|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sandra Ahten
Email: spiritofsandra (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Phone: 217-367-6345 |
09 Jan 2005
|
|
Champaign County gets a kickback of more than $14000 per month from the company that provides inmate jail phone services. Denny Inman, a Champaign County Adminstrator failed to bring the phone contract before the board in a timely manner. Whether the timing was calculated or inadvertent, the result is that some members of the finance committee seem to be resigned to renewing the present phone contract because there is not adequate time to put the contract out for bid. |
******CU CITIZENS FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE CALL FOR IMPROVED CONDITIONS AT THE COUNTY JAIL.
A spate of suicides at the Champaign County Jail recently have raised concern about the conditions at the jail. One policy change has been implemented, but serious problems remain. Members of the CU Citizens for Peace and Justice attended the recent Finance Committee meeting of the Champaign County Board on January 7 to voice their concerns and offer suggested remedies. ******
ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD
At the Finance Committee meeting of the Champaign County Board on January 7, County Administrator Denny Inman provided information and fielded questions regarding the contract for the phone service for inmates at the county jail. But Mr. Inman left one fact unclear – why he had failed to bring the matter of the phone contract before the board in a timely enough manner that it could be properly negotiated. Whether the timing was calculated or inadvertent, the result is that some members of the finance committee seem to be resigned to renewing the present phone contract because there is not adequate time to put the contract out for bid.
The present contract, with Evercom Systems of Irving, Texas, is set to expire on February 1, 2005. The contract has a clause in it that allows for it to be renewed with the same terms and conditions if they give written notice at least 30 days prior to expiration (Jan. 1). At minimum then, this contract should have gone before the board in O ctober or November of 2004 in order to look at options before the January 1st date. Given the fact that this service contract has a long history of being a hotly debated topic at County Board level, it is reasonable to ask why it was not brought before the board as early as August of 2004.
Mr. Inman asked for and received a thirty day extension of the contract. The County Board members should insist that this be extended to ninety days, or the amount of time necessary to properly assess the current available alternatives.
TOO FEW OPTIONS GIVEN
The jail phone service contract is controversial because the County, like many municipalities across the nation, has come to rely on the lucrative compensation (kickback) that the phone service provider gives them. This practice of drastically overcharging the families of inmates who must accept overpriced collect calls in order to communicate with incarcerated family members provides Champaign County more than $14,000 per month in revenues. In the last two years of the contract the County has received $347,000 payment from Evercom. This includes a $10,000 "signing bonus."
At the meeting, Mr. Inman did show options of contracting for the same service with SBC and Consolidated Communications. In these comparisons, Evercom’s rates were higher, but not by large margins. However, Mr. Inman did not disclose what the "compensation" offered by these companies would yield and what the companies would charge without this "compensation."
Mr. Inman presented the option of having the county provide their own phone service estimating that this would cost the county $50,000 to $60,000 to install and that the County would have to hire an operator to manage the system.
What Mr. Inman did not offer was any indication that he researched any
type of service that was somewhere in between these two extremes. County board members must insist that it is the duty of the administrator to investigate all options. It is unrealistic to believe that the only options are A) a cost to the county of more than $50,000 the first year and B) a profit to the county of $178,000 the first year. ($10,000 signing bonus plus $14,000 for 12 months). *****A cost to the county is a burden on taxpayers in general, but excessive profit is an unfair burden on the families of inmates.****
THE SHERIFF’S CONCERNS
Champaign County has had three alleged suicides at the jail facilities in the last six months. Because of this, Sheriff Walch has recognized that the mental health of inmates might be better attended if there was
increased communication between inmates and families. Sheriff Walch has since changed the visiting hours procedure to accommodate more visitors. The group CU-Citizens for Peace and Justice, which brought the request to his attention, are now asking him help make a more just phone policy a reality also.
The Sheriff has concerns that whoever provides the phone service be able to provide certain safety measures including ability to limit the duration of the call, ability to monitor who is called, and ability to block calls, plus a clear indication to the recipient of the call that it is from the county jail and a rate quote.
The advocacy group fully recognizes these needs and knows that this can be accomplished for reasonable rates. They can be accomplished if, that is, the rates to inmates are negotiated with the same priority as the kickback to the county is negotiated. In addition, less conventional approaches, such as offering one phone call per week per inmate at cost or a reduced rate, are possibilities that the administrator should be bringing before the board. They are offered in other facilities.
The Sheriff has expressed that his budget includes $38,000 for healthcare (including mental health) and approximated $9000 per month in medication and supplies. He expressed concern for the being able to continue to afford these services if $14,000 per month is removed from the budget.
CU Citizens for Peace and Justice acknowledges the difficult situation put on the Sheriff. Many factors contribute to the overcrowding at the county jail but one of the primary reasons is the backup in the Sixth Circuit Court. For those who can afford to pay bond, having your hearing continuously postponed can be a matter of inconvenience, but those who can’t are forced to stay at the jail awaiting their court date. This results in stays that are typically 6 – 8 months. County jails are not designed, in budget or practice, to accommodate such lengthy stays. This makes the Sheriff’s job extremely difficult.
This is the problem of the county and it points to a wider systemic problem that must be addressed, but we can not expect that the Sheriff will do it effortlessly, nor should we address it by, in effect, levying a tax on the families of those who can not bond themselves out of jail. These people are no more guilty of any crime than those who CAN pay their bond and await their court date in freedom. If the budget must be balanced by those who have committed a crime, it should be done so through increased fines for all of those who are guilty not just the families of the poor being held in jail awaiting their trial.
LIABILITY
In addition CU Citizens for Peace and Justice is urging members of the County Board to take the conditions the jail as they relate to the mental health of inmates as a matter of extreme urgency. We believe that this is a matter of common human decency and we urge the board to act accordingly. In addition we believe that in order to be fiscally responsible the county should take every measure to avoid a lawsuit. This means thorough investigation of all aspects of cause and remedy of the suicides. According to experts, most jail suicides result in litigation.
To recap the four earlier requests of CU Citizens for Peace and Justice, as they were reported at the December board meeting.
1) Insist upon an outside criminal investigation of all three suicides. Not only is the current investigation being done only by parties who have a vested interest in the jail (The Sheriff’s office and the Urbana City Police), reports of two of these suicides have not even been made public. Also, according to one of the victim's families there has not been a declaration of suicide by the coroner. It is up to the county board to insist that a truly independent agency investigate these deaths and report back, not to the County Sherrif but rather to the County Board.
2) Insist that an outside agency that specializes in jail suicides provide a study to assess the climate of the jail and other factors that may have resulted in the suicides. We find it encouraging that the Sheriff has made inquiries with the National Center for Institutional Alternatives along these lines. The County Board should ask the Sheriff for estimated dates and projected cost for these services.
3) Change in visiting procedure. The Sheriff (on a trial basis) has eliminated a maximum number of vistor’s allowed to be processed on a given day. In addition he is considering adding a Sunday visiting time as well.
4) Investigate options thoroughly and negotiation seriously for a phone contract that is fiscally responsible but not onerous for inmates' families.
CU Citizens for Peace and Justice is a multi-racial organization that works to educate the citizens on local policy, thereby building coalitions to effect governmental change.
