This Web-Based Campaign
While we were pleased with the progress we saw after 2000, many problems remain. This web-based effort has been launched in an effort to address many of those problems.

This effort is being financed by:

• Campaign Paticipants
• Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE)
  
• The Dominican Sisters of St. Catharine, Kentucky

It is obvious that much of the legislation has never been enacted into law.  While that may seem discouraging, we have noticed that often the introduction of legislation has been followed by administrative improvements.  We suspect that simply shedding light on the problems has led to these positive changes.

The amount of activity has been encouraging, since the issue was not widely discussed prior to the launch of our campaign.  Nevertheless, the problems are unsolved.  Much work remains.  We are determined to continue our efforts until we achieve the reasonable rates we all deserve.

ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES

AR:      On February 17, 2007, the Department of Corrections implemented a new contract that reduced commissions by 10% (from 55% to 45%) and reduced the cost of a 15-minute phone call by nearly $2.  This change was the result of strong advocacy work on the part of Arkansas-CURE and others, as well as threatened legislation to eliminate commissions altogether.

CA:      In February, 2002, the state signed a contract that will reduce the rates of most prisoner phone calls by 25 percent, and will also trim the annual commission paid the state.  The contracts with MCI and Verizon were renewed without competitive bidding.

CO:      Colorado allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls.  Debit calls are provided through a debit account system.

            On January 3, 2001, DOC administrators reported to the Legislative Joint Budget Committee that they were working on a 5-year contract that would reduce phone system commissions from 33.3% to 27-28%.
           
In September, 2001, the DOC announced that it would be lengthening phone calls to 20 minutes, and allowing prisoners to place 15 approved numbers on their call lists.
           
In January, 2002, the Public Utilities Commission ruled that the maximum surcharge for prisoner calls is $1.85.  The surcharge had been as high as $3.00 for some interLATA calls.

CT:      The prison system announced plans to operate a pilot program to test debit calling.

DC:      In a letter dated July 15, 2003, Odie Washington, Director of the DC Department of Corrections, indicated that negotiations were underway for a new jail telephone system.  The new system would allow debit calls and collect calls, more telephones, and a system to prevent recording attorney-client calls.  Due to a conflict between the jail and the phone company, the new phone system was not being used as of May 10, 2004.

GA:      On February 19, 2001, the Georgia Public Service Commission ordered telephone providers to reduce the rates for prisoner calls from $3.95 connection fee and $.69 per minute to $2.20 connection fee and $.35 per minute.

IA:       On January 18, 2001, Board of Corrections Director announced that prepaid debit cards would be made available to prisoners.  The system:  1) allows only pre-paid debit cards – no collect calls.  2) allows no calls to toll-free numbers are allowed.  3) uses a separate account.  Friends and family members can send money to that account, and the account is not subject to deductions for restitution and pay for stay.  Unlike all other prison phone debit systems, debit calls cost more than the collect calls did.

ID:      The phone system allows both debit and collect calling.

IN:      In October, 2001, a new contract for state prison phones resulted in lower rates. Under the T-NETIX contract, rates dropped from $3.95 + 69¢ per minute (under old AT&T contract) to $1.50 + 25¢ per minute.  The new contract does not impact local calls.  In October, 2001, state commissions dropped from approximately $11 million annually to approximately $5 million
           
KS:      On December 16, 2002, the Kansas Department of Corrections entered into a 3-year contract with T-NETIX to provide prison telephone services.  The contract replaced contracts with AT&T (for long distance calls) and Southwestern Bell (for local calls).  Under the previous contracts, the state received commissions of 46% (AT&T) and 36% (Southwestern Bell) for a total of $2.8 million per year. 

Under the new T-NETIX contract, the State will receive 48.25% and a guaranteed minimum of $2.75 million.  The T-NETIX contract offers a prepay (NOT debit) option with modest reductions in cost to consumers.

KY:     In July, 1999, the Kentucky Public Service Commission ruled that by November, 1999, phone companies doing business with the Department of Corrections must roll back surcharges to $1.50 while freezing actual long distance charges at current rates.

LA:            Louisiana entered into a 5-year contract with MCI in February, 2002.  The State receives a commission of 55%. The State’s revenues in 2003 were $4.1 million.  In 2003 under the contract, the average cost of a local 15-minute call was $0.98; the average cost of a 15-minute intra-state call was $4.14.

MD:     On January 15, 2004, the Maryland prison system began operating under a new contract with T-NETIX.  That contract replaced contracts with Verizon and AT&T and provided for reduced rates and debit calling. The State’s projected revenues are $5.5 annually.

ME:     The Wiscasset Newspaper reported on January 25, 2007 that the DOC would be instituting a new phone system that would eliminate the connection fee and implement a flat rate of $0.30 per minute.  Those who wish to receive calls will be required to deposit money using a website and will be charged a fee for each deposit.  We do not have a date for that implementation.

MI:      The phone system allows both collect and debit calling.  However, Michigan is the only state in which the debit calls are billed at the same rate as the collect calls.

On December 4, 2006, the Department posted a memo indicating that debit calls could be made to cell phones.  (Collect calls to cell phones will not be allowed.)

On February 1, 2007, the Department posted a memo indicating that calls will be allowed to phones using Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).  The memo states that “VOIP is not call forwarding and is allowable.

MN:     Allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls.

MO:     In the autumn of 2006, the Department switched its service to PCS, reduced the rates for all but local calls, and introduced debit calling.  Its rates are now comparable to Nebraska’s – the lowest in the country.

