Last week several county officials announced the formation of an organization, with attorneys, to protect the interests of the people of Ventura County. Folks like Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, Supervisor Peter Foy, District Attorney Greg Totten and Sheriff Bob Brooks, along with major community leaders.
Now, the County leaders have gone the next step, issued a letter of opposition, setting out the problems with the one man band called Clark Kelso.
Here is all of the information:
VENTURA COUNTY LEADERS SEND OPPOSITION LETTER TO PRISON RECEIVER CITING LACK OF FEDERAL POWERS
Prison hospital in Camarillo is also a danger to public health, public safety
Latest turn in battle over proposed prison facility in Ventura County, just days before Federal hearing
Ventura County - Citing lack of Federal powers as well as a danger to public safety and public health, a non-partisan coalition of County Officials sent a Letter of Opposition today to California prison receiver J. Clark Kelso to oppose a proposed prison hospital in Camarillo. The strong letter is the latest turn in a heated battle over a prison facility site being eyed by the receiver.
Taxpayers for a Safe Ventura County, which came together last week in the fight against a new prison facility in the County, cited a number of reasons that Ventura County is an unacceptable site for a proposed prison hospital:
§ Legal Limitations of Federal Powers: Taxpayer for a Safe Ventura County cites that Federal courts are specifically prohibited from ordering "the construction of prisons or the raising of taxes." (18 USC § 3626 (a)(1)(C).) The proposal to build a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility in Ventura County to house inmates with medical needs is a direct violation of this statute and will not withstand a legal challenge. In addition, Taxpayers cites a recent non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report that states the receiver's plan is "overbudgeted" and lacks "key operational and fiscal details."
§ Risk to Public Safety: Members of Taxpayers for a Safe Ventura County - including Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks and Ventura County District Attorney Greg Totten - state that placing a prison hospital near residential areas poses a serious safety risk. Even if the Community accepts the receiver's assurances that an electronic fence (eFence) would be adequate to control prisoners in the facility itself, transportation of prisoners to other hospitals for basic medical procedures not available at the prison facility would create opportunities for escape during transport, as well as attack of medical staff and other patients at those hospitals. This is an unacceptable risk to the safety of our community.
§ Effect on Juvenile Justice: The closing of the existing youth facility would displace existing juveniles, and there is no evidence to suggest that the facility has any plans to close. Further, the receiver's plan provides no alternative plan for housing female juveniles outside of this, the only juvenile housing facility for women.
§ Negative Impact on Community Health Care: The receiver's proposed prison hospital would have more beds than all of the hospitals in Ventura County combined. The County will suffer further shortage of skilled healthcare personnel due to the presence of a prison facility, leaving Ventura County residents. The coalition strongly states that law-abiding Ventura County residents also have a right to adequate health care. At a time when many law-abiding California residents do not have healthcare, it is difficult to justify increasing healthcare expenditures for prisoners.
§ Lack of Infrastructure: The proposed prison facility will cause a dramatic and devastatingly adverse impact to our environment and our local infrastructure. The increased strain on our roads, water lines, sewer lines, and other utilities will be too difficult and costly to mitigate.
§ In Conclusion: Modification of Plans: The non-partisan coalition of County leaders closed their letter with an urging for the Receiver to modify his plans to exclude Ventura County as a potential site for a prison hospital.
The Letter is being sent to prison receiver Kelso today, just days before Monday's hearing in Federal Court in San Francisco to determine whether the State will be forced by a judge to make an initial payment on the proposed prison hospital sites throughout California.
Taxpayers for a Safe Ventura County also stated last week they intend to seek a vigorous legal challenge to the proposed prison site if necessary.
A copy of the letter from Taxpayers for a Safe Ventura County, to J. Clark Kelso is attached.
###
COPY OF LETTER
<>
October 23, 2008
J. Clark Kelso, Receiver
California Prison Health Care Services
P.O. Box 4038
Sacramento, CA 95812-4038
Dear Mr. Kelso:
We write to you to express our opposition to the construction of a new prison medical facility in Camarillo. While we appreciate your efforts to communicate your position on the proposed project, we believe that our concerns and some fundamental legal issues still have not been resolved.
LEGAL RESTRAINTS
In addressing prison conditions, federal courts are specifically prohibited from ordering "the construction of prisons or the raising of taxes." (18 USC § 3626 (a)(1)(C).) The proposal to build a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") facility in Ventura County to house inmates with medical needs is a direct violation of this statute and will not withstand a legal challenge.
In addition to the direct legal prohibition of ordering the construction of a prison, federal courts are limited to "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right." (18 USC § 3626 (a)(1)(A).) Your plan goes far beyond what is allowed to remedy the 8th Amendment violations at issue in Plata and Coleman.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office ("LAO") has expressed serious concerns as to the scope, feasibility, and necessity of your plan. The LAO concluded that your proposal is "over budgeted and lacks the key operational and fiscal details (such as information on staffing and operating costs and the security of the facilities, among other items) that are necessary to fully justify the immediate approval of the entire package of construction projects." In essence, your proposal is much greater than necessary to achieve your ultimate goal. Thus, under federal law, it cannot be allowed.
