INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the activity we have seen regarding prison telephone systems since we launched the Equitable Telephone Charges (eTc) Campaign in January, 2000. We have identified four categories of activity: Administrative Initiatives, Legislative Activity, Litigation, and Editorial Support. We have recently added a category entitled Telephone Company Practices to highlight some of the activities of the phone companies involved in this business.

Connecticut, DC, Indiana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Vermont have led on the legislative side by passing laws to address the problem. There has been legislative activity in 15 other states that have not yet resulted in the enactment of new laws. At the same time, we believe that the legislative activity has led to pilot studies and/or direct improvements in states such as Missouri, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

The regulatory body in Virginia (SCC) ruled that there should be a reduction in the phone charges. Unfortunately, the legislature responded with legislation that bars the SCC from having exercising its authority in such matters. The Public Service Commission in Georgia has provided some relief. Most of the litigation, involving 18 states is still pending. There has been administrative activity impacting 23 state systems.

We are aware of some activity in 37 states and the District of Columbia (72% of the jurisdictions)! We find that encouraging, since the issue was seldom discussed prior to the launch of our campaign. Nevertheless, the problems are not yet solved. Much work remains. We are determined to continue our efforts until we achieve the reasonable rates we all deserve.


ADMINISTRATIVE INITIATIVES

CA: In February, 2002, the state signed a contract that will reduce the rates of most prisoner phone calls by 25 percent, and will also trim the annual commission paid the state. The contracts with MCI and Verizon were renewed without competitive bidding.

CO: Allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls. Debit calls are provided through a debit account system.
On January 3, 2001, DOC administrators reported to the Legislative Joint Budget Committee that they were working on a 5-year contract that would reduce phone system commissions from 33.3% to 27-28%.
In September, 2001, the DOC announced that it would be lengthening phone calls to 20 minutes, and allowing prisoners to place 15 approved numbers on their call lists.
In January, 2002, the Public Utilities Commission ruled that the maximum surcharge for prisoner calls is $1.85. The surcharge had been as high as $3.00 for some interLATA calls.

CT: The prison system announced plans to operate a pilot program to test debit calling.

DC: The Director of the prison system indicated, in testimony before the budget committee, that he was considering a debit calling system.

GA: Georgia’s Public Service Commission (PSC) opened an investigation October 16, 2001, following numerous complaints. The investigation will include municipal jails as well as state prisons and halfway houses. Among the concerns: 1) Prison phone system provider MCI is charging both a connection charge and a per-minute fee which is prohibited by tariff rules. 2) MCI’s recorded message provided incorrect rates or no rates at all. In some cases the rate charged was twice the stated rate. (MCI blames a computer software error.) In addition, the cost of a 10-minute call from a prison jumped from $5 (with vendor Sprint) to $10 with MCI.
The DOC has asked that its share of the overcharge be refunded. DOC Commissioner Jim Wetherington has said he will review commissions in a few months, and will ask MCI to reduce the state’s cut if revenues significantly exceed expectations. At its meeting on January 16, 2002, PSC Commissioner Robert Baker stated, “We’re concerned about price gouging by the Department of Corrections. (People) are essentially being assessed a penalty for having that association (with a prisoner).” The Commission could decide at its February meeting whether it has the authority to order a lower rate.
On February 19, 2001, the Georgia Public Service Commission ordered telephone providers to reduce the rates for prisoner calls from $3.95 connection fee and $.69 per minute to $2.20 connection fee and $.35 per minute.

IA: On January 18, 2001, Board of Corrections Director announced that prepaid debit cards would be made available to prisoners. Features of the system include: 1) The system allows only pre-paid debit cards – no collect calls. 2) No calls to toll-free numbers are allowed. 3) The system uses a separate account, friends and family members can send money to that account, and the account is not subject to deductions for restitution and pay for stay. Unlike all other prison phone debit systems, debit calls cost more than the collect calls did.

