written in 2020, soon to be updated
by Ben Turk
Since Governor Evers appointed John Tate II to replace Daniel Gabler as chair of the parole commission, many people sentenced under the old law and their families and loved ones have been cautiously excited. The election of Evers and appointment of Tate, a former social worker and Black alderperson from Racine held a promise of long awaited release.
Under Daniel Gabler—who is currently a Milwaukee county Judge seeking re-election on April 7—parole releases had diminished to almost nothing. Unfortunately, John Tate II has thus far been unable to restore the parole commission to its original purpose: releasing people from prison who were ready to return to society. By attending monthly parole commission meetings, corresponding with incarcerated people, and networking with other advocates, Forum for Understanding Prisons (FFUP) is working to help everyone understand why.
I’ve attended all but one parole commission meeting since August 2018, as I see it, there are three factors contributing to the slow progress:
Parole commissioners pursue the Gabler/ Walker practice of continuing to confine people beyond all reason or fairness.
Actors within the Department of Corrections (DOC) are actively obstructing Tate’s efforts to release people.
John Tate II himself has not taken bold enough action to do right despite these obstacles.
The Confinement Commission
For the last decade or so, the Wisconsin Parole Commission would be better named the confinement commission, because the vast majority of their activity has been to deny parole and keep people in prison. When Tate took over, three commissioners with a clear commitment to this practice remained in place: Steve Landremann, Danielle LaCost, and Doug Drankiewicz. There used to be more commissioners, (eight in 2014) but Governor Scott Walker didn’t see the need for eight commissioners who were issuing deferrals after over 95% of hearings, so he proposed abolishing the commission and just letting Gabler flop everyone alone. The public and advocates objected, so instead the legislature shrunk the commission to its current size.
At the first parole commission meeting I attended, I learned that Steve Landremann left the commission, seemingly abruptly, to work for the DOC. There, he does something related to sex offender classification, a part of the DOC that goes to extraordinary—and possibly illegal—measures to put as many people on the registry for life-long monitoring as possible. Commissioner Danielle LaCost was also talking about resigning at that meeting. Its clear that these departures are a reaction to Tate’s intention to turn the confinement commission around.
Tate does not have the authority to fire commissioners, or hire more than three, but he is supposed to be able to choose their replacements. The hiring process has been excruciatingly long and the commission has been short-staffed for months. This short-staffing led to many automatic two month deferrals, where someone expecting a hearing and chance at release instead gets a letter saying they’ll have to wait another two months.
I don’t understand why replacing Landremann took so long. At the February 5 meeting, Tate described a process where the DOC played a very large role, posting the job description, and narrowing the candidate pool before he saw any candidates. Then Tate did multiple rounds of interviews. Last fall, he talked about hiring replacements before the end of the year, but it wasn’t until mid-January that he was able to finish the process, and then for only one of the position. Tate wanted to hire two commissioners at once, but Danielle LaCost repeatedly postponed her departure, forcing a repeat of the interview and hiring process, which will hopefully be more streamlined this time.
In February, Tate finally announced that he’d hired Jackie Height (or possibly Hite?). Height is a DOC social worker from Racine, Tate described her as his mentor who he has great confidence in. She was supposed to start in February, and we’ve heard reports from incarcerated people that she is in training, shadowing commissioner Drankiewicz. At the same time, an organizational chart uploaded to the Parole Commission’s page on February 19, does NOT list her name as the new commissioner. Instead, it says Jennifer Kramer is the new commissioner. I’m looking forward to learning more about this inconsistency and what is going on at the next parole commission meeting, Wednesday March 4. At this point, my default reaction to such irregularities is to suspect meddling by the DOC or old commissioners.
Aside from the hiring delays, the present commissioners actively worked to undermine Tate’s reform efforts. At the January 8 meeting, I witnessed some very clear examples of this tension playing out, including Danielle LaCost insulting Tate during the meeting. There were only two advocates there to witness it, so FFUP responded by publishing the notes, and rallying people and other organizations to attend the next one. On February 5, thirty people showed up, and Tate started the meeting with reading a memo outlining clear expectations for the commission going forward. He said this memo was to replace all previous expectations for how parole is supposed to work, including an infamous 1994 memo from then Governor Tommy Thompson calling for the DOC and parole commission to conspire to prevent releases by any means legally available.