You already have made significant improvements to the healthcare delivery system without a prison expansion program, as evidenced by the fact that the death rate in prisons has decreased during the two years of the existence of the Receivership, a fact Judge Henderson acknowledges. These new facilities, with their high price tag, are not the most cost effective and appropriate means to comply with the federal court order because, in part, the Receiver has shown that results can be accomplished with the current infrastructure the state has in place.
The LAO further notes that the overall California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation population is actually on the decline. It seems unnecessary, let alone dreadfully wasteful, to propose an expansion of prisons where the prison population is decreasing. We do not need more prisons to house fewer prisoners.
This plan simply defies logic, especially considering we are in the midst of an economic crisis. While our state is struggling to fund even its day-to-day operations, the last thing we need is to try to find an extra $8 billion for a prison expansion plan that appears to be vastly overreaching in its scope. Moreover, the $8 billion price tag does not include the additional funds that will be necessary on an ongoing basis for administration and operation of the facility.
EFFECT ON JUVENILE JUSTICE
You assert that the site in Ventura County came to your attention last year when you learned that CDCR had decided to close the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility. We have been told numerous times that there are no intentions to close this facility. Attached is a document from CDCR expressly stating there are no plans to close the facility, and in fact, a population increase is planned.
We also have concerns with the interaction of your proposal with the State's ability to comply with the consent decree in Farrell. The State has entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in Farrell to improve the conditions and the services provided to youths within the juvenile justice system. While many of the youthful offenders have been shifted back to the counties, there still remains a population of offenders within the State's responsibility. Despite your assertions to the contrary, if you force the closure of the VYCF, it will jeopardize compliance with Farrell.
This disruption is particularly troubling since the VYCF currently serves as the only facility housing female juvenile offenders and there is currently no alternative housing plan for these young women. There are other sites (particularly ones the CDCR actually intends to close) that are available within California to house inmates with medical needs that would not result in the disruption of services to youthful offenders currently housed in Ventura.
EFFECT ON HEALTHCARE IN THE COMMUNITY
The increased demand for medical staff which would stem from the proposed facility will be sadly met at the expense of our community. Our citizens will lose access to adequate health care services and personnel because the proposed facility will be siphoning away the health care personnel we desperately need in our communities.
We disagree with your analysis that Ventura County will have an expanded medical workforce and thus would benefit under your proposal. Ventura County has been experiencing a severe nursing shortage for several years. Community colleges and other educational institutions have not been able to meet the demand for nurses under the current climate.
This additional demand cannot be met without negatively impacting the community. You can work with the educational community to expand training capabilities, but they will have a difficult time finding the necessary additional resources for that training. Ventura County lacks the necessary faculty and instructors to expand the nursing programs. Additionally, nursing students are required to complete clinical hours, and those resources are also severely limited.
Planning for the training, recruitment, and retention of medical staff is admirable, but it will not be as simple as you propose. The expansion of medical staff you require is a long term project, particularly if it is to be accomplished with experienced instructors and with minimal impact to the community.
Ventura County residents also have a right to access adequate healthcare. The CDCR facility you proposed would have more beds than all the other hospitals in Ventura County combined. The CDCR facility would reduce the already inadequate staffing of local hospitals and make adequate healthcare unavailable to local residents.
At a time when many law-abiding California residents do not have healthcare, it is difficult to justify increasing healthcare expenditures for prisoners. CDCR expenditures for healthcare have more than tripled in the last seven years, from $676 million in 2000 (approximately $4,170 per inmate) to 2.387 billion in 2007 (approximately $14,000 per inmate). By comparison, healthcare costs for California residents last year averaged half that, $7,100. Nor are increased CDCR healthcare costs necessary. The mortality rate for California prisoners (213 per 100,000 prisoners) is lower than the national average for all state prisons (250 per 100,000 prisoners), and lower than the mortality rate for United States residents ages 15-64 (308 per 100,000).
EFFECT ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Our understanding is that the proposed facility would provide maintenance healthcare services to prisoners similar to a skilled nursing facility, but would not be equipped to handle more serious medical problems such as surgery. We understand that prisoners would be transported to local acute care hospitals for such services. Even if we accept your assurances that an eFence would be adequate to control prisoners in the CDCR facility itself, transportation of prisoners to other hospitals would create opportunities for escape and attack of staff and patients at those hospitals. This is an unacceptable risk to the safety of our community.
LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Expanding the existing Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF) to accommodate the additional inmate population will cause a dramatic and devastatingly adverse impact to our environment and our local infrastructure. The increased strain on our roads, water lines, sewer lines, and other utilities will be too difficult and costly to mitigate.
CONCLUSION
We understand that the federal district court has appointed you to oversee and restructure the delivery of medical services within the California prison system, and the court has granted you authority to accomplish the goal of bringing the state prison medical program up to Constitutional standards. However, we do not believe your authority is broad enough to extend to this new proposed prison facility in Ventura County, as federal law is an insurmountable obstacle to your plan. Your plan would also have a detrimental effect on juvenile justice, would deprive local citizens of adequate healthcare, and would provide an unacceptable risk to public safety. Finally, the location lacks sufficient infrastructure to support it.
We urge you to modify your plans to eliminate construction of a CDCR healthcare facility in Ventura County.
Very truly yours,
<<>>