Budget issues surround move of juvenile court to downtown Ann Arbor courthouse
As the city of Ann Arbor prepares to move its courts staff out of the Washtenaw County Courthouse, the county is making plans to move its juvenile court downtown.
The juvenile court is now located at 2260 Platt Road. Country officials expect to see $300,000 in structural savings from relocating it to the county courthouse at Main and Huron.
The issue took center stage Wednesday night during an administrative briefing inside the county building. The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners is assuming those savings but has yet to approve the renovation and demolition work needed.
Board Chairman Conan Smith, D-Ann Arbor, said he has concerns about juveniles and adult offenders being under the same roof — but it's a move the county has little choice but to make given the $20 million structural deficit it must address.
Verna McDaniel
He said data suggest putting juveniles and criminals in the same environment creates stress and leads to worse outcomes.
"We need to be sensitive to the potential ramifications on children and their families," he said. "I'm willing to invest in a facility that ensures we're not compromising the best possible outcomes for kids and families. That's the question: How do we balance those two things?"
Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman, D-Ann Arbor, agreed with Smith and said she wants to see separation between the two systems "as far as financially and structurally possible."
Commissioners are expected to receive a full report on the issue at their regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. next Wednesday, said County Administrator Verna McDaniel.
McDaniel said there are renovation costs to consider, and also demolition costs to get rid of the decrepit juvenile court facility on Platt Road.
"We have to dispense with it or keep it," she said. "And of course, our recommendation will be definitely to demolish it. That we will have to budget separately."
Commissioner Dan Smith, R-Northfield Township, said the county needs to be sensitive about paying for "new stuff" in an "old building" at a time when employees face potential layoffs.
"I know — it happened in my office," he said. "In December 2008, we got a bunch of new cubicles in, and in January 2009, there was a bunch of layoffs. And in June 2009, there was a bunch of layoffs, and people were looking around, 'Why'd you spend all this godawful money on these imported ceiling tiles and fancy lights and new cubicles and new chairs?'"
McDaniel said funds for the renovation are expected to be found within the Washtenaw County Trial Court's own budget.
The county's 2011 budget is in excess of $200 million. The general fund totals $98.7 million — more than 60 percent of which goes toward public safety and justice.
"That's an awful lot," McDaniel told commissioners Wednesday night, adding she's going to be looking to the courts for savings as the county goes through its budget process.
Curtis Hedger, the county's attorney, said he'll be asking commissioners next Wednesday to approve an agreement between the Trial Court and the county, specifying the rights and responsibilities of each party on budgetary and operational issues. It's a long-standing agreement that's been in place for years but expired in December.
Conan Smith
The county's Circuit Court and Probate Court — collectively known as the Trial Court — are considered a separate unit of government under Michigan law. But the county is responsible for funding the courts, and that's been a sometimes contentious issue over the years.
Commissioners a year ago voted to terminate the contract with the courts because they thought it didn't provide enough flexibility to the county when it comes to cutting costs.
The contract, which commissioners are being asked to reconsider, includes a "lump sum" arrangement in which the county gives the courts a designated budget — then it's up to the courts to spend the money as they see fit. McDaniel is pushing commissioners to approve the agreement, in part, because she thinks it will help in budget negotiations.
But some commissioners, including Conan Smith, disagree with McDaniel and said they think the board should avoid agreeing to another lump sump arrangement.
"Because they are a separate branch of government, our check and balance on that process is through the budget," he said. "So being able to say we're going to fund A, B and C becomes critically important in that negotiation process. Just saying, 'Here's your lump sum money, spend it as you will,' doesn't necessarily empower us effectively."
McDaniel said there are other aspects of the agreement.
"It helps clarify how operations will be handled," she said. "And by that I mean: Will they follow our labor contracts and our labor process? Will they use our labor relations director to negotiate the contracts? Will they follow all of the other personnel rules? Will they follow our purchasing process with regard to contracts?"
Commissioners expressed concerns about the negotiation style of Judge Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Trial Court. Conan Smith said Shelton refuses to meet with him. In the past, he said, Shelton threatened to eliminate the drug court if the county cut his budget.
"If we don't have a drug court, our costs go up at (Community Support and Treatment Services), our costs go up at the jail, etc.," he said. "So their approach was punitive toward us, and not collaborative and cooperative."
Bergman also criticized Shelton: "None of this crap of 'I'm not speaking to Conan.'"
