The project development board for Hancock County's new judicial center
thought they were given the opportunity to pick and choose specific details
concerning the new facility, but last Friday they realized policy reigns
over practicality.

James Bowman with the Administrative Office of the Courts brought some
stammering news to the board. Their design did not meet state policy.

Tim Graviss of JRA Architects, and architect for the project, originally
designed the courthouse exceeding the mandated square footage. When the team
went to reduce the size, they decided to move the Family Courtroom to the
first floor from the second to not only save space, but aid in security, as
well as other advantages.

But Bowman said that move is not allowed. He told the board that since
Family Court is a Circuit Court function that they must stay together.

Circuit Court is designed for the second floor.

Board member Harold Wayne Newton argued, "That is not a legal requirement."
"That is a policy, not a reason."

Newton said the board was working from a practical standpoint, because
Family Court is a heavy traffic area. He said the board's suggested design
would allow better traffic flow for security, the Clerk, as well as the
County Attorney, who's office is on the main floor as well.

"It becomes inconvenient on the second floor," he said.

Bowman showed concern when both District and Family Court take place at the
same time, saying the main floor would be "tight."

Members of the board said that situation only happens on rare occasions.

Bowman admitted that Circuit Court is considered higher level than District
Court, symbolizing the second floor location. He also said it is sometimes
necessary to use the Circuit Courtroom for it's larger space, when big
dockets are in play.

Newton exclaimed, "Well the program does not reflect the reality of Family
Court."

He told Bowman he "respectfully disagreed."

Hancock County Circuit Clerk Noel Quinn agreed, she said Family Court is the
main source of conflict. Having it adjacent to the Bailiffs' Control Room
would be ideal.

She also noted that since Circuit Court typically only takes place once a
month here in the county that the second floor could be sealed off a
majority of the time to save on energy and expenses - that is if Family
Court was on the first floor.

"It would make it more efficient, said board chairman Jack McCaslin, who
reiterated the point that the state is always trying to find ways to save
money.

McCaslin also felt like he and the board were misinformed.

"I thought the design was to best utilize what we need to do? We are just
sitting here spinning our wheels. What else don't we know about?"

McCaslin said the board is just wasting their time if they cannot satisfy
the clerks and judges who work there everyday.

Judge John McCarty wanted to know what they were going to do about the extra
square footage if the Family Court had to be on the second floor.

Graviss said space was no longer an issue, and that since he was confronted
with the issue he was able to squeeze Family Court on the second floor
within the mandated square footage.

"I see benefits for both locations," said McCarty, who admitted he could
live with the change.

But Newton said he would not in any case vote for the change.

"Are you going to dictate or do we have choice?" asked Newton.

Bowman remained silent.

Newton said if the board really didn't have a say, then why doesn't the
state just send down a "cookie-cutter" to build the facility.

"We are going from one system that is not adequate to another," said Newton.

Bowman later admitted that Garland Vanhook, Director of AOC, had the
"ultimate authority."

When the board made the decision to send their pros and cons to Vanhook on
the spot, Bowman said he was "out of commission" at the time.

But Bowman finally brought forth a point that made more sense to the board.

Security issues were a concern.

When the Family Court was moved to the first floor, this encountered a
situation where the Clerk and prisoners would cross paths. Although a double
locked door would alleviate any direct communication, Bowman said the court
security department of AOC would veto the design.

"They assure that public, staff, prisoners do not cross," he said.

Although the board may have now had a better understanding, Circuit Clerk
Noel Quinn said there would be little concern. She said any clerk would be
over preparing the courtroom before any prisoners would make it on site.

But Bowman said, "It only takes one incident."

The board ended their discussion and made a plan to contact Vanhook about
their issue, seeking his approval.

No say on furniture

Ironically representatives for furniture sales were present at Friday's
meeting. When they confronted the board about why they were attending,
Bowman interrupted and said, "We do our own furnishings."

The board just sighed and sarcastically laughed in response.

Apparently the courthouse program also has furniture standards that require
a uniform look. All furnishings are contracted through the state office.

In other news

Richard Mitchell of Codell Construction said the asbestos abatement of the
old school was completed on April 24.

He also said demolition bid advertisements were out on the street, and that
a bid opening will take place Monday, May 19th at 2 p.m. in the Fiscal
Courtroom.

Four bids were also received for the geotechnical survey. Associated
Engineers came in as the low bidder at $8,030. The board approved the
recommendation.

The next regularly scheduled project development board meeting will be held
on Friday, June 6 at noon in the Fiscal Courtroom.