Unfortunately, the commissioners and the DOC do not appear to have taken Tate’s memo seriously. He clearly stated in the meeting that he expects everyone who was not convicted of crimes as serious as triple homicides and has not had serious, recent conduct issues, to be granted release or given short deferrals and robust preparation for release. The Parole Commission only reviews people sentenced before 2000, when Wisconsin passed its Truth In Sentencing law, so everyone they’re seeing has already done decades in prison. Most of them were sentenced by judges who expected they’d be released after a hearing or two unless they committed serious violations while incarcerated. Learn more about old law prisoners here and here.
Nine days after the February meeting where Tate issued these instructions, Commissioner Drankiewicz recommended deferral for Ronnie Schultz, who plead guilty to reckless homicide in 1995 and was sentenced to 40 years. In 1995, Judges set sentences with the expectation that people serve a quarter to a third of the time, if they accept DOC’s offered rehabilitation. Ronnie has completed numerous programs and acquired a college degree, with honors while incarcerated. He hasn’t had a serious conduct report for years, and his grandmother is able to assist with housing for his re-entry.
None of this mattered to Drankiewicz. After a 12 minute hearing where he made clear errors and ignored or rejected programming Ronnie had completed, Drankiewicz gave Ronnie a 12 month defer. “I have no confidence that Drankiewicz will treat me fairly,” Ronnie wrote to us. He also spoke to a psychologist who told him- before the hearing- that Drankewicz was unlikely to release him.
At parole commission meetings, Drankiewicz and LaCost talk at length about the importance of reviewing someone’s file for hours before a hearing. According to people who’ve been incarcerated a long time and saw how the parole commission used to function, these long file reviews are a new practice, based on searching for reasons to deny release. Ronnie’s hearing supports this conclusion. Despite his extensive file review practice, Drankiewicz went to Ronnie’s hearing ready to reject him on the grounds that his grandma lives out of state in Nashville TN. She actually lives in Neillsville, WI. The Commissioners are so focused on looking at who the people before them were decades ago at the time of their crimes and seeking out pretexts to deny them release that they don’t substantively consider release plans or factors in favor of release.
LaCost is particularly aggressive about this. She is, unsurprisingly, also failing to adopt Tate’s instructions, using subjective and manufactured grounds to defer people. Last week, one person whose hearing she conducted said she “completely lost it” and said that he “had sympathy but did not have empathy for the victim,” a conclusion she could invent out of thin air. We’re hoping to release audio from this and other hearings in the future, as an example of how LaCost operates, but people who depend on the favorable opinions of these commissioners for release are reasonably hesitant to expose themselves to retaliation. Ronnie Schultz only approved us sharing his story because he’s given up on ever being released before his mandatory release date in 2024.
These are just a few examples of LaCost and Drankiewicz ignoring Tate’s instructions and continuing to run things as the confinement commission. We’ve also gotten recent reports that Drankiewicz was at John C Burke handing out six month defers to people who had been there and ready for release for 2 years.
Obstructionist DOC
The Parole Commission is not a part of the DOC. It is a separate entity, which should be accountable to the Governor and the public, but its purpose is closely related to the DOC, and it depends on coordination with prison officials. Some of the criteria the parole commission uses to make rulings are the amount of programming a person has completed, their release plan, security level, and any conduct reports they’ve received. The DOC works through all four of these processes, and more, to prevent releases.
Programming in the DOC is run by the Program Review Committee (PRC). This committee systematically denies parole eligible people access to programming. Over the years, we’ve seen countless examples of people denied or moved out of programs to sabotage their chances before the parole board.
On February 5, Tate’s memo said that he expects PRC to be preparing people for release BEFORE they have a hearing. For decades, the Tommy Thompson rules has held, where people only get into programs if the commissioner requests them. Now Tate has made it clear he expects PRC not to wait, but to provide the programming outright. He said the PRC agreed to do this.
DOC Secretary Kevin Carr has also backed Tate up, saying in a meeting with FFUP on January 22 that “if we can’t get someone programming before their hearing, that’s on us, and it should not prevent them from being released.” There are many more opportunities for people to get programming outside of prison. Almost everyone in prison is poor and eligible for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, especially old law prisoners who’ve spent most of their lives imprisoned and unable to earn more than pennies per hour. The parole commission could approve release and the DOC could assist with getting people enrolled in any treatment program that is needed. Everyone who has done decades in prison is going to be suffering from trauma and should be eligible for PTSD treatment, which would certainly do more good than the stigmatizing and obsolete programming the DOC provides.
