AZ DOC to AZ LEGS: "FEED ME!"

from the Capitol Times....

DOC seeks millions more to deal with rising prison population

October 9, 2014
By: Gary Grado / Capitol Times

A swelling prisoner population is driving millions of dollars in requested budget increases for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

The department, which is budgeted to receive $997 million from the general fund in fiscal year 2015, told the governor in a formal budget request more money is needed in fiscal year 2016 to cover more beds and a bump in the per diem and annual price adjustment for a private health care provider.

The population has grown by 1,893 prisoners since fiscal-year 2013 and the department expects 1,920 more to be incarcerated by fiscal year 2016, according to a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer. The population stood at 42,052 on Aug. 31.

Department director Charles Ryan told Brewer in writing that the increase will cost an estimated $26 million from the previous fiscal-year to cover. Overall, the department is asking for an increase of $73 million in the next fiscal year to pay for requests that also include more staff, pay raises, a halfway house for parolees and an improved database.

“ADC’s authorization request seeks to keep up with this future growth, as prison overcrowding presents a severe risk to inmate management and public safety,” Ryan said.

The department is also asking for authorization for another 3,000 beds, but didn’t ask for funding for them. Ryan reported to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee there is a surplus of 642 beds. But there is actually a shortfall of 4,592 after counting all of the temporary beds, those in day-rooms, double bunks in cells built for one, tents and Quonset huts, which are World War II-era temporary quarters.

Ryan said the population grew at an average of 1,200 prisoners a year from 1980 to 2009, but flattened and actually decreased slightly from 2009 to 2012.

He said the decrease was due to fewer probation revocations by county probation officers and a decrease in commitments of non-U.S. citizens. The historical growth pattern resumed in 2012 due to increased commitments and fewer releases.

Lawmakers appropriated roughly $20 million in fiscal-year 2015 to pay for 1,000 beds in medium security and 500 in maximum.

Caroline Isaacs, executive director of American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that challenges the state’s use of private prisons and advocates for changes in sentencing laws, said even though the state is facing a potential crisis, lawmakers historically find it difficult to say no to public safety.

“Obviously we’re going to gear up for a big, old fight over this,” Isaacs said. “I think the discussion needs to be now: Do we keep building prisons and siphon money off from everything else in the budget or do we do something different because we can’t possibly keep growing this way?”

Analysts with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on Oct. 7 told lawmakers and economists with the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committee of Reference that Arizona could be looking at a $520 million deficit in the current fiscal year and $1 billion in the next fiscal year.

Isaacs said the state might start by looking at its truth-in-sentencing laws, which require prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their time before being eligible for release. Most other states with truth-in-sentencing require only 65 percent and only for violent offenders, Isaacs said.

Isaacs also questioned the way the department classifies prisoners. For example, the department reports in its August monthly snapshot of statistics that 71 percent of it’s population are violent offenders. But Isaacs points out that when adding the numbers of prisoners committed under the long list of typically violent offenses such as murder, kidnapping, assault and child abuse the sum is only half the population.

Department spokesman Bill Lamoreaux said a prisoner’s classification depends on more than just the offense he was committed under. He said the department looks at a prisoner’s entire criminal history, whether he is a repeat offender and the history, if any, with the department.

DOC Population Growth
Aug. 2013: 40,720
Sept. 2013: 40,817
Oct. 2013: 40,930
Nov. 2013: 40,956
Dec. 2013: 41,031
Jan: 2014: 41,274
Feb. 2014: 41,270
March 2014: 41,363
April 2014: 41,532
May 2014: 41,528
June 2014: 41,773
July 2014: 41,854
Aug. 2014: 42,052

Budget Requests Tied to Growth

•           $5 million to increase prisoner per diem from $10.10 to $10.42 to cover health care costs
•           $5.6 million to cover the annual price adjustment for health care
•           $7.8 million to cover costs associated with growth expenses such as food, bedding and clothing.
•           $7.2 million to cover costs for 1,000 medium custody private prison beds.

NAACP to AZ LEGS: AZ DOC budget is dumb on crime.

 Here is the AZ DOC's proposed 2014 Budget. Note how they shift money from rehabilitation areas to cover new prison expenses again, though 75% of all new prisoners come in due to drug and alcohol problems. Judges in this state foolishly keep sending addicts and alcoholics to prison thinking they'll get the "help" they need there. What a crock. Truth is, under Chuck Ryan only about 4% of all prisoners even get substance abuse treatment -  is it any wonder we have recidivism problems? AZ prisoners are lucky if they don't just develop a new heroin habit and get Hep C instead.

"State of the State, 2014"

Arizona Capitol Complex, Phoenix

Tuesday, January 21, 2014 the Senate Appropriations Committee  meets to discuss the AZ DOC budget. I plan to be there (assuming they let me in). Below is a letter sent them by the Maricopa County NAACP, addressing many of the same concerns I've previously shared here. Don't expect the good senators to listen, though - it takes courage of the kind I haven't seen in this state to challenge the DOC. A new supermax prison is definitely not what would do the people good right now, but building it must be serving someone in power, since no matter how bad an idea it is, nothing appears to be stopping it.

Please send your legislators a piec eof your mind now, while they're making these decisions. You can find yours here. Among our likely allies: Democrats Sen Anna Tovar (Senate Minority Leader); Rep. Chad Campbell  (House Minority Leader). The people with power over votes, though, are Republicans Sen Andy Biggs (Senate President) and Rep David Gowan (House Majority Leader). 

All legislators can be contacted here:
 

Arizona State Legislature

1700 W. Washington St

Phoenix, AZ 85007

toll free:

1-800-352-8404

---------------

"ADC wants to divert money meant for rehabilitation to build more prisons which are known to cause more violence and in the long run, harm public safety, the exact opposite of the calculation this committee should be making..."

