Concerns about the 20th District Drug Court have led District Attorney Melissa Handke’s office to limit approval of individuals for the program at this time.
Handke said the concerns are with oversight and leadership. There have also been communications issues as well.
“Currently my office is not approving anyone into drug court,” Handke said. “Part of it is due to the lack of oversight that previously existed that allowed individuals that were not eligible for drug court to be pled into drug court.
“Additionally, there has been a changing in the drug court board and some of the upper-level management. Until we can get a handle on that and get policies in place moving forward, the best course of action that I know to do is to limit the admission of new people into the program.”
Handke said her understanding is that recently, a handful of people resigned from the board and had been replaced with new appointments.
“I don’t know that those people went through the proper vetting process to be put on the board,” Handke said. “I think the new members are very upstanding citizens in the community. I think they have very good intentions but there is a proper procedure to go through, and I want to ensure that it was done to make sure that drug court moves forward.”
Drug court in both Carter and Love counties are set up differently than other drug courts in the state. Handke said drug court was set up by the courts statewide. The drug courts in Carter and Love counties were placed under the umbrella of a non-profit board by a previous district judge.
Handke said the reason for the boards to be set up to allow for more funding opportunities through non-profits. She said the statutory scheme for drug court is not necessarily set up for it to have been run as a non-profit.
“All the oversight under the statutes comes from the court and the district attorney’s office,” she said.
She, along with Special Judge Carson Brooks and members of the drug court board and administration intend to hash out a path moving forward.
Communication with drug court has been an issue due to the different messages being provided to the DA’s office.
“We hear different versions of things depending on who we talk to,” she said. “I think there was a personality dispute that occurred at drug court that occurred between some of their higher ups and so I think we would get communications from both sides.”
Handke said it makes it difficult to determine what has really happened.
“I would hope to get everything resolved in the next month or so,” Handke said. “I know summertime is a little bit slower at the courthouse and I think between my schedule and Judge Brooks’ schedule, we can do some of the meetings and staffing that we need to do.”
Handke said they have not explored the option of moving it back under the county in the court system and they need additional information that includes the status of the board and the status of the drug enforcement officer.
“I think we just have questions,” she said.