Please sign their petition to address the need for the change in the jail phone policy at http://www.petitiononline.com/cucfpj/
Please attend the County Board Meeting where this will next be discussed. Thursday Jan. 20, 2005 7pm Brookens Administration Building, 1776 E. Washington Street, Urbana IL 61801 |
See also:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cucfpj/
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/22572/index.php
|
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by uh-nawn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jan 2005
|
|
Mr. Inman presented the option of having the county provide their own phone service estimating that this would cost the county $50,000 to $60,000 to install and that the County would have to hire an operator to manage the system.
...
The Sheriff has concerns that whoever provides the phone service be able to provide certain safety measures including ability to limit the duration of the call, ability to monitor who is called, and ability to block calls, plus a clear indication to the recipient of the call that it is from the county jail and a rate quote.
Those goals can be met with far less expense and complication. This is all a smokescreen, along with the delays and dodging of bringing up the details in a timely and transparent fashion. Of course they're going to obfuscate the issue - they can either cash-in handsomely, or pay for phone service.
This is typical immoral political greed, at the expense of the common citizen. The County bureaucrats cash-in, the metered phone "service" business makes out too, and guess who gets screwed? The prisoners and their families, royally. But who's going to stick up for them? They're seen as nothing more than milk cows, caught in a leg trap (or leg irons).
I have a close friend that used to be a Champaign County "inner circle" administrative employee, and you wouldn't believe the amount and complexity of the games going on out there at Brookens to fleece the tax payers, and line those bureaucrats' pockets. Those snakes are working every little detail for personal gain. Top to bottom; from time delays to off-the-record conspiring. This is like Little Chicago, or something they sure seem to aspire to.
And, there are still two County Admin's. That was supposed to be temporary (several years ago), but they both schemed to stay on the gravy train, and are still riding it shamelessly to this day. Denny, and Deb. Deb Busey. As in, Busey Bank. Proud Member of The "Good Ol' Boy" Network.
I am so pleased and inspired to see so much citizen focus on the local bureaucrats that have traditionally just milked the system in Champaign County. From the Urbana mayor's attempted obstruction of the airing of DemocracyNow, to the efforts to exonerate the fellows that video-taped the abusive cops, to this current issue. Freedom of the press, via UCIMC.org, is due a lot of the credit. The Snooze-Gazoo (News Gazette) is nothing but a decrepit, rightwing dinosaur, and until the Web came along (thanks in large part to the NCSA), it would've just been business as usual.
Not any more!
Power to the People! |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
- Drug offenses are the most common charge against inmates, with property crimes and violent crimes not far behind.
- The Champaign Police Department makes more arrests than any other department.
- Seventy-one percent of the inmates on Jan. 19 were black, in line with the statewide average.
- Other Central Illinois counties have implemented programs, not yet used here, that help keep their jail populations down.
- The majority of the people in jail, 59 percent, were awaiting trial.
Published Online Feb 7, 1999
By MIKE MONSON
News-Gazette Staff Writer
FROM THE QUOTATION ABOVE WE LEARN that the majority of inmates in the County Jail are AWAITING trial. These inmates are not guilty and have not committed a crime. The County, like the News-Gazette, considers an arrest a finding of guilt. But that is for the courts to decide, not police officers, not county administrators. Any reasoning that involves assigning blame for breaking the law to justify these incredible phone rates, is in fact, the County, itself, engaged in defying state law.
Chapter 720 of the Illinois Criminal Statutes, Section 5, Article 3, paragraph 1 says:
"Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be convicted of any offense unless his guilt thereof is proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
The stronger argument against the phone rates remains the most obvious one: Exactly what crime have the families committed to deserve a hyperpriced phone rate? Would we accept hospitals charging patients huge phone rates to call outside their rooms? Of course not, but the county administrators believe to have some moral leverage over inmates' phone calls because there exists a cloud of wrongdoing over the residents of the jail. "For inconveniencing the County to lock you up and provide you services, when its you who has done wrong; for all that, you will be required to pay for those services." seems to be the argument. Too bad they miss their target, and instead penalize a working, single mother- a grandparent, a wife, a best friend.
One has to wonder if Evercom were to provide all the names of everyone who ever accepted a collect call from the county jail, would Sherriff Walch allow a vote from these people on how the $200,000 a year is to be spent. It's their direct contribution to the government.
There can never be a financial incentive to lock people up. It invites corruption and false accusations against individuals to keep the incarceration machine fed.
The County can wring its hands and complain that the overcrowded jail is due to more criminals, committing more crimes. But as any blonde girl who has ever talked her way out of a traffic ticket (sorry to all women who happen to have blonde hair for that last comment- but the criminal justice system does operate on profiles and stereotypes) can tell you, laws don't have to be enforced, behaviors once thought criminal can be defined differently, sentences can be modified.
There are so many ways for the county to save money on the criminal justice system, this post cannot contain them all.
The jail does not need to be overpopulated. The courts do not have to be backlogged. Officers don't have to make an arrest.
They have chosen these overpopulated, expensive conditions because locking people up has become a jobs program. We know this- from neighborhood to neighborhood, from economic class to economic class, from race to race- the laws of our land are enforced with differenting degrees depending on who's favor or disfavor you fall under. The phone rates for collect calls from the county jail reflect our community's current perception of those accused of breaking our laws: They are garbage to be discarded, make 'em pay.
p.s. most of my thinking in this post is based on non-violent drug and property crimes. For those that have been hurt badly by a violent act- I do not wish to minimize your pain nor excuse the person who hurt you. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE JAIL SUICIDES AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THAT INVESTIGATION:
“On June 26, Joseph Beavers, 37, of Urbana hanged himself using a telephone cord at the booking area of the satellite jail in east Urbana.”
“On July 11, Marcus Edwards, 18, hanged himself with a bedsheet fashioned with a toothbrush and pencil and by leaning against the noose to cut off his airflow.”
Published Online Dec 8, 2004
By STEVE BAUER
News-Gazette Staff Writer
As anyone who has been to the county jail knows, the sentences above make no sense. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by ojos verde
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
|
Why not try some type of internet phone service? I bet the NSF would fund that if it could reduce the cost of survailance and what ever else the prison system is spending for homeland security. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jan 2005
|
|
Could someone from CU Citizens for Peace and Justice please give us the current schedule of events- County Board Meetings, meetings for CU Citizens for Peace and Justice, the Citizens Review Board, AWARE, and sort of what people could be doing to get involved on various dates and times? |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
Anna:
Your comments about Sandra are just putrid, ignorant, and reprehensible. You owe her an apology. Why you are allowed to publish such filth on this website is beyond me. You should be ashamed of yourself for publishing such terrible low-blows. I'm just appalled. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
I'm liking the alternatives to the current phone system being suggested here. I could see internet services with direct access to the Public Defender's office that would be private. Selling phone cards in the commissary would be a possibility. I'm not wanting completely indigent inmates who cannot even afford basic commissary to be ruled out from ever using the phone, but on the surface a phone card would be a sure-fire way to keep the County from losing a single dime on a single call.
I note that the Citizen's Review Board organizing meeting is this January 20, at 6:30-7:30 (that must be one productive hour) at the Douglass Branch Library.
Also on that same January 20 beginning at 7:00p.m. is the Champaign County Board meeting that will be considering the Phone Contract with Evercom.
