18.84101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 5,706.18 1,793.82 0.00 1,793.82 23.92101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 78,960.00 69,723.93 9,236.07 0.00 9,236.07 11.70101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 727.60 122.40 0.00 122.40 14.40101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 11,000.00 8,259.37 2,740.63 0.00 2,740.63 24.91101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 18,863.57 10,455.74 8,407.83 412.26 7,995.57 42.39TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 614,908.00 535,010.86 79,897.14 412.26 79,484.88 12.93

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 800.00 429.06 370.94 0.00 370.94 46.37101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52333 DRUG SCREENING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 1,029.06 370.94 0.00 370.94 26.50

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,400.00 6,195.40 1,204.60 738.56 466.04 6.30101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 9,881.55 14,118.45 14,118.45 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,400.00 16,076.95 15,323.05 14,857.01 466.04 1.48

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,400.00 1,307.56 92.44 25.00 67.44 4.82101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,360.00 557.90 802.10 50.00- 852.10 62.65101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,468.00 1,467.45 0.55 0.00 0.55 .04101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,383.42 616.58 0.00 616.58 30.83101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 20,000.00 18,183.99 1,816.01 0.00 1,816.01 9.08101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 272.00 264.18 7.82 0.00 7.82 2.88TOTAL 527 OTHER 26,500.00 23,164.50 3,335.50 25.00- 3,360.50 12.68




TOTAL REPORT: 674,208.00 575,281.37 98,926.63 15,244.27 83,682.36

2015



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 312,390.00 297,088.27 15,301.73 0.00 15,301.73 4.90101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 82,035.00 78,654.14 3,380.86 0.00 3,380.86 4.12101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 65,000.00 52,654.71 12,345.29 0.00 12,345.29 18.99101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 5,587.75 1,912.25 0.00 1,912.25 25.50101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 89,284.00 88,239.34 1,044.66 0.00 1,044.66 1.17101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 748.00 102.00 0.00 102.00 12.00101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 11,000.00 7,044.52 3,955.48 0.00 3,955.48 35.96101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 100.00TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 575,559.00 530,016.73 45,542.27 0.00 45,542.27 7.91


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,000.00 4,608.09 2,391.91 1,064.24 1,327.67 18.97101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 12,403.52 11,596.48 11,591.95 4.53 .02101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 300.00 225.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 25.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,300.00 17,236.61 14,063.39 12,656.19 1,407.20 4.50

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,500.00 1,497.58 2.42 50.00- 52.42 3.49101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,467.01 32.99 0.00 32.99 2.20101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,575.36 424.64 350.40 74.24 3.71101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 23,944.00 20,042.67 3,901.33 0.00 3,901.33 16.29101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,056.00 587.50 468.50 0.00 468.50 44.37TOTAL 527 OTHER 31,500.00 26,670.12 4,829.88 300.40 4,529.48 14.38




TOTAL REPORT: 639,859.00 574,924.09 64,934.91 12,956.59 51,978.32

2016



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 365,307.00 358,547.59 6,759.41 0.00 6,759.41 1.85101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 95,935.00 83,308.99 12,626.01 0.00 12,626.01 13.16101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 63,874.00 59,216.57 4,657.43 0.00 4,657.43 7.29101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 9,197.00 6,488.10 2,708.90 0.00 2,708.90 29.45101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 76,892.00 66,365.36 10,526.64 0.00 10,526.64 13.69101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 900.00 768.40 131.60 0.00 131.60 14.62101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,125.00 7,805.14 1,319.86 0.00 1,319.86 14.46101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 20,000.00 15,289.58 4,710.42 4,080.42 630.00 3.15TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 641,230.00 597,789.73 43,440.27 4,080.42 39,359.85 6.14


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,318.80 4,544.25 2,774.55 517.01 2,257.54 30.85101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 18,689.71 5,310.29 5,310.29 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,318.80 23,233.96 8,084.84 5,827.30 2,257.54 7.21

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,500.00 2,478.56 21.44 0.00 21.44 .86101-7750-52704 TRAINING 2,385.00 1,376.00 1,009.00 50.00- 1,059.00 44.40101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,115.00 2,115.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 872.68 1,127.32 0.00 1,127.32 56.37101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 25,000.00 8,279.25 16,720.75 0.00 16,720.75 66.88101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 181.20 181.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 34,181.20 15,302.69 18,878.51 50.00- 18,928.51 55.38




TOTAL REPORT: 708,230.00 637,541.79 70,688.21 9,857.72 60,830.49

2017



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 344,846.00 316,521.28 28,324.72 0.00 28,324.72 8.21101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 107,309.00 90,499.75 16,809.25 0.00 16,809.25 15.66101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 71,520.00 56,090.71 15,429.29 0.00 15,429.29 21.57101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 6,495.30 1,004.70 0.00 1,004.70 13.40101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 99,624.00 77,701.39 21,922.61 0.00 21,922.61 22.01101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 900.00 802.40 97.60 0.00 97.60 10.84101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,760.00 6,319.64 1,440.36 0.00 1,440.36 18.56101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 5,000.00 2,010.51 2,989.49 0.00 2,989.49 59.79TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 644,459.00 556,440.98 88,018.02 0.00 88,018.02 13.66


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,500.00 8,054.85 445.15 425.56 19.59 .23101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 30,000.00 16,240.77 13,759.23 3,759.23 10,000.00 33.33101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 38,500.00 24,295.62 14,204.38 4,184.79 10,019.59 26.02

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 8,000.00 6,150.09 1,849.91 700.00 1,149.91 14.37101-7750-52704 TRAINING 3,000.00 2,848.84 151.16 91.45 59.71 1.99101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,500.00 855.00 1,645.00 0.00 1,645.00 65.80101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 3,000.00 2,388.42 611.58 0.00 611.58 20.39101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 7,500.00 6,515.25 984.75 250.00 734.75 9.80101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 24,000.00 18,757.60 5,242.40 1,041.45 4,200.95 17.50




TOTAL REPORT: 708,459.00 600,788.65 107,670.35 5,226.24 102,444.11

2018

��

�!" #$ %&&'(#)�(*�*�#+,

%��-��

��%.��/0%��/��/��/0%��/��1111111111111111

%��/�� $&*2")2'#. 32$ 4%""��!" #$ �# !" #4 4�#&(56*�#& �# #&(56 * 47. 5#

��8��8��9%0��8��: ��:� -��:-�� :-�� 8��8��-9%0��%.��.��:� ��:��:��:��8��8��;�.��8��8��<��%;��%��8��8��.��-:��-�:��:��-��:��-��-��8��8��-��%.��:��-:��: ��: ��-��8��8�� = �+)=&�* '")'()8��

2019 (through 5/31/2019)

��

�!" #$ %&&'(#)�(*�*�#+,

%��-��

��%.��/0%��/��/��/0%��/��1111111111111111

%��/�� $&*2")2'#. 32$ 4%""��!" #$ �# !" #4 4�#&(56*�#& �# #&(56 * 47. 5#

��8��8��%��/��.%/��:�-��-�:�-��-:��-��-:��-��--��8��8��/��.%/�� 8��8��-9�.<�.��/�%��/�:��:��8��8��8��8��/��/��/��:��:��:��%��.��/%��.;��-:�-�� :-��- ��:��-��:��-��

��8��8�-��/��8��8�-��.��/��8��8�-��/��%0�.��8��8�-��.;��/�.%��8��8�---�.�0��.��/�/0��8��8�-��%��%��-��/�.%��%��.;��:��:��:��

��8��8��:��-:��-:��-��-:-��-��8��8��%0�-�:�� :��:�-��:�-��8��8��./��.�@��.��8��8��.%.��8��8��'" *�)2#�$(""+2 $84��8��8��-��%��@�A��%��%��.�%��@��-�:��:��--�:��:��-:-��-��

��8��8��-��/��.�/��/0�-:��: �� :��-�� 8��8��.%�/�/0-:��:�� -��-��8��8��.��:��:��:��:��-��8��8��%0�:��:�� 8��8��H(*,@E2)# $$I $8��8��8��/��0�/��0%��/��:��:��: -��: -�� 8��8�� .��/��%.<�/0��8��8��-�A��/��8��8��.�A��/��8��8�� %/��%��.�:��: ��:� �� :� ��-��

��8��8� ��%/��%�� .��/%/��/0��.��

��%��/��%��.��-�:�-��-� :��-��:-��: �� :- ��-�

Exhibit 4



for 2018

Exhibit 5



for 2019

Exhibit 6



Discretionary Funds

1







Mayor Welo,






Dear Judge Byers,




2


MEDICARE Medicare










3






Chardale P. Sumpter

Clerk of Court



Exhibit 7

Email regarding

impending 2019

budget cut

1

From: Judge [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 12:23 PM To: 'Keith Benjamin'; '[email protected]' Cc: 'Dennis Fiorelli'; 'Joe Frank'; 'Sara Continenza'; 'Jane Goodman'; 'Ruth Gray'; 'marty gelfand'; 'Jason Russell' Subject: RE: Budget Modifications Importance: High

Clerk Benjamin and Councilmembers,

Without addressing the propriety of adjusting the Court’s budget without inviting me to take part in the discussion, I first want to make sure I understand what is being said with this sentence “Reduce Municipal Court by $296,190. (2019 budget should be 3% higher than 2018 actual)”

Are you saying that the Court’s actual expenditures in 2018 were significantly less that the $708,459 that was approved for 2018, and that you have increased the actual amount spent by the Court in 2018 by 3% to come up with a 2019 budget of $624,195.00?

