Judge wants seat eliminated

Official suggests state remove her seat after her retirement

When Eleventh District Court of Appeals Judge Diane V. Grendell first took the bench in 2000, the five-member court had more than 800 cases.

But over the past few years, the caseload of the appellate court — which reviews cases for errors in Lake, Geauga, Ashtabula, Portage and Trumbull counties — has dropped significantly.

In 2016, the 11th District was down to just 465 cases.

Now, Grendell is recommending the state eliminate the court’s fifth seat when she retires at the end of her term in February 2019.

“The population and the caseload in our district are declining,” Grendell said. “My retirement will provide the state the opportunity to save almost $500,000 of taxpayers’ money every year with only a (minimal) increase to the other four

judges, who will still have fewer cases than most other jurisdictions.”

The appellate court has been monitoring its caseload for the past two or three years. Earlier this summer, consultants from the Ohio Supreme Court met with appellate judges in the various districts.

“They started the meeting by stating that our court had the lowest caseload, per judge, in the state,” Grendell said.

Out of 12 districts, the 11th District averaged the lowest number of incoming cases per judge in Ohio in 2016 at 95. Second lowest was the 7th District —which has four judges and covers Mahoning and seven other counties — at 96. The highest average of incoming cases per judge last year was 159 in Hamilton County’s six-judge 1st District, according to a recent presentation by the LeanOhio group, designed to make government more efficient.

“In an effort to try to increase the caseload, (11th District) Judge (Colleen Mary) O’Toole suggested that the court dismiss cases instead of remanding them. This would result in a new case number being assigned to the same case, artificially increasing

our numbers,” Grendell said.

However, O’Toole said more research needs to be done before deciding that reducing a judicial seat is the answer.

“We’re not sure what is contributing to the low number of cases,” O’Toole said. “Cases are down throughout Ohio. Maybe we need to reduce seats, maybe not. If we need to go down, then we go down. But we want to make sure we’re not understaffed. Our filings are up so far this year in comparison to others. It’s not fair to make that decision based on the fact that someone is retiring.”

Grendell said the elimination of her seat would only add about 2.2 days of additional hearings per month for the remaining four judges.

“This is not too much to ask from judges making more than $140,000 per year,” she said.

Grendell noted that three appellate districts with similar but higher caseloads have only four judges.

In a recent letter to Chief Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor, Grendell said 11th District judges currently only sit 26 to 30 days of the year.

“Some of those days, a judge may hear only one case. Regular panels may only hear two to three

oral arguments,” she told O’Connor. “As you can see, we only need four appellate judges on the 11th Court of Appeals. We should save the taxpayers the expense of the fifth judge.”

Grendell has also reached out to state Rep. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, the house majority floor leader, on the issue.

Seitz said he believes her proposal is a sincere costsaving effort.

“It is obviously easier to eliminate a judgeship when there is a vacancy than when a sitting judge must be eliminated due to declining workload,” he said. “In my 17 years in the General Assembly, we have added many judges to the court system, but to the best of my knowledge we have only eliminated one. In an era of declining caseloads and relatively flat population growth, any opportunity to save taxpayer money by reducing judgeships bears careful consideration.”

Seitz has asked Andrew

Bowsher, the Ohio Supreme Court’s judicial and legislative affairs counsel, to look into the matter to see if it merits a recommendation to reduce the total number of judges by one.

“We are following established protocols by having the Supreme Court follow its process for recommending whether or not to make this change,” Seitz said.

Although the General Assembly has certain authority under the Ohio Constitution to create, consolidate or eliminate courts and judgeships in the state, the Supreme Court has historically been asked to review proposals for these actions prior to legislative action.

Supreme Court procedures state that a proposal to create or eliminate a judgeship may originate from local judges, bar associations or funding authorities, as well as members of the Ohio General Assembly.

“In most cases, the Supreme Court’s preference

is that proposals either originate from the judges of the local court or otherwise with their full consent,” according to a high court document describing the criteria to analyze such requests.

Proposals are submitted to the Supreme Court’s administrative director, who then asks the Office of Judicial Services to conduct an initial review and assessment of the proposal by examining caseload and performance statistics; the current and projected population served by the court; current judicial staffing levels of magistrates, acting judges and assigned judges, and the impact of the proposed change on budgets.

Once completed, the proposal would be reviewed by the Supreme Court’s administrative director and other staff members. A final report would then be distributed to Grendell and the appropriate members of the General Assembly.