WASTING TIME AND PLAYING GAMES - THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DEFENSE
It must be written in some outdated IDOC training manual that when staff cannot intelligently counter a valid point or question raised by a prisoner concerning policy or SOP, employees must discount the argument made as a waste of (staff) time and resources, though the perennial favorite of administrators is to label the difference of opinion as the "playing of games" by an inmate with too much time on his/her hands.
Prisoner Dale Shackelford has on several instances called upon the ISCC Investigations Department (security) to follow the minimum requirements of SOP for providing timely Notice whenever an electronic communication (ECM), be it an email, videogram or photo attachment is confiscated by staff. Shackelford maintains that IDOC SOP 503.02.01.001 requires staff, within 24 hours to review all incoming ECMs [FN1] and either approve and send the ECM to the intended recipient [FN2] or complete and deliver a Contraband Denial form and send the offending ECMs to security for further and final disposition [FN3]. Shackelford argues that Investigations then has 5 (business) days to either release the ECM or provide the required Notice of Confiscation [FN4]. ISCC Deputy Warden of Security Christensen argues they have 2 weeks to process ECMs. Shackelford has filed at least one grievance on the failure of security staff to provide this Notice in the time set forth in SOP, a grievance that Mr. Christensen has characterized in verbal conversations with Shackelford as a "wild goose chase" and a (wait for it...) "waste of my time". The grievance was denied.
An example of the tone of exchanges between staff and prisoners can be summed up in the following Concern form sent by Shackelford to ISCC Investigations on 1/18/18, Shackelford writes:
"On 1/12/18 you* confiscated the attachment (photo) to my incoming email sent by [SP] on 1/7/18, yet you have not released the email (text) to me as of this date as required by SOP. Please release the email to me immediately. *Associate #1314 (unknown name)"
NOTE: The email was released to Shackelford on the evening of 1/18/18 - the same day, but hours after the Concern form was sent. In response to the Concern, ISCC Investigations Sergeant Mileski wrote:
"Mr. Shackelford, ALL emails sent by [SP] on 1/7/18 were sent to you. I checked the individual history of all 3 of them. Please stop wasting my time. (EOR)"
Based on this response, as well as the stated position of Deputy Warden Christensen, Shackelford sent a Concern form on 1/22/18 to the deputy warden, asking for a meeting with both he and the sergeant to resolve the issues:
"Would you please arrange a meeting with me and Sgt. Mileski regarding this email issue*? You believe I am incorrect on some issues - he (Sgt. Mileski) says I'm wasting his time. If I am wrong in how or what I believe is correct, I will stand corrected. If the 3 of us (and whoever else you might want to attend) can get together it may resolve many future issues - saving everyone time and work. *SOP 503.02.01.001.
The deputy warden replied on 1/23/18: "I'm sorry - Sgt. Mileski doesn't have time to play the game your [sic] playing. C note has been entered." [FN5]
The unprofessional and uninformed attitudes and responses of line staff and administrators is at the core of the recent frustrations ravaging the IDOC.
More than 10 years ago, while preparing for litigation on mail policy which limited incoming prisoner mail to less than 5 printed pages per envelope, then Director of the Division of Prisons Pam Sonnen railed on Shackelford's "games and harassment of staff" when utilizing state-created prisoner-to-staff communication and exhaustion methods as required by the court. In 2015 - 2016, while in preparation for filing the lawsuit (SHACKELFORD v. McKAY, Case No. CV-OC- 2016-5583) which ultimately led to the amendment and implementation of revised IDOC SOP 503.02.01.001 regarding Telephone and Electronic Communications on September 30, 2016, Shackelford was scolded by the then Deputy Director of Prisons as "playing games" and wasting the valuable time of staff.
Now, at the start of 2018, high ranking administrators are again alleging that Shackelford is playing games and wasting their time - a clear indication that he is on the right track... and for the record - it's not a game.
[FN1] 503.02.01.001, V. 6, page 6: FUNCTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - Assigned Staff Step 1: "On a daily basis, access the ECS to review all held or flagged electronic communications." Step 2: "View each digital photo or greeting card and watch each VideoGram to determine if any of the content is prohibited". [ON A DAILY BASIS MEANS WITHIN 24 HOURS!]
[FN2] Step 3 directs that approved content be released to the recipient.
[FN3] Where content is prohibited, filling out the Contraband and Denial form and providing it to the inmate. The prohibited content is hen flagged and sent to security.
[FN4] Step 4 requires Investigations Staff - "within five business days" to review ECMs flagged "sent to security" and to approve/release the content, or fill out [another] Contraband Denial form and deliver it to the prisoner. Coupled with the 1 day for initial review, the total time for processing is to be no more than 6 business days.
