This post contains the newest version of the IDOC pricelist*, which reflects the return of several high-demand products at two to three times the price at which they were offered in April.
In the last commissary price list post, I shared how I had been waiting months for public records containing the information Keefe presented to the IDOC to justify the price increases implemented in May.
After filing a grievance regarding IDOC transparency, I found myself supplied with a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index printout from December 2022, presented as objective market data supplied by Keefe eight months prior.
As for the other documents requested in that post–commissary committee review meeting minutes, supporting materials, payments from Keefe to IDOC–I found that the IDOC had little, if any, on-record deliberation when reviewing Keefe’s proposal to make moves that would dramatically increase their payouts.
It is worth noting that minutes from the March 2015 Commissary Review Committee Meeting show that revenue-sharing payments from Keefe to the IDOC are intended to be placed in the Inmate Management Fund, a fund which the Department has refused to prove exists in public records.
It’s also again worth emphasizing that these documents were only provided after this reporter filed the grievance below, and that Central Office admins have now refused for months to finish processing this grievance in accordance with IDOC policy.
IDOC GRIEVANCE NUMBER IM 220000469
Offender Name: Patrick Irving
Offender Number: 82431
Location: IMSI
Category: Administration
Date Received: 10/24/22
The Problem is:
Three public records requests submitted in April were never filled, and an August inquiry into their status was never answered. Without the records I have requested or a written reason for their obstruction, I am both hindered from introducing Department dealings into the realm of public knowledge and from contesting its refusal to provide public records as required by law.
I have tried to solve the problem informally by:
Requesting action from the Transparency Department and the IDOC Office of Professional Standards.
I suggest the following solution for the problem:
Provide Keefe sales volume reports for weeks 1-22-22 and 7-15-21; provide the 12 months of revenue payments (from 3-21 to 3-22 ) made from Keefe to the IDOC; provide all relevant notes, minutes and documents leading up to and distributed at the two commissary review committee meetings prior to 4-19-22.
LEVEL 1 — INITIAL RESPONSE by Jesse Winkelman
Grievance Disposition: Denied
I reviewed your grievance and all requests received by your facility’s record custodian have been submitted and completed for the months listed and found that all requests have been delivered to you within a timely and responsive manner.
After reviewing your solution, I found that it was not related to the issue you referenced as the problem. The proposed solution appears to be an amended request to a request you submitted in October 22 (ROO4168-101222). Based on this information, your grievance has been denied.
As a courtesy, we will submit a Public Records Request for those documents upon the completion of this Grievance (R004825-110822). In the future, Public Records Requests need to be submitted through concern form addressed to your facility’s record custodian to be processed in a timely manner.
LEVEL 2 — REVIEWING AUTHORITY RESPONSE by Sheryl LaFlamme
Grievance Disposition: Denied
I agree with Level 1 response. All three responses submitted in April were completed and delivered to you within a timely and responsive manner.
As a courtesy, we have entered your solutions to this grievance as a Public Records Request and you will be receiving the responsive documents shortly.
OFFENDER APPEAL
Attached to this appeal are the three concern forms on which I submitted the unfilled public records requests. Also attached: the concern form from July, in which I attempt to compel Mr. Winkelman to update me on the status of these requests. In yet another attempt to follow-up, I sent a letter dated 9-21-22 to the Transparency Department, informing Mr. Winkelman’s office that these requests, never filled, were required for “follow-up on an article published in May that is to soon be republished by a national organization.” That same letter made it clear that I have been publishing my struggle to obtain these very records, just as I expect to be publishing this grievance. If it is true that Mr. Winkelman failed to receive, for any reason, the original concern forms, there is still no good reason for Mr. Winkelman’s failure to respond to my follow-up attempts spanning five months after the fact.
APPELLATE RESPONSE by [missing in action]
[Maybe if we continue to ignore him, he’ll grow tired and walk away?…]
—
RESIDENT CONCERN FORM
Date: 12-13-22
From: Irving 82431
To: Grievance Coordinator
Issue/Concern: I submitted an appeal to Grievance # IM 220000469 weeks ago, [and in it] I attached several supporting documents that conflict with Level 1 and Level 2 responders’ responses. It is the status of this appeal that I am looking for. Can you please tell me what the hold up is? Thanks.
Reply from Associate F4991 on 12/19/22:
Apologies. I am still waiting for the appellate to respond. I will email her again and get this back ASAP.
—
As of 1/7/23, the appellate authority has yet to respond or inform me a continuation is required per IDOC Policy 316.02.01.001.
* It appears as though this price list is still missing some items, like the television that costs nearly $300. I can’t say for sure why these prices aren’t made public, but you’re welcome to speculate for me in the comments if you’d like.
Fullscreen Mode