|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Crime & Police |
|
Jail Phones, Next Move |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sandra Ahten
Email: spiritofsandra (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Phone: 217-367-6345 |
19 Jan 2005
|
|
All jail inmate calls from the county jail, even local calls must be placed as collect calls. The charges for these calls is highly inflated from what would normally be charged for collect calls. The telephone company, who has an exclusive contract with Champaign County then kicks back $14,000 each month to the County. CU Citizens for Peace and Justice is advocating for change by asking caring community members to speak out at the County Board meeting this Thursday, Jan. 20 at 7pm. |
Following is a brief primer on points to made at the County Board meeting this Thursday night. (Jan. 20, 7pm Brookens Administration Bldg., 1776 E. Washington, Urbana).
Can you please attend? Would you like to be a speaker? If so, I have some letters to be read -- from people that have been affected by the phone contract but can't be at the meeting. Or I would just ask you to speak from your heart. Please let me know.
If you can't come to the meeting please just read the primer and call your three board representatives. Here is a link to the county board page, where you can see a map and get contact info.
http://www.co.champaign.il.us/cbhome.htm
Please make sure you've signed our petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/cucfpj/petition.html
Please make sure you send this notice to lists & groups that you belong to.
Thanks,
Sandra Ahten
BASIC INFORMATION
All jail inmate calls from the county jail, even local calls must be placed as collect calls. The charges for these calls is highly inflated from what would normally be charged for collect calls. The telephone company, who has an exclusive contract with the Champaign County then kicks back $14,000 each month to the County.
The contract between the Evercom Systems, (the telephone company) and the County refers to this as kickback as “compensation,” however, this term is misleading as the county is not being compensated for any product or services.
This $14,000 per month is money above and beyond Evercom’s profit and comes directly from the families and the friends of the inmates who are forced to pay these exorbitant charges in order to communicate with their loved ones. The County does not have any obligations or costs related to the jail inmate phone service, yet it is the general fund of the County that receives the $14,000 ($168,000 per year).
COMPARISON OF COST OF CALLS
A 15 minute collect call from a home phone in Urbana to Tuscola using AT&T would cost $4.51. A collect call from the county jail in Urbana would cost $6.56. The call from the jail is 45% more expensive.
Seventy three percent of all calls made by inmates from the county jail are actually local calls that outside of jail would very rarely be made collect and so would cost 50 cents or less.
Local calls under this contract cost $2.88 surcharge & .2446 1st minute and .2159 each additional minute.
ALTERNATIVES
There are many alternatives to the present contract. The simplest being the same equipment and services with the same company but without the $14,000 per month.
This would legally need to be released for bid – in which case the lowest rates for the inmate calls would be known.
In addition there are many other alternatives being offered in institutions throughout the state and country – We believe the adminstrator should be willing to research all of these options.
TIMING OF NEGOTATIONS
The contract was set to expire on Feb. 1, 2005. It has a thirty day clause that allows it to be renewed if agreed by the county on Jan. 1, 2005. Because Denny Inman, the county administrator, failed to notify the County Board in a timely manner that the contract was set to expire he was forced to get a 30 day extension of the contract just to be in legal compliance.
This was a hotly debated contract 4 years ago and 2 years ago (when 7 county board members voted against it)– but they were in the same position then, as they are now (not having enough time to ask for public input or to properly negotiate the contract.) Democratic Tom Betz is officially on record (2 years ago) as stating that he wanted at least a six month notice before the contract needed to be negotiated again.
This contract is now before the Finance Committee who is expected to make a
recommendation to the board as a whole during the February meeting. Democrat Brendan McGinty, who chairs the finance committee, has said that being in the best negotiating position will mean not being under the pressure of the contract deadline and opening the contract up for bids. At the recent democratic caucus when he spoke about this he seemed to believe that this was the reasonable way to proceed.
BUDGET CONCERNS
The county passed their 2005 budget in November without giving consideration to the fact that this contract was coming up and that the $168,000 might not be available as revenue. The county has a revenue of about $80 million dollars. $168,000 represents less than two tenths of a percent (.2%) of
their revenue stream.