Respectfully, Judge Williams-Byers

From: Keith Benjamin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:01 PM To: Judge; [email protected] Cc: Dennis Fiorelli; Joe Frank; Sara Continenza; Jane Goodman; Ruth Gray; marty gelfand; Jason Russell Subject: Fwd: Budget Modifications

Dear Judge:

2

As Clerk of Council I am writing regarding items of discussion that took place regarding the 2019 Budget at the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting held Monday, March 18, 2019 at 7 pm. Council President Fiorelli has requested that I forward you the email below regarding revisions to the City and Municipal Court Budget for 2019. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Respectfully, Keith

keith ari benjaminthe city of south [email protected] ext. 234

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Russell <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 8:42 PM Subject: Budget Modifications To: Georgine Welo <[email protected]>, Brenda Wendt <[email protected]>, Keith Benjamin <[email protected]> Cc: Jane Goodman <[email protected]>, Joe Frank <[email protected]>, Ruth Gray <[email protected]>, Dennis Fiorelli <[email protected]>, Marty Gelfand <[email protected]>, Sara Continenza <[email protected]>

Dear Mayor and Finance Director,

City Council met tonight and made the following changes to the 2019 budget. These changes should be reflected in the ordinance for our agenda on Monday.

Reduce Police budget by $300,000 to reflect not hiring 3 officers in 2019. Reduce Municipal Court by $296,190. (2019 budget should be 3% higher than 2018 actual) Remove Transfer in from Fund 511 - ($94,000)

Add $60,000 to economic development Add $634,000 to Fund 408

Thank you,

Jason

Exhibit 8


Court Order of March

25, 2019

Exhibit 9

Correspondence of

May 10, 2016

OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR

65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431 CHIEF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR MAUREEN O’CONNOR MICHAEL L. BUENGER JUSTICES DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR PAUL E. PFEIFER MINDI L. WELLS TERRENCE O’DONNELL JUDITH ANN LANZINGER

SHARON L. KENNEDY TELEPHONE 614.387.9500 JUDITH L. FRENCH FACSIMILE 614.387.9509 WILLIAM M. O’NEILL www.supremecourt.ohio.gov

May 10, 2016 Keith Ari Benjamin Clerk of Council City of South Euclid 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121-3985 The Honorable Jane Goodman President South Euclid City Council 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, Ohio 44121-3985 Re: City of South Euclid Resolution 45-15 Dear Mr. Benjamin and President Goodman: Your April 28, 2016, letter regarding the above matter sent to Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor has been forwarded to me for review and a response. In the attached resolution, the City Council of South Euclid formally requests the Supreme Court’s assistance in achieving a merger of the South Euclid Municipal Court with a neighboring municipal court. This letter outlines the process that the Supreme Court generally follows when asked to comment upon court reorganization matters involving creating a new court or expanding, eliminating or consolidating an existing courts. Under the Constitution, the final decision on such matters rests with the Ohio General Assembly. The General Assembly traditionally seeks the input of the Supreme Court when it is assessing the efficacy of a specific proposal to enact legislation impacting the existence or organizational structure of a court. Upon receiving such a request, Supreme Court staff will undertake a detailed examination of the proposal by reviewing and analyzing a variety of information regarding the court. A central aspect of that examination includes an assessment of

the level of support for the proposal by the judge or judges who hold office in the court, as well as the support of the court’s justice system partners including its local funding authorities, the local bar, and other practitioners. Additionally, in the case of a consolidation resulting in the elimination of a court with its caseload obligations being transferred to another court, the assessment must, of necessity, include an analysis of the impact on the remaining court. Therefore, before the Supreme Court staff can begin its work, should the General Assembly so request, it is vital to understand which court or courts are being considered for consolidation. As I am sure you can understand, absent that detail it is near impossible for the Supreme Court to undertake any meaningful review of a proposal. With regards to Resolution 45-15, it is important for us to know which court would receive the caseload of the South Euclid Municipal Court and whether officials in that court and municipality agree with the consolidation. Again, absent such information we cannot undertake any meaningful review. Enclosed is a copy of the Supreme Court’s Procedures for Reviewing Proposals to Create, Consolidate, Configure, and Eliminate Courts and Judgeships. As noted within that document, the Supreme Court’s preference is that proposals either originate from the judges of the local courts or otherwise with their full consent. The resolution does not indicate whether Judge Gayle Williams-Byers of the South Euclid Municipal Court supports the proposal. Cuyahoga County, with its 13 municipal courts, has the distinction in Ohio of having the greatest number of municipal courts within the county. By way of comparison, Franklin County and Hamilton County each have a single municipal court with countywide jurisdiction. The City of South Euclid is contiguous with municipalities with their own municipal courts: Cleveland Municipal Court, Cleveland Heights Municipal Court, Euclid Municipal Court, Lyndhurst Municipal Court, and Shaker Heights Municipal Court. The Supreme Court is best positioned to provide a thoughtful and reasoned analysis when presented with a proposal containing more specificity. If the City Council of South Euclid has in mind which of these courts would be a candidate for a merger, we would appreciate that information. Because a consolidation would have a direct impact on the caseloads, operations, and budget requirements of another court, it is also vital that we understand the extent to which that court’s judge (or judges) and its justice system partners, including its funding authorities, are in support of a merger. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully,

Michael L. Buenger Administrative Director MLB:slm Enclosure





COURT, et al.,

Relators

vs.

THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID, et al.,

Respondents

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case No. _____________________

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARDALE SUMPTER

MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP Counsel of Record for Relators

GEORGE D. JONSON (0027124) 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, Ohio 44145 Tel: (513) 241-4722 Fax: (513) 768-9220 [email protected]

KIMBERLY V. RILEY (0068187) 14701 Detroit Ave., Ste. 555 Cleveland, Ohio 44107 Tel: (216) 221-4722 Fax: (513) 768-9205 [email protected]

CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID Respondent South Euclid Municipal Complex 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, OH 44121

MEMBERS OF SOUTH EUCLID CITY COUNCIL: DENNIS FIORELLI, JOSEPH FRANK, RUTH GRAY, JANE GOODMAN, SARA CONTINENZA, MARTIN GELFAND, AND JOHN OR JANE DOE COUNCIL MEMBER Respondents South Euclid Municipal Complex 1349 South Green Road South Euclid, OH 44121

1

Affidavit of Chardale Sumpter

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) )

STATE OF OHIO )

Chardale Sumpter, being first duly cautioned and sworn, states as follows:

1. I am submitting this affidavit, based on personal knowledge. I am competent to testify to

all matters stated in this affidavit.

2. I am the Clerk of the South Euclid Municipal Court (“Court”), and I have held that position

since September 1, 2015. My employment with the Court began on October 1, 2014.

3. As the Court’s Clerk, I am familiar with the Court’s reasonable and necessary funding

needs, especially as it pertains to the needs of the Clerk’s Office.

Proposed Budgets

4. The Court’s proposed budgets and its practice in obtaining appropriations from its funding

authority—the City of South Euclid—have been the same since the beginning of my tenure.

5. In every budget year (which spans from January 1 – December 31), the Court submits a

proposed budget to the City Finance Director, to be shared with City Council, in anticipation of

City Council’s budget hearings.

6. The Court’s budgets all follow the same format: The proposed budget is broken into two

primary sections that parallel the two ultimate categories of appropriations in the City’s annual

budget resolution: The first figure is for the Court’s “Personal Services,” which later appear in the

ultimate budget resolution as “Personal Services,” and the second figure is for its

“Materials/Supplies/Services, which later appear in the ultimate budget resolution as “Other

Charges.” These two main categories are added to comprise the total appropriation for that year.

2

7. In the Court’s proposed budgets, it provides details about the following sub-categories

within each of the two main categories:

A. Personal Services Budget – The Court’s Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe Benefits

portion of the budget are combined to form a single “Personal Services Budget.” This

figure comprises the total amount to be paid from the City’s general fund for three sub-

categories: Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe Benefits:

(1) Wages for Full- and Part-Time Employees: The Court identifies each full- and part-

time employee, and their proposed wages. This section of the proposed budgets also

specifies the specific sources of payment for these funds:

a. City, County, and State Portion: Pursuant to various authorities, the wages of some

Court officials and employees are shared by the City, County, and State. For those

individuals, the Court provides a detailed breakdown in the proposed budget that

shows the overall wage of each individual, as well as what portion of that figure is

paid by the City, County, and State.

b. Longevity Pay: The City provides longevity pay for some individuals, which the

budgets specify under each relevant employee’s pay.

c. Grant Funding: In some years, the Court has secured grant funding. This money

may only be used to pay for items that the grant permits, which may or may not

include the option to apply some of those funds toward wages—it all depends upon

the terms of the grant. When a grant allows money to be applied toward employees’

wages, and when the Court has elected to utilize the grant money in that manner.

