Source: http://1union1.com/packages3.htm
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 02:17:11
Document Index: 312460260

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3044', '§ 54030', '§ 3044', '§\n54030', '§ 11370', '§ 6055', '§ 11370', '§ 4', '§ 11342', '§ 3044', '§ 54030', '§ 3044', '§ 11370', '§ 6055', '§ 54030', '§ 54030', '§ 3062', '§ 54030', '§ 11347', '§ 11342', '§\n11370', '§ 5054', '§ 5058', '§ 5054', '§ 2600', '§ 3044', '§\n3044', '§ 3044', '§ 3138', '§ 3147', '§ 3147', '§ 3138', '§ 11370', '§ 53130', '§ 53130', '§ 54030', '§ 54030', '§ 3160', '§ 3161', '§ 3190', '§ 11340', '§ 11340', '§ 7']

Legal Challenge to Packages
Submitted by UNION to Mr. Rick Grentz in advance of the March 5, deadline
CDC Hearing on Packages: August 12, 2004, 9 am to 12 noon at
1416 9th St. near N St.
Resources Auditorium.
Arrive 8 am so you can be out
of the hearing early then go to the rally,
best plan is to come up the
night before, check website for ride & room info.
NOTICE OF CHANGE TO DIRECTOR'S RULES ("NCDR"--NO. 03/06) CALIFORNIA
CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 15, §§ 3044, 3092,
3138, 3190, AND DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL ("DOM"), § 54030
ET SEQ. (ARTICLE 43) REGARDING INMATE PROPERTY AND MANDATORY VENDOR QUARTERLY
A. General Allegations: This action challenges implementation of Notice of Change of Director's
Rules No. 03/06 (hereinafter "NCDR"), regarding California Code of Regulations
("CCR"),
Title 15, §§ 3044, 3092, 3138, 3190 (Exhibit A, attached and
incorporated); and Department Operations Manual ("DOM'°), §
54030 [draft--now believed signed and approved] Article 43-Inmate Property
(Exhibit B, attached and incorporated)--without compliance with the full
requirements of the Administration Procedures Act ('°APA").
With the limited exceptions not applicable here, the APA provides that
every proposed adoption or change in the rules and regulations of, inter
alia, the CDC, must provide for public input to its enactment, by the Director,
California Department of Corrections ("CDC"). Withholding vital information,
practices, procedures, and DOM Article 42 from the public through this
less than forthright NCDR will create "under-ground-rules." Various procedures, including public notice of and hearings on the proposed
rule change, are mandated by the APA to this end. However, through the
Government Code, §§ 11370 f; and Penal Code, 5058(1), states: "Regulations adopted by the director or the director's designee applying
to any legislatively mandated or authorized . . . program or a departmentally
authorized . . , program, provided that an estimate of fiscal impact is
completed pursuant to § 6055. . .'' Absolutely no effort was made to comply with the APA and Government
Code, § 11370 et seq. which requires a survey to be conducted
or a fiscal impact report in regards to the regulations and procedures
mentioned above. The NCDR states: "Cost Impacts on Representative Private Persons
or Businesses: The Department is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative
private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance
with the proposed action." This statement is dubious, at best, and
at worst, it is an outright falsehood. Obviously the CDC is too aware of
the cost impacts a representative private person or business will incur
in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. The CDC has chosen to
turn a blind eye to the numerous private persons and businesses who will
undoubtedly incur a slight cost impact if they are forced to comply with
the proposed action. If the CDC is not "aware" of any cost impacts, then a thorough detailed
Economic and Fiscal Impact Report is a necessity because the CDC and the
public need to be made "aware" before implementing these actions. To anybody
who is even mildly familiar with the way in which the many thousands of
inmate quarterly packages were filled with merchandise purchased from thousands
of private businesses throughout California, owned by private persons,
then they are aware these proposed regulations would have a direct cost
impact on those same businesses and persons if they were barred from selling
their merchandise as they have in the past. CCR, Title 1, Division 1--Office of Administrative Law--Determination
of Effect on Small Business; Article 2--Criteria Applied in the Review
of Proposed Regulations; and § 4 -- Determination of Effect on Small
Business: (a) The notice of proposed adoption or amendment of a regulation
shall include a determination as to whether or not the adoption or amendment
affects small business. For purposes of this §, an adoption or amendment
affects small business if a small business within the meaning of Government
Code, § 11342.610: (1) Is legally required to comply with the regulation; (2) Is legally required to enforce the regulation; (3) Derives a benefit from the enforcement of this regulation; or (4) Incurs a detriment from the enforcement of this regulation. (b) If an agency determines DISCUSSION NOTICE OF CHANGE TO DIRECTOR'S RULES ("NCDR"--NO. 03/06) CALIFORNIA
CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 15, §§ 3044, 3092, 3138, 3190, AND DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL ("DOM"), § 54030
PACKAGE PROGRAM A. General Allegations: This action challenges implementation of Notice of Change of Director's
("CCR"), Title 15, §§ 3044, 3092, 3138, 3190 (Exhibit A, attached
and incorporated); and Department Operations Manual ("DOM'°), §
requirements of the Administration Procedures Act ('°APA"). With the limited exceptions not applicable here, the APA provides that
Government Code, §§ 11370 f; and Penal Code, 5058(1),
states: "Regulations adopted by the director or the director's designee applying to any legislatively mandated or authorized . . . program
or a departmentally authorized . . , program, provided that an estimate
of fiscal impact is completed pursuant to § 6055. . .'' Absolutely no effort was made to comply with the APA and Government
mentioned above. The NCDR states: "Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Business:
The Department has initially determined the proposed regulations will not
have a significant adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses,
including the ability to California businesses to complete with businesses
in other states." (Emphasis added.) This statement is counterfactual. There will be a highly significant
adverse economic impact directly affecting many California businesses due
to their sales of merchandise being diverted to a small number of exclusive
vendors used by the CDC. Furthermore, out of state businesses are not required
to pay state taxes, and these businesses profit and, prosper more than
California based businesses by virtue of their location outside the state.