NC:      In April, 2004, Patricia Deal, telecommunications manager for the state Division of Prisons, reported that she was evaluating proposals a new prison telephone system that would include debit calling.  She estimated that once the contract is approved, debit calling would be available within 7 months.

ND:     The state offers both collect and debit calling.

NE:      In February, 2003, the Nebraska Department of Corrections entered into a contract with AT&T to provide prison telephone services.  (Nebraska receives no commission on prison calls.)  The 5-year contract allows for debit calling, a 20% reduction in call rates, and the ability to place international calls. 

NM:     The state offers both collect and debit calling.

NY:     On April 1, 2007, the New York prison system became the second in the nation to eliminate commissions on prison phone calls.  Savings of approximately 50% were reflected in the phone rates.  Governor Eliot Spitzer had announced the changes on his eight day in office.

OH:     On August 21, 2000, Summit County Council members unanimously approved a contract that will reduce the fee for local collect calls from $2.50 per call to $1.80, the same rate the public is charged.  The agreement followed negotiations between the County Sheriff’s Department and the Catholic Commission.

OK:      In the summer of 2001, the Oklahoma Board of Corrections called for a pilot study of prepaid prisoner phone services to be conducted at two prisons.

            In the summer of 2003, Corrections Corporation of America closed it’s facility in Sayre over a problem involving telephone rates.  The facility had housed prisoners from Wisconsin who were being charged $3.95 to connect and $0.89 per minute to talk to family and friends at home.  The State of Wisconsin demanded lower rates.  The telephone contract was between the city of Sayre and AT&T.  Despite several attempts, the city was unable to negotiate a change with AT&T.  By the time AT&T agreed to let them out of the contract, it was too late.  Prisoners had been moved to another CCA facility that could provide phone rates of $1.25 to connect and $0.22 per minute.  Kerry Hibbs of AT&T was quoted as saying, “We find it hard to believe that they would shut down the prison over telephone rates.  We had no interest in shutting the prison down.”

OR:      The Oregon Department of Corrections now offers both debit and collect calls.

PA:      In 2002, the Pennsylvania DOC entered into a new telephone contract with Verizon that was to have lowered the average price of a fifteen-minute call by as much as thirty percent.  At the beginning of 2003, the Pennsylvania prison system introduced debit calling which offered modest rate reductions. Local call costs vary by institution. IntraLATA call costs vary by institution and, in some cases, by distance.

In the spring of 2007, the DOC began introducing a system to allow prisoners to receive email.  The cost is $0.60 per standard page.  The message is screened before being delivered.  Because of security concerns, prisoners cannot send email.

SC:      The state provides both debit and collect calls.

SD:      In 2002, the legislature appropriated enough funds to cover anticipated lost revenues so the Department of Corrections could reduce their phone revenues.  As a result, a new phone system was installed on August 1, 2002 that includes both collect and debit calling.

TN:      On April 5, 2001, Global Tel*Link reduced rates for local calls from TN prisons from $1.35 to $.85 as a result of complaints filed with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA).  Global is appealing findings of the TRA.

            In August, 2001, Global Tel*Link increased telephone rates for long distance, interstate calls.  In 2002, they initiated a proposal to the Department of Corrections to increase rates again.  DOC Commissioner Campbell rejected the proposal, “As you know, maintaining contact with family and friends in the free world is an important part of an inmate’s rehabilitation and preparation to return to the community.  Furthermore, telephone privileges are essential in managing inmate populations….  (Price increases) would hinder both of the aforementioned departmental objectives in addition to creating an undue hardship for inmate’s families.  Consequently, the Department of Corrections does not approve any increase in service rates.”

Tennessee allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls.  Debit calling reportedly results in savings of 10%.

VA:      In 2004, Virginia was receiving a 40% commission on prisoner phone calls, contributing $6-$8 million annually to the State’s general fund.  The system permits both debit and collect calls.

VT:      The system permits both debit and collect calling.

WA:     On November 17, 2006, the state switched to a new contract that substantially reduced the cost of collect calls and introduced debit calling with slightly reduced rates.  The rates for interstate and international calls were not changed and remain high.  The department indicated that they were exploring the possibility of future reductions in rates for interstate and international calls.

WV:      Advocates in West Virginia report a “HUGE DECREASE” in the cost of prisoner calls.  Local call rates are reduced from $2.25 to $1.00.  In the case of long distance calls, the surcharge has been reduced from $2.25 to $.85 and the per minute charges have been reduced from $.66 to $.05 and $.07, depending upon the distance involved.

WY:     In June 2006, Wyoming DOC announced a new contract with Inmate Calling Solutions that reduced the rate for most collect calls (all but local) and introduced debit calling.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

CA:      SB1978, (2000) would have required any contracts to provide phone service to state prison inmates and California Youth Authority wards to be negotiated to provide the lowest possible costs to wards and inmates, with a proviso that service contracts cover state expenses and provide a reasonable profit margin for the vendor.  This bill also specified that state profits must not be a basis for awarding a contract. Governor Gray Davis vetoed the bill.

CO:      Senate Bill 303 (2003) exempts the DOC from Public Utilities Commission oversight.  According to a DOC lobbyist, had the bill not become law, prisoner calls would have been subject to extra surcharges and taxes, the DOC could not have limited the numbers a prisoner could call, and they could not have monitored phone calls.   Opponents of the bill claim it gave the prison system the freedom to set rates for prison phone calls, and that that freedom could be used to raise revenue in a tight budget year.

