Lehman: Business from the County Attorney.

Assistant County Attorney Andy Chappell: No business from the County Attorney.

Lehman: OK.

Stutsman: Andy, your big opportunity, and…

Chappell: I know. I was hoping to shine, and Pat gave me nothing.

Lehman: Well, it’s better than making something up. You can get in trouble with that. Next item is business from the Board of Supervisors. First item here is a letter from Mike Richardson from the State Department of Corrections regarding the Johnson County Jail Inspection. Carol is still with us; I can hear her cough in the background. It’s not coming in that clear. Don’t worry about it. We did receive the letter. It circulated and it’s in our packet here. It also circulated…

Stutsman: Pardon me? I was going to say that Bob and Duane were told that this was on the agenda and they just chose not to be here this morning.

Administrative Assistant Carol Peters: I think they had a conflict. They just couldn’t get here.

Lehman: Pat has been involved with stuff. Pat, do you want to kind of highlight and outline some of the things? Carol, I know she has had the chance to see it, but her voice is probably not the best this morning.

Harney: I don’t have my notes. I’ve got some in my desk. That’s all right; I’ll go across this as it is. One of the things that they’ve determined is that they are over capacity, at least during the time of the inspection. It was cell blocks A, B, C, and D, they were over their rated capacity due to the classification of offenders. That seems to be one of the problems that’s coming up in the jail, is that you have a cell block that would hold a number of prisoners if they need to be segregated, whether they’re sex offenders or someone that may be violent, no one else can be in that particular cell block. So right away you’ve reduced your occupancy because of the numbers of people that have to be segregated. Same way if a female classification, if they’re classified, actually no one else can be in those particular cell blocks, it reduced the number of spaces that you have. He also mentioned that people can’t be sleeping on the floor; they need to be in a particular bunk, which also is going to cause some problems. He indicated he’s going to be back to do some inspections, unannounced, to make sure they’re complying. So they’re going to be doing the best that they can and, obviously, we’re going to have look at ways to either get some people released as this goes or, possibly, transfer some people elsewhere. There’s also some problems with, the roof has been leaking, they need to repair the roof, replace some tile, clean and paint, there’s some peeling paint and so forth in that particular building. It’s already in the plans to replace the roof and remove the solar units off the roof because they’ve been not operating for the last few years and they’ve deteriorated to the point where the roof has to be replaced. So that’s a hazard as well, so those things need to be repaired. And like I say, the roof itself is on the plans to be replaced here this next year. It says maximum security cells need to be equipped with tamper-resistant bunks, secure tables and seats, there was a couple defective units there, there was a toilet plus a wash-basin in a couple of the cells that were not operable. They’ve been repaired. They can’t use any drop cords; everything must be used permanent wiring. They go on through their jail, their fire drills aren’t up to date, they need to practice, they need to set forth some kind of a policy or procedure for their fire drills, and what they’re going to do if there is a fire, and how they will travel, where they will put people, things like that, which that can be done pretty easily. It’s just a matter of the administrative staff doing that. Their operating procedures, manuals the same way. And keeping the place sanitary. There was some food on the ceiling, some things like that, again, that’s a matter of housekeeping and getting those tiles replaced. Another big area was the exercise room. They had reduced that to try to make space. He says that’s not adequate for 92 prisoner, so they need to enlarge the exercise space for all the prisoners. I’m not sure where we’ll go with that. They’ve moved it into the library to try to have room, to make more room for the inmates, and obviously we’re not going to be able to do that. That’s kind of an oversight of what it is.

Lehman: Some of these things we are, have addressed already. You had said, some of the repairs, the roof, and that type of stuff, we have made provisions to take care of that. Some of these things like the fire drills, I think, we’re looking at more personnel, some things where it just frees people up to maybe address some of these items.

Thompson: Mike?

Lehman: Yes. Go ahead, Carol.