IN: In October, 2001, a new contract for state prison phones resulted in lower rates and introduced debit calling. According to an August 8, 2001 report in Louisville Courier-Journal, a 15-minute collect call from a prison in Pendleton to the city of New Albany dropped from $14.30 to $5.25. Using the prepaid debit feature, the same call would cost just $3.75 (avoiding the $1.50 operator fee). Under the T-NETIX contract, rates dropped from $3.95 + 69¢ per minute (under old AT&T contract) to $1.50 + 25¢ per minute. The new contract does not impact local calls; they will likely be reduced in 2002 when the contract for local calling expires. In October, 2001, state commissions dropped from approximately $11 million annually to approximately $5 million
Fayette County jail inmates are allowed to purchase phone cards at substantial savings over collect calls.

KY: In July, 1999, the Kentucky Public Service Commission ruled that by November, 1999, phone companies doing business with the Department of Corrections must roll back surcharges to $1.50 while freezing actual long distance charges at current rates.

MD: Advocates from the Maryland Justice Policy Institute objected to a proposed prison telephone system contract that would have resulted in high costs to consumers. As a result of their efforts, in June the existing contract was extended for six months (to December 31, 2001) so that new bids could be solicited.

MI: Representative Mary Ann Middaugh requested MDOC to include debit calling in their next phone contract. It was included in the Request for Proposal, though the feature is not currently available to consumers. As a result of a new contract with Sprint, the cost of collect calls from prisons jumped dramatically beginning in the autumn of 2001.

MN: Allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls.

MO: The Department of Corrections implemented a new system in autumn, 2000 that resulted in reported savings on collect calls of 25-40% depending upon the length of the call. Plans call for implementation of a debit card system of calling and elimination of all commissions to the state. We have no confirmation on the status of the later phases of the system.

NM: In April, 2000, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ordered certificated institutional operator service providers to file (by June 6, 2000) testimony and cost of service studies or other appropriate ratemaking methodology in order to justify the reasonableness of their current rates.

NV: Advocates, including NV CURE, met with DOC representatives at the direction of Governor Kenny Guinn. They were able to reach agreement to reduce the number and volume of voice overlays and to include more information to call recipients regarding the cost of the calls.

OH: Prison spokesman Gene Gilliland said a new contract with MCI will produce a 15% savings for prisoner families. MCI also agreed not to raise rates or surcharges for the duration of the five-year agreement. The changes only affect intra-state calls.

On August 21, 2000, Summit County Council members unanimously approved a contract that will reduce the fee for local collect calls from $2.50 per call to $1.80, the same rate the public is charged. The agreement followed negotiations between the County Sheriff’s Department and the Catholic Commission.

OK: In the summer of 2001, the Oklahoma Board of Corrections called for a pilot study of prepaid prisoner phone services to be conducted at two prisons. A report is to be issued at the conclusion of the pilot.

In January, 2003, legislation (HB 1552) was introduced to reduce the cost of prisoner calls. Representative Kirby introduced a second bill (HB 1590) which, by March 7, had passed the house (95-4). Among the provisions of the bill are “fingerprint identification of the inmate placing the telephone call” and “periodic photographs of the inmate during the telephone conversation for identity verification.” The bill was amended The bill was amended to change the language, “All revenue generated from inmate telephones and received by the Department of Corrections shall be for the benefit and welfare of inmates and personnel...” to , “... for the benefit and welfare of the Victim’s Compensation Fund.”

OR: The Oregon Department of Corrections has been mandated to explore ways to reduce the cost of inmate phone calls, especially Inter-LATA and Inter-state calls. In response they announced that they will begin testing a pre-paid debit calling system for women housed at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility. The test system will be installed by mid-July, 2002, and will permit collect calls as well as calls using a prepaid account at discounted rates.

PA: In 2002, the Pennsylvania DOC entered into a new telephone contract that will lower the average price of a fifteen-minute call by as much as thirty percent. At the beginning of 2003, the Pennsylvania prison system introduced debit calling. Using rates reported to us, a fifteen minute call would cost...

TN: On April 5, 2001, Global Tel*Link reduced rates for local calls from TN prisons from $1.35 to $.85 as a result of complaints filed with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA). Global is appealing findings of the TRA. Tennessee allows prisoners to make debit calls as well as collect calls.