CT:      As a result of legislation,, (House Bill No. 5672, Public Act 02-104), the Connecticut Department of Corrections will establish a trial debit system at one prison in 2002.

FL:      HB 1975, (2000) would have recognized the importance of prisoner-family contact and would have required a survey of existing federal and state prison telephone systems.  The resulting follow-up report would have been used to select a plan for prisoner phone services with a primary consideration that of reducing cost of calls and giving secondary importance to commissions.  The bill did not pass.

ID:      On January 16, 2001, a legislative committee questioned IDOC Director James Spalding about the commissions received on prisoner telephone calls ($3 million annually).  He was also asked why a calling card system could not be implemented.  (Since then, the state has implemented debit calling.)

IN:      HB 2115 (2001) would have prohibited governmental entities from profiting from prisoner phone calls.  It did not become law.
           
SB 419 (2001) would have required the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission to set fees for collect calls from prison at 50% of the fee for a regular pay phone collect call.  It did not become law.

HB 1225 (2002)  required that a request for bids for a phone system for “confined offenders” must emphasize low rates and fees.  Commissions would be limited to 33%.  County jail contracts would have to terminate on the earlier of (1) four years after the contact was entered into, or (2) five months after the general election immediately after the date the contract was entered into.  In the spring of 2002, commission on phone calls from the state’s 18 largest county jails were limited, by law, to no more than 33%.
           
SB 136 (2002) would have required that the telephone contract for a jail in a county with a population of more than or equal to 75,000 be awarded to the lowest and best proposal.  Also provided that commissions must be used to fund capital improvement projects at the correctional facility. 

LA:      SB 259 (2001) would have required any contract for prisoner phone services be awarded to the lowest bidder and would have prohibited the state or any governmental entity from profiting from such services.
           
SB 353 (2001) would have prohibited surcharges on phone services provided to prisoners.  Neither bill became law.
           
SB 183 (2004) would have required that any contract for telecommunication services provided to prisoners be awarded to the lowest bidder and prohibit the state or any governmental entity from profiting from such services.

MA:     SB 1273 introduced by Senator Charles Shannon (2001) would have prevented any special surcharges or tariffs on prisoner calls.  It would also have required the prison system to establish a debit calling system for prisoners.  The bill was not enacted into law.

MD:     HB 663 (2001) would have prohibited the state or any county from imposing a surcharge, commission or other fee in excess of the allowable charge for the call for local or long-distance telephone service.  In addition, charges could not have exceeded the average rate established by the Public Service Commission (PSC) charged by the state’s five largest telephone service providers for operator-assisted calls in the state.  Furthermore, the state and counties would have to consider alternative methods of providing phone service to prisoners that seek to reduce costs and provide quality service.  Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to conduct a survey of prison phone systems and explore alternatives such as debit accounts, calling cards, and debit cards. The bill passed in the house and died in senate committee.

            On March 7, 2002, the House of Delegates Committee on Commerce and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on HB 839.  The bill would prohibit the state from receiving commissions on prisoner phone calls, and would ensure that the reduction in the cost of the contract is “reasonably reflected in the charges for inmate telephone calls.”

            HB 873 (2004) would reduce commissions paid to state or local governments for the inmate telephone services by 20% per year until they are eliminated in 2009.  In addition, any inmate telephone service contracts entered into in 2005 or later could not produce revenue for the state or a local government.

ME:     LD 91 (2007) would have required the Public Utilities Commission to oversee and regulate the Department of Corrections telephone system, and produce annual reports for the legislature, with recommendations for improvement.  The bill died in the Senate.

MI:      HB 4184 (2001) would have required competition in prison telephone systems.
           
HB 6367, introduced in 2002 by Representative Ken Daniels require that the prison phone system provide for debit calling, toll-free calling, and collect calling; no blocks other than for failure to pay or institutional security reasons; a limit on DOC commissions to 25%/  The bill would required that the contract by renegotiated within 6 months of the bill becoming law in order to implement the law’s requirements.  The bill did not get a hearing in 2002,
In 2003, Rep. Daniels reintroduced the bill as HB 5070.  The bill was reintroduced in 2007 as HB 4041.   

MO:     HB 1691 would have amended existing law to require that contracts for telephone services for state prisoners “be awarded to the lowest and the best bidder over the life of the contract, based on call costs to called parties.”  It would also have authorized the purchasing office to renegotiate any existing contracts to reduce call costs to called parties.

NC:      HB 1844 (2000) would have required the DOC to provide telephone systems in all institutions that do not permit a single vendor to control rates paid by recipients of inmate calls, either by allowing inmates to use prepaid phone cards or by some other method. The bill was not enacted into law.
           
HB 10 (2001) would have allowed minimum-security prisoners to place debit phone calls; it would also have required the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone systems and charges.  The bill was not enacted into law.

NH:     HB 1418 (2002) would have established a committee to study the cost of telephone calls from state prison inmates to their families, whether there is a link between frequent calls and recidivism, and study the feasibility of “the state subsidizing inmate phone calls to family members.”

NM:     On March 14, 2001, Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that requires prisons and jails to provide telephone services at the lowest reasonable cost.  The law, which will took effect June 15, 2001, applies to the state’s prisons, privately operated prisons used by the state, and jails throughout the state.  The measure prohibits contracts that pay the prison operator a commission or share of call revenues.
           