Moreover, it creates a hardship on California based businesses trying to
compete for the lucrative business of vendor packages. What yardstick or gauge is being used to quantify the term "significant"
in this passage of the NCDR? Is the CDC qualified to make fiscal impact
determinations when its own budget is deeply in the red every year? Maybe
the CDC does not attribute a significant adverse impact on business unless
it reaches into the billions. For the CDC to even remotely assert it has
initially determined these regulations will not have a significant adverse
economic impact is contrary to reasoning, . . The CDC has, by virtue of its own false assertions in this NCDR, made
it woefully clear that a fiscal impact statement is necessary to fully
outline the incredible fiscal impacts which are sure to hurt businesses
statewide if adopted. The CDC has apparently chosen to overlook the significant
adverse economic impacts these regulations will have on California businesses
when the CDC is already allowing out of state businesses to settle in first
and dominate the monopoly marketplace. The NCDR states- "Effect on Small Business: The Department has determined that the proposed regulations may not affect small businesses.
It is determined that this action has no adverse economic impact on small
business, because they are not affected by the internal management of state
prisons." How has the CDC determined the proposed regulations may not affect small business in California? Where is the economic impact study and who conducted this study? In fact, the implementation of these regulations would cause
a "ripple effect" within the small business arena due to the loss of business to those businesses fortunate enough to be exclusively used by the CDC. The CDC hinges their assertions of there being no adverse economic impact
on small business upon the flimsy excuse that small businesses are not affected by the internal management of state prisons. That is patently
false, because it is blatantly obvious to anyone that if you take
millions of dollar is business and you cut it off there is going
to be tremendous adverse is economic impact experienced by the small businesses
who previously prospered from the business. The CDC must employ some highly creative writers to generate these types
19 of statements which are contrary to reality and tantamount to fraud
and 20 deception. For the CDC's knowledgeable staff to concoct such outlandish
21 replies to legitimate to questions about a proposed regulations effect
on 22 numerable small businesses statewide is highly suspicious. Asserting
there 23 proposed changes to the inmate quarterly package program won't
adversely 24 affect small businesses is like saying the Prison Industry
Authority (PIA) 25 would not be adversely affected if state and federal
agencies stopped 26 purchasing their furniture and supplies from the PIA.
It's obviously untrue. 2'] Internal management of prisons does impact thousands
of people's lives and 2$ businesses when the prison management adopts changes
in regulations which divert funds from small businesses statewide and mandates that any
future funds go to a select few businesses. This creates a veritable monopoly
which is existent at the expense of small businesses and thousands of consumers
statewide. The fiscal stability of the California economy is very unstable during
these tough economic times where small businesses are struggling to survive.
Creating a situation where these businesses would potentially lose revenue
is not a sound fiscal decision by the State. Recently, the Governor has
gone on record emphasizing the need to take whatever measures are needed
to strengthen the overall California economy. The NCDR states: "Assessments of Effects on Job and/or Business Creation
Elimination, or Expansion: The Department has determined that the proposed
regulations will have no affect on the creation of new or elimination of
existing jobs or businesses within California, or affect the expansion
of business currently doing business in California." This statement is fallacious. Again, how can the CDC make such statements
without providing any proof whatsoever that there will be. no adverse affects
to California businesses? The term "assessments of effects" reasonably
indicates that an assessment of any positive or negative effects resulting
from a proposed regulation have been done. The CDC determined that the
proposed regulations would have no affect on the creation of new jobs or
elimination of existing jobs or businesses within California. Did the CDC
consider what happens when a 'business loses sales and their profits diminish?
Jobs are cut and any plans for expansion/growth are quashed. It should also be noted this statement indicates no jobs will be leliminated
by this regulation. However, in the very first paragraph under the "Initial
Statement of Reasons" indicates this regulation change/action is necessary
as required by Budget Letter 03-21 (Personal Services Reduction Plan, [Exhibit
C, attached and incorporated]), which requires the CDC to implement a 76
percent reduction plan by January 2004. In quintessence, this plan eliminates
jobs within the CDC currently held by correctional staff which are assigned
to positions which deal with areas described in this regulation. The CDC has failed to mention it put forth the proposed 16% Personnel
Reductions in the first place and all the reductions adversely affect programming
inmates. These changes will adversely affect business expansions because
it will not be spent in' local communities statewide. This statement can
be further quantified given one major departmentally approved vendor being
used by institutions to provide vendor inmate packages is Access Catalog
Services located in Reno, Nevada and St. Louis, Missouri. (Exhibit D, attached
and incorporated.) Prior to the implementation of the NCDR inmates' families, mothers,
fathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, children, and
friends were personally able to go to their local grocery stores, clothing
stores, jewelry stores, etc., purchase the items for their incarcerated
loved ones quarterly packages, a couple of items at a time, over a couple
of month span of time, if not the whole quarter. Personalizing the quarterly
package to the personal tastes of their incarcerated loved ones. After
they had purchased a11 the items for the package, the family would personally
pack all those items into the appropriate sized box, specified on the package
form, tape the package form to the outside of the box and then mail the
quarterly package to the appropriate institution, where the box would be
opened, screened and searched for unauthorized and/or illegal items- by
correctional officials prior to the items being issued to the inmate. Now under this NCDR the quarterly packages the inmates` families, mothers,
father, etc., would be forced to pay the full amount for the package all
at one time to a "State Approved" mail order vendor creating an undue financial
burden on the inmates family members and friends. The average money spent
on a single thirty (30) pound quarterly package, containing coffee, cigarettes,
cookies, crackers, candy, and clothing items is $400.00 and could go as
high as $700.00 if the quarterly package contains sunglasses, religious
medallion with chain, and a watch. There are an estimated one hundred and sixty thousand (160,000+) plus
inmates in the CDC. This policy creates an illegal state sponsored monopoly
of the resources of not only the 160,000 plus captive and unwilling customers
in the CDC, but also the 1.5 million captive and unwilling tax paying,
law abiding California State citizens who are being forced to spend their
hard earned money at "State Approved" mail order vendors. Approval/Adoption
of this NCDR will directly impact the small businesses of California in
an estimated sum of sixty million (60,000,000) dollars in lost sales revenue
per quarter. An estimated two hundred and forty million (240,000,000) dollars
annually. Under the proposed NCDR the CDC would receive a ten-percent (10%) surcharge
on the over-all price of the order as "administrative fee", further subjecting
the families of California state prison inmates to the degradation of being
unfairly and illegally singled out to pay more than their fare share towards
the California State budget crisis, simply because they are family members
of California State prison inmates. The implementation of the policy in
question creates a form of "State approved /sponsored" price gouging/fixing.