Commissioner Rolland Sizemore Jr., D-Ypsilanti Township, agreed.
"Conan is the chair of the board, and Conan should be — and shall be if I have anything to say about it — in negotiations with the courts," he said.
McDaniel said she's been in conversations with Shelton and agrees he may not be the easiest person to work with.
"Nevertheless, he has come to the table and we think we can work out some things where we can look at this budget situation and get their cooperation," she said.
Shelton said in an e-mail today he has always met with the chair of the board when requested. He said he considers his relationship with past board chairman Sizemore cordial.
According to Shelton, Conan Smith contacted the court administrator for the first time today to request a meeting with him.
"Over the last year that I have been chief judge, I have met several times with the board chair to discuss the budget as well as other county issues involving the court," Shelton said. "The court is certainly aware of the budgetary situation of the county and last year we negotiated, with the chair and the administrator, a significant reduction of $1.35 million in the court’s two-year lump sum appropriation, of which the juvenile court move is a part."
Shelton said he encourages the board to focus on public safety and other mandated functions as it works to reduce county expenditures.
McDaniel noted she's asked Trial Court Administrator Dan Dwyer to be on the county's budget planning team, so she's confident the courts will work with her administration.
Commissioner Kristin Judge, D-Pittsfield Township, stuck up for the courts, saying they've taken decreases in the past and worked well with the board.
"I looked back at some of the old audits and the amount of funds that the courts used to get was much, much higher," she said. "They've come way down over the past 10 years with the amount of money they've gotten in their lump sum."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
livinginA@
Mon, Jan 17, 2011 : 10:43 a.m.
Mr. Saalberg- how is the downtown location more accessible to the population when families will have to pay for parking? The current location does not have paid parking and is off the bus line. Also I would be curious to know where the majority of the population that frequent that building live. I would bet it isn't in Ann Arbor where the a large part of the City is college students.
CincoDeMayo
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
Mr. Saalberg, I stand by my comments also. The building issues that you describe sound repairable to me. I'd like to see, as much as possible, the energy and funds going toward working with these juveniles appropriately, not forcing them and their families to traipse downtown and become part of the larger criminal community.
livinginA@
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.
@ None- AMEN!!!!
bs
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:06 a.m.
Note, I'm neither a county nor a court employee, but have worked directly with the court and the young people it serves for nearly 30 years. As stated in this thread, the conflict between the county and the Juvenile court has been ongoing for many, many years. Although it appears to be about money, it really isn't that simple. In the past 30 years we've seen a huge change in the demographic of the young people involved with the court, there are more young people involved in serious criminal activities, drug use is up, violence is increasing and, as a result, the need to provide either intervention or incarceration is increasing. Incarceration is expensive, very, very expensive, and every dollar spent housing a teenager in detention or another residential facility is one less dollar that can be used to provide services at an earlier point to prevent incarceration. The dynamic is pretty simple when you look at it in that manner, as the need to keep truly violent and dangerous individuals out of your community increases, the ability to spend money on kids just entering the cycle (if you limit the dollars you spend on your children) decreases... and so it goes. At one time the Juvenile Court supported a number of educational programs for students whose behavior prevented them from attending public schools, those programs ended 10 or 12 years ago. At one time young people engaged in status offense activities (activities that are only illegal because of their age, such as school truancy, smoking, curfew violations, etc) were actually addressed and efforts were made to redirect these young people before those activities led to more serious crimes. I'm not saying that there are no young people adjudicated for status offenses now, but the number is a small percentage of what it was 15 or 20 years ago. As a result, these behaviors are left unchecked and kids see no reason to not take the next step, after all, nothing seems to happen, right? The cycle is nasty, the end result is only addressing the most dangerous youth, while the rest careen down the wrong path unchecked. And THAT is the issue, but it comes down to dollars. As a community you have to make a decision as to who to support, the people working with and for your children, or the accountants in the county building. The reason that the court is independent of the county is for just this reason. Dollars should not drive the level of caring, support, intervention, and redirection provided to our kids, however, if you leave the provision of these services in the hands of the accountant who makes the budget, that's exactly what you're doing. So, you decide, but be assured that, taking money out of the hands of the court today will only result in a further decay of your community and higher costs for incarceration in the future. But, feel free, in the meantime, to pat yourself on the back because you saved a few bucks. You might, however, want to set it aside to pay for the increased police and prison costs next year, and for years afterwards.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Sorry, I guess that would be "the ceilings are dropping down" - wouldn't want to defy gravity. And I would add the downtown location would be far more accessible than the current location, which is not nearly as close to a bus stop as the downtown courthouse.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
@CincoDeMayo: I stand by my statement. I know for a fact that the some of the buildings are in such poor shape, the water is not drinkable straight from the tap. Does that sound usable to you? As for newness, these buildings are so far past new, the ceilings are falling in.
racerx
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.