TX: On September 28, 2001, the Texas Board of Criminal Justice tabled a plan to provide generous phone privileges to well-behaved state prisoners. Board members reportedly feared prisoners would use phones to orchestrate contract killings or drug deals, or to contact their victims. (Most state prisoners in Texas do not have phone privileges. Trustees are allowed one phone call quarterly.

WI: We were informed by e-mail that Wisconsin switched telephone service providers and the price of a call from prison was reduced 50%. At this point, we have no additional confirmation.

WV: Advocates in West Virginia report a “HUGE DECREASE” in the cost of prisoner calls. Local call rates are reduced from $2.25 to $1.00. In the case of long distance calls, the surcharge has been reduced from $2.25 to $.85 and the per minute charges have been reduced from $.66 to $.05 and $.07, depending upon the distance involved.

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

CA: SB1978, (2000) would have required any contracts to provide phone service to state prison inmates and California Youth Authority wards to be negotiated to provide the lowest possible costs to wards and inmates, with a proviso that service contracts cover state expenses and provide a reasonable profit margin for the vendor. This bill also specified that state profits must not be a basis for awarding a contract. The bill was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis.

The Joint Committee on Prison Construction and Operation held a hearing on the prison pay phone issue on February 16, 2002. We do not yet have an update on that meeting.

CT: As a result of legislation, the Connecticut Department of Corrections will establish a trial debit system at one prison in 2002.

DC: Bill passed by DC Council regulates the rates on prisoner phone calls originating in DC and phone calls originating from prisons contracted to house DC prisoners.

FL: HB 1975, (2000) would have recognized the importance of prisoner-family contact and would have required a survey of existing federal and state prison telephone systems. The resulting follow-up report would have been used to select a plan for prisoner phone services with a primary consideration that of reducing cost of calls and giving secondary importance to commissions. The bill did not pass.

ID: On January 16, 2001, a legislative committee questioned IDOC Director James Spalding about the commissions received on prisoner telephone calls ($3 million annually). He was also asked why a calling card system could not be implemented.

IN: HB 2115 (2001) would have prohibited governmental entities from profiting from prisoner phone calls.
SB 419 (2001) would have required the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission to set fees for collect calls from prison at 50% of the fee for a regular pay phone collect call. Neither bill became law.
HB 1225 (2002) would required that a request for bids for a phone system for “confined offenders” must emphasize low rates and fees. Commissions would be limited to 33%. County jail contracts would have to terminate on the earlier of (1) four years after the contact was entered into, or (2) five months after the general election immediately after the date the contract was entered into.
SB 136 (2002) would have required that the telephone contract for a jail in a county with a population of more than or equal to 75,000 be awarded to the lowest and best proposal. Also provided that commissions must be used to fund capital improvement projects at the correctional facility.
In the spring of 2002, a law was enacted that will limit the commission on phone calls from the state’s 18 largest county jails to no more than 33%.

LA: SB 259 (2001) would have required any contract for prisoner phone services be awarded to the lowest bidder and would have prohibited the state or any governmental entity from profiting from such services.
SB 353 (2001) would have prohibited surcharges on phone services provided to prisoners. Neither bill became law.

MA: A bill introduced by Rep. Ben Swan (2001) would have required that rates for prisoner telephone calls be equal to a comparable call in the free world, that contracts be selected based upon lowest cost to users, and the Department of Corrections not receive a commission or any special-rate services in exchange for awarding the contract. The bill was not enacted into law.
A bill introduced by Senator Charles Shannon (2001) would have prevented any special surcharges or tariffs on prisoner calls. It would also have required the prison system to establish a debit calling system for prisoners. The bill was not enacted into law.

