Case Title: State ex rel. Lohn v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-6851

Docket Number: 20090892

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Lohn v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6851.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published 
in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are 
requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme 
Court of Ohio,65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of 
any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order 
that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-6851 
THE STATE EX REL. LOHN v. MEDINA COUNTY  
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Lohn v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-6851.] 
Mandamus to enforce funding request by judge — Writ granted in part and 
denied in part. 
(No. 2009-0892 ─ Submitted December 21, 2009 ─ Decided  
December 24, 2009.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action by a judge for a writ of mandamus to 
compel a county board of commissioners and its individual commissioners to 
appropriate reasonable and necessary funding for the probate and juvenile courts 
as reflected in the courts’ funding order for 2009.  Because the board and county 
commissioners established that the judge abused his discretion by ordering 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
unreasonable and unnecessary funding in part, we grant a writ of mandamus for 
only $12,800 of the additional funding ordered.  We deny the writ for the 
remaining additional $64,429.91 of the funding order. 
I.  Facts 
{¶ 2} Relator, Judge John J. Lohn, is the judge of the Medina County 
Court of Common Pleas, Probate and Juvenile Divisions.  Judge Lohn’s budget 
includes the Medina County Juvenile Detention Center, which provides a secure 
facility to house youths who are awaiting disposition by the juvenile court or are 
placed there as part of a dispositional order. 
{¶ 3} In October 2008, the American Correctional Association 
Commission of Accreditation for Corrections (“ACA”), a nongovernmental 
professional association, audited the detention center and determined that it was 
not in compliance with the standard that compensation and benefit levels for all 
facility personnel be comparable to those for similar occupational groups in the 
state or region.  The ACA concluded that the compensation for corrections 
officers at the juvenile detention center, who had a starting pay rate of $11.50 per 
hour, was substantially less than that of corrections officers at the county jail, who 
worked only 300 yards away and earned $17.40 per hour.  The ACA is paid by 
the county to ensure that the county maintains the highest standards in the 
juvenile-corrections field.  It was later determined that corrections officers at the 
jail actually earned a starting salary of $16.17 per hour instead of the $17.40 per 
hour mentioned in the ACA’s report.  In addition, the corrections officers 
employed at the county jail are represented by a union under a collective-
bargaining agreement, while the corrections officers at the juvenile detention 
center are not. 
{¶ 4} The detention center is staffed with 23 full-time corrections 
officers and two part-time officers.  The average turnover for these corrections 
officers has been about 50 percent per year.  Six corrections officers left their 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
employment with the detention center in 2009.  According to Judge Lohn, the 
lack of adequate salaries has already affected security at the detention center 
because highly trained persons left, reducing the level of experienced personnel.  
At the beginning of 2009, however, the Medina County sheriff reduced his staff 
by 18 employees, including ten full-time corrections officers and one part-time 
corrections officer.  The unions representing the sheriff’s employees, including 
the corrections officers employed at the county jail, later voted to rescind a 
previously negotiated 3 percent salary increase to avert the layoff of additional 
employees. 
{¶ 5} For 2008, respondent Medina County Board of Commissioners 
appropriated $1,012,551 for detention center salaries and $33,000 for detention 
center equipment. 
{¶ 6} In November 2008, Judge Lohn submitted his proposed 2009 
budget for the probate and juvenile courts, including the detention center, to 
respondent Medina County Board of Commissioners.  Judge Lohn’s budget 
request included $1,102,294.91 for detention center salaries as well as a request 
for $23,800 for the detention center’s equipment, including an upgrade to an 
existing computer system. 
