The Law Office of Jennifer A. Fitzgerald
Jennifer A. Fitzgerald received her Juris Doctorate in 1997, after graduating from the University of San Diego School of Law. She is licensed in both Rhode Island and California. Attorney Fitzgerald spent 14 years defending both adults and juveniles caught in the justice system as an award-winning member of the Rhode Island Public Defender’s Office – the third most over-worked Public Defender’s Office in the country. She left the Public Defender’s Office in 2011 and is now in private practice. She is a graduate of the National Criminal Defense College in Macon Georgia and professionally affiliated with the Rhode Island Bar Association and the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
John P. Contini & Associates
John P. Contini, a Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer, became a Broward County prosecutor in 1983 and has been a criminal defense attorney since 1987. He received his B.A. in 1979 from the University of Massachusetts and his Juris Doctor in 1982 from the New England School of Law. Among other professional associations, he is a member of the Florida and Massachusetts Bar Associations, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
John has earned a reputation as an attorney who will defend the indefensible. According to him, “The criminally accused are treated like modern-day lepers. Those who are shunned and ostracized by society need our help and mercy the most. After all, we must demonstrate forgiveness if we want to be forgiven ourselves.”
Stanley Cohen, Attorney at Law
Political Activist and Criminal Defense Attorney
Jay Leiderman
Leiderman Devine LLP When searching for the right attorney, it is often the worst time in your life. Finding a good one, and the right one for you, is a daunting task. Leiderman Devine LLP believes that they are the right firm for you for many, many reasons. Many defense attorneys advertise that they once worked for the prosecutor or District Attorney. Jay Leiderman is proud to say he has never, ever, worked to incarcerate individuals accused of crimes, nor would he. Why would you hire someone who at one time worked hard to jail someone for the very crime for which you or your loved one is now being accused? Because that person professes to be an “insider?” He or she can get you a special deal because they know someone in the DA’s office? I’ve heard that said, and it simply isn’t true. Does that make sense—that years after they left the prosecutor’s office and their old cronies have moved on as well they still are an “insider?” Is that person one who believes in justice, or in making money no matter how they do it or whose desperation they exploit? Do they truly care about your rights? Did they care about them when they used to tell the judge to lock someone just like you up—to toss ‘em in jail? Hire someone that knows defense work inside and out, and believes in you, you’re rights, and your innocence. Hire someone with a record of fighting for those just like you—not against you! Moreover, hire someone you know is a Board Approved Criminal Law Specialist. Jason Scott (“Jay”) Leiderman is a California State Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist. In addition to the California State Bar Exam and mandatory continuing legal education, to obtain his specialization Jay had to pass another specialization test, a rigorous peer and judge review screening process, have many additional hours of classroom continuing legal education, and have substantial practical experience. There are over 200,000 attorneys licensed to practice in California. According to the California State Bar, on June 16, 2008, there were exactly 355 Certified Criminal Law Specialists—a small and elite group. In Ventura County Jay is currently one of only two criminal law specialists available for you to hire. Jay has dedicated his entire professional career to standing up for the rights of the accused. Jay believes in his role as an advocate for the accused. He has always been a champion of personal rights and a staunch defender of our constitutional freedoms. In short, Jay’s entire professional life has been dedicated to ensuring that those accused of crimes receive the most vigorous, competent and artful defense. Now that Jay is a partner in Leiderman Devine LLP, he has dedicated himself to providing that hard hitting defense while still remaining open and accessible to his clients. Law Office of Rick Horowitz2014 Tulare StreetSuite 627
|
WOW!. What a great job you did in writing this. I hope a lot of people see this report and read it. I live in Virginia,and we have the same problems you wrote about,in MT. Virginia also has several private jails/prisons throughout the state, where inmates are very mistreated. They receive very little food, and food you would not feed to a wild animal.No programs of any kind. People are locked in cells 20 plus hours each day. No religous programs. Telephone service is through a private companies, which cost is extremely high, for inmates to call out.This list ccould go on, and on. Nothing seems to happen to help people anywhere in jails/prisons. I pray for them everyday. I hope others will do the same. Thanks for you article.
03/12/13
I am new this forum and need some help. I was once a guest of the state in MT. The corruption in MT Dept of Corrections is appalling. Here is a copy of a recent letter I sent to State Officials and many of the newspapers in MT. No one has responded. I expect they know how they are already violating many laws. The answer is to pray for these people to repent and confess. That is everyone’s only hope. Only God can forgive no matter what man or Church officials profess. Someday when we all stand before Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ is LORD. 01/10/13
To: Governor Steve Bullock
governor@mt.gov
Attorney General Tim Fox
contactdoj@mt.gov
Mike Batista Director Dept. of Corrections
mbatista@mt.gov
momholt-mason@mt.gov
Executive Director of Board of Pardons & Parole Chairman-Michael E. McKee
http://bopp.mt.gov/about/feedback.mcpx
Law and Justice Inter-im Committee
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIE BOLDMAN HILL (D)
813 HILDA AVE
MISSOULA, MT 59801-4331
(406) 218-9608
Not listed as a current legis-lator on the legislative web-site.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE LAVIN (R)
PO BOX 11241
KALISPELL, MT 59904-4241
(406) 212-3820
stevelavin4hd8@gmail.com
REPRESENTATIVE MARGARET MAC-DONALD (D)
4111 JUNE DR
BILLINGS, MT 59106-1565
(406) 698-4917
macmargaret@gmail.com
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE MENAHAN (D)–Vice Chair
40 OLIVE ST
HELENA, MT 59601-6285
(406) 443-3759
mikemenahan@yahoo.com
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MORE (R)
450 N LOW BENCH RD
GALLATIN GATE-WAY, MT 59730-8546
(406) 763-5513
mp_more@yahoo.com
REPRESENTATIVE KEN PETERSON (R)
424 48TH ST W
BILLINGS, MT 59106-2306
(406) 591-2608
kenneth59@bresnan.net
SENATOR SHANNON J AUGARE (D)
PO BOX 909
BROWNING, MT 59417-0909
(406) 450-5686
shannonjaugare@aol.com
SENATOR STEVE GALLUS (D)
2319 HARVARD AVE
BUTTE, MT 59701-3854
(406) 494-3914
steve.gallus@gmail.com
SENATOR GREG W HINKLE (R)
5 GABLE RD
THOMPSON FALLS, MT 59873-8512
(406) 827-4645
ccwhi@blackfoot.net
SENATOR LYNDA MOSS (D)
552 HIGHLAND PARK DR
BILLINGS, MT 59102-1046
(406) 252-7318
lyndamoss@imt.net
SENATOR TERRY L MURPHY (R)
893 BOULDER CUT-OFF RD
CARDWELL, MT 59721-9605
(406) 285-6937
murphter5@yahoo.com
SENATOR JIM SHOCKLEY (R)–Chair
PO BOX 608
VICTOR, MT 59875-0608
(406) 642-3817
No Email listed in last leg-islative session or this one either
Robert A. Nelson
robnelson@mt.gov
The Office of Research and Policy Analysis and Legal Services Office
Dear Public Officials:
This letter is intended to point out some of the current problems that exist in the Dept. of Corrections I will also make some suggestions to make this agency work more efficiently and save the taxpayers money in the process. A great start would be for all DOC staff to follow the Code of Ethics. So what kind of solutions are available to the public and gov-ernment to improve Dept. of Corrections and our society in general.
