Review of Corrections Department not part of normal process

The Legislative Audit Council (LAC) has often been a tool for better government. But the LAC's current review at the S.C. Department of Corrections is not the result of the normal deliberative process envisioned by state law. The decision to seek this audit was made after a unique and highly politicized process imploded.

Provided

Jon Ozmint

The subject matter is taken from an August 2007 "Initial Report" containing allegations that were made anonymously and without any oath or corroboration. Almost immediately, the report was leaked to the media. Hastily, the entire mess was dumped onto the State Law Enforcement Division and the LAC.

After multiple preliminary inquiries by SLED, not a single allegation had sufficient merit to even warrant a criminal investigation. There was no "abuse of inmates," no "falsification of records," no "withholding of food," no "state-funded hunting trips," no "boat houses," etc.

We believe that if its past work is any indication, the LAC is capable of rising above these suspect foundations.

During the current audit, we have provided hundreds of hours of assistance and thousands of documents and compilations. There have been only three areas of disagreement.

First, we believe that the LAC should have enlisted assistance from correctional experts from outside South Carolina. Policies and procedures governing weapons, crisis management, hostage negotiations, escapes, key control and security procedures are highly specialized and unique to the correctional setting. These go well beyond the expertise of the LAC. Likewise, any review of these and other issues such as correctional spending and costs should include meaningful comparisons to other states.

From the outset, we asked the LAC to seek the assistance of organizations such as the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), the Bureau of Justice Assistance or the American Correctional Association. The LAC refused. Outside observers are now echoing our suggestion.

Accordingly, we have now requested an outside review by independent experts from the NIC.

Second, we have voiced concern about the tone and scope of some inquiries. Normally, the LAC conducts its audits in accordance with legislative directives and limits. In this instance, the audit request contains no designation of subject matter. This leaves Senate staff and the LAC to speculate as to the intentions of the seven senators who signed the request.

However, in every instance, we have provided complete access and all information.

Third, we disagreed with the language of a proposed survey of SCDC employees. Here's why.

We are not the Marine Corps, but we are not a university, either. In the often dangerous world of prisons, the chain of command matters.

More than 3,300 of our 5,800 employees are uniformed officers. We lock them inside at their posts with our state's most dangerous criminals; we give them five weeks of training, a canister of gas and the faith that their leaders will come for them if something goes wrong. They work without stab-proof vests, without body alarms and without many other security tools available to their peers in other states.

Our covenant with our employees is this: "If you rely on your training, follow policy and follow orders, you can work here safely and have a successful career." That training, those policies and those orders come from their chain of command.

During 23 years of military service, I have seen good command climate surveys. This was neither good nor fair. The proposed survey jeopardized the balance that exists in any quasi-military or military organization: the balance between personal freedoms, speech, and personal rights on one side ... and mission accomplishment, respect for the chain of command, and safety on the other.

After our objections were ignored by the LAC, I sent an e-mail to many of our employees outlining our concerns about the survey.

You can judge for yourself by reading the survey and our objections under the news link at our Web site: www.doc.sc.gov.

We are among the most efficient prison systems in the nation. By every measure, we rank at or near the bottom in correctional spending. Yet our escape rates, assault rates, suicide rates and our recidivism rates rank among the best in the nation. And, our performance has improved over the past six years.

But we are not perfect. We continue to cooperate and we are hopeful that helpful suggestions will come from these reviews.

Jon Ozmint is director of the S.C. Department of Corrections.