Blogging Blue

$36.3 million dollars.

That’s the amount the state Department of Corrections
paid out in overtime costs between mid-2005 and mid-2006, a jump of 27 percent. Rising numbers of inmates in the state prison system, coupled with staff shortages in state institutions, are largely to blame for the overtime costs, and since the situation came to light, lawmakers have approved hiring 50 officers, a move expected to cut overtime costs to $26.3 million this fiscal year. Already some state lawmakers have begun raising questions about the overtime costs, with Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) stating, “The answers they gave us didn’t seem to quite add up,” he said. “We feel there’s something else going on, but we haven’t been able to pinpoint it. It seems there’s something not quite right. Perhaps they need an audit.”

Rep. Suder can call for an audit until he’s blue in the face, but ultimately these overtime costs are the direct result of a concerted effort on the part of the Department of Corrections not to fill vacant positions in order to eliminate enough positions to satisfy the Governor’s annual request that state agencies tighten their collective belts. Sure, the DOC tries hard to cut administrative positions, but they’re not above eliminating vacant corrections office and probation and parole agent positions, which gives us the situation the DOC’s currently in. What folks don’t seem to realize is that cutting positions - and thus creating a situation where massive amounts of overtime are needed - only leads to huge overtime bills. If vacant positions were filled, there’s no doubt in my mind costs would certainly decrease, so what’s needed isn’t an audit, but rather an increased effort to fill all vacant positions so that overtime costs can be kept to a minimum.

2 Comments »

As I was surfing the ‘net reading what’s making news across Wisconsin, I happened upon this article about two probation & parole agents with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections who have been charged with possession of cocaine and obstructing an officer. Now even though both charges are misdemeanors, these are still serious charges, and it’s interesting to note that the only evidence authorities have of the alleged cocaine possession is the testimony of an offender currently in prison after his supervision was revoked. The offender made the allegations against the agents after he was taken into custody and the Department began revocation proceedings against him. Now I know I’m biased, given what I do for a living, but I think it’s really disconcerting that Madison Police detectives seem to have taken the word of a convicted felon as the Gospel truth. I think it’s also worth noting how police and the Dane County District Attorney’s office has handled the investigation:

During their police interrogation, the agents were told they could resign their jobs and the charges would go away. When they refused, the detective and Dane County Asst. DA Brian Asmus went forward in an effort to pressure the agents and their employer, the Dept. of Corrections. The employer had serious doubts about the evidence right from the beginning and left Paul and Bobbi on the job for another 22 days. They were placed onto Administrative Leave May 3, 2007.

Following a lengthy investigation, DOC cleared Paul and Bobbi of the cocaine allegations and returned them to the job on August 6, 2007. Both were reprimanded for not requesting after-the-fact fraternization waivers for having been at a gathering where the offender was present.

Now obviously I don’t know the truth, and I hope these agents really weren’t engaging in the kind of behavior they’re charged with, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to start charging agents with crimes solely based on the testimony of offenders.

No Comments »

So I came across an interesting article in the MJS about Michael Monyelle, a convicted sex offender who recently told his parole he was having deviant thoughts about children, including his sister’s young children. In addition to having consensual sexual contact with two underage girls when he was 19 and 20, Mr. Monyelle also had sexual contact with a 9-year-old boy when he was 16. Because of his past history of sex offenses, as well as his admissions of deviant thoughts, Mr. Monyelle is now facing an indefinite commitment to inpatient treatment as a “sexually violent person” under Wisconsin’s Chapter 980 laws.

I’ve come across some folks in the blogosphere who are concerned about the dangerous precedent being set by locking someone up indefinitely for their thoughts - not their actions. While I agree that it’s a slippery slope when you’re talking about locking someone up for their thoughts, the thing to remember here is that in addition to what Mr. Monyelle was convicted of, he’s admitted to having recent deviant thoughts about young children. Now granted, he hasn’t acted on those thoughts, which is obviously a good thing, but if he’s having those thoughts it’s probably just a matter of time before the opportunity presents itself for him to act on those thoughts. The important thing to remember here is that the common belief is that once a pedophile, always a pedophile. In fact, sex offender treatment isn’t so much about “curing” sex offenders as it’s about risk abatement. Sex offender treatment is all about helping teach sex offenders to recognize their triggers and urges, as well as teaching them coping mechanisms to deal with those urges.

Another important thing to remember is that if a guy like Mr. Monyelle is telling his parole agent he’s having deviant thoughts, that agent is obligated to act on that self-report. The primary duty of probation and parole agents is to protect the community from the folks they supervise, and failure to act on something like Mr. Monyelle’s admission would be a failure on the part of that agent to do his or her job.

No Comments »