MD: HB 663 (2001) would have prohibited the state or any county from imposing a surcharge, commission or other fee in excess of the allowable charge for the call for local or long-distance telephone service. In addition, charges could not have exceeded the average rate established by the Public Service Commission (PSC) charged by the state’s five largest telephone service providers for operator-assisted calls in the state. Furthermore, the state and counties would have to consider alternative methods of providing phone service to prisoners that seek to reduce costs and provide quality service. Finally, the bill would have required the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to conduct a survey of prison phone systems and explore alternatives such as debit accounts, calling cards, and debit cards. The bill passed in the house and died in senate committee.
On March 7, 2002, the House of Delegates Committee on Commerce and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on HB 839. The bill would prohibit the state from receiving commissions on prisoner phone calls, and would ensure that the reduction in the cost of the contract is “reasonably reflected in the charges for inmate telephone calls.”

MI: HB 4184 (2001) would require competition in prison telephone systems. It has not yet been taken up by a committee.
HB 6367, introduced in 2002 by Representative Ken Daniels require that the prison phone system provide for debit calling, toll-free calling, and collect calling; no blocks other than for failure to pay or institutional security reasons; a limit on DOC commissions to 25%/ The bill would required that the contract by renegotiated within 6 months of the bill becoming law in order to implement the law’s requirements. The bill did not get a hearing in 2002, but Rep. Daniels has committed to reintroduce it in 2003.

NC: HB 1844 (2000) would have required the DOC to provide telephone systems in all institutions that do not permit a single vendor to control rates paid by recipients of inmate calls, either by allowing inmates to use prepaid phone cards or by some other method. The bill was not enacted into law.
HB 10 (2001) would have allowed minimum security prisoners to place debit phone calls; it would also have required the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone systems and charges. The bill was not enacted into law.

NM: On March 14, 2001, Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that requires prisons and jails to provide telephone services at the lowest reasonable cost. The law, which will took effect June 15, 2001, applies to the state’s prisons, privately operated prisons used by the state, and jails throughout the state. The measure prohibits contracts that pay the prison operator a commission or share of call revenues.
We later received clarification regarding the above legislation. The bill reads, “A contract to provide inmates with access to telecommunications services in a correctional facility or jail shall not include a commission or other payment to the operator of the correctional facility or jail based upon amounts billed by the telecommunications provider for telephone calls made by inmates in the correctional facility or jail.” We are concerned that this language does allow kickbacks or “gifts” that are based upon factors other than telephone rates billed. At the same time, the bill does state that contracts shall be negotiated and awarded to an entity that meets the correctional facility’s or jail’s technical and functional requirements for services, and that provides the lowest cost of service to inmates or any person who pays for inmate telecommunication services” Implementation of these contracts must be carefully observed.

OH: SB 103 (2001) would have required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to adopt a debit account calling system. The bill was not enacted into law.

OK: In 2001, an interim legislative study is examining the issue of prisoner telephone calls. The Corrections department’s chief of administrative operations (David Miller) said that the agency is also scrutinizing its charges.

PA: The House passed HB 1402 which would allow for a debit card calling system. The Senate passed SB 879 which would also allow for a debit card system. The Commissioner of Corrections has indicated that he supports the legislation and could have a debit card system in place within a few months of authorization. At this writing, we do not know if the Governor has taken action on the bills.

RI: H 5710 (2001) would have placed phone revenues in the Prisoners’ Recreation and Education Account. In addition to normal account purchases, the funds would also have been used to purchase phone cards for prisoners whose families are indigent. The bill was not enacted into law.

SC: Joint Resolution 1289 (2000) would have set up a committee to review prison telephone systems and rates and their impact on prisoners and their families. The bill was not enacted into law.
S 0405 (2001) and H3877 (2002) would “provide that the state shall forego any commission or other source of revenue derived from the placement of pay telephones (in prisons and juvenile facilities) and provide that the State Budget and Control Board shall ensure that the telephone rates charged for the use of these pay phones reasonably reflect this foregone state revenue.”

SD: HB 1182 (2001) would have prohibited prison phone charges above “usual and customary.” It was not enacted into law.
SB 105 was enacted, requiring the DOC to conduct a study of prison phone services and to report to the legislature no later than December 1, 2001.
In 2002, the state legislature provided the Department of Corrections with the funding it expects to lose in commissions when a debit calling plan is implemented on July 1, 2002.