I hope such a conflict won't diminish the numbers of people we will need to address the County Board about its abhorrent phone policy. |
|
Anna, Last Chance |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
Anna,
If I have to hide another one of your off topic posts anyplace on the website, I will be bringing the situation to the Steering group to request that you be permanently banned at IMC. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Wayne D. Pickette
waynedougpick (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
|
ML, you are continuing to hide my Wife's comments with the reason "OFF TOPIC" when they are exactly "ON TOPIC" and continuing to impose on her some strange, stated by you, personally, rules, which you, yourself, and authors of derogatory, racist, and, sometimes, even bloody comments on this board are permanently violating with your obvious permission. My Wife has sent you an e-mail in response to your e-mail to her. It answers your threat ("notification"). I don't want to repeat here your e-mail (it is similar to your comment) and her response, but, as I've mentioned a number of times before, I agree with her that the editorial handling of this web is unsatisfactory, bias, and is the main cause of all communication's problems of this web. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
|
Mr. Pickette -- I appreciate your solidarity with your spouse. Yet in my personal opinion her comments are indeed often "off topic." A story about conditions at the county jail is an invitation for people to discuss that topic. It's nothing personal, as far as I can tell, but rather a simple attempt to allow users to know that, when they go to a specific item, the commentary and discussion will be pertinent to the original material. I read the item and attendant comments because I am interested in the issues surrounding the jail. If I wish to learn more about your technologies, there are places where I can do just that. Please, let's try to reason. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
|
I by and large agree with rich here, adding that the charges of racism from Wayne are just not accurate and plainly reckless. Anna's comments about Sandra, attacking her child and Sandra as a parent, were way out of bounds. Anyone can see that. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by wayward
badadvice (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
|
I agree with Disgusted. The personal attacks directed at Sandra were appalling. If it were up to me, Anna would be banned already. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
|
Wayward and Disgusted are right on target. If a website devoted to progressive thought cannot be free of personal slander, what hope is there for the rest of society? |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
Once again, an important article about an attempt at change in the local community is derailed by Anna's off-topic and uncalled-for attacks.
Exactly what do Anna's attacks have to do with inmates in the CCCC and their ability to call their loved ones without their families being charged excessively? The inmates do not pay the phone charges---their families do. How are you or Anna adding to *this* discussion?
Please---Stop attacking people. You are doing nothing but alienating people and hurting yourselves.
I look forward to further updates about the inmate phone contract and other attempts to better conditions at the CCCC. |
|
With Apologies, Let's Get Back on Topic |
by Disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jan 2005
|
5,
You're right, and I apologize for contributing to the distraction. I just was really offended by the slanderous treatment of Sandra as a parent, and her child also.
Let's get back on this important topic. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
So, what? Progressive activism is to obligate Sate to pay additional money for inmates communications, isn't it? The pockets of State are empty, as we all know. That is why tuition costs are rising, social programs to support education are closing, the budget of UIUC is reducing. Why is it then a proper time to shift the burden of payments for inmates communications from their families and friends to State? Families of inmates are more or less responsible for inmates criminal activities (in the cases of parents of juvenile inmates the word 'more' is better applicable than the word 'less'). So, why is it "progressive activism" to try to place this financial burden on the shoulders of already impoverished State? I am confused and puzzled. Could anybody enlighten me? |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
Dear Confused and Puzzled -- there are several reasons why it's a good idea to ensure that inmates can communicate with their family and friends without undue financial constraint. First, it's the right thing to do. Simple human decency and compassion. Second, if you want a more pragmatic reason, enhancing contact between inmates and their families will reduce recidivism, thereby lowering costs in the long run since fewer people will be returning to prison. Finally, the issue is not a matter of the "State" paying or not paying. The fact is that Champaign County is making a profit on the phone contract, and there is no moral or political justification for running a correction system as a profit center. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Dear Confused and Puzzled,
The reason the phone calls should be charged at COST- not for a profit- and please understand, that's what this particular slice of progressive activism is advocating for: the County neither lose nor gain money from the expense of allowing inmates to use the phone to make a collect call- that's what we want- the reason this needs to happen is that inmates at the county jail are being denied basic legal rights and this invites corruption among law enforcement officials. Our goal is to stop crime, not enhance it. Putting people in jail is a trajedy. Not a profitable business. We need to help people not commit crimes, and help people to not use laws to create a jobs program at the expense of a group of poeple.
Your point about the current fiscal priorities of the University are excellent and should be taken up on the strand of thoughts happening over on the Grad student stipend article. Basic human rights, defense of the United States legal system is what were talking about over here. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Actually, confused and puzzled, I don't believe anyone is asking for the goverment to pay for the phone calls. In fact, the people *called* are paying for the phones calls. If you read some of the articles posted here, this is made quite clear.
The county government is basically getting a little "gift" from the phone company as a result of choosing them for the contract. So the families are paying a "tax" of sorts in order to talk to their loved ones. And since many people in the CCCC are there because they can't afford to pay the bail and are awaiting trial, the poorest of the county who haven't been convicted of a thing are being charged this surcharge.
I, for one, find it disgusting that the county would make money off the backs of the poor who are simply awaiting trial. How about we allow phone cards for inmates to use so they can bypass this system? I'm guessing that the phone company wouldn't be making enough money to pay the $14,000/month to the county. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
I still can't understand, forgive me, if I am slow.
All inmates are allowed to call all their relatives and friends collect. If there are inmates whose relatives and/or friends DON'T want to talk to them collect, it means that these relatives and friends ARE NOT A BIG SUPPORT for these inmates, just vice versa! So, all relatives and friends , who are accepting collect calls should not shift the burden of these calls to State, as it is their job to suffer financially and other way because they let their love ones to break laws. To shift this burden to the State means simply to pull from State additional money without ANY currently known legal reason. At that point, you can call "the progressive activism" even some attempts to break into State's bank(s), as they would have pretty much the same legal and logical basis, aren't they? And again, the State is completely impoverished now, and we are living around the big University, and expenses for education should be the first and main concern of any “political activism” of our neighborhood. So, I still don’t see ANYTHING , but very REGRESSIVE, at any reasonable point of view in what you are trying to accomplish here. Those inmates, who don’t have bail because their relatives can’t or don’t want to pay it, are still responsibility of their relatives, and the State shouldn’t be obligated to pay their phone expenses. Forgive me, but the only explanation for your activities is that you, yourselves, have expenses, communicating inmates, and want to shift this burden to the State, and this is no good, and, certainly, not “progressive’! |
|
You're Still MIssing the Point |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Anna ('cause it sure sounds like Anna to me. I am glad you're on topic, but there is no need to pretend to be someone else as long as you're on topic),
Nearly everyone in the jail is awaiting trial. Until someone is convicted, there is a presumption of innocence. Thus, being in jail is not intended to be punishment, but to protect the public and ensure appearance for trial if they can't make bail. So your idea that extortionate phone rates should be seen as just punishment is just....BS.