The Court will include a breakdown in the proposed budget that shows what portion

of the employee’s wage the Court is authorizing for that purpose. In those instances,

3

the Court notes which portion of the overall wage is to be paid from the City’s

general fund, and what portion the Court has arranged or authorized to be paid from

grant funding.

d. Court Fund Contributions: Finally, in some years, the Court has been willing to

utilize money from its funds established pursuant to Ohio R.C. 1901.26(B) and

1901.261 to contribute to the overall wage of an employee. In those instances, the

Court identifies the employees’ overall wages for that year; what portions are to be

paid from the City’s general fund and any other sources; and what portions the

Court has authorized to be paid from the its Special Projects Fund, Clerk of Court

Computer Fund, and Court Computer Fund.

e. Total City Wages for All Court Employees: At the end of the “Wages” section of

the proposed budget, the Court provides a summary of the total amount of full- and

part-time employee wages that are to be paid from the City’s general fund. This

figure combines the portion of wages due from the City general fund and Longevity

Pay. It omits the portion of wages due from the County or State, amounts designated

from Grant Funding (if any), and amounts from Court Fund Contributions (if any).

(2) Health Insurance “Break-Out” Per Employee: In the “Wages” portion of the proposed

budget, the Court notes whether each employee utilizes single or family health

insurance coverage. In a separate section of the budget, it lists each employee; their

type of coverage; and the cost of that coverage to the City. Additionally, the Court’s

proposed budgets specify the following:

a. City, County, and State Portion: The cost of Health Insurance for the Municipal

Court Judge and the Municipal Clerk of Court are shared by the City and County

4

pursuant to Ohio R.C. 1901.11(C), 1901.111, and 1901.312(C)(2)(a). Neither the

Clerk nor the Judge have utilized the City’s Health Insurance for several years now;

however, if either of us did, and in previous years’ budgets when one or both

individuals did, the proposed budget always included a breakdown to show the

overall cost of Healthcare Insurance, minus the County portion, and the amount that

was ultimately the City’s responsibility.

b. Opt Out - The City of South Euclid offers individuals who are eligible to use the

health insurance the alternative to receive a flat sum (that is less than the cost of the

insurance to the City) if they opt out of that coverage; therefore, the budget notes

which individuals are eligible for this payment instead of the higher expense of

either form of coverage.

c. Court Fund Contributions: In some years, the Court’s proposed budget has required

all Health Insurance costs to be paid from the City’s general fund. In other years,

the Court has authorized a portion of some employees’ health insurance to be paid

from the Court Computer Fund or the Special Projects Fund—and always in a

specifically defined amount. In those instances, the Court has expressly provided

the portion of the Health Insurance cost that was attributable to the City’s general

fund as well.

d. Total Health Insurance for All Court Employees: At the end of the “Health

Insurance ‘Break Out’ Per Employee” section of the proposed budget, the Court

provides a summary of the total cost for Health Insurance to be paid from the City’s

general fund. This figure combines the portion of Health Insurance expenses due

5

from the City general fund and the Opt-Out. It omits the portion of Health Insurance

due from the County (if any) and amounts from Court Fund Contributions (if any).

(3) Fringe Benefits: After the “Wages” and “Health Insurance” portions of the Court’s

proposed budget, it lists the projected expenses associated with Medicare, PERS,

Worker’s Compensation, Life Insurance, and Unemployment (“Fringe Benefits”).

a. Unlike wage and healthcare costs—which the Court can predict with some degree

of certainty before its proposed budget is due—there is always some degree of

uncertainty about the amount of Fringe Benefit figures prior to the budget hearings

because only the Finance Director can provide confirmation of these numbers.

b. Therefore, the Court has routinely listed these amounts with a series of asterisks

next to them, or some other indication that notes that the Finance Director needs to

verify they are accurate prior to the budget being finalized. Typically, the Judge

and/or I have engaged in correspondence or communications with the Finance

Director in advance of the budget hearing—or at the budget hearing—to verify the

accuracy of those numbers.

(4) Total Personal Services Budget: At the end of the “Personal Services” section of the

Court’s proposed budget, it provides a total of the Wages, Health Insurance, and Fringe

Benefits sub-categories that create one final “Personal Services Budget” figure that is

to be paid from the City’s general fund. This always comprises the total figure that the

City is responsible to provide from the general fund for Wages, Health Insurance, and

Fringe Benefits.

B. Material/Supply/Services: Second, the Court’s proposed budgets provide a separate,

second series of sums for its “Material/Supply/Services Budget,” which is comprised of

6

the sum of smaller categories of line-items for Materials & Supplies, Contractual Services,

and Other Charges.

Approved Budgets

8. Throughout my tenure as the Clerk of the South Euclid Municipal Court, City Council has

approved the Court’s submitted budget in each year, with the exception of 2019.

9. In each year following the Court’s submission of a proposed budget and the conclusion of

City Council’s budget hearings, City Council has passed a resolution to fund a budget that includes

appropriations from the general fund to operate the Municipal Court, divided into the two large

categories outlined in the Court’s proposed budgets—a Personal Services appropriation

(designated for the Wages, Insurance, and Benefits portion of the proposed budget) and an “Other

Charges” appropriation (designated for the Material/Supply/Services portion of the proposed

budget).

10. Further, a true and accurate copy of the Court’s portion of City Council’s year-end

Summary Reports for 2000-2018, and the Summary Report for 2019 through May 31, 2019 is

attached as Exhibit 1. (The red ink that designates the year of each Report was not on the original,

but added for clarity.)

11. These Summary Reports show each of the Court’s budget line items where the City

maintains an accounting for the Court’s appropriated funds. All these funds have a 101 prefix;

followed by a 7750 (the Court’s designated ID); followed by a five-digit number that corresponds

to the category of appropriations: Personal Services (wages, health insurance, fringe benefits)

begin with a 521, such that the accounts are enumerated 52101, 52103, 52106, and etc.; Contractual

Services appropriations have a number beginning with 523; Materials and Supplies begin with a

524; “Other” appropriations begin with a 527.

7

12. I now have information to unequivocally demonstrate that the figures in the Year-to-Date

(YTD) Expense, Unexpended, and Percentage columns of these Reports contain extensive

mathematical inaccuracies. However, the first column of these Reports (“Revised

Appropriations”) accurately shows the amounts City Council ultimately appropriated to the Court

in each budget year. These Reports accurately show the breakdown of the appropriations within

the smaller “Personal Services” and “Other” categories the Court requested in its proposed

budgets.

13. For those years in which the Court’s appropriations were adjusted throughout the year, the

final appropriations numbers in the budget resolutions changed as well; however, if the figures

didn’t change, the Summary Reports accurately reflect the appropriations. For example, in 2018,

Council accepted the Court’s proposed budget, and it did not revise the appropriations throughout

the year. The proposed 2018 budget (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2) proposes the City

appropriate $99,624 toward Medical Insurance; this was the amount that was ultimately approved

in the budget; and the figure in the first “Revised Appropriations” column of Exhibit 1 for 2018

shows this same figure. Similarly, Medicare is represented as $7,500 on both documents; Life

Insurance appears as $900 on both; Worker’s Compensation is represented as receiving a $7,760

appropriation in both documents; and so on.

14. The information in these Summary Reports—which also appeared within the Court’s

monthly Expense Reports—consistently showed appropriations to the Court that matched its

expectations regarding what the City had appropriated as part of the Court’s budget. The Court

relied on these reports and others with the contemporaneous belief they contained accurate

information.

February 3, 2019 - Proposed Budget

8

15. On or about February 3, 2019, the Court submitted its proposed 2019 budget to Finance

Director Wendt, to be distributed to City Council, with a total budget of $920,385 (a true and

accurate copy is attached as Exhibit 3).

16. A substantial portion of the 2019 “increase” to the Court’s proposed budget didn’t actually

represent an increase to the ordinary, reasonable, and necessary costs of the Court’s operational

expenses at all: Rather, the Court’s 2019 budget simply relied less on Grant and Court

Discretionary Funding to provide for the same Personal Services operating expenses that had

existed in 2018 and in previous years. This accounted for approximately $37,687 of the added cost

to the City in the 2019 proposed budget.1 In 2019, the Court proposed a contribution of $3,500

from Court Discretionary Funds and $32,500 in OHMAS Grant Funding, for a total of $36,000, to

Personal Services, while seeking an additional $856,385 from the City for this purpose. This

represented an appreciably smaller contribution from the Court to the overall Personal Services

1 The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized paying Network Administrator/Deputy Clerk Agbomanyi $12,000 from the Court’s Computer Fund and $10,000 from OHMAS Grant funding, and only $20,000 of her $42,000 salary from the City. Her role was shared by two employees in 2019, and they collectively relied almost exclusively on City funding: The Court authorized $3,500 from its Computer Fund to supplement the $44,300 salary of Assistant Network Administrator/Deputy Clerk Tarter, and the rest to come from the general fund.

The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized $25,000 of Chief Probation Officer Martin’s salary to be paid from an OHMAS grant, with only $30,500 payable from the City. In 2019, $17,500 of her salary was directed to come from an OHMAS grant, with the remaining $41,310 coming from the general fund.

The Court’s 2018 proposed budget had authorized paying Deputy Clerk/Assistant Network Administrator McCown $6,000 from the Court’s Computer Fund and $34,950 of her $41,850 salary from the City; it authorized paying Chief Security Bailiff Patrick $3,025 from the Court’s Special Projects Fund and $27,225 of his salary from the City; and it had authorized paying Security Bailiff Adornetto $2,662 from the Court’s Special Projects Fund and $23,958 of his salary from the City. However, the Judge had proposed paying 100% of these employees’ salaries from City funds in 2019.

