ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

It takes patience and strong communication skills to herd pre-teens on a basketball court or football field and then mold them into a team.

As I was reading the most recent legal opinion Powell wrote — — I imagined myself back in my coaching days, when I often slowed my speech pattern and cajoled, in an attempt to teach young boys about sports and life. I checked Powell’s bio, and it turns out .

Powell ruled in favor of Oregon County Circuit Clerk Betty Grooms against 37th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Steven Privette.

Privette was trying to hold Grooms in criminal contempt of court for failing to complete a task to his satisfaction. Regular readers of my column will recognize Privette as the judge who also tried to trample the First Amendment rights of Howell County residents; they had recorded activity from sidewalks outside the courthouse.

The local sheriff put an end to that bit of unconstitutional action, while the Missouri Supreme Court reined in Privette’s abuse of power in the Grooms case. The ruling comes at a time in our nation when authoritarian actions by some public officials seem to be all the rage, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle.

Whether it’s Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey trying to ban health care for transgender people, or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis banning books, or the Mississippi Legislature taking control of the courts in the city of Jackson, it’s a trend that turns dispute resolution or political compromise (even co-existence) on its head.

There’s another way, Powell writes in his opinion on the Grooms case. He was speaking to Privette and other judges in Missouri, but Powell could well have been offering a dissertation on the state of discourse in America.

Privette had asked Grooms to provide him the details of court costs owed by defendants in various cases. He wanted it in a specific sort of spreadsheet. He didn’t approve of how Grooms provided him the information.

“There remain many lawful and preferable options available to Judge Privette and other presiding judges who may find themselves in this or a similar circumstance with a circuit clerk,� Powell wrote.

If there’s a disagreement between a judge and clerk, Powell added, “the judge should always take steps to resolve the dispute without undertaking the extreme act of personally initiating legal action or obstructing the circuit clerk’s role as an elected officer. ... The presiding judge should discuss the dispute with the circuit clerk, setting forth the reasons for the directive or position taken by the presiding judge. If this does not resolve the dispute, the presiding judge should consider discussing the matter with other judges ...�

Reading the ruling, I thought of the recently ended tenure of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner. There were many times when judges or other prosecutors offered to help her navigate the troubled waters she found herself in. Stubbornly, and wrongly, she declined help.

Politics — particularly at the local level — can be a tough place to find compromise with opponents. But this current environment, in which everybody is seen as an enemy, limits the ability of well-meaning people to have conversations that lead to common ground or a shared purpose.

Those are the lessons many of us learned as children and teenagers, as taught by coaches and teachers. In his role as a judge, Powell offered that lesson again. Replace the words “judge� or “clerk� in his opinion with politician — or neighbor, or colleague — and the message resonates just the same.