The County Line
- Volume 53, Number 2 - 2009
All's quiet with the Department of Corrections...
...but will it stay that way?
In most cases, silence from the other end of the phone is not necessarily a positive thing – you often worry about people forgetting about you. There’s the old adage about the squeaky wheel and grease, and most of us usually assume that people are plotting against us if we aren’t hearing from them on a constant basis.
But, that’s just not how things are with counties and the Alabama Department of Corrections. In that relationship, silence has become a welcome thing.
Not so long ago, the communication lines between the department and counties were constantly abuzz. Attorneys representing counties and the department talked to each other all the time. They talked in court. They talked during depositions. We even talked to each other through competing sound bites in the statewide news media.
There was also the flood of communication between the Association office and the department’s top officials. Seemed almost as if on a weekly basis there was some problem – usually involving the overcrowding in county jails, cost of medical care of state inmates, transportation of inmates or something else related to money – that needed the attention of the Association’s staff and those trying to keep the department afloat.
For those not familiar with the long-standing rubs between the department and county
governments, the picture is a simple one. When a person is arrested, he or she is taken to the county jail, held in county custody, and supported by revenue from the county taxpayers.
Once convicted, the person is supposed to be “there upon” transferred to the care of the State
of Alabama. That’s what the law says, but it hasn’t always worked that way.
Over the years, much expensive litigation has surrounded the words “there upon.” There have been times when more than 1,000 people were sitting in county jails awaiting transfer to the Alabama Department of Corrections. The costs for counties have, on many occasions, been so overwhelming that they’ve pushed the local budgets to the breaking point. To secure relief, the counties sued the State of Alabama and asked the courts to provide an avenue for the forced removal of the prisoners on a timely basis.
This lawsuit was so contentious that several years ago the then-governor described it as a child suing its parents because they weren’t given enough to eat or weren’t allowed to use the telephone whenever they wanted to make a call. The lawsuit has been regrettable, but necessary.
As a result of the long and costly litigation, the sheriffs of the state are now under a court order to remove state inmates whenever they have been housed in the county jail for more than 30 days after their sentence to a state prison facility. This order remains in effect and is
a safety net should the overcrowding issue resurface in the future.
That’s ancient history, or it seems like such today.
The number of state inmates backed-up in county jails has hovered around a few dozen – or less – for the past 18 months or so. Things have been so quiet that the other day I needed to call the Alabama Department of Corrections and was forced to look up the telephone number. A few years ago, the number was tattooed on my brain.
The credit for the steady flow of prisoners out of county jails and into the state system must rest with the current commissioner, Richard Allen, and his staff. We’ve worked with a number of commissioners over the years and each has faced his own challenges. Certainly Mr. Allen has as many potholes in his job description as any other commissioner.
You simply cannot argue with the performance of the department under his “watch.” He is a veteran of public service in Alabama having served as Chief Deputy Attorney General under Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor and Troy King. He is a U.S. Army veteran and retired from the U.S. Army Reserve as a brigadier general. He is a veteran who knows his way around Montgomery.
He has not been blessed by serving as commissioner during the best financial times – especially now. But, we have been enormously impressed with his understanding of and appreciation for the impact his department has on local government.
His first priority has always been to do what is in the best interests of the department he directs. However, he has consistently considered the impact his decisions have on county officials and has sought and implemented input from the Association on behalf of counties.
Two other leaders in the department also deserve credit for the reduction in conflict over the last several years. Chief Deputy Commissioner Vernon Barnett has been the point man on many innovative efforts implemented to reduce overcrowding at the county levels. Associate Commissioner Ruth Naglich has become popular with county administrators across the state because of her tireless work to lower the costs of health care inside the prison system and at the county level.
The commitment of these three leaders, as well as many others within the department, was on our mind the other day when the state’s general fund budget was vetoed by Gov. Bob Riley.
The governor disagreed with what he considered to be excessive cuts, which the legislature made in the budget of the Department of Corrections. The rhetoric was flowing as the legislature overrode the veto and approved the budget, including the cuts to the department.
We later learned that much of the lost funding can, and we trust will, be restored using portions of the federal stimulus revenue over the next two years. We are hopeful that we aren’t set for another overcrowding crisis beginning Oct. 1. The real question is what will happen after this stimulus money has evaporated?
One must hope that Mr. Allen and his staff will have a new set of innovative ideas by then.
If they aren’t armed with new plans by then it’s likely this wonderful silence will be broken, and we’ll all be back at our old battle stations.
|
