Photo via Getty Images
Courthouse
Milwaukee Municipal Court’s decision to terminate its contract with a key agency angered key constituencies and put the court itself in a time bind when it comes to finding an alternative.
Ald. Jonathan Brostoff expressed skepticism that services could continue without a gap. “Even if that was less than a year there is still a significant amount of harm,” he said during a meeting last week of the Common Council’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee.
A month after providing the final notice of termination and just three weeks until the contract actually ends on July 11, the court hasn’t begun to work with JusticePoint to smoothly transition to whatever comes next.
The court is working on a transition plan, Chief Court Administrator Sheldyn Himle said. With Municipal Judge Phil Chavez returning from vacation this week “we will be able to solidify JusticePoint’s piece of the transition,” she said Sunday.
JusticePoint, which administers the Court Alternatives Program, does a lot. It evaluates defendants’ financial situations and any substance-abuse treatment, mental health, housing or job needs. It makes recommendations to Municipal Court for sentencing alternatives, such as community service or money forfeitures. It ensures that Municipal Court judges are aware if a jailed defendant may qualify for a “time served” sentence. It identifies potential community service sites and matches defendants with appropriate community resources and treatment providers. It follows up with clients and the court.
The court notified JusticePoint on May 15 that its contract would terminate July 11, less than six months before its scheduled Dec. 31 expiration date. Judges Chavez and Valarie Hill, working through Himle, approved the ouster of JusticePoint without telling newly elected Judge Molly Gena, who took office May 1, anything about it.
JusticePoint’s major sin apparently was providing copies of citations to Legal Action of Wisconsin lawyers representing the indigent clients who got the tickets. JusticePoint CEO Nick Sayner said the arrangement was agreed upon at least five years ago in a series of meetings with city officials, including representatives from the city attorney’s office.
Himle said in an email to a JusticePoint staff member that JusticePoint should not have provided the citations to Legal Action.
|
|
Hush Hush
The court has been publicly pretty hush-hush about the reasons for the termination and city officials talk vaguely about serious issues or allegations but refuse to say what they are. Sayner said the citation issue is the only one he knows about.
There also was disagreement about whether, during a May 4 or 5 meeting, Himle set a May 11 deadline for JusticePoint to submit recommendations for possible solutions. Himle said she did; Sayner said Himle expressed a preference but did not set a hard deadline. JusticePoint submitted its proposal on May 15, Sayner said. The city’s termination notice was received later that day.
Himle told the committee last week that the three Municipal Court judges could make referrals to service agencies after JusticePoint’s termination takes effect, then could issue a sole-source contract, followed by a full request for proposals.
Neither Chavez, who was out of the country, nor Hill showed up to the committee hearing, but Gena did, and she was clearly not happy with the termination decision.
While Hill and Chavez may have a post-7-11 plan, “I don’t,” Gena said. “I don’t know what is going to happen after July 11.”
“While I can order fines and ask them (defendants) to pay those fines, what’s really going to get at that root behavior and what’s really going to stop them from coming back in front of my court is that treatment, and it’s incredibly important,” she said.
Diminished Services
The court is canceling the contract for “convenience,” meaning it just needs to give 10 days’ notice of the action.
Whatever the city comes up with, it is likely to be a diminished program. Take Himle’s contention that judges could make referrals. Sure, but will they, as JusticePoint does, also take referrals from the Milwaukee Police Department, the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department, the defendants themselves, community-based programs and treatment providers, the state Department of Corrections, private attorneys, family members, and the City Attorney’s office?
Sometimes, Sayner said, Municipal Court security staff will ask JusticePoint to take a look if a defendant appears to need help.
Sayner said he does not think the two judges know how the program works on a day-to-day basis. Neither Hill nor Chavez has met with the JusticePoint management team for years.
JusticePoint, which also coordinates pretrial services in criminal cases for Milwaukee County, leverages its dual roles to get access to information another vendor may not be able to obtain easily or at all, Sayner said.
In its county role, agency employees are available 24 hours a day and interview 16,000 to 20,000 arrestees annually. That allows the agency to identify arrestees with Municipal Court cases who might be eligible for the alternatives program.
JusticePoint also operates and pays for a Municipal Court data system for which the costs are split between five court systems, including the Municipal Court. When the JusticePoint contract ends, the city needs another system.
The agency has access to the county’s pretrial system, where the agency keeps case notes and risk assessment information. JusticePoint staff members also are trained in a variety of assessment tools, some of which take considerable training or certification to administer, Sayner said. The agency uses at least some of the assessments with every defendant it interviews, he said.
Will the next vendor have access to those things? Or will the city ultimately make less effort to offer alternatives and instead seek forfeitures from people who have no money?
As the U.S. Justice Department said in an April “Dear Colleague” letter, imposing fines and fees while failing to “take account of other public policy concerns, may erode trust between local governments and their constituents, increase recidivism, undermine rehabilitation and successful reentry, and generate little or no net revenue.”
Let’s hope Municipal Court officials are paying attention.
Gretchen Schuldt is a writer and researcher for the Wisconsin Justice Initiative.