9

figure than in previous years, and a higher contribution from the City’s general fund. However, it

did not represent a change to these underlying operating expenses of the Court—the expense

remained the same; the Court had simply authorized less Grant and Special Projects Funding to

offset the City’s obligation.

17. I was aware that the Judge had a very specific reason for contributing less of the Court’s

Discretionary Funding to its 2019 Personal Services budget than in previous years: She has

expressed her plan to submit a 2019 budget that placed heavier reliance on the City’s general fund

because it has had significant and growing needs to upgrade its antiquated case management

system. Additionally, the Court had unsuccessfully applied for technology grants for several

successive years to add a probation kiosk to reduce the burden on probation staff. The Judge has

articulated her desire to reserve more of the Court’s Discretionary Funding in 2019 so it could

increase those funds and finance this system in 2020, relying as much as possible upon its

Discretionary Funding and possible grant funding to diminish the financial burden on the City. In

order to accomplish this, the Court needed to abstain from spending as many funds on staffing in

2019 to accumulate sufficient funds to aid in financing this expense in 2020.

18. I was aware of a series of circumstances necessitating the actual differences between the

Court’s 2018 and 2019 budget proposals, which amounted to approximately $174,239—or the

details within the budgets demonstrated these for themselves.

19. The “Material/Supply/Services” side of the Court’s budget had remained unchanged from

2018 to 2019, but a series of changed circumstances in 2019 had required increases to the “Personal

Services” side of the Court’s budget, all of which were a reasonable and necessary component of

maintaining the Court’s operations:

10

A. Increased cost of healthcare ($51,404.80) – The cost of single and family healthcare

increased from 2018 to 2019. Additionally, an increased number of Court employees

(including Clerk’s Office employees) had elected to opt in to the Court’s healthcare in

2019. Finally, an increased number of Court employees went from the less expensive

single coverage to the more expensive family coverage in 2019. These are obviously

increases over which the Court has no ability to influence, control, or reduce the

expense to the City, and healthcare is a reasonable and necessary expense to fulfilling

the operation of the Court. These increases accounted for approximately $51,404.80 of

the increases to the 2019 budget.

B. 2% Cost of Living Increase ($6,033) – The Court imposed a 2% cost of living increase

for 2019 for staff, including the deputy clerks. I’m aware the Court had plans to

implement this increase in 2018, but the Judge elected to defer these plans at the City’s

request. However, thereafter, the City implemented a 2018 increase for every City

employee in April 2018, retroactive to January 2018. This increase specifically

excluded Court employees; therefore, for 2019, the Judge proposed adding the deferred

cost-of-living (COLA) increase she had intended to implement in 2018 for Court staff.

This accounted for approximately $6,033 of the proposed 2019 increases.

(1) These raises were reasonable and necessary to the Court’s operation because its

employees are already paid at rates substantially below their value to the Court, and

below the rate they could be paid elsewhere. The Court has had a number of

applicants decline to accept employment at the Court once learning its pay scale.

Further, the Court must at least keep the pace with increases to the cost of living to

prevent losing its existing staff. These all constituted reasonable and necessary

11

requirements to conduct its operations. The Judge based this determination on her

own first-hand assessment, which she discussed with me. My own observations of

the Court’s operations support the same determination: The Court needed to

provide a COLA increase to ensure the continued retention of valuable employees.

(2) The Court’s wages are sufficiently low that Court employees’ children have been

eligible for insurance coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program

(CHIP)—government-funded coverage for children in lower-income families.

(3) An employee of the Clerk’s Office left the Court to accept another position, which

she indicated had been appealing because of its ability to pay substantially more

than her wages at the Court.

(4) A Deputy Clerk of the Court, who has a Bachelor’s Degree, continued performing

his duties while also taking on a portion of the work of the departing Network

Administrator; he understandably sought a pay raise to do so, but the Court was

only able to offer an additional $5,000 for this extensive added responsibility. The

Judge based this determination on her own first-hand assessment, which I discussed

with her—and I agreed: Based on my observations of the staffing and compensation

levels in the Clerk’s Office, we had limited funds to authorize a higher increase.

(5) Finally, the Court needed to add another Deputy Clerk due to its significant backlog

in the Clerk’s office; it found a qualified employee with a Bachelor’s Degree, whom

it could only afford to pay $35,000, with a commitment to increase his pay by

another $5,000 upon completing his introductory period. This was a prerequisite to

securing his employment with the Court. The Judge based this determination on her

own first-hand assessment, as well as my input. I agreed with the Judge’s

12

assessment that the Clerk’s Office required added staffing, and it required someone

with the needed competence to do the job well—we were fortunate to find someone

with the degree of skill we did for this modest wage.

C. Increased Hours or Responsibility ($19,210) – The 2019 budget demonstrated that two

of its part-time employees performed added work or took on increased responsibility

in 2019, resulting in an overall increase to the 2019 budget by approximately $19,210:

(1) When the Network Administrator resigned, her duties were divided between two

employees, including Deputy Clerk Tarter, whose duties changed to performing

both his prior Deputy Clerk duties, as well as a portion of the Network

Administrator role. The Court provided him a $5,000 pay raise to assume these

added duties, which comprised a $2,300 increase to the previous cost of the

Network Administrator position. The Judge based this determination on her own

first-hand assessment, as well as my input. My own observations of the Court’s

operations support the same determination—that this increase was the minimal

amount needed to adequately compensate Mr. Tarter for this increased

responsibility.

(2) The Court required a part-time Deputy Clerk, who had been paid $27,200 in 2018,

to work full-time in 2019, which increased his wages by $13,600 in 2019. The

Judge based this determination on her own first-hand assessment, which she

discussed with me. My own observations of the Court’s operations support the same

determination: The Clerk’s Office was in significant need of more staffing, and this

increase in hours was essential to working through the office’s backlog.

13

D. Two Staff Additions ($63,660) – The Court proposed adding two full-time

employees—a deputy clerk (which the Judge proposed hiring at $30,000/year, based

on her own first-hand assessment, as well as my input), and a probation officer (which

the Court proposed hiring at $33,660/year), resulting in an increase of $63,660.

(1) The primary reason for adding a Deputy Clerk arose from the substantial backlog

in the Clerk’s Office.

(2) The Clerk’s Office had an extensive amount of stale unclaimed funds discovered

in the Court’s recent audit, and the Clerk’s Office needed an employee dedicated

to completing the requisite due diligence to complete that work.

(3) Additionally, the Court’s specialized dockets have increased the burden on the

workload of the Clerk’s Office, necessitating added staff.

(4) The staff of the Clerk’s Office were so overwhelmed that the Court had been

dilatory in completing its Annual Report; this backlog was the direct result of the

Clerk’s Office having inadequate staffing in 2018.

E. Increased Cost of Fringe Benefits ($34,980) - The Court’s 2018 and 2019 budgets also

plainly revealed increased costs of fringe benefits (Medicare, PERS, etc.) between 2018

and 2019, totaling approximately $34,980. As in the case of Health Insurance, these

are mandatory expenses that the Court has no ability to negotiate away or reduce; they

are simply an unavoidable cost of meeting its operational needs.

20. These changes in 2019 comprised increases to the City’s obligations of approximately

$211,926 (including the $37,687 that had been the City’s obligation all along in previous years,

but had been supplemented by Grant and Special Projects Funding); this represented an actual

increase in the Court’s expenditures by $174,239 (the items in paragraph 19 (A)-(E) totaled

14

$175,287, but after factoring in other reductions and changes from 2018, this figure was reduced

to an overall increase of its expenditures to approximately $174,239. (See Exhibits 2 and 3.)

21. The increased expenses within the budget, and notably the additions to Clerk’s Office

compensation and staffing, are all required to maintain the fair, effective and timely administration

of justice. The funding sought within the Court’s 2019 budget to these ends is reasonable and

necessary to facilitate the Clerk’s Office’s operations.

February 2019: Discovery of Misappropriated Court Funds and Relaying This Information to Respondents

22. Shortly after the budget hearing, the Court received the balances of the Court’s three Court

Discretionary Funds accounts. Finance Director Wendt provided the Court with a much lower

figure than I expected; when I discussed these figures with the Judge, she expressed her surprise

as well. Based upon the Court’s previous disbursements of Court Discretionary Funds, we had

believed that a much larger sum existed within those funds.

23. In response, I requested copies of more detailed “Audit Trail Reports” for 2018.

24. I had to access these Reports from the City because the Court is not afforded regular access

to bank records of its Court Discretionary Funds, or any other reports showing this level of detail

about its Court Discretionary Funds.

25. During my review of the 2018 reports, the Judge and I discovered that the Court’s Special

Project Fund, Clerk of Court Computer Fund, and Municipal Court Computer Fund all showed

debit entries for codes or vendors not utilized by the Court and/or appropriately connected to the

given fund. For example, both the Court’s Special Projects Fund and the Municipal Court

Computer Fund showed entries for vendors including BUREA55, MEDIC55, PAYROL,

15

MEDICARE and PERS. These are not codes or vendors that we recognized as matching approved

allocations from those Court Discretionary Funds.