No Conan Smith, you have a $20M dollar deficit who cares if we need to be sensitive to the juvenile delinquent and their families. Maybe, and just speculating, if these juveniles and their families see what adults are going through within the court system, then lessons learned. Sensitive. Give me a break. Think anyone was sensitive when that juvenile committed the crime theyre accused of? Oh gee, sorry Mr. Homeowner, Im breaking into your house today, for Ive had a bad upbringing, my family doesnt care, but theyll show up at court to expound upon how much of a good kid I am, but meanwhile, Im sorry to be breaking into your home to steal these fine valuables youve work hard all your life to obtain, while I dont want to work, I just want to steal yours, oh, and Im so sorry
ShadowManager
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 12:47 a.m.
Holy non-issue Batman! So some juvenile court employees are being moved from a decrepit decaying should-be-condemned nearly vacant complex in the middle of nowhere to consolidate downtown in one building to save money. Big whoop. Where's the controversy?
CincoDeMayo
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 11 p.m.
This article should have come with a poll. My vote would be "no, no, no"!! Adults should absolutely be in a separate facility from juveniles. And children in protective services should be shielded as much as possible from juvenile offenders. Although, many of the juvenile offenders are also in need of protective services and treatment. I also have been inside of the building and, please, it is not that bad. One might say that they are "past their prime", but saying that they are "barely habitable for any use" is nuts. I am always amazed when people put so much weight into the newness of a structure, rather than focusing on what is needed to meet the goals of its use - the goal in this case being to protect, guide, treat and discipline juveniles. Furthermore, the location on Platt Road is perfectly accessible to residents of Ann Arbor, by bus as well as by automobile. In fact, the location is more convenient than a downtown location. Don't make lame excuses! Do the right thing!
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
Judge Shelton not being a team player? I could have never seen that coming. I guess those people at the county are on the wrong side of the V.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
Judge Shelton not being a team player? I could have never seen that coming. I guess those people at the county are on the wrong side of the V.
green1
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
"And once again, annarbor.com missed the boat. Why is the county moving ONE set of court operations downtown when they tossed another court operation out of the county building, forcing the city to build the new $50 Million Court-Police Building?" Mr. Goldsmith, is your question rhetorical? If not, the answer's quite obvious. The Trial Court wanted their leased (to 15th District Court) space back for their Juvenile Court relocation. The County saves money by combining staff operations and shutting down a substandard building. This has been in the works for years. It forced the City of Ann Arbor to act on the Police/Courts building.
green1
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
"And once again, annarbor.com missed the boat. Why is the county moving ONE set of court operations downtown when they tossed another court operation out of the county building, forcing the city to build the new $50 Million Court-Police Building?" Mr. Goldsmith, is your question rhetorical? If not, the answer's quite obvious. The Trial Court wanted their leased (to 15th District Court) space back for their Juvenile Court relocation. The County saves money by combining staff operations and shutting down a substandard building. This has been in the works for years. It forced the City of Ann Arbor to act on the Police/Courts building.
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.
@Kathy Griswold: Point well made.
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 6:22 p.m.
@Kathy Griswold: Point well made.
Kathy Griswold
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
Juvenile Court is much more than a court for alleged youth offenders. It decides the fate of many innocent children who become entangled in "protective services" and the foster care system. The following is copied from the Juvenile Court page of the county website: "Child abuse and neglect - Cases in which children under the age of 18 are found within this county physically or mentally abused by their parents (or parental figures) or without their health, material, educational or supervisory needs being met. The Court has the right to remove children from their families and place them elsewhere or remove parents from the home to maintain a child's safety while the case is proceeding. The Court has authority over parents of children in the jurisdiction of the Court and can obtain jurisdiction over other adults who affect the health, safety and morals of such a child. If the claims are found (by jury/non-jury trial or plea) to be true, the Court determines a rehabilitative treatment plan to be followed to assure the child's safety in the home and if the statutory grounds exist for termination, the Court may terminate a parent's rights to a child following notice and hearing. Child protective cases are primarily investigated, prosecuted, serviced and managed by the Children's Protective Services and Family Court Divisions of the County Department of Human Services, however, the Court staff carries out these tasks in cases of educational neglect." I once sat with young children in the Juvenile Court hallway waiting for their case to be called as they watch teenagers in orange jumpsuits and chains being shuttled down the hall to a courtroom. I will not attempt to describe the stress this caused these innocent children. We not only need to separate youth offenders from adults offenders, we also need to separate the children in protective services from all alleged criminals.