To:  Senate Appropriations Committee

Senators:  Cajero-Bedford, Crandall, Griffin, Melvin, Pancrazi, Tovar, Ward, Murphy, Shooter

From:  Maricopa County Branch NAACP, Oscar Tillman, President

Date:  21 January 2014

Re:  Review of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) 2015 Budget Request

Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) is out of step with the rest of the nation and ignoring evidence-based practices.  Arizona is the top per capita spender on prisons in the country and has the fourth highest percent of its budget dedicated to corrections.[1]  

In twenty years, our population increased 100% but in the same twenty years, our prison population increased 1036%.  Neither population nor the crime rate justifies this mass incarceration.  Arizona’s recidivism rate is 46.7% while the national average is 40% (Sloan, 2011).  Incarceration and longer sentences are associated with higher rates of recidivism. [2] Thus ADOC is ineffective in its delivery of both inmate rehabilitation and protection of public safety.  To continue funding this folly would violate the legislatures duty to conserve the public fisc and to protect public safety.

The prison population is going down.  Since 2005, the number of states with declining prison population levels has grown steadily – from 9 in 2006 to 14 in 2007 to 19 in 2008 to 24 in 2009, to 26 in 2011.  Many of these states saw dramatic decreases in crime as they reduced their prison populations.

Arizona’s prison population has also gone down or remained virtually steady for at least three years.   The JLBC Monthly Highlights reported that in November, ADC had 899 fewer prisoners than the previous November.  A surplus of beds of 1,000 is predicted for 2015. Why then would you approve any additional beds?

The director’s statement that the population has gone up by 809 directly contradicts information he gave to our Legal Redress Chairperson at a meeting in his office on 13 December 2013.  At that meeting, he stated that in fiscal year 2013, 18,070 prisoners were incoming and 18,374 were out going leaving a decrease of 304.  Others in the meeting who can verify the information were Peggy Plews of Arizona Prisonwatch, Dawn Northrup, general counsel for ADC, Stacy Crabtree from classification administration and Keith Smith from Operations.

Nationwide, prisons are closing.  Over 29,000 prison beds have gone off line since 2011.  In Colorado, four prisons have closed.  Tax dollars of $22 million were switched from DOC to diversion and re-entry programs to decrease both future populations of prisoners and prevent recidivism. In 2011, thirteen states reported prison closures. Prison capacity declined by an estimated 15,500 beds.  [3] In 2012, six states closed twenty prisons or expected to. The potential reduction of prison population was over 14,100 beds.   The estimated savings was $337 million. Florida led the nation with ten closures and an estimated $65 million savings.

In Texas there has been a 9% drop in the incarceration rate (closing one prison and maybe more); a 10% percent drop in the crime rate; and huge decreases in expenditures, with $241 million appropriated the first two years for treating mental illness and substance abuse, and for drug courts and other alternatives to incarceration, rather than appropriating $2 billion for more prison beds over the next five years.  [4]  From 2003 to 2009, Texas was so successful in reducing its prison population that it closed an entire state prison, thereby saving $50 million in the budget. Texas now has its lowest crime rate since 1973 with serious property, violent, and sex crimes declining by 13% since 2003.[5]  Why can’t we learn from Texas?

New York achieved a twenty percent reduction in imprisonment in ten years, with a reduction in the prison population of more than 14,000 people; New Jersey achieved a nineteen percent reduction in imprisonment in ten years; Kansas achieved a five percent reduction in imprisonment over six years; and Michigan achieved a twelve percent reduction in imprisonment in just three years. [6]  In all four states, crime rates declined.

Michigan closed three prisons and five prison camps, estimated to save $118 million; New Jersey closed a 1,000-bed prison in Camden, with an annual operational cost of $42 million; and New York closed three small minimum-security prisons and shuttered annexes at prisons that remain in operation, estimated to save $26.3 million in the 2010–2011 budget. [7]

 In 2008, Mississippi’s corrections budget was $348 million, triple the budget in 1994.  Mississippi passed legislation allowing “parole eligibility” for nonviolent prisoners who had served “25% of their sentences or one year, whichever is longer.”  Since then, Mississippi has reduced its budget by 5%, the state’s violent crime rate has reduced to levels not seen since the 1984, and the recidivism rate has decreased to 30%.

Since 1995, Arizona has had a 43% drop in violent crime but unlike other states, Arizona has had a 21% increase in incarceration. In the same time period, New York had a 53% drop in crime and a 30% drop in incarceration. The crime drop is not a result of incarceration, quite the opposite. [8] A recent report by Pew (States Cut Both Crime and Imprisonment, Christine Zuria, December 19,2013) found that over the past five years, the majority of states reduced both crime and imprisonment rates.  Arizona is one of only 15 states that is increasing its imprisonment rate by 4% though our crime rate has dropped by 21%.

A RAND study found that spending $1 million on drug treatment would reduce crime fifteen times more effectively than imprisonment.  Yet the proposals in the budget for drug treatment and community supervision are not funded.  They would do the most to reduce incarceration and save the state money. Likewise, the transition fund should not again be raided.  ADC wants to divert money meant for rehabilitation to build more prisons which are known to cause more violence and in the long run, harm public safety, the exact opposite of the calculation this committee should be making.  The legislature established a Transition Program in A.R.S. §31-381. The program is funded by inmates work (A.R.S. §31-254 (D)(3),(E)(3)) and cost savings (A.R.S. §31-285(C)) that are to be directed to services.  Using those monies for services to assist transition into communities and reduce the recidivism rate would both save the taxpayer money and improve public safety.

