MINGO JUNCTION — A re-implementation of mayor’s court in Mingo Junction, after years of being inoperative, was hoped for by several village officials, but current circumstances necessitated a pause in efforts to bring it back.
Mayor Judy Ruckman and Village Council members Jodilynn Fitzgerald and Patti Mannarino each listed investigating the feasibility of a mayor’s court return as one of their goals following the Nov. 7 election that brought them into office, with Fitzgerald making a return.
The draw was more efficient prosecution on property and traffic code violations in the village limits, as well as a possible revenue stream through fines paid.
Ruckman said in January that a working mayor’s court would allow the village “to have people held accountable quicker … (and) maybe give them a chance to rectify, take care of and make (violations) better so we can turn our community around. … There’s been a lot of things that have been let go that we need to have people held accountable for.”
A mayor’s court is a local-level court that can hear cases of an individual violating a municipal ordinance. The municipality’s mayor acts primarily as the judge, although a magistrate can be hired for the position.
Chapter 171 of Mingo Junction’s codified ordinances gives the mayor jurisdiction to “hear and determine any prosecution for the violation of a municipal ordinance,” including traffic, property and parking violations within the village’s corporate limits.
Mayor’s courts are not courts of record, meaning cases’ oral proceedings are not recorded by a stenographer or digitally. However, mayor’s courts are required to register their case statistics with the Ohio Supreme Court yearly and quarterly.
Various estimates claim that the state of Ohio has between 200 and 300 municipalities with mayor’s courts, including as many as seven in Jefferson County, such as in Wintersville.
Mingo Junction had an active magistrate court that dissolved around 2009, according to the village’s Deputy Auditor Kim Crugnale, who said the dissolution occurred around when the village was experiencing layoffs resulting from the shuttering of the former Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. mill.
In January, Ruckman attended the first of two six-hour Initial Mayor’s Court Training sessions conducted by the Ohio Municipal League, certified by the Ohio Supreme Court, at the Ohio University Dublin Integrated Education Center. Completing the first or both sessions is required for mayors wishing to conduct mayor’s court in the state. The first session covered prosecuting offenses not involving drugs or alcohol, which is what the second session covered. Ruckman attended only the first, desiring to focus on property violations.
Following the initial training, mayors must undergo three or six hours of continued training each year, depending on what type of offenses they want to prosecute.
Having attended to learn about what a mayor’s court would entail, Ruckman said the session revealed that, right now, the village is not properly situated to undergo such a drastic evolution.
“It’s not off the board, but this year it is, for sure,” Ruckman said in April. “It can be revisited once we get everything where it needs to be and financially we can afford (it.)”
She put the idea on hold for a few reasons. One is that the village is currently in the process of updating its codified ordinances, which haven’t been touched since 2017.
“We don’t have all our legislation in place,” Ruckman said. “In order to run your court, you need to be able to have your records in place. You have to have your ordinances to back you if you cite someone (because) ordinances are basically your community’s laws.”
Another reason is the cost of holding a court, which Ruckman said the village isn’t ready to handle right now.
There are requirements for court decorum, not to mention staffing. A secretary, a bailiff and possibly a magistrate would need to be hired, and this would likely prove too much for the village, which is already limited on its police staff, Ruckman said.
Although citations themselves would theoretically provide revenue for the village, Ruckman said, the defendant could still appeal the case and delay payment. What’s more, the number of cases needed to make the time worthwhile would be strenuous.
“We’d have to have court at least twice a month or more to pay for resources,” Ruckman said. “We’re not a big enough community, nor do we have the finances. … It’s not cost-effective for us.”
Mingo Junction Police Chief Willie McKenzie III similarly said that, although processing traffic citations more quickly would be a plus for the village, the personnel isn’t currently available to make mayor’s court cost-effective. Currently, the department consists of two full-time officers and one part-time officer, with another to sign on within weeks.
“A citation a day would help a lot with equipment and safety equipment,” McKenzie said. “If I had more personnel, I would consider dedicating more time (to a mayor’s court).”
Mayor’s court may be on pause, but the idea of bringing it back sounds like “a very good idea” to Debbie Santoro, who worked as the Mingo Junction’s police secretary from 1977 to 2009 and handled some administrative work for the village’s mayor’s court.
Held twice a month and hearing mostly ordinance violation cases, mayor’s court was financially beneficial for the village during her time, Santoro said.
Regardless of Mingo Junction’s ultimate path with mayor’s court, Ruckman said the certification she received from January’s initial training is still valid, and she intends to keep her certification and complete her continuing education in case circumstances in the village change.