Families will no longer be able to compare prices, seek out sales, and/or
use coupons to purchase the items for their incarcerated loved ones quarterly
packages. The NCDR states: "Consideration of Alternatives: The Department must
determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Department,
or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the
Department, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which
the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to
affected private persons than the proposed regulatory action." This is entire proposed regulation change does not indicate what alternatives
were explored or even considered by the CDC before proposing such a radical
departure from the current regulations. C. NCDR Initial Statement of Reasoning (ISOR : The first paragraph (NCDR--Page 1 of the ISOR) contains an error with
a word when it references the necessity of changing these regulations. The paragraph
makes reference to this regulation change being a required action pursuant
to the Budget Letter 03-21, (Personal Services Reduction Plan). However,
this is incorrect as the word "Personal" should be "Personnel" at it is
referring to the 16 percent Personnel Services Reduction Plan. This plan
was to identify 628.7 positions overall for deletion throughout the CDC
in specific program areas. The 1SOR should clearly specify this regulation change is to comply
with budget cut by eliminating CDC personnel positions; some of which are
currently assigned to directly deal with inmate packages. However, the
language is ambiguous and misleading at best. The CDC also, once again,
fails to acknowledge the CDC put forth the various personnel cuts. In the second paragraph, (NCDR--Page 1 of the ISOR) the language is
problematic as it starts to encroach on other areas regarding inmate personal
property, which has no association with implementing a mandatory statewide
vendor package program. The language contained throughout the ISOR makes
it abundantly clear the intent is to completely eliminate/restrict personal
property overall. These changes will have a detrimental affect on the inmate
population and will be a radical departure from current procedures and
practices which have been in place for years throughout the CDC. It is preposterous to say these regulation changes are being promulgated
to aid in the security of the public. How is the public safety being compromised
in any way if this proposed regulation change was not adopted? Again, it
is irresponsible for the CDC to make such counterfactual statements as
this purposely misleads the general public by way of the language in this
entire NCDR on the real reasons for attempting to adopt these regulation
changes. In the third paragraph, (NCDR - Page 1 of the ISOR) it states the CDC
weighed institutional concerns against the concern of inmates in order
to determine reasonable personal property standards. In point of fact,
these proposed regulations are being sought for the sole interest of the
CDC to implement standardization and the dramatic reduction of inmate personal
property statewide. For the CDC to make statements they are taking the
concerns of the inmate population into consideration during this process
is farcical. This petitioner is well aware of the considerable amount of
time the CDC is spending "behind the scenes" developing draft proposals
on how to reduce inmate personal property. (Exhibit B, attached.) Numerous inquiries submitted to the CDC regarding these proposals on
inmate personal property have yielded vague and misleading answers. Basically,
the CDC has no desire to discuss these changes with anyone until the changes
are adopted. This is quite understandable, because the CDC is also working
hard to implement DOM changes to Article 42 which will drastically impact
inmates' personal property statewide. It is interesting that the CDC has made absolutely no mention of the
corresponding DOM changes which will be implemented and bestowed upon the
inmate population once these proposed regulation changes are adopted. Why
has the CDC failed to include its intents to take away most all inmate
personal property, and go so far as to limit an inmate to 2 bars of soap
in their possession, within the ISOR? The CDC also contends it will ensure fair and competitive pricing from
departmentally approved vendors. This statement is deceiving to a11 inmates
and their correspondents who are familiar with the CDC's history when it
comes to securing obtaining fair prices. For example, the most popular
television purchased by inmates costs between $175.00 dollars to as high
as $225.00 dollars. This same model is offered in most big electronic outlets
for $55.00 dollars to as high as $75.00 dollars. This is known to be factual
based on vendor companies dropping prices on products no longer allowed
in California to meet civilian prices. The CDC has allowed vendors to create monopolies for ages and allowing
the same "departmentally approved vendors" to mercilessly overcharge inmates
for appliances and other personal property items. The CDC has not supervised
any type of monitoring when it comes to these vendors and the same holds
true for the inmate collect call telephones! "These provisions expand the special purchase procedure. The NCDR states: and allow inmates vendors." This statement is incorrect
as these provisions achieve the exact opposite of what is being cited in
the above statement. Special purchase (as it is known today) will be dramatically
reduced by requiring many personal property items originally obtained through
the special purchase program must now be obtained via these departmentally
approved personal property package vendors and delivered within the inmate's
30 pound maximum personal property package. It should be noted most CDC approved vendors currently being used by
institutions as part of the vendor package program do not have near the
selection of items, if offered at all, originally purchased by inmates
to utilizing the special purchase program and its vendors. Most of these
vendors being used for the vendor package program are geared towards providing
mainly generic off-brand foods and personal care products (consumables). For example, an inmate wishing to purchase music cassette tapes or compact
discs typically would utilize a institutionally approved special purchase
vendor which exclusively offered such desired items. These special purchase
vendors typically have an extensive selection of those desired items at
fairly reasonable prices. Requiring an inmate to obtain these products
from a departmentally approved vendor via their inmate personal' property
packages will not afford the inmate a fair and equitable selection because
the vendors selling personal property packages do not deal in music. Furthermore, requiring inmates to now obtain products (such as clothing,
shoes, etc.) normally obtained via the current special purchase program
in their personal property package will create undo hardship for those
who are relying on quarterly packages which mainly consist of food and
personal care items to carry them through at least 90-day period. It forces
the inmate to make a Hobson's Choice. This demonstrates how this entire proposed regulation change is more
destructive, especially to those inmates which fall under Privilege Group
A and B which predominantly are required to have good work and behavior
history which should be rewarded with less restrictions as the incentive
to continue their privilege status. The CDC is proposing to strip away
some of the very last behavioral incentives it has. It makes no sense to
implement drastic cuts which will severely impact the two main groups of
non-problematic privileged inmates unless the CDC has some ulterior motive
for creating tremendous dissension, animosity, and anxiety amongst the
inmate population, as a whole. The NCDR states: "The Department will ensure that the vendor process
will be fair and equitable to all inmates and their correspondents by requiring
the vendors charge no more than' ten _percent above the standard retail
price of an item as determined in major markets." This statement is
problematic, the CDC does not indicate what they are considering a "major
market". Retail prices for products greatly vary depending upon what retail