The funding for the 500 bed super max must be stopped immediately.  ADC’s proposed model, Eyman prison, has already been declared unconstitutional (Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp 1146 (1995);  thus ADC is simply setting the groundwork for a costly lawsuit.  Other states are closing their supermax prisons or units because they are the most ineffective and costly of them all.  Yet Arizona has chosen exactly the opposite direction to the detriment of both our public safety and the public purse. In states that have reduced solitary confinement—Colorado, Maine, and Mississippi—violence has not increased. Since Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman released seventy-five percent of inmates from solitary in the id-2000s, violence has dropped 50 percent.  [9] Regardless of the monies already spent, to continue down this road of folly is worse.

The ADC proposals are not evidence based and not focused on the best interests of Arizona taxpayers or on public safety.  Crime and the number of prisoners keep declining; yet ADC keeps asking for more money.  Any sensible and fiscally conservative legislator cannot approve such tactics.  "You cannot build your way out of it. Very simply, you cannot build your way out of crime," said Louisiana Secretary of Corrections Jimmy LeBlanc, who supports reducing the incarceration rate and putting more resources into inmate rehabilitation.

In fact, a large percentage of those currently occupying Arizona’s beds should not be.  The class action lawsuit [10] against ADOC for its failure to deliver appropriate medical, psychological and dental care illustrates the inappropriate use of maximum security cells for the mentally ill.  Because of the “war on drugs” more than half of all prison and jail inmates—including 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates—have mental health or drug problems (Glaze, et. al., 2006).   Treatment is a far better solution than expensive warehousing.

ADC could cut the population dramatically by releasing prisoners within 90 days of their release dates.  The law already provides for that contingent but ADC refuses to use it effectively to reduce the number of prisoners and refuses to account for their failure to do so.  Another national trend has been to release the elderly prisoners who cost much more to warehouse.  If prisoners are over 50, an evaluation should determine if they are still dangerous.  If not, they should be released to community supervision, which is much less costly.

Another population in ADC’s maximum security is LGBT prisoners who have sought protection from physical and sexual abuse. Rather than stop the violence and punish the perpetrators, ADC inappropriately puts the victims into maximum security. The taxpayers are spending enormous amounts of money to keep people in maximum security because ADC has lost control of the yard. The solution is not to lock up the victims and the mentally ill but to insist on an audit of the existing maximum security prison cells to see who is occupying them and why before committing taxpayer funds to any more beds.

For all the above reasons, lack of information, inappropriate use of existing maximum security beds, ineffective and inefficient policy decisions, violation of the duty to conserve tax payer monies, and harm to public safety, we ask that you give an unfavorable review to the ADC budget proposal.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                        Oscar Tillman

                                                                        President

__

[1] The national average us 7% but Arizona’s is 11%.

[2] What Works:  Effective Recidivism Reduction & Risk-Focused Prevention Programs (2008)

[3] (On The Chopping Block:  State Prison Closings 2012, Nicole Porter, The Sentencing Project, December 2012)

[4] Prison Break: Budget Crises Drive Reform, But Private Jails Press On, Posted Oct 1, 2012 3:50 AM CST, By Terry Carter

[5] Race and Social Justice as a Budget Filter: The Solution to Racial Bias in the State Legislature? Sahar Fathi* Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 47:2, p. 532 2011/12

[6] Misplaced Priorities:  Overincarcerate, Under Educate, NAACP , Excessive spending on incarceration undermines educational opportunity and public safety in communities, 2011

[7] Id.

[8] What Works:  Effective Recidivism Reduction & Risk-Focused Prevention Programs (2008).

[9] I thought solitary confinement in Iran was bad until I went inside America’s prisons, May 4, 2013, Shane Bauer, Mother Jones

[10] Gamez v. Ryan No. CV-10-2070-PHX-JWS (MEA)

 

AZ mortgage settlement building prisons, not communities.

Ironically, in the same session in which they took this $50 million from people victimized by forclosures, the legislature decided to invest $50 million in the building of a new Supermax prison in Buckeye. Perhaps the Legs figure that at least these families and their children can inhabit it if they are unable to recover from the recession. Some "re-investment in the community," eh? I don't recall Tom Horne being among those of us who protested that new prison down at the legislature...

 Mother's Day 2013: ASPC-Phoenix

--------from ABC15.com--------

Arizona victims of illegal foreclosures still waiting for compensation

June 11, 2013
Dave Biscobing
ABC15.com

Thousands of Arizona families have lost their homes in illegal foreclosures.

Illegal foreclosures are based on forged or phony documents manufactured to push people out of their homes.

Banks and processing companies agreed to pay billions of dollars in settlements to the states.

While they did not admit any wrongdoing, they pledged to stop using forged documents to foreclose.

The ABC15 Investigators found more than a year after that settlement, little has changed.

Victims of illegal foreclosures in Arizona have yet to be compensated—not a dime has been paid out.

And some say the use of forged documents in foreclosures continues here in our state.

THE ANATOMY OF AN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE

With the collapse of the housing market, many homeowners asked their lenders to modify their mortgages.

Homeowners were told they could get a modification, but only if they stopped paying their mortgages for three months and fell into default.

When homeowners followed that advice—instead of a modification, the banks foreclosed.

Many Arizona homeowners who challenged the foreclosures in court discovered they were done with fraudulent documents.

IS HELP FOR VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES ON THE WAY?

On February 9, 2012, Attorney General Tom Horne held a news conference boasting that Arizona was part of a $25 billion national settlement with five of the nation’s largest banks.

Horne said, “The fact that many people who lost their homes who didn’t deserve to is a terrible tragedy.”

At the time Horne announced they had put a stop to the robo-signing and forgery of foreclosure documents.

And the Attorney General announced Arizona’s share of the settlement would be $110 million.

Horne said that money would be used to compensate the victims.

But more than a year later, the ABC15 Investigators have found Arizona victims are still waiting for help.

Attorneys Dan McCauley and Beth Findsen are two of a small handful of lawyers who go to court to fight for the victims of illegal foreclosure.

