Letters to Editor
Deterioration of Values
I’d like to correct some misinformation in the Maple Leaf’s July 16 article entitled “Children’s Services Budget Overwhelmed” as well as provide some clarifying information to the public regarding the limitations of the juvenile court when it comes to child placements.
When faced with an emergency placement situation, the juvenile court, just like any other local government agency, is bound by the Ohio Revised Code and emergency child placement options are clearly limited by O.R.C. sections 2151.31 and 2151.312.
Despite Mr. Swenson’s claims of judicial latitude, in reality, the Judge is afforded very limited discretion in determining the placement of a child. Those codes specifically restrict detention placement to juveniles who have committed a delinquent act and only allows the placement of an unruly child in detention for no more than 24 hours, which often is not enough time to acquire an assessment.
Abuse, neglect and dependent children are prohibited entirely from being placed in a detention facility.
Additionally, it’s important to note that, for all cases except for delinquencies, efforts are made first to locate a suitable relative with whom to place the child and only if none can be found are alternative placement solutions necessary.
Regarding non-emergency placements, the judge makes decisions based on facts presented to the court from the police report, prior information about the child, if available, as well as recommendations from treatment professionals such as the FLIP coordinator, CASA staff and JFS social workers.
The judge’s ultimate determination is made after weighing all of these facts and recommendations to act in the best interests of the child.
If the judge grants custody to GCJFS and orders treatment as a result of those recommendations, he does not determine the level of treatment a child will receive or where the child will be placed. By law, that is determined by GCJFS after being granted custody and they utilize a combination of psychological assessments, health evaluations and drug/alcohol assessments to identify the child’s needs.
Mr. Swenson was correct in saying that, though the number of cases may be decreasing, the severity of the cases is intensifying, thus resulting in more complex problems, longer treatment times and increased costs.
It’s important to understand that this rise in costs is not limited to JFS. All in the justice system have been dealing with increased costs for this very reason, as evidenced by the recent personnel and operational cuts made by the probate/juvenile court as a result of the commissioners’ denial of our budget request. How is it the commissioners recognize the increase in costs to GCJFS as necessary, but rebuke those same cost increases incurred by the juvenile court?
At last week’s commissioners meeting, Mr. Swenson urged everyone to remember this is about the kids and requested the welfare of Geauga County children not be politicized. The court agrees with this sentiment and, further, respectfully requests the commissioners and media put an end to that behavior once and for all. It only serves to harm our county’s children.
The juvenile court has been demonized in the court of public opinion for its necessary budget increase request that was a result of these escalating demands, then again for finding ways to cut its expenses when that request was denied, and now it’s being used as a scapegoat for JFS’s increased funding levy request.
All of this finger-pointing shrouds the real culprit, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, which is the collective deterioration of moral and family values in our society. Until that improves, the courts, sheriff, DYS, county jail, detention center and all organizations that provide treatment are going to continue experiencing increased costs.
Rather than blame those who are mandated to address the symptoms, perhaps efforts to influence the court of public opinion should be focused on mitigating the escalation of this societal epidemic.
Kimberly Laurie
Budget/Fiscal Director & County Liaison
Geauga County Juvenile/Probate Court
Public Mandate
Now that the results of the Geauga Park District’s 2015 survey are in, it is clear (+/- 2.45 percent margin of error) that a large majority of Geauga County residents agree that preserving, conserving and protecting our county’s natural resources should be the top priority of Geauga Park District.
As interpreted by Triad Research Group, the respected survey expert hired by the park district itself, the survey results unarguably send the message to the park district that in all demographic groups, Geauga County residents believe the most important things the park district can do are to protect wildlife habitats, areas of natural beauty and our watershed and groundwater quality, as well as to preserve open space.
Providing recreational opportunities and special events was a top priority for less than one quarter of our residents. It is our hope GPD will make the entire Triad Research Group report available to the public on its website so everyone will have an opportunity to see the results.
Given the overwhelming public support for making preserving, conserving and protecting Geauga County’s natural resources our park district’s top priority, we call on the park commissioners to reinstate park sistrict bylaws that provide the primary mission of the park district is to preserve, conserve and protect, overriding all other considerations in park planning. This will restore the park district’s founding commitment to conservation first and honor the public mandate so clearly shown in the survey results.
In light of the majority’s unquestionable belief that the primary mission of GPD should be to preserve, conserve and protect the county’s natural resources, we would like to offer the district a set of four common standards that can be used to fairly evaluate any and all proposed activities, uses, events, projects or facilities in a way that will ensure the park district honors the vision of its residents by, first and foremost, preserving, conserving and protecting our natural areas.
The standards are:
1. It’s the use compatible with the primary mission to preserve, conserve and protect natural resources?
When considering this criterion, appropriate study needs to be conducted by qualified experts, already employed by the park district, to consider what impact of the activity in question will have on our parks.
If needed, a scientific and unbiased environmental impact study should be completed to confirm that the use or activity promotes and enhances, or at a minimum does no harm to, the quality of our air, water, soils, forests and biodiversity.
2. It’s the use necessary?
Due diligence must be done to assure that the use is not a duplication of services already available in the county. A determination should be made that a true majority of the public has shown a need for this use or activity.
3. It’s the use or activity fiscally responsible?
Factors to be considered include not only the cost of improvements needed for the use, but increased park liability, the need for increased staff and ranger hours, and the need for ongoing maintenance.
Also, the park district should consider whether the use will negatively impact the value of the ecosystem services and whether that loss needs to be mitigated.
4. Has the decision-making process been transparent?
To be transparent, all of the standards and data used to address the first three criteria should be readily available to all citizens of the county during the decision-making period.
Making information readily available to everyone to enable people to participate in their own park district will help the district to make wise decisions when asked to provide a particular use or facility.
By employing these four criteria whenever GPD considers the use of park lands and taxpayer money for any proposed activity, use, facility, event or project, the park district will fulfill the public mandate to, first and foremost, preserve, conserve and protect the natural resources of Geauga County.
Trustees of Protect Geauga Parks
Shelley Chernin, Trustee
Russell Township
