In the past year, the state Department of Corrections has dealt with two bouts of violence behind prison walls, been sued over its site selection for a proposed men’s prison in Lincoln County and drawn the ire of inmates and family members for shutting down text messaging on inmates’ electronic tablets.
That’s in addition to long-simmering controversies over low staffing, high turnover and overcrowding, the latter of which has been among the most prominent points used by the agency to make its case for new facilities.
The state’s Corrections Commission has yet to meaningfully address any of those issues.
The group hasn’t met to address the security concerns raised by two skirmishes earlier this month at Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield and two nights of unrest at the South Dakota State Penitentiary in March.
Comments from DOC officials and the commission’s own members suggest that those conversations may never happen.
Members: Corrections Commission has lost its way
The compounding DOC controversies concern Mark Anderson, the labor representative on the state Corrections Commission. Anderson is one of the commission’s longest-serving members. He recalls a time when commissioners had far more involvement in discussions on prison problems.
Anderson and another longtime member, David McGirr, had begun to question the commission’s value long before the DOC experienced its second round of prison violence in a handful of months.
“I’ve been on the Corrections Commission for more than a decade, and we’ve only ever had maybe two votes that weren’t a call to order or a vote to adjourn,” McGirr said. “I think they should either abolish the Corrections Commission or give it some teeth.”
Anderson pinned the blame on the 2017 death of Sen. Craig Tieszen of Rapid City, the commission’s longtime chair. Commissioners formerly heard legislative updates, reviewed security issues and delved into trends, but that’s changed, Anderson said.
“It’s just gone basically in the toilet,” Anderson said. “Nothing goes on.”
In the days following the violence in Springfield, Rosebud Democratic Rep. and commission member Eric Emery said he expected to have “a little bit more input on operations of the prisons.”
“But that has not been the case at all,” Emery said. “I think my name is just on a list for the commission, and that’s about it. I really know nothing more about the prisons than the general public does.”
DOC: Commission only looks at prison industries
The frustration ove
The commission is empowered under state law to “assist the Department of Corrections in examining criminal justice issues and developing initiatives to address problems in corrections and the criminal justice system.”
That language appears on the DOC website, as well as on the body’s page on the state’s boards and commissions website.
The commission is required by law to meet twice a year, in meetings called by the DOC secretary. The law also requires the DOC to get approval from the board to expend prison industry funding for any purpose beyond normal operations.
The group hasn’t met since October, when members were informed of the DOC’s plans to take over prison commissary operations. The commissary is the “store” from which inmates can buy things like snacks, hygiene products and other general items. Inmates would learn how to manage inventories and fill orders, the commission was told.
Secretary Kellie Wasko called a meeting in May, but there weren’t enough members available for a quorum. The meeting was canceled. A September meeting was added to the board’s website at some point within the past week.
The DOC and at least one of the commission’s members told South Dakota Searchlight that the body “does not get involved in the day-to-day operations of the DOC.”
Circuit Judge and commissioner Christina Klinger used that language in response to an email asking if the commission would take up questions of security. The judge said the commission typically looks at the finances and operations of Pheasantland Industries, the umbrella term for a range of prison shops where inmates make license plates and road signs, in addition to other tasks.
DOC spokesman Michael Winder sent an unsolicited reply to South Dakota Searchlight a few days later, in the same email thread, that led with the words “we were told you had questions about the Corrections Commission.” It then repeated the language used in Klinger’s email on the commission’s role and its typical agenda items.
It wasn’t the first time the DOC suggested a narrow scope of authority for commissioners. During a legislative Appropriations Committee meeting in May, DOC Finance Director Brittni Skipper told lawmakers the commission didn’t discuss the site of the proposed men’s prison, which is set to be the most expensive taxpayer-funded capital project in state history.
The location of that prison, in southern Lincoln County between Harrisburg and Canton, provoked a lawsuit from neighboring homeowners who say the state should seek approval from the county planning commission. The lawsuit is ongoing.
