|
Daniel Webster College
Nashua, New Hampshire
Aramark
July 17, 2009 FOX 25
This information was supplied by law enforcement and describes recent arrests
and charges. All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven
guilty in a court of law. On July 16, 2009 at approximately 8:00 am, Nashua
Police Department Youth Services arrested Sharon Delio,
age 46, on an arrest warrant obtained from the Nashua District Court charging
her with Theft By Unauthorized Taking or Transfer, Consolidation, Class A
Felony. An investigation by Nashua detectives revealed that Ms. Delio had stolen approximately $40,000 from her employer,
Aramark Corporation, between June 2008 and June
2009. Ms. Delio was the Assistant Food Service
Director at Daniel Webster College in Nashua, a client of Aramark
Corporation.
New Hampshire Legislature
Thu May 2, 2013 nhpr.org
On a 13-11 vote, the New Hampshire
Senate has blocked a House-backed measure to prohibit private prisons in the
state. Senate Republicans killed the prohibition effort, saying that the
legislature needs to be able to keep all options on the table. Senator Andy
Sanborn told colleagues that private prisons can be more efficient, lowering
overall corrections costs. "I believe we have an obligation to prove to
the tax payers of New Hampshire, every day, that we
are trying to spend their money wisely." But Senator David Pierce, a
Democrat from Etna, says privatization turns inmates into commodities.
"To delegate that power, and that authority, to entities whose success
depends on how much profit they can exploit from each human being, invites abuse, it abdicates our responsibility to our prison
population for their rehabilitation, and our commitment to restorative
justice." Last month, the state rejected four companies’ proposals to
take over New Hampshire prisons. State officials said the bids lacked proof
that the firms could meet requirements for inmate medical care.
April 3,
2013 inzanetimes.wordpress.com
New
Hampshire will not privatize its prisons, at least not in the near
future. That’s the decision announced by the state today with the
release of a long-awaited analysis of bids submitted by four private firms in
response to a 2011 Request for Proposals from the state. The state’s
consultant, MGT of America, found that none of the bids met the requirements
spelled out in the RFP. All of them “had deficiencies from an
operational standpoint.” [Click here for the report from MGT of America.
Specifically, according to a parallel report released by the Departments of
Corrections and Administrative Services, “all were non-compliant with meeting
the Department of Corrections’ legal obligations.” “More specifically, the proposals
exhibited a lack of understanding of the overarching legal requirements
placed upon the DOC relating to the court orders, consent decrees and
settlements which, in large part, dictate the administration and operation of
their correctional facilities and attendant services to the inmate
populations,” the state agencies said. The agencies concluded, “The immediate
next step, taken in conjunction with the release of this report, is the
formal cancellation of the solicitation process. This decision, based upon
the detail provided above, is made in the best interests of the State.” That
the private industry leaders were not able to explain how they would actually
meet the state’s legal obligations should be seen as evidence that these
companies can’t be trusted to operate prisons anywhere. MGT also reported
that the staff compensation levels built into the privatization proposals was
“one-half of the current compensation currently paid to similar positions in
the state.” “The state should be concerned that this significantly lower wage
may make it difficult to maintain a trained and experienced staff. This could
result in high turnover and ultimately impact the safety and security of the
correctional facilities,” MGT added. “In prior MGT studies of private correctional
facility operations,” the report elaborated, “we have found
private correctional facilities with annual staff turnover rates of 42
percent compared to 13.3 percent for nearby public facilities. High turnover,
which can result from non-competitive compensation levels, produces a
chronically inexperienced work force with direct implications for the
integrity of facility security and safety. Low compensation levels can also
make staff recruitment more difficult, resulting in staff vacancies and reliance
on overtime, which again has a negative impact upon facility security.” The
state’s report leaves open the possibility that the state would entertain
privatization as an option at some point in the future. That would be a
huge mistake. Instead, the legislature should pass HB 443, a bill that
blocks the state from considering privatization. This measure has
already passed the NH House and comes before the Senate Finance Committee
next Tuesday.
March 21.
