The Feds get it wrong, again!

In recently published reports, John Hagar, Special Master and Federal overseer for the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (CalDORC) termed the administration of Roderick Hickman as "one of the most productive periods of prison reform". Where Mr. Hagar obtained this monumental misinformation is anyone's guess.

At the inception of Mr. Hickman's administration, the single functioning Correctional Officer Training academy was closed for 18 months, thereby shutting off the needed flow of Correctional Officers that would have constituted the basis of any prison reform, since efficient inmate service delivery systems begin with and are facilitated by Correctional Officers. This "productive period", as termed by Mr. Hagar, has been beset with institutional "step-down" procedures which close inmate programs (such as visiting, education and vocational programs) and divert staff to other, more critical, prison functions when there is insufficient staff available.

Thanks to Mr. Hickman, these chronic staff shortages are now routine as they were throughout the duration of his tenure.

How this can be termed as "productive" by Mr. Hagar is mystifying since these actions, which were brought about by Hickman's decision to close the Correctional Officer Training Academy, are anathema to Judge Henderson's vision for an enlightened and rehabilitative CalDORC, which centers itself on inmate services. Services which are now impeded and hobbled by the conscious decision of Mr. Hickman to reduce staffing through unreplaced attrition during an unprecedented period of inmate population growth.

I guess Mr. Hagar and Judge Henderson were too busy ignoring CCPOA to hear their cries to restart the academy and get more necessary staff to the prisons. These two were just too mesmerized by Roderick's rhetoric to see the train wreck on the tracks ahead. CCPOA saw it coming and spoke of it often.

Any praise of Mr. Hickman as the great prison reformer is, without a doubt, misplaced.

Now we come to the myth of Mr. Hickman as the great "Code Of Silence Crusader".

Being an excellent politician, Rod Hickman was a one-trick pony, a trick from which all other actions sprang. Master one, basic incantation and you can improvise the rest for the duration of your career.

Based on the philosophy of "Take credit for the successes and blame-shift the failures", the artful politician will always have a villain. For Don Quixote it was windmills, for elected and appointed politicians in California it is CCPOA.

Whatever George Bush isn't being blamed for, "The Powerful Prison Guard's Union" seems to pick up the slack. Yes, the "Powerful Prison Guard's Union" is the elemental invocation that conjures up the automated excuse line for all CalDORC mis/malfeasance. CalDORC's motto seems to be, "When in doubt, blame "The Powerful Prison Guard's Union". Let everyone think that we're not smart enough to screw things up this badly."

In fact, as regular readers of this blog now know, allegations of CCPOA participation in any "Code of Silence" is merely a smoke screen to disguise the true culprit, the administration of CalDORC. Please read the preceding blog article entitled " THE MATRIX: System Failure." for more information on the enforcement of the "Code of Silence" by the knee-breakers of CalDORC.

Yes Mr. Hagar and Judge Henderson, in the State of California the bad guys disguise themselves by masquerading as crusaders in a plethora of costumes from pinstripes to gabardine. My advice to the both of you is that you research the historical positions of CalDORC v. CCPOA, leaving political considerations aside, and render your judgements on the factual data rather than the rants of charismatic leaders.

Remember Jim Jones.

Lorraine Bradley

NOW - TAKE THE POLL
(There will be one pop-up advertisement after you vote. Just click the "X" in the upper right hand corner to make it go away. This keeps the voting process FREE.)

Should CalDORC stop the blame-shifting for their failures and accept responsibility?
	Yes
	No
	I don't know
Free polls from Pollhost.com

THE MATRIX: System Failure.

"Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you. Follow the white rabbit."

Just as the malicious Matrix of movie fable has enslaved and exploited the human race, turning them into nothing more than electrical storage batteries that power the machines, so the disciplinary matrix is being utilized by unscrupulous correctional managers to wage political warfare against ethical employees who expose the corruption of management's political cronies and allies.

Morpheus asks, "How far down does the rabbit hole go?"

In theory only, does the operating policy of the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (CalDORC) require the Hiring Authority¹ to locally conduct investigations or refer to OIA, reports of employee misconduct for the initiation of fact-finding inquiries into the allegation(s). In reality, politics, rather than substance, seem to determine which reports will find their way into an investigative folder and which reports will find their way into the "round-file".

One can determine whether or not their report of employee misconduct has found its way into the trash can by determining whether or not they have been summoned, to the office of an investigator, as a (complaining) witness, in a timely manner (usually within a year). It is usual in investigations that, when the interviews begin, the complaining witness will be the first interviewed to validate the written report and provide additional, relevant information that has not been mentioned in the initial report.