Skipper and Wasko fielded a host of questions on prison location during that meeting. There were questions about alternative sites, the site selection process, the water and sewer capacity, emergency services contracts and the price tag.
Rep. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, is a member of both the Corrections Commission and the Appropriations Committee.
He asked Skipper in May if the commission he serves on would’ve had a say in site selection.
“They have oversight only over Pheasantland Industries,” Otten said. “Is that correct?”
Skipper replied “yeah” and noted that the law requires the group to vote on the use of funds.
Sen. Helene Duhamel, R-Rapid City, will soon fill a legislative seat on the commission vacated by Sen. Mike Diedrich, who is not seeking reelection.
Duhamel said she’d accepted the position with the understanding that the group’s role was restricted to prison industries, but she added, “I’m guessing we can still ask questions and get info.”
Duhamel said the problems at the state penitentiary in March and at Mike Durfee this month underscore “the need to move quickly with the construction of new facilities.”
Narrowed scope unexplained
The law that placed the commission in state statute – it initially operated as an executive body in Gov. George Mickelson’s administration – has not changed since the 1990s.
The commission’s bylaws, online at the DOC website, make no mention of restrictions on the scope of its members’ inquiries.
McGirr struggles to understand why the commission’s task has changed, particularly given that the board’s website still cites its more expansive purpose.
“Either the website is totally wrong, or what we’ve been told repeatedly by prison officials is totally wrong,” McGirr said.
It wasn’t always that way.
News articles from South Dakota sources archived at newspapers.com show that the commission formerly asked questions following security lapses.
In 2011, two inmates murdered an officer named Robert “R.J.” Johnson during an escape attempt. Johnson was alone at his post when he was attacked.
That same year, an inmate was released from prison in Sioux Falls after spending several months in solitary confinement. The mentally ill man would later tell police he’d spent that first night under a bridge praying to Satan. The next morning, he broke into a woman’s house and slashed her throat in her bed.
Members of the commission were given reports on the incidents and had opportunities to question DOC officials in the aftermath.
The commission also had a voice in questions about prison construction. In the late 1980s, for example, its members toured a facility in Utah to get ideas on how to improve the state’s facilities. In 1990, the commission toured Lake Byron, near Huron, to evaluate its potential as a site for a future prison.
In 1991, the year lawmakers wrote the commission into state law, the commission produced a 71-page report outlining the prison system’s facility needs. It recommended new facilities and an expansion of community-based supervision for offenders within five years.
Audit committee also has oversight
Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree, R-Madison, said the commission isn’t the only avenue for oversight. He pointed to the Government Operations and Audit Committee as another avenue.
The audit committee oversees all state departments, which are required to produce reports, set benchmarks and report on their progress. For corrections, state law directs the committee “to review any findings of abuse or neglect in a juvenile corrections facility, to make a continuing study of the operation of the state’s correctional system, and to make a detailed report to the Senate and House of Representatives.”
But Crabtree said the DOC is “better suited” to address safety concerns, and the Legislature is focused on budgetary matters.
“I think these issues that have been raised highlight the importance of funding updated prison systems which a majority of the legislature has partnered with Gov. Noem on over the last few years and should continue to do so until it’s completed,” Crabtree said in an emailed statement.
The Appropriations Committee is expected to hear Tuesday about prison construction plans and the Governor’s House construction program at the prison in Springfield, but its agenda lists no other DOC topics.
The Government Operations and Audit Committee, meanwhile, will hear reports Wednesday from the DOC on abuse and neglect in private placement facilities and DOC performance measures.
That DOC performance report, filed in advance of the committee meeting, addresses staff shortages, turnover, inmate completion rates for substance use dependency treatment and touches on prison construction milestones and offender reentry.
There are no slides in the presentation that directly address security.
Otten, the audit committee’s chair, did not return multiple phone calls across several weeks seeking comment. The vice chair, Republican Sen. Dean Wink, R-Howes, also did not return calls