We later received clarification regarding the above legislation.  The bill reads, “A contract to provide inmates with access to telecommunications services in a correctional facility or jail shall not include a commission or other payment to the operator of the correctional facility or jail based upon amounts billed by the telecommunications provider for telephone calls made by inmates in the correctional facility or jail.”  We are concerned that this language does allow kickbacks or “gifts” that are based upon factors other than telephone rates billed.  At the same time, the bill does state that contracts shall be negotiated and awarded to an entity that meets the correctional facility’s or jail’s technical and functional requirements for services, and that provides the lowest cost of service to inmates or any person who pays for inmate telecommunication services.”  Implementation of these contracts must be carefully observed.

NY:     On June 23, 2005, the New York Assembly passed the Family Connections Bill (A.7231-A), which will provide prisoners with fair-market telephone rates and prevent the state from making a profit from the system.  Facilities would have the option of providing collect or debit phone service.  The Senate did act on companion bill (S.5299-A).

On June 21, 2007, the New York State Senate and Assembly reached agreement on legislation (A05407) that will require that rates for phone calls from prisons will be comparable to rates in the surrounding community, and will be based upon the lowest rates to inmates using the phones.  As summarized by the New York Campaign for Telephone Justice, “(The) legislation would treat prison telephone service as a right, not as a revenue generator.”  The changes will be reflected in a new contract that will be implemented April 1, 2008.

OH:     SB 103 (2001) would have required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to adopt a debit account calling system.  The bill was not enacted into law.

OK:      In 2001, an interim legislative study examined the issue of prisoner telephone calls.  Among the findings of the interim study: “It appears Department of Corrections ability to forfeit commission could save approximately 45% of most phone charges.”  The Corrections department’s chief of administrative operations (David Miller) said that the agency is also scrutinizing its charges. 

            In January, 2003, legislation (HB 1552) was introduced to reduce the cost of prisoner calls.  Representative Kirby introduced a second bill (HB 1590), which, by March 7, had passed the house (95-4).  Among the provisions of the bill are “fingerprint identification of the inmate placing the telephone call” and “periodic photographs of the inmate during the telephone conversation for identity verification.” The bill was amended to change the language, “All revenue generated from inmate telephones and received by the Department of Corrections shall be for the benefit and welfare of inmates and personnel...” to , “... for the benefit and welfare of the Victim’s Compensation Fund.”  The law was not enacted.

            HB1552 (2004) would limit the State’s revenue for prison phones to the amount required to cover their expenses.  HB 2425 (2004) would allow the State to set the rates and to make a profit.

            SB 856 was introduced in 2007 to require fairly priced phone services for prisoners to communicate with family, friends, and legal counsel.

PA:      HB 1402 (2002) became law, allowing for a debit calling system.

RI:       H 5710 (2001) would have placed phone revenues in the Prisoners’ Recreation and Education Account.  In addition to normal account purchases, the funds would also have been used to purchase phone cards for prisoners whose families are indigent.  The bill was not enacted into law.

SC:      Joint Resolution 1289 (2000) would have set up a committee to review prison telephone systems and rates and their impact on prisoners and their families.  The bill was not enacted into law.
           
S 0405 (2002) and H3877 (2002) would “provide that the state shall forego any commission or other source of revenue derived from the placement of pay telephones (in prisons and juvenile facilities) and provide that the State Budget and Control Board shall ensure that the telephone rates charged for the use of these pay phones reasonably reflect this foregone state revenue.”

SD:      HB 1182 (2001) would have prohibited prison phone charges above “usual and customary.”  It was not enacted into law.
           
SB 105 was enacted, requiring the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone services and to report to the legislature no later than December 1, 2001.
           
In 2002, the state legislature provided the Department of Corrections with the funding it expected to lose in commissions when a debit-calling plan is implemented on July 1, 2002.

TX:      In March, 2003, two Texas legislators introduced bills to allow prisoners broader access to telephones.  Representative Jack Stick introduced one of the bills.  Representative Terri Hodges introduced the other (HB-1711).  Neither bill was passed.

On May 15, 2007, the governor signed S.B. 1580, calling for implementation of a phone system in Texas prisons.  The legislation specifies that the state will receive a commission of at least 40%.  The system is to allow an average monthly call usage rate of 8 calls (of not less than 10 minutes) per eligible prisoner.  Prior to passage of this legislation, calls were restricted to one per quarter for trustees only.

VA:      HB 2196 and HB 2213 (2001) would have mandated that any commission received by DOC from phone contracts be used only to operate the prisoner phone system.
           
HJR 600 (2001) would have mandated a study of prisoner phone systems.
           
SB 156 (2001) eliminated the State Corporation Commission’s jurisdiction over the Department of Corrections contract for the inmate phone system. (See the history of those actions in the Litigation section.)
           
HB 805 (2002) would have required that any prison telephone system commission received by the Department of Corrections shall be used to reduce the surcharge or rates paid for those calls under any collect call system beginning July 1, 2003. The DOC would have been required to negotiate a plan to reduce the surcharge or rates without costs to the contractor providing the phone services.
           
HB 1115 (2002) was similar to HB 805 but involved state, local or regional correctional facilities, and did not include the requirement regarding renegotiating the contract.
           
Delegate Adam P. Ebbin introduced a bill in 2004 that would direct the prison system to offer prisoners a debit system of calling.