2013 unionleader.com
CONCORD --
The House on Thursday voted to forbid the executive branch from privatizing
the state prison system, saying that to do so would shirk the state’s
constitutional responsibility to rehabilitate inmates. The 197-136 roll call
by the Democratic -controlled House sent House Bill 443 to the Senate, where
Republicans hold a slim, 13-11 majority and the bill’s fate is uncertain, at
best. The legislation, while prohibiting prison privatization, allows the
governor to enter into a temporary contract with a private provider during
times of a “corrections emergency” with the approval of the Executive
Council. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had
recommended that the bill pass on a 13-5 vote. Those who opposed the bill
said that with a study of privatization underway, it is premature to have a
ban take effect. A move to table pending more information on privatization
failed. Rep. Dan McGuire, R-Epsom, argued that the state should not prevent
itself from undertaking a private option. He said the prison population is
expanding. But Rep. Robert Cushing, D-Hampton, privatizing prisons “is
different than talking about who is going to pick up our garbage and plow our
roads. “I don’t think we should be outsourcing incarceration,” he said. He
said the state constitution requires the state to rehabilitate its prisoners,
“yet there is a financial incentive for a private operator to keep those
cells filled” and “fill corporate coffers. “When we take somebody’s liberty
away from them, those who are overseeing that bondage should be responsible
to the Governor of New Hampshire as opposed to a corporate entity,” said
Cushing. House Republican Leader Gene Chandler argued unsuccessfully that
with a study underway, “There are facts coming in on the issue and we have an
obligation to look at the facts.”
December 5, 2012 Concord
Monitor
The Executive Council voted yesterday to continue studying privatizing the
state’s prisons, but going private has lost its biggest supporters at the
State House. Incoming governor Maggie Hassan opposes putting inmate care in
private hands, as does a majority of the next Executive Council. And
Democrats, who have taken control of the House, haven’t shared their
Republican counterparts’ appetite for privatization. But partial
privatization – allowing a private company to build a prison the state would
run – may have support in at least the corner office. Gov. John Lynch
endorsed that approach in an interview this week with Monitor editors, saying
it’s the state’s most expedient option for not only replacing the state’s
inadequate prisons but also resolving a lawsuit over the shortcomings of the
women’s prison. That’s especially true, Lynch said, with a Legislature that’s
been unwilling to spend the necessary $350 million to $400 million to build a
new prison. And in an email Tuesday, a spokesman for Hassan said a
private-public partnership is an option she’d consider. “Governor-Elect
Hassan opposes allowing private entities to run New Hampshire’s prisons, as
the track record of such arrangements in other states has not demonstrated
success in terms of protecting taxpayer dollars while maintaining the highest
level of public safety,” wrote Marc Goldberg. “The Governor-Elect would
consider the possibility of partnering with the private sector on prison
construction only if the safety and security of our communities could be
ensured along with clear savings to taxpayers.” The state began investigating
privatizing the state’s prisons last year at the request of Lynch and state
lawmakers, who wondered whether going private would
save the state money. Prison expenses are climbing and two prisons – the
men’s in Concord and the women’s in Goffstown – are overcrowded and failing.
September 6, 2012 Nashua
Telegraph
As New Hampshire corrections and administrative personnel continue working
with a consulting firm being paid $171,000 to evaluate proposals and weigh
the pros and cons of privatizing a majority of the state’s prison system, a
national expert on the subject is warning politicians and residents to step
carefully and warily if the state goes down that path. Arizona resident
Caroline Isaacs, program director of the American Friends Service Committee’s
Tucson office, brought her expertise and thoughts on the subject to Nashua’s
Unitarian Universalist Church on Wednesday night as part of her three-day,
statewide speaking tour. Her extensive research and extensive writings
culminated in “Private Prisons, the Public’s Problem: A Quality Assessment of
Arizona’s Private Prisons.” “There’s a general belief that corporate privatization
is more efficient and cost-effective,” Isaacs told about two dozen listeners.