markets are used as a reference. For example, some institutions recently conducted their own price comparison
on commonly purchased food and personal care items by inmates by comparing
the proposed vendor prices against the institutions' canteen prices and
those of "Von's Supermarkets." This particular price comparison did not
exhibit a fair price comparison, as this common retailer is considered
to be on the "high end" of the price median for grocers. Typically, most
inmates' correspondents utilize retailers who offer the lowest possible
prices when purchasing items for the inmates' quarterly packages. The CDC asserts it will ensure departmentally approved vendors will
provide reasonable prices and superior merchandise, but the CDC is very
unlikely to conduct any legitimate price comparisons, nor is it likely
the CDC will force vendors to maintain fair pricing because the CDC has
shown it has no concern for the inmate population and their correspondents
being price gouged. The NCDR states: "The Department is also encouraging. competitive prices
allowing inferior products will lose business to vendors with lower prices and
superior merchandise as inmates and their correspondents will make purchases
based on a combination of cost and quality Departmentally approved vendors
will also either stock cultural food differences or act as an intermediary
in will offer wide variety of items to ensure inmates maintain a sense
of " personal touch" from their the use of multiple vendors. In theory,
this all sounds good to persons who are not aware of past. and present
dealings with CDC approved vendors, purchasing of inmate personal property,
and are not aware of how the prison system works in general.; however,
this is not realistic given the criterion placed on businesses to even
be considered to become authorized vendors to provide these inmate personal
property packages. Most of the vendors currently being used by the CDC
are those who offer inferior merchandise at outrageous prices compared
to the retail market as a whole. This is due in part to these vendors being
the only ones authorized by the institutions to provide such merchandise,
thus has created a "captive market" and consumers for these vendors being
used. ' Vendors have been allowed to reap huge profits for their inferior products
purchased by inmates and their correspondents as no relief has been provided
by the CDC to rectify this situation. The CDC has done nothing to create
a "very competitive market" which in turn forces these vendors to provide
superior merchandise at lower prices. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred
and no relief has been offered by the CDC despite inmates and their correspondents
complaints for many years. Clearly, this NCDR will severely impact the
160,000+ plus inmates of the California State Prison system, their 1.5
million family members and friends, the small businesses of the State of
California, and the California State economy will suffer the risk of irreparable
harm with the adoption of these new CCR, Title 15 regulations. D. The NCDR Fails to Disclose the Existence of DOM Article 42 and Its
Negative Impact on the Inmate Population as a Whole, in Addition to the
Likelihood of Creating Underground Rules: Draft copy of the proposed changes by CDC governing inmate personal
property via adoption of a new Department Operations Manual ("DOM") Article
42, g 54030.1 et. seq.; and § 54030,16 et. seq. (Matrix; Authorized
Personal Property Schedule ["APPS"]). (Exhibit B, attached.) DOM, g 54030.16,1-Personal Clothing for Male Inmates: the following
items listed are eliminated from our personal property via the proposed
DOM Article: Ace Bandages, allowed 2; Athletic Supporter, allowed 3; Belt,
allowed 1; Belt Buckle, allowed 1; Gloves/Sport, allowed 1 pair; Jacket,
allowed 1; Jeans, allowed 3; Robe, allowed l; Socks, allowed 10 pair; Sweat
Pants, allowed 2; Sweat Shirts, allowed 2; Undershirts (T-shirts), allowed
10; Wash Cloths, allowed 4; Wave Caps, allowed 1. The following personal clothing item amounts have been reduced via the
APPS: Tennis shoes, allowed 2 pair; APPS reduced this number to 1; Sandals/Slippers/Shower
Shoes, allowed 1 pair of shower shoes and 1 pair of slippers; APPS totally
omits sandals and combined shower shoes with slippers. The draft DOM Article 42 and APPS significantly eliminates many personal
items or clothing and greatly reduces the number of clothing items which
are approved. It should be noted, if these changes were implemented, many
items of personal clothing and supplies would be deemed "contraband" or
"disallowed property" after a six-month attrition period beginning the
date the new rules were signed into effect. Inmates tend to wear personal clothing items versus state issued clothing,
when permitted, due to the better quality of and overall comfort. Inmates
also tend to purchase and wear tennis shoes which are far more durable
and comfortable than the state issued shoes which have no arch support
or padding. Personal clothing items are typically more durable and tend to wear
out less often than stare issued clothing.' The recent issuance of the
new state issued shirts and pants which are made of a cheaper quality fabric
wear out faster and would tend to support the argument allowing inmates
to possess personal clothing items. The CDC claims there was a cost savings involved with the switch to
this new clothing. This claim is not supported when the clothing wears
out faster, as do the PIA tennis shoes, which results in the inmate having
to obtain replacement state issued clothing through the laundry exchange
on a more frequent basis. Obviously the CDC is going to increase their
costs for clothing inmates if these new rules are implemented. DOM § 54030.16.3-Personal Care/Hygiene for all Inmates: the proposed
APPS the following personal hygiene items have been eliminated for inmate
personal property via the proposed DOM Article: Baby Powder, allowed 1;
allowed 2; Foot Ointment, allowed 2; Foot Powder, allowed 1; Nail and/or
Toe Nail Clippers, allowed 1 each, APPS allows nail clippers but eliminates
toe nail clippers; Pain Medication, allowed 2; Hair Rollers, allowed l;
Shaving Brush, allowed 1; Baby Oil/Sunscreens /Vaseline /Chapstick, allowed
4, in addition to 3 Chapsticks; Tweezers, allowed 1, The proposed DOM APPS, the following items amounts have been reduced:
Cotton swabs, allowed 250 count, APPS reduced amount to 40; Deodorants,
allowed 4, APPS reduces amount to 2; Hair Conditioner, allowed 3, APPS
reduces amount to 2; Body Lotion, allowed 4, APPS reduces amount to 2;
Mouthwash, allowed 3, APPS reduces amount to 2; Disposable Razors, allowed
30, APPS reduces amount to 10; Shampoo, allowed 3, APPS reduces amount
to 2; Shaving Cream, allowed 5, APPS reduces amount to 2; Soap Bar, allowed
12, APPS reduces amount to 2; Toothpaste, allowed 4, APPS reduces amount
to 2. With the proposed APPS restrictions, several items are severely impacted
without any rational basis for doing so. Many personal hygiene items used
everyday by civilized human beings are deleted entirely. Many other items
are significantly reduced in allowable numbers to make it all but necessary
go to the canteen each month, for those inmates fortunate enough to do
so, or risk being without the items in question. The APPS does not factor
in a multitude of inmates who previously relied on their quarterly packages
for their supplies of personal hygiene items. The APPS also makes no allowances for unforeseen lock downs and program
disruptions which would prevent an inmate from acquiring their allotment
of the personal hygiene items needed. With the state budget crises in effect,
the inmate population has already noticed that state issued hygiene products
are being severely reduced. Taken as a whole, the APPS changes accompanied
with the reduction of state issued hygienic supplies will have a impact
on compliance with the inmate grooming standards mandated by California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, § 3062 et seq. The APPS also states in pertinent part . . . "Upon. availability, all
cosmetic items, including hair care products, deodorants, soaps, and toothpaste
must be transparent (both the substance and the container must be .see-through.)
