Rhetoric hinders court reform efforts
The feuding between Shelby County Commissioner Henri Brooks and Juvenile Court Judge Curtis Person needs to stop.
Neither would call it that, but in the public’s view that is how it is being perceived. Brooks is coming off as vengeful and the judge is giving the impression that he can’t take criticism. Both strongly disagree with those characterizations. We have no reason to believe they are not sincere, but the reforms taking place at Juvenile Court would be better conducted in an atmosphere of calm.
The latest flare-up occurred last week when Brooks released a letter from Larry Scroggs, the court’s chief administrative officer, in which he said the judge had changed his mind about developing a plan to allow community court monitors to observe transfer and delinquency hearings for juveniles to make sure the court is complying with a memorandum of agreement between the court, Shelby County government and the U.S. Department of Justice.
The letter cited occasions when Brooks publicly berated Person, her vote against funding for certain aspects of the MOA and a conflict of interest since she has announced her candidacy for Juvenile Court clerk, an office that is important to the court’s operation.
Brooks, with the backing of some of her fellow commissioners, filed the initial complaint against Juvenile Court that led to a more than two-year investigation by the Justice Department. The probe found systemic discriminatory practices against African-American children and resulted in broad changes in court policies and procedures.
You could say that Brooks has won the war, but can’t abide by the peace treaty.
She and other commissioners have made no secret they are not happy about not being part of the MOA, especially since they fund the court and would be asked to fund agreed-upon improvements. Brooks has harshly criticized the lack of public input, including the Justice Department’s selection of out-of-state experts to monitor various aspects of the agreement.
Juvenile Court is a publicly funded agency, and as such it would be correct to assume that citizens would have a right to sit in on delinquency and transfer hearings. But the court also has the responsibility to protect the privacy of the juveniles in its care and the integrity of its processes, and to ensure that the courtroom is free of distractions. Brooks said the community monitors would not interrupt court proceedings, adding she is not on a vendetta.
Given Brooks’ “castigating” public statements about the court, it is understandable why Person is apprehensive about Brooks’ community monitor plan. She, of course, would be one of the monitors.
What is needed now is for Brooks to tone down the rhetoric and for Person to count to 20. Then they both should figure out a way to make the community monitors work as a constructive element in the reforms under way at the court.