“But when you take a bureaucracy and put a for-profit corporation on top of
it, it’s not the case at all.” Isaacs’ expertise is especially relevant in
New Hampshire, as three of the four for-profit prison entities that submitted
bids have built and are operating prisons in her home state. Though the
contents of the bids haven’t become public, the corporations – Corrections
Corporations of America, The GEO Group and Management and Training Corp. –
fared poorly in Isaacs’ comprehensive analyses. The consensus found “a widespread and persistent problems in private facilities around
safety, lack of accountability, and cost,” Isaacs wrote in her
account, which was published in February – the same week the N.H. Executive
Council voted 5-0 to hire Texas-based consultant MGT of America. Former
Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli, of Nashua,
who is running for the District 5 seat she lost in 2010, said that if the
state goes the way of privatization, it had better make sure it has air-tight
agreements with the corporations. “The contracts need to be very, very clear
that if (the firms) don’t live up to the terms, they can be held
accountable,” Pignatelli said. To view Isaacs’ report,
visit www.afsc.org /resource/arizona-prison-report.
September 5, 2012 Concord
Monitor
If New Hampshire privatizes its prisons, it will
spend more, not less, and risk losing control of corrections for good,
according to activist Caroline Isaacs, who's in the state this week lobbying
against private prisons. Isaacs, program director for the American Friends
Service Committee in Tucson, Ariz., issued a blistering report in February
about Arizona's several private prisons. Isaacs found security in private
prisons lacking, staff poorly trained and the cost of housing an inmate
higher at private prisons than at state-run prisons, according to her report.
And, none of the private companies are measuring recidivism, according to her
report. Aware that New Hampshire is considering hiring one of the three
private prison companies operating in Arizona, Isaacs accepted an invitation
from the New Hampshire chapter of the American Friends Service Committee to
visit the state. "New Hampshire is at a critical juncture," Isaacs
told a group of about 40 people yesterday at the University of New Hampshire
School of Law. "You have not stepped off the cliff like we have in
Arizona. This is the time when you and your elected officials need to be
asking questions." The Rev. Alice Roberts, an Episcopal priest in
Newport, had one yesterday: How can she get lawmakers' attention when private
prison companies have well-paid lobbyists at the State House? Roberts is a
member of the prison concern committee of the Episcopal Diocese of New
Hampshire, and intends to ask all the state's Episcopalians to join the
committee in opposing private prisons. Isaacs's answer? Begin with the money
argument, not the morality argument. It costs $48.42 a day to house an inmate
at a state-run prison in Arizona, according to the state's own estimates. It
costs $53.02 a day to provide the same security and services at one of the
private prisons. Why then, UNH Law professor Erin Corcoran asked, do states
still pursue privatization? "The facts fly in the face of what most
people assume is true," said Isaacs. "They have always been told
that private enterprise does everything better. "Even
when you write 100 pages showing that is not
happening," Isaacs added, referring to her February report. New
Hampshire began contemplating privatizing prisons last year at the direction
of the Legislature and Gov. John Lynch. Four for-profit prison companies have
submitted bids to build a men's-only prison and a hybrid prison that would
house men and women on the same campus. The state has not committed to
privatizing prisons. Instead, the request for bids has been billed as an
information-gathering exercise to determine whether the state would save
money if a private company took over corrections. It's possible, state officials
have said, the state will conclude it's cheaper to
continue running corrections itself. That's increasingly possible given the
upcoming gubernatorial election. The three Democratic candidates, Jackie Cilley, Maggie Hassan and Bill Kennedy, and Republican Ovide Lamontagne have said they
oppose privatizing prisons. Republican Kevin Smith has not endorsed the idea
but has said he'll take a wait-and-see approach. In looking at Arizona's
private prisons, Isaacs found consistent problems with staffing, accountability
and security, she said. • Following the escape of three inmates from one
private prison, it was discovered that the prison's security system had been
malfunctioning for two years. The company knew about the problem but never
fixed it, Isaacs said. • Private prison companies don't include the costs of
treating, educating or transporting inmates in their contract costs, she
said. States that don't write contracts insisting those costs be covered will
end up paying those expense separately. • Wages are lower at private prisons,
she said. In Arizona, correctional officers were earning between $18 and $20
an hour at state-run prisons. At the private prisons, they were making
between $10 and $12 an hour, she said. • The consequence of low wages has
been high turnover, Isaacs said. As a result, a high percentage of private
prison staff are inexperienced because they are new.
