Since the beginning of this year, and without the blessing of either the Executive or County Council, Northampton County's bench has taken it upon itself to pay $344,286.36 of your money to provide private security at the Juvenile Justice Center. Instead of using trained youth care workers with at least 60 college credits in social or behavioral sciences, the judges are manning the juvenile justice center with glorified security guards with a Corporate Protective Services, a for-profit company. Moreover, it appears that President Judge Craig Dally never submitted the written contract to the Executive for his signature, which violates the express language of the county's Home Rule Charter (Section 302(4)).
Private security at a prison (and the juvenile justice center is precisely that), a rarity in Pennsylvania, have come under criticism because they "do not offer the high security required for particular inmates and often fail to follow the rules. Furthermore, there have been incidences of ignoring the inmates' health needs." Companies that offer these services are motivate by profit instead of the well-being of the persons in their care. This is especially disconcerting in a youth setting.
President Judge Craig Dally complains that the Executive is attempting "to control how the Court spends its budget." He adds that Corporate Protective Services is "invaluable to the Court" and "highly specialized." While I'm sure that this private security firm enables the court to place more children in the facility and accept more out-of-county juveniles, I'm unpersuaded that the security guards on duty have any particular understanding or the necessary training spelled out in detail by the Department of Public Welfare. Judge Dally asserts that they do, but I find it difficult to believe that what his own court administration calls "temporary workers." Finally, he contends that these night watchmen perform "professional services" and are thus exempt from the Home Rule Charter requirement that the exec sign the contract. That argument is invalid for two reasons. First, the Home Rule Charter trumps any legislation to the contrary. Second, it's a real stretch to argue that unlicensed bouncers, who also cover concerts and guard warehouses, are professionals.
Aside from the plain language of the Home Rule Charter, it's really difficult to justify a no-bid contract to an outfit that could expose a self-insured county to significant liability if one of these glorified security guards begins to abuse the children in his or her care. That's something that could exceed both the budget for the court and the county.
My final concern is that hiring a private outfit to perform the same duties as a unionized youth care worker is union busting, pure and simple.
The court is definitely an independent branch of government and is entitled to great deference in its management decisions. But its decision to violate the Home Rule Charter and open the county up to liability for abuse by a temp or for an unfair labor practice seems more likely to compromise that independence than assure it.
Below you will see letters from the Executive, President Judge and Director of Fiscal Affairs concerning this matter.
Exec Letter to PJ Re Corporate Protective Service by BernieOHare on Scribd
Letter From PJ to Exec Re Corporate Protective Services by BernieOHare on ScribdLetter From Fiscal Director to PJ Re Corporate Protective Services by BernieOHare on Scribd