Reduce the current incarceration rate by 50%. Or approximately 1500 inmates using an average daily incarceration rate of about $92.00 would save the tax payers about $50 Million dollars a year. Take those same inmates and team up with organizations that care for unwanted animals like SPCA, shelters around Montana, begin some non-profits to do this that are not housing ex inmates to find problems to justify sending them back but a real program that encourages them to work on their strengths and weaknesses and become productive members of society again.
The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms
• Contact Stephanie Bosh 202.540.6741
• June 6, 2012
Quick Summary
The length of time served in prison has increased markedly over the last two decades, ac-cording to a new study by Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project. Prisoners released in 2009 served an average of nine additional months in custody, or 36 percent longer, than offenders released in 1990.
Over the past 40 years, criminal justice policy in the U.S. was shaped by the belief that the best way to protect the public was to put more people in prison. Offenders, the reasoning went, should spend longer and longer time behind bars.
Consequently, offenders have been spending more time in prison. According to a new study by Pew’s Public Safety Performance Project, the length of time served in prison has increased markedly over the last two decades. Prisoners released in 2009 served an average of nine addi-tional months in custody, or 36 percent longer, than offenders released in 1990
See how longer prison sentences costs states over $10 billion
Those extended prison sentences came at a price: prisoners released from incarceration in 2009 cost states $23,300 per offender–or a total of over $10 billion nationwide. More than half of that amount was for non-violent offenders.
The report, Time Served: The High Cost, Low Return of Longer Prison Terms, also found that time served for drug offenses and violent offenses grew at nearly the same pace from 1990 to 2009. Drug offenders served 36 percent longer in 2009 than those released in 1990, while violent offenders served 37 percent longer. Time served for inmates convicted of property crimes in-creased by 24 percent.
Almost all states increased length of stay over the last two decades, though that varied widely from state to state. In Florida, for example, where time served rose most rapidly, prison terms grew by 166 percent and cost an extra $1.4 billion in 2009.
A companion analysis Pew conducted in partnership with external researchers found that many non-violent offenders in Florida, Maryland and Michigan could have served significantly shorter prison terms with little or no public safety consequences.
The report also summarizes recent public opinion polling that shows strong support nationwide for reducing time served for non-violent offenders.
1. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas
2. Six state legislative leaders reflect on how they successfully enacted comprehensive sen-tencing and corrections reforms using a bipartisan, interbranch working group and focusing on data and research to craft policies that met their unique challenges.
3. Discontinue placing people on criminal websites of any kind that have discharged their sentences. Continuing to display reformed ex-offenders as offenders violates Article 2 Section 28 of the Montana Constitution. Scaring the public into fearing in-dividuals that have been treated and have a lower recidivism rate than other prison populations just perpetuates problems among citizens that don’t consider themselves sinners even though they are.
4. The Quasi-Judicial Board of Pardons and Parole needs to be discontinued and re-placed with appointed individuals that will see the original judge’s sentence is carried out, not modified or replaced as the current and previous parole boards continue to do. This is a clear violation of double jeopardy in that the parole board uses its influence to resentence individuals to additional time in prison. This is clearly illegal and should cease immediately. One man I know at MSP was flopped for 8 years without any kind of explanation. This is criminal and the people responsible should be behind bars doing those 8 years.
5. Current investigations at any DOC facility are kept secret because they often uncover corruption and the Dept. uses the excuse that the public can’t be informed about the results of the investigation so the offenders can be dismissed verses being held ac-countable. This is like saying it is OK for DOC to break the rules because they are DOC. No one is above the law especially an agency that puts its goals and standards of conduct online but fails to live up to its own code. This is not only a travesty. It is a serious crime. All those involved up the chain of command are responsible. There is no one righteous, not even one. Romans 3:23, for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
6. A citizen’s corrections advisory council, with the power to enter any jail or prison at any time needs to be started in order to ensure DOC is following its own rules. This includes that all staff will be searched every time they enter or leave the prison which will significantly reduce the amount of contraband that continues to enter or leave our prisons. The current council Corrections Advisory Council. This council ceased to exist in 2010 according to the DOC website which appears to have a serious need to be updated in many areas as the information on the website is out of date.
7. Corrections staff should not be related by family, directly or indirectly in employ-ment. The problem with nepotism within State and Federal Government is a clear indication of potential corruption. If government is going to serve the public and turn around the current display of we can do what we want, then that is a clear indication of treason and should be immediately dealt with. As a former offender I learned that many of the people involved with the courts, including law enforcement, and corrections are merely people that sin just like anyone else. The only difference is they have used their positions to justify committing crimes and just haven’t been caught or prosecuted yet. This like saying do what I say, not what I do.
8. DOC should not be able to make an offender declare his religion and then use that to keep him or her from attending religious activities at MSP or any other DOC facility. This is a clear violation of the first amendment. It also becomes a way for the associate warden of programs at MSP, Mr. Tom Wilson to interfere in person’s choice to attend the religious programs of their choice. The problem began several years ago when Mr. Wilson was appointed the head of the RAC and began changing policy for volunteers that work with men and women in prison. The volunteer policy contained a clause that stated the volunteer agreed to have no contact with the former prisoner should they leave the prison. This is like removing a person’s support network as most people in prisons have few friends or much of a support system to help them get out and stay out. This would be like sending someone into a lion’s den without any kind of protection. Maybe Mr. Wilson needs to spend some time in Max for a few weeks to learn what it is like to have nothing. Maybe then he will be able to hear from God that loving your neighbor has nothing to do with limiting who they can associate with. This just becomes an excuse to justify a former inmate is in violation of their release so they can be returned to prison. I believe a thorough investigation of those that return to prison is not for new offenses but for violations of the terms of their release. This is a big difference. Many former inside volunteers can’t witness to inmates because Mr. Wilson and his staff control religious programs that inmates can attend and they also then determine who a former inmate can associate with. Sure sounds like these policies violate the Code of Ethics. Many former inside volunteers no longer volunteer because of this. In the meantime Mr. Wilson is now in charge of all inmate programs at MSP. This is a clear indicator how one person’s bias can affect thousands of lives. It shouldn’t be. For over 2 years now there have been problems on the high side at the RAC at MSP because of Teri Stafalo misusing her position to cause problems for high side inmates. Now according to some of the men on the high side, staff routinely does what they want and inmate’s grievances and complaints are covered up and investigations are twisted so DOC can continue on as usual. Corruption is still corruption no matter what you call it. In the last 8 months there have been 2 murders and many inmates continue to be cycled from Max to closed custody units on the basis they have committed infractions of prison policies. Their hearings are mere formalities and the sentences issued are based on determinations by staff that in most cases have been trumped up or twisted in order to keep the truth from coming out about the corruption staff routinely commits.
