Tulsa County Jail - Who pays?

(1/2) > >>

CoffeeBean:
The current City/County contract regarding municipal inmates is set to expire.  Under the existing contract, the County held City inmates at no charge in return for use of the old municipal facility as holding space.  

Under the new contract proposed by the County, the City would pay $54.13 per inmate per day.  The proposed contract also changes the definition of "municipal prisoners" from people held on "misdemeanor charges" to people held on "municipal and state or federal" charges.  

The proposed contract is silent regarding use of the holding facility.    

Oklahoma law states:
quote:"Every county, by authority of the board of county commissioners and at the expense of the county, shall have a jail or access to a jail in another county for the safekeeping of prisoners lawfully committed."  See 57 O.S. 41.
I am not aware of any authority obligating the City to maintain a municipal jail facility.  

In 2005, Sheriff Glanz resumed management operation at the Tulsa County Jail after underbidding three other private operators.  

At the time, concern was expressed that Glanz, unlike the private operators, was never legally bound to his bid, and time has proven those concerns were prescient; Glanz has failed to operate the jail within his proposed budget and now the County is seeking a new revenue stream based on the very same arguments that Glanz himself used against the private operators, i.e., the existence of a financial incentive to keep people in jail.  

If Stanley can't run the jail, I say give it back to the private operator.  At least private operators are bound to the contract, City residents are not double-taxed and the private operators assume all liability, legal and medical costs.

waterboy:
The reality may be that it is simply more expensive to incarcerate prisoners than anyone wants to admit. You left out that the prisoners themselves are also charged fees and usually end up paying for their stay for several years. Thats not money that goes into victims compensation. Perhaps it helps pay the cost of prosecution? Should we then privatize the prosecutors office rather than charge the prisoners? The county and Glanz may be attempting to cover the real costs by jacking around with the contracts and descriptions, but corporate operators simply cut the quality of food, employees and health care to fulfill the contracts. The County looks pretty cheesy but the the whole process isn't pretty.

Double A:
I told you this would be the issue to watch in 2008. The County is trying to steamroll the City yet again.

waterboy:
quote:Originally posted by Double A

I told you this would be the issue to watch in 2008. The County is trying to steamroll the City yet again.


So you're psychic. What's your take on how it should be paid for and who runs it?

CoffeeBean:
quote:Originally posted by waterboy

You left out that the prisoners themselves are also charged fees and usually end up paying for their stay for several years.

Do you have any supporting numbers?  Is every arrestee charged a fee?  If charges are dropped, or a person is found not guilty, is the fee refunded?  How much is this fee?  I just don't see this fee being much of a player in deferring the cost of incarceration.        

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

corporate operators simply cut the quality of food, employees and health care to fulfill the contracts.

Not sure what facts you base this on.  I may be wrong, but I think Aramark (private) was the vendor under both CCA and the Sheriff's department.  

Similarly, the Sheriff retained the employment of CCA staff when he resumed operation (primarily because the deputies didn't want the job).  

Finally, the health care has never been provided by the County.  I believe Correctional Medical Services, (based in Colorado?), has the current contract.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page