GUARD JUMPS THE GUN - AGAIN. WHAT DUTY DO IDOC STAFF HAVE TO LOOK BEFORE THEY LEAP? (THE IDOC CENSORED VERSION)
In a recently posted article on this page (WHEN A GUARD HATES A PRISONER - OR THE GREAT TORTILLA CAPER - THAT NEVER WAS ), Dale Shackelford described how ISCC staff failed/refused to investigate or even look into unsubstantiated and refuted claims of theft before accusing and firing him from his long-held job in the Close Custody unit. It is now known (too late) that Shackelford did not bring the tortillas to the unit - and did not steal anything.
Unfortunately, it's happened again. Correctional Officer (guard) * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * (who's dislike for Shackelford was outed in the posted article) has now accused Shackelford of harassing him for providing him with an emailed copy of the posted article.
According to a Discplinary Offense Report filed against Shackelford by * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * he opened the email at 11:52 pm on January 17, 2021. Within just a few hours, * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * had written and filed the DOR. "Offender Shackelford attempted to harass and intimidate me via email as I was the only recipient of said email." wrote * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * . Although * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * made clear he did not like the contents of the article, his complaint, as set forth in the DOR, was that Shackelford singled him out because Shackelford did not send the email to anyone else. We now know that is clearly false, and had * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * made even a modicum of effort to ask around, he would not have embarrassed himself in this matter. What duty does an IDOC staff member have to even make a call before officially accusing someone of wrongdoing, especially where one could lose privileges earned, a job, or even the revocation of a parole date?
For more than 3 years, articles written by Shackelford have been sent to the (blog) site administrator for posting on this site via JPay, the secure prisoner email provider, meaning that the articles have been read, vetted and censored by IDOC investigators long before they are posted on the site. With one exception, these articles have been screened and released to the site administrator (though sometimes taking weeks) without incident - including the article in which * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * name appears.
As often happens soon after the articles are posted, Shackelford causes an email with a text copy of, and hyperlink to the article to those staff named in articles posted to this blog site, if he can determine their (IDOC) email address - it's only fair (to them).* Shackelford has the emails sent from his email account (daleshackelford1@gmail.com) so as to provide transparency as to the sender. On a couple occasions, IDOC staff (including a now former high-ranking IDOC administrator) have asked Shackelford to remove their names from an email notification list, or not to email them on any matter (he immediately complied with all such requests) while others have asked Shackelford (personally) if he had a problem with them subscribing to this site (no problem - everyone is invited - no secrets here).
Despite * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * allegations that Shackelford harassed him by singling him out to receive an email, Shackelford caused the exact same email sent to , * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * at the exact same time, to be sent (bcc) to Sgt. , * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * FSO * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * as well as another [now former] G Block officer who worked the night shift in G Block though was not named in the article. Even IDOC Director * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * was sent a copy. Of course, those of you that subscribe to this site (including several IDOC staff) received an email notifying you of the new posting.
* CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * again - most likely due to his disdain for Shackelford - intentionally or ignorantly jumped the gun in accusing Shackelford of misdeeds. It is also clear that * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * did not even contact his supervising sergeant (* CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * ) before writing the DOR, as Sgt. * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * (or even FSO * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * who works an overlapping shift as * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * ) would have informed him that [they] too had received the email, negating the concern * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * had about being singled out to receive the email as charged in the DOR.
Shackelford was found guilty on the DOR on January 19, 2021.** Shackelford awaits confirmation of the findings and plans to appeal if necessary. Hopefully, the checks and balances of the DOR appeal system as written in the IDOC Standard Operating Procedures will prevail.
_______________
* Officers * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * and * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * didn't get an email because there are too many * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * and * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * email addresses in the IDOC - even knowing their first names - to know for sure where to send it. If you would like to learn more about Idaho state employees, including salaries and other information visit www.transparent.idaho.gov
** The DOR hearing sergeant (improperly) based his finding of guilt based solely on the content of the article. * CENSORED BY IDOC INVESTIGATIONS * made it clear in the DOR that his being singled out to receive the email was the basis of the complaint. The (protected speech) article itself contained no threatening, intimidating, harassing or other language - is authorized - and cannot be the basis of a finding of guilt to the accusation made per SOP.