Thompson: I was down there yesterday and (inaudible) said that he had (inaudible) the fire-drill training. There were several parts to it and he had already completed all except the actual fire drill. So they did that last week, and (inaudible). He notified the jail inspectors that that is in compliance now.

Lehman: OK. Good point, and I think we need to point out that Sheriff Carpenter and Duane Lewis and Captain Wagner, they are aware of these and they have taken some steps within their limitations of addressing it, so it’s not like they’re ignoring them. They are trying to work and satisfy some of these requirements. They had a conflict today, so it’s not like they’re just being oblivious to these requests. They have taken steps to try and go ahead and answer some of these questions here and updates. OK. I don’t know what the timetable was. Was Richardson like, going to, are they supposed to have something in writing back? Was he going to come back and inspect, and see what had been done, or?

Harney: He just said that he was going to come back and do an inspection. It would be an unannounced inspection. Again, we don’t have any idea when, it just said that we need to comply with those. I assume he’s giving a reasonable amount of time to meet these criteria. Particularly when you get in the area where, like I said, that the way he listed those was segregation and classification or people was persons of whom violence is reasonably anticipated. So if you have anyone that’s perhaps somewhat violent that maybe would do injury to another inmate or their jailer, they need to be segregated. Persons who are health risks also need to be segregated, and persons who have sexually deviant behavior or maybe reasonably anticipated, those are individuals that need to be segregated, so that could really change, like I said, the number of people that can be held in a particular cell block. You’ve reduced that by the numbers that could be held in those particular cell blocks.

Lehman: OK. I think there was one individual cell that they were going to do some remodeling on so that could be made use of. They were having a problem in the past; they had questions about the cleanliness of the walls and floors and ceilings, and we’re doing some steps there. We’ve appropriated some funds to clean and repaint.

Harney: The audio and visual devices to monitor the inmates is defective in one particular area, and those need to be repaired or upgraded to a newer model. So that’s another expense that’s going to come out their budget.

Lehman: I don’t know if there’s any questions from the public? We haven’t had this letter, I guess, February 6 is when it was dated, and I don’t know exactly when it was received.

Stutsman: February 9, mine is stamped.

Lehman: The 9th, so, I know they have taken some steps here trying to address the things the jail inspector had pointed out.

Neuzil: I think that people need to understand that, Johnson County residents need to understand that by voting no against the jail bond referendum, this issue hasn’t gone away. We’ve got, page 1, the thing that is just staring right at us, and that is, we’ve still got an overcrowded jail, and the corrective action is arrange for alternate housing of offenders. And I don’t know how much more patient the Department of Corrections is going to be before they require for us to arrange for alternate housing. And I think that we all have to be prepared for that, and I think it’s definitely a wake-up call, with this letter, that we’re going to have to really start moving on this issue once again.

Harney: Another note that he made on his inspection was, it says, I’ll just read it verbatim, it says, "This facility is not designed to adequately separate juvenile inmates from adult inmates, and therefore may not hold juveniles at any time."

Stutsman: It never has held juveniles.

Harney: It never has. But that’s another issue, but it’s still a place for people to go.

Lehman: I think we’ve reminded ourselves and the public that this is a 20-year old building. When things get 20-year old, a commercial, industrial building wears a little bit faster, harsher than a residence. We talked about the solar panels. Someone pointed out that it took about 3 bond issues to have this particular building erected, and each time it was scaled down. You can point at several features, such as solar panels. It was done to save dollars that, maybe, its useful life has come and gone. This is something we need to address, and we’re not going to…we still have other factors that we want to look at, and that’s what Carol and Pat are looking at, are trying to get some of the statistics to see how we can address this overcrowding problem. But we’ve got so many needs that we need to give some answers to the jail inspector, to say that we’re trying to make some progress within our limited finances right here. I don’t think they expect us to go out and have another jail referendum without doing our homework, and I think that’s what Pat and Carol and the other staff are trying to do, is get our numbers put together here and see what options we do have as an alternative housing.