And you have a very strange idea of what being progressive is. Are you spending a lot of time watching Fox News or Mark Hyman on Channel 15? |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
My name isn't Anna. I have no TV currently. I have TV, but have no cable and can't watch any regular programs. Once again, I can understand that people who are in jail are not always guilty, but I still can't understand why the burden to pay for their communication should be on the county, state and not on their relatives, friends, and family. State and county are more than impoverished now. Maybe, it is possible to make some exceptions for those who DON'T have family and/or relatives, or whose relatives are below the poverty level, but on regular basis the impoverished currently state should not, and , I hope, would not assume such resposibilities. Once again, it is not "progressive", it is "regressive" under the current circumstances. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Once again, no one is asking the state for anything. Please quote where the article asks for money from the state.
And, the phone calls made by those in the jail are not just "collect" which would be a reversal of normal charges, but instead these calls are made at a grossly higher rate which does not reflect the cost. The excess profits made from these calls are then kicked back to the *county* government.
It is a tax on the poorest families in the county. |
|
You're Still MIssing the Point, Take Two |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Whatever,
No one is suggesting that the phone calls be free, just that the county should not profit from them. The calls will still have to be paid for, but they will be at cost, instead of at the rip-off rates the county has been charging the families of inmates, as well as profiting from to the tune of $14,000/month.
As for your suggestiion that "people who are in jail are not always guilty" the point is that whatever the case of anyone's individual guilt, it has to be determined at trial and until someone is convicted, then there can be NO presumption of guilt nor treatment as if they were guilty, whatever the actual facts may be. And most of the inamtes at the jail have NOT been convicted.
Any suggestion, such as you made, that this justifies punishing them in any way is simply not just, as well as being unconstitutional. This seemed to have worked pretty well for more than two centuries in this country, but this fundamental consitutional concept is constantly under attack by Bush, most conservatives, and... well, you.
Obviously, try a dictionary for definitions you struggle with... |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
Are you sure '5" of what you talking about? I never heard before that calls from jail are not simple collect calls, at least that is what my phone bills presented me when I used myself to talk to inmates. I, however, didn't have such experience with Champaign county jail, but I don't think that "getting profit from phone calls" is correct? Do you have any proof of such policies specifically in Champaign county, or , you think that it is general rule? Because, I have proof that it has not been so a short while ago in some different places in USA. And frankly, I doubt very much that Champaign County is an exception.
What are your referral to constitution, regular reader? This web is run pretty much in the opposition to constitution. So, if you want to support each letter of the USA constitution, start first of all start with yourself (meaning your editorial staff). Why people who are free should pay for each phone call, which they are making and people who are in jail have rights not to do it? I remember I watched documentary about California inmate, I think, with life sentence for the heavy crime, who had health insurance and was able to get surgery he needed to remove cancer, and his twin brother, who, as it often happened, had the same type of cancer, had no insurance, as he didn't commit crime, and died from this cancer. This entire story is reminding me this movie all the time. People, who have not committed crimes , who have not broken laws, and have not been arrested HAVE HIGHER RIGHTS for government (state, federal or county) help. It is simple and clear for any normally thinking person, but doesn't seem to be obvious and clear to many people here, I think that my conversees are included, even if the organizers of this entire “progressive activism story” are not benefiting directly from it, which I, personally, doubt very much.
By the way, regular reader, I don't think that I need dictionary to confirm the main idea of my previous sentence. |
|
Despite the Denial... |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
This sure sounds eerily familiar to me:
"Confused and Puzzled" wrote:
"It is simple and clear for any normally thinking person, but doesn't seem to be obvious and clear to many people here, I think that my conversees are included, even if the organizers of this entire “progressive activism story” are not benefiting directly from it, which I, personally, doubt very much."
Sure sounds a lot like Anna to me. Not to mention that the sentence makes little sense, despite the assertion that "...I don't think that I need dictionary to confirm the main idea of my previous sentence."
Are you saying that Sandra DOES or that she does NOT benefit from writing this story? Because a reader sure can't tell from what you have written.
In this case, you -- whoever you are -- need a English grammar book, not a dictionary. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
Anna says:
"I never heard before that calls from jail are not simple collect calls, at least that is what my phone bills presented me when I used myself to talk to inmates."
That's because obviously you haven't even read the article or any of the information posted in the articles before this or the comments that follow each article. I don't know about you, but collect calls from places *other* than the CCCC aren't normally over $3/minute. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
My last comment was removed, I think, because of this establishment “great respect to the constitution”, isn't? They are "immensely" respecting rights for free speech, as well as rights for free competition.
'5' , it is still not clear from your posting that PHONE CALLS FROM JAIL cost even a cent more than PHONE CALLS FROM ANYWHERE ELSE. Collect calls from many places cost MORE THAN regular calls. I have many own phone bills to confirm this fact. So, you are trying to protect pockets of criminals and/or alleged criminals and their families ON THE EXPENSES of regular tax paying citizens, and call it "progressive activism". What is it, the obvious promotion of different criminal activities or what? If your establishment is promoting criminal activities among young generation of Champaign-Urbana citizens, I truly think that a lot of officials should pay much more attention to your web and other media channels, as they (these officials) are paid TO PREVENT CRIME IN THE AREA !! |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
First off, Anna, no where any where is government asked to pay for anything. Instead county gov't is asked to give up the kickback it is getting from a phone company that is gouging the families of people in the CCCC.
Secondly, I never said *my* postings would state phone charges. I said your rantings show that you haven't bothered to read the articles. You are viciously trying to attack someone---and it ain't gonna be me.
I hereby withdraw from any discussion with you. Your first post under a pseudonym wasn't enough for me to identify you. Now that I have, I will not address you further.
Now, back to the topic, why can't another form of calling be used? How about pre-paid phone cards like what was suggested before?
A few google searches show that this is an issue that many other groups have tried to address in other areas of the country. I even found one press release from California from 3 years ago. This issue seems to be one that government is willing to accept---charge those in jail and prison exorbitant fees to simply keep in contact with their attorneys, supporters, and loved ones. |
|
Anna Anonymous? |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
|
Well, Anna certainly picked an accurate pseudonynm to call herself. "Confused and Puzzled" certainly describes herself accurately. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
|
This may be a naive or wacky idea, but I think the more possible alternatives presented to the county board, the less defensible their resistance to a human solution. Would it be possible for families and friends to sign up to a pre-set schedule for calling IN to the jail? Would a volunteer from amongst the jail population be willing to take on the task of organizing it? If so, then the county has what it wants: no outgoing call charges. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Confused and Puzzled
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
I suggest that main organizers of this so named "'progressive activism" case would follow 'rich' suggestions and shut down this made by them great fuss before the proper authority would START TO PAY THE SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THESE MEDIA CHANNELS.. They can change with the county offices the ways inmates are paying for their phone calls quietly, assuming that the burden of these payments would be still on inmates and their close ones, not on the government or, by other words, on county's (or state's) law obedient tax payers.
By the way, my name is NOT Anna. According to your web so loudly proclaimed rules, many comments of 'regular reader' and '5' should be removed just because they were trying to reveal (unsuccessfully) my identity. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
Anna says:
"They can change with the county offices the ways inmates are paying for their phone calls quietly..."
No, they can't. Yet another sign that you are not reading the articles. The board has a *contract* with this company. The *contract* is about to end. It will be renewed by vote or by lack of action by the County board. That is why several people in the community are working for change. Because a *contract* is at issue. The *contract* can't be "quietly changed" as you say. It must be brought out into the open and hopefully changed by the county board in a vote.