26. On February 14, 2019, I e-mailed the Finance Director a summary of unauthorized

expenses that appeared to have been improperly deducted from the Court’s 2018 Court

Discretionary Funds; I asked that Ms. Wendt review and expound upon the deductions. These

totaled $64,200.16 ($41,061.44 from the Special Projects Fund; $5,967.65 from the Clerk of Court

Computer Fund; and $17,171.17 from the Municipal Court Computer Fund). I copied the Judge

on that correspondence. (A true and accurate copy of that email exchange is attached as Exhibit

4.)

27. On February 15, 2019, rather than Ms. Wendt replying to me, South Euclid Mayor

Georgine Welo responded to my inquiry with an e-mail directed only to the Judge, Council

President Fiorelli, Law Director Lograsso, and Finance Director Wendt (which the Judge later

shared with me). She indicated that all of the vendor codes referenced in my summary were

associated with the City’s payment of various fringe benefits (e.g., Worker’s Compensation,

Health Insurance, Medicare, and PERS), and payroll for employees associated with the Court (see

Exhibit 4, attached). Mayor Welo explained that the City deducted Court employees’ fringe

benefits, i.e., PERS and Medicare, from the Court’s Discretionary Funds in the same manner it

had deducted their salary and wages. The Mayor further stated this had been the City’s consistent

accounting practice dating back to at least 2008.

28. The fringe benefit disbursements Mayor Welo had described as being paid from the Court’s

Discretionary Funds in 2018 had been specifically budgeted to be paid from general fund dollars

in its budget, and in previous years’ budgets—not from its Discretionary Funds. Moreover, the

16

City had appropriated general fund dollars to the Court for the purpose of paying these fringe

benefits in each of its previous budget years as well. (Exhibit 1.)


dollars to the Court to pay for its reasonable and necessary operating expenses—including wages,

health insurance, and other fringe benefits. However, this correspondence amounted to the first

instance where the Judge and I learned that the Finance Director and her predecessors had

disbursed or oversaw the disbursement of Court Discretionary Funds to pay for a variety of those


30. The Finance Department provided the Court with monthly expense reports that

inaccurately showed the City’s budget appropriations to the Court were being disbursed each



31. This created a dynamic in a series of previous budget years whereby the Court experienced

a significant surplus in its annual appropriations from the City, which it was then obligated to

return to the City general fund each year. That is, practice of unauthorized Discretionary Fund

Disbursements resulted in an annual system whereby the Court requested City funding for various

expenses; the City made appropriations to provide for those expenses; but those appropriations

were illusory—they were never in jeopardy of being expended, and they were always returned to

the general fund instead of being used to satisfy the obligations noted in the Court’s proposed

budgets—because the Finance Director had been disbursing the Court’s Discretionary Funds to

pay these expenses instead, without the Court’s knowledge or authorization.

32. This discovery also had the effect of revealing the inaccuracy of figures within the expense

reports and year-end reports from the Finance Department. These reports purported to tabulate the

17

Court’s “Actual Expenses” each year, but, in reality, the Court’s actual expenditures had

comprised the figures appearing on those reports, plus the unauthorized disbursements from the


33. On February 19, 2019, the Judge and I met with Council President Fiorelli and Finance

Chairman Frank to relay the concerns with these misappropriations, and to explain our findings.

Further, the Judge and I advised Council Member Fiorelli and Council Member Frank of the

Court’s inability to contribute Court Discretionary Funds to supplement Court employees’ wages

in the 2019 budget.


nor am I aware of any effort the City has initiated to assess the full extent of the City’s authorized

expenditures from the Court’s funds.

18

Adverse Effects of 2019 Budget Appropriations

35. On March 25, 2019, Council passed a budget appropriating only $637,134 to the Court (a

cut of $283,251 from its proposed budget).

36. Council’s budget appropriations bore no relationship to the Court’s expressed needs.

37. The 2019 budget the Judge set for the Court is based on the reasonable and necessary

funding needs for the Court in 2019.

38. If the 2019 Court budget is reduced, as proposed by the South Euclid City Council, it will

negatively impact the Court in a number of significant ways, including but not limited to:

a. On any given day, the South Euclid Municipal Court Clerk’s pool will receive

between 40 and 50 civil matters for filing and processing. Meanwhile, the Court

receives on average between 40 and 50 criminal complaints (including traffic

citations) for processing. During “peak times” of the year (i.e., warmer months),

the Court will see more filings. There are a total of six clerks to process theses

causes of action daily along with additional assigned tasks. The proposed cuts

would result in reducing the clerk staff to at most four clerks with work

redistribution instantly causing a slowdown in case processing. This will impact

case filings, calendaring, docketing, and management. All of these components

directly impact the fair administration of justice. The Judge reached this

determination on her own first-hand assessment, as well as my input.

b. With the proposed reductions, the Court will run out of money, requiring layoffs

while cases pile up. These employees may not be available if/when the Court is

later in a position to rehire them, meaning the Court very well may be in a position

of having to hire and train a large number of employees at the same time, which

Exhibit 1


Court Year-End

Summary Report

(1997-2018); Summary

Report for May 31,

2019



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 SALARIES & WAGES 184,210.00 145,976.99 38,233.01 0.00 38,233.01 20.76101-7750-52103 PART TIME 102,486.00 100,932.38 1,553.62 0.00 1,553.62 1.52101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 39,000.00 30,832.34 8,167.66 0.00 8,167.66 20.94101-7750-52160 HOSPITALIZATION 32,990.00 30,486.51 2,503.49 0.00 2,503.49 7.59101-7750-52162 INSURANCE 550.00 518.40 31.60 0.00 31.60 5.75101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 4,400.00 905.85 3,494.15 0.00 3,494.15 79.41TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 363,636.00 309,652.47 53,983.53 0.00 53,983.53 14.85


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 10,480.00 5,444.94 5,035.06 3,566.70 1,468.36 14.01101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,862.32 137.68 0.00 137.68 1.38101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,290.54 709.46 0.00 709.46 23.65101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 174.50 1,825.50 0.00 1,825.50 91.28TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,480.00 17,772.30 7,707.70 3,566.70 4,141.00 16.25

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 3,000.00 2,860.48 139.52 33.50 106.02 3.53101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 800.00 532.40 267.60 0.00 267.60 33.45101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 6,063.84 3,377.00 2,686.84 355.63 2,331.21 38.44101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,700.00 1,117.00 3,583.00 0.00 3,583.00 76.23101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 3,549.50 2,447.12 1,102.38 0.00 1,102.38 31.06101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,320.00 967.83 1,352.17 0.00 1,352.17 58.28TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,433.34 11,301.83 9,131.51 389.13 8,742.38 42.78




TOTAL REPORT: 412,849.34 341,944.64 70,904.70 3,955.83 66,948.87

2000



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 SALARIES & WAGES 164,500.00 158,959.43 5,540.57 0.00 5,540.57 3.37101-7750-52103 PART TIME 117,500.00 102,105.94 15,394.06 0.00 15,394.06 13.10101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 541.91 1,458.09 0.00 1,458.09 72.90101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 39,000.00 31,689.74 7,310.26 0.00 7,310.26 18.74101-7750-52160 HOSPITALIZATION 32,048.00 28,258.28 3,789.72 0.00 3,789.72 11.83101-7750-52162 INSURANCE 550.00 524.80 25.20 0.00 25.20 4.58101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 4,350.00 3,693.57 656.43 0.00 656.43 15.09TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 359,948.00 325,773.67 34,174.33 0.00 34,174.33 9.49


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 13,566.70 11,053.99 2,512.71 1,139.88 1,372.83 10.12101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,014.92 985.08 0.00 985.08 9.85101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,181.40 818.60 0.00 818.60 27.29101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 374.70 1,625.30 1,500.00 125.30 6.27TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 28,566.70 22,625.01 5,941.69 2,639.88 3,301.81 11.56

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,033.50 2,937.35 1,096.15 0.00 1,096.15 27.18101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 308.72 691.28 0.00 691.28 69.13101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 5,355.63 527.75 4,827.88 0.00 4,827.88 90.15101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 3,015.00 1,985.00 0.00 1,985.00 39.70101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 3,000.00 1,988.06 1,011.94 1,000.00 11.94 .40101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,000.00 1,266.07 733.93 22.10 711.83 35.59TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,389.13 10,042.95 10,346.18 1,022.10 9,324.08 45.73




TOTAL REPORT: 412,703.83 361,807.90 50,895.93 3,661.98 47,233.95

2001



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 11,139.88 4,718.25 6,421.63 2,892.50 3,529.13 31.68101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 9,727.68 272.32 0.00 272.32 2.72101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 2,900.00 1,941.80 958.20 0.00 958.20 33.04101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 3,500.00 1,821.76 1,678.24 0.00 1,678.24 47.95TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,539.88 18,209.49 9,330.39 2,892.50 6,437.89 23.38

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 2,189.85 1,810.15 0.00 1,810.15 45.25101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 317.28 682.72 0.00 682.72 68.27101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,000.00 186.00 2,814.00 0.00 2,814.00 93.80101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 2,922.00 1,078.00 0.00 1,078.00 26.95101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 4,800.00 2,183.32 2,616.68 2,169.80 446.88 9.31101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,322.10 2,057.51 264.59 204.26 60.33 2.60TOTAL 527 OTHER 19,122.10 9,855.96 9,266.14 2,374.06 6,892.08 36.04