Harney: Yes, and it’s going to show in the budget we’ve got, with the staff that we’re adding to the jail to help the Sheriff’s department deal with the inmates and the prisoner population. Plus the repairs we’re doing to the roof and the repairs within the building, we’re looking at nearly $700,000, and here we are, getting close to $1,000,000 and we still haven’t addressed any of the problem of the overcrowding.

Neuzil: Yes, you bring up a good point, and that is I hope that the inspector understands that we are starting to make additional efforts, with the 4 new deputies in the budget, and those corrections. I hope that he understands that is considered to be some corrective action starting to take place.

Lehman: It leads into an additional field, that is, what is the timetable here? Where are you at on statistics, and things like that? I know that you’re gathering some, they’ve had some problems trying to obtain some of that, due to classification. The public was told that we’d try to get some of this information to them, and have some discussions and things, and I’m just kind of curious of where any timetable we might be at.

Harney: Well, we just got notified, I think Carol and I, just last week, that they have gotten a lot of the statistics together, and we’re going to have a meeting again with Pat White coming up next week, I think it’s on the 28th. I don’t have the time on that, and we’re going to discuss some of those statistics and see what we’ve got, and try to decide where we need to go from there. I was going to touch on this at another time, but I think now is probably a good time to bring it up. I’ve been in contact with the 6th Judicial District Department of Corrections, out of Cedar Rapids. Gary Hinsman is in charge of that. We’ve discussed with him what we may or may not do in the jails across the state, and one of the things that he’s agreed to do is to come to Johnson County, him or his staff, and review the number of inmates that are in the jail, and try to detect if there’s some disabilities as far as mental disabilities, things along that line, where they may be able to reach out to those people and perhaps put them into a program where maybe they can be put into a residential facility somewhere where they could be brought into the community and work where they can actually be monitored, put on a medication, and see that they’re monitored to keep them on the medication, so that perhaps we can cut down on the recidivism of them coming back into the jails. That’s just one possibility that they’re going to look at, and there’s some issues on the table also, as well, as what we may or may not be able to do with public intoxications. Again, we can’t stop them from being put in the jail when they’re arrested, short of taking them to someone else and leaving them at their home, or something, but a lot of the statistics will probably prove that they don’t stay home, they go back out. So once they have gone through the process, it doesn’t alleviate what happens in the jail, but again, perhaps if they get put into some kind of a program where they are…a detox effort where they can kind of get them back on the tracks so they know where they can stop with alcohol, or leave it alone, perhaps we can cut down on the recidivism there as well. These are all issues that’s kind of in their infancy, but yet there’s been a lot of things done over the years with MECCA, and so forth like that, and we’re going to look at what we may or may not be able to do in those particular areas. The 6th Judicial District’s like everyone else; they’ve got a lot of problems with money. They’re cut way back, they’ve got some mandated items that they have to do, but the State Legislature, again, hasn’t given them any dollars to do that with. They’ve got, I think, 6 vacancies that they have not filled over the last year because they’re using those dollars to meet the mandated items that’s out there, along with pay raises that’s been negotiated that they don’t have the money to pay, so they have to keep a shortage of employees to pay the wages of the people that were granted pay raises. And that was done through arbitration, so they have no choice.

Lehman: I think that’s (inaudible) tidbits every week, but when you have (inaudible) meaningful information, I think that’s kind of what we had talked to the public about, getting it available to them, keep them…So if they have some feedback they want to give to us on (inaudible) their take on the information, if there’s a course they would like to see as maybe investigate a little further. I realize your hands are pretty full on some of this stuff, and you’re still absorbing, it’s all new to everyone. Sometimes you get this information, but you have to have a professional interpretation to realize what you can and can’t do. Somebody throws something out to you, and you realize that either for financial reasons or maybe legal reasons, as far as what maybe the jail inspector might tell you, that this is not acceptable practice, or something.

