Loading...
33-07 ResolutionRECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc ,Form No 30045 1 1 1 33-07 Resolutton No. Passed . 20, A RESOLUTION OPPOSING OHIO HOUSE BILL 154 AND ANY OTHER STATE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PREEMPT OR LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTS AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE XVIII OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. WHEREAS, each Mayor of a municipal corporation is currently authorized to conduct a Mayor's Court under Chapter 1905 of the Ohio Revised Code; and WHEREAS, the jurisdiction is conferred to the Mayors of municipal corporations to hear cases involving violations of local ordinances and certain types of traffic violations; and WHEREAS, for the past several years, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Thomas J. Moyer, has raised concerns regarding the operation of Mayor's Courts within the State of Ohio; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2007, House Bill 154 was introduced, with a subsequent amendment, by Representative Larry Wolpert (R) to address these issues and change the basic organization of Mayor's Courts within the State of Ohio; and WHEREAS, despite the historical significance of the Mayor's Courts, which have been in existence, statewide, since 1838, with the enactment of the first municipal code, House Bill 154 specifically states that all "mayor's courts shall cease to exist at the end of the day on December 31, 2007"; and WHEREAS, the Bill would then permit each municipality that currently has a "legally functioning mayor's court" and has a population of more that one thousand six hundred (1,600) to establish a Community Court and all Mayor's Courts for communities with populations below one thousand six hundred (1,600) would cease to exist on December 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, a Community Court differs from the traditional Mayor's Court in that the Community Court would be considered a "court of record" and would be established and governed under the Judicial Branch of the State of Ohio; and WHEREAS, the Mayor would no longer serve as `judge" of the court because the municipal court in which the Community Court is located would appoint a magistrate to preside over the community court; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin ("City") would be affected by the passage of the Bill in numerous ways; and WHEREAS, several of the provisions in this Bill conflict with the City's Home Rule power as provided in Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution; and WHEREAS, despite claims that the Bill preserves qualified local communities' ability to hear misdemeanor cases, the Bill actually unreasonably restricts and impairs important local interests in enforcing the violations of local ordinances by creating additional personnel burdens on the municipality, and removing the ability of the municipality to control costs and revenue within the court; and WHEREAS, Mayor's Courts in Ohio have provided an efficient, cost-effective, convenient system for dealing with minor offenses within the state in addition to allowing citizens to plead their case locally and maintain a right to plead in a new trial at municipal court, if they are unsatisfied with the outcome in Mayor's Court; and RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS Dayton Legal Blank, Inc ,Form No 30045 Resolution No. 1 1 33-07 Page 2 Pns.sed . 20 WHEREAS, the Bill would place an added burden on already crowded county court dockets; and WHEREAS, it is incumbent on the City to protect the current operation of the Mayor's Court and preserve its Home Rule powers as conferred under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Franklin, Delaware and Union Counties, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The City of Dublin hereby opposes Ohio House Bill 154, including the current proposed amendments, and any state legislation that would eliminate the current operation of the City's Mayor's Court. Furthermore, the City of Dublin opposes any legislation that would impede, restrict or impair the City's rights of self- governance as conferred under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. Section 2. The Clerk of Council is hereby directed to forward certified copies of this resolution to Governor Strickland and all members of the Ohio legislature. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect on the earliest date permitted by law. Passed this ~~ day of , 2007. Mayor -Presiding Officer ATTEST: ~ ~ ~~ Clerk of Council 1 MEM©RANDUM TO: Dublin City Council Jane Brautigam, City Manager FROM: Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Mayor Michelle Crandall, Director of Administrative Services Lisa Wilson, Director of Court Services Stephen J. Smith, Law Director Stephen J. Smith, Jr. DATE: May 31, 2007 RE: Resolution 33-07 -Opposing House Bill 154 I. Introduction For the past several years, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Thomas J. Moyer, has raised concerns regarding the operation of Mayor's Courts in Ohio. On April 17, 2007 House Bill 154 was introduced by Rep. Larry Wolpert (R) to address these concerns. Following the introduction of the Bill, Rep. Wolpert has introduced amendments to the Bill. This Memorandum will focus on the original Bill and the changes proposed in the Revised Bill. II. Proposed Requirements As indicated above, the Bill will change the basic setup of Mayor's Courts in Ohio. The Bill would eliminate Mayor's Courts as they