9. I would ask all of you that are receiving this letter to consider my proposals with an open mind. I as one of the taxpayers am tired of watching government continue to be out of touch with the public they are elected and appointed to serve. I look forward to your response and how former offenders like me could be involved to improve how our society deals with people that have numerous problems in their lives. I also remember Deer Lodge housing about twice as many prisoners as would be allowed according to the ACA back when I entered Deer Lodge in 1998. Since then, I under-stand the low and high side continue to house 2 inmates in many cells that were only created for one person. This is a clear violation of the code of ethics.
Department Administration » Code of Ethics
Code of Ethics
1. I shall perform my duties with high standards of honesty, integrity and impartiality, free from personal considerations, favoritism and partisan demands. I shall be cour-teous, considerate and prompt when serving the public.
2. I shall maintain respect and professional cooperation in my relationships with other department staff members. I will not sexually harass or condone sexual harassment of any person. I shall treat others with dignity, respect and compassion.
3. I shall report job-related illegal or unethical behavior to the appropriate authority.
4. I shall provide offenders with humane custody and care, void of retribution, har-assment, abuse or mistreatment. I shall maintain confidentiality of information that has been entrusted to me and designated as such. I will not incur any personal obli-gation that could lead any person to expect official favors.
5. I will not discriminate against any offender, employee or member of the public on the basis of age, race, gender, religion, creed, political belief or national origin.
6. I shall conduct myself in a manner that will not demean offenders, fellow employees or others.
7. I shall uphold the tenets of the United States Constitution, its amendments the Mon-tana Constitution, federal and state laws, rules and regulations, and policies of the department.
8. Whether on or off duty, in uniform or not, I shall conduct myself in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to the Department of Corrections and the state of Montana.
9. I will not use my official position for personal gain.
10. I shall maintain acceptable standards of personal hygiene, grooming and neatness while on duty or otherwise representing the department.
6/11/2012 Custody Report for Selected Facilities
Missing Ad Seg Close Max Med 1 Med 2 Min 1 Min 2 Rest Ad Seg Total
CCC 0 0 54 0 113 94 166 90 0 516
DCCF 0 0 1 0 25 23 59 34 0 142
GFRP 0 0 0 0 24 22 54 50 0 150
MSP 0 36 234 40 158 185 511 281 12 1,457
MWP 2 7 13 1 40 0 65 60 0 188
Total 2 43 302 41 360 324 855 515 12 2,453
In looking at the classification of inmates at the different facilities, there are many minimum 1 and minimum 2 inmates currently incarcerated that could be in the community saving the tax payers a bunch of money. The total I get from the report in June 2012 is 1370 which almost ½ of the current prison population. If these individuals are considered minimum classification then there is no reason why they couldn’t be in the community, working, paying taxes, and restitution versus being held captive in prison at a huge expense to the taxpayers. The annual corrections budget is 171 million dollars. Taking the lowest risk inmates and putting them in community corrections would be a huge savings to the tax payers. Another benefit would be providing current inmates with adequate housing as all of the prisons are overcrowded which leads to problems for the staff and inmates. I believe part of the problem of recidivism is that inmates being released are not prepared to return to society for many reasons. 1. They become institutionalized after 2 years of incarceration and don’t know how to think or function in society independently and therefore approxi-mately ½ to ¾ of those discharging, or paroling will be back in trouble within 4 years of re-lease and over ½ of those will be returned to prison. This says the current programs utilized by corrections is not working. Also because staff at the prisons and in community cor-rections don’t follow the code of ethics in their dealings with inmates, it only perpetuates trouble which leads to more trouble for those caught in the system. Also staff justify not following the code of ethics by acting that this sworn oath is just words on paper not an ac-tual policy that they adhere to. I continue to write to several inmates and learn that staff pretty much do as they want. They are not subject to regular searches of their person or property coming in or out of the prison. The prison blames contraband in the prison on vis-itors even though thorough searches are done of all visitors and rarely is any contraband found. When I was incarcerated everyone in prison new the staff was bringing in the drugs, tobacco, and anything else illegal. Why doesn’t the DOC require thorough searches of all of the staff? This would reduce the contraband in the prison. Also when staff is caught with contraband, they are merely dismissed from their jobs and escorted off the property. These people should be prosecuted just like any other citizen. Because they are not prosecuted then it gives the public the impression that contraband is not a problem in MT DOC facilities.
Here are the current statistics on Community Corrections.
The Division headquarters is located in Helena, with offices and facilities throughout Mon-tana. The Division provides supervision for 80 percent of the more than 13,000 offenders in the corrections system, through its five subdivisions and contract facilities:
The Adult Interstate Bureau coordinates the movement and data tracking of probationers and parolees among states. It oversees more than 1,600 adult offenders.
The Probation and Parole Bureau, through 23 field offices, supervises more than 9,000 adult probationers and parolees.
The Bureau also several specialized approaches including the Intensive Supervision Pro-gram (ISP). This is a six-month program providing a heightened level of offender manage-ment in communities of Montana, utilizing electronic monitoring and tracking devices, daily offender agenda schedules, and close monitoring by field staff. Other dedicated approaches focus on offenders with co-occurring disorders, DUI offenses, sexual offending, and substance abuse. Sixteen P&P staff are located at correctional custody programs around the state assisting offenders with reentry efforts as they transition from secure facilities to a lower level of placement or supervision.
The Treasure State Correctional Training Center near Deer Lodge is a 60-bed correctional facility for men, based on a military format of discipline and treatment (boot camp). Pro-grams employed during the trainee’s 90 to 120-day incarceration include victimology, crim-inal thinking errors, anger management, substance abuse treatment and academic school-ing.
The Adult Prerelease Unit contracts with six non-profit prerelease centers for housing, treatment and supervision of 624 men and 174 women. These centers provide transition from prison to community and an alternative to prison for “diverted” offenders when pub-lic safety and the offenders’ interests are best served by a level of supervision between pris-on and probation.
Missoula Assessment and Sanction Center (MASC) is designed to identify comprehensive risk and needs information for male offenders. The center provides short-term treatment in chemical dependency, criminal thinking, sexual offender, and mental health counseling. MASC is a 144-bed facility operating within the Missoula County Detention Facility in Missoula.
Connections Corrections Program (CCP) is a 42-bed, 60 to 90-day residential chemical de-pendency treatment program for male offenders which began in 1998 and is located in Butte. In 2005, CCP expanded to Warm Springs, providing 52 additional beds.
Warm Springs Addiction Treatment and Change (WATCh) opened in February 2002 in Warm Springs and 2005 in Glendive for the supervision and treatment of felony (fourth and subsequent) DUI offenders. Providing 163-beds, the program is based on a modified therapeutic community approach. Those who successfully complete the six-month WATCh program may have the remainder of their 13-month mandatory prison sentences suspended.
Sanction, Treatment, Assessment, Revocation and Transition (START), begun in 2005, the program is designed for “technical” violators only. Offenders that are facing additional fel-ony offenses are not eligible for placement at the START facility. In 2010, a new facility was constructed near Anaconda, and the Division contracts for 118 beds.
Passages, located in Billings, offers a diverse number of services for female offenders. Pas-sages Assessment, Sanction & Revocation Center (ASRC) identifies comprehensive risk and needs information; Passages Alcohol & Drug Treatment (ADT) provides structured inpatient chemical dependency treatment; and Passages Prerelease Center (PRC), an al-ternative to direct release from prison to the community.