{¶ 7} The requested salaries included a 2.5 percent cost-of-living 
adjustment for all county employees that Judge Lohn believed had been 
authorized by county officials, with an additional $1 per hour increase in the 
salaries of corrections officers at the juvenile detention center as part of a three-
to-five-year plan to make the salaries of those corrections officers comparable to 
the salaries of the corrections officers at the jail.  In preparing the budget request, 
the superintendent of the detention center also compared the salaries there with 
those of comparable detention centers throughout the state and determined that 
some detention centers paid their corrections officers more than the amount being 
paid to detention center corrections officers in Medina County and some paid less. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} In December 2008, Judge Lohn used a $33,000 surplus in the 2008 
line item for employees of the juvenile detention center to give them a 2.5 percent 
raise.  This raise, however, had not been considered in calculating the budget 
request, which had been made in November.  Although at times referred to as a 
raise, the court’s distribution of the surplus could be more appropriately viewed as 
a year-end bonus.  Judge Lohn admitted that the raise given to detention center 
employees in December 2008 would offset the $1 per hour raise he requested and 
subsequently ordered for detention center corrections officers.  The court 
administrator testified that the December 2008 payment would be part of the $1 
per hour increase ordered by the judge. 
{¶ 9} Judge Lohn’s $23,800 request for the detention center’s equipment 
included $11,000 for a new computer server and a battery backup, $1,000 for a 
new dryer, $1,500 to replace a security camera, $950 for a multimedia projector, 
$850 for a presentation cart, $2,500 to replace two computers, $3,500 to replace 
five radios, $1,000 to replace chairs, and $1,500 to purchase tables, cabinets, and 
shelving. 
{¶ 10} The server and battery backup were necessary because the current 
server and backup were outdated and the server was short on memory for the 
center’s needs.  The superintendent testified that the new, high-capacity dryer was 
requested because of the large volume of laundry, that a day-night camera was 
requested to increase security outside the detention center at night, that the 
projector and cart were requested for in-house training, that new computers were 
requested as part of the network administrator’s maintenance program, that the 
radios were being replaced to make them compatible with other county public 
safety agencies, that the new chairs would replace those that were broken, and 
that the tables, chairs, and shelving would be for a dual-purpose room to train 
staff and tutor youths. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 11} Because of the anticipated declines in general-fund revenues in 
2009, on January 7, 2009, the board of commissioners sent letters to each of the 
elected county officials and requested that they review their budgets to look for 
possible reductions and in particular to minimize personnel costs and refrain from 
raising salaries. 
{¶ 12} On January 9, 2009, Judge Lohn issued a funding order for the 
probate and juvenile courts and the detention center.  As he had previously 
requested, Judge Lohn ordered $1,102,294.91 for detention center salaries and 
$23,800 for detention center equipment.  The board subsequently appropriated 
$1,037,865 for detention center salaries and $11,000 for detention center 
equipment.  The board’s appropriation included the 2.5 percent increase in 
salaries from the 2008 appropriation that Judge Lohn had requested and ordered, 
but did not include the additional $1 per hour the corrections officers at detention 
center.  Judge Lohn appeared at a budget hearing before the board to explain his 
budget needs, but the board refused to appropriate the additional money ordered 
by the court, i.e., the additional $64,429.91 to cover the additional $1 per hour for 
corrections officers and the additional $12,800 for detention center equipment. 
{¶ 13} According to the county administrator, the board did not fund the 
amounts ordered by Judge Lohn because it could not afford to do so, given the 
current economic crisis, and because the requested funding would have been 
inconsistent with decreases of 10 percent in the budgets of most county officials 
and agencies.  Nevertheless, both the county administrator and the county finance 
director admitted that the projected surplus was about $4,000,000 in the general 
fund at the end of the year, and that the board could have made the appropriation 
ordered by Judge Lohn. 
{¶ 14} For the $23,800 ordered for the detention center equipment, the 
county administrator claimed that the board focused on affordability, and the 
administrator had no opinion about the reasonableness of the amount requested.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
The county finance director mentioned that Judge Lohn might use money from 
the court computerization fund for one of his equipment requests, but he did not 
know whether the judge could legally use the fund to pay for computers at the 
juvenile detention center.  The finance director’s opinion that Judge Lohn’s salary 
request for detention center employees was unreasonable was based solely on the 
county’s financial situation. 