TOTAL REPORT: 436,491.98 364,271.76 72,220.22 5,266.56 66,953.66

2002



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 12,892.50 11,831.71 1,060.79 789.36 271.43 2.11101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 10,000.00 8,921.56 1,078.44 0.00 1,078.44 10.78101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,100.00 2,983.37 116.63 87.00 29.63 .96101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 761.00 1,239.00 0.00 1,239.00 61.95TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,992.50 24,497.64 3,494.86 876.36 2,618.50 9.35

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,300.00 4,222.72 77.28 0.00 77.28 1.80101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 778.29 221.71 0.00 221.71 22.17101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,100.00 147.15 2,952.85 0.00 2,952.85 95.25101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 3,918.00 82.00 0.00 82.00 2.05101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 5,169.80 4,009.80 1,160.00 0.00 1,160.00 22.44101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,704.26 2,569.20 135.06 12.50 122.56 4.53TOTAL 527 OTHER 20,274.06 15,645.16 4,628.90 12.50 4,616.40 22.77




TOTAL REPORT: 503,116.56 440,789.94 62,326.62 888.86 61,437.76

2003



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 8,789.36 6,612.59 2,176.77 168.63 2,008.14 22.85101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 13,000.00 12,773.39 226.61 0.00 226.61 1.74101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,337.00 2,798.95 538.05 298.50 239.55 7.18101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 656.69 343.31 0.00 343.31 34.33TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 26,126.36 22,841.62 3,284.74 467.13 2,817.61 10.78

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 3,473.50 526.50 0.00 526.50 13.16101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 649.56 350.44 0.00 350.44 35.04101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 3,250.00 804.00 2,446.00 0.00 2,446.00 75.26101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 4,315.00 685.00 310.00 375.00 7.50101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,512.50 759.87 1,752.63 38.36 1,714.27 68.23TOTAL 527 OTHER 17,762.50 10,001.93 7,760.57 348.36 7,412.21 41.73




TOTAL REPORT: 498,148.86 427,048.61 71,100.25 938.69 70,161.56

2004



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 6,168.63 5,786.19 382.44 108.48 273.96 4.44101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 15,000.00 14,518.26 481.74 0.00 481.74 3.21101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,798.50 3,026.80 771.70 0.00 771.70 20.32101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 315.95 684.05 0.00 684.05 68.41TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,967.13 23,647.20 2,319.93 108.48 2,211.45 8.52

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 4,000.00 2,142.98 1,857.02 50.00 1,807.02 45.18101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 464.40 535.60 0.00 535.60 53.56101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,310.00 3,991.00 1,319.00 0.00 1,319.00 24.84101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 99.99 900.01 0.00 900.01 90.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,538.36 538.77 1,999.59 0.00 1,999.59 78.77TOTAL 527 OTHER 13,848.36 7,237.14 6,611.22 50.00 6,561.22 47.38




TOTAL REPORT: 468,946.69 422,090.45 46,856.24 158.48 46,697.76

2005



AS OF: 06/13/2019





101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES & ST 8,108.48 3,680.26 4,428.22 3,916.48 511.74 6.31101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 14,000.00 13,743.01 256.99 0.00 256.99 1.84101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,000.00 2,924.30 75.70 0.00 75.70 2.52101-7750-52435 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 386.88 613.12 0.00 613.12 61.31TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 26,108.48 20,734.45 5,374.03 3,916.48 1,457.55 5.58

101-7750-52705 DUES & CONFERENCES 3,050.00 2,908.50 141.50 50.00 91.50 3.00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 686.72 313.28 0.00 313.28 31.33101-7750-52717 JURY & WITNESS FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 5,526.89 473.11 280.00 193.11 3.22101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 99.99- 1,099.99 0.00 1,099.99 110.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 REFUNDABLE BOND MONE 2,000.00 736.71 1,263.29 0.00 1,263.29 63.16TOTAL 527 OTHER 13,050.00 9,758.83 3,291.17 330.00 2,961.17 22.69




TOTAL REPORT: 490,466.48 442,885.47 47,581.01 4,246.48 43,334.53

2006



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 206,500.00 205,556.51 943.49 0.00 943.49 .46101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 126,500.00 111,855.67 14,644.33 0.00 14,644.33 11.58101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 231.38 1,768.62 0.00 1,768.62 88.43101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 46,500.00 44,119.60 2,380.40 0.00 2,380.40 5.12101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 2,800.00 2,792.35 7.65 0.00 7.65 .27101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 63,000.00 59,436.53 3,563.47 0.00 3,563.47 5.66101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 650.00 480.00 170.00 0.00 170.00 26.15101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,100.00 6,918.90 2,181.10 0.00 2,181.10 23.97TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 457,050.00 431,390.94 25,659.06 0.00 25,659.06 5.61

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 400.00 308.99 91.01 0.00 91.01 22.75101-7750-52310 COPIER LEASE 2,700.00 2,244.07 455.93 0.00 455.93 16.89101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 205.00 149.50 55.50 55.50 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,500.00 2,958.65 541.35 0.00 541.35 15.47101-7750-52342 LEADS 500.00 120.00 380.00 0.00 380.00 76.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,305.00 5,781.21 1,523.79 55.50 1,468.29 20.10

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,000.00 7,638.47 361.53 59.46 302.07 3.78101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 15,000.00 14,541.59 458.41 0.00 458.41 3.06101-7750-52407 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 3,800.00 3,730.89 69.11 0.00 69.11 1.82101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 1,000.00 240.95 759.05 0.00 759.05 75.91TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,800.00 26,151.90 1,648.10 59.46 1,588.64 5.71

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES / MEETIN 1,100.00 865.00 235.00 0.00 235.00 21.36101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,900.00 1,473.90 426.10 0.00 426.10 22.43101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 395.34 604.66 0.00 604.66 60.47101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 2,561.00 3,439.00 0.00 3,439.00 57.32101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 900.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00 100.00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 495.00 345.17 149.83 0.00 149.83 30.27TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,395.00 5,640.41 5,754.59 0.00 5,754.59 50.50




TOTAL REPORT: 503,550.00 468,964.46 34,585.54 114.96 34,470.58

2007



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 228,000.00 210,913.28 17,086.72 0.00 17,086.72 7.49101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 131,000.00 113,800.57 17,199.43 0.00 17,199.43 13.13101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 88.03 1,911.97 0.00 1,911.97 95.60101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 58,000.00 53,574.69 4,425.31 0.00 4,425.31 7.63101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,235.00 4,547.30 687.70 0.00 687.70 13.14101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 70,000.00 68,358.75 1,641.25 0.00 1,641.25 2.34101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 620.00 432.00 188.00 0.00 188.00 30.32101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,650.00 6,660.61 989.39 0.00 989.39 12.93TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 502,505.00 458,375.23 44,129.77 0.00 44,129.77 8.78


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9,700.00 9,644.80 55.20 0.00 55.20 .57101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 16,600.00 16,428.19 171.81 0.00 171.81 1.04101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 4,000.00 3,789.63 210.37 0.00 210.37 5.26101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 1,300.00 1,194.47 105.53 0.00 105.53 8.12TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,600.00 31,057.09 542.91 0.00 542.91 1.72

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,033.87 466.13 0.00 466.13 31.08101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,450.00 1,135.00 315.00 0.00 315.00 21.72101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 161.58 838.42 0.00 838.42 83.84101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 3,762.00 2,238.00 97.00 2,141.00 35.68101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 10,150.00 6,092.45 4,057.55 97.00 3,960.55 39.02




TOTAL REPORT: 551,805.00 502,412.58 49,392.42 137.00 49,255.42

2008



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 242,145.00 241,595.12 549.88 0.00 549.88 .23101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 117,100.00 113,329.06 3,770.94 0.00 3,770.94 3.22101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 49,600.00 49,519.44 80.56 0.00 80.56 .16101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,319.00 5,007.74 311.26 0.00 311.26 5.85101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 74,600.00 73,992.38 607.62 0.00 607.62 .81101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 614.00 457.60 156.40 0.00 156.40 25.47101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 5,700.00 5,612.57 87.43 0.00 87.43 1.53TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 496,078.00 489,513.91 6,564.09 0.00 6,564.09 1.32


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10,000.00 9,752.97 247.03 0.00 247.03 2.47101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 20,500.00 20,302.47 197.53 0.00 197.53 .96101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 4,612.19 387.81 128.46 259.35 5.19101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 36,000.00 34,667.63 1,332.37 128.46 1,203.91 3.34

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,000.00 1,686.68 313.32 0.00 313.32 15.67101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,110.00 390.00 0.00 390.00 26.00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 210.65 789.35 0.00 789.35 78.94101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 4,844.00 1,156.00 221.00 935.00 15.58101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,000.00 7,851.33 3,148.67 221.00 2,927.67 26.62




TOTAL REPORT: 549,678.00 537,899.48 11,778.52 391.74 11,386.78

2009



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 244,058.00 243,720.66 337.34 0.00 337.34 .14101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 131,000.00 112,788.24 18,211.76 0.00 18,211.76 13.90101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 1,900.00 32.25 1,867.75 0.00 1,867.75 98.30101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 52,788.00 48,186.82 4,601.18 0.00 4,601.18 8.72101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,467.00 5,044.55 422.45 0.00 422.45 7.73101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 84,432.00 83,022.78 1,409.22 0.00 1,409.22 1.67101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 938.00 853.40 84.60 0.00 84.60 9.02101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,541.00 5,925.16 1,615.84 0.00 1,615.84 21.43TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 528,124.00 499,573.86 28,550.14 0.00 28,550.14 5.41

