LIES AND COVER-UPS WITHIN THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

SHIRLEY, MA– On Monday, January 9, 2017 a “riot” broke out at the maximum-security prison in Shirley, MA, the Souza Baranowski Correctional Center (SBCC). Roughly 48 inmates refused to lock down in their cells after returning from an afternoon in the prison’s gym. They were told that they were not going to be able to shower until the following night.

The Department of Corrections (DOC) Commissioner told the public that the riot was the result of a gang fight. That was not true. If only the truth were that simple. This “riot” was the culmination of a host of issues that have plagued SBCC. This incident could have been avoided and should have never taken place.

Earlier that day, at approximately 1:10 p.m., the P-1 housing unit inmates were being moved to the prison’s gym. About 10 minutes later all units on the North side first floor were permitted to send their inmates to school programs and work assignments. During this movement of prisoners, one inmate from the N-1 housing unit and one inmate from the P-1 housing unit fought on the North Side stairwell. They were two Irish white guys from Charlestown, Massachusetts.

After the two combatants were separated, questioned by the prisons Inner Perimeter Security Team (IPS) and seen by the medical department, they were placed in segregation.

The IPS, determined to investigate this one-on-one fight more thoroughly, ordered N-1 and P-1, the housing units where these two men lived, locked down. Lock down status requires that all inmates be confined to their cells and locked in. Whenever there is a fight inside a housing unit, that unit is put into lock down status. The IPS then questions the inmates in the unit about the disturbance. Questioning usually takes place the morning after the fight has occurred. This has been the recent policy at the prison.

The N-1 unit was locked down within an hour after the fight took place. Because the P-1 Unit was in the gym at the time, they could not be locked down until they came back from the gym at approximately 3:30. This lock down was a surprise to the inmates returning to P-1, because normally a unit is not locked down unless the fight happens in the unit between two inmates from the same unit. Since this fight took place with two inmates from different units on a stairwell, it was not normal procedure to lock down both units.

When a fight breaks out in a housing unit, that the unit is immediately put into lock down status for the remainder of the day. The following day, the IPS conducts interviews with the inmates in the housing unit where the fight took place. After the interviews are over, the block is then put into a “phase down.” This “phase down” permits 4 to 8 inmates at a time to come out of their cells for 15 minutes to take a shower and/or make a phone call. After the phase-down is complete, the lock down continues until the following day when a member of the prison Administration orders the unit to be taken off of lock down status. So, whenever a unit is put into lock down status that unit is locked down for at least a day and a half.

When the P-1 inmates returned to their housing unit, their housing Correctional Officer (CO) notified the inmates that they were in lock down. In a sign of unity, all the inmates went into the unit’s common area and sat down at the tables. They told the CO that they were not locking in until they were allowed to shower after an afternoon in the gym. The inmates knew that if they locked in they would not be able to shower until the following night during the “phase down.” The housing CO then called in a “group disturbance” over his walkie talkie. A “freeze up” of the entire prison was ordered and all units in the prison were locked in. Back up arrived for the P-1 housing CO. When back up arrived, the Superior Officers spoke with the inmates but they could not reach any agreement about the showers taking place before the lock down. The inmates wanted showers and the Officers wanted them to lock in without showers. There was no middle ground. Insults, threats, and negative words were exchanged by the inmates and officers. There was no backing down by either group.

Over the last several months a fear has been building up in the prison population at SBCC about inmates losing more and more of the few privileges they do have: contact visits, free time out of the cell, programs, schooling, phone calls to loved ones, getting mail delivered in a timely way – there were a host of issues that inmates had been complaining about for months. The shower argument that day was larger than this one issue. The frustration the inmates were exhibiting started building up way before this moment and they were ignored when they complained or aired their grievances to the prison administration.

One can go back and see how this simple issue of letting the inmates shower before locking them down for an extended period of time got out of hand.

In September of 2016, the Superintendent of SBCC, Steve Silva, allowed a local news channel to do a story about drug use at SBCC. The story was centered on how drugs are getting into the prison through the prison’s visiting room. The Superintendent was interviewed and stated that ‘contact’ visits were a problem with his prison. He failed to mention all the other ways that drugs get into his prison. When this story was aired, it sent a wave of panic throughout SBCC. Inmates were under the impression that this news story was a propaganda piece to set the stage to change their visits with their families and friends from contact visits to non-contact visits, where you sit behind soundproof glass and talk over a telephone.

Later that month, a work stoppage and hunger strike took place at SBCC. It was to show, in a non-violent way, the inmates’ displeasure with the DOC’s attempt to restrict visits, mail, phone privileges, etc.

This strike took place on the same day that DOC representatives testified at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation (CMR) Committee trying to persuade the committee to make these changes. The decision on those hearings has not been made yet. At SBCC, it feels like the inmates have been waiting for a bomb to drop on them. It has made SBCC a pressure cooker.