{¶ 15} On May 15, 2009, Judge Lohn filed this action for a writ of 
mandamus to compel respondents, the board and its commissioners, to 
appropriate the amounts ordered.  After respondents filed an answer, the matter 
was submitted to mediation and ultimately returned to the regular docket.  We 
granted an alternative writ, and the parties submitted evidence and briefs. 
{¶ 16} This cause is now before the court for our consideration of the 
merits. 
II.  Legal Analysis 
Mandamus:  General Standards for Funding Orders 
{¶ 17} Judge Lohn requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board and 
its commissioners to obey his funding order for the juvenile detention center for 
2009.  In resolving this claim, we follow the general standards set forth in State ex 
rel. Maloney v. Sherlock, 100 Ohio St.3d 77, 2003-Ohio-5058, 796 N.E.2d 897, ¶ 
25-26: 
{¶ 18} “ ‘It is well settled that mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for 
enforcing a court’s funding order.’  State ex rel. Donaldson v. Alfred (1993), 66 
Ohio St.3d 327, 329, 612 N.E.2d 717.  Common pleas courts and their divisions 
have inherent power to order funding that is reasonable and necessary to the 
courts’ administration of their business. State ex rel. Morley v. Lordi (1995), 72 
Ohio St.3d 510, 511, 651 N.E.2d 937 (probate court); State ex rel. Lake Cty. Bd. 
of Commrs. v. Hoose (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 220, 221, 569 N.E.2d 1046 (juvenile 
court).  ‘In turn, the board of county commissioners is obligated to appropriate the 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
requested funds, unless the board can establish that the court abused its discretion 
by requesting unreasonable and unnecessary funding.’  State ex rel. Wilke v. 
Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 55, 60, 734 N.E.2d 811; 
State ex rel. Avellone v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 58, 61, 
543 N.E.2d 478. 
{¶ 19} “In effect, the courts’ funding orders are presumed reasonable, and 
the board must rebut the presumption in order to justify its noncompliance with 
these orders. State ex rel. Weaver v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1991), 62 Ohio 
St.3d 204, 205, 580 N.E.2d 1090. ‘This presumption emanates from the 
separation-of-powers doctrine because courts must be free from excessive control 
by other governmental branches to ensure their independence and autonomy.’  
Wilke, 90 Ohio St.3d at 60-61, 734 N.E.2d 811.” 
{¶ 20} With these standards in mind, we next address the merits of Judge 
Lohn’s mandamus claim. 
Reasonableness of Funding Order 
{¶ 21} In their attempt to rebut the presumed reasonableness of Judge 
Lohn’s funding order for the juvenile detention center for 2009, the board and 
commissioners assert that he abused his discretion in requesting amounts for 
detention center salaries and equipment that exceeded by $77,229.91 the sums 
appropriated by the board.  Absent an abuse of discretion by Judge Lohn, “the 
Board of County Commissioners is obligated to appropriate annually such sum of 
money as will meet all the administrative expenses of such court which the judge 
thereof deems necessary, including such salaries of court appointees as the judge 
shall fix and determine.”  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. Ray v. South (1964), 
176 Ohio St. 241, 27 O.O.2d 133, 198 N.E.2d 919, paragraph two of the syllabus. 
{¶ 22} The reasonableness of Judge Lohn’s funding request must be 
determined only from a consideration of the courts’ administrative needs, and the 
board and commissioners cannot substitute their judgment for that of the judge.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
State ex rel. Hague v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Commrs., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2009-
Ohio-6140, __ N.E.2d ___, ¶ 17; see also State ex rel. Moorehead v. Reed (1964), 
177 Ohio St. 4, 5, 28 O.O.2d 409, 201 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Foster v. 
Wittenberg (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 89, 45 O.O.2d 442, 242 N.E.2d 884, paragraph 
three of the syllabus. 