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 600.00 509.53 90.47 0.00 90.47 15.08101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 750.00 655.35 94.65 58.67 35.98 4.80101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 2,500.00 1,847.00 653.00 0.00 653.00 26.12101-7750-52342 LEADS 900.00 450.00 450.00 0.00 450.00 50.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,750.00 3,461.88 1,288.12 58.67 1,229.45 25.88

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11,800.00 2,358.52 9,441.48 5,940.94 3,500.54 29.67101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 22,000.00 19,020.94 2,979.06 0.00 2,979.06 13.54101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 4,112.86 887.14 0.00 887.14 17.74101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 40,800.00 25,492.32 15,307.68 5,940.94 9,366.74 22.96

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,550.00 1,491.00 59.00 50.00 9.00 .58101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,299.49 200.51 0.00 200.51 13.37101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 380.50 619.50 0.00 619.50 61.95101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 6,000.00 1,873.50 4,126.50 0.00 4,126.50 68.78101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 65.00 935.00 0.00 935.00 93.50TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,050.00 5,109.49 5,940.51 50.00 5,890.51 53.31




TOTAL REPORT: 584,724.00 533,637.55 51,086.45 6,049.61 45,036.84

2010



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 244,545.00 244,183.61 361.39 0.00 361.39 .15101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 121,600.00 110,824.62 10,775.38 0.00 10,775.38 8.86101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 2,000.00 44.72 1,955.28 0.00 1,955.28 97.76101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 53,696.00 49,526.11 4,169.89 0.00 4,169.89 7.77101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,561.00 4,988.77 572.23 0.00 572.23 10.29101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 104,512.00 104,037.16 474.84 0.00 474.84 .45101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 571.00 530.40 40.60 0.00 40.60 7.11101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,589.00 7,162.30 2,426.70 0.00 2,426.70 25.31TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 542,074.00 521,297.69 20,776.31 0.00 20,776.31 3.83

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 650.00 524.75 125.25 0.00 125.25 19.27101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 1,000.00 863.29 136.71 2.28 134.43 13.44101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 3,000.00 1,838.00 1,162.00 0.00 1,162.00 38.73101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 450.00 150.00 0.00 150.00 25.00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,250.00 3,676.04 1,573.96 2.28 1,571.68 29.94

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11,750.00 9,324.15 2,425.85 209.26 2,216.59 18.86101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 22,000.00 16,322.09 5,677.91 0.00 5,677.91 25.81101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 5,000.00 3,181.45 1,818.55 451.00 1,367.55 27.35101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 40,750.00 28,827.69 11,922.31 660.26 11,262.05 27.64

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,000.00 1,012.47 987.53 0.00 987.53 49.38101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,000.00 325.00 1,675.00 0.00 1,675.00 83.75101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 1,000.00 357.75 642.25 0.00 642.25 64.23101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 5,000.00 1,577.50 3,422.50 0.00 3,422.50 68.45101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 100.00TOTAL 527 OTHER 11,000.00 3,272.72 7,727.28 0.00 7,727.28 70.25




TOTAL REPORT: 599,074.00 557,074.14 41,999.86 662.54 41,337.32

2011



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 347,173.93 343,460.65 3,713.28 0.00 3,713.28 1.07101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 105,876.07 105,876.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 200.00 158.19 41.81 0.00 41.81 20.91101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 18,970.00 15,728.58 3,241.42 0.00 3,241.42 17.09101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 62,778.00 59,261.69 3,516.31 0.00 3,516.31 5.60101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 6,529.00 6,432.17 96.83 0.00 96.83 1.48101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 107,844.00 82,030.68 25,813.32 0.00 25,813.32 23.94101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 800.00 591.60 208.40 0.00 208.40 26.05101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 10,730.00 6,883.09 3,846.91 0.00 3,846.91 35.85101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 50,000.00 16,504.28 33,495.72 7,854.08 25,641.64 51.28TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 710,901.00 636,927.00 73,974.00 7,854.08 66,119.92 9.30

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 998.56 998.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 365.27 365.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 731.45 356.20 375.25 0.00 375.25 51.30101-7750-52333 DRUG SCREENING 100.00 78.00 22.00 0.00 22.00 22.00101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,795.28 2,398.03 397.25 0.00 397.25 14.21

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,800.00 8,520.61 279.39 251.95 27.44 .31101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 19,000.00 16,371.99 2,628.01 2,610.00 18.01 .09101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 3,500.00 3,140.65 359.35 0.00 359.35 10.27101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 4,000.00 3,850.18 149.82 134.52 15.30 .38101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 104.72 0.00 104.72 0.00 104.72 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 35,404.72 31,883.43 3,521.29 2,996.47 524.82 1.48

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 6,487.33 6,398.68 88.65 0.00 88.65 1.37101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 841.67 841.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 750.00 734.06 15.94 0.00 15.94 2.13101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 4,000.00 2,588.00 1,412.00 0.00 1,412.00 35.30101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 6,804.00 6,619.83 184.17 184.17 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 18,883.00 17,182.24 1,700.76 184.17 1,516.59 8.03




TOTAL REPORT: 767,984.00 688,390.70 79,593.30 11,034.72 68,558.58

2012



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 346,548.95 346,548.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 34,343.52 34,343.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 54,012.59 54,012.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 5,408.21 5,408.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 95,817.73 90,679.40 5,138.33 0.00 5,138.33 5.36101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 829.60 20.40 0.00 20.40 2.40101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,341.00 8,887.58 453.42 0.00 453.42 4.85101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 12,000.00 4,756.97 7,243.03 2,332.85 4,910.18 40.92TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 558,322.00 545,466.82 12,855.18 2,332.85 10,522.33 1.88


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6,470.79 4,672.79 1,798.00 673.97 1,124.03 17.37101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,704.44 16,704.44 8,000.00 8,000.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,375.23 21,377.23 9,998.00 8,673.97 1,324.03 4.22

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,124.94 375.06 141.24 233.82 15.59101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,000.00 560.63 439.37 0.00 439.37 43.94101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,270.00 1,270.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,554.93 445.07 0.00 445.07 22.25101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 20,000.00 16,056.40 3,943.60 0.00 3,943.60 19.72101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 14,270.00 14,270.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 2,195.74 1,149.48 1,046.26 0.00 1,046.26 47.65TOTAL 527 OTHER 42,235.74 35,986.38 6,249.36 141.24 6,108.12 14.46




TOTAL REPORT: 633,892.00 604,339.60 29,552.40 11,148.06 18,404.34

2013



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 348,400.00 336,743.39 11,656.61 0.00 11,656.61 3.35101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 75,818.00 51,267.95 24,550.05 0.00 24,550.05 32.38101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 60,013.00 53,386.09 6,626.91 0.00 6,626.91 11.04101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 6,216.00 5,523.72 692.28 0.00 692.28 11.14101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 100,831.00 96,051.02 4,779.98 0.00 4,779.98 4.74101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 816.00 816.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 10,717.00 8,217.03 2,499.97 0.00 2,499.97 23.33101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 100.00TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 614,811.00 552,005.20 62,805.80 0.00 62,805.80 10.22


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,000.00 6,475.72 524.28 0.00 524.28 7.49101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 18,000.00 15,453.48 2,546.52 0.00 2,546.52 14.15101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 200.00 100.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 25,200.00 21,929.20 3,270.80 0.00 3,270.80 12.98

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 795.37 704.63 40.00 664.63 44.31101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,000.00 925.00 75.00 50.00- 125.00 12.50101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,050.00 1,050.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,588.62 411.38 0.00 411.38 20.57101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 21,000.00 17,406.11 3,593.89 725.00 2,868.89 13.66101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 2,950.00 2,391.32 558.68 0.00 558.68 18.94TOTAL 527 OTHER 29,500.00 24,156.42 5,343.58 715.00 4,628.58 15.69




TOTAL REPORT: 671,111.00 599,329.41 71,781.59 715.00 71,066.59

2014



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 322,065.00 304,997.99 17,067.01 0.00 17,067.01 5.30101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 105,576.00 77,292.93 28,283.07 0.00 28,283.07 26.79101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 5,093.43 5,093.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 65,000.00 52,753.69 12,246.31 0.00 12,246.31 18.84101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 5,706.18 1,793.82 0.00 1,793.82 23.92101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 78,960.00 69,723.93 9,236.07 0.00 9,236.07 11.70101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 727.60 122.40 0.00 122.40 14.40101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 11,000.00 8,259.37 2,740.63 0.00 2,740.63 24.91101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 18,863.57 10,455.74 8,407.83 412.26 7,995.57 42.39TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 614,908.00 535,010.86 79,897.14 412.26 79,484.88 12.93

101-7750-52304 TELEPHONE 800.00 429.06 370.94 0.00 370.94 46.37101-7750-52310 COPIER EXPENSE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52314 CELL PHONES/ PAGERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52320 SERVICE CONTRACTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52333 DRUG SCREENING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52342 LEADS 600.00 600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 523 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 1,029.06 370.94 0.00 370.94 26.50