HB 1632 (2007) would have authorized the State Corporation Commission to determine that the rates for debit or prepaid telephone systems at state correctional facilities were at the lowest available rates for the service in accordance with filed schedules.  The measure also would have established a 10% cap on the amount of any commissions, lease payments or other fees that a provider of inmate telecommunications services may pay to the Commonwealth or any agency or political subdivision under its contract.  Any amounts paid in excess of this cap would have been deposited in a newly established Prisoner Telephone Rate Fund and used to reduce the surcharges or rates paid for calls.  (The bill did pass.)
           
VT:      In April, 2001, the legislature passed a bill that would phase out commissions by fiscal year 2006.  The reductions were to begin in fiscal year 2003.  Unfortunately, the following year, the legislature quietly eliminated the provision for a phase out of the commission.

WA:     SB 6352 (2004) would allow use of debit calling.  The bill was passed by the House and Senate in February, 2004. 

FED:   H.R. 4466 (2005) would empower the Federal Communications Commission to regulate interstate prison phone calls by setting maximum rates, requiring both collect and debit calling, prohibiting commissions, requiring competition, and prohibiting call blocking solely because there is no billing agreement in place between the prison phone company and the local phone company. The bill received no action, and was reintroduced in 2007 as H.R. 555.

LITIGATION

CA:      In September, 2000, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that MCI had not billed its tariffed rates for intrastate MCI Maximum Security Collect Calls.  As a result, MCI was ordered to pay overcharges to Friends Outside, a California non-profit that assists families, prisoners and ex-prisoners.  The PUC’s ruling was the result of a complaint filed by the Utility Consumers’ Action Network.

            In April, 2004, we were informed that the Law Offices of John W. Allured and two other firms were representing plaintiffs in an action captioned “Elena Condes, et al v. Evercom Systems, Inc., et al.”  At that time, the case was pending in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda.  The plaintiffs alleged that Evercom Systems, et al had charged individuals for collect calls from prisoners when the calls were not authorized nor accepted by recipients. 

DC:      DC Prisoners’ Legal Services filed a class action suit in federal court seeking damages and injunctive relief for excessive rates and restrictions imposed on prisoners’ use of long distance telephone services in private prisons.  The Communications Act claims were referred to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  In 2003, a petition for rulemaking was submitted to the FCC challenging (1) phone systems that that allow only one provider to offer service at a given prison and (2) permitting the service provider to offer only collect calling services, rather than a choice between collect and debit calling.  Petitioners argue that it is technically feasible for multiple long distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems without compromising security and other penological needs.

IL:       A suit was filed in April, 1999 against the State of Illinois, IL Directors of Central Management Services and Department of Corrections, Illinois Counties of Cook, DuPage and Kane, AT&T, MCI, Evercom, Ameritech, Invision Telecom, & Consolidated Communications Public Services, Inc.  Plaintiff attorneys and law firms included Center for Constitutional Rights, Seliger, Elkin & Dolan, Ltd., People’s Law Office, and Soule & Bradtke.  The suit was originally dismissed by the U.S. District Court.  In June, 2001, Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court rejected an appeal.

IN:            Attorneys Stephen Laudig, Lawrence M. Reuben, and Richard Waples have filed a class action suit against the Sheriff of Marion County as a representative of all similarly situated county sheriffs in Indiana and against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Administration.  The case raises a number of issues including breach of common law regarding the duty of reasonableness owed to the plaintiffs, the unauthorized taxing of a sum of money, the unauthorized imposition of a licensing fee, unreasonable and unjust rate or service charge, unjust enrichment, money had and received, the combination to restrain and carry out restrictions on trade, a combination to increase price, and an allegation that the telephones had not provided reasonably adequate services and facilities to Class members.  Defendants requested a motion to dismiss and the trial court agreed.  On January 13, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial court, and ordered the case be heard.

KY:            Attorneys F. Thomas Conway and Bart Adams have filed suit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the KY Department of Corrections, the State of Missouri, the MO Department of Corrections, six KY counties, one Indiana County, one Arizona County, InVision Telecom, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corp.; LDDS WorldCom D/B/A Worldcom, Inc.; Gateway Technologies, Inc.; and Security Telecom Corporation.  All claims were dismissed with the exception of a Sherman Anti-Trust claim for injunctive relief.  The case was sent back to district court; we do not know the status.

            In a case before the Kentucky Public Service Commission, the commission found prison phone rates “unjust and unreasonable.”  The Public Service Commission reviewed prison phone rates throughout the state leading to a significant rate reduction: a cap of $1.50 surcharge per call.

LA:      Diane King Smith challenged the Department of Corrections block of Remote Call Forwarding services. On February, 21, 2003, District Court Judge Michael Caldwell ordered the block lifted, because the DOC had not followed proper procedure in adopting the rule.  The victory is likely to be short-lived, because a new rule banning such services is scheduled to take effect Mary 22, 2003.

MA:     Phillip Kassel, Esq. of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, Inc. has handled litigation on behalf of Massachusetts prisoners.  A significant element of the case involved a prohibition against international phone calls.  If February, 1998, the court ruled that the prison system must permit inmates to make collect, pre-paid, monitored, or international calls to family members.  Unfortunately, the cost of the international calls has remained extremely high, and, to-date, litigation has been unsuccessful in lowering those rates.

