Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

By DAVID WEISS dweiss@leader.net
Friday, March 14, 2003     Page: 1A

WILKES-BARRE – A county judge would have liked waiting a few days before
telling Sheriff Barry Stankus if he would be in trouble for a delay in
bringing inmates to court.
   
Ever since Judge Joseph Augello called for a contempt hearing for Stankus
when his deputies failed to bring five inmates to court early Feb. 14,
prisoner transports have been “almost perfect.”
    But the judge on Thursday immediately dismissed the charge, hoping Stankus
can straighten out any priority issues and continue getting inmates to court
on time to make sure they do not spend unnecessary time in jail.
   
The ruling came after testimony showed deputies gave a memo to court
officials on Feb. 13 warning them no deputies would be available the morning
of Feb. 14. Also provided was a detailed account of every deputies’ duties
early Feb. 14.
   
Stankus and his chief deputy vehemently denied intentionally delaying the
transports as a political antic to protest earlier layoffs.
   
The sheriff said he also learned he could delay future out-of-county prison
transports to help free up more deputies for local transports – while he and
his attorney, Ernie Preate, suggested the transports could be eased with
holding cells at the courthouse and a reliable van to transport masses of
inmates.
   
Augello’s ruling came after a more-than-two-hour hearing that attracted a
crowd of deputy sheriffs, courthouse workers and Tom Merlie, a Democratic
candidate for sheriff in this year’s election.
   
Augello called for the contempt hearing against Stankus and his chief
deputy, George Kamage, on Feb. 14. Augello was taking a list of guilty pleas
and was waiting for the inmates to be brought over from the Luzerne County
Correctional Facility.
   
Augello was told the deputies would not be able to transport prisoners. And
after failed requests to have a member of the department go to his courtroom,
Augello issued a subpoena to force Kamage, who was attending a Lithuania flag
celebration at the courthouse, to court.
   
Kamage said he did not have enough deputies available to transport inmates.
   
The judge ordered Kamage to produce a roster of what all the deputies were
doing to determine if the court-ordered duty was being intentionally ignored.
   
The event became political fodder for Merlie.
   
He issued a press release Wednesday saying the “recent events” within the
sheriff’s department indicate a need for change.
   
“I will not tolerate busted budgets, political infighting or sub-standard
job performance,” wrote Merlie, a retired Wilkes-Barre police captain. “I
can’t sit idle on the sidelines and watch a Sheriff’s administration ignore
court orders.”
   
A key issue in the case was Stankus having to use four deputies to transfer
a few inmates in two vehicles to a state prison Feb. 14.
   
Stankus said the inmates had to be transferred that day because a court
order issued late last year forced state prisoners to be taken from the county
prison to state facilities within 10 days.
   
Prior to the issuing of that order, deputies had 30 days to transfer the
inmates, giving them time to rent a van and transport several inmates at once
on a slow day. A current department van is unreliable, Stankus said.
   
But during Thursday’s hearing, Augello told Kamage and Stankus the court
order also gives them a chance to delays those transports if granted
permission.
   
The two said they were unaware of that provision of the order and did not
seek permission to delay the transports on Feb. 14.
   
But Stankus was relieved to learn of that provision, which will again give
them a chance to transport inmates in larger groups.
   
At Thursday’s hearing, Kamage told Augello what every deputy on the
department’s roster was doing that morning. Most of them had pressing or
pre-assigned duties that had to be fulfilled, he said.
   
He tried to make adjustments to get the inmates to court, but the deputies
were all busy, he said.
   
Preate told Augello the evidence clearly did not equate to “intentional
disobedience” needed for a contempt charge.
   
“They were all performing legitimate duties,” Preate said. “There was
nobody out having coffee and doughnuts.”