It seems some PRC administrators are adopting Tate’s expectations. For example, Ronnie Schultz was told by PRC that he should expect release and to be home by summer. We have yet to see how widespread DOC compliance with Tate’s memo has been, but we will continue to collect stories and track progress.
Release plans are made by the DOC’s Division of Community Corrections (DCC). This is the same division that re-incarcerates people sentenced under TIS and serving extended supervision at such a high rate that the DCC plays a role in two thirds of new prison admissions, most of which do not include a new criminal conviction.
At parole commission meetings I’ve heard about the DCC refusing to make viable release plans. For example, the DCC will require that a person be released to a specific county, even though their family support and housing is in another county. Then they’ll say the release plan doesn’t work. DCC also uses excuses about their own lack of transportation, and other resources to scuttle release plans or delay releases. These practices likely come from the Thompson memo and DOC’s obsessive confinement culture. Tate says he met with DCC officials who agreed to change and cooperate more.
Security levels are handled by the Bureau of Classification and Management (BOCM). BOCM prevents release in holding with the Thompson rules by keeping people sentenced under the old law at a higher security level than those sentenced under Truth in Sentencing (TIS). When Gabler and other Walker appointees ran the Parole Commission, they welcomed this practice, because it gave them an easy pretext to deny releases: if you’re not at minimum security and doing work release, you’re not ready for parole. BOCM would follow the commissioners’ lead and not reduce an old law prisoner’s security level unless the commission requested it, which happened more rarely that standard security level reductions.
Tate’s memo calls for this to change, for BOCM to hold all incarcerated people to the same standards for security reviews. He said that if someone hasn’t had a serious conduct report, they should be moved back down to minimum security after a year, rather than 3-4 years, as is BOCM’s practice. We haven’t seen evidence that BOCM is conforming to this expectation, and continue to see people (such as Ronnie Schultz mentioned above) going to parole hearings from medium security despite not having serious conduct reports for years.
We are also seeing wardens at minimum security facilities denying people access to work release, so even if BOCM and PRC do their part, a facility’s Warden can prevent them from meeting parole criteria. Sergeants and correctional officers also participate in obstructing releases. We’ve seen many instances of DOC staff targeting an old law prisoner who is working outside the fence, has completed all their programming, and is fully prepared for release.
Conduct reports can be another tool to prevent release. DOC staff members who share LaCost and Drankiewicz animosity toward releases can simply crack down on a rule they typically turn a blind eye to and selectively enforce it against someone with an upcoming hearing. PRC uses the resulting conduct report to kick them out of programs. BOCM uses it to raise their security level. This gives LaCost and Drankiewicz have all they need to recommend deferral.
This scenario is especially heartbreaking when the rule violation is communicating with co-workers. Imagine being sentenced to decades in prison as a juvenile in the 80s or 90s and finally making your way down to work release at a minimum security joint. You’re finally allowed outside the fence, able to spend time with people who aren’t incarcerated. You make friends. You maybe have an opportunity to talk to someone of the other gender who isn’t a blood relative for the first time in your adult life. If you connect and try to talk outside of work- call them or write- that’s a rule violation.
This kind of rule violation is common, and harmless. Human beings are social animals and there is nothing more natural than connecting with other humans. Bolstering your social support network by connecting with people who’ve lived outside of prison is also a great way to navigate re-integration to society after release. People do it all the time, and generally, staff ignore it, especially when it comes to people sentenced under TIS. Even if a TIS prisoner caught a conduct report, that wouldn’t impact release, because under TIS the release date is pre-determined. For people sentenced under the old law, release is subject to a hearing.
Another method of obstruction I observed has been sabotaging Tate’s office functions. At the January parole commission meeting I learned that Tate’s parole commission was severely hampered by understaffing. Since he came in, 100% of the office staff in the parole commission left. Most, if not all of them, were hired by the DOC. The public is not privvy to how aggressively DOC admins recruited Tate’s staff out from under him, but an off-hand comment Commissioner LaCost made at the January meeting about DOC Human Resources approaching Tate’s new office staff suggests that the DOC intended to poach staff away from the Parole Commission.