101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,400.00 6,195.40 1,204.60 738.56 466.04 6.30101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 9,881.55 14,118.45 14,118.45 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,400.00 16,076.95 15,323.05 14,857.01 466.04 1.48

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,400.00 1,307.56 92.44 25.00 67.44 4.82101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,360.00 557.90 802.10 50.00- 852.10 62.65101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,468.00 1,467.45 0.55 0.00 0.55 .04101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,383.42 616.58 0.00 616.58 30.83101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 20,000.00 18,183.99 1,816.01 0.00 1,816.01 9.08101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 272.00 264.18 7.82 0.00 7.82 2.88TOTAL 527 OTHER 26,500.00 23,164.50 3,335.50 25.00- 3,360.50 12.68




TOTAL REPORT: 674,208.00 575,281.37 98,926.63 15,244.27 83,682.36

2015



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 312,390.00 297,088.27 15,301.73 0.00 15,301.73 4.90101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 82,035.00 78,654.14 3,380.86 0.00 3,380.86 4.12101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 65,000.00 52,654.71 12,345.29 0.00 12,345.29 18.99101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 5,587.75 1,912.25 0.00 1,912.25 25.50101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 89,284.00 88,239.34 1,044.66 0.00 1,044.66 1.17101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 850.00 748.00 102.00 0.00 102.00 12.00101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 11,000.00 7,044.52 3,955.48 0.00 3,955.48 35.96101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 0.00 7,500.00 100.00TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 575,559.00 530,016.73 45,542.27 0.00 45,542.27 7.91


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,000.00 4,608.09 2,391.91 1,064.24 1,327.67 18.97101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 12,403.52 11,596.48 11,591.95 4.53 .02101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 300.00 225.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 25.00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,300.00 17,236.61 14,063.39 12,656.19 1,407.20 4.50

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 1,500.00 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52704 TRAINING 1,500.00 1,497.58 2.42 50.00- 52.42 3.49101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 1,500.00 1,467.01 32.99 0.00 32.99 2.20101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 1,575.36 424.64 350.40 74.24 3.71101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 23,944.00 20,042.67 3,901.33 0.00 3,901.33 16.29101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 1,056.00 587.50 468.50 0.00 468.50 44.37TOTAL 527 OTHER 31,500.00 26,670.12 4,829.88 300.40 4,529.48 14.38




TOTAL REPORT: 639,859.00 574,924.09 64,934.91 12,956.59 51,978.32

2016



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 365,307.00 358,547.59 6,759.41 0.00 6,759.41 1.85101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 95,935.00 83,308.99 12,626.01 0.00 12,626.01 13.16101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 63,874.00 59,216.57 4,657.43 0.00 4,657.43 7.29101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 9,197.00 6,488.10 2,708.90 0.00 2,708.90 29.45101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 76,892.00 66,365.36 10,526.64 0.00 10,526.64 13.69101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 900.00 768.40 131.60 0.00 131.60 14.62101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,125.00 7,805.14 1,319.86 0.00 1,319.86 14.46101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 20,000.00 15,289.58 4,710.42 4,080.42 630.00 3.15TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 641,230.00 597,789.73 43,440.27 4,080.42 39,359.85 6.14


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7,318.80 4,544.25 2,774.55 517.01 2,257.54 30.85101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 24,000.00 18,689.71 5,310.29 5,310.29 0.00 .00101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 31,318.80 23,233.96 8,084.84 5,827.30 2,257.54 7.21

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 2,500.00 2,478.56 21.44 0.00 21.44 .86101-7750-52704 TRAINING 2,385.00 1,376.00 1,009.00 50.00- 1,059.00 44.40101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,115.00 2,115.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 2,000.00 872.68 1,127.32 0.00 1,127.32 56.37101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 25,000.00 8,279.25 16,720.75 0.00 16,720.75 66.88101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 181.20 181.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 34,181.20 15,302.69 18,878.51 50.00- 18,928.51 55.38




TOTAL REPORT: 708,230.00 637,541.79 70,688.21 9,857.72 60,830.49

2017



AS OF: 06/13/2019



101-7750-52101 WAGES-FULL TIME 344,846.00 316,521.28 28,324.72 0.00 28,324.72 8.21101-7750-52103 WAGES PART TIME PERM 107,309.00 90,499.75 16,809.25 0.00 16,809.25 15.66101-7750-52106 OVERTIME 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52116 SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52150 P.E.R.S. 71,520.00 56,090.71 15,429.29 0.00 15,429.29 21.57101-7750-52153 MEDICARE 7,500.00 6,495.30 1,004.70 0.00 1,004.70 13.40101-7750-52159 health care opt out- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52160 MEDICAL INSURANCE 99,624.00 77,701.39 21,922.61 0.00 21,922.61 22.01101-7750-52162 LIFE INSURANCE 900.00 802.40 97.60 0.00 97.60 10.84101-7750-52163 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,760.00 6,319.64 1,440.36 0.00 1,440.36 18.56101-7750-52164 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 5,000.00 2,010.51 2,989.49 0.00 2,989.49 59.79TOTAL 521 PERSONAL SERVICES 644,459.00 556,440.98 88,018.02 0.00 88,018.02 13.66


101-7750-52401 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,500.00 8,054.85 445.15 425.56 19.59 .23101-7750-52404 POSTAGE 30,000.00 16,240.77 13,759.23 3,759.23 10,000.00 33.33101-7750-52407 FURNITURE & FIXTURES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52408 LIBRARY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52421 operating supplies-d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52435 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 524 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 38,500.00 24,295.62 14,204.38 4,184.79 10,019.59 26.02

101-7750-52703 CONFERENCES/MEETINGS 8,000.00 6,150.09 1,849.91 700.00 1,149.91 14.37101-7750-52704 TRAINING 3,000.00 2,848.84 151.16 91.45 59.71 1.99101-7750-52705 MEMBERSHIP/DUES 2,500.00 855.00 1,645.00 0.00 1,645.00 65.80101-7750-52707 MILEAGE 3,000.00 2,388.42 611.58 0.00 611.58 20.39101-7750-52717 jury & witness fees- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52718 INDIGENT LEGAL EXPEN 7,500.00 6,515.25 984.75 250.00 734.75 9.80101-7750-52719 REFUNDED PARKING TIC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52743 EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52744 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00101-7750-52799 MISCELLANEOUS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00TOTAL 527 OTHER 24,000.00 18,757.60 5,242.40 1,041.45 4,200.95 17.50




TOTAL REPORT: 708,459.00 600,788.65 107,670.35 5,226.24 102,444.11

2018

��

�!" #$ %&&'(#)�(*�*�#+,

%��-��

��%.��/0%��/��/��/0%��/��1111111111111111

%��/�� $&*2")2'#. 32$ 4%""��!" #$ �# !" #4 4�#&(56*�#& �# #&(56 * 47. 5#

��8��8��9%0��8��: ��:� -��:-�� :-�� 8��8��-9%0��%.��.��:� ��:��:��:��8��8��;�.��8��8��<��%;��%��8��8��.��-:��-�:��:��-��:��-��-��8��8��-��%.��:��-:��: ��: ��-��8��8�� = �+)=&�* '")'()8��

2019 (through 5/31/2019)

��

�!" #$ %&&'(#)�(*�*�#+,

%��-��

��%.��/0%��/��/��/0%��/��1111111111111111

%��/�� $&*2")2'#. 32$ 4%""��!" #$ �# !" #4 4�#&(56*�#& �# #&(56 * 47. 5#

��8��8��%��/��.%/��:�-��-�:�-��-:��-��-:��-��--��8��8��/��.%/�� 8��8��-9�.<�.��/�%��/�:��:��8��8��8��8��/��/��/��:��:��:��%��.��/%��.;��-:�-�� :-��- ��:��-��:��-��

��8��8�-��/��8��8�-��.��/��8��8�-��/��%0�.��8��8�-��.;��/�.%��8��8�---�.�0��.��/�/0��8��8�-��%��%��-��/�.%��%��.;��:��:��:��

��8��8��:��-:��-:��-��-:-��-��8��8��%0�-�:�� :��:�-��:�-��8��8��./��.�@��.��8��8��.%.��8��8��'" *�)2#�$(""+2 $84��8��8��-��%��@�A��%��%��.�%��@��-�:��:��--�:��:��-:-��-��

��8��8��-��/��.�/��/0�-:��: �� :��-�� 8��8��.%�/�/0-:��:�� -��-��8��8��.��:��:��:��:��-��8��8��%0�:��:�� 8��8��H(*,@E2)# $$I $8��8��8��/��0�/��0%��/��:��:��: -��: -�� 8��8�� .��/��%.<�/0��8��8��-�A��/��8��8��.�A��/��8��8�� %/��%��.�:��: ��:� �� :� ��-��

��8��8� ��%/��%�� .��/%/��/0��.��

��%��/��%��.��-�:�-��-� :��-��:-��: �� :- ��-�

Exhibit 2



for 2018

Exhibit 3



for 2019

Exhibit 4



Discretionary Funds

1







Mayor Welo,






Dear Judge Byers,




2


MEDICARE Medicare










3






Chardale P. Sumpter

Clerk of Court



Documents

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOsupremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=... · 2 5. The Supreme Court of Ohio is vested with jurisdiction to hear an original action for a