Previous: First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter, Feb. 2020
WELCOME to the March issue of First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter that addresses Idaho Corrections concerns.
Brought to you by the Captive Perspective and made available at bookofirving82431.com.
This publication provides an insider’s look at issues affecting the Idaho Department of Correction’s community. If you wish to assist this effort, share the link, cut and paste, or print and send a copy to another.
…
Our Mission: To better develop our current state of Corrections.
The Idaho Legislature shares our mission and welcomes your comments! Feel free to send them your thoughts, attached to a copy of this publication.
…
EDITOR CONTINUES TO BE SINGLED OUT FOR RETALIATION following communication with media, legislators and advocates for legal assistance. Two grievances recently filed help illustrate the pattern that started last March:
The first grievance addresses new restrictions placed on orders of 6×9 envelopes as a misrepresentation of the Property Limits policy.
Last May Sgt. Trobock persuaded staff members Shewmaker and Barlow-Hust to adopt a flawed interpretation of what “stamped envelopes” means in the property policy that limits inmates to having 20 stamped envelopes in their possession. They now consider all envelopes stamped, including those not and also those received.
The reason for stamped-envelope limits is because stamps are considered a form of currency, whereas blank folded paper is not.
Sending non-stamped 6×9 envelopes through the mail-room to be metered allows one to save 20 percent of an already restricted budget. Thus any restrictions on non-stamped 6×9 envelopes effectively limits one’s ability to petition for outside assistance and inform the public.
It’s also typical in cases of the wrongly accused that they have to send hundreds or thousands of letters asking for case-review assistance. Which makes it possible that misrepresenting this policy could actually perpetuate a miscarriage of justice by lengthening the time it takes to reach an assist.
I’m not saying Trobock is sadistic — it’s far more likely just a product of laziness: metering mail creates more work.
The second grievance pertains to the fact that so far I am the only inmate these restrictions have been placed upon.
Several receipts from other offenders show they experience no issue while ordering the same amount of envelopes that I do. Where their orders are processed in full, my orders are left incomplete, and I’m given a receipt stating that same envelopes ordered are currently “out-of-stock.”
This experiment was repeated for several weeks with the same results, indicating a discriminatory practice. Staff comments collected months ago also show instructions were given to Keefe to restrict my envelope orders — and help prevent my mailing.
As this issue was preparing for press, Grievance Two was denied from entering the system on account of it being “currently processed” as the first grievance mentioned. It was returned with a note saying the two are similar and an appeal can be made if unsatisfied with the Grievance One’s response.
My position is that two separate issues have risen from one ongoing recurrence. And it should be noted that while an allegation of staff retaliation requires SIU to investigate, matters of commissary and property do not. Meaning, if this grievance isn’t forwarded to SIU, like others submitted for staff retaliation, it will further illustrate an inability for all offenders to hold staff accountable.
See how we detail these patterns with a trail of documents at “Litigation Interests? Please read.”
[Ref. Grievance’s IM200000055, IM190000181]
…
ON THE COLORADO CONTRACT
Betsy Russell from the Idaho Press Club covered the pending arrangement with CoreCivic early last month.
At that time neither IDOC or CoreCivic had presented their agreement to the Colorado Department of Corrections for approval, despite IDOC’s announcement that a portion of our inmate population would be moved to Kit Carson Correctional Center in Burlington. Tommy Simmons from the Idaho Press Tribune confirmed weeks after Betsy that the contract had still not been presented for approval.
A recent editorial in the Idaho Statesman quotes our DOC spokesman Jeff Ray as saying the CoreCivic contract hasn’t even been signed.
Ms. Russell also informs us that Governor Jared Polis of Colorado campaigned against private prisons in his state during his election. And while there has been talk of moving up to 200 of our Close Custody inmates to KCCC, Colorado law requires Governor Polis declare a “correctional emergency” in order to house his state’s Close Custody inmates privately. Whether that means wanting to house our highest-security inmates will face similar scrutiny was left for speculation.
But what Russell did certify is that the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition is publicly lobbying against this potential contract arrangement. Among their concerns is an ability to staff the prison: A population decrease has been noticeable in the area since the facility last closed, and in a letter the Coalition served CDOC’s executive director, they recalled that the facility wasn’t able to house more than 800 inmates previously, due to staffing shortages then. Thus giving room to concern for the safety of those local that make the pool of workers CoreCivic would choose from.
Meanwhile the Idaho Statesman article mentioned (author unknown) was critical of IDOC’s inability to maintain our offender population in-state, as suggested by its title: “Idaho’s prisoners need to be in Idaho. Not Colorado. Not Texas.”