Please read the articles. Please. Please. Please. You would know what I have just said if you simply *read the article.* |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
Last night, a discussion group of the County Board's finance committee discussed the phone contract issue. Reports are they are considering some type of system to grant "5 free minutes per week" on the phone to every inmate.
When I asked if the contract with Evercom would still be the same where the county would get the $200,000 a year, the official word is that "everything is open to negotiation". The next place the inmate phone contract is to go is to a final meeting of the Finance Committee, who will then draft a final recommendation to the full County Board. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
|
Well, 5 free minutes a week is a start, but I would like to see more. Thanks for updating the progress on the contract. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jan 2005
|
|
I'm very new here, but I'm already in trouble if Anna is citing my post as support for her position. Anna -- please leave me out of your discourse. -- rich |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
|
Publishing personal emails without the other person's permission is stooping too low (as if the comments about Sandra weren't enough already). Within the next couple of days, I'll start a new thread about the IMC's obligations (or lack thereof) to publicize on demand, and you can post all relevant comments to that article. I look forward to a lively and on-topic discussion. In the meantime, please stop posting comments that have nothing to do with the article you're attaching them to. It's annoying and distracting. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
So Sherriff Walsh says the money generated from the phone contract is crucial to meeting the medical bills of the County Jail?
County's financial picture improving
Published Online Aug 31, 2004
By MIKE MONSON
News-Gazette Staff Writer
URBANA - Champaign County government might see nearly a $1 million surplus in its general corporate fund this year - ending a two-year string of budget deficits.
Champaign County Administrator Debra Busey said her most optimistic projections show the county would wind up with a surplus of $937,000 this year in the general corporate fund, the county's main account that pays for operating most county offices.
The projection assumes that the county underspends it general corporate budget by 2 percent. The county typically does that, with underspending reaching 3 percent last year.
"It does look pretty good right now," Busey said. "When it looks that good, it makes me nervous. I don't know that we've taken into consideration all the possible increases in expenditures that could occur the rest of this fiscal year.
"There are always issues that can come up in the last quarter of the year with the criminal justice system, typically in the sheriff's office or circuit court, where we have to have a budget amendment."
Busey said a surplus this year would be welcome, because it would come after two straight years of budget deficits. The general corporate fund experienced a deficit in fiscal 2002 in excess of $1 million, while last year the shortfall was a more modest $111,000.
Busey said the county is benefiting from solid sales tax growth, up about 4 percent year-to-date for the countywide quarter-cent sales tax and up 11.7 percent for the 1 percent sales tax that goes to the county for purchases made in unincorporated areas of the county.
Sales tax growth for the quarter-cent sales tax jumped 6.2 percent in May, the most recent month for which figures are available, Busey said.
The county also has seen record fee income increases resulting from real estate transactions and recording fees, she said, though the rate of increase slowed somewhat in the past month.
The county started this fiscal year, which began Dec. 1, with a fund balance of $2.8 million.
That balance represented 10.6 percent of the projected expenditures in the general corporate fund of $26.8 million. If the surplus projection holds true for this fiscal year, the fund balance would increase to $3.7 million by Nov. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That figure represents 14.3 percent of general corporate spending.
For the county, a minimum fund balance of 12.5 percent of general corporate fund spending is necessary, or else the county is forced to turn to internal or external borrowing to meet its payroll at times, Busey said. That's because the county relies heavily on property tax income, which isn't disbursed until after installment payments are made by property owners in June and September.
"The minimum we need is 12.5 percent," Busey said. "If we're below that, we want to find ways to get us there. Ultimately, our fund balance goal is 25 percent, but I'm not sure we'll ever get there."
Barbara Wysocki, chairwoman of the Champaign County Board's Finance Committee, said she believes the growth in tax revenue could be a sign that the county is finally headed toward economic recovery. The local growth is also helpful because income from the state continues to be sluggish, she said.
"Champaign-Urbana has a diverse economy that that continues to weather some pretty tough times," Wysocki said. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
So, Anna, who is this "victim" that you speak of? You? Do you think that it's okay for you to slander someone (Sandra and her family) for no reason other than your own personal disappointment that she didn't do a radio segment on Wayne? Do you think that the world revolves around you and Wayne, and that no one else matters? Do you expect to verbally abuse others and receive no response?
Are the articles and comments appearing on this site, as well as the 85 words that I wrote and to which you responded the best example of "all possible violations of justice and kinds of torture, not mentioning the destruction of the very basic human moral" that you could come up with? Are you including your own writings in this assessment? You should, but even so, free speech is not a violation of the law, nor is it torture. Your comments cheapen and degrade true abuses that are occurring both in the US and in other parts of the world that IMC members and people who post to this site are trying to inform others about.
The IMC and the people who post independently to this site are under no obligation to promote or publicize Wayne just because you say so, and it is exceedingly vain of you to expect that. If you want to see an article about a particular topic, whether it is microprocessors or heat engines, it is your responsibility and yours alone to write that article. Instead, by criticizing and alienating almost every person who posts to this site, you are doing damage to Wayne's cause. I won't repeat this again, so please read and reread this paragraph if you want to understand the nature of your problems on this site.
You seem to feel so much bitterness and antagonism for the IMC that I don't understand why you persist in posting here, but that is your choice. I was going to write more extensively and create a separate thread for this topic, but I see no point in that. I've said what I want to say, and I don't see this conversation going anywhere that is productive or beneficial for either of us. |
|
Amen |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
|
Amen, La Ley. Amen. Let's get this useful and productive thread back on topic. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
|
It does seem pretty lame that, with a million dollar surplus, the county feels it is necessary to gouge families of inmates to the tune of 14 grand. The county coffers may be full, but their moral treasure chest is empty. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
The County government is gouging the poor to the tune of $14,000 A MONTH, $200,000 A YEAR by using Evercom, Inc to expedite collect calls from the county jail.
I have found some old phone bills where I accepted collect calls from the county jail this year. The content of the calls were from an inmate requesting I speak with their public defender, asking that attorney to please contact him or accept the evidence as to his innocence and defense in response to the charges against him. It was not a social call, a call to merely "get out of his cell", or any other "frivolous" reason used to deny inmates easier access to the outside world.
On April 7, 2004 at 11:32a.m. I was charged $6.14 for a 15 minute collect call from Urbana to Urbana, the call orginating collect from the county jail.
On April 13, 2004 at 11:27a.m. I was charged $5.71 for a 13 minute collect call from Urbana to Urbana, the call orginating collect from the county jail.
The calls were then combined, taxed, and totaled for 28 minutes of conversation from the County Jail, $13.82.
On April 21, 2004 at 11:31a.m. I was charged $4.63 for a 8 minute collect call from Urbana to Urbana, the call orginating from the county jail. After taxes, the bill for that call was $5.39.
On September 1, 2004 at 8:14p.m. I was charged $3.34, after taxes $3.89, for a 2 minute collect call from Urbana to Urbana, the call orginating from the county jail. Comparing the other calls, there must be some initial hook-up fee.
The bill clearly itemizes the calls as from Evercom Systems, Inc. and described as Correctional Billing Service Charges.