Dan McCauley said, “I’ve seen nothing go to the victims, nothing from the state of Arizona at all.”

Beth Findsen told us, “I have yet to see one dollar awarded to a homeowner."

What’s worse the lawyers say—the use of fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases hasn’t stopped.

McCauley said, “It’s not just the financial rape of the middle class. It’s a crime."

Findsen said, “The banks are getting away with murder.”

Both attorneys say they are still seeing foreclosure cases based on bogus documents.

FORECLOSURE FRAUD VICTIMS SPEAK OUT

Chances are you know somebody like the victims ABC15 spoke to.

Mike Brosnahan is a husband and father of two.

He is fighting to stay in the home he built in Sedona.

He has fought all the way up to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Brosnahan told ABC15 Investigators, “All they’re doing is breaking up the American dream and leaving it in shambles.”

Rocky Coronado served in the U.S. Air Force.

The veteran and his wife have been fighting for their home for three years while raising a teenage son.

Rocky said, “I think it demoralizes him.”

His wife Brenda said, “It consumes your waking life.”

Both the Coronados and the Brosnahans insist they are not deadbeats and are not seeking a free house--they just want a fair deal.

They say they paid their mortgages until they were told to stop so they could get a modification.

And now their lawyers say their banks are using fraudulent  documents to foreclose and take their homes.

These families are like countless other Arizona victims still waiting for help.

That’s because our state is far behind other states when it comes to distributing those millions of dollars in settlement funds meant for the victims of foreclosure fraud.

The ABC Investigators asked Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne why states like California, Nevada, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Florida, Hawaii, and Oklahoma have already cut checks to help out victims but not Arizona.

Horne said, “There was a year lost because of the legislature saying we have to appropriate the money.”

Horne said he had to wait until they gave him permission to use the settlement funds.

He insisted he’s working hard to get the victims help as soon as possible, but he does not have a timetable yet.

Horne also admitted it’s too late for victims who have already lost their homes.

Nobody who has already been foreclosed on and evicted is going to get their house back.

And who gets help may depend on how much money is left because last year the legislature swept $50 million of the $110 million settlement into the state budget—a budget that already had $400 million in reserves.

Horne told ABC15 he fought against the sweep but in the end he had to abide by what the legislature decided.

He points out they could have taken the entire amount of the settlement.

Horne also said he plans to spend another $30 million of the settlement on outreach and marketing.

He said he is also setting aside $4 million to provide legal assistance to homeowners fighting foreclosure.

The victims of illegal foreclosures we spoke to say every penny of the $110 million settlement should have been used to compensate them.

Rocky Coronado said, “It just blows my mind that they could have the nerve to take that money that should have gone to homeowners like us."

Rep Campbell calls for DOC Oversight hearings; former DW Toersbijns weighs in

this link here is probably what you're looking for: Campbell came through, as promised, on July 23, 2013:
 

AZ LEG Leader Chad Campbell: Time for DOC Director Ryan's resignation.

 

the rest of this post below is an old one.... 

-------------------------------------

Rep Campbell calls for DOC Oversight hearings; former DW Toersbijns weighs in
March 1, 2013

Maricopa County Superior Courthouse

Day of the Dead Prisoners (November 1, 2012)

Earlier this week, after watching AZ DOC prisoner Tony Lester lay dying without any first aid or comfort from the officers responsible for caring for him, AZ House Minority Leader Chad Campbell called for legislative hearings on the problems with the DOC, and suggested that Charles Ryan may need to leave office so the state can recover from his tenure. 

Here's the clip. Bless and thank Chad Campbell for this:





My friend and colleague, former ASPC-Eyman/SMUI Deputy Warden Carl Toersbijns, wrote the open letter below in response. Thank you Carl, for sharing this with us. I encourage everyone with someone in AZ stat prisons that they love to write him as well, and to write to Wendy Halloran and KPNX to thank them for the role their expose has played in helping bring some of the darkest abuses in AZ prisons to light. 

Chad Campbell (and your own Representative) can be reached at:

AZ House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington, Room 320
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone Number: (602) 926-3026
Fax Number: (602) 417-3037

 chcampbell@azleg.gov

Please cc KPNX and your own State Representative on that letter to Rep. Campbell.

 

The contact for Wendy and KPNX 12 news is:

KPNX CH12 200 E. Van Buren St., Phoenix, AZ 85004 

 connect@ad.gannett.com

  

Letters to the Arizona Republic about the need for an investigation into the violence and suicides in the prisons would help, too. Now is the time:

Letters to the Editor - The Arizona Republic

P.O. Box 1950 Phoenix, AZ 85001

link: Letters to the Editor

fax (602) 444-8933

-------now for Carl's letter-------

March 1, 2o013

Dear Minority Leader Chad Campbell,

I just saw you the other day on television and you appeared to be enraged about what you saw in Wendy Halloran’s television report aired on Friday night. This report was just the tip of the iceberg as the Arizona Department of Corrections is infiltrated and dominated with a culture that is harmful to staff and inmates within the system. Not judging them or even casting stones at them for a most difficult job they have in running a prison system I do criticize them to the fullest my Bill of Rights give me.

I criticize them for ignoring human decency and human rights. The willful ignorance of denying a human being from being treated fair and square under the rule of law should not be an acceptable methodology to run prisons anywhere. Strangely we were all shocked at the Abu Ghraib scandal but when we reveal our own scandal here within Arizona prisons being run by the same man that was instrumental in setting up the Abu Ghraib prison mentality and culture, it is most acceptable and without a peep of outrage or disgust.

I criticize them for ignoring sound correctional practices being used throughout the United States but not inside our own prisons. It appears that the lack of statutory regulations on how a prison should be run is being left up to the discretion of one man appointed by the governor in a political situation rather than a justified and ethical one.