There Governor Little also reiterated his position that out-of-state maneuvering is a quick fix to a long-term problem, and again outlined his multi-pronged approached to address our current prison population and our State’s rate of recidivism.
Also mentioned is how IDOC will initially move only 250 inmates to Colorado. But with the possibility that Colorado may now be off the table, I refer to Tommy Simmons and his January article, “IDOC likely to house more than 1,000 inmates in shuttered Colorado Prison,” where it’s noted that CoreCivic has offered 250 beds for immediate placement in Tutwiler, Mississippi.
This has me concerned that IDOC may feel forced to send our inmates to a state whose violence-related inmate death toll currently exceeds exceptional numbers — due to a string of events that made national news in December — because it has been noted that no other contractors were willing to entertain negotiations with IDOC for their emergency housing arrangements. Meaning when GEO renegotiates month-to-month arrangements as soon as their contact expires, IDOC may the feel the kind of pinch that only comes from having no options.
GEO has essentially engineered a position which allows them to extort more money from IDOC — by not entertaining the relocation of our inmates to one of their better facilities. But don’t take it personal, for them it’s always business: Why would a corporation empty a previously deserted Mexican prison that’s currently filled with money-making Idahoans?
…
A GRIEVANCE REGARDING THE UPDATED AD-SEG POLICY that doesn’t actually exist has been exhausted.
As reported in our January issue, the 2018 revised version of Policy 319.02.01.001 stated that the Long-Term Restrictive Housing Policy had been moved to 319.02.01.003, a policy that doesn’t exist.
First Amend This! grieved this issue, requesting the policy be made available and a memo be issued to the offender population, informing us how to address policy concerns for a policy that doesn’t exist.
Gary Hartgrove responded:
Long Term Restrictive Housing was scheduled for implementation last year. However, serious issues arose in the ability of the institutions to provide the requirements addressed in the policy. Issues included the physical plant modifications to allow inmates three hours out of cell time and the staffing to provide for the programs to be offered were not in place. Therefore, IDOC withheld the full implementation of the SOP and moved forward with an incremental roll out. The creation of the HARC, placement criteria, review of placement and required documentation were put into place. The other portions of the SOP will be put into place when the required resources have been established. Any questions concerning approved portions of SOP policy 319 can be addressed with a concern form for clarification.
To which I appealed:
Mr. Hartgrove cites 319.02.01.001 as the Longterm Restrictive Housing Policy, but .001 specifically notes the [policy] has been changed to 319.02.01.003. While issues may have arose with the Short-term and Transit requirements addressed in .001, none were ever addressed in .003, due to it having never been created. Therefore it is impossible to send a concern form and receive clarification for any portion of this policy, as zero can’t be divided into fractions. Additionally, how would we know you weren’t just making stuff up? A memo to the offender population is clearly needed for citation. This is not an unreasonable request.
The Appellate Authority, Howard Yordy, denied the grievance in his response:
Current SOP 319 is still the policy for long-term segregation. It addresses conditions of confinement, placement and Restrictive Housing Committee. The draft policy you refer to for long-term segregation was never implemented. I understand some inmates have seen a copy of it an believe it’s what we’re following but it isn’t approved or in place. The Short-term Segregation policy is just that, short term and has nothing to do with how the state my or may not eventually manage long-term segregation. I am also aware of a portion of the Short-Term Segregation policy that refers to a step-up program in the restrictive housing order but we are not doing that at this time. Two months ago, I wrote two memos to offenders outlining current practices and long-term plans for implementation. You are welcome to address your concerns and grievances using policy 319 and the memos if you wish.
Following up on this response, it should be noted the policy Yordy refers to as a draft includes in its header: “Adopted: 7/11/18.”
As for the memos mentioned, cages have so far only been installed around desks in one unit, as a pilot program to identify any potential issues with letting us sit in caged desks in the day room. Hopefully, other units will get their desk cages soon. Until then, time spent outside has not been increased, as was also suggested in the memo.
[Ref: Grievance Number IM 200000025]
…
FROM THE EDITOR
If you as a person don’t care enough about your experience to take the steps that make it better, why would someone else consider acting on your behalf?
If you’ve never scoured the globe for a miscarriage of jusice, it should be easy to imagine that others aren’t either. That’s why it’s important to take the initiative, read policies, exhaust grievances and make the copies available.
“That’s messed up” is not a universal call for action. So please join me this month in addressing something fixable without waiting for a search team to discover your concern.
You don’t need to do everything I do. But know that even a little can be just enough.
…
Until next time!
“Ain’t Got No Home”
— Clarence “Frogman” Henry
Next: First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter (Special Alert: Coronavirus Emergency)