And private companies cut costs by skimping on training, she said. So the staff are not only new, but also poorly trained. •
Accountability is a problem at private prisons, especially when it comes to
medical treatment and counseling. She gave an example of an inmate who
complained to his family that he was not getting his medications. When the
family called the prison, staff told them to call state corrections
officials. The state directed the family back to the private prison. • States
can find it difficult to get out of a bad contract. Isaacs said even if a
state can break a contract without a heavy financial penalty, it's still stuck
because it has nowhere else to house the inmates. The private companies
operating in Arizona - the GEO Group; Management & Training Corp. and
Corrections Corp. of America - are each seeking contracts in New Hampshire.
Isaacs was asked whether her report could be fairly applied outside of
Arizona. "It's a cautionary tale," she said.
August 19, 2012 Union
Leader
Three out-of-state companies vying to build a new men’s prison in New
Hampshire have paid more than $130,000 in lobbyist fees to three Concord
firms to win support for their proposal, according to state records.
Corrections Corporation of America, based in Nashville, Tenn., outpaced its
rivals, providing more than $101,000 to the Rath,
Young and Pignatelli law firm since 2011, according
to a New Hampshire Sunday News review of lobbyist income and expense reports.
“Generally speaking, because governments are our partners, we obviously
educate through government relations,” CCA spokesman Mike Machak
said in an email. “It’s how we transparently share
information about the services and solutions we provide and make sure we’re
up to date on any specific needs they may have.” The law firm, which includes
a section devoted to government relations, reported it spent all $101,729.85
it collected in lobbying fees from CCA since 2011. State law requires
lobbyists to submit certain financial information regarding its clients.
According to paperwork lobbyists must submit to the Secretary of State’s
Office, lobbyists are required to report all fees “that are related, directly
or indirectly, to lobbying, including fees for services such as public
advocacy, government relations, or public relations services including
research, monitoring legislation, and related legal work.” David Collins,
director of government relations at the Concord law firm, deferred questions
to CCA, which declined to talk specifically about its lobbying efforts in New
Hampshire. William McGonagle, the state’s assistant
corrections commissioner, said he’s aware of the lobbyists, but said the
process for reviewing proposals is private at this point. “They’re out
there,” McGonagle said. “I know they’re out there
talking with legislators and the like.” The Legislature would need to approve
funding any new prison received, he said. Fran Wendelboe,
a former legislator and current registered lobbyist not involved in the
prison proposals, said lobbyists can prove to be powerful forces. “On many
occasions, they write the ... legislation,” Wendelboe
said. “The lobbyists are considered the expert or who they represent are considered the experts.” Four companies submitted
proposals — some topping $100 million — to build the prison. Some call for a
privately run prison while others allow for the state to run it. Three state
evaluation teams are privately reviewing the proposals. A recommendation is
expected to reach the governor’s office and the state departments of
corrections and administrative services in October, McGonagle
said. Bruce Berke, a lobbyist with the Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group that represents Management &
Training Corp., confirmed the receipt of $24,000 in fees, but referred
further questions to his client. Issa Arnita, director of communications for the Centerville,
Utah-based company, said in an email: “At times we hire lobbyists to educate
various groups on the benefits of public/private partnerships in corrections.
“We are participating in the competitive bid process, and we look forward to
a decision by the state of New Hampshire,” Issa
wrote. Berke’s firm on its website says its
lobbyists “utilize their knowledge of the legislative and regulatory process
and their long-term, trusted relationships with decision makers to achieve
their clients’ goals.” Management & Training Corp.’s proposal included
building a prison on Hackett Hill in Manchester. A third firm, The GEO Group
of Boca Raton, Fla., paid at least $10,000 to Dennehy
& Bouley. Lobbyist Jim Bouley
couldn’t be reached for comment, but GEO Group spokesman Pablo Paez said in an email: “Since the procurement in New
Hampshire is ongoing, it wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment on our
proposal or the process. “Our company participates in the political process
in states across the country, including New Hampshire, . .