currently exist. The Bill specifically states that all "mayor's courts shall cease to exist at the end of the day on December 31, 2007." R.C. § 1905.42(A). The Bill would then permit each municipality that currently has a "legally functioning mayor's court" and has a population of more that one thousand six hundred (1,600) to establish a Community Court.l Within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the Bill, each municipality will have to make a choice to do one of the follot~~ing: 1. Establish a community court by resolution, or 2. To not have a community court and transfer all pending Mayor's Court cases to municipal court. A Community Court differs from the traditional Mayor's Court in that the Community Court would be considered a "court of record." As such, a Community Court would be established and governed under the Judicial Branch of the State of Ohio. While the jurisdiction and types of cases heard by the Court would remain the same, this change could result in several 1 In the event that the municipality has less than one thousand six hundred (1,600) residents, all of the cases will be transferred to the local municipal court. Resolution 33-07 -Opposing HB 154 May 31, 2007 Page 2 of 3 additional administrative and procedural requirements. The process of hearing and deciding cases would be more akin to the operation of a municipal or county court in that the Community Court would have to strictly adhere to all of the rules of court and procedure in the State of Ohio including the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Traffic Rules and Rules of Evidence. One of the significant changes in the Revised Bill is the appeal process. Under the original Bill, appeals would go directly to the court of appeals of the appellant district in which the Community Court is located. R.C. §1905.52(A). Under the Revised Bill, either party would have the right, within 14 days, to file an objection to the magistrate's decision. Following an objection in Community Court, the administrative judge of the Municipal Court will "review the transcript, objections, and papers" and issue a "written decision adopting, rejecting, or modifying the magistrate's decision." R.C. §1905.52(A). The administrative judge's decision may then be appealed to the appropriate appellant court. R.C. §1905.52(B). Traditionally, the Mayor has performed all judicial functions in the municipality. Under the Bill, the Mayor will now have "all powers conferred upon the sheriffs to suppress disorder and keep the peace." R.C. ~737.34(A). However, the Mayor would no longer serve as "judge" of the court. Instead, the municipal court in which the Community Court is located will "appoint a magistrate to preside over the community court." R.C. §1905.41(C). In any county that has more than one judge, such as Franklin County, the administrative judge will appoint the magistrate. If the municipality is located in multiple jurisdictions, the administrative judge in the territory with the largest number of residents will have the power to appoint the magistrate. Under the original Bill, the municipality did not have any input with regard to the appointment of the magistrate. The Revised Bill now requires that the administrative judge consult with the legislative authority of the municipal corporation prior to the appointment of the magistrate. R.C. §1905.41(C)(1). However, the Revised Bill does not define the term "consult," nor does it specify what would be required to satisfy this obligation. Additionally, the Revised Bill authorizes the administrative judge to appoint "one or more" magistrates to the Community Court. The change was necessary to account for absences of the magistrate due to illness, vacation or other reasons. As with the original Bill, the magistrate serves solely at the pleasure of the appointing judge. R.C. §1905.41(C)(1). The Revised Bill does have a provision that allows the legislative authority of the municipal corporation to pass a Resolution recommending that the administrative judge remove the magistrate from the Community Court. However, this recommendation may only be made on the grounds that the "magistrate is not performing the magistrate's official duties in accordance with standards for magistrates established by the supreme court." R.C. § 1905.41(C)(2). Any magistrate appointed to a Community Court must be an attorney admitted to practice law in Ohio. The magistrate is paid an annual salary by the municipality and is required to "keep an office that is provided by the legislative authority of the municipal corporation at a convenient place in the municipal corporation." R.C. §1905.51. Resolution 33-07 -Opposing HB 154 May 31, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Additionally, the Bill authorizes the legislative authority of the municipality to appoint a clerk for the Community Court. The clerk serves at the pleasure of the legislative authority and must be compensated in "semimonthly installments" as determined by the legislative authority. The clerk will be required to post a bond of "not less than five thousand dollars" to ensure the "faithful performance of the clerk's duties" and would have the same duties as a clerk of a county court. R.C. §1905.41(D). II. Conclusion House Bill 154 and its revisions will have a dramatic impact on the operation of Mayor's Courts in the State of Ohio. While changes have been made to address some of the issues, many issues still remain. Accordingly, legal Staff recommends approval of Resolution 33-07, opposing House Bill 154.