The Power of the Commission Chair
John Tate II runs the commission. Danielle LaCost and Doug Drankiewicz run hearings, but they don’t make decisions, they make recommendations. Tate can reverse their decisions and issue shorter deferrals or releases. He also conducts some hearings himself. We’ve definitely heard there’s been an increase in releases, and a shortening of deferrals since Tate came into the commission. We’ve also seen him sometimes exercise his power to adjust recommendations, moving people toward faster release.
Fairness demands more of Tate. It is clear to me, someone who attends a 30-60 minute meeting once a month and corresponds with incarcerated people and their advocates, that neither commissioners LaCost and Drankiewicz, nor the DOC are behaving in good faith. I’m certain Tate is able to recognize this, but his actions have not been consistent with that recognition.
Using the Ronnie Schultz case described above as an example, Tate did not reverse Drankiewicz’ recommendation. The commission’s response to our support letter stated “denial of parole to Mr. Schultz was based off reasons other than programming, along with an unacceptable release plan.” Our letter explained how Drankiewicz went into the hearing thinking that Ronnie’s grandma lived in Tennessee. Even if this wasn’t Drankiewicz’s only critique of Ronnie’s release plan, it should be obvious that he approaches hearings based on finding grounds to defer. Thus his recommendations should not be trusted or accepted.
John Tate could also change routines and practices. FFUP has collected and delivered recommendations for changes to the parole criteria you can voice support for these changes by signing this online petition. Tate can clear the blacklog by simply delivering grants and decisions in the mail, instead of holding hearings, according to George Cooper, this was a common practice in the past. Tate can restore criteria used before law changes, as recommended here by Harlan Richards.
Instead, Tate talks about creating an advisory board to adjust criteria and statutes governing the commission. An advisory board seems unnecessary, because Wisconsin hasn’t sentenced anyone to an indeterminate sentence for 20 years, since TIS passed in 2000. Unless TIS is overturned—which some lawmakers have discussed, and FFUP would support, but the divided and highly partisan legislature is unlikely to pass—the number of people eligible for parole will only go down. If grants of release are restored to pre-2000 rates, it will diminish to a scant few very soon. Creating an advisory board is a time-consuming project that may take longer than the process of releasing most old law prisoners under simple criteria.
Both Chairperson Tate and DOC Secretary Kevin Carr have said they will not continue to enable obstructive practices of administrators in the DCC, PRC, or BOCM. They admit that the culture of the DOC is stubbornly opposed to reform, but they have not yet taken decisive action to save people from this system and it’s abuses. When the commissioners and the DOC do not conform to the expectations outlined in Tate’s memo from February 5, it becomes his responsibility to bypass them and release people himself.
That is a responsibility that comes from the voters of Wisconsin, who elected a Governor promising decarceration. It is also, fundamentally, the morally righteous thing to do. Wisconsin’s prisons are overcrowded to the point of humanitarian crisis. Wisconsin’s captives are experiencing climbing rates of torture, harassment, violence, sexual assault, and suicide. Communicable disease risk also climbs in overcrowded institutions, putting guards in danger as well as captives. Guards working overcrowded institutions experience mandatory overtime, high levels of stress, secondary trauma, moral hazard, and increased safety risks from holding agitated and traumatized captives.
The parole commission and administrators from BOCM, PRC and DCC do not seem to understand the impact their practices have, not only on Wisconsin’s incarcerated people, but also on their co-workers, the guards. Tate’s part in reducing this impact and alleviating Wisconsin’s humanitarian crisis is to push past barriers and expedite the release of as many old law captives as possible.
Ways you can help ensure this happens:
1. Become a penpal or sponsor to one of the people serving time under the old law. FFUP’s Second Chance website has lists of people you can reach out to. If you want advice on how to do this, or who to write to, email FFUP’s founder, Peg Swan at pgswan3@aol.com
2. Write an email to Parole Commission Chair John Tate II. parolecommission@wisconsin.gov Tell him in your own words why you think he should change his practices and grant releases more frequently.
3. Donate to FFUP’s general support fund. FFUP is an all volunteer organization, donations go to supporting incarcerated people in dire need or covering the cost of travel, postage and other expenses.