. as do a variety of organizations, including private corporations and
organized labor organizations, through lobbyist representation and
contributions to political candidates and parties who support different
public policy viewpoints.” One company, NH Hunt Justice Group, has not hired
any lobbyists. “We don’t see a need to lobby,” said Buddy Johns, president of
CGL, an affiliate of the Hunt Companies, a Texas construction firm. Hunt
Companies and LaSalle Corrections, a prison operator also based in Texas,
have formed the NH Hunt Justice Group, which lists its home office in El Paso,
Texas. He said the procurement process appeared straight forward. “Some
people use outside services to make their point,” Johns said in a phone
interview from Mexico. “I think we believe we’re the experts in what we do,
and we’re best to make that point.” Johns has said his company proposed
building a new prison next to the existing men’s prison in Concord. LaSalle
Corrections, based in Texas, would manage the prison if the state didn’t.
CCA, which declined to discuss its specific lobbying efforts in New
Hampshire, met earlier this year with Lancaster community leaders to let them
know they were one of at least three communities being considered to host a
possible prison costing $100 million to $120 million. Northumberland and
Hinsdale were the others, according to Lancaster’s town manager. McGonagle said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the
Legislature forms a committee to study the state prisons. If the governor and
Executive Council approved a contract, the Legislature would need to weigh in
on the financial implication on the state budget, he said. Wendelboe said lobbying money in general could be spent
on research, campaign donations or hosting events for legislators. McGonagle said he has talked with lobbyists about general
issues.
June 23, 2012 Concord
Monitor
While political attention is focused on the end of a contentious legislative
session and the beginning of a busy election season, a momentous decision is
being considered behind closed doors in the Department of Administrative
Services. There, Administrative Services and Department of Corrections staff are reviewing piles of documents from four
corporations interested in taking over the state's prison system and running
it for profit. If a contract with one of the private firms emerges in late
summer or early fall, only then will policy-makers and citizens get to know
the details of a deal with profound implications for public safety, the state
budget, job quality and the constitutional obligation to support the
rehabilitation of offenders. The private prison experiment in other states
has gone poorly. For example, a detailed report released by the American
Friends Service Committee in February on Arizona's experience revealed
"widespread and persistent problems in private facilities around safety,
lack of accountability, and cost." AFSC reviewed state data showing that
private prisons under contract with the state cost more than equivalent units
operated by the state Department of Corrections, and that all private prisons
for which security assessment data was available had serious security flaws.
"While no prison can be entirely safe or problem-free, private prisons
demonstrate clear, long-standing patterns of prisoner unrest including riots,
staffing and management issues, escapes, and other serious safety
problems," said Caroline Isaacs, the report's author. All three of the
private firms running prisons in Arizona have submitted bids for the
opportunity to do the same here. One firm, MTC, operated the private prison
in Kingman, Ariz., from which three people escaped last summer, kidnapping
and murdering two campers and burning their bodies in their trailer. A review
showed that tower lights were burned out, the perimeter was unwatched, and
the alarm sounded so many false alarms nobody listened to it. Elaine Rizzo, a
professor of criminal justice at Saint Anselm College, reviewed the record of
prison privatization for the Citizens Advisory Board of the New Hampshire
State Prison for Women. Her paper, co-authored with Margaret Hayes of Regis
College and released at the end of January, reviewed issues of cost, public
safety, and correctional policy and reached a stark conclusion: "Of
greatest concern is the indisputable fact that private prisons exist to make
a profit. It is in their economic interests to reduce costs by maintaining
full facilities, reducing staff wages and benefits, reducing institutional
expenses associated with safety and sanitation, and reducing critical care
services and programming. These cost-saving measures come at the expense of
institutional and public safety, and hold the potential for negative
publicity and more costly lawsuits." Official financial documents from
the private prison companies openly acknowledge that their business model
depends on high rates of incarceration at a time when policy makers are
looking for ways to lower costs and reduce recidivism. Despite growing
evidence of problems in other states - riots, escapes, high levels of staff
turnover - the prison companies are serious about moving into New Hampshire.
