The Llano Ledger
Newsletter Text V12
This Website Is Full. Starting With The December 25, 2000 Newsletter,
All Future Editions Will Be Posted In The Llano Ledger 2, Found By
Clicking http://maxpages.com/llanoledger2.
*******************October 4, 1999****************
The snail-mail request to the Sheriff seeking access to the booking
records, (posted in last week's edition), finally produced its intended
effect. Investigator Jay Bauman and Sheriff Nathan Garrett, letter in
hand, paid a visit at the Main Branch of _The Llano Library to discuss
the issue last Monday afternoon.
Interestingly, Mr. Bauman assured me he had not checked his e-mail
for two weeks. (Readers will remember I had twice e-mailed the request
on Sept. 16 & 22.) His explanation was credible. ... Six months
ago, I wouldn't have believed it. Having closely observed the
bureaucracy all these months, nothing surprises me any longer, and
nearly anything is plausible.
The Investigator further remarked they're busy. He's right. They
are. ... Not too busy, however, for both men to arrive at the library.
The pow wow, however, resulted in the scheduling, finally, of an
appointment to view the booking records, Thursday, Sept. 30 at 9:00AM.
I was granted two hours, and will return to continue the examination.
The task will require a considerable amount of time since I intend to
do a thorough and meticulous job. The Chief Jailer was accommodating
and helpful. The examination is painstaking due to problems of
legibility, abbreviations, agency affiliation of officers not listed,
etc.. I do have to admit, however, the penmanship in the records is far
better than my own.
While the booking records alone will not provide sufficient data to
develop all statistics I had requested from the Sheriff, I should be
able to determine whether or not the "overcrowding" problem is indeed
real or manufactured. If not satisfied, however, I wouldn't hesitate to
seek additional public records from the four JP courts, as well as the
County and District Courts. Since bail amounts are not available in the
booking records, I may indeed have no choice.
Since I've only examined the data for the month of January, it is too
early to develop any firm conclusions. One thing that particularly
struck me, however, was the sheer number of prisoners moving through
the jail. Most of them stay only a day or two. The Sheriff agreed with
this observation. Many of the charges are relatively petty, such as
Driving With Suspended License (DWSL). Most such offenders are
incarcerated overnight and released.
I asked Nathan if there wasn't a better way of handling this type of
offense. He correctly pointed out if the driver is not jailed, he may
wind up driving the vehicle home. (If another driver is not immediately
available.) Should this happen, the Department could be held liable for
any accident or other mishap. This is certainly a problem and valid
concern. Why can't the system be changed to allow costly towing and
impoundment of the driver's vehicle in such cases? ... Shift the
financial burden to the offender rather than the taxpayers.
While the Sheriff's Department has no direct control over the setting
of bond, I came across one child abuser who was released on a personal
recognizance bond by a magistrate. While I don't have any further
knowledge at this time of the circumstances, this is certainly of
concern.
While all this is preliminary, there will be much more to come in
future editions as I continue the examination and development of the
statistics. The Sheriff also finally granted access to the Kerrville
billing sheets. As I pointed out to Nathan, my concern was with the
average jail population figure provided (16), and the "headroom"
between that figure and the maximum of 19 allowed by the Jail Standards
Commission. In other words, why wasn't he running the jail closer to
the maximum allowed to save the expense of transferring prisoners to
Kerrville?
Like everything in life, the answer is not simple or easy. First of
all, the Jail Standards Commission recommends a jail occupancy figure
of no more than 15. While the population may exceed the maximum allowed
(19) briefly, if it is extended or occurs at the wrong time or under
the wrong circumstances, pressure is brought to bear at the time of
review.
In addition, there are prisoner separation requirements imposed,
sometimes necessitating a prisoner transfer to Kerrville. For example,
prisoners charged with felonies have to be separated from those with
misdemeanors. Convicted felons must be separated from prisoners only
charged with felonies. Some misdemeanor prisoners must be separated
from one another depending upon the nature of the charge.
Female prisoners must be separated by sight and sound from male
prisoners. The Sheriff has clearly indicated there is quite a bit of
juggling required. His assertion is credible. He has also stated the
faulty electric gate, resulting in the recent escape, has been
permanently repaired.