At the same time those tensions were building at SBCC, the inmate count was going up. In early 2016, SBCC housed roughly 900 inmates. The former Commissioner got the numbers down at SBCC by transferring more inmates to medium and minimum security prisons. This makes fiscal sense because it costs roughly $63,000 a year to house one inmate in maximum security (SBCC) as opposed to roughly $50,000 in medium security, and $40,000 in minimum security.

Since then, Governor Charlie Baker appointed Thomas Turco Commissioner of the DOC in April, 2016, and things have changed.

Turco closed a medium security prison (Bay State), lowered the count at another (Concord) by almost 40%, and has plans to close two more minimum security prisons in early 2017. The count at SBCC just before the “riot” was almost 1,200, an increase of 300 since Turco took over.

How Commissioner Turco increased the SBCC population is very questionable and quite possibly fraudulent.

Prior to Commissioner Turco taking over, when an inmate in medium security was found in possession of a controlled substance like home brew, suboxone, weed, etc., he was issued a disciplinary report and sent to segregation. After serving his time in segregation and being punished with sanctions (loss of visits, loss of phone, etc.), he would go back out to the general population at that prison.

After Turco took over, however, all medium security prisons started issuing every inmate who was found in possession of a controlled substance an “Introduction” disciplinary report. An “Introduction” charge is usually reserved for an inmate who is caught trying to smuggle contraband into the prison. The penalty for an “Introduction” offense is automatic transfer to SBCC. Thus, even an inmate with a drug problem who is caught with the smallest amount of a drug, and it is obvious that he didn’t smuggle the drug into the prison, is given the same punishment as someone who actually smuggles drugs into a prison. Turco added 300 inmates to the population at SBCC was by transferring roughly 300 non-violent drug users to the State’s maximum security prison, which was meant to house violent criminals. The cost is $63,000 per prisoner per year for each of these non-violent drug users. Keeping those non-violent offenders’ medium security prisons would save the Commonwealth 4 million dollars a year. Not to mention that SBCC is filled with non-violent drug offenders who are over classified in the DOC prison system.

While other states are leading the way with rehabilitation and treatment, Massachusetts is going
backwards yet again. They are moving away from treatment and toward retribution and harsher punishments. While most of the nation has learned that “Smart on Crime” is more effective in reducing the recidivism rate than “Tough on Crime,” Massachusetts continues to embrace the tough on crime stance started by Governor William Weld in the 1990’s. After all, reducing the recidivism rate in this state is bad for business.

When Governor Baker picked Turco to be his Commissioner of Corrections he chose a candidate
with little experience in the prison system. Turco went from being the Commissioner of Probation to the DOC. He is a numbers guy. Since he took over the DOC he has shown very little interest in providing inmates with rehabilitation and treatment which we all know helps reduce the recidivism rate. What he has done is increase the number of maximum security beds in the state while simultaneously closing lower security prisons. For a numbers guy to add almost 4 million dollars to the bottom line budget is very questionable. His decisions are not good for the inmates or the taxpayers who are footing this increased bill for maximum beds. But hey, at least they can say we’re tough on crime in this state.

Many readers will say “who cares about the inmates?” Well, the tax payers of Massachusetts should care. You are the ones paying for these ill-conceived policies.

The problems with SBCC have been an ongoing conundrum that goes back to before the prison was even built. This prison should never have been built. So why was it built?

Michael W. Forcier was a Sociologist who from 1986 to 1990 served as Deputy Director of Research at the Massachusetts DOC. His principal assignment was to conduct an evaluation of the DOC’s inmate classification system. October 28, 2003 Forcier testified before The Joint Committee on Public Safety. In his research, he discovered that many inmates were needlessly confined in higher security levels then was necessary. He looked at 300 plus inmates’ classification reports and “re-classified” them himself by using the National Institute of Corrections (NCI) objective point-based scale. He found that nearly half of the inmates (49%) were over classified. Forcier stated that “over classification not only results in wastage of scarce bed space and resources, but also, buys you no more public safety.” Forcier’s recommendation to the DOC was that they needed more minimum security beds.

One week later, the DOC requested 1,000 new maximum security beds and SBCC was born.

Forcier advised the committee that even former DOC Commissioner, Larry DuBois, requested that more inmates be placed in lower security beds because of the crunch in medium and maximum security facilities. No one was requesting more maximum security beds at that time.

The Governor at the time, William Weld, however, was a ‘tough on crime’ Governor. His decision to open SBCC has been a thorn in the sides of Massachusetts tax payers for years. It seems that no politician in Massachusetts wants to address the SBCC problem, they’d rather keep on kicking it down the road for someone else to handle, all the while burning a hole in the tax payers’ pockets.