The Corrections Corp. of America, the industry leader, has approached local
officials in Lancaster and Hinsdale about real estate it thinks would be
suitable for a large, new prison. Management and Training Corp., another
bidder in the state process, has expressed interest in property on Hackett
Hill Road in Manchester. The GEO Group and LaSalle/Hunt, the other two
bidders, may be scouting for real estate as well. CCA, GEO and MTC have hired
local lobbyists to represent their interests. Oddly, a decision to award a
lucrative contract to a private prison operator could be made by the governor
and Executive Council without any legislation directing them to do so and
without much public discussion of whether privatization is in the state's
interest. That should not be allowed to happen. The public deserves a full
and open airing of the privatization issue, not a rush job slipped through
the Executive Council while the eyes of voters and lawmakers are focused on
other matters. (Arnie Alpert is New Hampshire
program coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker
organization devoted to social justice and peace.)
May 12, 2011 NHPR
The Department of Corrections is warning a plan to privatize part of its operations
won’t save the state money. NHPR’s Dan Gorenstein
reports Commissioner Bill Wrenn told the Senate
Finance Committee the move would actually cost the state. Finance Chair Chuck
Morse has suggested one way the Department of Corrections could save over $10
million dollars next year is to send up to 600 inmates to private prisons.
Morse estimates the state saves $1 million dollars for every 100 inmates it
sends away. But DOC Commissioner Bill Wrenn says
that math is all wrong. “You might save a little bit. But then you have to
pay for the outsourcing, which is more than you are going to save. No one has
poked holes in our numbers yet. No one has said to me, ‘Commissioner, your
numbers are out of whack.’” In March, the House reduced the Correction’s budget
by nearly $10 million dollars. Wrenn responded,
saying to make that kind of cut he would be forced to close the Berlin
Prison.
October 29, 2004 Concord
Monitor
Gov. Craig Benson has said he is still considering shipping some inmates out
of state to private prisons. But state officials who reviewed the proposals
said they told Benson months ago the plan won't save the money predicted.
Instead of the $19 million annual savings that Benson's efficiency committee
projected, the state could save, at best, $300,000 a year, according to two
people who reviewed the bids.
"We made our evaluation, and we sent it to the governor's office with
our recommendation some months ago," said Rep. David Welch, a Kingston Republican
who helped study proposals from two private prisons. "We just didn't see
any significant cost savings. It's now up to the governor to act one way or
another." And at staff meeting last month, Stephen Curry, corrections
commissioner, told employees that the bids were still being evaluated,
according to minutes of the meeting. When an employee confronted Curry with
reports that the committee had concluded its study and had found no savings
in the proposals, Curry said the matter was confidential.
June 10, 2004
A Merrimack Superior Court judge has set a date for a hearing in a state
prison inmate's suit against Gov. Craig Benson over a plan to ship up to
1,000 medium security inmates out of state. Two weeks ago, Judge
Kathleen McGuire scheduled Nov. 22 as the day when inmate David Michaud can
present his case. The governor has proposed to send prisoners out of
state as a cost saving measure. In February, the governor's office sent
out a request for proposal (RFP), asking companies to bid on the right to
study the feasibility of moving up to 1,000 medium security prisoners out of
state. In March, the proposals were due, but only one company had bid
by the deadline. The governor's office re-bid the proposal. So far, Benson
has not taken steps to further the plan. During an open court hearing in
April, Michaud argued the proposal by the governor is causing
"anxiety" and "uncertainty" at New Hampshire State
Prison. Also, Michaud claimed the governor's office will automatically
give the contract to Corrections Corporation or America, the only company to
previously bid on the proposal. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), participated in the governor's efficiency commission
findings which recommended privatizing prison operations. Michaud said
this allowed the company to have vital information months before any other
bidder. Concord attorney Andrew Serell, who
represented CCA in Merrimack County Superior Court, said Michaud's claims
were unfounded. Last week, Benson nominated Brig. Gen. Stephen Curry to
become the new Corrections Commissioner. Executive councilors Ruth
Griffin, R-Portsmouth, Ray Burton, R-Bath and Peter Spaulding, R-Hopkinton,
all said they do not support the transfer
and hoped, if confirmed by the council, Curry would
not move forward with the proposal. (N.H. statehouse)
March 13, 2004
After
receiving only one bid, the state will rebid its proposal to send up to 1,000
prison inmates out of state, a spokesman for Gov. Craig Benson said
Friday. "We
want to gather more information," said Wendell Packard. Packard said the
new request for proposals probably will be issued next week.