Kathy Griswold
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:51 p.m.
Juvenile Court is much more than a court for alleged youth offenders. It decides the fate of many innocent children who become entangled in "protective services" and the foster care system. The following is copied from the Juvenile Court page of the county website: "Child abuse and neglect - Cases in which children under the age of 18 are found within this county physically or mentally abused by their parents (or parental figures) or without their health, material, educational or supervisory needs being met. The Court has the right to remove children from their families and place them elsewhere or remove parents from the home to maintain a child's safety while the case is proceeding. The Court has authority over parents of children in the jurisdiction of the Court and can obtain jurisdiction over other adults who affect the health, safety and morals of such a child. If the claims are found (by jury/non-jury trial or plea) to be true, the Court determines a rehabilitative treatment plan to be followed to assure the child's safety in the home and if the statutory grounds exist for termination, the Court may terminate a parent's rights to a child following notice and hearing. Child protective cases are primarily investigated, prosecuted, serviced and managed by the Children's Protective Services and Family Court Divisions of the County Department of Human Services, however, the Court staff carries out these tasks in cases of educational neglect." I once sat with young children in the Juvenile Court hallway waiting for their case to be called as they watch teenagers in orange jumpsuits and chains being shuttled down the hall to a courtroom. I will not attempt to describe the stress this caused these innocent children. We not only need to separate youth offenders from adults offenders, we also need to separate the children in protective services from all alleged criminals.
Marshall Applewhite
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.
I think the proper way to address this problem is to lay off more Firefighters and Police Officers.
Marshall Applewhite
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.
I think the proper way to address this problem is to lay off more Firefighters and Police Officers.
Cash
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:16 p.m.
Well Shelton's comments are worse than nothing at all! "Shelton said he encourages the board to focus on public safety and other mandated functions as it works to reduce county expenditures." Is the judge now a budget analyst for the county? I'm guessing his degree is law, not NFP accounting. Telling the board how to manage the entire county budget is not his function is it? And goodness isn't he the one who wanted to be EMU President so badly last time around? YIKES!!!
Cash
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 5:16 p.m.
Well Shelton's comments are worse than nothing at all! "Shelton said he encourages the board to focus on public safety and other mandated functions as it works to reduce county expenditures." Is the judge now a budget analyst for the county? I'm guessing his degree is law, not NFP accounting. Telling the board how to manage the entire county budget is not his function is it? And goodness isn't he the one who wanted to be EMU President so badly last time around? YIKES!!!
Jon Saalberg
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
As one who actually has been inside the juvenile facilities in question, I can unequivocally state that they are well past their prime, and are, in fact, barely habitable for any use. I think it is likely that adult and juvenile offenders will not be in a courtroom at the same time - the cases will probably be done in batches, separating youth and adult offenders. It is also the case that moving the juvenile facility downtown makes it easier for Ann Arbor residents to get to the facility, and makes the facility more accessible to those who will use buses to get to the courthouse.
Jon Saalberg
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
As one who actually has been inside the juvenile facilities in question, I can unequivocally state that they are well past their prime, and are, in fact, barely habitable for any use. I think it is likely that adult and juvenile offenders will not be in a courtroom at the same time - the cases will probably be done in batches, separating youth and adult offenders. It is also the case that moving the juvenile facility downtown makes it easier for Ann Arbor residents to get to the facility, and makes the facility more accessible to those who will use buses to get to the courthouse.