4. Sign, share and circulate our parole release petition as well as notes and updates like this report.
5. Attend monthly Parole Commission meetings. They happen 9:30 am on the first Wednesday of every month, at the WI DOC building, 3099 E Washington Ave, Madison.
by Ben Turk
Since Governor Evers appointed John Tate II to replace Daniel Gabler as chair of the parole commission, many people sentenced under the old law and their families and loved ones have been cautiously excited. The election of Evers and appointment of Tate, a former social worker and Black alderperson from Racine held a promise of long awaited release.
Under Daniel Gabler—who is currently a Milwaukee county Judge seeking re-election on April 7—parole releases had diminished to almost nothing. Unfortunately, John Tate II has thus far been unable to restore the parole commission to its original purpose: releasing people from prison who were ready to return to society. By attending monthly parole commission meetings, corresponding with incarcerated people, and networking with other advocates, Forum for Understanding Prisons (FFUP) is working to help everyone understand why.
I’ve attended all but one parole commission meeting since August 2018, as I see it, there are three factors contributing to the slow progress:
Parole commissioners pursue the Gabler/ Walker practice of continuing to confine people beyond all reason or fairness.
Actors within the Department of Corrections (DOC) are actively obstructing Tate’s efforts to release people.
John Tate II himself has not taken bold enough action to do right despite these obstacles.
The Confinement Commission
For the last decade or so, the Wisconsin Parole Commission would be better named the confinement commission, because the vast majority of their activity has been to deny parole and keep people in prison. When Tate took over, three commissioners with a clear commitment to this practice remained in place: Steve Landremann, Danielle LaCost, and Doug Drankiewicz. There used to be more commissioners, (eight in 2014) but Governor Scott Walker didn’t see the need for eight commissioners who were issuing deferrals after over 95% of hearings, so he proposed abolishing the commission and just letting Gabler flop everyone alone. The public and advocates objected, so instead the legislature shrunk the commission to its current size.
At the first parole commission meeting I attended, I learned that Steve Landremann left the commission, seemingly abruptly, to work for the DOC. There, he does something related to sex offender classification, a part of the DOC that goes to extraordinary—and possibly illegal—measures to put as many people on the registry for life-long monitoring as possible. Commissioner Danielle LaCost was also talking about resigning at that meeting. Its clear that these departures are a reaction to Tate’s intention to turn the confinement commission around.
Tate does not have the authority to fire commissioners, or hire more than three, but he is supposed to be able to choose their replacements. The hiring process has been excruciatingly long and the commission has been short-staffed for months. This short-staffing led to many automatic two month deferrals, where someone expecting a hearing and chance at release instead gets a letter saying they’ll have to wait another two months.
I don’t understand why replacing Landremann took so long. At the February 5 meeting, Tate described a process where the DOC played a very large role, posting the job description, and narrowing the candidate pool before he saw any candidates. Then Tate did multiple rounds of interviews. Last fall, he talked about hiring replacements before the end of the year, but it wasn’t until mid-January that he was able to finish the process, and then for only one of the position. Tate wanted to hire two commissioners at once, but Danielle LaCost repeatedly postponed her departure, forcing a repeat of the interview and hiring process, which will hopefully be more streamlined this time.
In February, Tate finally announced that he’d hired Jackie Height (or possibly Hite?). Height is a DOC social worker from Racine, Tate described her as his mentor who he has great confidence in. She was supposed to start in February, and we’ve heard reports from incarcerated people that she is in training, shadowing commissioner Drankiewicz. At the same time, an organizational chart uploaded to the Parole Commission’s page on February 19, does NOT list her name as the new commissioner. Instead, it says Jennifer Kramer is the new commissioner. I’m looking forward to learning more about this inconsistency and what is going on at the next parole commission meeting, Wednesday March 4. At this point, my default reaction to such irregularities is to suspect meddling by the DOC or old commissioners.
Aside from the hiring delays, the present commissioners actively worked to undermine Tate’s reform efforts. At the January 8 meeting, I witnessed some very clear examples of this tension playing out, including Danielle LaCost insulting Tate during the meeting. There were only two advocates there to witness it, so FFUP responded by publishing the notes, and rallying people and other organizations to attend the next one. On February 5, thirty people showed up, and Tate started the meeting with reading a memo outlining clear expectations for the commission going forward. He said this memo was to replace all previous expectations for how parole is supposed to work, including an infamous 1994 memo from then Governor Tommy Thompson calling for the DOC and parole commission to conspire to prevent releases by any means legally available.
