s MontanaSlateLibrary 365.641 C26CDA 3 0864 1006 0242 7 1992 CERTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT ACCURACY WITH REGARD TO AN ADBflNISTRATIVE INQUIRY INTO MONTANA STATE PRISON BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HUMAN SERVICES I, Thomas L. Gooch. having served as the Chairman of the above named Committee do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the ongLnal report as submitted to the Director and other pertinent staff with the exception that aU names of Prison employees have been removed to assure privacy rights of the individuals concerned. In removing names, there were minor changes in wording to assure appropriate syntax, however nothing was changed that would alter or effect the meaning or conclusions of the Committee. THOMAS GOOCH L. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 7 day of April, 1992 y^- /•^t-^^^^^i-^^^-g-^ Notafv/Ihiblic for the State of Montana Residing at o^^':^^-^;^^^ My Commission Expires: //-y<:y - ^-^ . AN APmNISTRATIVE INQUIRY INTO MONTANA STATE PRISON BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINE REVIEW COMBfflTTEE APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HUMAN SERVICES COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: The Committee was composed of three individuals with widely divergent backgrounds. It included a long-time employee of the Department, a new employee to the Department, and an employee from the Department of Administration. Tom Gooch was appointed by the Director to chair the Committee. David Ohler and Ken McElroy served as members SCOPE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMITTEE: The Committee was charged with conducting an administrative inquiry into the potential for administrative discipUne of staff in addition to the seven who were initially disciplined by the Warden. The Committee was charged with identifying the duty, responsibilities, and deficiencies, if any, of prison staff to include the Warden and all subordinate personnel. Much of the Committees's effort was concentrated on management personnel from Correctional Lieutenants up the chain of command to the Warden. Such duty, responsibility and deficiencies were to be identified from existing documentation such as position descriptions, performance standards as clarified in evaluation process, prison policies, department policies, and other » . related written and verbal understandings which would in sum be descriptive of the function and expectancies of the employee The Committee was not charged with identifying civil rights violations of inmates except as such might be discovered in the investigation into any deficiency an employee could be held accountable for, and as such related directly into the carrying out of his or her assignment as known and described through the previously described methodologies designed to inform an employee of his or her established field of performance expectancy. The Committee was also not charged with determining whether certain individuals should be disciplined, or the extent of discipline. We have attempted only to provide the Correction's Division with a factual document. We have also included recommendations for changes in policy and procedure. In the conduct of their responsibilities, the Committee determined to utilize the NIC report "Riot At Max", as an entry document into their inquiry. The Committee was provided with documentation given to the NIC Team and with other information and material as requested. The Committee extensively interviewed staff and familiarized itself with the prison physical plant and the prison operational procedures. LIST OF POLICIES PRIMARILY REUED UPON: The Committee examined all pertinent poUcy in the Prison policy manual and in the Department policy manual. The policies specifically identified for use were the following: : Department Policy NO. 107 EMERGENCIES MSP Policy 01-001 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY MSP Policy 01-002 POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL MSP Policy 01-003 POLICY ISSUE AND TRAINING MSP PoUcy 03-008 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT GUIDELINES MSP PoUcy 09-001 MAXIMUM SECURITY OPERATION GUIDELINES OTHER WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION EXABIINED: 1. Position Descriptions of the following personnel Personnel Director; Staff Development Specialist I; Correctional Officer; Correctional Sergeant; Correctional Lieutenant; Correctional Captain; Correctional Security Manager; Associate Warden-Administration; Associate Warden-Treatment; Deputy Warden; and Warden. 2. Personnel files of all of the above were examined with the exception of Correctional Officer. 3. Logs, post orders, incident reports and a variety of other information as requested and suppUed by prison personnel. GENERAL OPENING COMMENT: The NIC Team also characterized its effort as an "Administrative Inquiry". There are, however, some major distinctions between the inquiry of the NIC Team and the inquiry of this particular Review Committee. First the emphasis of the NIC Team was to "focus on circumstances surrounding the riot at Max." They based much of their findings upon interviews with the Inmate population. While they apparently interviewed a large number of staff, their perspective in both inmate and staff interviews was centered in developing a critique of the factors or failures which contributed to and perhaps caused the riot. In the course of their investigation, the NIC Team apparently interviewed few, if any, of management stEiff save top officials. This Review Committee intentionaUy did not interview inmates. It was our feeling that the inmate perspective is sufficiently represented in the NIC report. The NIC Team clearly stated that it "would not take primary responsibility for potential stEiff discipline", but rather leave that mission to the Department. The primary task for this Review Committee was to accept the responsibility to identify potential staff discipline in the context of the knowledges, understandings, and directives under which the staff were working just prior to and during the advent of the riot. Subsequent to the NIC report, the Prison administration conducted hearings into and determined discipline for staff considered directly responsible for the disturbance in Max. As an extension of the Prison determinations, and under the premise that it would be inappropriate for further discipline to be adjudicated at the Prison management level the task of inquiry into the necessity , for further discipline was given to this Review Committee. IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURE OF THE COMMITTEE: The Committee determined to categorize the allegations of the NIC Team into five major topics. 1. Security; 2. PoUcy; 3. Training; 4. Administrative; and 5. Staff professionalism. These topics will be addressed independently throughout this report. The Committee then examined position descriptions to determine the responsibiUty areas for staff with reference to the five topics identified. An initial visit to the prison was made wherein the Committee met with the Warden and