MI:      Prison Legal Services of Michigan submitted a motion to amend a long-standing prison rights case (Cain v. MDOC) to include a challenge to the prison telephone system. The challenge was based on the claim that the telephone system violates the constitutional rights of prisoners, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the Michigan Telecommunications Act, and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

            On April 9, 2002, the trial Court ruled on the MDOC’s motion for summary disposition on telephone issues.  The Court upheld the MDOC’s 20 number limit on PIN lists, the 15 minute limit on calls, the failure to provide indoor phones at some prisons, and the failure to have a writing surface at phones.  In (the prisoners’) favor, the Court ruled that (1) MDOC may make only one voice over announcement per call; (2) MDOC must allow prisoners to bring legal papers to the phone when talking to their attorneys; (3) each person responsible for approving or denying placement of an attorney’s number on PIN lists must have a current Bar Journal Directory; and (4) the MDOC must allow prisoners to place their attorney’s home phone number on their PIN lists if requested in writing by the attorney.”

MO:     The State of Missouri is among the defendants in a lawsuit filed in Kentucky.

NM:     In December, 1999, a class action suit was filed by the law firms Come, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, LLP and Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Cron & Schoenburg, LLP, and Zevnik, Horton, Guibord, McGovern, Palmer & Fognani, LLP against Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Corrections Corporation of America, Cornell Corrections of Texas, Inc., Correctional Services Corporation, Evercom Systems, Inc., and PCS America, Inc.

In October, 2000 a lawsuit against the State of New Mexico, Rio Arriba County, and several phone companies was dismissed by State District Judge Jim Hall.  Judge Hall ruled he did not have authority to hear the claims, which must be addressed to state regulators.  Attorneys planned to appeal.

NH:     In February, 2000, several family members filed suit (Michael Guglielmo Sr. v. WorldCom Inc, ILD Teleservices Inc. and ILD Telecommunications Inc.) claiming that the phone companies charged rates higher than specified in a 1997 agreement with the state, that they failed to warn prisoners and their families about the higher rates, and that the phone companies were violating the state’s monopoly and consumer protection laws through their exclusive contracts.  A Rockingham County Superior Court judge dismissed the claims related to the rates, but refused to dismiss anti-monopoly and consumer protection claims.  Those were referred to the state Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction.  In September, 2002, the Supreme Court in a 4-0 ruling found that under the federal filed rate doctrine telephone companies can and must charge the rates they have filed with the FCC.  Associate Justice Linda Dalianis wrote that even if the companies misrepresent their rates, they cannot be sued for money damages because customers are responsible for knowing the published tariffs.

NY:     The law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP and the Center for Constitutional Rights  filed a federal class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in March, 2000, against the Commissioner of the NY Department of Correctional Services, the NY Attorney General, the NY Comptroller, MCI Worldcom, Inc., and MCI Telecommunications Corporation.  Plaintiff’s attorneys were attempting to stop the Department of Correctional Services from implementing a new contract.  In addition, plaintiff’s attorneys have also filed a class action suit in NY Court of Claims against the State of NY seeking restitution of all overpayments made by friends, families and counselors of prisoners.

In 2002, Outside Connection (OC) began offering Remote Call Forwarding (RCF) services.  When MCI and the New York prison system discovered the practice, they began blocking calls to all OC numbers.  OC responded by seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (which was unsuccessful), and then a preliminary injunction (which also failed.)

In March, 2003, Outside Connection filed a complaint with the FCC arguing that prison telephone system providers have no right to block family access to Remote Call Forwarding services.  Attorneys for OC are Shooks, Hardy and Bacon in DC.  MCI’s original opposition and accompanying affidavits are apparently available at the Worldcom bankruptcy site: www.elawforworldcom.com under documents: 26 Sep, ##1356, 1357, and 1358.  

OH:     In January, 2000, Dayton attorneys Jon Paul Rion and David M. Deutsch filed suit against Ameritech, GTE, Ameritel, Evercom, MCI, the State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and sheriffs in four named counties alleging violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights by allowing phone companies to charge exorbitant rates.  An update received in the summer of 2002, indicated that the defendant’s motion to dismiss had been overruled by Judge Rice of the 6th Circuit. 

OK:      A class action suit has been filed by attorney Jim Wilcoxen and others.  Litigation is in the discovery phase.  No other details are known at this time.

PA:      In the autumn of 2002, the entire Commonwealth Court heard arguments in the case of Feigley and PA-CURE vs. the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission.  It is rare that the entire Court hears an argument at first glance. 

SC:      On February 15, 2001, attorneys with the law firm of Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern and Lewis, P.A., filed suit against Sprint, T-Netix, Bell South, AT&T, GTE, Rock Hill Telephone Company, Farmers Telephone Company and Science Dynamics.  A hearing was scheduled for March 21, 2002.  We have no update.

VA:      In a ruling dated August 23, 2001, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) ruled that “collect call service from state prison facilities is not being offered on a competitive basis.”  It then required the phone provider (MCI Worldcom) to file “just and reasonable rates” for prisoner-initiated calls.  The cost and supporting documentation were to be filed by January 7, 2002.  In addition, MCI was “to review its charges to customers for this service since January 1, 1999.  Upon further SCC review, customers may be due refunds with interest.”  MCI appealed that ruling.  The appeal was rejected in January, 2002, and the SCC set another date for the rate study (May 20, 2002).

            Senator Norment then filed bill SB156 that eliminated SCC jurisdiction over state agency contracts.  That bill became law.

            The law was challenged, and in March, 2003, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of MCI and against the SCC and Virginia CURE.  By a 5-2 vote, justices ruled that the SCC has no jurisdiction over the DOC’s contract with MCI.