When discussing the phone contract often the Sheriff or board members who want to justify their position bring up the fact that they spend more than $30,000 per month on health services at the jail. They do not say how much of this health service is offset by the fee inmates pay for these services or for money that is made of off selling items at the commissary – nor should they – because in fact all of this goes to the general fund of the
county – it is not as if they have charge for one service so that they can have another service. The revenue from Evercom goes into the general fund of the county. The county ended the year more than $500,000 in the black last year.
THE HEART OF THE ARGUMENT
Fifty seven percent of the people in our county jail are there because they can not meet their bond amount and so have to await their court date in jail. Those whose families can afford to bail them out usually do so. These people are not more guilty than those who can bond themselves out – they are simply poorer.
Many families entirely lose their phone service due to the high cost of the phone calls. Terrell Layfield’s family – (the most recent of 3 alleged suicide at the jail in the last six months) was one such family.
This is an unfair tax on the poor and is ethically unsound. The county could choose to balance it budget by charging people to walk on sidewalks. They could charge people who visit at the jail $10 each time they visit. They could install pay toilets at the jail. But these are not the right way to fund a county.
If the person is guilty, the best chance for reform and in turn less recidivism is through maintaining contact with family and community.
There are untold hardships associated with not being able to make phone calls from jail – for example:
-- Young offenders who are 17 or 18 and live at Cunningham Childrens’ home have no one to call – because Cunningham Childrens’ home can not bear the extreme cost of the collect calls.
--Everyday family buniness needs to be taken care of, such as deciding whether
to sell the car, cancel the appointment for braces that were planned for a child, etc.
-- Children need to be able to speak with their parents and be assured of their well being in order to have any peace of mind, affecting of course all aspects of their lives including their health and school erformance.
--Churchs often take calls from inmates who, at this vulnerable time in their life are ready to reform and need to be able to reach out to do it.
--Because the public defenders office is so overworked and backed up, it is a rare occasion when a public defenders would ever return phone calls or go visit the jail. Many times, if the family has not maintained pressure on the public defender’s office to get details and work on the case the first time a public defender will meet the accused is at the court house. Often five minutes before trial. The accused has to have phone access with his family in order to get any semblance of representation. In addition, even if they have a private lawyer, just needing to make decisions with a spouce before going to trial is important.
WHAT CU-CITIZENS FOR PEACE AND jUSTICE IS ASKING FOR WITH REGARD TO THE JAIL PHONE CONTRACT
That the county negotiate a contract that does not contain any profit for the county
and offers the best possible conditions for ease of communication between the inmates and their support system.
That the county not renew the current contract with Evercom, but only renew
it so long as it takes to get a new contract out for bid. |
See also:
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/23335/index.php
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/22572/index.php
|
This work is in the public domain. |
|
Re: Jail Phones, Next Move |
by ptownson
ptownson (nospam) telecom-digest.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2005
|
|
for digest |
|
Re: Jail Phones, Next Move |
by NIYOKI YANCY
TRUEBLUE1922 (nospam) AOL.COM (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Jan 2005
|
|
I WOULD LIKE 2 KNOW WHY MY # IS NOT ALLOWING MY BROTHER 2 CALL ME & I DIDN'T PLACE THE BLOCK...ANGRY SISTER! |
|
Re: Jail Phones, Next Move |
by uh-nawn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Jan 2005
|
The fleecing of prisoners for phone calls just made national news: "Call Somone Who Cares" http://www.alternet.org/rights/21116/ Evercom is named.
This is apparently a nationwide trend, along with the bigger picture of simply "exploiting the most easily exploited". |
|
Re: Jail Phones, Next Move |
by ????
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jan 2005
|
Why should it be ANY priority over all kind of spying , which regular citizens (without convictions and incarseration and ANY violations of laws) are forced to endure on the regular basis?
Why should regular citizens pay for their calls and jail inmated shouldn't? Isn't it like the discrimination upside down? |