Bob Needham
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
(Off-topic comment removed)
Bob Needham
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
(Off-topic comment removed)
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
@Vivienne. Thanks for the little history refresher and for those who may be introduced to this issue for the first time, its helpful in understanding dynamics of this discussion. However, that withstanding, I too was/am opposed to the co-mingling of adult and juvenile offenders. It's like our grade school system. As you complete one grade successfully (theoretically) you move to the next one until you "graduate." By co-mingling the adults and juveniles and by calling the physical and service environment a "campus" we are sending the wrong messages to these young people. We don't want them to "graduate" to the next level. We want them out of the system. Unfortunately, our current juvenile system is not predicated on rehabilitation but warehousing them until they are old enough to be graduate to the adult system. While I recognize that there are those who need intense restraint, we should be focusing our efforts on channeling these young people into activities where they may become productive members in our community. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a system that feeds on itself and in order to survive, the most vulnerable young people are contained within it. I'm with you on this one Conan.
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
@Vivienne. Thanks for the little history refresher and for those who may be introduced to this issue for the first time, its helpful in understanding dynamics of this discussion. However, that withstanding, I too was/am opposed to the co-mingling of adult and juvenile offenders. It's like our grade school system. As you complete one grade successfully (theoretically) you move to the next one until you "graduate." By co-mingling the adults and juveniles and by calling the physical and service environment a "campus" we are sending the wrong messages to these young people. We don't want them to "graduate" to the next level. We want them out of the system. Unfortunately, our current juvenile system is not predicated on rehabilitation but warehousing them until they are old enough to be graduate to the adult system. While I recognize that there are those who need intense restraint, we should be focusing our efforts on channeling these young people into activities where they may become productive members in our community. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a system that feeds on itself and in order to survive, the most vulnerable young people are contained within it. I'm with you on this one Conan.
trailblazer
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
the courts have been on the move to obtain total control over the employees, the work and the budget at the courts how can the county consider 'additional' expenses to demo a building- why not leave it alone for a couple of years until the budget can absorb the expense there are too many things the county is asking its employees to give up so they can continue to remodel old buildings, continously move departments from one place to another- for no real good reason other than to look like change is happening i dont know how many departments have gone through massive studys paying enourmous amounts to outside agencys (to tell the high paid administration the best business practices) that then go through a restructuring, only to have the cost and unstability to undo the restructuring back to what it was within a matter of years someone needs to get a grip and i hope the commissioners can see this and stop tolerating it
trailblazer
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
the courts have been on the move to obtain total control over the employees, the work and the budget at the courts how can the county consider 'additional' expenses to demo a building- why not leave it alone for a couple of years until the budget can absorb the expense there are too many things the county is asking its employees to give up so they can continue to remodel old buildings, continously move departments from one place to another- for no real good reason other than to look like change is happening i dont know how many departments have gone through massive studys paying enourmous amounts to outside agencys (to tell the high paid administration the best business practices) that then go through a restructuring, only to have the cost and unstability to undo the restructuring back to what it was within a matter of years someone needs to get a grip and i hope the commissioners can see this and stop tolerating it
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
Readers might understand the personal dynamics reported here better if they understand some history. Mr. Smith was, I believe, personally involved in the campaign against Proposal B, which was on the ballot on November 3, 1998. Here is the best rendering I was able to find of the text of this ballot measure: "98-0125 adopted a resolution submitting to the Washtenaw County electors a question of whether the tax limitation should be increased by one-quarter of one mill (0.25) for twenty (20) years, beginning with the December 1, 1999 tax levy, to provide the funds required to remodel, construct, furnish and equip an addition to and renovations for the Washtenaw County Jail, a new Juvenile Detention Center and a new Day Treatment Center." Mr. Smith's mother, Alma Wheeler Smith, and his aunt, Nancy Francis, who was then the Judge of the Juvenile Court, were both emphatically opposed to this ballot measure because it moved juvenile court to the Hogback Service Center. (They were also opposed to the later action by the Board of Commissioners to construct a new juvenile detention center at that location, which was done without a popular vote.) Judge Francis, who was (and is) widely respected, wished to keep the juvenile court and juvenile detention at the same location that they had been, on Platt Road. Judge Francis and Ms. Smith, who was in the Michigan legislature (I can't remember which office at the time), supported a vigorous campaign in which Conan Smith was also active. They were successful in defeating the measure. Many of the same arguments (juveniles in sight of adult offenders, etc.) were used as you see being repeated by Mr. Smith. Subsequent to the failure of the ballot measure, but not immediately (I recall that the date might be 2000 or 2001), Judge Francis was moved to the Probate Court by action of the Chief Judge and Judge Shelton assumed the post of Juvenile Judge. This action was bitterly contested and has caused strong resentment to this day among Judge Francis' supporters. Again, this is as historical background to the personal dynamics mentioned in the story. I'll just note that if Proposal B had passed, much of the history of court and jail construction in Washtenaw County would have been much different and would have been mostly resolved a decade ago.
