JEFFERSON — Ashtabula County Commissioner Daniel Claypool feels the Ohio Supreme Court was “protecting a fraternity, a good-old boys’ system protecting a good-old boy” when it sided with County Probate Court Judge Charles Hague and ruled the Board of Commissioners must fund his Juvenile and Probate court budgets fully.

The high court’s decision cost the county $80,0000 in additional appropriations Tuesday. Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve the resolution that complies with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to restore funding to the courts.

Claypool made his good-old-boys comments prior to voting “reluctantly yes” on the resolution that moved $16,200 to Juvenile Probation, $14,500 to Juvenile Court, $23,900 to the Youth Detention Center (YDC) and $25,500 to Probate Court. Commissioner Joseph Moroski said there was “no particular joy in voting for this resolution, either.” He said the move was unfair to other county employees who have taken furloughs and been laid off during the county’s budget crisis while the courts have not only enjoyed full funding, but also in many cases had money to give employees raises.

Board President Peggy Carlo chose not to comment on the resolution.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision restored $109,000 in funding to Hague’s courts. However, Hague said Tuesday afternoon that his court administrator requested a lower amount because the award included funding for YDC to remain open. Hague closed YDC for two months, citing a lack of funding. He plans to reopen YDC later this month, is reinstating full-time court employees who went to part time, and is calling laid-off employees back to work. Of the $80,100 appropriated Tuesday, $69,100 will go for salaries.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the difficult economic times were not sufficient reason to cut Hague’s budget and reminded commissioners “that the courts must not be held hostage to competing interests when the courts, in their discretionary power, submit budgetary requests that are reasonable and necessary.” Claypool, in his comments made prior to voting, said it was very difficult for him to believe that our forefathers would consider spending money for trips to Vancouver, British Columbia, and Hawaii as “reasonable and necessary for the basic operation of this court.” He was referring to trips Hague has taken as a member of the Education Committee of the American Judges Association.

Hague said the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision upheld his right to fund these trips through the courts’ special-projects fund, which is outside the county’s general fund. Indeed, he said he actually saves the county’s general fund some money by using those special funds for travel and education.

“I intend to continue to attend these meetings,” Hague said. “I don’t’ pick the forums, and admittedly, they were very nice places to visit.”

Hague did not attend this year’s conference, held in Las Vegas in October. Instead, he attended a conference held concurrently in Columbus.

As for Claypool’s comments on the court protecting another court, Hague said: “I suggest that he might want to retake his ninth-grade Problems of Democracy class, wherein they learn about the three branches of government. Apparently, he doesn’t know about that. When he contemplates that, I suggest he very carefully reread the opinion of all seven Ohio Supreme Court justices in the case of Hague v. the Ashtabula County Commissioners.”

Claypool also said in his remarks that he will seek assistance from the Ohio County Commissioners Association to support legislation that would make Common Pleas Courts budgets and case assignment the Ohio Supreme Court’s responsibility.

“If this (the Ohio Supreme Court) is the only body in Ohio that has any authority to control the use of taxpayers’ money by the courts, then they should be the responsible body to explain to the taxpayers how their money is being spent. The state of Florida has done this very thing,” Claypool said.

Hague said he has “bigger fish to catch” than to comment on that request: specifically, running his courts.

The judge sued the board after the commissioners cut the appropriations they and the judge agreed upon through negotiations. Commissioners say they were forced to make the cuts because revenues fell even further than projected, but Hague said commissioners reneged on their part of the deal and so he took his case to the Ohio Supreme Court.