DCF ignoring its own words for Newbury youth facility

Why is DCF’s youth “detention facility” still up for debate?

In the VTDigger article published in the May 25 Valley News (“Court hears juvenile facility lawsuit”), Erin Petenko writes the arguments hinged on whether the facility should be defined as a “juvenile detention center.”

At Tuesday’s Vermont Supreme Court oral arguments we listened to DCF’s attorney bemoaning to the Supreme Court justices that their Newbury proposal is being called a detention facility, referring to broad “dictionary definitions” and cherry-picked language to attempt to make their case why it should not be.

But why reach for the dictionary when the definition they needed is so close at hand? DCF’s youth justice policy and procedures manual, accessed through DCF’s own website, clearly defines what a secure detention facility is:

SECURE DETENTION FACILITY (34 U.S.C. § 11103 (12) — means any public or private residential facility which — (1) includes construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility; and (2) is used for the temporary placement of any juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense or of any other individual accused of having committed a criminal offense.

There is no ambiguity: DCF’s proposed high level hardware-secure facility for justice involved youth in Newbury fully complies with DCF’s own definition of ‘secure detention facility’.

Reading DCF’s policy manual, it’s difficult to see how the town of Newbury can be considered wrong to call it a secure detention facility, or conversely how DCF can say it is not one. DCF may prefer to call it something else to evade town zoning, but their Newbury proposal is a secure detention facility by their own definitions.

With this inconvenient truth so close at hand, DCF still argued otherwise to the Supreme Court while choosing to stay silent on their own policy. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the correct legal term for this type of misrepresentation to the Supreme Court Justices, but I suspect some may consider it a lie.

As if Newbury needed yet another reason to distrust DCF.

Tony O’Meara

Newbury

Keep the Wilder park and ride open

I read with great dismay the May 19 Valley News front page article, “Wilder park-and-ride shutdown possible.” This park and ride, like all park and rides, serves an important purpose for a great many people, me included. I am a member of a local hiking club and a great many of our hikes originate at this park and ride for the purpose of carpooling. We carpool to save on the cost of gas and of course to reduce our carbon footprint, slight as it is.

It would be a big inconvenience to have to park downtown, not to mention adding to the parking crunch there.

I have indeed noticed a police presence at this particular park and ride. The last time I used this park and ride a police officer was speaking to an individual in a car at the far end of the lot. Of course, I did not know what they were talking about, but to ascribe anything nefarious to the exchange would be presumptuous.

I would call into question why the concerns cited in the Valley News article, about suspicious activity, loud or rude behavior, littering and reports of aggressive dogs are being given sufficient weight to consider a possible closing of this vital bit of infrastructure. Granted, I do not live near this park and ride, so my presence is fleeting, but I have never experienced any rude or loud behavior. According to the article, most of the reports of nefarious activity “are unfounded,” as stated by Police Chief Gregory Sheldon.

It would seem wrong to close a park and ride lot that is sited close to two major interstates, provides the means to carpool for many people, that helps reduce global warming and mileage on cars. The concerns of the neighbors can be addressed. The town must do whatever it needs to do — install better lighting, create barriers to camping and throwing of trash down the ravine, and whatever else is necessary to address the neighbors’ concerns. But, please, don’t close the Wilder park and ride.

Thomas McCleary

White River Junction