|
|
| Closing McNeil Island prison might save |
| By Ian Demsky |
| Published: 04/14/2009 |
|
Fourteen years before Washington became a state, McNeil Island began housing its first inmates. Now, 134 years later, the expensive and isolated prison – the last of its kind in the country – faces potential closure as the state Legislature grapples with how to fill a sinkhole projected at $9 billion. By cutting many inmate sentences short by one or two months to free up beds, the Senate Ways & Means Committee calculated that McNeil Island Corrections Center could be closed, saving almost $16 million by the end of this biennium. And the real savings, an estimated $31 million per year, would follow. But when trying to understand what that would mean for Pierce County, there is more to consider than raw dollar figures, some critics say. Although it’s ultimately not for them to decide, the plan lacks the support of Department of Corrections Secretary Eldon Vail; the Teamsters union, which represents many of the 587 staff that work at McNeil; and the Department of Social and Health Services, which runs a civil commitment center for sex offenders on the island. Ferrying people and supplies to and from the facility makes housing offenders at McNeil pricey. The prison has the highest per-inmate cost of the state’s medium security facilities, running $37,000 per inmate per year, $6,000 above the state average. McNeil costs nearly $50 million per year to operate. The state House and the state Senate have made different pitches for trimming corrections costs. The Senate would get most of its savings by reducing spending inside the prisons – including letting many inmates out a month or two early and closing McNeil – while the House proposes cutting back on supervision of ex-convicts after they get out of prison and go back into the community. John Lane, the governor’s policy adviser on criminal justice, said the administration hasn’t seen a bill yet that would bring the average daily population of the system down far enough to close McNeil. “We need to wait and see what happens at the end of session,” he said, noting that the administration generally agreed with Vail, who thinks the logistics of making cuts while maintaining the integrity of the system are best left to the agency itself. “We’re going to have to make some hard decisions,” Vail said. “But I’d prefer they leave it to us to make those decisions.” From Vail’s perspective, the state would likely be better served shutting down units in multiple prisons rather than closing an entire facility. That would give the department more flexibility as the state’s financial situation changes and as the inmate population fluctuates. “Prison population tends to rise faster during an economic downturn,” Vail said. There’s also the $165 million the state has spent since 1990 to improve the facilities on the island. “I’d like to see us get the full life cycle out of the investment we put in,” he said. And for its financial disadvantages, the prison has a number of advantages, Vail said. The facility has the added security of being on an island accessible only by boat, and it’s on the Interstate 5 corridor, making it convenient for visitors and staff. Vail’s sentiments were echoed by Tracey Thompson, secretary of Teamsters Local 117, which represents about 500 of the prison’s corrections officers and other employees. “It’s in a central location,” she said. “And it’s a significant number of jobs for Pierce County. There might be some opportunities for our folks to move into other prisons, but we have a lot of prisons in remote areas.” It’s not clear how many jobs would be lost outright and how many would be moved elsewhere. On Wednesday, the union ratified a new two-year contract that would ensure that employees at McNeil had seniority and transfer rights if the facility closed, said union spokesman Paul Zilly. It did not include a wage increase. Thompson said she thought transferring the work of running the island’s ferry service, its fire department and its wastewater treatment plant to the DSHS also might pose a problem. “They are under an obligation to bargain about changes in working conditions,” Thompson said. “They can’t unilaterally transfer work outside of our bargaining unit.” Read more. If link has expired, check the website of the article's original news source. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think