The following is a table of monthly Kerrville billing figures compiled
from the billing sheets provided by the Sheriff. The average stay/month
was calculated by dividing the number of "prisoner days" provided on
the billing sheets by the number of prisoners for a given month.
************************Fig. 1.***********************
Month #Prisoners #Prisoner Days Avg.Stay(D) Mo.Tot.Cost
Jan*******9*************130********14.4*******$4,550.00
Feb*******7*************122********17.4*******$4,270.00
Mar*******8*************120********15.0*******$4,200.00
Apr******18*************316********17.6*******$11,060.00
May******9**************166********18.4*******$5,810.00
Jun*******2***************32********16.0*******$1,120.00
Jul********3***************71********23.7*******$2,485.00
Aug*******1***************31********31.0*******$1,085.00
Cost/Prisoner Day = $35.00
Total Cost (Jan-Aug) = $34,580.00
Avg. of Avg.Stay = 19.2 days
Cost of Medication = $99.15
The Avg. of Avg.Stay statistic is skewed by the relatively small
number of prisoners transferred from June to July. From the monthly
Avg.Stay figures, however, it is clear the Sheriff is wisely attempting
to transfer only prisoners expected to be incarcerated a considerable
amount of time. After all, it is not in his best interest to run a
"taxi service" to Kerrville. In addition to transportation expenses,
each trip requires at least one and sometimes two officers. As all
might reasonably agree, our officers are better utilized patrolling our
community than transporting prisoners.
Several attorneys have privately complained of being denied
reasonable access to their clients incarcerated in Kerrville. This is a
valid concern and a possible lawsuit generator in the future. While I
certainly would like to see the Sheriff maintain a higher jail
occupancy average rather than transfer inmates to Kerrville, his
explanation regarding prisoner separation requirements is indeed
credible and reasonable.
Again, there are no easy answers. While it is too early to
determine if there's been any deliberate overloading of the jail by NET
or others, there are a substantial number of prisoners being briefly
held on relatively minor charges. In fairness to the Sheriff, this is
very preliminary and an incomplete impression based only on the
"eye-balling" of January's raw data. Interestingly, Kerrville transfers
dropped significantly from June to August. It will be equally
interesting to see if the trend continues. As the examination of the
booking records proceeds, I'll have more to say about the Kerrville
billing records and how they relate to jail operations. There is much
more to come.
Intellectual honesty demands I disclose to readers the personal
bias I bring to this issue. I strongly believe our jails and prisons
should be reserved for our worst offenders, -- particularly violent
ones. I also believe habitual criminals need to be incarcerated for
lengthy terms. I equally believe relatively minor crimes are far better
handled by shifting the financial burden to the offender, rather than
the taxpayers.
Stiff fines and new laws requiring garnishee of salary and wages, etc.
are a far better way to go than incarceration in most minor cases.
Lengthy community service is also an excellent means of handling petty
offenses. I think we need to look at far more creative methods of
handling the criminal element, -- while protecting the financial
interests of taxpayers as well as the safety of all citizens.
Readers should also understand some prisoners choose to "lay out" a
fine. Rather than pay, they prefer to sit in jail. Each day of
incarceration counts as a $100 credit to the fine. Many offenders don't
earn $100 daily in their low-paying jobs. Upon release from jail, they
return to work, or easily find other minimum wage employment. Sadly
(and with no joke intended), many offenders live better in our jail
than at home.
Clearly, "laying out" a fine allows the offender to essentially
circumvent punishment while literally eating at the expense of
taxpayers. There is no quick and easy solution to this problem. We do,
however, need to develop a strong garnishee system to combat this. Of
course, this would require legislative action. ... Good luck, right?
While the Sheriff and the jailers have tightened security regarding
female inmates, there are problems remaining. Only one cell is
routinely used for females. The cell has two beds. Nathan asserts four
have been housed at a time. A former female inmate has informed me
there were six at one point. As previously mentioned, male and female
prisoners are to remain separated by sight and sound. Yet, the female
cell is directly opposite the kitchen where male trustys routinely
prepare meals. Worse yet, these trustys deliver meals to the women
through a food tray slot door called a "bean hole".
Making matters worse, female jailers are not always on duty while
female prisoners are housed. This is of considerable concern to several
former female inmates I have spoken to. Although the lock has been
repaired and security improved, the women are still quite concerned, --
rightfully so. Although I'm no jail expert, the continuing use of
trustys is troubling and another lawsuit waiting to happen, ... or
worse. While supervision is clearly better, is it good enough? The
women certainly don't think so.
