Executive Director's Report - March/April 1999

Removal of Inmates from County Jails Going Well - For Now
Most county officials are aware that in 1991 Barbour County and most of the other counties, along with most sheriffs, filed a civil suit (Barbour County, Alabama, et al. v. Joe Hopper, etc. et al.) in Montgomery County in an effort to get the Alabama Department of Corrections to remove state prisoners from county jails in a timely manner. The Court entered an order on February 25, 1992 restraining the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections (then Morris Thigpen) from refusing to accept state inmates and requiring him to remove all state inmates from county jails within 30 days after receipt of notice of their sentence to the penitentiary.

The Department did a pretty good job of complying with the order the first couple of years thereafter. But as state administrations changed and new commissioners arrived, the Department became less compliant with the order. On September 15, 1997, there were over 800 state inmates being held in county jails in violation of the court order.

This situation led Barbour County and the other counties and sheriffs to petition the same Court to hold the Commissioner (then Joe Hopper) in contempt for failing to comply with the original order. After hearings, negotiating sessions and a session with a court-appointed mediator, the parties agreed to a settlement of the contempt action. The settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court on September 8, 1998, contained the following three major provisions:

1. That between October 1 and October 15, 1998 the Commissioner will accept all state inmates whose transcripts have been received by the Department for 30 days or longer.

2. That by October 15, 1998 all state inmates shall be accepted by the Department from county jails within 30 days of receipt of transcripts.

3. That the Commissioner will thereafter accept state inmates, in compliance with this agreement.

The Department of Corrections proceeded almost immediately to comply with the agreement. The number of state inmates in county jails over 30 days was quickly reduced, for all practical purposes, to zero. The number was maintained at about zero through the end of the administration of Governor Fob James.

Shortly after his inauguration in January of 1999, Governor Don Siegelman appointed Mike Haley as the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. A meeting between ACCA staff and Commissioner Haley was held shortly after his appointment to discuss the state inmate situation. Commissioner Haley pledged to do his best to comply with the agreement. All indications are that he is keeping his word. A recent report prepared by the Department indicated that as of the week ending March 27, 1999 there were only two state inmates in county jails that had been there more than 30 days.

It should be noted that Mike Haley is the same Mike Haley who, before becoming Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, was an employee of the Alabama Sheriffs Association and, therefore, is very much aware of the difficulties state inmates pose for county jails. We believe he will continue to do his best to see that the Department of Corrections complies with the recent agreement.

Numerous county officials have requested our opinion as to what the future holds with regard to state prisoners in county jails. More specifically, "Can we expect the Department of Corrections to continue to remove state inmates within the 30-day period?" The question is difficult to answer, but there are several situations and/or scenarios to be considered. First, it was relatively easy for the Department of Corrections to go along with the September 8, 1998 settlement agreement because it knew that the new prison in Bibb County was about to open and would be able to receive between six and eight hundred new prisoners. There is room in the new prison for more inmates, but the Department of Corrections does not have the money to hire the needed additional correctional officers. If the Department receives the necessary additional funding, more beds for state inmates will be available for some time in the future. Second, whether the Department receives additional funding or not, the existing facilities will eventually fill to designed capacity. At that point in time, the Department will need to build a new prison. Considering the current condition of the state's general fund, it seems unlikely that a new prison is in the foreseeable future. Finally, Commissioner Haley will eventually have to face the third major provision in the September 8, 1998 settlement agreement. It requires the Commissioner himself to accept all future state prisoners in compliance with the agreement. Taken literally, it means that unless he chooses to face contempt proceedings, he must accept all state prisoners within 30 days, regardless of the number of bed spaces in the state system.

It is going to be interesting to watch this situation play out over the next several years.