Harney: Well, like Carol and I are trying to do, and I imagine all the Board is involved in that as well, is to, we’re trying to look at every possible aspect that we can. How many alternatives are there? What is a reasonable alternative, and would it or would it not have an effect on the jail population? It’s just going to take time. People get frustrated, think it should happen overnight. It takes time, and we would like to have it happen faster too.

Lehman: OK. Bob Welsh?

Reverend Robert Welsh: If I could, I realize what Terrence said about (inaudible) go away with the defeat of the bond issue. The other thing, though, is, I think the bond issue said, at least in part, was there was a real desire to have some community dialogue about how do you address this situation? I’ve seen lists that you all have been discussing, about the various players, the people who should be brought together. (Inaudible) aspect of having some community dialogue on this issue. Then the statement was made, well, we will address that after we get done with the budget. Well, OK, you all have dealt with the budget, and I guess what I would urge you to do is to set a time, either this week or next week, for a meeting at such a time, where you would invite those persons and the general public to come together under your all’s leadership, to look at the alternatives, to share the kinds of information that Pat has shared, because I think it’s great. There’s planning (inaudible) disabilities (inaudible), the funding, the whole discussion (inaudible), and the possibility of funding for that. And I think there are a lot of alternatives out there, and I think that people should really welcome the opportunity to be in dialogue, and I think they’re looking to you all and, that’s been over 3 and a half months ago now. I know you’ve had to deal with the budget. I guess, again, I’m expressing the hope that, either today or next week, you’ll…and probably it would be better next week than today, check some of people’s schedules and all and, but if you could set a time next week, then you’re going to have this community dialogue. You will have the information from the March 28th meeting, which again, I hope, there has been some people who have expressed interest to be present at those meetings, that they would be notified of the time.

Lehman: I think that’s a good point. If we can make information to the public, it cuts down on the misconceptions. Once they know that what our limitations might be, if they want to make suggestions to us, they can realize ahead of time that we can’t go there. We’re restricted, we can’t take that option. I know what you’re saying is, make it open to them so if they want to give us some feedback, they have all the criteria that we have, and they’re dealing with the same agenda.

Harney: Another thing, you mentioned the mental health courts. The mental health courts and the drug courts are something that’s before the legislature, and that is at risk of being cut as well, because of the state funding being cut back. So at this point, it doesn’t look like it’s going to go. It’s not totally shut out, but it’s looking pretty dim at this point.

Lehman: And that’s a specific item, where people might say, well, look at this. You can say, well, here’s the numbers, or here’s the dialogue I’ve had; that doesn’t look like a viable option. People need to know that ahead of time, rather than coming in and trying to make suggestions that we’ve already looked at, as either as a couple research people, or as a Board. So, cut the fat out this, is I think what Bob is saying. Make information available to people so they’re able to focus also.

Welsh: I’m saying, did everybody at the table share information openly, and allow for (inaudible) and jointly lay out items of action, at this point.

Lehman: So you’re having a meeting with, you and Carol are meeting with Pat White on the 28th?

Harney: Yes.

Lehman: I know there’s a few individuals in the community that, I don’t know if they’re…you need to inform them if they’d like to be there to hear some of that firsthand. Maybe you could give us a report back on that, or we could set up a meeting time at our next meeting, set one up so we can schedule some type of information, if you feel you have something substantial, enough merit.

Harney: Right. We were kind of waiting until we got our report back from the Sheriff’s Department, and they were able to get that stuff drawn out of the computers, that statistics.

Stutsman: The data information, first of all.

Harney: Right.

Stutsman: Before you move to the next step.

Harney: Right, statistics and data, and then move on from there, and that’s what this is about, coming up next week.

Lehman: Yes, you’re getting bits and pieces right now. We’re looking for a summary of what you’ve got at a certain point. I think people want to know.

Thompson: The data will allow us to identify who are the primary users of the jail and what sorts of prisoners (inaudible) large groups, and that will give us some hint about what we need to do to help things out.

Lehman: Basically identify our problem areas as far as the overpopulation, and address our options on that.