TX: In March, 2003, two Texas legislators introduced bills to allow prisoners broader access to telephones. Representative Jack Stick introduced on of the bills. Representative Terri Hodges introduced the other (HB-1711). The latter bill was scheduled for a hearing before the CorPrections Committee during the week of March 17.

VA: HB 2196 and HB 2213 (2001) would have mandated that any commission received by DOC from phone contracts be used only to operate the prisoner phone system.
HJR 600 (2001) would have mandated a study of prisoner phone systems.
None of the bills was enacted into law.
SB 156 (2001) would eliminate the State Corporation Commission’s jurisdiction over the Department of Corrections contract for the inmate phone system. This would interfere with proceedings currently in process. (See the history of those actions in the Administrative Initiatives section.)
HB 805 (2002) would have required that any prison telephone system commission received by the Department of Corrections shall be used to reduce the surcharge or rates paid for those calls under any collect call system beginning July 1, 2003. The DOC would have been required to negotiate a plan to reduce the surcharge or rates without costs to the contractor providing the phone services.
HB 1115 (2002) was similar to HB 805 but involved state, local or regional correctional facilities, and did not include the requirement regarding renegotiating the contract.

VT: In April, 2001, the legislature passed a bill that will phase out commissions by fiscal year 2006. The reductions will begin in fiscal year 2003. In addition, the legislation stipulates that, “Any contract to provide telephone services to inmates in state correctional facilities shall be negotiated and awarded in a manner that provides for the lowest reasonable cost to inmates, to their families, and to others communicating with inmates.”


LITIGATION

CA: In September, 2000, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that MCI had not billed its tariffed rates for intrastate MCI Maximum Security Collect Calls. As a result, MCI was ordered to pay overcharges to Friends Outside, a California non-profit that assists families, prisoners and ex-prisoners. The PUC’s ruling was the result of a complaint filed by the Utility Consumers’ Action Network.

DC: In February, 2000, attorneys representing Prisoners’ Legal Service Project filed suit against Corrections Corporation of America, Evercom, MCI, AT&T, Pioneer and Global Tel*Link.

IL: A suit was filed in April, 1999 against the State of Illinois, IL Directors of Central Management Services and Department of Corrections, Illinois Counties of Cook, DuPage and Kane, AT&T, MCI, Evercom, Ameritech, Invision Telecom, & Consolidated Communications Public Services, Inc. Plaintiff attorneys and law firms included Center for Constitutional Rights, Seliger, Elkin & Dolan, Ltd., People’s Law Office, and Soule & Bradtke. ---- The suit was originally dismissed by the U.S. District Court. In June, 2001, Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court rejected an appeal.

IN: Attorneys Stephen Laudig, Lawrence M. Reuben, and Richard Waples have filed a class action suit against the Sheriff of Marion County as a representative of all similarly situated county sheriffs in Indiana and against the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Administration. The case is pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss/transfer to IURC.
The sheriff and county of Clark Indiana are among the defendants in a lawsuit filed in Kentucky.

KY: Attorneys F. Thomas Conway and Bart Adams have filed suit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the KY Department of Corrections, the State of Missouri, the MO Department of Corrections, six KY counties, one Indiana County, one Arizona County, InVision Telecom, Inc.; MCI Telecommunications Corp.; LDDS WorldCom D/B/A Worldcom, Inc.; Gateway Technologies, Inc.; and Security Telecom Corporation. All claims have been dismissed with the exception of a Sherman Anti-Trust claim for injunctive relief. The case is now back in district court.

In a case before the Kentucky Public Service Commission, the commission found prison phone rates “unjust and unreasonable.” The Public Service Commission reviewed prison phone rates throughout the state leading to a significant rate reduction: a cap of $1.50 surcharge per call.

LA: Diane King Smith challenged the Department of Corrections block of Remote Call Forwarding services. On February, 21, 2003, District Court Judge Michael Caldwell ordered the block lifted, because the DOC had not followed proper procedure in adopting the rule. The victory is likely to be short-lived, because a new rule banning such services is scheduled to take effect Mary 22, 2003.