WA:     In July, 2000, a prisoner filed a suit charging that phone companies are disregarding a state law that requires them to let people find out collect call prices before they accept a call.

WI:      In March, 2000, a suit was filed against MCI, AT&T, Ameritech, the State of Wisconsin, the Department of Corrections Secretary and several county sheriffs alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Communications Act.

EDITORIAL SUPPORT

CA:      San Francisco Chronicle, editorial June 15, 1999
            “California is due to rebid its pay-phone contracts next month.  When it does, the state should consider not just commissions, but the practical rehabilitative powers of phone calls and family contacts.  The state should make it clear to phone companies that such obscene profits at the expense of inmates and their families are unfair, unacceptable and bad public policy.”

FL:      The Tampa Tribune, December 28,1999 editorial:
             “... a reduction in costs to the relatives and friends of prisoners seems in order – even if it means a smaller cut for the state.”

GA:      The Atlanta Journal, October 22, 2001 editorial:
“A series of eye-opening articles by Atlanta Journal staff writer John McCosh on the soaring rates for collect calls from Georgia prisons got us wondering whether all crooks are behind bars.... The Department of Corrections gets 65 percent of the revenue from each call, among the highest commissions in the nation.  We find it galling that the state would seek to turn a profit from the family and friends of criminals, many of them unsophisticated consumers.  Though we’ve advocated that the punishment fit the crime, we don’t recall urging that our correctional system exploit the supportive relatives of criminals, or profit  so excessively from families’ efforts to keep in contact.  Not even using that money to fund mental health services for inmates justifies this rip-off.  Even without WorldCom’s over billing, the charges are excessive.  They must be reconsidered.”

IA:       Quad-City Times, editorial April 30, 2000
            “This phone business is a scam, pure and simple.... These profit-sharing deals are nothing more than government-sanctioned kickbacks – and the mere fact that they’re legal doesn’t make them right.  Try as they might, the counties cannot justify these contractual arrangements by arguing that taxpayers will have to make up the difference if the profit-sharing is discontinued.  The end doesn’t justify the means – particularly when the ‘end’ is profit and the ‘means’ is price gouging of innocent individuals who never have been charged with a crime.  The counties are engaged in a blatant money grab that is designed to victimize the relatives, friends, and lawyers of people who typically have yet to be convicted of a crime.  It’s just plain unethical, and our county boards should put a stop to this practice now.”

IN:            Indianapolis Star  editorial, June 20, 2000
“Charging the families of inmates exorbitant prices for their loved ones’ phone calls home borders on cruel and unusual punishment.  Yet that’s exactly what’s been going on in Indiana prisons and county jails....  Inmates and their families shouldn’t have to go to court to end this immoral practice.  As a matter of state policy, Indiana needs to encourage prisoners’ contacts with their friends and families....  The state of Indiana should insist on competitive bidding, prohibit profit sharing by the public agencies involved and insist these contracts be renegotiated as soon as humanly possible.

MI:      The Grand Rapids Press, editorial June, 15, 2000
            “The state Department of Corrections is making millions of dollars by tacking fees on collect calls made from its prisons.  The surcharges are excessive and unfair and should be removed....  Of course, families don’t have to accept collect calls, notes Department of Corrections spokesman Matt Davis.  That’s true.  But those who say ‘yes’ to the call shouldn’t be penalized for doing so.”

            Detroit Free Press, editorial February 5, 2007
            “The current (prison phone) system is not only an unfair burden to low-income families but also a barrier to the re-entry and rehabilitation efforts trumpeted by the Michigan Department of Corrections.  Studies show that inmates who maintain regular family contacts are less likely to re-offend.  Through commissions – a nice word for legal kickbacks – state corrections departments have made big profits from phone systems….  To be sure, taxpayers should not have to subsidize prison phone calls.  But neither should the state make millions of dollars off them, while helping to sever the family and community ties that help offenders succeed after they’re released.”

NH:     Concord Monitor, editorial April 5, 1999
            “(Corrections Commissioner Hank) Risley believes that collect calls from prison shouldn’t cost more than calls made anywhere else.  He’s right, and deserves praise for his position.... While Risley’s decision is a step in the right direction, it may not put this issue entirely to rest.  The county jails around the state have their own phone deals, some of which may raise the same questions the state’s has.  Administrators of those jails would do well to follow Risley’s lead, rather than wait for their phones to ring with word of an inmate’s lawsuit.”

NM:            Albuquerque Journal, editorial January 5, 2000
            “It is a sorry commentary on the moral compass of the Department of Corrections that it sees nothing wrong with extorting free citizens for the simple human contact of talking to loved ones, even if they are in prison.”

NY:     New York Times,  editorial December 6, 1999:
            “It is wrong to penalize and profit from the families of inmates, and unconscionable that New York should lead the pack.  If the federal courts do not correct the practice, the state’s Department of Correctional Services should solicit bids for new contracts next year with a different aim in mind -- the cheapest phone calls possible, with no kickback for the state.”

            Newsday, columnist Sheryl McCarthy, April 8, 2000,
            “I’m told that around the country prison officials are allowing phone companies to charge high prices for prison phone service, and are using their take of the profits to run the prisons.  This is another crime of the prison industrial complex, where everybody from phone companies to bankrupt towns to governors profit off criminals and their families.  New York’s complicity in this scam is a rip-off, pure and simple.”