No alcohol-based products and no aerosol containers allowed_" This language
is very problematic and troublesome as it severely restricts the availability
of some of these products via the prison canteens and availability from
the retail market, as a whole. The language further fails to address the issue with these items which
are being sold from the prison canteens which do not meet the restrictive
criteria outlined. It should also be noted, most personal hygiene items
that are transparent are generally generic, low quality and disliked by
the inmate population in every instance. The deletion of many personal hygiene items allowed is unreasonable
and unwarranted, and the appearance of these proposed restrictions is more
punitive in nature than geared towards any legitimate penalogical interests.
DOM, 5 54030.16.5-Food: The proposed APPS, the following food items have
been eliminated for inmate personal property via the proposed DOM Article:
A7.1 food items which come in a can or metal containers; Dry cereal which
comes in large containers (bulk); All powder forms of protein, vitamins,
and mineral supplements; Sodas; Seasonings; Pastries; Artificial Sweeteners.
There are a myriad of problems with these food selections being deleted
for inmate purchase and consumption. It is common knowledge, most food
manufacturers are typically not packaging their food products with the
prison population in mind. This equates to many food items being unavailable
given the proposed elimination of canned items or metal containers. The
retail consumers dictate what the' retail market provides as far as food
packaging, and consumers have yet to embrace food products packaged in
pouches and clear containers, as a whole. Generally speaking, most pouched food items are more expensive for an
amount of food less than canned items, and the inmate population cannot
afford the increased prices. The elimination of canned items will undoubtedly
preclude many inmates from obtaining food products they desire due to their
cultural /dietary reasoning. Additionally, it further negatively impacts
those inmates who rely on certain canned foods to meet with their dietary
and medical needs, which the CDC may not provide for in their daily diet. The elimination of all bulk protein powders, minerals and vitamin supplements
will severely impact the large number of inmates who frequently purchase
these items in an effort to promote better health and well-being. Tablet
or pill form of these products cost more, and in some instances, it would
be impossible to purchase enough product in the pill form, at a reasonable
cost, to equal that which can be obtained in the bulk form. The rationale of. eliminating other food products such as, sodas, pastries,
artificial sweeteners, and seasonings is very difficult to comprehend.
Most of these products are already available in the canteens, and they
are very popular with the inmate population. Again, the elimination of
these products could serve no legitimate penalogical interest. DOM § 54030.16.6-Miscellaneous: The proposed APPS, the following
miscellaneous items have been eliminated for inmate personal property via
the proposed DOM Article: Handball, allowed 1 can; Drink Bottle, allowed
1; Can Opener; allowed 1; Chewing Tobacco, allowed 50 cans or pouches;
Cigarette Case, allowed 1; Cigarette Papers, allowed; Cigarette Roller,
allowed l; Cigarettes, allowed 5 cartons; Cigarette or Pipe Tobacco, allowed
5 cans or 12 pouches; Cigars, allowed 100; Ear Plugs, allowed 1 set; Eyeglass
Case, allowed 2; Footlockers, allowed l; Laundry Soap, allowed up to 48
ounces; Pipe, allowed 2; Pipe Cleaners /Filters, allowed 2; Sewing Kits,
allowed 2; Shoe Polish, allowed 2; Spoon, allowed 1; Tape/CD Holder, allowed
1; Tobacco Holders (pouch), allowed 2; Hot Pot, allowed 1. The following miscellaneous item amounts have been reduced via the APPS:
Audio Cassettes/CD's, allowed 12, APPS reduces to 7.0; Ball Point Pens,
allowed 10, APPS reduces to 4; Batteries, allowed 12, APPS reduces to 8;
Envelopes, allowed 100;,APPS reduces to 40; Legal Pads/Tablets/Notebooks,
allowed 5, APPS reduces to 4; Stamps, allowed 100, APPS reduces to 40. This section is very troublesome, as it eliminates a large portion of
personal property inmates utilize on a daily basis. Furthermore, most of
the items proposed for elimination are not offered via the canteen for
those fortunate enough to access the canteen. All tobacco and products associated with tobacco are totally eliminated
which gives the appearance a decision is being made to ban all tobacco
products statewide at the same time this Article and APPS is implemented. Under this section, the APPS eliminates hot pots. Hot pots are widely
used by the inmate population to heat food' items purchased via the canteen
or received via their quarterly packages. Although the APPS does facilitate
allowing the inmate to possess a immersable heater, this product was not
designed to immerse within the food items, and would pose more of a safety
hazard by inmates trying to use the product for something it was not designed
for in the first place. Furthermore, immersable heaters are not designed with any real safety
features which are comparable to those found in approved hot pots. Hot
pots remain a safer choice to be used versus an i.mmersable heater due
to the factory installed safety devices. Instead of totally eliminating the hot pots because' of these concerns,
disciplinary procedures are already established via CCR, Title 15, which
specifically addresses dangerous contraband and punitive measures for those
inmates who wish to participate in such activities. Elimination of this
item would be viewed by the inmate population as nothing more than a extreme
punitive action against everyone, rather than just addressing the few via
the disciplinary process. I'. Law Re NCDR and DOM Changes: The CDC's failure to adhere to the Administrative Procedures Act and
other existing laws creates an illegal "underground" regulation/ rule.