Exemplary of this pick-and-choose process of selective referrals is the California Institution for Men in Chino.

As regular readers of this blog know, there have been a variety of reports, submitted long ago, alleging employee misconduct, that have been reported directly to the Warden which, apparently, have made their way to the dump. Complaining witnesses are still awaiting their interview after almost a year with no investigations in sight.

Of particular note within the pages of this blog, as reported, is the misdemeanor Labor Code violation committed against a CIM Correctional Officer, so it was reported, that was directed by CIM's Warden. This Correctional Officer wrote a written report of employee misconduct to the Warden on August 24, 2005, a report which seems to have drifted into the administrative black hole from which it has yet to emerge.

Then there is the report of employee misconduct that was filed on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 which, based on information gathered by a prior institutional investigation, alleged that a peer employee had been dishonest in the filing of a false report of employee misconduct. This November 29, 2005 allegation was supported by the exculpatory conclusion of the initial investigation. Once again this report seems to be drifting toward the singularity.

There are, at all prisons, Teflon^® employees who are, seemingly, exempt from accountability for their misconduct and the California Institution for Men is no exception. On the other side of the coin are the employees who are persecuted for their adherence to their departmental training and policy regarding the compulsory reporting of employee misconduct.

Clearly, those designated as the "Hiring Authority" will embrace a standardized punitive system for employee misconduct (commonly referred to as "The Matrix"), as such a system gives them an excuse to be as harsh as they wish while allowing them to blame others for their draconian decisions.

There would seem to be a logic in such a system that standardizes punishments as long as all reports of employee misconduct are referred for investigation and the results of the investigations are, objectively and fairly, analyzed. However, due to local political considerations, all reports of employee misconduct are not created as equals and some will instantly cross the Event Horizon on their way into the abyss, never to be seen or heard from again, while others will be immediately dispatched for the requisite inquisition and bloodletting, oftentimes targeting known whistleblowers who are merely complying with CalDORC policies.

This has a chilling effect on those who have joined CalDORC with an internal set of ethics in place. By word-of-law they are being taught, by Sacramento, that, technically, they should comply with the reporting of all employee misconduct. However, by local example, they are being taught that, pragmatically, if a report is filed against a local political pundit, it could mean the kiss-of-death to their career. In other words, be careful who you report.

This converts an otherwise laudable concept into nothing more than a tactic to identify whistleblowers for later persecution.

The disturbing question this leaves is, "Who is left with promotional potential?" The answer to this question may also answer the age-old question, asked in disgust at State Senate hearings regarding mis/malfeasance in CalDORC, "Where do you get these people?" Obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool - those that are left when all of the ethical employees have been silenced.

Unquestionably, CalDORC will ignore this inconsistency which standardizes and centralizes only one aspect of employee discipline within CalDORC, yet ignores the, oftentimes, political process which subjects one employee to the disciplinary system while immunizing another for the same or similar acts. It is these "Teflon Dons" and their meteoric rises within CalDORC who will ensure controversy and failure for decades to come as they move into, ever increasing, positions of power.

My message to all of CalDORC's watchdog agencies is simply this:

You should develop an alternative which replaces the Hiring Authority as the sole arbiter of employee misconduct referrals. They have been compromised by local politics and are ineffective for this purpose. This decision making should be centralized and removed from local politics.

Remember the CalDORC Promotional Formula:

Promotion = TGP² (Throw Great Parties, Take Good Pictures)

Lorraine Bradley

__________________________

¹ Pursuant to §31140.3 of the Departmental Operations Manual, "The Hiring Authority is an individual authorized by The Director to hire, discipline, and dismiss staff." Within the Institution's Division, this would be the Wardens of the individual prisons.

NOW - TAKE THE POLL
(There will be one pop-up advertisement after you vote. Just click the "X" in the upper right hand corner to make it go away. This keeps the voting process FREE.)

Does the Warden at your prison or the Regional Administrator in your parole region play politics with staff discipline?
	Yes
	No
	I don't know
	I’m a Teflon Don and I resent this poll!
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Will The REAL Inspector Clouseau Please Stand Up.

Recently, a training module was introduced at the California Institution for Men in Chino regarding the implementation of CalDORC's Administrative Bulletin 05/03¹ which facilitates the "PROCESSING OF ADULT INMATE/PAROLEE APPEALS, CDC FORM 602, WHICH ALLEGE STAFF MISCONDUCT.".