Harney: And you’ll find, one of the things that it appears we’re finding out, that’s one of the things that the study of the 6th Judicial District will get, is it appears that Johnson County community and the entire area around here does a very good job when they detect someone with mental illnesses. They take them to the University Hospitals. There’s a routine before they go into jail. It doesn’t mean that they don’t end up in the jail, but they do a good job of taking them there first, for evaluation, or if they need to stay, they’ll allow them to stay, otherwise if they’re released they go back to the jail. So I think in Johnson County, I think you’re going to find that that happens a lot more than it would in a county that doesn’t have a hospital so readily available.

Lehman: OK. Any other discussion on this topic?

Thompson: (Inaudible) part of the discussion, but I heard someone ask what are we expected to do?

Lehman: Yes, our next step. Bob Welsh has suggested that as we get a substantial amount of information, to make it worth our while and the public’s to share either in some type of a information setting here in the Board, or in a separate community meeting, to share some of this information, if we feel that we get enough of it to justify a gathering, I guess.

Thompson: I was thinking more in response to the jail (inaudible), the jail inspector’s letter. I think a lot of the things that are in there, I think it would be our responsibility rather than the Sheriff’s, because they (inaudible) the building, and so we should probably draft a letter responding to each of those items, telling the jail inspector what our plans are.

Lehman: That’s a good point, because the letter is addressed to the Board of Supervisors, rather than the Sheriff’s Department.

Thompson: I also think if you compare last year’s letter to this year’s letter, you see a progression. Last year they said, you’re overpopulated and you need to address it. This year, they said, you’re overpopulated and you need to move those people out on the days when the overpopulation occurs. So, we can expect it to progress year by year, when it’s increasing in (inaudible), descriptions of what we’re supposed to do to (inaudible) the problem.

Lehman: I think you’re correct, Carol. We need to give an answer to the areas that we can definitely, we are working on, and give her some consideration of the things that we are going to be looking at in the areas that we can’t do anything immediately about. I think you’re right; we need to answer this letter in some form.

Stutsman: So Carol, are you going to draft a letter, then, and then, have that…

Thompson: Me and Pat could maybe work on it together. Is that OK, Pat?
Harney: Sure, that’s fine.

Stutsman: Where does the Sheriff or, is it Doug Wagner…

Harney: Dave.

Stutsman: I’m sorry, Dave Wagner fit into this? What’s their role in this?

Thompson: Well, as I understand it, they’re responsible for the operation of the jail. So those items that apply to that, like the fire drills, would be their responsibility to answer, and the items that (inaudible) to the building, like the roof and things like that, would be our responsibility.

Stutsman: OK. So would they be drafting a letter too, to address those issues?

Thompson: I thought Dave Wagner told me yesterday that he had done that.

Stutsman: OK.

Thompson: I haven’t seen the letter, but maybe a starting place would be to get a copy of whatever correspondence he’s had, and go on from there.

Lehman: That’s something I think maybe ought to be shared at one of our informational meetings, too. It’s not a high-security document, I think it’s something that the public would like to know, that we are taking some steps. Even a combination here of things, like Carol said, that we control the physical plant, and the Sheriff’s Department has some of the operations of the jail itself. Both those types of questions are asked here by this letter. Between the 2 bodies, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department, I think they’d like to have some answers.

Neuzil: I was going to add in addition, I think that, I believe we’re going to have to, and I think reflective of what Bob was talking about, to come up with an action plan. I mean, once we get the statistics, and figure out who’s in jail, where are the problem areas, can we come up with some alternatives to those problem areas, or are we going to have to ship them out. Then I think we have to come up with an action plan for what’s next. I’d be happy to help out with that part of it.

Stutsman: I think that’s where the community would be good to involve them at that time, to talk about some alternatives and some other options that maybe we haven’t thought of.