Judge Sam Sparks, in an order issued during the first jail-rape
civil trial, related a humorous story illustrative of a problem yet to
be solved. A female jailer, who was not a defendant in the lawsuit, had
caught a trusty trying to talk to his "girlfriend" at the door of the
female cell. The matron responded by giving the offending prisoner a
swift kick to the butt. The judge of course questioned the
effectiveness of the "discipline" and its "questionable deterrent
quality".
While he's absolutely right, there is indeed some comic relief in
the picture painted here. Clearly, it must have been a classical "Kodak
moment", no? Can you imagine the trusty bent over, apparently intently
peering through the "bean hole", when ... BAM!!! -- A female jailer
delivers a swift kick to home plate, literal grand seat of all
knowledge and secure repository of a vast and overwhelming brain trust,
no? ... Think his IQ improved any? Can you just hear him later whining
to other inmates: "I can't believe she kicked me in the a--!!! ... I
didn't do 'nuttin'." -- Don't you love it?
All joking aside, this is going to be an ongoing behavioral problem
and possible lawsuit generator as long as trustys continue to be used.
In fairness to the Sheriff, he is not free to do as he pleases. He has
to answer to County Commissioners, the Jail Standards Commission, the
judicial system, and other bureaucratic agencies. With so many involved
in the operation of the facility and numerous factors to be considered,
the jail may indeed not be operating as effectively, efficiently,
safely, and prudently as it could or should.
There is clearly an ongoing bureaucratic problem that might lead to
further criminal activity and additional lawsuits in the future. While
a new facility would indeed alleviate some existent difficulties,
problems within the jail apparently run far deeper. Readers should
understand this is only a very early and preliminary impression. There
is far more digging to do.
After reading Ms. Wisdom's recent letter, the Sheriff changed his
mind and reneged on the jail-rapes interview. The offer stands, should
he reconsider. ... Nathan, this issue is clearly not going to
disappear, nor be swept under the rug. There are far too many
unanswered questions. This scandal has been carefully and painstakingly
looked into over the last six months, -- and will continue to be.
Sadly, I haven't even scratched the surface yet. Having viewed a
number of court documents, there are indeed some serious questions as
to whether or not these women received fair treatment at the two civil
trials. Worse yet, District Attorney Sam Oatman apparently
pre-emptively denied these women justice in the criminal system by his
failure to fully prosecute the trusty. This issue is not going to die,
and there will be much more to be presented during coming months in
this publication. Sadly, there is a crying need for an independent
criminal investigation of our illustrious prosecutors and their cronies
for this, as well as other questionable activities.
Indeed, sunlight is the only effective remedy and sadly the only
apparent way to prevent this terrible injustice from repeating itself
in the future. Sooner or later, enough public pressure will be brought
to bear compelling the Sheriff to open up and address the issue either
here, or in another media outlet.
In an update to a story originally reported August 9, the Llano
Memorial Healthcare System (LMHS) Board has made a final decision to
build a new healthcare facility in the Marble Falls area. The structure
will cost $9 million, and there will be an additional $3.5 million in
equipment.
I have informally requested a copy of the independent study
conducted, leading to the decision. If LMHS Administrator Ernie Parisi
fails to comply, a formal request will be made under the Texas Open
Records Act. Indeed, the entire issue will be carefully looked into by
this publication. After all, LMHS is a quasi-governmental agency. If
the project fails, the taxpayers could be left holding the bag. ...
More to come.
Finally, the Sheriff's Department is looking for the "Good Samaritan"
in the Kingsland area who rendered aid to a 60 year-old sexual assault
victim September 19. The victim had been picked up earlier that morning
and taken to the Circle K Store by this individual. If you are (or
know) this person, be sure to call Investigator Jay Bauman at
800-832-9271 or 915-247-5767.
P.S.: Sorry about the table (Fig. 1 ) not being clearer. I had
considerable problems with the software and need to learn how to use it
properly.
Tim Chorney, Publisher
Tim Chorney, Publisher
P.O. Box 997
Buchanan Dam Tx. 78609
llanoledger@mailcity.com
Page Updated Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:36pm EDT