From License Plates To Toilet Paper

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Marty Ryan

Ever since I was a young boy I knew that license plates were made in prison.  However, as I grew older I wanted to know what happened when there are no license plates to make.  I found out about 10 or 15 years ago when I was introduced to the director of Iowa Prison industries (IPI), Roger Baysden.  Roger retired a few months ago, but his development of IPI has made a difference in the lives of many.

The business of manufacturing license plates in Iowa is conducted by the Iowa Prison Industries (IPI).  But IPI is much more than an occasional license plate maker.  IPI is a program within the Iowa Department of Corrections that provides inmates with meaningful jobs “to develop within those inmates willing to accept and persevere in such work;

  • Positive attitudes which will enable them to eventually function as law-abiding, self-supporting members of the community;
  • Good work habits that will assist them in eventually securing and holding gainful employment outside the correctional system; and
  • To the extent feasible, marketable skills that can lead directly to gainful employment upon release from a correctional institution.”

I realized this week that IPI is a very misunderstood segment of the Iowa correctional system.  My realization stemmed from a very unusual bill that popped up.  The bill, House Study Bill 218 by House Committee on Government Oversight, has 4 parts to it.  The first section of the bill requires the IPI to file reports.  That’s no problem: it’s been filing reports for quite some time now.  The second section requires the IPI to receive authorization from the Legislature before spending an amount of over $250,000 for a capital expenditure.  That’s not too much of a problem – it doesn’t happen often  Section four of the bill pertains to the effective date – not a problem at all.  But section three of the bill is a bit controversial.

It seems as though a wholesaler within the state may have been upset that sales of toilet paper to state correctional institutions would be drastically reduced, taking a cut from the wholesalers’ profits.  An educated guess will tell an experienced lobbyist that this is the impetus for the bill.  The bill’s 3rd section requires the IPI director to prepare and submit a report to the Government Oversight Committee “regarding the merits of the processing of toilet paper by IPI”.

This bill is not going to replace any Iowa jobs.  That’s because there is no Iowa manufacturer of toilet paper.  According to “Building Bridges To Success”, a Five Year Transition & Business Plan (2011-2015) prepared by Roger Baysden for IPI, the Iowa Department of Corrections “alone purchases over 1 million rolls of tissue paper a year.  Based upon market test (3 years in Missouri prison) IPI can manufacture tissue of the same or better grade of paper for about ten cents less per roll than what DOC is paying for it now.  This is a savings of about $100,000 to the state and it will add between 40-50 offender skill training opportunities.”  I believe the preparation of the report in section 3 has been completed.

Nonetheless, it was the comments of a business lobbyist that made me realize that there exists a huge misconception that inmates learn a particular skill while incarcerated; a specific skill that can be immediately transformed to an employment opportunity once released.  That’s not necessarily so.  Inmates don’t just get placed into a prison job.  They have to apply for it.  And that’s where IPI’s hidden secret lies.

Many inmates have never had the opportunity to apply for a decent job.  Often, they lack the basic skills necessary to complete an application form.  IPI assists these offenders with everything from how to dress for an interview to explaining their criminal record to a potential employer.  As they leave an institution, offenders who have participated in the IPI Program are presented with a 44-page handbook that helps them with their transition, especially as it focuses on their employment opportunities.  The former inmates leave with 1) marketable skills; 2) the development of a sound work ethic; 3) self confidence and pride of accomplishment; 4) a possible savings and family support; and 5) the handbook that will help them in their search for meaningful employment.

While incarcerated, participants have paid taxes, restitution, Victims’ Compensation, and reimbursed the General Fund of Iowa.  “IPI inmates paid more in child support in 2009 than all of the Iowa inmates combined earned in 1997.”

Here are some key points of IPI that go virtually unnoticed:

“IPI employs over six hundred offenders and generates over 25 million dollars in annual sales;

“IPI provides over 1.6 million hours of hands-on offender work skill training at no cost to the taxpayer;

“IPI receives no appropriations from the general fund [of Iowa];

“IPI hires staff and pays their salaries from the profit on sales of goods and services;

“IPI has plant operations at eight of the nine Iowa Prisons.”

Stephanie and I toured the woodworking shop of IPI inside the Iowa Penitentiary at Fort Madison.  We were in awe.  Some of the most beautiful handcrafted wood products are being produced daily.  We invite you to check into the IPI further.  Products created by IPI inmates are of high quality and virtually flawless.

Some of the products made by IPI inmates include solid hardwood desks, chairs and furniture; dolls; signs; toys; jail cells; and many other items almost too numerous to mention.  The IPI has a showroom, built and maintained without tax-payers’ dollars, located at 1445 East Grand Avenue in Des Moines.  The building is easily accessible right off I-235 on Grand between 14th and 15th Streets.  You may also take a quick look at IPI’s success by accessing its website at:  http://www.iaprisonind.com/

House Study Bill 218 is more than a profit loss to a toilet paper wholesaler; it’s an opportunity for education.