Vivienne Armentrout
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
Readers might understand the personal dynamics reported here better if they understand some history. Mr. Smith was, I believe, personally involved in the campaign against Proposal B, which was on the ballot on November 3, 1998. Here is the best rendering I was able to find of the text of this ballot measure: "98-0125 adopted a resolution submitting to the Washtenaw County electors a question of whether the tax limitation should be increased by one-quarter of one mill (0.25) for twenty (20) years, beginning with the December 1, 1999 tax levy, to provide the funds required to remodel, construct, furnish and equip an addition to and renovations for the Washtenaw County Jail, a new Juvenile Detention Center and a new Day Treatment Center." Mr. Smith's mother, Alma Wheeler Smith, and his aunt, Nancy Francis, who was then the Judge of the Juvenile Court, were both emphatically opposed to this ballot measure because it moved juvenile court to the Hogback Service Center. (They were also opposed to the later action by the Board of Commissioners to construct a new juvenile detention center at that location, which was done without a popular vote.) Judge Francis, who was (and is) widely respected, wished to keep the juvenile court and juvenile detention at the same location that they had been, on Platt Road. Judge Francis and Ms. Smith, who was in the Michigan legislature (I can't remember which office at the time), supported a vigorous campaign in which Conan Smith was also active. They were successful in defeating the measure. Many of the same arguments (juveniles in sight of adult offenders, etc.) were used as you see being repeated by Mr. Smith. Subsequent to the failure of the ballot measure, but not immediately (I recall that the date might be 2000 or 2001), Judge Francis was moved to the Probate Court by action of the Chief Judge and Judge Shelton assumed the post of Juvenile Judge. This action was bitterly contested and has caused strong resentment to this day among Judge Francis' supporters. Again, this is as historical background to the personal dynamics mentioned in the story. I'll just note that if Proposal B had passed, much of the history of court and jail construction in Washtenaw County would have been much different and would have been mostly resolved a decade ago.
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Please note comments from Judge Shelton have been added to the story.
Ryan J. Stanton
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Please note comments from Judge Shelton have been added to the story.
jns131
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
Dum dum got gum gum? Big big mistake putting the two together. We keep our elementary separate especially if we have to put the two together, the big kids in back and the little ones in front. Wow. Who is the brain child behind this one? Scary, very scary.
jns131
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
Dum dum got gum gum? Big big mistake putting the two together. We keep our elementary separate especially if we have to put the two together, the big kids in back and the little ones in front. Wow. Who is the brain child behind this one? Scary, very scary.
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
I am proud of Commissioners Smith and Bergman for voicing their concerns about co-mingling adult criminals with our juveniles and I hope they are committed to seeing that these young people, while incarcerated or under the jurisdiction of the courts are given all opportunities for rehabilitation. Having them interact with adult criminals is not good. I sincerely hope that Smith and Bergman demand some accountability regarding the outcome of these youth while they are involved with the court system. Currently, there is none.
KeepingItReal
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
I am proud of Commissioners Smith and Bergman for voicing their concerns about co-mingling adult criminals with our juveniles and I hope they are committed to seeing that these young people, while incarcerated or under the jurisdiction of the courts are given all opportunities for rehabilitation. Having them interact with adult criminals is not good. I sincerely hope that Smith and Bergman demand some accountability regarding the outcome of these youth while they are involved with the court system. Currently, there is none.
Tom Joad
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
What financial hardship this is going to cause for parents of juvenile offenders having to find and pay high parking fees to tote their junior to court. This is a consideration for many parents with troubled youth.
Tom Joad
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
What financial hardship this is going to cause for parents of juvenile offenders having to find and pay high parking fees to tote their junior to court. This is a consideration for many parents with troubled youth.
Cash
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
Wait, wait, wait...Judge Donald Shelton who is paid by us, the taxpayers, won't talk to the County Commissioners, who are also paid by us the taxpayers? Are you kidding me? No wonder Washtenaw County is in such a financial mess.
Cash
Thu, Jan 13, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
Wait, wait, wait...Judge Donald Shelton who is paid by us, the taxpayers, won't talk to the County Commissioners, who are also paid by us the taxpayers? Are you kidding me? No wonder Washtenaw County is in such a financial mess.