Lehman: If we had public input, even if we had a list with everything that we eliminated, possibilities either for financial or legal reasons we were not able to do, and try to get down to a consensus, these are 3 or 4 areas that we can use to address our problems. I don’t see just one issue. I think the public felt that a new facility wasn’t the one answer. It may turn out in the long run it is, but my feeling is we need to do the research to justify whatever action we do end up taking. We just can’t keep dragging this on for 3, 4, 5 years. I think the, like Carol said, the letters that we’re getting from the jail inspector are again much more pinpointed now, and he wants solutions to the immediate problems. So, I think we’re going to have to stay focused on it, and keep trying to make progress. I think Bob said, the public heard us say that we’re going to be looking at this, but we didn’t give them a definite timetable but people want to see some progress on this.

Stutsman: I think what people are asking for is a plan. We need to step up to the plate and come up with a plan about how we’re going to address this.

Welsh: I agree with you, Sally, that a plan needs to be developed, just not by the 5 of you Supervisors, but needs to involve the City, the University, surely the attorneys, judges, the County Attorney’s office, Police Department, and the citizens (inaudible). There needs to be a real community appeal, with all the people together saying, hey, this is a common problem that we all have at stake here, and (inaudible), and I think out of that kind of dialogue, then there would be able to be a plan evolve, or assignments made, or you’d say I’ll look into this, I’ll look into that.

Harney: And I believe that’s what we were planning on doing, is getting everyone involved. We wanted to have this meeting with the direct data and then we’re going to set a time after that, and get people involved. I think, probably, Dan Holderness, this morning, from Coralville, probably said it the best. We can talk about it forever, but until we put it on the agenda and take action, it’s not going to happen.

Welsh: And I guess I’m just urging you to set that time (inaudible) and call those people to the table.

Stutsman: Well, let’s wait until you meet next week, and see where you’re at with the data.

Lehman: What your next step might be and progress, and try to bring this thing into focus more. I don’t know, Bob had said 3 months ago we said we’ve got a budget to deal with, and this jail issue is involved in that. Now, we’re pretty well over, we’ve got the budget pretty well set, we’re set for public hearing, let’s get on with this next step and get some targets up on the wall, and see where the bullseye ends up. I think that’s what people want. I haven’t heard that we have any definite solutions yet; we’re still looking at the broad base of it, but people want to see progress on this.

Welsh: Mike, does Carol know when that meeting on the 28th is?

Lehman: Carol, are you aware of a time or place of the meeting on the 28th?

Thompson: 10:00 in the morning at Pat’s, I think.

Lehman: 10:00 at the County Attorney’s Office on the morning of the 28th, next Wednesday.

Neuzil: Maybe we can just have it put on the Informal again, just so we can have some discussion about how that meeting went.

Stutsman: I think that’s a good idea.

Lehman: OK. A possibility of maybe if we have enough information and feel that you do have something more definite.

Harney: I want to make it clear that Carol and I are on the Committee to kind of help get this going and get it underway. Every Board Member and everyone in the community needs to get involved in it.

Lehman: Good point.

Thompson: This meeting is in the form of a work group (inaudible) by Pat White.

Stutsman: Could we have an update on the next Informal Meeting agenda to just kind of see what was discussed and review again where we are at.

Thompson: Sure.

Lehman: I think Carol’s point is this is a work session between the immediate parties here. But, the public I guess is welcome. I don’t know what the space limitations might be. It’s not going to be a public hearing as such.

Thompson: No, it’s not going to be a public meeting. Maybe Pat can (inaudible) on that a little bit more.

Stutsman: Pat’s not here this morning, Carol.

Thompson: Oh, I’m sorry.

Lehman: We’ve got Andy sitting in. It needs to be made, too, that it’s not a public hearing. That basically you are researching and processing a little bit of the information that you’ll have.

Neuzil: Thursday, if it’s on the informal, that’s when we can bring it out.

Stutsman: Yes. That might be the time. That’s a good point.

Lehman: All right. I think that pretty well covered the aspects of that. Let’s move on.

(Continued in Part 3)