Unfortunately, the commissioners and the DOC do not appear to have taken Tate’s memo seriously. He clearly stated in the meeting that he expects everyone who was not convicted of crimes as serious as triple homicides and has not had serious, recent conduct issues, to be granted release or given short deferrals and robust preparation for release. The Parole Commission only reviews people sentenced before 2000, when Wisconsin passed its Truth In Sentencing law, so everyone they’re seeing has already done decades in prison. Most of them were sentenced by judges who expected they’d be released after a hearing or two unless they committed serious violations while incarcerated. Learn more about old law prisoners here and here.
Nine days after the February meeting where Tate issued these instructions, Commissioner Drankiewicz recommended deferral for Ronnie Schultz, who plead guilty to reckless homicide in 1995 and was sentenced to 40 years. In 1995, Judges set sentences with the expectation that people serve a quarter to a third of the time, if they accept DOC’s offered rehabilitation. Ronnie has completed numerous programs and acquired a college degree, with honors while incarcerated. He hasn’t had a serious conduct report for years, and his grandmother is able to assist with housing for his re-entry.
None of this mattered to Drankiewicz. After a 12 minute hearing where he made clear errors and ignored or rejected programming Ronnie had completed, Drankiewicz gave Ronnie a 12 month defer. “I have no confidence that Drankiewicz will treat me fairly,” Ronnie wrote to us. He also spoke to a psychologist who told him- before the hearing- that Drankewicz was unlikely to release him.
At parole commission meetings, Drankiewicz and LaCost talk at length about the importance of reviewing someone’s file for hours before a hearing. According to people who’ve been incarcerated a long time and saw how the parole commission used to function, these long file reviews are a new practice, based on searching for reasons to deny release. Ronnie’s hearing supports this conclusion. Despite his extensive file review practice, Drankiewicz went to Ronnie’s hearing ready to reject him on the grounds that his grandma lives out of state in Nashville TN. She actually lives in Neillsville, WI. The Commissioners are so focused on looking at who the people before them were decades ago at the time of their crimes and seeking out pretexts to deny them release that they don’t substantively consider release plans or factors in favor of release.
LaCost is particularly aggressive about this. She is, unsurprisingly, also failing to adopt Tate’s instructions, using subjective and manufactured grounds to defer people. Last week, one person whose hearing she conducted said she “completely lost it” and said that he “had sympathy but did not have empathy for the victim,” a conclusion she could invent out of thin air. We’re hoping to release audio from this and other hearings in the future, as an example of how LaCost operates, but people who depend on the favorable opinions of these commissioners for release are reasonably hesitant to expose themselves to retaliation. Ronnie Schultz only approved us sharing his story because he’s given up on ever being released before his mandatory release date in 2024.
These are just a few examples of LaCost and Drankiewicz ignoring Tate’s instructions and continuing to run things as the confinement commission. We’ve also gotten recent reports that Drankiewicz was at John C Burke handing out six month defers to people who had been there and ready for release for 2 years.
Obstructionist DOC
The Parole Commission is not a part of the DOC. It is a separate entity, which should be accountable to the Governor and the public, but its purpose is closely related to the DOC, and it depends on coordination with prison officials. Some of the criteria the parole commission uses to make rulings are the amount of programming a person has completed, their release plan, security level, and any conduct reports they’ve received. The DOC works through all four of these processes, and more, to prevent releases.
Programming in the DOC is run by the Program Review Committee (PRC). This committee systematically denies parole eligible people access to programming. Over the years, we’ve seen countless examples of people denied or moved out of programs to sabotage their chances before the parole board.
On February 5, Tate’s memo said that he expects PRC to be preparing people for release BEFORE they have a hearing. For decades, the Tommy Thompson rules has held, where people only get into programs if the commissioner requests them. Now Tate has made it clear he expects PRC not to wait, but to provide the programming outright. He said the PRC agreed to do this.
DOC Secretary Kevin Carr has also backed Tate up, saying in a meeting with FFUP on January 22 that “if we can’t get someone programming before their hearing, that’s on us, and it should not prevent them from being released.” There are many more opportunities for people to get programming outside of prison. Almost everyone in prison is poor and eligible for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, especially old law prisoners who’ve spent most of their lives imprisoned and unable to earn more than pennies per hour. The parole commission could approve release and the DOC could assist with getting people enrolled in any treatment program that is needed. Everyone who has done decades in prison is going to be suffering from trauma and should be eligible for PTSD treatment, which would certainly do more good than the stigmatizing and obsolete programming the DOC provides.
