Judges say resigning jail alternatives director made ‘no real attempt’ to work with them

Mike Baker

Mike Baker (Photo by D. Ray Smith)

Note: This story was updated March 31 to add a link to the judge’s letter.

Mike Baker, the director of Anderson County’s alternatives to jail program, was critical of the judiciary and the county mayor when he announced his resignation last week, saying he didn’t have their support.

This week, though, three Anderson County judges said Baker, whose last day is April 4, had made “no real attempt” to work with them. When Baker started his job about a year ago, they said, he lacked knowledge of Tennessee laws related to prisoner release programs, and he had no relevant experience in the state or Anderson County.

“The judges of this county dealing with those issues have collectively over 40 years of judicial experience, with many years beyond that as lawyers involved in the criminal justice system,” said the three judges, Criminal and Circuit Court Judge Donald Elledge, and General Sessions judges Don A. Layton and Ron N. Murch. “Yet to hear Mr. Baker tell it, he has all the answers to significantly reduce the jail population and save the county ‘millions of dollars per year by reducing the population in jail,’ but which he can’t do because the judges refuse to cooperate with him.”

The March 25 letter from the judges was addressed to Anderson County Mayor Terry Frank and Anderson County commissioners.

Frank has previously responded to Baker’s charges. She said Baker has a passion for rehabilitating offenders, but he has “failed to understand the legal system itself and the rights of the accused.”

Meanwhile, Anderson County Commissioner Myron Iwanski, who was interim mayor when Baker was hired, said he was disappointed by the resignation.

“All of the key officials in the criminal justice system had an opportunity to help write the position description, interview, and hire for this position,” Iwanski said. “A team of them selected him as the best candidate from over 50 applicants.”

The alternatives to incarceration program is meant to save money and reduce crime and the jail population. In 2011, Anderson County commissioners agreed to use two cents on the property tax rate to bankroll the new program, which has a budget of more than $300,000.

But the judges said Baker was on the job for up to three months before he met with them, and he never asked certain questions related to prisoner release programs, including what had already been done.

“His approach was he had preconceived notions about what he was going to do, and he was going to do it his way without regard to what the law or the judges required and that he could force the judges to accept that,” said Elledge, Layton, and Murch. “His continued erroneous public assault on the judiciary is an example of that approach.”

They said Baker had “stubbornly refused to accept what the law requires with regard to pretrial release” and has “misrepresented the situation to commission and the public.”

In his resignation letter, Baker said the lack of support for alternatives to incarceration could lead to increasing jail populations and drug-related crime.

“We could be so much more successful if everyone was on the same page,” he said during a presentation to the League of Women Voters of Oak Ridge last week.

One of the points of contention was apparently related to questions about drug use that Baker wanted to ask pretrial inmates, but which might be considered self-incriminating. Baker said other agencies were allowed to ask the same questions, but he couldn’t have contact with pretrial detainees.

“It’s ridiculous to put the assessment processing in place if you can’t have the whole pie,” he said.

Baker, who is retired from the Iowa Department of Corrections, suggested Anderson County leave money in place for the alternatives to incarceration program, address the county’s drug problem primarily as a disease and secondarily as a crime, and keep pretrial and probation operations separate from the judiciary. He also recommended preserving an alternatives to incarceration advisory committee and “encourage buy-in by everyone in the judiciary and criminal justice system and willingness to support putting these alternatives in place.”

The judges—who said they are “acutely aware” of the problems related to jail overcrowding—said they were bound by certain responsibilities under the law, and there are certain things they cannot do.

“There seems to be a lack of understanding or knowledge that we have taken many steps in the past and continue to look for ways to reduce the jail population,” the judges said.

Elledge, Layton, and Murch said Baker needed judiciary approval on matters related to prisoner release. Baker would agree to seek their approval, but then follow up with public or written criticism that the judges failed to cooperate, Elledge, Layton, and Murch said.

“Apparently, not agreeing with him is considered by him as a failure to cooperate,” they said.

Iwanski said it was unfortunate that Baker could not get some of the support he needed to put some key programs in place.

“Without this support and the ability to work together, we will continue to miss opportunities for grants that help pay for these programs and we will be forced to spend more and more to build and operate jails,” Iwanski said.

He said Baker has “done a good job getting the alternatives to incarceration program started and has had some important successes.”

Iwanski said he hopes the county implements Baker’s recommendations “for moving the program forward.” They will save taxpayers money, while helping to reduce the crime rate, Iwanski said.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Join the club!

If you support Oak Ridge Today, please consider becoming a voluntary subscriber. You don't have to subscribe to read our stories, but your contribution will help us grow and improve our coverage.

We currently offer three subscription levels: $5, $10, or $25 per month. We accept payments through PayPal. You may also visit our subscription page for information on other options.

Thank you for your support.


Subscription options




Advertisement

Advertisement




Commenting Guidelines

We welcome comments, but we ask you to follow a few guidelines:

1) Please use your real name, including last name. Please also use a valid e-mail address. We do our best to confirm identities. If we are unable to confirm your identity or your comments don't appear to be posted using a real, full name, your comments may not post or may be removed.
2) Be civil. Don't insult others, attack their character, or get personal.
3) Stick to the issues.
4) No profanity.
5) Keep your comments to a reasonable length and to a reasonable number per article.

We reserve the right to remove any comments that violate these guidelines. Comments from readers posting for the first time may be held for review, and they will not be posted if they violate the guidelines. We urge you to do your best to follow the guidelines if you would like to see your comment posted. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

More information is available here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.allison.37 Jason Allison

    In an attempt to save face………Three Anderson county judges resort mud slinging

    • Abbey Nelson

      Three well-known, highly respected and elected-by-the people judges are not doing any mud slinging. Responding to Baker’s charges they were unsupportive of the program is at issue here. Any mud slinging is perceived by you alone, Mr. Allison.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jason.allison.37 Jason Allison

        Sorry if I say BS

      • http://www.facebook.com/jason.allison.37 Jason Allison

        This program had some very good success stories. Now we are left with the issue of what do we do now. Now, I know they are bound by law, but, what about the revolving door Anderson county is well known for? You can commit the same crime 15 times and get probation each time.

        Mud slinging…..You’re darn right they are

  • http://www.facebook.com/denny.phillips.3956 Denny Phillips

    A good start to reducing the jail population would be to force the state to take custody of its own prisoners as required by law.

    • Charlie Jernigan

      I agree to the extent that state prisoners housed in county jails should cost the state the actual operational expense rather the approximately one third that the state now pays. It amounts to a two thirds unfunded mandate from the state to the counties (and perhaps city jails if there are any left in the state).

  • David A. Vudragovich

    Reading comments from both sides, it may be time to update “judiciary approval on matters related to prisoner release.” and some other parts of the law.

More Government News

More Government

More Police and Fire News

More Police and Fire