‘Ti Frere’ agreements a thing of the past

“Ti Frere” may not be dead at the Avoyelles Parish courthouse, but the system of inter-departmental favors appears to be on the critical list.

The Courthouse Security Committee, made up of the Police Jury, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, district judges and other courthouse tenants met on Jan. 30 to review issues related to courthouse operations and security.

Police Jury President Charles Jones noted that the main message of the meeting was “it’s going to cost the Police Jury more money.”

“TI FRERE" GOING AWAY
Judge Billy Bennett said that Avoyelles Parish has had the so-called “ti frere” or “little brother” agreements between agencies for many years.

“These ‘ti frere’ agreements are slowly going away and the statutes will be followed,” Bennett said.

Those agreements included the Clerk of Court covering the cost of a court reporter, which statute says is a Police Jury responsibility. Another such agreement was the sheriff covering the cost of bailiffs for the courts -- which is also a Police Jury responsibility.

Sheriff Doug Anderson said his office will have to begin charging the Police Jury the $34 per day per deputy assigned to the courthouse.

The committee decided that three deputies -- the two bailiffs and an additional deputy -- would be stationed at the courthouse each day. There will be one deputy at the entrance to handle visitor screening and two that will handle courtroom security during trial days and patrol the courthouse at other times.

This would cost the Police Jury over $24,000 a year. Anderson noted that cost is less than the cost of one deputy’s salary.

Jones pointed out that the Police Jury gets no funds from court fees “or anywhere else to pay for this extra expense.”

He said the sheriff, criminal court and district attorney all share in fees and fines generated by the civil and/or criminal court cases.

“‘Ti frere’ is a two-way street,” Jones said. “For example, we will probably have to do away with covering the dumpsters for the Sheriff’s Department under our solid waste contract. That is something we have been doing, but we have to make cuts somewhere to come up with the extra money. We will have to chip away some, too. We can’t spend what we don’t have.”

FEB. 9 PJ UPDATE
In its committee meetings on Feb. 9, the Police Jury seemed to balk at rocking Anderson’s boat.

Jones told jurors he had spoken to District Attorney Charles Riddle since the courthouse security meeting and was told the statute only requires the Police Jury pay for two deputies at the courthouse, not three. That would cost the Police Jury about $16,300 that is not currently in the budget. He said the sheriff would have to cover the cost of the third deputy.

When Jones brought up the prospect of requiring the Sheriff’s Office to reimburse the jury for the $20,000 cost of picking up and disposing of the garbage at the APSO’s three detention centers, only Juror Marsha Wiley seemed to be on board with the idea.

“The DA told me, ‘They make you pay, you make them pay,” Jones said.

He said other public agencies, including the libraries and health unit, pay for their garbage service.

Wiley noted that if other public agencies pay for the service, “the sheriff should too.”

Other jurors said it might not be a good idea “to pick a fight with the sheriff.”

INMATES FOR GARBAGE?
The main concern expressed was that Anderson might retaliate by pulling inmate labor from Police Jury details. Jurors said the parish receives at least seven inmates at some time during the week, and sometimes as many as 11.

“It would cost us a lot more than $20,000 if we had to hire janitors for the courthouse,” Juror Kirby Roy said. Other jurors expressed the same sentiment.

Jones said Riddle has promised to pitch in $10,000 from his office’s Pre-Trial Intervention Program fund to help cover additional courthouse security needs.

“That would reduce our additional cost to $6,000,” Jones said, “and maybe it’s not worth antagonizing the sheriff over $6,000.”

Jones said he doubts Anderson would actually be so petty as to deny inmate labor to the Police Jury -- since both entities serve the public -- “but who knows.”

Contacted after the jury committee meeting, Anderson said he was hoping the jury would pay the $34/day cost for the three deputies the judge has ordered. He said he has a different interpretation of the statute than the Police Jury and has the APSO’s attorney reviewing the law.

“My interpretation is that if a judge says there has to be three, the parish pays for three,” Anderson said. “The Police Jury’s interpretation is they are only required to pay for two but can agree to pay for more than two.”

On the issues of dumpsters and inmates, Anderson did not draw a direct correlation.

“The jury has always paid for our dumpster service and we have provided inmates for a variety of jobs for the parish,” the sheriff said. “Truthfully, I never gave a thought that they would stop paying for the dumpsters.”

Anderson said it would cost the parish a lot “if they had to hire janitors for the courthouse,” but did not indicate the provision of inmate labor is connected to the continuation of free garbage service.

BACK TO JAN. 30 MEETING
During the Jan. 30 courthouse meeting, Bennett said the change from “ti frere” to “statute” is necessary in part because local government agencies no longer receive quarterly contributions from Paragon Casino Resort as they used to.

“The casino says it is not making a profit,” Riddle said.

At its Jan. 23 meeting, the Police Jury discussed the need to hold a meeting of local governments in the near future to discuss the Tunica-Biloxi gaming distribution issue.

The tribe’s compact with the state requires it to distribute 6 percent of its net profits to local agencies. It has not distributed any funds since the first quarter of 2015.

4th FLOOR RENOVATIONS
Those attending the meeting seemed to agree that the No. 1 priority is to renovate the 4th Floor of the courthouse for use as an inmate holding area during trials. Bennett said the parish has been seeking $280,000 in state capital outlay funds for the project for three years.

APSO Chief Deputy Steve Martel said the department recently had to take 28 inmates to court.

“They were all there at 9 a.m. and there were still a handful who had their cases postponed by the end of the day,” Martel said.

This causes problems because inmates cannot be separated from the public.

“Family members want to visit,” Martel said, “and there is always a chance of a problem with contraband.”

The holding area would be the best solution, he said, but in the meantime he would ask that inmates either be scheduled to go first or last so they are not there all day “and they aren’t mingling with the public for several hours.”

Bennett said the easiest way to handle that would be to take inmates first on arraignment days, but there may still be issues on other court days.

“If we just had a holding area, we could move them in and out with no problem. They would be isolated from the public,” Martel said.

SECURITY PROCEDURES
The committee also received and seemed supportive of the sheriff’s proposed procedures for courthouse security. That procedure includes screening all persons entering the building except judicial officers, courthouse employees and employees of tenant agencies in the courthouse.

Under that proposal, no cell phones, pagers, laptops, tape recorders, electronic equipment, video recording devices, etc., are allowed in the courthouse unless approved by a judicial officer. Courthouse tenants and attorneys may carry these items into the building.

No weapons are allowed in the building.

If a visitor notifies the screening officer prior to screening that he/she is carrying a weapon, the officer will determine if the visitor has a legal permit to carry the firearm. If they do, they will be told to leave the building and secure the firearm elsewhere. If they do not, they will be detained, the firearm will be confiscated and law enforcement officers will be called to further investigate.

The two “rover” deputies on duty will be responsible for checking the floors of the courthouse for “suspicious persons, contraband or unattended packages” throughout the day. They will also be alert to calls for escorts or trouble, as well as respond to assist in the event of a fire alarm.

Perhaps the rover’s most important duty is to “maintain a high visibility in and around the courthouse so that both the public and the employees alike are aware that security is present.”