Nexus and Elkhorn Treatment Centers opened in 2007 to provide alternatives to traditional sentencing of adult offenders who are addicted to methamphetamines and other substances. NEXUS, for male offenders, is an 80-bed facility located in Lewistown; Elkhorn, for women offenders, is a 40-bed facility located in Boulder.
I believe that the process for probation or parole is currently just another form of resen-tencing. The court judgment is a person’s sentence but DOC then resentences people by forcing people to go to the parole board which can keep someone incarcerated as long as they want up to a person’s discharge. I currently know people in prison that have received flops for parole up to 8 years and they have done nothing to justify this. This demonstrates to me, the process is broken. It would seem if someone is being sent to prison for any crime, then the focus would be on how to make them capable of working in society with education, training, and the cooperation of the community corrections programs to get men and wom-en out of prison, and instituting programs that help former inmates to become productive citizens in the community. The current steps program at the prison is only available to a limited number of inmates at the work dorm. What is needed is a program that takes an inmate incarcerated and begins to help him or her plan to be released after a couple of years of training and support inside and follow up training and support in the community. The current system seems to be about keeping a revolving door going to keep DOC increasing numbers and their budget every time the legislature meets. There don’t seem to be any real goals to reduce crime or recidivism in MT that have ever worked. This is unacceptable. It is my opinion that most individuals incarcerated are not any worse than most people in society that haven’t been caught or prosecuted for the crimes they have committed throughout their lives. Another part of the problem is corrections trying to scare the public by using things like the Sex Offender and Violent Offender registry to scare the public into believing these individuals are dangerous. This is now a legal way to discriminate against former offenders. In fact, I can’t understand if someone has discharged their sentence how law enforcement can continue to publish information about people whose sentence has expired. This violates privacy laws but it allows the public to cause problems continually for former offenders when they try to find work, a place to live, a church, or have any kind of life without interference from society that believes these individuals are unworthy in some way.
Montana Department of Corrections
Our Mission
The Montana Department of Corrections enhances public safety,
promotes positive change in offender behavior, reintegrates offenders
into the community and supports victims of crime.
About 1,200 inmates walk out of the gates of Montana prisons each year, usually making their way back to the communities they left when sentenced. How well-prepared they are to successfully return to society determines their ability to lead productive, law-abiding lives, create no new victims and avoid rebounding into the corrections system.
In the past two years, the Montana Department of Corrections launched a concerted effort to improve and expand programs and services designed to give adult offenders greater chances for success when no longer in prison.
Reentry refers to this transition from incarceration and to the programs aimed at helping. Although the concept of reentry has been a part of corrections for decades, the term is relatively new and is the subject of national recognition that more can be done to reduce recidivism rates that drive up correctional costs and consume scarce taxpayer dollars.
Success for offender’s means having stable housing and employment, effective treatment, positive personal relationships, family support and appropriate supervision. Success means fewer future victims, less crime and a safer Montana.
The Montana Reentry Initiative has a single goal: Use a more focused effort to increase offenders’ success. A task force began work in the summer of 2011 to increase coordination of corrections system efforts with those of other government agencies and community partners. The task force is working with the Department of Labor and Industry, Department of Public Health and Human Services, higher education, faith-based groups, law enforcement, families, employers and landlords to craft a blueprint that reduces recidivism.
The initiative targets those offenders who pose the greatest risk of returning to prison. Release preparation efforts begin the day these offenders enter prison and continue throughout incarceration.
The department believes these efforts will reduce recidivism, save Montana taxpayers money and transform lives from those where criminal action is commonplace and problems go unresolved, to lives that contribute daily to a vibrant and healthy society and make Montana a safer place to live for all.
Prison/Jail 19% Alternatives 7% Prerelease 7% Specialized Super-vision* 3% Probation & Parole 64% Offender Population Distribu-tion FY2012 *Intensive supervision, day reporting, treatment and accountability programs
At A Glance
2011-12 in review
• Saw a 19 percent decline in the number of juvenile offenders supervised by the department during the past two years and a 35 percent decrease since 2006
• Launched the Montana Reentry Initiative, a statewide project to improve coordination of government and community services and programs that provide offenders with tools to be successful when returning to their communities
• In conjunction with the Department of Labor and Montana State University Billings, implemented the New Path New Life reentry program in Billings, assisting female offenders in four key areas of transitioning to the community
• Obtained for the Montana State Prison infirmary accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, which sets standards for correctional health care nationwide
• Expanded the crime victim notification system to track offenders on probation and parole and to provide text messages to victims
• Successfully implemented a new felony restitution collection and disbursement system, allowing victims the ability to have payments deposited directly into their account rather than wait for a check to be issued
• Expanded the Pine Hills garden production for the school lunch program to include a high-production greenhouse, with excess food donated to the local food bank
• Expanded the inmate trust account system to include transactions in any state-run or contracted secure facility, providing continuity throughout the system for all offenders and preventing delays in receipt of funds when inmates are transferred to another facility
• Completed development of an infirmary in Lewistown that is a collaborative effort between corrections and the Department of Public Health and Human Services to house 25 offenders with serious physical and medical conditions, and allow an increase in the capacity of Montana State Prison
• Managed an inmate fire crew that provided more than 3,500 hours of community service and 613 hours of wild land firefighting in fiscal years 2011 and 2012
• Despite the end of a federal grant, maintained specialized probation and parole officers focusing on Native American offenders and those with co-occurring mental health and addiction problems, reducing violations among those populations
• Assisted 135 incarcerated offenders with post-secondary education, with five obtaining associate degrees and 10 getting welding certificates from two different community colleges
• Completed renovation of an antiquated cell block into the Security Services Unit at Montana State Prison, including redesign of the interior and addition of new windows, boilers, lighting and insulated siding
• Completed Pine Hills candidacy to become a member of Performance-based Standards for Youth Correction and Detention Facilities, and focused on facility improvement using best practices and validated research as a guide
• Conducted 10 American Indian cultural awareness training courses for correctional staffs in state and contracted facilities
• Provided an Internet-based registration system allowing victims to register electronically to track offenders under department supervision
• Improved the community corrections division’s communication process and expedited the screening process of our offenders by using a new program that sends offender information packets electronically over the Internet to all community-based facilities
• Continued working with Montana State University Billings to provide post-secondary and life skills education at Montana Women’s Prison, with 84 offenders completing the life skills curriculum and 10 finishing credit course work
• Completed development of a garden and greenhouse at Montana Women’s Prison that will provide food for the prison and save about $2,000 a year
• In conjunction with the Montana Correctional Association made the department’s reentry initiative the focus of the organization’s annual conference.