Back to present day SBCC: there were signs that the prison had been unstable since the work stoppage in September, 2016. There was a large fight in the prisons chow hall, where 15 men fought each other and were subsequently placed in segregation.

Shortly after that fight there was an 8 man fight in one of the prison housing units. This was in addition to all the fights and disturbances that normally happen in this prison. During all this time, the inmates had been trying to file grievances and be heard by the Prison Administration on many issues that the inmates felt were unfair or plainly harassing.

Throughout the 2016-2017 holiday season most units were confined to their housing units and were not allowed to go to the prison yard or to the gym. There were numerous “modified lock downs” due to shortages of staff taking time off or calling in sick. Incoming mail was being held as contraband and not delivered to the inmates because of new and arbitrary reasons that did not make any sense to the inmates. Family members who came to the prison to visit with their loved ones were turned away for more arbitrary reasons. One woman was turned away because the officer in charge said her outfit was not up to code. When the woman produced a photo that she took in the prison visiting room one month earlier where she was wearing the same clothing and asked to see someone in charge, she was threatened with being barred permanently from the facility if she didn’t leave immediately. Inmates were denied access to programs, again with arbitrary reasons.

All this was going on at the same time the inmates were waiting for the CMR committee to issue their findings on the proposed changes. When inmates talked with the prison administration about these issues (mail, visits, etc.), they were given condescending responses. And nothing changed. It just got worse.

It is a widely-held view among the inmate population at SBCC that they are being treated arbitrarily and dismissively because the prison administration and the Department of Corrections are encouraging unrest at SBCC. For the last several years the DOC has endured budget cuts, as all state agencies have. If the inmates start acting up, it gives the DOC more reasons to ask for more money from the state in the next budget to handle all these “violent maximum security level inmates.” The DOC benefits if the inmates act up. So, if they treat the inmates like animals they are hoping the inmates will act like animals.

The DOC budget is one of the biggest budgets in the state. Yet, there is no oversight committee for the Department of Corrections. For years, politicians have been trying unsuccessfully to put together an oversight committee for the DOC. The DOC has been able to do business without having to get approval from the state house. Lack of oversight and accountability opens the door for the misappropriation of funds. Who investigates the DOC if there are allegations of fraud? Apparently, no one. Anyone who tries to oppose the DOC would most likely be accused of taking the side of the inmates. They would be “soft on crime” probably “liberals.”

The Governor needs to do what he did with the MBTA and appoint an oversight committee for the DOC.

On the day of the so-called “riot,” the Commissioner stood before the media and said the “riot” was the result of a gang fight between two rival gang members. That was not true.

The inmates in one housing unit, none of whom were involved in any altercations, refused to lock in until they were allowed to shower. The correctional officers abandoned the unit. This is the first time, in almost 20 years of operation, that officers at SBCC ever abandoned a unit to inmates.

Why now? Why especially when there was absolutely no violence or threat of violence? The inmates didn’t want to fight the COs; all they wanted was a shower. The inmates let the CO’s leave the unit without incident. Yet, the DOC Administration told the public at the news conference that the inmates were ready for war. If they were ready for war, why did they just let the CO’s leave?

Later, the DOC showed pictures of weapons that were found in the aftermath of the riot. This led the public to believe that the inmates made several ‘shanks’ during the 3 hours they were in the block. There was no way those weapons were made during the “riot.” These weapons were already in the housing block, which shows that the inmates could have used them before the COs left. All these inmates wanted was a shower, not a war.

Did the officers know what the inmates would do if they abandoned the unit? Of course they did. The inmates ripped the unit apart. After all these months of frustration, feeling harassed, being treated like animals, they acted out. They gave the DOC exactly what they wanted, video footage of the inmates ripping apart a unit. Now they could show the public how violent they are. That video was given to the media and was breaking news the very next day. When the 15-man fight happened in the chow hall several weeks before, one inmate was dropped on his head while he was handcuffed behind his back. He split his head open and was last seen by several inmates being wheeled on a stretcher with an oxygen mask covered in blood. Why didn’t the Commissioner release that video to the media? Could it be because it was a CO, not one of the combatants, who dropped the handcuffed inmate on his head?

The video that was released by the DOC of the “riot” doesn’t show any violence toward the CO’s or among the inmates themselves.

Everybody agrees things need to change at SBCC. But, what changes are needed? What will be done? Is there even going to be an investigation into the chow hall incident or the so-called “riot”?

Governor Baker should appoint a bi-partisan committee to look into the DOC and what has been happening with the movement of prisoners to maximum security, the unrest, the understaffing, and the abandonment of a unit to inmates, etc., but will he?

That fear still permeates the inmates at SBCC about when the when the CMR committee will make their findings public. What will happen at SBCC if those findings result in more restrictions to the inmates at SBCC?

The Governor cannot wait to investigate the DOC and SBCC. The inmates need answers now. They’ve been ignored for far too long.

By Padraig Collins