This one hour module is, allegedly, a training module which provides sufficient training for a new generation of employee misconduct investigators. Unfortunately, CalDORC has glossed over one, very important, piece of information in this training module.

At the successful completion, those receiving only this training alone will still be unqualified to conduct Employee Misconduct Investigations/Inquiries as per §31140.5.2 of the Department's Operation Manual (DOM) which states:

§31140.5.2 Required Training for Staff Assigned to Conduct Employee Misconduct Investigations/ Inquiries

The Assistant Director, OIA, shall establish training programs for staff assigned to conduct employee misconduct investigations/inquiries. Appropriate notice regarding the available dates for such training shall be given to all units within CDC. Prior to conducting any employee misconduct investigation/inquiry, staff are required to complete the CDC Internal Affairs Investigation Course.

Investigator training shall include the following areas:

• Role of internal affairs.
• Policy and ethics.
• Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights.
• SPB Rule 61 (SKELLY).
• Complaint process, including citizens' complaints.
• Internal affairs policies and procedures.
• Internal affairs investigation processes.
• Legal constraints.
• Courtroom and administrative hearing procedures.
• Interrogation/interview techniques.
• Investigative security.
• Information practices constraints.
• Public record constraints.
• Media practices.
• Miranda requirements.
• Rules of evidence.
• Investigative techniques and report writing.
• Labor relations considerations.
• Employee representation.
• Public relations practices.
• Other training required in the performance of assigned duties.

The cursory one hour module that is currently in circulation, to be completed as an OJT module, contains little, if any, of the requisite course material and is, clearly, deficient in scope and content and is not sufficient, by itself, to qualify an investigator to conduct Employee Misconduct Investigations/Inquiries - even those initiated by inmate/parolee appeals/602s, a distinction which is not made in the DOM.

CalDORC will, undoubtedly, mount their defensive ruse that both Administrative Bulletin 05/03 and the implementational lesson plan are nothing more than investigations into an inmate/parolee generated 602/appeal, however, this is dishonest on its face because the core of both AB 05/03 and the lesson plan involves inmate/parolee allegations of employee misconduct, nothing else. Therefore, the investigation/inquiry commences as an investigation into allegations of employee misconduct and nothing more.

Apparently, those in Sacramento's Office Of Training And Professional Development are unaware that the DOM supersedes Administrative Bulletins and is the controlling body of policy in CalDORC. In other words, Administrative Bulletins must conform to the Department's Operational Manual, not the other way around.

I have consulted with one who is versed in labor law, as it relates to the Operating Policy of CalDORC and he suggests that shop stewards that represent staff members in investigatory interviews, whether the staff member is either a witness or the subject of the investigation, establish the investigator's/interviewer's credentials and qualification to conduct Employee Misconduct Investigations, at the time of the interview.

The question asked of the investigator/interviewer by the employee representative, spoken onto the tape, asked after the preliminaries such as the identification of those present and the Lybarger advisement, and after presenting the investigator/interviewer with a printed copy of the DOM section as displayed above, should be phrased thusly:

"As cited on the handout I have just given you, have you received and passed the course requirements prescribed in §31140.5.2 of the Departmental Operations Manual?"

If the answer is "NO", then the following phrase should be read onto the tape:

"Let the record show that (name and rank of investigator), in accordance with the Departmental Operations Manual, is not qualified to conduct this Employee Misconduct Investigation."

However, at no time during the course of the interview should the individual being interviewed refuse to cooperate. While CalDORC will forgive itself its own mistakes, they will waste no time making you pay for yours. Like all other blunders that CalDORC makes in their inquisitions, if the investigator/interviewer is not qualified to conduct the investigation there will be more than ample opportunity to serve up some cold crow to them in the appeal process.

Since CalDORC has chosen to turn their back on their own Operating Policy in favor of a cheap and expedient army of Clouseaus (Clousi?), this may be a fair procedure to follow in ALL Employee Misconduct Investigations, whether or not it is generated by a 602. This lesson plan, together with Administrative Bulletin 05/03 and the fraudulent investigative practices they represent, places a cloud over ALL Departmental Investigators and their credentials and qualifications to conduct employee misconduct investigations, a doubt which, in the absence of credible documentation to the contrary, could fairly be raised at each and every step of the due process until the question is answered through credible documentation.

Will The REAL Inspector Clouseau Please Stand Up.

Lorraine Bradley

____________________

¹ Scanned PDF file (2.3 Mb). Broadband connection recommended.