• Made significant enhancements to the department’s electronic adult and juvenile offender databases, including event scheduling, risk-and-needs assessments, restitution payment information and case management tools
• Started a dialogue between Montana Women’s Prison inmates and tribal members from Mon-tana and Wyoming to promote cultural and traditional programs within the prison and to focus on Native American offenders’ reentry into their communities
FY2012 budget
2012 2010
Administration $9,540,055 $10,568,797
Community
Corrections $58,610,779 $57,148,024
Prison $74,499,545 $72,948,667
Correctional
Enterprises $801,597 $1,736,565
Youth Services $17,961,287 $18,649,456
Outside Medical $8,050,773 $5,569,867
Total $169,464,036 $167,410,249
Total General Fund Expenditures excluding Board of Pardons and Parole
More than 94 cents of every dollar spent pays for direct services to offenders.
Average Costs Per Day excluding administrative costs
Montana State Montana Women’s Contract MASC START WATCh
Prison (M/F)
$92.20 $98.31 $72.44 $76.26 $93.19 $78.91/$107.58
Prerelease Nexus/Elkhorn Boot CD Sanction Probation
Centers Treatment Camp Treatment Assessment & Parole
(M/F) (M/F) (male) CD Treatment
(female)
$59.28/$48.39 $122.38/$135.95 $97.84 $73.77 $79.69 $4.28
Pine Hills Riverside Youth Transition Parole
Centers
$306.88 $443.51 $339.97 $137.78
Youth Adult
Comparisons among average daily costs must take into consideration many variables among correctional facili-ties and programs, including staffing, daily populations, programming, types of offenders and custody levels.
by the numbers…
population
Montana’s emphasis on developing correctional options to prison has had an impact during the past seven years. Alternatives, such as sanction and treatment programs, saw a 48 percent growth in population, while the number of offenders in prerelease centers increased more than 28 percent and the community supervision population climbed 9 percent. At the same time, the number of male inmates changed less than 1 percent and the female prison population dropped nearly 17 percent.
Montana’s adjudicated juveniles are being placed in secure facilities in smaller numbers. The total number of youths entering Montana’s two secure juvenile facilities decreased 17.6 percent in the past three years. The number of new commitments dropped nearly 23 percent, while the number of juveniles admitted due to parole revocations fell 13 percent.
programs
directory
DOC Central Office
5 S. Last Chance Gulch Box 201301
Helena, MT 58620-1301 (406) 444-3930
Director’s Office
Director Mike Batista……………………………………………………………………….444-4913
Executive Assistant Myrna Omholt-Mason…………………………………………444-3911
Victim Programs Manager Sally Hilander…………………………………………..444-7461
Communication Director Bob Anez……………………………………………………444-0409
Administrative and Financial Services
Administrator Rhonda Schaffer…………………………………………………………444-4939
Budget and Program Planning Bureau Chief Kara Sperle……………………..444-4365
Accounting Bureau Chief Kimberly Timm…………………………………………444-4903
Contract Management Bureau Acting Chief April Grady……………………..444-4941
Adult Community Corrections
Administrator Pam Bunke………………………………………………………………….444-9610
Probation & Parole Bureau Chief Ron Alsbury…………………………………….444-9529
Facilities Management Bureau Chief Kelly Speer…………………………………444-0401
Probation & Parole Bureau Programs Manager Mike Aldrich………………..444-1538
Treatment Program Contract Manager Rick Alan Deady……………………….444-4902
Prerelease Program Contract Manager VACANT…………………………………444-4910
Deputy Adult Compact Administrator Cathy Gordon……………………………444-4916
Information Technology
Administrator John Daugherty……………………………………………………………444-4469
Application Development Bureau Chief Anita Pisarsky………………………..444-5510
Network Operations Bureau Chief Jon Straughn………………………………….444-1706
Statistics and Data Quality Bureau Chief Mark Johnson……………………….444-6719
Staff Services
Administrator VACANT…………………………………………………………………..444-0406
Human Resources Bureau Chief Gary Phillips……………………………………..444-0445
Professional Development Bureau Chief Lisa Hunter……………………………444-3909
Investigations Bureau Chief Dale Tunnell…….….…….………………………..444-4761
Legal Services Bureau Chief Colleen Ambrose……………………………………444-4152
American Indian Liaison Myrna Kuka………………………………………………..444-0403
Youth Services
Administrator Cindy McKenzie……………………………………………444-0851
Youth Community Corrections Bureau Chief VACANT……………………..444-4390
Pine Hills Youth Correctional Facility Superintendent Steve Ray Jr……….233-2290
Riverside Youth Correctional Facility Superintendent Dan Kissner………225-4501
Montana Correctional Enterprises
Administrator Gayle Lambert……………………………………………….846-1320 ext 2373
Administrative Officer Gail Boese………………………………………..846-1320 ext 2351
Education Director Larry Burke…………………………………………..846-1320 ext 2425
Agriculture Director Ross Wagner…………………………………………846-1320 ext 2322
Fiscal Director Andrew Olcott………………………………………………846-1320 ext 2324
Food Factory Director Joe Mihelic………………………………………..846-1320 ext 2120
Industries Director Christine Lansford…………………………………..846-1320 ext 2489
Montana State Prison
Warden Leroy Kirkegard………………………………………………………846-1320 ext 2200
Contract Placement Bureau Chief Patrick Smith……………………..846-1320 ext 2556
Correctional Services Bureau Chief Candyce Neubeauer………….846-1320 ext 2459
Health Services Bureau Chief Cathy Redfern………………………….846-1320 ext 2448
Montana Women’s Prison
Warden Jo Acton………………………………………………………………………………247-5100
Deputy Warden Security Bob Paul………………………………………………………247-5121
Deputy Warden Treatment Joan Daly………………………………………………….247-5157
Correctional Facilities
Montana State Prison………………………..846-1320
400 Conley Lake Rd. Deer Lodge 59722
Montana Women’s Prison…………………247-5100
701 S. 27 St. Billings 59101
Treasure State Correctional Training
Center…………………………………846-1320 ext 2100
1100 Conley Lake Rd. Deer Lodge 59722
Missoula Assessment & Sanction Center…………………………………..258-4021
2340 Mullan Rd. Missoula 59808
Pine Hills Youth Correctional
Facility……………………………………………..232-1377
4 N. Haynes Ave. Miles City 59301
Riverside Youth Correctional
Facility……………………………………………..225-4500
2 Riverside Rd. Boulder 59632-0088
Youth Transition Center…………………..452-1792
4212 3rd Ave. S. Great Falls 59405
Crossroads Correctional Center………..434-7055
50 Crossroads Dr. Shelby 59474
Cascade County Regional Prison……….727-1930
3800 Ulm N. Frontage Rd. Great Falls 59404
Dawson County Regional Prison……….377-7687
440 Colorado Blvd. Glendive 59330
Elkhorn Treatment Center………………..447-5300
1 Riverside Rd. Boulder 59632
Nexus Treatment Center…………………..535-6660
P.O. Box 1200 Lewistown 59457
Passages Women’s Center…………………294-9609
1001 S. 27th St. Billings 59101
START…………………………………………….563-7002
P.O. Box 1389 Anaconda 59711
WATCh East…………………………………….377-6001
700 E. Little St. Glendive 59330
WATCh West…………………………………..693-2272
P.O. Box G Warm Springs 59756
Connections Corrections………………….782-6626
111 W. Broadway Butte, MT 59701
Passages Women’s Center…………………294-9609
1001 S. 27th St. Billings 59101
Billings Prerelease Center………………….259-9695
3109 1st Ave. N. Billings 59101
Bozeman Prerelease Center……………….994-0300
675 S. 16th Ave. Bozeman 59715
Butte Prerelease Center…………………….782-2316
66 W. Broadway Butte 59701
Great Falls Prerelease Center……………727-0944
1019 15th St. N. Great Falls 59401
Helena Prerelease Center………………….442-6572
805 Colleen St. Helena 59601
Missoula Prerelease Center……………….541-9200
2350 Mullan Rd. Missoula 59808
Board of Pardons and Parole……………846-1404
1002 Hollenbeck Rd. Deer Lodge 59722
Executive Director Fern Osler
Posted on May 25, 2012 by mejustice
o
Sheriffs And Politicians Have Financial Incentives To Keep People Locked Up – Montana Is Going Full Speed Down This Road
When a prison-building boom swept north Louisiana in the 1990s, Billy McConnell got in on the financing and construction ends. Then he thought, why not run the prisons, too? He already ran nursing homes, and the bottom line was the same. His experience feeding and housing old folks could be applied to keeping drug pushers and petty thieves behind bars.