I criticize the legislature for allowing free rein of the prison system without oversight and levels of accountability as they encourage the cloak and dagger scenario of non-transparency and ask no question on its business.

I criticize the Governor for her hands-off attitude and letting the director destroy a good penal system single handed and decimating staff morale by implementing personnel and disciplinary policies that create low morale and high discipline unjust and unwarranted as it is politically motivated as it sits on paper.

I criticize the people of Arizona, myself included, for allowing the high number of deaths and violence [mostly gang related] to exist and not lift a hand to stop it. I am appalled by the apathy and nonchalant attitudes that prevail when we talk about prison abuse and staffing patterns that induce severe public safety issues as it creates severe gaps of safety nets once in place to control the prison systems effectively and efficiently.

I criticize and blame the lobbyist of private prisons and other entities enlisted to bring more hybrid governance with our government for the wrong reasons. Instead of saving money we are spending more. They foster and influence this mentality to lock people up for longer sentences for minor crimes to district attorneys, county prosecutors, judges, sheriffs and correctional administrators that to lock people up is good for business not realizing the money flow will stop one day.

Most of all, I criticize the growth and the wealth of the private prison business, the food business, the medical and healthcare business, the telephone business, the commissary business, the agriculture business, the fabrication business, the furniture business and the slavery [cheap labor of inmates] and the business of paying off legislators so they will embrace and endorse more growth in prison related activities within Arizona. These jobs could in fact be filled by those unemployed in various communities.

I applaud those that stand alone in their will and refusal to join these gatherings of vultures [corrupt political leaders] that have sold their soul for a penny here and a dollar there. Their greed and lust for power, influence and control has been transferred to the director of the prison system so he can rule autonomously without following the rule of law. They are literally picking the flesh off the left behind of those that died. 

This is why Arizona prisons will soon fail and explode into a revolution that will result in personal harm or death, destruction of state property and jeopardize the safety of all those communities wherein these prisons are located until the local and state law enforcement agencies can re-take control of these facilities and conduct a comprehensive and factual after-action review that will glean every detail I have just criticized.

Carl Toersbijns

"Me Party" Mantra in AZ: "We want Prisons not Homes".

Wonder what my community could have done with $50 million this year? For sure we'd have given our disabled and chronically ill people medical care, built some housing, gotten some folks off the streets and out of the grips of both those who victimize and those who criminalize them...we could have done a lot with that money. Instead Arizona is building a new Supermax and adding 500 more private prison beds (they usually take the low-level drug users and drunk drivers who could have gone to a treatment program instead - if we had any for those who can't pay, that is...). 

For those who think they get drug and alcohol treatment in prison - think again. The DOC says 75% of their prisoners last year came in because of drug/alcohol related problems. How many of the 60,000 prisoners they saw altogether got any treatment? 

From their own report: 

"In FY 2011, 2,302 inmates completed substance abuse treatment. Substance abuse treatment services include moderate and intensive treatment, methamphetamine treatment, co-occurring disorder treatment, and DUI treatment." What is that - only four percent of the prisoners who got drug or alcohol treatment over the whole year? And we even have special prisons built for them to ge tthat "treatment" in? And Chuck Ryan has a billion dollar budget?

Wow. Where does it all go?

Well, thanks to the Tea Party we get another 500 hundred prison beds for low-level offenders, and the state had plans already for another 500 Supermax beds for the mentally ill we're denying community-based and hospital care to in this state. Brilliant strategy, suspending compliance with Arnold -v- Sarn because of a budget crisis, while pouring all sorts of new dough into the prisons where you plan to put us instead. They don't put the hard-core gangsters all in lock-down, that's for sure - no one would be left to run the prison yards if they did - the guards aren't in control...

 ------------------from the Capitol Times-------

Republicans ‘stole’ $50 million meant for homeowners

Arizona Capitol Times

Rep. Chad Campbell / Guest Opinion

August 3, 2012 at 10:02 am

I am tired of the political cat and mouse game that Tea Party Republicans are playing with the Arizona Attorney General’s Mortgage Settlement Fund. It was wrong to sweep money from the fund to benefit the private prison industry at the expense of Arizona homeowners.

Earlier this year, Tea Party Republicans stole $50 million from a fund that was created by a joint settlement between 49 states, the federal government and the country’s five largest residential mortgage loan servicers who allegedly engaged in fraudulent loan and foreclosure practices. The money was supposed to be used for foreclosure prevention programs in Arizona to help families hit hardest by the mortgage crisis.

Instead, $50 million was swept into the general fund and can be used to pay for things like the expansion of private, for-profit prisons. Coincidently, this year Republicans approved spending $50 million between now and fiscal year 2014 to build 500 new beds in private prisons.

Here are my questions: How many families would be able to keep their homes if that $50 million were being spent on them instead of on 500 new prison beds? Also, do prison beds really cost $100,000 a piece? It seems to me that $100,000 is closer to the cost of a house than a bed.

This is a clear indication that Tea Party priorities are with the private prison industry. Tea Party Republicans knew that sweeping this fund was going to result in lawsuits and they did it anyway.

As soon as the fund sweep became public, there were reports that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office sent Republican leadership a memo citing legal objections to the sweep.

Republicans have refused to share this memo. A group of Arizona residents affected by the mortgage crisis is suing to stop the fund sweep and requested a copy of the memo as part of the legal proceedings. The Republicans refused, claiming that it was privileged information. A judge subsequently ruled that the memo was not privileged but stopped short of ordering them to turn over the document.

The very fact that Republicans were working so hard to keep that memo from seeing the light of day is another indication of their misplaced priorities. They are playing hide-and-seek with the court while people are losing their homes.