I encourage anyone to bring their phone bills to the County Board at the January 20 County Board meeting. Any class action lawsuit in the future could accomodate every household for every collect call from the County Jail. The records do exist.
Sherriff Walsh's reasoning that "we steal the money because we need the money" is a paltry excuse to profit off jailing. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
Anna,
I'm glad to see you finally recognize that Sandra (and by extension the IMC) had absolutely no obligation to produce a radio segment or in any way publicize Wayne's work, and I'm glad that you hold no bitterness against her for that reason. In fact, the IMC wanted to do a piece on Wayne last fall, and you refused. Let it be clearly stated for the record that you do not want the IMC's help to publicize Wayne's work.
Rather, the reason you dislike Sandra is because she thinks it's outrageous that families of county jail prisoners should have to pay much higher phone bills than the public at large, and you feel that by advocating this viewpoint, she is promoting criminal activity. You further state that someone named "Confused" said that Sandra's son is a career criminal, and the reason that Sandra is advocating lower phone bills for inmates is because her phone bills are too high due to her son's calls from prison. Since I can't find the post by "Confused" anywhere, neither among the hidden nor the deleted posts, could you please supply a link to the comment so that I can verify it? Could you also post Sandra's phone bill so we can verify your claim that Sandra has paid exorbitant charges for collect calls from her son? Surely it must be in your possession since you seem to know so much about it.
Now, could you please explain to us logically why families of prisoners should have to pay $6 for a phone call that costs less that a nickel for everyone else? Are you saying that the families of inmates (who may not have even been convicted of a crime) should be punished as well? I don't want to cheapen this conversation by using a phrase that you have rendered trite and nearly meaningless, but doesn't that violate the US Constitution?
What proof do you have that Sandra's son is a career criminal? Just the ramblings of an anonymous poster? And if Sandra's son is in jail (something I don't know to be a fact), how does that take away her right to complain about an unjust situation? You say that Wayne was in jail, too. Does that make him a career criminal, and are we not to trust anything that he says? If we apply your standards, then the answer is no, and anyone writing an article on Wayne would be promoting criminal activity. Is that what you believe?
And by writing her article, exactly what criminal activity is Sandra promoting, and how? Remember, we're talking about collect phone calls to family members, and it's not the inmate who is paying the bill. The current policy punishes the family, not the inmate. If you're concerned about fairness, then the families of inmates should pay the same rate for phone calls as everyone else.
Moving on, please state clearly and logically how the IMC has mistreated you. Don't be vague. Give examples. Then, please explain how the IMC promotes white supremacy (give an exact quote), and explain what you mean by the IMC promoting "ideologically wrong" activities. Exactly what are "ideologically wrong" activities, and how does the IMC promote them? |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Phone Guy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
Not to distract from the overall issue, but for what it's worth, La Ley asked "why families of prisoners should have to pay $6 for a phone call that costs less that a nickel for everyone else." In fact, a collect call using 1-800-CALL-ATT from a public pay phone costs everyone else $6 too: $4.99 plus $0.99 a minute plus a surcharge for using the pay phone. (On a side note, only residential customers get the nickel-a-call rate, which is heavily subsidized...businesses and institutions pay by the minute even for local calls). So are collect calls just a total rip-off? Yeah, more or less, although the carriers do have a few legitimate reasons for part of the up-front call charge. The collect call ties up a human operator (rarely) or automated equipment (usually) that does the call announcement and allows the called party to accept the charges. The collect call has to be billed to the called party, which the terminating local carrier doesn't do for free. And the carrier eats the declined calls to "pick me up at 8," "i. p. freely" and the rest of Bart Simpson's buddies, as well as the calls which are recoursed back because the called party refuses to pay. And since theres no demand for collect calls, theres no reason for carriers to compete on price. They figure that if you're going to make a collect call in the first place you probably aren't real price-sensitive at the moment, so they know they can stick it to you...just like the $5 hot dogs at the ball park or paying a valet $10 to drive your car a couple hundred feet, it's one of the rip-offs that consumers seem to accept on the rare occasion that they actually need the service.
So I agree that prisoners are getting ripped off, but I think you're complaining about the wrong rip-off. It doesn't sound like the carrier's rates are out of line, and depending on how much money the carrier makes off the contract in a year, a $350K kickback over two years might not be out of line either...because of the way phone rates have to be "tariffed" or registered with the government, phone companies usually register inflated tariffs, charge their big business customers these inflated rates, and then rebate them back a big percentage of the cost as "discounts". This is the same deal...the carrier gouges the prisoners at the "rack rate" and then rebates the discounts back to the jail--the only difference being that the ones paying the bill aren't the ones getting the rebate.
The bottom line is that you're not going to find anyone to provide much cheaper collect calling rates, so if you want to solve the problem you need to encourage the county to find alternatives to collect calling. However, given the requirements that prisoner calls be announced as prisoner calls, that the called party have the right to refuse the call, that the call be time limited, and that detailed per-call information be sent back to the jail, the only "off the shelf" solution out there from any carrier I know if is going to be collect calling. Coming up with something else would require either creating a custom system or customizing something off the shelf, and managing it, and issuing phone cards or access codes and making sure people pay for the calls, and so on. I'm guessing the operators of the jail probably have other priorities than providing phone service. Frankly, as a tax payer, if the alternative is letting AT&T gouge the prisoners for the same high rates and NOT kicking back a bunch of money to the county, I'd rather have the county go with the pirates who are paying than the pirates who aren't.
I understand why you think the current deal is unfair. Maybe my explanation will help you understand the situation and come up with a great solution. Good luck! |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
Phone Guy,
Thanks for your informative contribution. You obviously understand the phone business and admit the flaws in the collect call game. I just want to reiterate where we are coming from on this. Prisoners are not being gouged. Their friends and families are- people who are not accused of a crime. These friends and families are not wealthy consumers, making some sort of consumer choice, but rather they are predominantly the working-class and poor who have an important person in their life who is in a desperate situation. You can't tell a mother or a wife to refuse the call if they want to save some money. The real world, the real heart doesn't work like that.
Prisoners do not choose to become prisoners. They are handcuffed and taken away. And if the thought comes to mind that "Well, don't do the crime then..."; understand that this is not how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. We don't assume people are guilty and then treat them accordingly before a trial. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent and it's up to the State to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The excuses that inmates somehow deserve an inconvenience or a hard time for breaking our laws is not up to the County Board, and especially when no one has even been determined guilty yet. Understand most of the inmates at our county jail are AWAITING trial. No guilt has been found yet while you are awaiting trial.
Particularly galling is the County making a pure profit off this. There is no cost to the County to have this phone service. They simply have to agree to use the Evercom Systems, Inc. collect-call system and the $14,000 checks roll in each month.
We cannot have a criminal justice system that generates a profitable revenue source for the jailing government. That invites corruption when you need a certain number of inmates to keep a certain amount of revenue stream coming in. Arrests could easily become arbitrary and held to a standard of a quota system where officers need to keep the bodies coming in for the purpose of keeping the County Board budget full. An arrest should always be because the officer believes in good faith from the evidence he's collected, that someone has done something seriously wrong and needs to be removed from the community until a court can intervene with the appropriate sanctions or findings that extinguish the criminal behavior. That's the ideal anyway.
