|
Update on the Westmoreland County Prison
Posted 04-25-2001
The hottest issue in county government recently is our decision concerning
who will manage the Westmoreland County Prison. I would like to share with
you why I initiated the effort to have Cornell Corrections Corporation take
over the management of the prison, rather than simply hiring another warden.
During the last ten months, our prison has been a very high-profile
facility, with little of the news being good. Entering into a two-year
contract with Cornell should give us a chance to have professional on-site
management, the support of corporate resources, and potentially a more
rewarding financial arrangement.
After the Prison Board
floundered for several months in taking charge of the situation last year,
we took the necessary step to remove the former warden. The change in
leadership was imperative to begin the process of restoring public
confidence in our facility. Sheriff Chris Scherer served as acting warden
for a thirty-day period, while we began to chart another course of action.
In addition to the traditional route of hiring a warden, we also looked at
private companies that could manage our facility. Most of those companies
wanted a complete privatization arrangement and that was not what I believed
to be in the county's best interest. Cornell was willing to come in and sign
a 120-day management contract to provide an "upper management only" staffing
arrangement.
During this 120-day period,
Cornell has done a good job of following up on recommendations from the
Department of Corrections investigation and the Attorney General's report.
They have also brought a corporate view of corrections that comes from a
group that has worked in diverse corrections environments. With their broad
range of experience, there are very few situations, if any, that they have
not seen. Their on-site people have been professional and have worked hard
to deal with labor matters and the implementation of our new contract with
the United Mine Workers who represent our corrections officers.
The Prison Board began to
explore two longer-term courses of action. One was the traditional hiring of
another warden, and the other was a longer contract with Cornell. In light
of all that has happened, I was very uneasy about simply turning over the
facility to one individual. Cornell would only place two folks on site, but
offer corporate resources beyond those two people. Their proposal at $30,000
per month would not be financially viable except that they came up with an
innovative way of covering their cost. By filling twenty vacant beds with
out-of-county inmates at our $53 per diem, they will not only cover their
costs, but also allow us to make some money. They've also proposed a profit
sharing scenario for an additional twenty beds to be filled with
out-of-county inmates. We would split that money (60% county-40% Cornell)
only after they've filled the first twenty beds.
Their proposal would also
allow us to save nearly $150,000 from our General Fund that we have been
spending on salary and benefits for a warden and deputy warden. My feeling
is that from a professional management standpoint, Cornell will be better
than anyone we interviewed. Their cost would not be practical if we were
only spending General Fund dollars. But if they fulfill their proposal, it
can be a win-win situation. If they don't, then we'll move in another
direction.
I believe to move county
government forward, we should at least try a longer relationship with
Cornell. This proposed arrangement is similar to the management contract
that we have at Westmoreland Manor. Complete Care Services has two employees
on site that we pay for and a management fee that they earn only if they
increase revenues or decrease expenses by that amount. The deal at the
prison is similar in that certain financial objectives must be met to make
it work. If we're serious about moving this government forward and dealing
with our prison professionally, it makes sense to try this contractual
arrangement with Cornell. |