Arizonans deserve leadership they can count on and who shares their priorities. House Democrats remain focused on creating jobs, improving education and helping communities get and stay strong.

— Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat, serves as minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives.

SB 1184: Anti-shackling bill signed into law.

Sorry to be so slow on this, folks - thought I already posted it. Congratulations to all who worked so hard on this - and thank you! 

As for you, Sheriff Joe - go shackle yourself....

------------from the ACLU-AZ--------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 21, 2012



CONTACT:
Alessandra Soler Meetze, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6006 (office) or 602-418-5499 (cell)

PHOENIX – In a historic win for women and mothers in Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer today signed a bill banning the practice of restraining pregnant inmates in shackles. The bill – which generated support from across the ideological spectrum – prevents jail officials from using leg or waist restraints during transportation, labor, delivery and postpartum recovery. With the passage of SB 1184, Arizona now joins 14 other states in banning this inhumane and unconstitutional practice.

"The end of this dangerous and widespread practice is long overdue," said ACLU of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham, who worked with the bill’s sponsor, Senator Linda Gray (Republican- District 10), to garner support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. "Restraining a pregnant woman can pose undue health risks to the woman and her child, and this bill reaffirms that pregnant women in prison—and their children—do not lose their right to safe and humane treatment."

The bill was drafted based on Arizona Department of Corrections policy and protects pregnant women incarcerated in county jails throughout Arizona. An ACLU analysis of county jail policies from across the state found that because there was no state law restricting the use of restraints on pregnant inmates, each jail had adopted its own set of policies and procedures that subjected pregnant inmates in Arizona jails to belly, leg and/or hand restraints, even while giving birth. In some jurisdictions, women wear leg irons on the way to the hospital to give birth. In Maricopa County, restraints are used until the woman goes into “active labor” or is administered an epidural.

“For far too long, shackling a pregnant inmate was a common practice that was not only dangerous to women and children, but made no sense considering most women inmates are nonviolent offenders who pose low security risks,” added Anjali. “Our legislators were rightly concerned about this practice. Not one Arizona legislator voted against this bill.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Correctional Association, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association all condemn the practice of shackling pregnant women. In addition, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that the practice was considered cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
SB 1184, which does permit corrections officials to use the least restrictive restraints necessary for individuals perceived as a security risk, passed unanimously in both the House and Senate.

To read a copy of the bill, visit: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/sb1184s.pdf.

Both sane and humane: Cecil Ash on sentencing reform.

This comes via David's Hope. Don't tell anyone, because he's a conservative Republican, but I adore this man for his political courage - look at the limbs he walks out on for the unpopular cause of justice in this state.

--------------------

From: Cecil Ash CAsh@azleg.gov

Subject: Sentencing Bills Legislative Newsletter from Cecil Ash - 2/11/11
Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 5:22 PM

As we enter into the 6th week of this 50th Legislature, first regular session, there have been almost 1500 bills filed by the representatives and senators. This is an appropriate time to communicate to you what I have been working on.

As you know, last year I was appointed chair of the House Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform, and I had numerous meetings with prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, and advocates for victims and inmates. As a result of these meetings, I planned to introduce some bills this session based on the recommendations of the stakeholders workgroup that was formed from that committee.

One of the things I learned is that prison is not only the most expensive option at reducing crime and lowering recidivism for low-level nonviolent offenders, but it is also the least effective option. In the research material brought to the interim committee, I discovered that the State of Washington has approximately the same population as Arizona , yet Washington has only 18,000 inmates while Arizona has over 40,000. Since Arizona spends about $22,800/yr per inmate ($949 million/yr), that raised the question for me: Are we wasting taxpayer money by incarcerating so many more people than Washington does? This question led me to try to ascertain why there is such a significant difference between two Western states with similar populations, and then, to look at our sentencing policies in Arizona .

I have seen cases where “required” sentencing statutes, while well-intentioned, have sometimes been too severe, and caused more of an injustice than justice. Many judges agree with me. I have come to believe we are incarcerating too many nondangerous people in our prisons who would do better on probation or home arrest than in prison. Many other states have already found this out. I invite you to look at some of the research supporting this on my website.

http://www.cecilash.com/Issues.html#Research/studies

Accordingly, I have introduced several pieces of legislation, including the following:

• HCR2025 A bill to grant authority to the Board of Executive Clemency to authorize pardons and clemencies. This would remove the final decision-making process from the political arena where political considerations may compete with the just merits of the case.
• HB2374 A bill to give discretion back to judges who have actually heard the facts of a case, and can impose a sentence which is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, rather than arbitrary sentence terms imposed by the legislature.
• HB2648 A bill to allow inmates the incentive to earn early release credits for good behavior, for participation in education and treatment programs - all of which are a good indication of how they will perform when released. Currently, inmates must serve 85% of the imposed sentence. This bill would allow eligible individuals to serve 66% of their imposed sentence with the remaining 34% served under community supervision. Evidence from other states shows that this practice has a very high potential for a successful reentry.
• HB2664 A bill to establish a sentencing commission which can review the performance outcomes of various programs, study the statistical successes of local and national incarceration alternatives, and make non-binding recommendations to the legislature on how to get the best reentry outcomes for taxpayer dollars invested in the corrections system.
• HB2380 A bill to release elderly and infirm inmates to consenting family members on medical end-of-life issues that render the inmates incapable of aggression. This reduces the medical expense to the Department of Corrections, and allows the family to attend the final days/months of the inmate’s life.
• HB2378 A bill to equalize the playing field for those who were convicted before the statutes changed in 1973. This would allow anyone convicted of murder before 1973 to apply for parole on the same eligibility basis as those who have been convicted of murder since then. This would appliy to only 28 inmates, all of whom have served 35 years or more; but it does level the playing field for parole eligibility and would reduce the future medical expenses of the state.
  You can see more on these bills, and link to their respective webpages from http://www.cecilash.com/Bill_Watch.html

None of the foregoing bills will be considered unless they are first heard by the judiciary committee to which most of them have been assigned. http://bit.ly/eOppZt Committee chairs in the legislature have the discretion to hear or hold a bill. If the chair holds the bill it cannnot be heard and cannot move forward. Right now, none of these bills have been heard. The deadline for hearing bills in the House is next Friday, February 18, 2011.