OH:            Columbus Dispatch editorial December 23, 1999,
“The need to force inmates to make collect calls to the outside is unclear.  Why can’t they instead purchase competitively priced phone cards, for example?  Doubtless, such cards could be programmed to prevent inmates from abusing phone privileges by making harassing calls.  The state and counties should reassess this policy and the propriety of such contracts.  They unfairly burden the already tenuous link between inmates and the outside world.”
           
            Cleveland Plain Dealer, editorial, date unknown
            “The state should not be in the business of making money off of people unfortunate enough to have a family member in prison.  The cost of a prison phone call should be reduced – not for the inmates, but for their families.”
           
            Toledo Blade, Costly Prison Phone Calls, August 4, 2000
            “It is easy, given the current mood of seeing prison as punishment and revenge, and the concomitant short-changing of rehabilitation efforts in many penal systems, to dismiss this price gouging as just desserts.  That is wrong-headed.  It is not prisoners but their families and friends, potential voters, who are gouged.
            Equally wrong-headed, in these days of technological miracles, is the argument that any other phone format will compromise prison security.  What about prepaid phone cards geared to specific numbers?
            With the current format of state-sanctioned venality, governments are teaching prisoners elegant lessons in extortion.  The fact is that most people in jail get out.  Once out, they are more likely to stay out if they have a family to return to.  Communication is requisite to the maintaining of family ties.  It can’t be priced beyond reach.  Policy makers ought to know that, even if phone companies don’t care.”

OK:      Daily Oklahoman, “Dialing for Dollars, “ August 2, 2000
            “Gouging inmates’ family members and friends, who pay for these calls, does not make good policy.  The exorbitant costs of collect phone calls punish those outside prison walls instead of the ones who committed the crimes that landed them behind bars....  (T)he state should stop depending on expensive telephone calls to make up the difference in a budget that’s already gone through the appropriations process.  It’s time corrections officials look for other ways to correct budget shortfalls.”

            Daily Oklahoman, “Prison Phone Fees Merit Review,” October 21, 2003
            “Telephone calls placed from prison are big business for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.  Some say too big, and we’re inclined to agree….  (Department spokesman Jerry Massie) points out that families have other ways to stay in touch, such as by writing letters or making visits.  So a parent or spouse who lives hundreds of miles away should consider driving to the prison instead of being able to hold an affordable phone conversation with their loved one?  How understanding, especially since so many of those behind bars, and their families, are at the low end of the economic scale….  Asking families of prisoners to pay so much for their loved ones’ misdeeds seems heavy-handed and unfair.”

            Tulsa World, “Is Phone System Fair for Inmates?” October 21, 2003
            “In the long run, it’s to the state’s advantage to have inmates keep in touch with their support system, since most inmates will be released back into the community at some point.  With proper safeguards why can’t inmates be allowed to dial toll-free numbers or use calling cards?…  (I)n the interest of fairness it might, indeed, be time for more competitive phone services for Oklahoma’s 22,000+ inmates.”

VA:            Roanoke Times,  editorial December 17, 1999:
            “No one is suggesting that taxpayers should provide each prisoner with the perk of a personal telephone.  But there is a public benefit to helping prisoners maintain family ties (studies reveal a correlation between such contact and a more successful return to society when their sentences are completed), and the system should be made fairer for their families.”

            Roanoke Times, “Turning a Profit from Inmates’ Calls”, August 6, 2000
            “Unlike the Virginia Lottery, the corrections system is not supposed to be a money-making enterprise for the state....  But the public also benefits when inmates are able to maintain family ties by telephone.  Prisoners behave better while incarcerated, and they tend to have a more successful - that is, crime-free - return to society when they’ve completed their sentences.  Given the latter, shouldn’t the public share the costs of the telephone system?  Shouldn’t the state stop imposing what amounts to a special tax on inmates’ families?  These issues, outside the purview of the SCC, are still the legislature’s to call.”

            The Virginia-Pilot, editorial September 4, 2001:
“It is not in the state’s interest to gouge the people whom prison inmates call collect, usually loved ones.  This, however, is precisely how the present system works.  It must be changed.... Last year, the Virginia Department of Corrections argued weakly that the prisoners had no standing to complain about rates because they weren’t WorldCom’s customers.  The corrections department was the customer, it said, not any inmate.  The SCC rightly rejected that argument.  It seems unlikely that a corrections department that presented such an argument would voluntarily forgo the 40 percent commission. So the General Assembly should kill it.  The commission should also be banned in local jails.  Nearly all inmates are released eventually.  The corrections department may seek to isolate inmates from the rest of the world as much as possible, but ultimately that is not in the state’s best interest.  Ties to loved ones help inmates remain human.”

            The News Leader, editorial August 29, 2001:
“And in Virginia, even the innocent get punished, all for the sake of the almighty dollar.  We refer to the state’s practice of jacking up the price of in-state collect calls made by prisoners to family members....  Prison phone calls aren’t paid on the public dime.  The innocent recipients of the phone calls are the ones who are paying, at an exorbitant rate.  That isn’t right, and the SCC is correct in taking steps to ensure it doesn’t continue.”

WV:     The Charleston Gazette, August 3, 2000
            “It’s a sad fact of American justice that mostly low-income people are sent to prison.  And even middle-class families can be devastated by lawyer bills if a son or daughter is arrested.  Therefore, it’s unfair to slap huge costs on relatives who are least able to pay....  We hope the state Division of Corrections and the Legislature can find a way to reduce the phone cost for unlucky families with relatives in prison.”

Current Status By State
More about eTc