“We realized that prisons are like nursing homes. You need occupancy to be high. You have to treat people fairly and run a good ship, but run it like a business, watch food costs, employee costs,” said Clay McConnell, 37.
Today, the McConnells are a major force in Louisiana’s vast prison industry, playing a role in the incarceration of one in seven prisoners. The family’s fortunes have risen hand in hand with those of rural sheriffs who are the best-known face of Louisiana Incarceration-for-Profit Inc. More than half of the state’s 40,000 inmates are housed in local prisons run by sheriffs or private companies like LaSalle for the express purpose of making a buck.
READ THE
ENTIRE SERIES A Must Read – Extremely Informative
Whether a sheriff uses the revenue to buy shotguns or whether LaSalle uses it to build a gleaming new headquarters, the result is the same. If you are sentenced to state time in Louisiana, odds are you will be placed in a local prison — a low-budget, for-profit enterprise where you are likely to languish in your bunk, day after day, year after year, bored out of your skull with little chance to learn a trade or otherwise improve yourself. A coveted spot at a state prison like Angola, Hunt or Dixon is a long shot for anyone not convicted of a violent crime such as murder, rape or armed robbery.
More than a decade since a prison-building boom swept the state, Louisiana’s corrections system is a sprawling, for-profit enterprise. Private companies got in on the spoils, but the primary bene-ficiaries have been local sheriffs, who use the per-diem payments from the state to finance their departments and to pump jobs into moribund rural economies.
With little oversight from the Department of Corrections, sheriffs wheel and deal among them-selves for inmates. Cupp and other rural north Louisiana wardens drum up business with daily rounds of phone calls to their suppliers — urban areas such as New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport that produce more criminals than their own jails can hold. The mad scramble to build prisons has become a mad scramble for inmates.
Like hotels, prisons operating on per-diem payments must stay near 100 percent occupancy to survive. The political pressure to keep beds full is a contributing factor to the state’s world-leading incarceration rate. No other state comes close to Louisiana’s 53 percent rate of state inmates in local prisons, and few lobbies in Louisiana are as powerful as the sheriffs association.
What is good for the sheriff can be bad, even tragic, for the inmate. Local prisons, which gener-ally keep those with sentences of fewer than 10 years, are bare-bones operations without the ar-ray of educational and vocational programs that are standard at state prisons. Inmates caught up in the wardens’ daily bartering can be transferred arbitrarily, sometimes losing chances at a GED certificate or a work-release job when they land at another facility. Plumbers and auto mechanics are valuable commodities, given up by one warden as a favor to another. (What about when a warden leaves a state prison and goes to work as a warden at a private prison?)
“It makes it hard to do reforms that lower the prison population, because you’re affecting the lo-cal economic engines that they provide,” said James Austin, a national prison expert who has studied Orleans Parish Prison extensively. “It would be different if everyone were in state facili-ties. It’s a lot easier for the state to close a state facility than for a state to close several small local facilities that really provide economic fuel at the local level.”
Lately, inmates have been hard to come by. The statewide prison-building frenzy may have re-sulted in too many beds. Last year, the Richland Parish Detention Center lost more than $500,000. But no employees were laid off, and the count has been healthy after a recent infusion of pretrial inmates from Livingston Parish.
In good years, the prison has generated as much as $700,000 in profits.
“There’s no downside. They keep them contained out there,” said Mike Shoemaker, whose print-ing business in Rayville, the parish seat, has many prison employees as customers. Shoemaker’s wife draws several hundred dollars in retirement each month from her years as a guard at the prison.
The United States of Incarceration
by Ryan Sanders|May 15, 2012
The United States locks up too many people. Globally, the average incarceration rate is 125 prisoners per 100,000 people. The United States arrest rate is 743 per 100,000. This gives the U.S. the highest incarceration rate on Earth.
A recent article in The Christian Century says America seems to enjoy locking people in prison. As the piece reveals, the U.S. has only six percent of the world’s population, but it has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.
Senator James Webb (D., Va.) has remarked:
“Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the U.S. or we are doing something dramatically wrong in how we approach criminal justice.”
In the 1980′s, the War on Drugs allowed congress to pass laws imposing mandatory minimum sentences for minor offenses. In the years following, many states became “tough-on-crime” with similar sentencing for minor and non-violent offenses.
This “tough-on-crime” mentality has led to a spike in incarcerations. In recent years, many people have been locked behind bars—people without violent pasts have been imprisoned and sentenced to longer terms.
Locking up too many people for too long ultimately costs the state too much. Some states are starting to realize we are not only wasting taxpayer money—we are not making our cities safer.
States simply cannot afford to continue building and staffing prisons. We must change the way we do criminal justice. This country simply cannot afford to spend $200 billion a year to lock up over 2 million people.
The Christian Century points out, “The current criminal justice system is certainly an absolute scandal—and a catastrophe for millions of Americans, their families and their com-munities.”
This report shows how the system can profit but it costs the taxpayers more money. It really comes down that we are paying more taxes for the benefit of someone else staying wealthy. Money that we don’t have. This report was finally released by the state of Arizona. It shows the real scam to taxpayers.
Americans and Montanans are sick and tired of incarcerating for profit. We are tired of the burden on us the taxpayers and on the families of those incarcerated unjustly. Do you need more proof that what we are saying is true? Well, here is another survey that shows Americans want prison populations decreased.
Survey Shows Americans Want Prison Population Decreased
Posted on April 2, 2012 by mejustice
WHERE DOES YOUR POLITICIANS STAND ON THIS ISSUE?
MORE INCARCERATIONS? STRICTER OR LONGER SENTENCES?
THIS IS NOT THE ANSWERS THAT AMERICANS WANT!
Public Opinion on Sentencing and Corrections Policy in America
2012 polling, consistent with 2010 research, indicates that voters are concerned first and fore-most
with keeping communities and people safe. Without question, voters want a strong public safety
system where criminals are held accountable and there are consequences for illegal activities. They
also believe that these goals can be reached while reducing the size and cost of the prison system.