I encourage those of you who have an interest seeing any of these bills move forward, to write your representatives, your senator, and any committee chair who may be holding bills, to express why you support the bill.

Your support of these matters is appreciated. Your questions or comments on any of these bills is also welcome.

Sincerely ,

Cecil Ash ,

Chair

Health & Human Services

AZ Legislative District 18

602-926-3160

cash@azleg.gov

Rewrite the laws of the land: Contact legislators on key bills.

This comes from some of our friends at David's Hope and the AZ Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

--------------------------------

Urgent Action Alert!!!


Speaker and President: Tell your Judiciary Chairs to do their jobs.


The Judiciary Committee hears most bills having to do with criminal justice issues. Committee chairs have the power to decide which bills will get a hearing in their committees and which ones won’t. Senator Gould, Chair of Senate Judiciary, has stated publicly that he refuses to allow any bills on sentencing reform or private prison oversight to be heard in his committee. The Chair of Judiciary in the House has also not scheduled these bills for hearings.


THIS FRIDAY, February 18, is the deadline for bills to have a hearing in their first committee. Any bills that haven’t been heard by the 18th are effectively dead. PLEASE CALL OR EMAIL TODAY!


The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House are effectively the committee chairs’ bosses. They have an obligation to keep their committee chairs in line. They needs to tell Sen. Gould and Rep. Farnsworth to do their jobs and give these bills a fair hearing.


Why these bills deserve a hearing:


1. Private prisons in Arizona need oversight

If the escapes from Kingman weren’t enough to prove this, there is a host of research data that shows that private prisons are less safe for staff, inmates, and surrounding communities.

Unlike our current public Department of Corrections, these corporations, as for-profit, private entities, have almost no accountability to the public. They are exempted from public scrutiny under Arizona's Open Records Act. Arizona for-profits are not even required to reveal what types of prisoners they may be importing or alert local law enforcement during escapes or riots.

Rep. Campbell and Sen. Lopez have each introduced several bills to place oversight and reporting requirements on private prisons in Arizona.


2. Millions of tax dollars are at stake in our criminal justice policies

The Arizona Auditor General reports that Arizona is set to add 6,500 private beds at an estimated cost of $640 million through 2017. This year, our corrections budget is over $1 billion, consuming 11% of the state general fund.

In the midst of a crippling budget crisis, as devastating cuts are continuing in the areas of health care and K-12 education, Arizona is poised to award more multi-million dollar contracts to these corporations with absolutely no guarantee that they save money or are safe for our communities.

3. Sentencing reform saves millions, improves public safety

Other states, which formerly had sentencing laws similar to those now in effect in Arizona, enacted sentencing reforms between 1999 and 2010. States saw reductions in prison populations while violent and other crime rates fell significantly. Annual savings in these states are estimated at as much as $80 million annually.

Rep. Ash has introduced several bills that would reduce prison populations and save millions of taxpayer dollars.

What YOU can do….

Contact Senator Pearce and Rep. Adams and ask them to tell their Judiciary Chairmen to give sentencing reform and private prison oversight bills a fair hearing.


Arizona Speaker of the House Kirk Adams

602.926.5495 ph, kadams@azleg.gov



Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce

602.926.5760ph, rpearce@azleg.gov



Be sure to cc the Judiciary Chairmen on your message:

Senator Ron Gould

602.926.4138, rgould@azleg.gov



Representative Eddie Farnsworth

602.926.5735, efarnsworth@azleg.gov



If you can blind copy us, we will have a better idea how effective this initiative is. If you receive responses, even boiler plate ones, please share those with us, if possible.



Thanks for all your continuing assistance. Together we can make a difference!

Look who stands to profit from our taxes...

Campaign spending lopsided on Ariz. sales tax hike

The Associated Press May 7, 2010, 5:23PM

By PAUL DAVENPORT

PHOENIX

One side has big donations paying for television commercials and glossy mailers sent to voters' homes. The other is a shoestring effort based on e-mail chains and homemade signs.

It's a picture of stark contrasts when it comes to campaigning for or against Proposition 100, the temporary sales tax increase on Arizona's May 18 special election ballot.

If voters approve the measure, the state sales tax would rise to 6.6 cents on the dollar from the current 5.6 cents to raise a projected $1 billion annually. The increase would begin June 1 and would last three years.

The Legislature narrowly sent the issue to the ballot in February. That was 11 months after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer first proposed a sales take hike to help close the state's big budget deficits, along with spending cuts, federal stimulus dollars and borrowing.

But it didn't take long for Proposition 100 supporters to begin writing checks in the tens of thousands of dollars -- or amounts even larger -- to committees backing the measure.

Those included over $81,000 from the Arizona and Phoenix chambers of commerce, $250,000 from the University of Arizona Foundation and $80,000 from the Arizona Education Association and its parent union. Other major contributors include hospital companies, a firefighters' union, manufacturers, arts backers, a private prison company, economic development groups and the Arizona School Boards Association.

Their backing has paid for television ads endorsing the ballot measure, and full-mailers plastered with testimonials from teachers, public safety officials and Brewer.

"Our state's future is tied to the success of this measure," one mailer has Brewer saying.

Through midday Friday, a week before the committees must file their comprehensive campaign-finance reports, filings for contributions of $10,000 or more in support of Proposition 100 added up to $1.5 million.