{¶ 23} Judge Lohn, in his capacity as juvenile court judge, was required to 
include in his written request for an appropriation to the board of commissioners 
“such sum each year as will provide for the maintenance and operation of the 
detention facility.”  R.C. 2151.10.  Judge Lohn also appoints the superintendent of 
the detention center and fixes the compensation of the superintendent and other 
necessary employees, e.g., corrections officers.  R.C. 2151.70. 
Salary Increase 
{¶ 24} The board and commissioners initially assert that Judge Lohn’s 
January 9 funding order increasing corrections officers’ salaries by $1 per hour 
was unreasonable and unnecessary.  We agree.  That request is unreasonable and 
unnecessary because (1) Judge Lohn’s order was premised upon a factually and 
legally inaccurate comparison between corrections officers employed at the 
juvenile detention center and corrections officers employed at the county jail by 
the sheriff, (2) Judge Lohn’s order did not account for the December 2008 raise 
given to detention center employees, including the corrections officers, and (3) 
the county’s fiscal crisis did not support the order. 
{¶ 25} As to the first reason, Judge Lohn’s order was premised on the 
ACA audit report, which was based on an admittedly inaccurate starting salary 
figure for corrections officers employed at the county jail.  Moreover, the 
comparison with county jail corrections officers was inapt because these officers, 
unlike the officers employed at the juvenile detention center, are represented by a 
union under a collective-bargaining agreement.  For example, in State ex rel. 
Weaver v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 204, 206, 580 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
1090, we rejected the county commissioners’ contention that just because salaries 
of corrections officers in the sheriff’s department had decreased, juvenile court 
corrections officers’ salaries should be likewise decreased:  “We, however, are 
unable to conclude just from a salary decrease in the sheriff’s department, 
particularly one that resulted from labor negotiations and mediation, that the 
juvenile court employees are not now entitled to salary levels comparable to those 
that the sheriff’s department employees previously employed.”  In fact, the higher 
salaries for county jail corrections officers arguably cannot cause any of the 
claimed turnover of detention center corrections officers when at the beginning of 
2009, the sheriff had to reduce his staff by 18 employees, including ten full-time 
corrections officer and one part-time corrections officer, and he also closed two 
pods at the jail.  That is, there is no incentive for detention center corrections 
officers to leave their employment to join the sheriff’s department if there are no 
jobs available there.  In addition, the unions representing sheriff’s employees, 
including corrections officers, voted to rescind a negotiated 3 percent salary 
increase for 2009 to avoid the layoff of more employees. 
{¶ 26} Second, Judge Lohn conceded in his deposition that the raise or 
bonus given to detention center employees in December 2008 out of the surplus 
left from the 2008 appropriation for salaries should offset the $1 per hour salary 
increase he requested and ordered for detention center corrections officers in 
2009.  In fact, Judge Lohn did not even know about the year-end bonus until June 
2009, when he heard about it at a mediation conference. 
{¶ 27} Finally, when these factors are considered together with the 
county’s declining financial situation, we conclude that the salary-increase portion 
of Judge Lohn’s funding order is unreasonable and unnecessary.  See State ex rel. 
Britt v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 1, 3-4, 18 OBR 1, 
480 N.E.2d 77 (although claims of governmental hardship are not determinative, 
they are a relevant factor in determining whether a court abused its discretion in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
determining its budget request).  The requested salary increase here distinguishes 
this case from our recent decision in Hague, in which the board of 
commissioners’ reduction in funding left the judge in that case with “the dilemma 
of closing either the detention center or the clerk’s offices of the probate and 
juvenile courts.”  ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2009-Ohio-6140, ___ N.E.2d ___, at ¶ 26.  
No such dire consequence arises from the board’s denial of Judge Lohn’s salary 
increase here. 
