At least three Pulaski County circuit judges have refused to provide their probation statistics to a county government committee, with one judge arguing that the group is out of bounds with its request.
In November and December letters to Quorum Court members, Wendell Griffen, Joyce Williams Warren and Leon Johnson rebuffed a request from a new public-safety committee for periodic reports from the judges' probation offices, including how often probation is revoked or completed.
Griffen said in his letter -- obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette through an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act request -- that the request for data raises a separation-of-powers issue between the judges and the county's legislative branch.
After a conflict over a push to hire a juvenile-justice director in the county, it's the second dust-up in less than a year between jurists and Pulaski County government dealing with both criminal-justice issues and questions of legal authority.
"The fact that the Quorum Court is curious does not mean this is the Quorum Court's business," Griffen said in an interview Wednesday.
"The harm here is this -- when we have to take our time, to tell somebody who does not have any jurisdiction something they have no business to know, we are not taking time to do the business we're supposed to be doing."
The data request made by the Quorum Court's newly organized Public Safety and Justice Efficiencies Committee was an effort to gather facts and figures from entities such as the courts, sheriff's office, jail and crisis-stabilization unit to guide the group's recommendations.
Before Thanksgiving, the committee sent inquiries about statistics to several departments and five circuit judges who oversee their own probation offices: Griffen, Johnson and the three judges who oversee the court's juvenile division, including Warren.
"The topic of justice reform evokes mixed emotions and varied opinions in Pulaski County and throughout the nation, which is why the examination of impartial and consistent data is necessary," Justice of the Peace Barry Jefferson, the committee chairman, wrote in request letters.
While the the sheriff's office and a few other departments submitted reports, the circuit judges said they would not.
"Respect for the separation of powers, independence of the judiciary and integrity of our republican system of government" moved Griffen to respond in the negative, he wrote.
Warren and Johnson individually replied to the committee to say they agree with Griffen's sentiments and wouldn't provide the data at this time, though it wasn't clear from correspondence if Warren spoke for all three judges overseeing the juvenile-court system.
Warren didn't return messages seeking comment, and an assistant in Johnson's office said he had no comment on the letter.
The information sought was to have included details on the number of people (adults and minors) who are on probation, their demographics (race, age, sex and ZIP code), and how often probations are revoked or completed.
Jefferson briefly discussed the response with justices of the peace in a Jan. 7 committee meeting and said in a later interview that he plans to meet one on one with the judges to explain the request and "overcome the concerns."
"I think they're kind of a little leery about what we are trying to do, and how we are trying to do it," he said.
The committee wants the data, he said, to better understand the work of staff members such as probation and intake officers, and help Quorum Court members be better informed during budget requests, not to oversee the judicial system.
The committee's focus is something new for the county, Jefferson said, adding that the previous dispute over the proposed juvenile-justice position had "lost a lot of trust" with judges.
Tensions between circuit judges and county government flared last spring and extended into July, when county chief executive Barry Hyde spearheaded a drive to create a position that would have had some oversight over juvenile-probation staff members.
According to news reports, Hyde said the position would help organize the juvenile-probation department and assess policy, linking the proposed role to changes suggested by consultants reviewing justice matters in the state's largest county by population.
But all 17 Pulaski County circuit judges scorned that plan, with some turning out to public meetings to say such a role violated their statutory authority and that they would challenge the proposal in court if approved. During one such gathering, Warren told committee members that the plan was idiotic, reports said.
After weeks of discussion, Quorum Court members voted 7-5 with two abstentions for an ordinance to create the position -- one vote shy of what it needed to pass.
At the July meeting that included the vote, some justices of the peace expressed anxiety about the prospect of a lawsuit, while others stressed the need for changes on issues highlighted by the consultants.
"When we don't try to fix the problem and find other ways to do things, I think that's where we make the mistake," said Jefferson, who supported the plan at the time. "We have to do something different."
It's not clear how the absence of some data will affect the committee's ambitions going forward. Several of its members didn't immediately return calls requesting comment last week.
While Griffen advised the group to seek the data through the county prosecuting attorney, chief deputy prosecutor John Johnson says although that department may incidentally have access to some of the information, it may not exist as formal records the office is required to keep.
All of the judges wrote that if justices of the peace would like to learn how probation works, they are welcome to visit their courts and observe hearings.
"It's not about trust. It's about respecting each other's lane. I stay in my lane," Griffen said.
SundayMonday on 01/19/2020