Juvenile center issue at a stalemate

The ongoing issue of the 32nd Judicial Circuit's juvenile detention center in Cape Girardeau and its questionable suitability for youths in trouble with the law came to a dramatic head last week.

A Southeast Missourian reporter came across a letter from Cape Girardeau County Commissioner Joe Gambill to the consultant the commission had hired to sort out the matter. Gambill asked her to discuss any findings by letter so as to avoid media spotlight.

And he told the reporter no one cares about the issue except the media anyway.

The presiding commissioner, Gerald Jones, bowed out of the matter, saying he'd rather do anything than talk about the center or the consultant. Perhaps that's understandable after two years of debate.

And the third commissioner, Larry Bock, voted against hiring the consultant in the first place.

None of the commissioners, it turns out, is particularly interested in a consultant's report that cost $61,000 of taxpayers' money.

If Gambill is right that only the news media are interested in the debate -- among commissioners, circuit judges and juvenile officials -- over whether a new detention center should be built, it would be, thankfully, because the majority of residents in the 32nd Judicial Circuit do not know any young people who have been detained in the center.

But every voter and taxpayer in the county should be interested in the commission's handling of this matter and the potential spending of several million dollars to remedy the situation. And they should be alert to the opinions of the judges who have pressured the commission to move ahead with a new center. The two sides have yet to sit down together for a rational conversation.

By way of background: Two years ago, the county's circuit judges -- who set the juvenile department's budget -- attempted to include funding for a new juvenile detention center to replace the one on Merriwether Street. Everything seemed to be a go. Property on Progress Street for a new center had been purchased in 2000.

But the commission balked after an election replaced one of them. They then took the matter to the state's Judicial Finance Commission, an appointed board that settles arguments between county commissions and judges.

Later, county commissioners suggested hiring a consultant to settle the issue, so the judges never really presented their case, instead choosing to wait for the consultant's report.

That document, in short, finds that the existing juvenile center is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it wouldn't be worth the expense of bringing it up to standards. The county commission disagrees.

So there the matter sits, with no one making a decision on whether the existing center is OK or not.

There's only one thing that can happen now if judges want a new center: They must budget it again.

If the county commissioners decide to take it back to the Judicial Finance Commission, so be it. Both sides can present their cases, see what happens and then make any possible appeals.

By no means should anyone be diverted from this path by the promise of a consultant making the decision for them. Until then, the issue appears to be dead.