Code § 11347.5(a) is also clear and binding authority on any state
agency in California. "No state agency shall issue, utilize, enforce, or
attempt to enforce any guideline, criterion, bulletin, manual, instruction,
order, standard of general application, or other rule which is a regulation
as defined in subdivision (b) of § 11342 unless the guideline, criterion,
bulletin, manual, instruction, order, standard of general application or
other rule has been adopted as a regulation and filed with the Secretary
of State pursuant to this chapter." These requirements include written and published notice of the proposed
action and public hearing on the adoption of the proposed regulation, receipt,
and consideration of comments of interested persons, and filing of the
adopted regulation with the Secretary of State as well as with the rules
committee's of each house of the Legislature. (Government Code §§
11370. et seq.) The CDC's failure/refusal to disclose DOM Article 42 changes and enactment,
anywhere in the NCDR makes the "public-notice" in this matter quite dubious
and. in contravention of the rights of the citizens of the State of California. "Where the Legislature has delegated to an administrative agency the
responsibility to implement a statutory scheme through rules and regulations,
the courts will interfere only where the agency has clearly overstepped
its statutory authority or violated a constitutional mandate." Ford
Dealers Assn. v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Ca1.3d
347, 355-356 [185 Ca1.Rptr. 453), fn. omitted_; Stoneham v. Rushen
(1984) 156 Cal:App.3d 302, 308 [203, Ca1.Rptr. 20). The only question here,
therefore, is whether "the challenged provisions are consistent and not
in conflict with the enabling statute and reasonably necessary to effectuate
its purpose," Fox v. San Francisco Residential Rent Bd. (1985)
169 Cal.App.3d 651, 655 [215 Ca1.Rptr. 565} California law vests the Director of the Department of Corrections
with the supervision, management, and control of the prisons, and the responsibility
for the care, custody, treatment, training, discipline and employment of
inmates. (Penal Code, § 5054). The Director is further authorized
under the Penal Code to prescribe and amend rules and regulations
for the administration of prisons, (Penal Code, § 5058, subd.
(a).) The regulations in question here are "attempting to be" promulgated
by the Director in furtherance of the supervision, management and control
of prisons, and the responsibility for the care, custody, treatment, training,
discipline and employment of inmates: (Penal Code, § 5054).
This determination is entitled to deference unless some showing is made
that the amendments fail to advance some legitimate penological purpose.
'See, Penal Code, § 2600; Turner v. Safley (1987)
482 U.S. 78, 79. The term "regulation" is defined in the Government Code
to mean "every rule, regulation, order, or standard of general application
or the amendment, supplement, or revision of any rule, regulation, order,
or standard adopted by any state agency to implement, interpret, or make
specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern the procedure,
except one that relates only to the internal management of the state agency,"
Government Code, 11342, subd. (g) (emphasis added); Caldo Oil Company
v. State Water Resources Control Board (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1821,
1827. There is no dispute here that the subject amendments meet this definition
of a "regulation". In the NCDR and DOM changes addressed in this case, the Director has
refused to exercise sound discretion and has not been forthright in seeking
The changes, which shows that "the agency has clearly overstepped its statutory
authority and violated a constitutional mandate." Ford Dealers Assn.
v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347, 355-356. G. Law Re Inmate Personal Property Clothing: According to In re Rodney Acala (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d
345 (on Habeas Corpus): Prisoners have a due process liberty interest in
wearing clothing of their choice. The right to choose clothing and overall
appearance is an aspect of liberty under due process clause and is entitled
to protection against arbitrary state action prisoner's right to wear clothing
of his choice was within rights protected by statute permitting prisoners
to be deprived of rights only if necessary for reasonable security of prison
and reasonable protection of the public. Accordingly, as Acala makes
clear, prisoners possess specific colorable rights to own/possess clothing
while confined. Implementation of DOM Article 42 and the NCDR the CDC would vitrate
the holding of Acala which remains good law today. H. Existing -Law Re Family Quarterly Packages: CCR, Title 15, § 3044(c) "Inmate Work and Training Incentive Groups,"
states in pertinent part: ". . . Privileges for each work/training incentive group shall be
those privileges earned by the inmate. Inmate privileges are administratively
authorized activities and benefits required of the director, by statute,
case law, governmental regulations, or executive orders. Inmate privileges
shall be governed by an inmate's behavior, custody classification, and
assignment. A formal request or application for privileges is not required
unless specified otherwise in this §.°' CCR, Title 15, §
3044 (d)(3)(G) "Privilege Group A," states in pertinent part: "The receipt
of four special packages, 30 pounds maximum weight each, per year, exclusive
of special canteen purchases." CCR, Title 15, § 3044 (e)(3)(G) "Privilege Group B," states: "The
receipt of four special packages, 30 pounds maximum weight each, per year,
exclusive of special canteen purchases." CCR, Title 15, § 3138
(d)(1) "General Mail Regulations/Packages," states: "Facilities will establish and make available to a11 inmates procedures
if prior approval has not been obtained, or if a package is received at
a facility, the facility may dispose of the package as provided for in
§ 3147(a)(6) without the need to hold the package pending appeal as
provided in § 3147(a)(5)(B)." CCR, Title 15, § 3138,(d)(1) is clear and binding authority as
applied to the CDC. "Facilities will establish and make available to
a11 inmates procedures for the recepit of packages from their correspondents
in accordance with the limits set for their assigned work/training incentive
group." This regulation is clear and binding authority. Any change
in this regulation must be promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act, Government Code § 11370 which means necessary changes to this
section which is not addressed in the NGDR. DOM § 53130.7.2 "Privileges for Group A," states in pertinent part: "The receipt of four special packages, 30 pounds maximum weight each;-
per year, exclusive of special canteen purchases." DOM § 53130.6
"Personal Property Packages," states: "Items of personal property may be received from correspondents of
the inmate. Items of authorized personal clothing or food may be acquired
by utilization of this package procedure. The determining factor in the
amount of packages an inmate may receive per year is the privilege group
in which the inmate is placed in accordance with the work/training program." "Group A": Inmates in privilege group A shall be allowed four packages
per year (one per quarter) not to exceed 30 pounds each. The packages shall
consist of clothing and/or food stuffs. "Group B": Inmates in privilege group B shall be allowed four packages
consist of clothing and/or food stuffs. DOM, § 54030.6 "Acquisition of Personal Property," states in pertinent
part: . . ." Inmates may receive personal property from approved correspondents
in requested packages as described in DOM, § 54030.6." I. Discussion of Memorandum from the Director of the CDC: A memorandum authored by the Director of CDC, Cal. Terhune, dated February
9, 1998, indicates the CDC knew six (6) years ago that they needed to make
changes to the CCR, Title 15 regulations via NCDR in order to implement
a mandatory vendor quarterly package program. The memorandum states: "The Department is proposing new regulations regarding the purchase
of quarterly packages for inmates. As you are aware, family and friends
of inmates have been able to purchase items and other sundries such as
toiletries or small items of clothing which can be sent to them on a quarterly
basis. To minimize the introduction of contraband into the prison setting,
CDG will require that all quarterly packages be purchased from a state-approved
vendor that will ship directly to the prisons. Quarterly packages will
be limited to food items only." (Exhibit E, attached and incorporated.) S. Discussion of Senate Bill (SB) 206: Senate Bill No. 206 was introduced by Senator Brulte on February 13,
2003, to establish a pilot program at Pelican Bay State Prison to replace
the inmate quarterly package program with an expanded canteen program.