MA: Phillip Kassel, Esq. of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, Inc. has handled litigation on behalf of Massachusetts prisoners. A significant element of the case involved a prohibition against international phone calls. If February, 1998, the court ruled that the prison system must permit inmates to make collect, pre-paid, monitored, or international calls to family members. Unfortunately, the cost of the international calls has remain extremely high, and, to-date, litigation has been unsuccessful in lowering those rates.

MI: Prison Legal Services of Michigan has submitted a motion to amend a long-standing prison rights case (Cain v. MDOC) to include a challenge to the prison telephone system. The challenge is based on the claim that the telephone system violates the constitutional rights of prisoners, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the Michigan Telecommunications Act, and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.

On April 9, 2002, the trial Court ruled on the MDOC’s motion for summary disposition on telephone issues. The Court upheld the MDOC’s 20 number limit on PIN lists, the 15 minute limit on calls, the failure to provide indoor phones at some prisons, and the failure to have a writing surface at phones. In (the prisoners’) favor, the Court ruled that (1) MDOC may make only one voice over announcement per call; (2) MDOC must allow prisoners to bring legal papers to the phone when talking to their attorneys; (3) each person responsible for approving or denying placement of an attorney’s number on PIN lists must have a current Bar Journal Directory; and (4) the MDOC must allow prisoners to place their attorney’s home phone number on their PIN lists if requested in writing by the attorney.”

MO: The State of Missouri is among the defendants in a lawsuit filed in Kentucky.

NM: In December, 1999, a class action suit was filed by the law firms Come, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, LLP and Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Cron & Schoenburg, LLP, and Zevnik, Horton, Guibord, McGovern, Palmer & Fognani, LLP against Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, Corrections Corporation of America, Cornell Corrections of Texas, Inc., Correctional Services Corporation, Evercom Systems, Inc., and PCS America, Inc.
In October, 2000 a lawsuit against the State of New Mexico, Rio Arriba County, and several phone companies was dismissed by State District Judge Jim Hall. Judge Hall ruled he did not have authority to hear the claims, which must be addressed to state regulators. Attorneys planned to appeal.

NH: In February, 2000, several family members filed suit (Michael Guglielmo Sr. v. WorldCom Inc, ILD Teleservices Inc. and ILD Telecommunications Inc.) claiming that the phone companies charged rates higher than specified in a 1997 agreement with the state, that they failed to warn prisoners and their families about the higher rates, and that the phone companies were violating the state’s monopoly and consumer protection laws through their exclusive contracts. A Rockingham County Superior Court judge dismissed the claims related to the rates, but refused to dismiss anti-monopoly and consumer protection claims. Those were referred to the state Supreme Court regarding jurisdiction. In September, 2002, the Supreme Court in a 4-0 ruling found that under the federal filed rate doctrine telephone companies can and must charge the rates they have filed with the FCC. Associate Justice Linda Dalianis wrote that even if the companies misrepresent their rates, they cannot be sued for money damages because customers are responsible for knowing the published tariffs.

NY: The law firm of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in March, 2000, against the Commissioner of the NY Department of Correctional Services, the NY Attorney General, The NY Comptroller, MCI Worldcom, Inc., and MCI Telecommunications Corporation. Plaintiff’s attorneys were preparing a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Department of Correctional Services from implementing a new contract. In addition, plaintiff’s attorneys have also filed a class action suit in NY Court of Claims against the State of NY seeking restitution of all overpayments made by friends, families and counselors of prisoners.

OH: In January, 2000, Dayton attorneys Jon Paul Rion and David M. Deutsch filed suit against Ameritech, GTE, Ameritel, Evercom, MCI, the State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and sheriffs in four named counties alleging violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights by allowing phone companies to charge exorbitant rates. An update received in the summer of 2002, indicated that the defendant’s motion to dismiss had been overruled by Judge Rice of the 6th Circuit. There is a single issue to be resolved before the parties enter discovery.

OK: A class action suit has been filed by attorney Jim Wilcoxen and others. Litigation is in the discovery phase. No other details are known at this time.