I realize that most people believe police officers are always right in the actions they take. My frequent studies of the criminal justice system finds that most of the time officers are correct in their arresting decisions. I'm not sure how big a percentage the word, "most", represents. At the same time, I have always been shocked at the number of cases I run across where the officers really do get it wrong, lawyers are working under the wrong set of assumptions. Most taxpayers find that to be the stuff of fantasy hollywood movies, but I have piles of paperwork I could show you where the decision to charge someone was the wrong decision. Remember this is Illinois. In the most researched cases there are, the ones with the most public and media scrutiny, that is capital murder cases, Illinois got it wrong 50% of the time. Ex-Governor Ryan granted clemency to all those people on death row, not because the death penalty was wrong- but because he was shown our courts and police could not be trusted to accurately find who dunnit.
That being said, the extreme pricing of a phone call to the outside world is a hindrance to an inmate's ability to defend themselves. The discussion about the condition of the public defender's office can wait for another time, but for now, the high cost of a phone call from the jail makes it very difficult for inmates to acquire proper legal representation. You don't want a system that incarcerates you and then you cannot contact anyone to help explain your side of the story. We think of criminals as violent, rogue strangers who are constantly out to steal, rape and pillage (and I know there exists a rare few who are like that) but most of our inmates are like us- drug addicts medicating themselves, poor folks who took to get by, drunks who made a rash decision, and in some cases, someone who fit the description a nervous witness gave to an officer one exciting night. Or worse, an informant, to avoid the penalties of their own criminal behavior, tells a little story about someone in exchange for leniency on his own case.
And realize too, officers don't always collect the evidence legally, and so the charge should not even be there for some inmates who were searched and seized against the Constitution.
Having the ability to phone someone is an important tool defendants need to defend themselves. The high cost of collect calling system should not interfere with that.
I simply cannot believe nor accept that in the age of computers, and technologies all over the place, a system can't be developed to insure people can refuse calls, phone numbers can be blocked, and costs can be reasonable for those accepting the calls.
We are not asking for the County to pay for inmate phone service. We are asking the County acquire service that is a normal rate to charge for a collect call - and price gouging, no matter how cynical we become about the market place, should not be allowed in the criminal justice system. What's next? The County begins charging for each meal served in the jail and the food service contract is given to a company that charges the inmates' families $7 a meal and the County gets $20,000 a month for that?
Phone Guy, I appreciate you understand why the phone deal is not fair and so the above is only meant to remind readers why the CU Citizens for Peace and Justice group has picked up this cause. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Anna Epelbaum
aepelbaum (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
This is for 'La Ley' to answer some of her questions, the answers to which are not as obvious as to others, because they are not directly in this thread of comments.
"La Ley', if you think that it is fair discussion when all my comments are deleted (or hidden) and you can attribute to me ANY WORDS and sentences you want, therefore, then I think that your understanding of debates and discussions are the same exactly as violent interrogators should have, and completely DIFFERENT than the understanding of the same by THE ENTIRE CIVILIZED WORLD. My comments, where I express my opinions in MY OWN WORDS,
should stay on this board, other way it is fabrication and fraud, which, unfortunately, leaders of IMC are using very often and disseminating this technique AMONG YOUNG GENERATION.
I CREATED MY THREAD about the petition just because I WANTED IMC to start their campaign about the subject THROUGH their media channels ON OFFICIAL basis, not the way , they were trying to do it behind the scenes. Though, the radio channel of IMC I AM NOT CONSIDERING, AS THE IMPORTANT ONE, BECAUSE I, CERTAINLY, DON'T LIKE HOW IT IS RUN, and that is why, I think that people who are still listening to it are not at the great help to my cause (s).
In any occasion, IMC in its current shape is mainly destructing to the psychology and moral of the young generation of this University's surrounding cities. The cause of my husband, if picked up and highly publicized, can be the serious improvement to this shape. The same (though in smaller scale) is my cause about the improvement of the quality of the secondary education(especially under the pressure of accountability of the secondary education). The same is applicable to undergraduate education (especially, under the current fast revocation of corresponding scholarships, and government' support). I offered these topics to IMC a number of times. Currently, after this outrages "jail story", IMC , in my opinion and, as I have possibility to notice over my e-mail, in opinions of a lot of other people, needs this kind of vindication more than even before.
(I repeatedly have shown in this thread of comments why I found and find this "jail story" to be more than destructive and regressive. Read this thread of comments, I can't re-write everything all over again.)
Whether IMC current leaders want to use this opportunity of such vindication, it is up to them. Once again, DON'T put words in my mouth, DON'T fabricate any opinions of mine on your own, while deleting and hiding my OWN REAL COMMENTS. This kind of activities is ILLEGAL, and PUNISHING by law, therefore. I am copying all my comment , and also some essential answers to them on my computer. Even in Stalin's Russia protocols of interrogation without the signature of persons under these interrogations were considered INVALID. I would not ever sign what you are "placing into my written comments". Therefore, let all readers to make their own interpretation, keep ALL of my comments AVAILABLE.
According to what I have heard, you are utilizing such way the Third Reich technique of dealing with their ideological opponents.
For those, who a number of times have written to me that they want my leadership in the changing of IMC policies, I have the following answer:
If these people want to come out of strictly digital shape, and to be materialized in flesh and blood, I would join them gladly. If these people want me to lead them (being already in flesh and blood shapes), I , probably, would accept this request. If these people want to organize the campaign to run for Urbana local government, I think that it would be possible to do so, organizing the financial basis of such campaign through Internet, like Howard Dean's campaign used to do. I hope that this university's population and the surrounding population should be alarmed and even terrified by the moral and psychology, which IMC is currently disseminating.
SUPPORT OF EDUCATION, CIVIL RIGHTS, TECHNICAL PROGRESS, AND LAWFUL PEACEFUL WORK FOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SOCIETY AGAINST THE PROMOTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CRIME , AND VIOLATIONS OF BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS OF HARD WORKING, LAW OBEDIENT RESIDENTS !!
That is exactly what I am doing fighting the idea of this thread and promoting my causes.
It also should answer your question why I am continuing to post on this web my comments and articles though the treatment of them is much more than simply unfavorable.
THE FIGHT WITH UPCOMING FASCISM SHOULD START AT HOME !! |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
I would add to the comments about Phone Guy's review of the economics of telecom service that a deeper problem is that mentioned by Local Yocal: most of the people in the jail are awaiting trial.
And why are these people, who have yet to secure their "day in court" in jail? Because they are poor. Because they cannot afford a private attorney and must accept the representation of hugely over-burdened public defenders. Because they cannot come up with bail.
I'm not a wealthy man, but I'm a long way from poor. And I can guarantee that if my kid were charged with a crime, he'd have a private attorney and be out on bail.
So, it's not the economics of telecom, it's the economics of justice. And the system is broken. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
Anna,
I was not putting words in your mouth, I was summarizing points that you made yourself. You said that the IMC wanted to do a piece on Wayne last fall and you refused. You also said that you don't have any bad feelings towards Sandra that the IMC didn't do a radio program on Wayne. You're free to disagree and explain exactly what you do mean, but you choose not to.