On March 25, 2003, SB-206 failed passage in the Senate Public Safety Committee
(2-2); however, reconsideration was granted. Since the Senate refused to pass SB-206, the CDC decided to take their
next best route and make and "end run" around the California State Legislature
by publishing a less than forthright NCDR that fails to once mention changes
being made the DOM Article 42. A polite way of making an underground rule. B. The NCDR and DOM Article 42 Fail to Address/ Acknowledge e Law Re
Storage of Inmate Legal Property: Commonly there are no readily available and accessible storage areas
for prisoners' legal property. The following synopsis is submitted for
your consideration upon the subject-matter. Prisoners retain all of their constitutional rights, except for those
which are diminished by the needs are exigencies of the institutional environment,
which are reasonably related to justifiable penological interest(s) (e.g.,
v, Safley (1987) 482 U.S, 78, 84-55; Wolff v. McDonnell
(1974) 418 U.S. 539, 555). "Inmate[s] access to the courts shall not
be obstructed" "(see: CCR, Title 15, § 3160(a) [emphasis added]),
which language creates a liberty interest protected under the Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment (see- e.g:, Hicks v, Oklahoma
(1980) 447 U.S. 343, 346-347), In Hatfield v. Bailleaux (9th
Cit. 1961) 290 F.2d 632, 640-641, cert. denied, 368 U.S, 862 (196).); the
Ninth Circuit held that: "One question which an inmate must decide in determining if he should
represent himself is whether in view of his own competency and general
prison regulations he can do.so adequately. He must make this decision
in light of the circumstances eaistinp," (Emphasis added); and this was
cited with approval in the most restrictive of the decision in Lewi.s
v. Casey (1996) 518 U,S. 343. Based upon the foregoing premise,
prisoners could take and assume a good faith belief that they would be
allowed to keep their active legal case files in their possession, in their
cells. Forcing the removal of said active legal case files from these prisoners
at this exceptionally late stage of the game would interfere and impair
said prisoners' access to the courts, and their ability to litigate effectively
(see- e.g., Lewis v. Casey, supra, 518 U.S. 343). Although,
Title 15, § 3161 connotes that "law books and papers" will remain
within the six cubic feet limitations of Title 15, § 3190(b), through
custom, trait and habit of the institution(s) have been exempt for said
limitations. After review of new CCR, Title 15, regulations being proposed, Respondent
asserts the majority of said regulations are invalid under Government
Code, §§ 11340 et. seq. [Administrative Regulations and
Rulemaking], for alia, it violates, conflicts with or supersedes other
CCR, Title 3 regulations. CONCLUSION
After review of the new NCDR (CCR, 'T7.tle 15) and DON Article 42 regulations
being proposed, Petitioner asserts the majority of said regulations are
invalid under Government Code §§ 11340 et. seq. [Administrative
Regulations and Rulemaking], for inter alia, it violates Government
Code, § 7.1370 et. seq., Penal Code 5058, 6055 et. seq.