It seems some PRC administrators are adopting Tate’s expectations. For example, Ronnie Schultz was told by PRC that he should expect release and to be home by summer. We have yet to see how widespread DOC compliance with Tate’s memo has been, but we will continue to collect stories and track progress.
Release plans are made by the DOC’s Division of Community Corrections (DCC). This is the same division that re-incarcerates people sentenced under TIS and serving extended supervision at such a high rate that the DCC plays a role in two thirds of new prison admissions, most of which do not include a new criminal conviction.
At parole commission meetings I’ve heard about the DCC refusing to make viable release plans. For example, the DCC will require that a person be released to a specific county, even though their family support and housing is in another county. Then they’ll say the release plan doesn’t work. DCC also uses excuses about their own lack of transportation, and other resources to scuttle release plans or delay releases. These practices likely come from the Thompson memo and DOC’s obsessive confinement culture. Tate says he met with DCC officials who agreed to change and cooperate more.
Security levels are handled by the Bureau of Classification and Management (BOCM). BOCM prevents release in holding with the Thompson rules by keeping people sentenced under the old law at a higher security level than those sentenced under Truth in Sentencing (TIS). When Gabler and other Walker appointees ran the Parole Commission, they welcomed this practice, because it gave them an easy pretext to deny releases: if you’re not at minimum security and doing work release, you’re not ready for parole. BOCM would follow the commissioners’ lead and not reduce an old law prisoner’s security level unless the commission requested it, which happened more rarely that standard security level reductions.
Tate’s memo calls for this to change, for BOCM to hold all incarcerated people to the same standards for security reviews. He said that if someone hasn’t had a serious conduct report, they should be moved back down to minimum security after a year, rather than 3-4 years, as is BOCM’s practice. We haven’t seen evidence that BOCM is conforming to this expectation, and continue to see people (such as Ronnie Schultz mentioned above) going to parole hearings from medium security despite not having serious conduct reports for years.
We are also seeing wardens at minimum security facilities denying people access to work release, so even if BOCM and PRC do their part, a facility’s Warden can prevent them from meeting parole criteria. Sergeants and correctional officers also participate in obstructing releases. We’ve seen many instances of DOC staff targeting an old law prisoner who is working outside the fence, has completed all their programming, and is fully prepared for release.
Conduct reports can be another tool to prevent release. DOC staff members who share LaCost and Drankiewicz animosity toward releases can simply crack down on a rule they typically turn a blind eye to and selectively enforce it against someone with an upcoming hearing. PRC uses the resulting conduct report to kick them out of programs. BOCM uses it to raise their security level. This gives LaCost and Drankiewicz have all they need to recommend deferral.
This scenario is especially heartbreaking when the rule violation is communicating with co-workers. Imagine being sentenced to decades in prison as a juvenile in the 80s or 90s and finally making your way down to work release at a minimum security joint. You’re finally allowed outside the fence, able to spend time with people who aren’t incarcerated. You make friends. You maybe have an opportunity to talk to someone of the other gender who isn’t a blood relative for the first time in your adult life. If you connect and try to talk outside of work- call them or write- that’s a rule violation.
This kind of rule violation is common, and harmless. Human beings are social animals and there is nothing more natural than connecting with other humans. Bolstering your social support network by connecting with people who’ve lived outside of prison is also a great way to navigate re-integration to society after release. People do it all the time, and generally, staff ignore it, especially when it comes to people sentenced under TIS. Even if a TIS prisoner caught a conduct report, that wouldn’t impact release, because under TIS the release date is pre-determined. For people sentenced under the old law, release is subject to a hearing.
Another method of obstruction I observed has been sabotaging Tate’s office functions. At the January parole commission meeting I learned that Tate’s parole commission was severely hampered by understaffing. Since he came in, 100% of the office staff in the parole commission left. Most, if not all of them, were hired by the DOC. The public is not privvy to how aggressively DOC admins recruited Tate’s staff out from under him, but an off-hand comment Commissioner LaCost made at the January meeting about DOC Human Resources approaching Tate’s new office staff suggests that the DOC intended to poach staff away from the Parole Commission.
