Recent editorials from Tennessee newspapers:
___
Oct. 27
The Commercial Appeal on a youth assessment center:
There are many good reasons to feel encouraged about the progress of juvenile justice reform in Shelby County. There are also good reasons to be concerned.
A proposal to establish a county Youth Assessment and Resource Center at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, also known as a juvenile assessment center, fits both categories.
As juvenile justice veteran Bill Powell noted in Sunday’s Viewpoint section, such a center “could be an important step forward in the treatment of youth, or it could be an epic failure that seriously harms the very youth it proposes to help.”
Powell’s hopes and concerns are relevant and important. He resigned in June after five years overseeing Shelby County Juvenile Court’s compliance with a 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.
The agreement included hundreds of recommendations for addressing the court’s failures to protect children and their constitutional rights, especially African-American children.
On June 9, County Mayor Mark Luttrell, Sheriff Bill Oldham and Juvenile Court Judge Dan Michael sent a letter to the U.S. attorney general asking him to review the agreement.
“We hope your review will lead you to the same conclusion we have reached,” the three officials wrote to U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions. “It is time to terminate the agreement and allow all sides to stand together to praise the work that has been accomplished.”
Among those who didn’t reach that conclusion was Powell. He read the letter and resigned. “I could not agree with it and I could not support it,” Powell said.
The letter failed to address the court’s failure to address what Justice Department lawyers call “disproportionate minority contact” or DMC.
In 2012, black youths in Shelby County here were less likely to receive more lenient “non-judicial” punishments, and more likely to be arrested, detained, and transferred to criminal court. They still are.
“The relative rates or gap in the racial disparity at each stage has not closed but rather has either stayed the same or has increased over time,” federal monitor Michael J. Leiber reported last November. “Little has changed,” he reported July 1.
Powell believes county and court officials are in denial about the system’s racial bias. “We have not done a thorough enough job of analyzing the practices, policies and procedures, the reasons we are getting disparate outcomes, not pretending they don’t exist,” he said.
Like many others, Powell believes a juvenile assessment center could connect many troubled youth to life-changing services and help them avoid the juvenile justice system.
But “without proper safeguards,” Powell said, an assessment center “could result in even more youth being brought into the justice system, more youth being sanctioned without legal representation, and increases in our already awful record of not treating youth fairly across racial lines.”
Powell’s concerns are echoed by other guest columnists in this section, including Cardell Orrin, director of Stand for Children.
“The overall concept of a juvenile assessment center requires our community to place our trust in institutions that have not proven themselves worthy of it, at least not without oversight and ongoing accountability structures,” Orrin wrote.
Powell’s hopes for an assessment center are echoed by many others, including Judge Michael.
“A juvenile assessment center is designed to divert children from the system,” Michael wrote in a recent guest column. “It will not be connected with the juvenile justice system. It will help children who have committed delinquent acts, assist them in avoiding future bad behavior, and allow them to succeed in life.”
Much has been accomplished with juvenile justice reform here. Many fewer youth are being arrested, detained, and transferred to criminal court. Many more youth are getting better representation, more just due process, more evaluation and care, and less harmful treatment while in detention.
A juvenile assessment center could divert troubled youth from the court system, and help them deal with physical, mental or emotional issues that set them on the wrong path.
It also should protect them from harm and protect all of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
A center “without proper safeguards” could make matters disproportionately worse, with or without federal oversight.
Online: https://www.commercialappeal.com/
___
Nov. 1
The Kingsport Times-News on corporate communication in the wake of explosions at a chemical plant:
In the wake of its failure to publicly respond quickly to explosions and a fire at the plant Oct. 4, Eastman Chemical Co. may meet in the near future with Kingsport police and fire officials to discuss how communications might be improved.
But will the public once again be left waiting for answers, as when nearly two hours passed before Eastman notified neighbors that a “process upset” had occurred?
If there is a roundtable discussion among Eastman and emergency services - and there certainly should be - it should take place in a public forum open to public comment. That’s what Eastman would have done decades ago when corporate communications were more focused on the plant’s local image.
The explosions that occurred at about 10:40 a.m. Oct. 4 could be heard all over the city. But nearly two hours went by before Eastman publicly responded with a nebulous statement that “a process upset … created a loud noise and visible plume” and that nearby residents should go indoors and shut off air conditioning. Many did. Others, fearing the worst was yet to come, herded children into cars and left town.
More than three hours went by before a mass emergency notification system call from city emergency officials informed residents in the area of the plant that while there was no chemical release, they should nonetheless remain indoors and not run their air conditioning systems.
Sullivan County EMS and the Kingsport Fire Department immediately responded with at least seven units, including two engines and 14 firefighters. The Kingsport Police Department had as many as 16 police officers on the scene either to provide traffic control or to work as liaisons at the command center.
Among those concerned about the communications failure is Kingsport Police Chief David Quillin, who told members of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen recently that there have been “a lot of discussions and communications about the situation. For police and fire, we want to be as proactive as possible to improve effective communication lines all throughout the city.”
Quillin said that the department has been in contact with Eastman since the day of the explosion and that fire, police and Eastman officials are talking about holding a roundtable discussion.
A time and place for that meeting has not been determined, but it should be a venue sufficient for the public to attend, and be part of the process of examining how communications can be improved, as they clearly need to be.
Online: http://www.timesnews.net/
___
Nov. 1
Johnson City Press on public records inspection:
The Tennessee Press Association, acting on behalf of this and 124 other member newspapers in this state, has sent a letter to the Tennessee Office of Open Records Counsel asking the state’s guidelines for inspecting public records be amended to prevent governmental bodies from banning “carte blanche” the photographing of public records by cell phone cameras.
We are living in the digital age, and we believe it’s time for state and local custodians of public records to catch up with the technology of the 21st century.
Some government entities have adopted a policy that says a person requesting to see a public document “will not be allowed to make copies of records with personal equipment.”
TPA officials say this language has led to bans on Tennesseans, including journalists who are reporting on news stories, from taking pictures of public records with their cell phones. Such policy also runs afoul of the Tennessee’s Open Records Act.
The public records law was passed in 1957 and requires government officials to grant full access to public records to every citizen of this state. The measure directs the courts to construe the act broadly “so as to give the fullest possible access to public records.”
While the courts have said public officials can charge reasonable fees for copying public records, local governments can’t charge fees for allowing inspection of a public record.
In truth, examining public records under the current law is not as easy as it should be. Tennessee’s public records law ranks 44th in the nation because aggrieved citizens are sometimes forced to engage in costly litigation to inspect public records and documents.
These open records belong to all the people of this state. Banning a citizen from snapping a cell phone photo of a public document is not in keeping with Tennessee law.
Online: http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.