Oklahoma

Who pays to have Oklahoma County detainees transported to and from the courthouse?

Published

on


At least one member of Oklahoma County’s Criminal Justice Authority believes the agency is being taken for a ride by a proposal that would spend about $750,000 of its budget to pay for the county sheriff to transport jail detainees to and from the courthouse.

Sue Ann Arnall, the only remaining original member of board of the authority (also known as the jail trust), opposes the proposal that will be considered Monday during the trust’s meeting.

Arnall has argued costs for transporting county detainees were paid for by the sheriff’s department before the trust took over the jail’s operations in 2020.

Her reading of the trust’s contract excludes it from having to pay for detainee transportation costs between the jail and the courthouse, Arnall said during the authority’s November meeting. The trust then tabled the proposal.

Advertisement

“This (expense) was never in the jail budget. But for some reason, when the split happened, the sheriff’s transportation was added to the jail’s costs. I think that was a mistake,” Arnall said.

That cost and others added to the jail’s budget have reduced the amount of money the trust has available to operate the facility by more than $5 million annually, said Arnall, who added that has prevented it from raising salaries enough to keep the operation adequately staffed.

Arnall also worries the proposed agreement makes the trust liable for anything that might happen impacting detainees’ health during transports or while detainees are being held in temporary cells on the courthouse’s top floor.

Advertisement

“We are taking on a responsibility that … should not fall on the jail trust,” Arnall said. “I would ask we eliminate this cost while keeping our budget the same. As we whittle away some of these expenses, we can gain some equilibrium on where we were in 2018.”

More: Oklahoma County commissioners looking for ‘plan B’ for new jail site

‘They didn’t know the financial implications of it at the time’

While Arnall argued the sheriff remains responsible for detainee transportation costs and liabilities outside the jail, Oklahoma County Sheriff Tommie Johnson III disagreed, citing an opinion published by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson in 2004.

“The trust steps into the shoes of the county and the sheriff for the purpose of operating the county jail. Therefore, a county jail operated by a public trust has the same duties as a jail operated by the county itself through the sheriff, or a jail operated by a private prison contractor,” it states.

Advertisement

“I understand what you are saying when you talk about costs that were assumed when the county chose to adopt this structure, unknowing what the future would present,” said Johnson, responding to Arnall’s concerns.

“I think when they made the separation, they didn’t know the financial implications of it at the time, but we see that in reality now. That money pays for those 10 men and women who provide that service. If it weren’t for that money, nobody is moving prisoners,” Johnson said.

When the trust tabled the proposed agreement in November, several members expressed hope Oklahoma County’s Budget Board might find funds elsewhere in the county’s budget to fund the expense.

Oklahoma County Commissioner Myles Davidson, who serves on the trust’s board as a commissioners’ representative, observed the issue puts both himself and Sheriff Johnson in awkward situations because both also serve on the county’s budget board.

Advertisement

Could the budget board find the money? “I know that that’s possible. But I also know it takes more votes (on the county’s budget board) than just you and I,” Davidson told Johnson.

“The way I read the statute, you don’t have to have an MOU (memorandum of understanding) to actually do this. You are charged with it anyway. It is just the money you need for the operation, is the way I see it,” he said.

Johnson said his chief goal remained ensuring his deputies are paid.

“I will always advocate for my guys and gals that I serve, and that would be no different on any board that I serve,” he said.

The issue was not taken up by the county’s budget board when it met in November.

Advertisement

As for the jail’s staff, CEO Brandi Garner told trustees in November she would welcome those additional funds to boost the jail’s operation, if that were possible.

“However, if the board chooses to move forward with this, the terms of the agreement are something we have negotiated and that I am comfortable with,” Garner said.

Advertisement



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trending

Exit mobile version