Judges Overseeing Travis County's Juvenile Court Have a Transparency Problem

After controversy this summer over the secretive hiring process for associate judges in Travis County’s juvenile court, concerns about transparency and communication on the Juvenile Board seem to be mounting.

In June, juvenile court attorneys told the Chronicle that the hiring process has resulted in qualified applicants of color being passed over for white applicants for at least the last decade. To address that, Judge Maya Gamble announced at the Aug. 17 board meeting that she and Judge Aurora Martinez Jones have formed a DEI group (diversity, equity, and inclusion) to evaluate future associate judge candidates. She said judges Brad Urrutia and Cliff Brown are participating. She invited other Travis County judges to join them.

But the meeting (not recorded for the public, by the way) was about much more than the associate judge controversy. During a vote on this year’s budget, Judge Rhonda Hurley, who heads the juvenile court and chairs the board, asked members to approve $3 million to hire a firm to design a new, non-secure juvenile corrections facility. The facility in question has been planned since 2016 and the concept of such a facility, where kids can come and go, has broad support on the board. The problem is, some judges didn’t seem to understand how the $3 million would actually be spent, and some seemed doubtful that an entirely new building is necessary, given years of declining juvenile crime.

Alycia Castillo, policy director at the Texas Center for Justice and Equity, said three of the 21 judges on the board questioned whether a yes vote was appropriate. “It was very clear that Aurora Martinez Jones, Maya Gamble, and Selena Alvarenga were not going to vote for the funds, based on their comments,” Castillo said.

County Judge Andy Brown told the judges that earmarking the funds wouldn’t require the $3 million to actually be spent, but if judges later wanted access to those dollars, they would need to vote yes. Otherwise, they’d have to request the money all over again next year. (Brown said he wasn’t seeking to influence the vote but just inform board members about the budget process.)

The judges then voted unanimously to approve the $3 million earmark. But it’s unclear how much they knew about the funding request prior to the Aug. 17 meeting. Judge Hurley told the Chronicle that they were briefed on the earmarked money as early as June 1. Budget documents that the judges reviewed in June show the actual amount was labeled as “To Be Determined.”

Judge Martinez Jones told us she questioned the change to the budget presented on Aug. 17 because it seemed significant. “To do my very best work on the Juvenile Board I want to have as many details about the budget and budget process as possible,” the judge said. “I plan to advocate for an improvement to our current practice so that all board members can receive more information earlier in the process. I believe that, in working with our Juvenile Board chair, this can be accomplished.”

The judges also considered a transparency-related proposal from attorney Skip Davis – who has encouraged increased scrutiny of the juvenile justice system. He asked the judges to appoint an advisory council so people in the community can offer opinions on issues before the board. Davis said the judges seemed intrigued by the possibility. “They asked me to come back up and explain the proposal twice,” Davis said. “And then they essentially said, yeah, we’ll take all this under advisement. Everybody endorsed it, everybody was clapping.”

The judges did not vote on the proposal but Davis said he’ll ask them to do so at the next meeting of the board. Castillo promised there will be more community members in attendance at that meeting.