|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Announcement :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Jail Phone Issue is Coming To a Head |
Current rating: 0 |
by Sandra Ahten
Email: spiritofsandra (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!)
Phone: 217-367-6345 |
22 Feb 2005
Modified: 23 Feb 2005 |
|
Champaign County Board needs to hear from those who oppose keeping the $14000 monthy kick back that is funded on the backs of the families of the poorest jail inmates. The meeting is this Thursday Feb. 24 at 7pm. |
The Champaign County Board which receives a $14,000 per month kickback from the company that has the contract for inmate phone calls from the county jail will be discussing whether to renew the contract this Thursday Feb. 24 at 7pm at Brookens Administration Center, 1776 E. Washington Street in Urbana. Member of the public who are opposed the county balancing the budget on the backs of the families of the poorest inmates are asked to be there to show support to opposing this contract.
We need CITIZENS WHO CARE to be part of the action Thursday night. Please think about joining us and speaking to any one of the many reasons why we should not condone this practice.
A little list of reasons off the top of my head:
It is bad public relations to use a regressive tax; it harbors mistrust among citizen of their government; it exacerbates mental health problems of inmates; it isolates inmates at times when they are most likely to reach out for a hand to help them reform their thinking; it separates school children from their parents causing stress on children and all the ramifications of that including poor school performance, it causes families to lose their phone service – driving them further into poverty when they can not receive calls from employers etc., it punishes the innocent as well as the guilty.
WE NEED YOUR VOICE. Please contact me if you are able to attend either to speak or to be a body present in support.
Sandra 217-367-6345, spiritofsandra (at) hotmail.com
sing the petition against the contract at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cucfpj/petition.html
BASIC INFORMATION (as posted previously)
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 |
See also:
http://www.petitiononline.com/cucfpj/petition.html
|
This work is in the public domain. |
|
Re: Jail Phone Issue is Coming To a Head |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Feb 2005
|
|
Thanks Sandra for the excellent summary. |
|
Re: Jail Phone Issue is Coming To a Head |
by thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Feb 2005
|
|
Its not a kickback. Its payment. They are paying to do business, just as vendors pay to put soda machines in govt. buildings. Whether its a just business to conduct in a jail is debatable, but don't infer that the practice of vendor payement is illegal or isolated. Its everywhere and the public depends on its financial benefits. |
|
I think very debatable, Thinker |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Feb 2005
|
"Whether it's a just business to conduct in a jail is debatable..."
I hope you see billing innocent people extraordinary high phone rates for no reason other than to make money as unjust, thinker. If you don't, I hope no one you know tries to call you from jail, you will have a tough decision to think about: whether to refuse the call because it costs too much or accept a call from jail that will shock you on your next phone bill. And for what crime are you being punished when you pay this phone bill?
"It's everywhere..." I need to know how the "everybody's doing it" argument suddenly justifies an unjust policy. Looking forward to your good explanation...
"...the public depends on its financial benefits." Why stop at phone calls? Let's charge the inmates, no wait, the inmates' families $7.00 a meal? How about we charge the inmates' families a flat $20.00 a day stay? We're depending on it, right? Could you also explain what financial benefit you are depending on for having a county jail? Are you an employee at the Correctional Center? |
|
Re: Jail Phone Issue is Coming To a Head |
by thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Mar 2005
|
|
I'm not arguing for overcharging for use of phones in the county jail. The point of my earlier post was the importance and wide use of vendor payments to government bodies. Nationwide, millions of dollars are raised by contracting with vendors for a multitude of services whether it be at the state, county, city, or even school district level. It is not illegal or shady to charge a company to put soda machines or ATMs in public buildings. Those dollars go towards supporting state parks, county provided healthcare, and after school activities...just to name a few. Calling the practice a 'kickback' or 'payola' is only intended to elicit an emotional response where none is needed. You already have a good argument for discontinuing the practice where it involves the jail phones. |
|
All Semantics Aside |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Mar 2005
|
Sorry, I have to disagree. If we were talking about something being supplied by an outside vendor that those purchasing had some other options on, that would be one thing. If we were talking about a couple of hundred dollars a month, that would be another thing. But handing a company a impoverished, literally captive market and then raking off $14,000 a month from them is certainly is worthy of being called a kickback.
We're not talking soda pop for some kid who could bring his own from home. Supplying a means for prisoners to fairly communicate outside the jail is a matter of basic civil rights. The diminshed moral capacity of those who think that this is somehow a legitimate use of public authority is deeply symptomatic of how ethically dishonest the average Illinois politician can be -- and sadly, far too often still get elected and re-elected by people like thinker. |
|
Reality Check |
by thinker
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Mar 2005
|
|
Maybe the last sentence I posted was not clear enough. I agree that the practice of charging excessive phone rates from the county jail is wrong and that the practice should be ended or significantly altered for the exact reason that you cited above. The practice of vendor payments for the opportunity to offer products or services to the public from government buildings should not be ended, though. I hope that brings a dose of clarity to my position on the matter. |
|
Re: Jail Phone Issue is Coming To a Head |
by sherry
caronadoble (nospam) charter.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2005
|
|
I have a loved one in a jail in mississippi and cannot recieve calls from him.The cost is so high that we cant even talk for a few minutes a week.We are on a fixed income and cant afford such.I'm in south carolina and dont know what to do.It is unfair to both of us. I did nothing wrong.What can i do? |