[FN5] C notes are used by IDOC staff to document "contacts" with prisoners. Prisoners are not allowed to review these notes, but they are reviewed and used by other staff for various purposes, including hiring for prisoner jobs, etc. The context in which the deputy warden indicated his entry of a C note has very negative - and threatening - connotations.
Prisoner Dale Shackelford has on several instances called upon the ISCC Investigations Department (security) to follow the minimum requirements of SOP for providing timely Notice whenever an electronic communication (ECM), be it an email, videogram or photo attachment is confiscated by staff. Shackelford maintains that IDOC SOP 503.02.01.001 requires staff, within 24 hours to review all incoming ECMs [FN1] and either approve and send the ECM to the intended recipient [FN2] or complete and deliver a Contraband Denial form and send the offending ECMs to security for further and final disposition [FN3]. Shackelford argues that Investigations then has 5 (business) days to either release the ECM or provide the required Notice of Confiscation [FN4]. ISCC Deputy Warden of Security Christensen argues they have 2 weeks to process ECMs. Shackelford has filed at least one grievance on the failure of security staff to provide this Notice in the time set forth in SOP, a grievance that Mr. Christensen has characterized in verbal conversations with Shackelford as a "wild goose chase" and a (wait for it...) "waste of my time". The grievance was denied.
An example of the tone of exchanges between staff and prisoners can be summed up in the following Concern form sent by Shackelford to ISCC Investigations on 1/18/18, Shackelford writes:
"On 1/12/18 you* confiscated the attachment (photo) to my incoming email sent by [SP] on 1/7/18, yet you have not released the email (text) to me as of this date as required by SOP. Please release the email to me immediately. *Associate #1314 (unknown name)"
NOTE: The email was released to Shackelford on the evening of 1/18/18 - the same day, but hours after the Concern form was sent. In response to the Concern, ISCC Investigations Sergeant Mileski wrote:
"Mr. Shackelford, ALL emails sent by [SP] on 1/7/18 were sent to you. I checked the individual history of all 3 of them. Please stop wasting my time. (EOR)"
Based on this response, as well as the stated position of Deputy Warden Christensen, Shackelford sent a Concern form on 1/22/18 to the deputy warden, asking for a meeting with both he and the sergeant to resolve the issues:
"Would you please arrange a meeting with me and Sgt. Mileski regarding this email issue*? You believe I am incorrect on some issues - he (Sgt. Mileski) says I'm wasting his time. If I am wrong in how or what I believe is correct, I will stand corrected. If the 3 of us (and whoever else you might want to attend) can get together it may resolve many future issues - saving everyone time and work. *SOP 503.02.01.001.
The deputy warden replied on 1/23/18: "I'm sorry - Sgt. Mileski doesn't have time to play the game your [sic] playing. C note has been entered." [FN5]
The unprofessional and uninformed attitudes and responses of line staff and administrators is at the core of the recent frustrations ravaging the IDOC.
More than 10 years ago, while preparing for litigation on mail policy which limited incoming prisoner mail to less than 5 printed pages per envelope, then Director of the Division of Prisons Pam Sonnen railed on Shackelford's "games and harassment of staff" when utilizing state-created prisoner-to-staff communication and exhaustion methods as required by the court. In 2015 - 2016, while in preparation for filing the lawsuit (SHACKELFORD v. McKAY, Case No. CV-OC- 2016-5583) which ultimately led to the amendment and implementation of revised IDOC SOP 503.02.01.001 regarding Telephone and Electronic Communications on September 30, 2016, Shackelford was scolded by the then Deputy Director of Prisons as "playing games" and wasting the valuable time of staff.
Now, at the start of 2018, high ranking administrators are again alleging that Shackelford is playing games and wasting their time - a clear indication that he is on the right track... and for the record - it's not a game.
[FN1] 503.02.01.001, V. 6, page 6: FUNCTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - Assigned Staff Step 1: "On a daily basis, access the ECS to review all held or flagged electronic communications." Step 2: "View each digital photo or greeting card and watch each VideoGram to determine if any of the content is prohibited". [ON A DAILY BASIS MEANS WITHIN 24 HOURS!]
[FN2] Step 3 directs that approved content be released to the recipient.
[FN3] Where content is prohibited, filling out the Contraband and Denial form and providing it to the inmate. The prohibited content is hen flagged and sent to security.
[FN4] Step 4 requires Investigations Staff - "within five business days" to review ECMs flagged "sent to security" and to approve/release the content, or fill out [another] Contraband Denial form and deliver it to the prisoner. Coupled with the 1 day for initial review, the total time for processing is to be no more than 6 business days.
[FN5] C notes are used by IDOC staff to document "contacts" with prisoners. Prisoners are not allowed to review these notes, but they are reviewed and used by other staff for various purposes, including hiring for prisoner jobs, etc. The context in which the deputy warden indicated his entry of a C note has very negative - and threatening - connotations.