© Copyright 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Criminal Justice, Issues | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Turf Wars

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Marty Ryan

For several years there has been a battle between the Iowa House of Representatives and the Iowa Senate over which direction to take in improving Iowa’s public records and open meeting laws.   The battle is much more than just language changes in the two chapters that control access to records and availability of public participation in meetings.  There needs to be a method of ensuring compliance, and there are three ways to go.

The Senate leans toward creating an enforcement board, while the House tends to favor an advisory committee.  Granted, the Senate version will cost more.  But this is one area in which the adage “you get what you pay for” holds true.   The third option is to keep the status quo, which is slightly controversial, and the possible reason why there is a needed change.

The proposed enforcement board, suggested by the Senate, is not just an entity that will throw its weight around, punishing people for violating the law.  It will advise and educate also.  The proposed board will have a concerted effort at oversight and mediation.  It is an idea whose time has come.

The Senate has held on to its belief with consistency over the years.  The House has jumped all over a group of proposed amendments in an attempt to please everyone, but no one in particular.  In the process, a large group of governmental lobbyists follow every meeting anticipating a wedge to get an exception in here or there.  At present, the amendment attached to the current house is a bill that failed to be accepted by the Senate two years ago.

One interested person has called the House’s version a debate society.  I believe that’s an accurate description of what might come of the advisory committee.  The problem with an advisory committee is that it becomes another tentacle of state bureaucracy.  The committee is filled with wise people saying brilliant things, but in the end, it’s the staffing that makes all of the decisions.  I’ve seen it far too many times.

The staff prepares the agenda – with the chair’s help, of course.  Staff does all the research, makes suggestions for recommendations, and performs most of the work before and after meetings.  The committee members show up and discuss matters for hours, often leaving with a lack of any accomplishment.  The attendance at so many of these types of meetings of state government are poorly attended, especially if there is very little to do but advise.

The current situation is not the ideal setup for improving the expectations the public wants or needs as it pertains to open meetings/public records.  The enforcement is provided by the county attorney, the top law enforcement official in each county.  The appearance of a conflict of interest is exposed each and every time a matter of a possible violation comes up in a political subdivision of the state.

We need a better system.  I’m almost betting that this will eventually come down to an arm wrestling match – years from now.

Copyright © 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Issues, Open Meetings/Public Records | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Every Step You Take . . .

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Marty Ryan

“On the wall outside his former residence – flat number 27B – where George Orwell [author of the novel 1984] lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.”

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan strongly opposes the use of government-placed cameras on streets and street corners.  We’re also realistic.  We don’t believe the use of traffic cameras will be outlawed.  In the alternative, we believe making sense of their use is the next best option.  As it’s told, the horses are out of the corral.

Fawkes-Lee & Ryan believes that consistency is the primary purpose of legislation that attempts to regulate the use of Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems (ATES).  House Study Bill 93 is a House Transportation study bill that proposes to regulate the use of ATES.  As it is, the use of ATES is something used by cities in large metropolitan areas of the state.   It is not a sensible option for small rural communities and counties.  The potential use of these systems by smaller cities in Iowa is somewhat prohibitive based upon several factors.  Without a consistent basis with which to regulate the use of these systems, abuse is a potential reality.

Small rural counties and communities cannot realistically use these systems.  Whereas, a city such as Cedar Rapids can set a fine at $65, and keep a little over half of the proceeds of the fine for administrative costs and other variables, cities such as Carroll and Fairfield will not be able to justify the safety needs of these systems as it correlates to the costs of implementation and maintenance.   If a small community or county within Iowa should desire to install and utilize such a system, the monetary penalty for a violation would have to be considerably more than the $65 Cedar Rapids charges.  Therefore, the ceiling of $50 per penalty is an adequate amount to prevent any potential abuse.

ATES should not be used as cash cows for local authorities, as many citizens believe them to be, and HSB 93 strikes a balanced comprise.  A small due process consideration of having signs posted in a uniform manner throughout the state is not too much to ask.  The size of the sign, the distance of the sign from the ATES based upon the speed limit of a given road, the dimensions of the sign and what it says are all important facets of a consistent program that offers due process to motorists.

There are several problems with the use of ATES that require more attention from Iowa legislators.  First, if these ATES are installed truly for public safety purposes, than because there are civil penalties and not criminal penalties attached to the penalty phase, there can be no repercussions for motorists that accumulate a mass of speeding tickets.  For instance, if a law enforcement officer stops a person for speeding, the person violating the speed limit receives a criminal sanction and the offense is attached to the person’s driving record.  If that same person receives 3 of those personally presented citations in a year, that person is on the way to becoming a habitual offender.  On the other hand, if that same person speeds through a red light ten times in a month, which is part of an ATES, the only consequence is that that person is out a lot of money.  There is no threat to the privilege of possessing a driver’s license.  Unfortunately, far too many city officials fail to see that this is NOT an enhancement of public safety.

Likewise, as a city’s residents become familiar with where speed cameras are located, traffic will slow to a crawl in those stretches of the road because of the natural tendency to reduce speed as traffic comes within range of the cameras.  Already, any radio station in the area will provide a public service announcement (ahem, if that’s what we can call them) to inform residents of where the speed traps are located.  Bottlenecks will become more and more prevalent.  The likelihood of road rage will increase.  These unforeseen problems are going to have to be dealt with as ATES grow across the state.