Equipment 
{¶ 28} For the detention center equipment, Judge Lohn did not abuse his 
discretion in requesting and ordering $23,800.  The county administrator testified 
that he had no opinion about the reasonableness of the amount requested.  And 
although the county finance director testified that he believed that Judge Lohn 
could have used money in a court computerization fund for these expenses, he 
was not aware that Judge Lohn could legally do so, and he did not specify the 
amount of money available in the fund.  See R.C. 2151.541 and 2153.081 
(authorizing juvenile court judge to assess fees to generate additional funds to 
computerize the court and to make available computerized legal-research 
services).  The court administrator testified that she did not believe that there was 
much money in the fund, because it had been used to purchase scanning 
equipment.  In any event, much of the requested sum for detention center 
equipment was not even for computer equipment. 
{¶ 29} The board and commissioners’ “reliance on evidence that other 
county departments did not complain about their reduced funding does not mean 
that [the judge’s] funding orders were unreasonable.”  Hague, __ Ohio St.3d ___, 
2009-Ohio-6140, __ N.E.2d ___, ¶ 25.  That is, this evidence does not bear upon 
the dispositive inquiry concerning Judge Lohn’s administrative needs for the 
juvenile detention center.  Id. at ¶ 17; State ex rel. Milligan v. Freeman (1972), 31 
Ohio St.2d 13, 18, 60 O.O.2d 7, 285 N.E.2d 352. 
January Term, 2009 
11 
 
{¶ 30} Finally, the board and commissioners claim that the requested 
additional funds for equipment are unnecessary because as of October 28, 2009, 
Judge Lohn still had sufficient money available.  We rejected a similar claim in 
Hague, at ¶ 34, by reiterating that “[o]ur precedent requires evaluation of the 
propriety of the court’s funding request as of the time the judge makes it.”  See 
also State ex rel. Maloney v. Sherlock, 100 Ohio St.3d 77, 2003-Ohio-5058, 796 
N.E.2d 897, ¶ 46.  Because the board and commissioners had a duty to 
appropriate the requested funds for the equipment to Judge Lohn when he issued 
his funding order in January 2009, “their duty to do so has not dissipated with the 
passage of time.”  Hague, at ¶ 34. 
{¶ 31} Therefore, the board and commissioners have failed to rebut the 
presumption that Judge Lohn’s budget order for equipment for the juvenile 
detention center was reasonable and necessary. 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 32} The evidence establishes that Judge Lohn abused his discretion by 
ordering the board of commissioners to appropriate the requested additional 
$64,429.91 to cover the $1 per hour increase in salaries because it was based on a 
legally and factually flawed comparison and the deficiency had been offset by a 
year-end bonus.  The board and commissioners’ appropriation of a smaller 
amount for salaries than that ordered was thus appropriately based on an analysis 
of the needs of the juvenile detention center rather than an arbitrary 
determination.  Cf. Hague, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2009-Ohio-6140, __ N.E.2d __, ¶ 
36, citing Maloney, 100 Ohio St.3d 77, 2003-Ohio-5058, 796 N.E.2d 897, ¶ 44.  
We thus deny the writ of mandamus for these funds. 
{¶ 33} Nevertheless, for the additional $12,800 for equipment for the 
juvenile detention center, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel the board and 
commissioners to appropriate these additional funds ordered by Judge Lohn for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
2009.  The board and commissioners failed to rebut the presumed reasonableness 
of this additional amount. 
{¶ 34} Therefore, we grant a writ of mandamus to compel the Medina 
County Board of Commissioners to appropriate only an additional $12,800 for 
2009.  We deny the writ insofar as it requested an additional $64,429.91 for salary 
increases for 2009. 
Writ granted in part 
and denied in part. 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and O’DONNELL, JJ., 
concur. 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
PFEIFER, J., not participating. 
_____________________ 
 
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nick A. Soulas 
Jr. and Patrick J. Piccininni, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, special counsel for 
relator. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles 
E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, special counsel for respondents. 
_____________________