A national public opinion survey conducted in January 2012, along with similar surveys in Georgia,
Missouri, and Oregon, found those attitudes persist and revealed opinions on specific policy so-lutions.
1. American voters believe too many people are in prison and the nation spends
too much on imprisonment.
2. Voters overwhelmingly support a variety of policy changes that shift non-violent
offenders from prison to more effective, less expensive alternatives.
3. Support for sentencing and corrections reforms (including reduced prison terms)
is strong across political parties, regions, age, gender, and racial/ethnic groups.
The poll tested public support for a variety of sentencing and correction reforms, and there is widespread support for shorter sentences and alternatives to incarceration for non-violent crimes, especially when prison savings are reinvested in less costly supervision options.
Montana those that have been in our political offices telling you that we need to lock up more Montanans, continue to get tougher on laws and sentencing is not normal. Montana has a very high rate of incarcerated inmates per population already. As I said they are in the plans of wanting to make more money by locking up your friends and loved ones. Montana do something about it.
Montana look at the Analysis Resource Links on the home page on the left side. We come in 27th in the nation of those incarcerated. We are way higher than New York. Montana is not that heavily populated. What the Montana DOJ and other state departments are plan-ning on is increasing that number. They have brought it up at the Law and Justice. You see the advertising for it. You see the advertising about the prisons, all the articles on so much crime related issues for a state that is again not heavily populated. They are feeding your fear while they are sneaking your money out of your pocket. It is time to put a stop to this injustice. This is your fellow Montanans, this could be in the future of your friends or loved ones. Don’t think that it can’t or won’t happen because it can and it will!
There are now 5,500 people on the state sexual and violent offender registries, with 7,000 joining it each year and hardly anyone leaving it. 7,000 a year?
MONTANA’S SURPLUS FUNDS, THE CORRUPTION AND THEIR PRISONS – NEWS AND OBSERVATIONS
The Montana Families – DOC/BOPP/DPHHS/DOJ
Posted on October 18, 2012 by mejustice
The Montana Families
Board of Pardons and Parole and Department of Corrections
CCCS, Inc. 471 E. Mercury St.
Butte, Mt 59701
March 17, 2010
The meeting attendees expressed their thanks to Mike Thatcher and staff for
extending the invitation to use the corporate facilities for the meeting as well as
providing snacks and lunch for the group. Thank you so much.
Board members in attendance were: Chairman Mike McKee, Sam Lemaich, John
Ward, Margaret Hall-Bowman, and Teresa McCann-O’Connor
Board member absent were: John Rex and Darryl Dupuis
Board staff in attendance were: Executive Director Craig Thomas, Senior Parole Board
Analyst Julie Thomas, Parole Board Analyst Fern Osler, Parole Board Analyst Brain
Callarman, Parole Board Analyst John Cameron, and Parole Board Analyst Chris-tine Slaughter
Department of Corrections staff in attendance were: Department of Corrections Director
Mike Ferriter, Montana Women’s Prison Warden Jo Acton, Montana Men’s Prison
Warden Mike Mahoney, Adult Community Corrections Division Administrator Pam
Bunke, Legal Counsel to Director Diana Koch, and Executive Assistant to the Director
Myrna Omholt-Mason
Guest: Governor’s Policy Advisor on Health and Families Eve Franklin
Review of old business – meeting summary of October 14, 2009
Correction made to male jail hold should have read “decrease” of 12%.
Population Projections:
Ms. Bunke said the population growth remains flat in her programs, Warden
Acton reported that her facility is currently below capacity, and Warden Mahoney said
the male jail hold numbers will increase due to ADA construction projects that are
currently join on in cell blocks.
Length of Stay (LoS):
Ms. Acton reported that average LoS at MWP is 18 months and is increasing
from the statistics reported in October 2009. Female offenders suffering from mental
and serious medical issues are increasing the LoS. Warden Mahoney is seeing an
increase of adjudicated teens coming into the system as adults. Gang culture is
appealing to youth and causing security challenges for MSP.
DUI/Sex Offenders:
Ms. Bunke said the Law & Justice Interim committee will meet on April 5 and 6.
SJR 39 – DUI study as well as sex offender placement challenges will be discussed.
Dr. Tim Conley did a study titled Assessing Montana’s Multiple Offender Drunk Drivers
for Prevention Strategy Ideas. The study is posted on the DOC’s Intranet site for review.
One of the findings from Dr. Conley’s research showed that offenders want a longer
period of treatment after being charged with their first DUI.
Placement of sex offenders (SO’s) is still problematic. Only two prerelease
centers, Billings and Missoula, accept SO’s. A panel comprised of DOC staff and
community based program staff will present their views to the committee on April 6
regarding placement of SO’s into the community. The panel will stress that the SO’s
going to the prerelease centers are Level One’s. Butte and Bozeman prerelease center
will not take SO’s and Great Falls is taking the issue under advisement with no firm
decision made as yet. Mr. Ferriter recommended a representative of BOPP also attend
the meeting to give BOPP’s perspective.
Sex Offenders 46-18-207(4) MCA:
Ms. Koch read the statute and it says in part…“during an offender’s term of
commitment to the department of corrections or a state prison, the department may
place the person in a residential sexual offender treatment program approved by the
department under 53-1-203.” The Intensive Treatment Unit at MSP is not classified as
a residential treatment program. Offenders at MSP attend SO treatment as well as
participating in other programming/jobs as opposed to WATCh which is an eight hour
per day treatment module. The expanded Work and Re-entry Center (formally the Work
Dorm) could be utilized as a specialized residential treatment program therefore
lessening the offender population that is currently treatment complete but still housed
behind the double-wire.
Community Corrections Interventions for High-Risk Offenders in Rural Montana:
Ms. Bunke said that eight full time P&P officers have been hired. Five of the
officers will be specialized in working with Native American offenders and three will work
with offenders that have co-occurring issues (chemical dependency and mental health).
A federal Department of Justice field auditor will be in Helena in mid-March to review
the management of the grant. One of the goals is to meld Native American strategies
into treatment programming.
Craig Thomas said the grant will now give the Board the tools to specifically
parole offenders to one of the specialized officers.
2E-Rim Project:
Mr. Thomas reported little progress has been made with the project. Funding is
a problem as well as file storage. CITRIX and OMIS access for all Board members has
to be grated and the correct computer access program hasn’t been installed on the
laptop computers used by the Board. Electronic records are stored in a program called
FileNet through the Department of Administration. DofA charges large sums of money
for storage and those expenditures are not in the DOC budget. Mr. Thomas also said
that wireless connectivity in correctional facilities is also a problem due to how the
facilities were constructed (ex. concrete walls).
CDFS(Conditional Discharge from Supervision):
Mr. Thomas said that in the last ten years 20 parolees have been discharged from
supervision. The goal of CDFS was to reduce the P&P officer’s caseload by rewarding
offenders for completing the terms of his/her sentence. CDFS requires more effort on
behalf of the officer as the officer has to approach the Board and request a CDFS. The
conditions pertaining to offenders on probation or parole status have changed due to
updating the Administrative Rules relating to conditions of probation or parole. The
existing Administrative Rule 20.25.704 dealing with conditional discharge from
supervision has been re-worded when Mr. and Mrs. Thomas met with Ms Koch regarding
updating Chapter 25 – Board of Pardons and Parole – in the Administrative Rules of
Montana. Mr. Thomas said the Board’s goal is to be compliant with ACA Standard 2-
APA-1125 which states “if not discharged after one year of release on parole or the
statutory minimum period, the parolee may request a discharge review by the authority.”