PA: In the autumn of 2002, the entire Commonwealth Court heard arguments in the case of Feigley and PA-CURE vs. the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission. It is rare that the entire Court hears an argument at first glance. A decision is expected soon.

SC: On February 15, 2001, attorneys with the law firm of Covington, Patrick, Hagins, Stern and Lewis, P.A., filed suit against Sprint, T-Netix, Bell South, AT&T, GTE, Rock Hill Telephone Company, Farmers Telephone Company and Science Dynamics. A hearing is scheduled for March 21, 2002.

VA: In a ruling dated August 23, 2001, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) ruled that “collect call service from state prison facilities is not being offered on a competitive basis.” It then required the phone provider (MCI Worldcom) to file “just and reasonable rates” for prisoner-initiated calls. The cost and supporting documentation were to be filed by January 7, 2002. In addition, MCI was “to review its charges to customers for this service since January 1, 1999. Upon further SCC review, customers may be due refunds with interest.” MCI appealed that ruling. The appeal was rejected in January, 2002, and the SCC set another date for the rate study (May 20, 2002).

Senator Norment then filed bill SB156 that eliminated SCC jurisdiction over state agency contracts. That bill became law.

The law was challenged, and in March, 2003, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of MCI and against the SCC and Virginia CURE. By a 5-2 vote, justices ruled that the SCC has no jurisdiction over the DOC’s contract with MCI.

WA: In July, 2000, a prisoner filed a suit charging that phone companies are disregarding a state law that requires them to let people find out collect call prices before they accept a call.

WI: In March, 2000, a suit was filed against MCI, AT&T, Ameritech, the State of Wisconsin, the Department of Corrections Secretary and several county sheriffs alleging violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Federal Communications Act.


EDITORIAL SUPPORT

CA: San Francisco Chronicle, editorial June 15, 1999
“California is due to rebid its pay-phone contracts next month. When it does, the state should consider not just commissions, but the practical rehabilitative powers of phone calls and family contacts. The state should make it clear to phone companies that such obscene profits at the expense of inmates and their families are unfair, unacceptable and bad public policy.”

FL: The Tampa Tribune, December 28,1999 editorial:
“... a reduction in costs to the relatives and friends of prisoners seems in order – even if it means a smaller cut for the state.”

GA: The Atlanta Journal, October 22, 2001 editorial:
“A series of eye-opening articles by Atlanta Journal staff writer John McCosh on the soaring rates for collect calls from Georgia prisons got us wondering whether all crooks are behind bars.... The Department of Corrections gets 65 percent of the revenue from each call, among the highest commissions in the nation. We find it galling that the state would seek to turn a profit from the family and friends of criminals, many of them unsophisticated consumers. Though we’ve advocated that the punishment fit the crime, we don’t recall urging that our correctional system exploit the supportive relatives of criminals, or profit so excessively from families’ efforts to keep in contact. Not even using that money to fund mental health services for inmates justifies this rip-off. Even without WorldCom’s overbilling, the charges are excessive. They must be reconsidered.”

IA: Quad-City Times, editorial April 30, 2000
“This phone business is a scam, pure and simple.... These profit-sharing deals are nothing more than government-sanctioned kickbacks – and the mere fact that they’re legal doesn’t make them right. Try as they might, the counties cannot justify these contractual arrangements by arguing that taxpayers will have to make up the difference if the profit-sharing is discontinued. The end doesn’t justify the means – particularly when the ‘end’ is profit and the ‘means’ is price gouging of innocent individuals who never have been charged with a crime. The counties are engaged in a blatant money grab that is designed to victimize the relatives, friends, and lawyers of people who typically have yet to be convicted of a crime. It’s just plain unethical, and our county boards should put a stop to this practice now.”

IN: Indianapolis Star editorial, June 20, 2000
“Charging the families of inmates exorbitant prices for their loved ones’ phone calls home borders on cruel and unusual punishment. Yet that’s exactly what’s been going on in Indiana prisons and county jails.... Inmates and their families shouldn’t have to go to court to end this immoral practice. As a matter of state policy, Indiana needs to encourage prisoners’ contacts with their friends and families.... The state of Indiana should insi