Your article (“City considers contracting out court services,” Auburn Reporter, May 4) seems very one sided, quoting Judge Harn, the person who obviously wants to take over the business.

Are you planning to ask the probation or the court of Auburn their side of the story?

You didn’t quote any facts to back up Judge Horns’ statements. Basically all she said was KCDC judges would put fewer people in jail, thus reducing the cost.

How can anybody make a rational financial decision based on perceived philosophies of different judges? What kind of facts back up KCDC’s proposed claim of reducing the current cost from $10 million to $1.9 million?

The other big proposed cost savings came from the city paying for 700 urine analysis. What is KCDC proposing? If KCDC is proposing more alternative sentencing solutions, I would think alcohol monitoring would be one of their solutions that requires a UA as a secondary validation.

If the City doesn’t pick up the cost because the offender can’t afford it, and you put the person in jail … that will drive up cost even more. What is KCDC’S plan?

I am surprised that more consideration wasn’t given to the City on how they currently conduct its affairs. One could easily assume from reading your article, that the cities’ drug and alcohol rehab, mental health services and EHM are inferior to the way the county runs theirs.

I would like to see something more objective reported on this important subject.

– Ken Kalmberg