regarding obtaining a economic and fiscal impact survey/report/study before
attempting to make a serious changes in regulations that impact every citizen
in California, in addition to conflicting with or superseding other section
of CCR, Title 75, regulations. Enactment of this NCDR without a financial
economic impact report is unlawful/illegal per Penal Code 5058(d)(1). The Governor has went on record and issued an Executive Order 5-2-03
which specifically pertains to these types of agency regulation changes,
being enacted without fully assessing the potential for economic impacts
on California businesses, enterprise and individuals. Obviously the CDC
has ignored and disregarded the Executive Order making it apparent CDC
feels they are exempt, but more importantly, it has asserted a multitude
of falsehoods and deceptive responses to the questions which are part of
the Administrative Procedures Act and is against the law. Simply put, the CDC has not truly done any investigations into the
financial impacts these regulation changes will definitely have on innumerable
California citizens, and any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. The CDC has failed to inform the public of the many other financial
problems which face prisoners statewide which will only be exacerbated
by the implementation of these regulations. Most prisoners and their support
networks of family and friends are already being subjected to paying the
,33% (soon to be 55%) fine/restitutions deduction on any and all deposits
knade to the inmate's trust account. Inmates have woefully few wage-earning
opportunities within the prison system. The so-called "approved vendors"
already in use by the CDC for years have engaged in extreme price gouging
and reaped huge profits from the virtual monopolies they have been given
by the CDC, and the CDC officials have done nothing to ameliorate these
problems due to callousness and/or complacency. Inmates' families and friends, most of which are already struggling
financially, can not afford further financial burden and exploitation by
the vendors who will most certainly charge outrageously high prices for
the items they sell in the quarterly packages. Furthermore, inmates' families
and friends can not afford to outlay a lump-sum payment such as what would
be necessary to buy a vendor quarterly package. Instead, they have always
been allowed to buy the items they would send a little at a time, as their
finances permitted, and often bought items on-sale or in bulk to fill the
quarterly packages. Petitioner contends that implementing these new regulations will significantly
decrease the number of inmates who will be fortunate enough to receive
a quarterly package because their support networks will not be able to
afford them. The CDC has not only failed to consider the financial consequences
involved with these regulation changes, but it has also overlooked the
humanitarian issues which come into play prior to proposing or implementing
these regulations. Moreover, it is abundantly clear CDC does not recognize inmates and
their families in regards to humanitarian needs due to the obvious desires
and actions by CDC reducing the status of an inmate and those associated
with inmates (i.e., families, friends, loved-ones, etc.) to something less
than a human being in today's society. CDC, has failed to acknowledge or mention the cost factor which will
be incurred by inmates and their support network an having to send items
of personal property home due in part to the implementation of this regulation
change. Inmates who possess such items and' do not have the financial means
allowing them to send those personal property items home will ultimately
be forced to donate/dispose of those items at the hands of CDC's unwarranted
and punitive implementation of these drastic regulation changes. Sentimental
and monetary value of such items are totally disregarded, as many of the
personal property items which were authorized by CDC, and were previously
purchased for the inmate by their support network, is blatantly and totally
ignored by CDC with the implementation of these new regulations. One could only speculate if CDC was mandated by the Legislature to have
to pay all costs for an inmate to ship their personal property items home
since they were in fact once authorized by the CDC; this regulation change
would not even be considered since it would create an obvious significant
negative fiscal impact on the CDC and the State of California! Once again the CDC has chosen to heap the financial burden on the backs
of prisoners and their suppport networks. Will it be any surprise if many
inmates who are having their personal property taken as a result of these
regulation changes decide to take their concerns to the courts for some
redress? Will it be any surprise if some inmates instead resort to acts of violence
and disobedience as a result of having their most precious programming
incentives stripped away? Petitioner contends the CDC has failed miserably
to grasp the totality of adverse affects which will be thrust upon prisoners
and their support networks if these proposed regulation changes to the
Title 15 and the DOM are adopted and implemented throughout the CDCs Another aspect of these regulation changes and this particular NCDR
which is very troubling is how the CDC has completely omitted the fact
that it has been working very hard to implement sweeping changes to the
DOM which will obliterate inmate property allowances statewide. This in
itself leads Petitioner to surmise the CDC is probably withholding many
other relevant facts which the public and Petitioner should be informed
about prior to the CCR changes being adopted and/or approved. The DOM regulation changes hinge upon the CCR Title 15 changes to 3190
in order for them to be implemented without hassles, but the CDC has not
allowed for any public commentary or review of the DOM changes being proposed.
Take for instance, the new DOM regulations will severely limit an inmate's
ability to effectively represent themselves in the courts because the inmate
will be further restricted on the amount of legal books and materials they
may possess as a result of the DOM changes. This certainly serves the interests of the CDC by ensuring inmates will
not have an opportunity to appeal their court decisions which will keep
them in prison even if they are completely and totally innocent. The CDC
has chosen to tread on sacred ground when it attempts to implement regulations
that infringe upon a person's unfettered access to the courts. Petitioner
asserts the CDC is doing so for ulterior motives which should be investigated
thoroughly by the Legislature. Petitioner also contends these regulation changes are unwarranted,
and they are not necessary in order to bring the CDC into compliance with
the 'Governor's budget. The CDC has deliberately circumvented the rights
of the public to know what the real impacts of these proposed regulations
will be. The CDC has also manipulated the information and the facts to
support its own desires to implement a series of draconian restrictions
and limitations on prisoners and their support networks of family and friends.
One has to wonder, is the CDC doing all of this in an effort to generate
sympathy and support for increased funding being provided by the Department
of Finance in future years. Consider the outcomes that may very well result from these highly restrictive
regulations being imposed on prisoners statewide who already have very
few "privileges" to entice their good behavior. If the CDC implements these
restrictions and prisoners decide to strike and create havoc and bloodshed
in the prisons when they have nothing left to lose., who will ultimately
benefit from this? The answer is clear, the GDC will benefit from the outpouring
of public support once the public sees the terrible atrocities prisoners
are known for committing when they are oppressed and backed into a corner
to the point they can take it no more. The public will not be told.these types of punitive regulations which
serve no legitimate penological interest are probably the spark that ignited
the prisoners into revolting. No, instead, the public will be told, the
CDC needs more money for more officers to control these animals within
the prisons. Clearly, this is an obvious attempt by CDC to incite this
type of behavior from inmates to support their own selfish interests. The
CDC has shown it has no compunctions when it comes to lying and deliberately
misstating the facts, as evidenced by the statements contained within the
NCDR, and Petitioner is convinced there are a lot of ulterior motives at
work here which need to be brought to light. The CDC is currently in the public eye for numerous scandals and corruption
cases which reach all the way to the CDC Director's office. Lives and careers
are being lost already, and now the CDC wants to come forth with a barrage
of regulation changes that are destined to be misused and abused by prison
authorities. Not to mention, there is every reason to suspect these vendors
being approved by various CDC officials have paid some tidy sums for those
approvals. Maybe the CDC is deliberately misstating the facts and omitting others
so that nobody will focus on the consequences of adopting the many regulation
changes the CDC has put forth in recent months. Petitioner contends the
obvious fiscal impacts to California businesses should be focused upon,
but there are many other aspects of these regulation changes which deserve
much attention and scrutiny prior to their being adopted and -implemented.
The public is effected by the internal management of prisons when the management
decides to propose sweeping regulation changes that are destined to cost
the state and taxpayers millions of dollars. This concludes my written comments regarding the proposed regulation
changes to the CCR, Title 15, and DOM. Date: February 20, 2004 Respectfully submitted, S. Rhoel B. Cayenne Bird Exhibit [50 pages of exhibits accompanied this document which was submitted
to Rick Grentz, Senator Gloria Romero, one editor of the Los Angeles Times
and others via regular mail.] Packages