I also asked you a series of specific questions related to the article on prison phone calls, which sparked a coherent and well-thought-out response from "Phone Guy," but you're accusing me of being worse than the KGB. You've made a series of assertions and accusations about the IMC, and you cannot even defend them. You claim that the IMC is a white supremacist organization, but you don't have any proof to present. You claim you are being abused, but you can't give any concrete examples. I'm trying to help you out by giving you a chance to organize your thoughts and present a rational argument, but it's clear that you don't have one.
You also seem to think that I have the power to hide and delete your posts, but I don't. I'm not even an IMC member. All I'm asking you to do is to support your claims with evidence, and you refuse. I'm done speaking with you. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Anna Epelbaum
aepelbaum (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
Bails for alleged criminals are depending on the weights of their crimes and on how many previous offenses they have. Even millionaires can't afford sometimes bails for their highly beloved relatives if these relatives are jailed on the charges of repeated drug trafficking and/ or any other very heavy crimes.
I can understand that it is "progressive" to fight for the release of some political opponents of government policies, who are or were incarcerated on false charges, like, for example, Patrick Thompson. But I can't understand (and any reasonably thinking person also can't, I am sure) why persons who are accused in heavy crimes and, therefore, can't be bailed should have more comfortable life than those law obedient people on the street, who are obligated to pay full prices for their communication. If it is not the promotion of crime activities over the peaceful law obedient hard work, than what is it? The system might be very far from ideal, but this kind of actions is still the promotion of criminal activities, nothing less.
'Lay Ley' read my thread, where I ask to sign petition for my husband, and different comments to it. There were some comments, specifically the comment of 'semi-anonymous', which simply asked for blood, finding the assassination of minority leaders from 60-th, as being funny and/or hilarious.
This is my answer to your question about 'White Supremacy'. My last comment, which was addressed to you is clearly stating that the kind of discussion when the texts of one opponent are hidden and/or deleted and the other opponent placed words in these deleted comments under his/her own choice is much worse than what KGB was doing and , I think, still does. This activity was accepted only in The Third Reich. So, whether my comments are deleted with your participation and/or without you are following their practice.
I also think that because you deliberately ingnoring the content of even hidden (not deleted) comments you are INTENTIONALLY fabricating and falsifying my words and opinions. So, you are really worse than KGB, even if Stalin's Russia. Now their technique is softer and more civil.
I want my husband's story to be published in your news paper-Public I. I don't mind whether this article(articles) are written by Phil Stinard and/or other authors, as far as they are truthful. I want also the TV presentation of his story. ALL EVIDENCE OF HIS STORY HAS BEEN ALREADY SUBMITTED AND ANALYZED. I don't want the presentation over radio channel, as it (radio channel) is run now very inefficiently, and nothing useful can come out of such presentation. I am answering your comment
only because I am polite, as ALL answers, if you want to, you can obtain from the analysis of this web different threads.
Whether you have power to do what I want or not (leaders of IMC have), this is my first and last polite gesture towards you, as all answers to your questions you should obtain further on your own, because all of them are in this web different articles and threads of comments. I am not going to help you to produce more 'dust", according to 'Confused and Puzzled' terminology, if this is (as I sure of it) your goal. Cao, in any case.
Once again:
THE FIGHT WITH FAST UPCOMING FASCISM SHOULD START AT HOME !! |
|
Re: Jail Story |
by Wayne Robert Douglas Pickette
waynedougpick (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
Yes I spent 1 Saturday night in Champaign County Jail for driving on a suspended license. After I was unjustly fired from my last job, and unable to collect the $ 9,000.00 in wages and unpaid expenses owed me, although I finally received a judgment in my favor on the matter in the local court. My financial situation was tenuous for months afterward. All the suspension notices were sent to my Chicago address and, I could not retrieve them because my vehicle was impounded and I did not have money to pay for the tickets to a round trip to Chicago. The post office refused to forward State mail to the motel where we were staying at the time. Actually I had just paid the tickets, and my license was clear two days after I was released, I had to work two days to get the re-instatement fee clear from our lodging and food bills.
However, even being treated so harshly and without any fault, I didn't think that jail is a kind of vacation place, and that inmates there had rights to use phones free, and enjoy other things , which are not available to free people. So, activities of your volunteers are ridicules and unreasonable, disregarding, of course, the personal profit, which they are obtaining promoting (who knows , maybe even successfully) such illogical causes.
My Wife didn't "slander" Ms. Ahten, she made a guess to explain her unreasonable behavior. Though a lot of people on this board poured dirt on her and two-three other readers who supported this guess, nobody gave any reasonable contradictions to this guess. So, it seems to be the truth. Yes, the cause, this and other articles are trying to promote, is ridicules, whether it is promoted by volunteers or somebody who is highly paid for it, but, sometimes ridicules causes are still winning, and ridicules and strange elections occurred.
Still, quite frankly, I can't understand my Wife. She-the talented person wastes her time and her energy where she is more than mistreated. But, probably, this spirit of educators, which is in her veins, make her to feel responsible, if young people have such bad ideological leader, as IMC. I wish she would less think about the world and more about herself, and those, who love and appreciate her, as she deserves. I am really glad that you cut her off this board, as persons, like her, who can create and produce valuable things, should not be in politics, whether global or local. She, unfortunately, seems to think differently, at least sometimes. I wish she wouldn’t. |
|
Bad Soap Opera |
by Disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Jan 2005
|
May I please request that the bad soap opera, in which Anna insists upon starring occasionally, ends? These constant off-topic self-referential comments, sometimes bearing personal details of her and her husband that I frankly don't need to read, are just tacky and embarrassing. Intentionally or not, Anna's constant misunderstandings of what progressive values are, what Sandra and others are discussing here about unfair phone prices and contracts, and her slimy comparisons of the UCIMC to the KGB and Nazi Germany incessantly steer this otherwise productive thread toward her. It's beyond ridiculous, as well as foolish, irrelevant to the topic, and insulting to those of us who support UCIMC and therefore know better.
I know the good people at UCIMC are volunteers and have a lot of other important things to do, but these aspects that I listed above are beyond frustrating. Thanks for your time. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Disgusted
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Jan 2005
|
|
All I know is if my spouse were TRULY in the hospital, I would spend my time with him/her caring for his/her needs, rather than trolling on a website needlessly stirring up trouble. I'm clicking off the bad soap opera, and moving on. Thanks. |
|
Re: ADMINSTRATOR FAILS TO BRING INMATE PHONE CONTRACT TO COUNTY BOARD |
by Ashley
Palmer21 (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
02 Sep 2005
|
|
my comment is related towards the disaster in new orleans, u know it would be nice if u said something about the new orleans inmates sometimes. i know it's not all about them , i uderstand that's not your main focus , but their human to. i'm mostly concern because i left a love one behind and all i can do is wondered about him everyday, will i see him again, is he still alive, is he hurt? The sad part about it is u hear things like, they let them go, some are dead but i don't hear you'll say nothin about them. Like i said they are human to and all i want to know is my boyfriend alive ,as well as his mother that's been crying and stressing because she don't know if he dead or alive. Anyway if u have any imformation on my concern please!! just email me if u can i would really appreciate it, because right now my life hasn't been easy without him or family. I just can wait until this is all over. I'm just thankful to be alive. |
|