The State
Employees Association, which represents corrections employees, renewed its
criticism of the effort Friday. The union complained that the only bidder
to date -- Corrections Corporation of America
-- has a conflict of interest because it participated in a state Efficiency
Commission that recommended privatizing prison operations. (Boston.com)
December 15, 2003
If New Hampshire turned its entire prison system over to a private company, it would be the first state in the nation to do
so. While private prisons provide space for 94,000 inmates across the
country, no state has privatized all of its prisons. In fact, less than 7
percent of inmates nationwide are in private facilities. The company
cited by the government efficiency commission, Corrections Corporation of
America, runs 59 jails and prisons with space for 59,000 inmates in 20
states. New Hampshire has four prisons with 2,500 inmates. According to
the report, the commission wants the state to consider sending prisoners to
private prisons in other states, building private prisons here and having a
private company take over the existing prisons. How much New Hampshire
would save is unclear. The report released yesterday says that a private
company could save the state $11 per an inmate per day, with a total savings
of $10 million a year. But that figure is based on the cost of housing
inmates at prisons out of state, according to John Babiarz,
a member of the commission. It does not include the cost of transporting
them. Corrections Corporation of American, which the governor's office
has asked to put together a proposal, said that it gave the commission the
$57 a day figure as a ballpark estimate for the cost of housing inmates out
of state, according to Steve Owen, a company spokesman. The company has not
calculated how much it would charge to run the New Hampshire's prison system
or if it would want to, Owen said. The Nashville-based company does not run
any prisons in the Northeast. Whether private prisons have an economic
advantage over public ones is unclear, according to Dan Mears, a researcher
at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., a group that studies criminal
justice issues. Few unbiased studies exist, he said. The ones that do show
minimal savings for privately run prisons. And in some instances, the
savings don't pay for themselves. States should look at hidden costs, like an
inmate's ability to find a job and housing when he or she is released, and
the possibility of lawsuits. "If a private prison ends up hiring
less quality staff than the state would and they end up abusing inmates, a
lawsuit could result," Mears said. And not only is the company
liable, the state is as well, according to Mike Sheehan, a Concord lawyer who
works on prison issues. Critics of private prisons suspect that
companies cut costs by understaffing, poor training for staff and reducing
rehabilitative services like drug and alcohol counseling. "You can
save money, but the question is whether it's a good idea," said Philip Mattera, who helped write a report on Corrections
Corporation of America. According to Owen, Corrections Corporation
saves the most money for its public clients in building new prisons. The
company can complete projects more quickly than government agencies. (C
Monitor)
Seabrook Nuclear Power
Plant
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Wackenhut (Group 4)
January 6, 2009 Portsmouth Herald
A nuclear power plant security officer was found guilty Tuesday of
driving drunk and was fined, had his license revoked and was court-ordered to
attend a residential treatment program. Matthew Butterworth, 31, of 31 Barker
St., Methuen, Mass., appeared in Portsmouth District Court Jan. 6 when he
pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of driving while intoxicated. As part
of a plea agreement, the charge was reduced from a second-offense DWI and a
violation-level complaint alleging he drove the wrong way down Congress
Street was dismissed. Represented by public defender Emily McLaughlin,
Butterworth’s plea was his admission to driving drunk on Oct. 26, when
Officer William Dubois saw him motor the wrong way through Market Square. In
exchange for his plea, Judge Sawako Gardner imposed a $1,000 fine, with half
suspended pending his good behavior for one year. The judge also revoked his
license for 12 months and ordered him to attend the state’s residential
seven-day multiple offender treatment program, or an
acceptable equivalent. Following the reinstatement of his license,
Butterworth is court-ordered to have an interlock device installed on any car
owned or used by him for a period of one year. In his financial affidavit for
determining eligibility for a public defender, Butterworth reported he works
as a security officer at Seabrook Station through Wackenhut Security.
May 14, 2008 Seacoast
Online
Three nuclear power plant security officers were the triggermen during
separate accidental shootings during the past nine months, according to
police. The most recent incident involved an off-duty Seabrook Station
security officer who accidentally shot a 9 mm bullet through his hand and
will face criminal charges after making some medical progress, said Seabrook
Police Chief Patrick Manthorn. "He’s going to
need quite a bit of reconstructive surgery," said Manthorn.