The Power of the Commission Chair
John Tate II runs the commission. Danielle LaCost and Doug Drankiewicz run hearings, but they don’t make decisions, they make recommendations. Tate can reverse their decisions and issue shorter deferrals or releases. He also conducts some hearings himself. We’ve definitely heard there’s been an increase in releases, and a shortening of deferrals since Tate came into the commission. We’ve also seen him sometimes exercise his power to adjust recommendations, moving people toward faster release.
Fairness demands more of Tate. It is clear to me, someone who attends a 30-60 minute meeting once a month and corresponds with incarcerated people and their advocates, that neither commissioners LaCost and Drankiewicz, nor the DOC are behaving in good faith. I’m certain Tate is able to recognize this, but his actions have not been consistent with that recognition.
Using the Ronnie Schultz case described above as an example, Tate did not reverse Drankiewicz’ recommendation. The commission’s response to our support letter stated “denial of parole to Mr. Schultz was based off reasons other than programming, along with an unacceptable release plan.” Our letter explained how Drankiewicz went into the hearing thinking that Ronnie’s grandma lived in Tennessee. Even if this wasn’t Drankiewicz’s only critique of Ronnie’s release plan, it should be obvious that he approaches hearings based on finding grounds to defer. Thus his recommendations should not be trusted or accepted.
John Tate could also change routines and practices. FFUP has collected and delivered recommendations for changes to the parole criteria you can voice support for these changes by signing this online petition. Tate can clear the blacklog by simply delivering grants and decisions in the mail, instead of holding hearings, according to George Cooper, this was a common practice in the past. Tate can restore criteria used before law changes, as recommended here by Harlan Richards.
Instead, Tate talks about creating an advisory board to adjust criteria and statutes governing the commission. An advisory board seems unnecessary, because Wisconsin hasn’t sentenced anyone to an indeterminate sentence for 20 years, since TIS passed in 2000. Unless TIS is overturned—which some lawmakers have discussed, and FFUP would support, but the divided and highly partisan legislature is unlikely to pass—the number of people eligible for parole will only go down. If grants of release are restored to pre-2000 rates, it will diminish to a scant few very soon. Creating an advisory board is a time-consuming project that may take longer than the process of releasing most old law prisoners under simple criteria.
Both Chairperson Tate and DOC Secretary Kevin Carr have said they will not continue to enable obstructive practices of administrators in the DCC, PRC, or BOCM. They admit that the culture of the DOC is stubbornly opposed to reform, but they have not yet taken decisive action to save people from this system and it’s abuses. When the commissioners and the DOC do not conform to the expectations outlined in Tate’s memo from February 5, it becomes his responsibility to bypass them and release people himself.
That is a responsibility that comes from the voters of Wisconsin, who elected a Governor promising decarceration. It is also, fundamentally, the morally righteous thing to do. Wisconsin’s prisons are overcrowded to the point of humanitarian crisis. Wisconsin’s captives are experiencing climbing rates of torture, harassment, violence, sexual assault, and suicide. Communicable disease risk also climbs in overcrowded institutions, putting guards in danger as well as captives. Guards working overcrowded institutions experience mandatory overtime, high levels of stress, secondary trauma, moral hazard, and increased safety risks from holding agitated and traumatized captives.
The parole commission and administrators from BOCM, PRC and DCC do not seem to understand the impact their practices have, not only on Wisconsin’s incarcerated people, but also on their co-workers, the guards. Tate’s part in reducing this impact and alleviating Wisconsin’s humanitarian crisis is to push past barriers and expedite the release of as many old law captives as possible.
Ways you can help ensure this happens:
1. Become a penpal or sponsor to one of the people serving time under the old law. FFUP’s Second Chance website has lists of people you can reach out to. If you want advice on how to do this, or who to write to, email FFUP’s founder, Peg Swan at pgswan3@aol.com
2. Write an email to Parole Commission Chair John Tate II. parolecommission@wisconsin.gov Tell him in your own words why you think he should change his practices and grant releases more frequently.
3. Donate to FFUP’s general support fund. FFUP is an all volunteer organization, donations go to supporting incarcerated people in dire need or covering the cost of travel, postage and other expenses.
4. Sign, share and circulate our parole release petition as well as notes and updates like this report.
5. Attend monthly Parole Commission meetings. They happen 9:30 am on the first Wednesday of every month, at the WI DOC building, 3099 E Washington Ave, Madison.
No comments:
Post a Comment