[Cite as State ex rel. Lohn v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 124 Ohio St.3d 241, 2009-Ohio6851.] 

THE STATE EX REL. LOHN v. MEDINA COUNTY 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Lohn v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 

124 Ohio St.3d 241, 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 

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. 

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 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 collectivebargaining 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 

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. 
January Term, 2009 

3 

{¶ 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 threeto-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. 

{¶ 8} In December 2008, a $33,000 surplus in the 2008 line item for 

employees of the juvenile detention center was used 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

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. 

{¶ 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 
January Term, 2009 

5 

$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 for the corrections officers at the 

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. 

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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

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. 

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 

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 
January Term, 2009 

7 

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. 

State ex rel. Hague v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio St.3d 489, 2009-

Ohio-6140, 918 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

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 situation 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 

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 
January Term, 2009 

9 

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 

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.” 123 Ohio St.3d 489, 2009-Ohio-6140, 918 N.E.2d 151, at ¶ 26. 

No such dire consequence arises from the board’s denial of Judge Lohn’s salary 

increase here. 

Equipment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

{¶ 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 did 

not know whether 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, 123 Ohio St.3d 

489, 2009-Ohio-6140, 918 N.E.2d 151, ¶ 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. 

{¶ 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 
January Term, 2009 

11 

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. 

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, 123 Ohio St.3d 489, 2009-Ohio-6140, 918 N.E.2d 

151, ¶ 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 

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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

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. 

_____________________