KEEFE COMMISSARY CONTINUES TO "BACK DOOR" PRISONERS ON PRICING, NOW FACING BACKLASH FOR ACTIONS

KEEFE COMMISSARY CONTINUES TO "BACK DOOR" PRISONERS ON PRICING, NOW FACING BACKLASH FOR ACTIONS

In the post KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK/KEEFE GROUP PULLS END-RUN AROUND PRICING CONTRACT WITH IDOC TO PRICE GOUGE PRISONERS on this site, I explained how Keefe Commissary is avoiding contractual limitations on price increases by discontinuing items, then "reintroducing" the exact same item a few months later at prices with more than a 100% markup. They do this because, per contract with the IDOC, markup is limited to the rate of increase of the Consumer Price Index.

In their most recent scheme, Keefe is shifting between Coca Cola and Pepsi products, and raising soda prices by nearly 100% though the most recent consumer price index went up (according to Keefe) only 5.7% (see their email to prisoners below). Keefe has also stopped selling some of their in-house brand (Cactus Annie) items and started selling brand named goods such as Doritos at more than twice the price for virtually identical items.

Why doesn't the IDOC curb these outrageous practices? Well, its simple - the more money Keefe makes, the more "kickbacks" the state makes. Per contract, the IDOC is paid more than $1.5M per year by Keefe just to have the exclusive right to sell items to prisoners. On TOP of that, the IDOC then receives a 40% commission on items sold via commissary. Why then would the IDOC object to Keefe raising prices?

Some might ask why prisoners aren't filing lawsuits to stop the outrageous pricing schemes. The answer is a bit complex. First, the contract is actually between the IDOC and Keefe, and there is an argument that prisoners don't have "standing" to sue (though I'm sure that can be overcome because prisoners may be the "real party in interest"). Second, in a case that went before the Idaho Supreme Court in 2016 (Docket No. 43019) the court ruled (among other things) that prisoners didn't HAVE to purchase items from commissary, so they get what they get (simply put). Unfortunately, the way the case was presented to the courts by a prisoner representing himself, likely without benefit of research materials being available to him, lent itself to creating what is termed "bad law".

Despite the court ruling, prisoners DO have to purchase commissary items. While sodas and Dorito chips clearly are not necessary purchases, basic hygiene items, paper, pens, legal supplies or other "indigent supplies" are not provided unless the prisoner has an account balance of $0.00, with no deposits to their account over the previous 30 days. The definition of "indigent" however is not available in published SOP, for while SOP 402.02.01.001 (Mail Handling) refers to SOP 114.03.03.011 for the definition, this SOP is not available to prisoners via the SOP "Handbook", and SOP 114.03.03.024 (Funding) points to the Mail Handling SOP for definition. [Your tax dollars at work...]

In many instances, prisoners cannot bring their accounts down to zero, finding themselves with only a few cents, and no items on the commissary menu cheap enough to clear those pennies from their account.

In a 2007 court settlement (SHACKELFORD v. SONNEN, HC07-23182) the IDOC agreed to change the definition of indigent from $0.00 on account and no deposits for 30 days, to the price of a franked (stamped) envelope (and no deposits for the previous 30 days). This settlement agreement remained in effect for years, until - without notification to prisoners - the IDOC went back on their word and returned to the $0 definition. IDOC staff now say prisoners may "donate" these funds to the State to clear their accounts.

Recently, prisoners have been fighting back, using the contract mandates to call Keefe out on bad acts. For example, in a previous end-run, Keefe stopped selling their Cactus Annie flour tortillas which sold for about $1.00 for package of 6 (which often contained only 5). They started selling the exact same item a few months later (citing requests by prisoners to sell them) at more than twice the price. The tortillas were sold in resealable packages, but when reintroduced, were in cheaper, non-resealable packages. Saltine crackers increased nearly 300%.

In the contract, Keefe is required to sell items in either single-serve or resealable packages. Because the tortillas did not meet the criteria, prisoners complained, and Keefe was forced to remove the tortillas from the menu. Soon, many other items will also meet the same fate due to packaging. Items must also be in clear packaging, though this is not being adhered to, including many of the items upon which Keefe and the IDOC make the most profit. These items will soon receive "attention".

Also of note, SecurePak, (part of the Keefe family) that sells outrageously priced "packages" to prisoners is also selling goods which do not meet contract criteria, as well as items clearly marked "Not for Retail Sale" (despite selling the items retail). Both companies are also selling items individually despite being marked "Not for Individual Sale".

The contract between IDOC and Keefe is clearly unlawful due to conflict of interests. It is only a matter of time before someone asks a court to make it official.

########

TO: IDOC RESIDENT POPULATION
FROM: KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK
DATE: 4/10/2023

To whom it may concern:

Effective 5/1/2023, Keefe Commissary will be increasing all prices by 5.7% in accordance with section 17.4 of the commissary contract. The contract mirrors increases that are also happening in the community by matching increases or decreases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Keefe does understand the strain that this puts on our customers and will continue to acquire products that bring the most value to our customers.

We appreciate your business.

Thank you,
Keefe Commissary