No corresponding contributions were reported for the other side, and one opponent said his side's eventual spending total might not add up to $50,000.

Tom Jenney, state director for Americans for Prosperity, which opposes the measure, said he hasn't been able to oblige radio stations' advertising reps who have said he ought to counter spending by Proposition 100 supporters.

"I have to send back a note saying, nope, I don't have any cash," Jenney said.

That leaves opponents relying mostly on speeches to groups, political networking and conveying their vote-no message through social media and homemade "No on 100" and "Stop the Spending" signs.

"It really is a grassroots campaign with no money," state Sen. Thayer Verschoor, a Gilbert Republican who is chairman of the Ax the Tax Committee. "But there's plenty of people out there that understand the pain that a sales tax increase" would inflict.

However, he admits getting a "little nervous when someone's spending a million-plus dollars to put their side out there."

On the other side, some of the donors have direct stakes in the outcome of Proposition 100 because its defeat would trigger spending cuts that would affect programs such as education, health care and public safety.

That's certainly what the University of Arizona Foundation's leadership believed when it approved the $250,000 contribution, foundation spokesman John C. Brown said.

"This was an appropriate way to support the long-term vitality of the institution," Brown said from Tucson. Otherwise, the institution "could literally be dismantled in three or four years."

And there's a lot at stake for Tucson, Brown added, "We really are a college town still. We don't have a lot of diversity in industry."

The foundation is a nonprofit corporation that acts as the university's fundraising arm, and the contribution wasn't from public money, Brown said.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry decided to support Proposition 100 as part of a plan that also included lobbying Brewer and lawmakers during the recently ended legislative session for long-term business tax cuts to grow the state's economy and create jobs, Hamer said.

"We had felt that the sales tax could stand as a bridge to a time when there's a more robust economic activity," said Hamer. "I personally felt confident that a jobs bill would pass and be signed by the governor before the end of session. Unfortunately that didn't occur."

Campaign-finance filings listed a $50,000 contribution from the state chamber but Hamer said its donations would top $100,000.

Racist, Fascist SB 1070 "Illegal is not a race..."

If that's true, I must be lost. I thought this was Arizona.

Here's the latest Pearce Alert on his racist, fascist legislation, SB 1070...Be there or otherwise lift your voice by Tuesday, April 13 to register your resistance to this repulsive effort to trump local sovereignty and communities trying to prioritize their law enforcement resources without Pearce's interference...this thing has implications for all of us - citizens, too.

Pearce et al are not representing a LOT of us in Arizona these days...we are not all fascists and racists.

-------------------------------------from www.russellpearce.com -----------------------
.

Hello ,

SB1070 Will be heard in the Arizona House of Representatives Tuesday afternoon, April 13th.

This is the best and most comprehensive immigration enforcement bill in the nation.  I would appreciate it if you would send this to your list. This is an important bill. I need calls and e-mails. I have a firm commitment from the Speaker to have the bill 3rd read next Tuesday.  I need to make sure our Republicans stay firm for the rule of law.    Illegal is not a race, it is a crime.   

 

Next Tuesday, I also will be holding a Press Conference at noon and an all afternoon hearing on border violence along with Ranchers and Farmers from the border and the cost of our open border to citizens. 

 

Please email support to the House of Representative for SB 1070; it should be up for 3^rd and final reading next Tuesday.

http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070

SB 1070       immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods

 Sponsors 

**PEARCE R	P	GRAY C	P	GRAY L	P	ANTENORI	P	BARNES	P
GOWAN	P	HENDRIX	P	KAVANAGH	P	SEEL	P	ALLEN S	C
BURNS	C	GORMAN	C	HARPER	C	HUPPENTHAL	C	LEFF	C
MELVIN	C	NELSON	C	PIERCE S	C	TIBSHRAENY	C	VERSCHOOR	C
WARING	C	ASH	C	BIGGS	C	BURGES	C	COURT	C
CRUMP	C	LESKO	C	MASON	C	MCLAIN	C	MONTENEGRO	C
MURPHY	C	NICHOLS	C	REAGAN	C	STEVENS	C	WEIERS J	C
WEIERS JP	C	YARBROUGH	C

Purpose: Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.

Enforcement of Immigration Law

·          Prohibits officials and agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

·          Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a legitimate contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person.

·          Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.

·          Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

·          Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

Ø        A valid Arizona driver license.

Ø        A valid Arizona non-operating identification license.

Ø        A tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Ø        A valid federal, state or local government issued identification.

·          Requires that if a person is convicted of any state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or any fine imposed, the person must be transferred to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

·          Authorizes a law enforcement agency to securely transport an unlawfully present alien to a federal facility.

·          Prohibits, except as provided in federal law, officials and agencies of counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, of any individual or exchanging that information with another governmental entity for the following official purposes:

Ø        Determination of eligibility for any public benefit, service or license. 

Ø        Verification of any claim of legal domicile if legal domicile is required by law or judicial order.

Ø        If the person is an alien, determination of the person’s compliance with federal registration laws.

Ø        Pursuant to federal laws regarding communication between government agencies and federal immigration agencies.

·          Allows a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge officials and agencies of the state, counties, cities, towns or other political subdivisions that adopt or implement a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

·          Allows the court to order any of the following, if there is a judicial finding of a violation:

Ø        That the person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees.

Ø        That the entity pays a civil penalty of at least $1,000 and not to exceed $5,000 for each day that the policy has remained in effect after it has been found to be violating these provisions. 

·          States that the court will collect the penalty and transmit the collected monies to the Department of Public Safety for deposit in the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) Fund.

·          Indemnifies officers against actions brought under these provisions, except if the officer has been adjudged to have acted in bad faith.

·          Stipulates that these provisions are to be implemented consistent with federal immigration law protecting the civil right of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of US citizens.