Mr. Thomas stated the current ARM statute on conditional discharge from supervision
does not have any bearing on parole. The P&P officer can recommend CDFS but the
Board does not have to approve – offenders do not have the right to parole.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES:
Mr. McKee stated that is has been 11 years since the administrative rules
governing the Board have been reviewed. The meeting summary of October 2009
reflected that the rules will be reviewed and amended to accurately reflect the Board’s function.
Craig and Julie Thomas and Diana Koch have met and new rules have been drafted.
The proposed changes have been sent to the Board members for their review.
If changes to the working document need to be made, please submit the suggested
changes to Mr. Thomas by the first week in May. A video conference will be scheduled
in May to review the final document before submission to the Legislative Services rule
reviewer, Valencia Lane. Diana Koch talked about the protocol through the Secretary of
State’s office regarding the administrative rule process.
The Board does not have to
hold a public hearing to amend the rules but must send a notice to interested persons
and take their comments into consideration before the rules are adopted.
Any changes to the statutes need to be sent to Ms. Koch by April 1 for her review.
INMATE CLASSIFICATION FOR OFFENDERS NOT INTERESTED IN PAROLE:
Mr. McKee stated that offenders have the right to refuse parole consideration and
he has observed some offenders have become acclimatized to the prison lifestyle. He
questioned Mr. Mahoney about the current MSP’s classification system. Mr. Mahoney
stated that offender’s with lengthy discharge dates are reviewed every six months and
are moved to different secure facilities if all they want to do is serve their time. Ms.
Acton stated that MWP does not have the opportunity to move female offenders that
refuse to appear before the Board.
BUDGET/EPP OVERVIEW:
Mr. Thomas said he will only present two EPP requests to DOC – funding for
ACA and per diem for Board members.
Mr. Ferriter said DOC has undergone 6.8 million in budget reductions. DOC is
still going to move forward with the NW prerelease center and the eight new specialized
P&P officer positions that are currently funded through a federal grant could be
eliminated. He stated that to maintain the existing budget it will require 174 million.
Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Acton will be submitted their EPP requests for DOC
management team review and prioritization. Ms. Acton said MWP is in critical need for
a new control system of operation of all doors in her facility.
Mr. McKee asked that the Board be kept apprised and included in any
discussions if the department is contemplating the possibility of early release of
offenders due to budget cuts.
MOU-JURISDICTION:
Ms. Koch gave the attendees a copy of the MOU that reflects the current practice
between the Board and DOC. The changes to the document are: 1) to take out the word
“treat” and replace it with “manage”. The corrected sentence will read: “The purpose of
this MOU is to reflect the agreement of the parties as to how they will manage offenders
who are committed to the Department of Corrections (DOC Commits) and whom the
COC places in prison. 2) delete in its entirety item #3 which reads: “DOC Commits and
prison commits that have been screened and accepted by prerelease through the
screening process as outlined in DOC Policy 5.8.1. 3) add Pam Bunke’s name to the
signatory page as well as correcting Mr. McKee’s name to Michael E. McKee.
The effective date of the MOU will be upon signing of all parties
PARDONS/OFFENDER REMOVAL FROM OMIS:
Mr. Thomas said the consensus of the Board members is to remove all felony
offenders names from the DOC’s Correctional Offender Network (CON) site when an
he/she is granted a pardon from the Governor. 46-23-301(b) states “Pardon” means a
declaration of record that an individual is to be relieved of all legal consequences of a
prior conviction. The Board will take the responsibility to notify DOC when a pardon is
granted so ensure the offender’s name is removed from the site. When an offender’s
deferred sentence ends the offender has to work through the courts to get the record
expunged. Once that is accomplished the Board is requesting their names be removed
from the site.
COMMENTS REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA:
The members had an open discussion regarding the supervisory issues created
when offenders have a medical marijuana card. One incident was cited about a mental
health clinic that kicked an offender out of the treatment program because he came to
his treatment session under the influence. The general agreement was that the medical community has to develop protocols in prescribing the cards and Ms. McCannO’Connor said that offenders will have to get a specific recommendation from the Board to give the ok for a card-not just an ok from a doctor.
The marijuana registry is causing
problems for DPHHS because there is no case law to draw on. Ms. Koch said that
according to the medical marijuana statute the persons who possess a registry
identification cards may not be arrested, prosecute or penalized in any manner.
Mr. McKee said the Board will join any law enforcement grass roots organization
that may evolve before the 2011 legislative session to change the statute.
NEXT MEETING:
October 8 in Billings at Passages.
Board of Pardons and Parole and Department of Corrections Joint Meeting
Meeting Summary
Helena Holiday Inn
October 14, 2009
Board members in attendance were: John Rex, Margaret Bowman, Chairman
Mike McKee, John Ward, Darryl Dupuis and Sam Lemaich
Board member absent: Teresa McCann O’Connor
Board staff in attendance were: Executive Director Craig Thomas, Senior Parole
Board Analyst Julie Thomas, Parole Board Analyst Fern Osler, Parole Board
Analyst Brian Callarman, Parole Board Analyst John Cameron, and Parole Board
Analyst Christine Slaughter
Department of Corrections staff in attendance were: Department of Corrections
Director Mike Ferriter, Montana Women’s Prison Deputy Warden Bob Paul,
Montana State Prison Warden Mike Mahoney, Adult Community Corrections
Division Administrator Pam Bunke, and Executive Assistant to Director Ferriter
Myrna Omholt-Mason
Guest: Eve Franklin
Mr. Ferriter told the members that he recognized the good working
relationship between the Board and the department. In years past this was not
the case and he appreciates the change.
Board of Pardons and Parole and Department of Corrections
1002 Hollenbeck Road
Deer Lodge, MT 59722
May 18, 2012
Board members in attendance: Margaret Bowman, John Ward, Teresa O’Connor, Darryl
Dupuis, Sam Lemaich, and John Rex
Board staff in attendance: Fern Osler, Mike Webster, Julie Thomas, Tim Allred, Michael
Webster, and Meaghan Shone
Department of Corrections staff in attendance: Ron Alsbury, Leroy Kirkegard, Gayle
Lambert, Sam Casey, and Myrna Omholt-Mason.
The meeting was jointly chaired by Fern Osler and Ron Alsbury
Review of Old Business:
The Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to the board not being involved
with criminally convicted youth has not been revised at the time of this meeting. Ms.
Olser announced the December 2012 retirement of Diana Koch, Chief General Counsel
for the Department of Corrections. The members expressed their appreciation of Ms.
Koch’s legal work she has done for the board.
REENTRY UPDATE – Sam Casey and Gayle Lambert
Mr. Casey stated there is a monthly reentry meeting in Helena. The group is split
into subcommittees that deal with housing, employment, family. The