"The bullet went through his palm and exited out the back of his hand.
Because of the type of bullet, there was mushrooming, so the hole got bigger
in the back." Manthorn is not naming the power
plant shooter until charges are filed. The Seabrook chief did identify him as
a resident of the Governor Weare Apartment complex,
at 689 Lafayette Road, Seabrook, the same address
where another off-duty nuclear plant officer misfired his gun in a different
building during an unrelated incident. That shooting occurred Jan. 25 when
power plant security trainer Joshua Hill pulled the trigger of his
Springfield Armory handgun and shot a .45 caliber bullet through the floor of
his apartment and into the living space below. Manthorn
said Hill, a security instructor at the nuke plant, was cleaning his gun at
the time "and didn’t realize it was loaded." The most recent
shooting was "contained within the apartment," he said. Hill, 28,
of 30 Lower New Zealand Road, pleaded guilty on Feb. 11 to a related charge
of reckless conduct-placing another person in danger. In exchange for his
plea, he was sentenced to 30 days in the Rockingham County House of
Corrections, with all of it suspended pending his good behavior for one year
and a $300 fine. A third recent and accidental shooting by a power plant
officer was reported to Seabrook police in the fall, Manthorn
confirmed Wednesday. That shooting occurred when the unnamed officer was
holstering a 357 SigArms pistol and "a round
went off in the (nuclear plant) armory," said Manthorn.
No charges were filed, said the Seabrook chief. In 2002, another unnamed
nuclear plant security guard was suspended without pay after he accidentally
fired his gun inside a plant security post. Seabrook power plant officers are
not employed by the plant, but by the Wackenhut Corporation, a $3 billion
global security provider with headquarters in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. In
response to the Herald’s request for comment, Wackenhut spokesman Marc
Shapiro said he was unavailable for an interview, while assuring, "all
Wackenhut employees undergo a rigid employment screening process before hire.
Then, they are thoroughly trained in accordance with (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) requirements."
April 29, 2008 Seacoast
Online
Police are investigating an accidental shooting in the apartment of a
nuclear power plant security officer, the second accidental discharge by an
off-duty nuclear plant security officer this year. Both shootings occurred at
the Governor Weare Apartment complex at 689
Lafayette Road, said Seabrook Police Chief Patrick Manthorn,
adding they occurred in different buildings during unrelated incidents. Manthorn said the most recent shooting by a Seabrook
Station security officer involved a 9 mm handgun and was "contained
within the apartment." The police chief said details, including the date
of the incident, whether any injuries resulted and the security officer’s identity, will not be immediately released due to an
ongoing investigation. "We may be charging him criminally," said Manthorn. On Jan. 25, power plant security trainer Joshua
Hill pulled the trigger of his Springfield Armory handgun and shot a .45
caliber bullet through the floor of his apartment into the living space
below. "He was cleaning his weapon and didn’t realize it was
loaded," said Manthorn. Hill, 28, of 30 Lower
New Zealand Road, pleaded guilty on Feb. 11 to a related charge of reckless
conduct-placing another person in danger. In exchange for his plea, he was
sentenced to 30 days in the Rockingham County House of Corrections, with all
of it suspended pending his good behavior for one year and a $300 fine. Hill
was fined an additional $500, with $250 suspended contingent on the same year
of good behavior, said the Seabrook police chief. Both security officers are
employed by Wackenhut, a global security provider. Seabrook Station spokesman
Alan Griffith said he had no comment on either case, including whether the
incidents affected the officers’ employment at the nuclear power provider.
Griffith said because the shootings did not occur on power station property
and were "off hours," public comment about
the men’s private lives is not appropriate. "Safety is paramount"
at the plant, said Griffith, adding "if someone is involved in a
situation" it is investigated fully and there are consequences when
appropriate. In 2002 an unnamed nuclear plant security guard was suspended
without pay after he accidentally fired his gun inside a plant security post.
Griffith described it then as "an accidental discharge of his
sidearm."
|
|
