Fulton Sheriff defends actions on jail reform

We’re trying. That’s basically what outgoing Fulton County Sheriff Myron Freeman told a federal judge who ordered the lawman to explain his efforts to reform the jail.

In a lengthy report filed Friday, Freeman tells U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob that he should not be held in contempt of court for not reaching some court-ordered goals, because falling short doesn’t mean he’s not trying.

The sheriff said he has been hampered in his efforts to hire more jail personnel and reduce prisoner populations by forces beyond his control, such as inadequate county funding, the number of prisoners being brought to jail by police and the state not promptly receiving prisoners who have been convicted.

“Sheriff Freeman has aggressively sought funding from Fulton County, conducted a remarkable hiring and training campaign for new staff and employed many innovative techniques and programs in the pursuit of compliance,” the report said.

Freeman’s response comes six weeks after a court-appointed monitor severely criticized the sheriff’s progress to meet a 2006 court order to improve the crowded and deteriorating jail in northwest Atlanta. Shoob later wrote there was “continuing pattern of neglect and mismanagement” and ordered Freeman to explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt.

Freeman, who was defeated for re-election this summer after serving one term, must appear before Shoob Sept. 8 to explain his actions. The 2006 court order to fix the jail came after a lawsuit filed two years earlier on behalf of inmates saying the lockup was crowded, dirty and dangerous.

Neither Steven Bright, the attorney who filed the suit, nor jail monitor Calvin Lightfoot could be reached to comment after repeated attempts Saturday.

Freeman’s report includes employee rosters, charts detailing prisoner dental visits and radiology reports, inmate grievance numbers and numbers related to prisoners contracted to other jails.

Meeting the goal was difficult, he said, because there wasn’t adequate funding, new hires washed out because of poor performance, existing employees quit and “several highly experienced supervisors” recently took early retirement.