The eeriness of Orwell’s prediction didn’t occur in a year, it took time.  Government in this country has not gone as far as England, but if we’re not vigilant, it will be a matter of time.

Copyright © 2011  Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
Ill be watching you

Sting – “I’ll be watching you.”

Posted in Issues, Privacy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Driving Young Adults Out Of Iowa

Posted on February 5, 2011 by Marty Ryan

It has to be tough being a kid in Iowa.  There can be no better evidence of that statement than merely watching the legislation that is introduced in the Iowa General Assembly this session that pertains to school-aged minors.

Some members of the Iowa House are determined to make all children look alike.  House File 77, a bill that will allow school districts to draft prescriptive dress code policies, has found its way out of the House Education Committee and is ready for debate on the House floor.  Two brave Democrats stood up to the nonsense of this government regulation of children and their families.  Representatives Dan Kelley (D-Newton) and Nate Willems (D-Lisbon) voted “no” on the bill’s passage out of committee.

House File 116 is a bill that raises the compulsory school attendance from age 16 to 18, and attaches a caveat that an adolescent who quits school prior to the age of 18 is not eligible to obtain a driver’s license.  But it goes much further than that.  If the teen who quits school turns eighteen after September 15, he or she cannot obtain the driver’s license until the end of the school year.  Let’s face it, some kids don’t belong in school, and everything society does to force them through the pain of attending can only make it worse – for everyone!  Is the real intent of this legislation counting the teenager for school district funding without any real social benefit?  This bill has not moved yet, but we’re watching it closely.

Another driver’s license-related issue is Senate Study Bill 1032.  Stephanie and I were the only two people in a room of about 50 that opposed this legislation in a subcommittee meeting this week.  The intent may be noble – preventing teens from being involved in serious accidents, but the practicality of the matter is another chance for adolescents to rebel.  SSB 1032 limits a minor with an intermediate driver’s license from carrying more than one passenger unless other passengers are immediately related to the driver, such as a parent or sibling.  The original bill also narrowed the current curfew from 12:30 am to 10:00 pm, but the subcommittee amended that section from the bill.

A major concern of Fawkes-Lee & Ryan, as it pertains to SSB 1032, is that it creates more status crimes.  Status crimes are defined by Nolo.com as such:  “In juvenile cases, a “status offense” involves conduct that would not be a crime if it was committed by an adult — in other words, the actions are considered to be a violation of the law only because of the juvenile’s status as a minor (typically anyone under 18 years of age).”  As a rule, curfews, truancy and possession of tobacco are status crimes.  Imagine with us, if you will, the various maneuvers of getting around this law – hiding in the back seat, claiming that everyone is a sibling without identification, tinting windows darker than allowed by law, etc.  Many of those shenanigans will, no doubt, end up in charges of “interference with official acts”, which is already overused and abused by some law enforcement officials.

If a juvenile is mentally retarded or suffers from a mental illness, things get tougher if the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court.  House Study Bill 38 and Senate Study Bill 1057 are bills that we’ve seen before.  They are bills that, in the past, have been requested by the Iowa County Attorney’s Association.  The intent of these bills is to remove language that sets aside a disposition of adjudication and dismisses a petition where a mentally retarded or mentally ill child commits a delinquent act, and the child is being committed to a mental health institution.  These bills have not had a subcommittee meeting at this time.  Last year, the Iowa Association for Justice played a huge role in preventing this issue from moving past the funnel dates.

There are at least three bills this far into the session that are sympathetic to juveniles who have been caught up in the justice system, but we’ll not get too excited about them until we see better progress.  However, one of those bills favorable to youth that is moving, at least in the Senate, is the bill that addresses the problem with juveniles being sent to prison for life (without the possibility of parole) for non-homicide crimes.  The bill will allow a juvenile defendant in a non-homicide case to be eligible for parole after 15 years [the bill originally states 25 years, but the bill was amended in subcommittee to lower the eligibility by another 10 years.  County attorneys propose 45 years.].  See “A Must-Do For The Iowa Legislature”.

© Copyright 2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Tune in

Stephanie and Marty have become regulars in the webcast world.

Marty is on Chautauqua Weekends at 7:00 am Saturday mornings at: http://www.desmoinesamplified.com/show.asp?showid=42

Stephanie appears on Chautauqua 50309 on Wednesday evenings (8:00 – 10:00 pm) http://www.desmoinesamplified.com/show.asp?showid=25

Both are regular guests of Max Knauer.  Listen in on Saturday mornings for an update of legislative activity for the week.  Or, listen in on Wednesday evening for a dose of the hot topics brewing at the Iowa Capitol.  You may also catch up by listening to a podcast at:  http://chatauqua50309.wordpress.com/

Posted in Criminal Justice, Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dressing Up For The Supreme Court

Posted on January 26, 2011 by Marty Ryan

Growing up in west-central Iowa, I attended Catholic grade school.  I recall standing at attention by my desk in apparel that fit the school’s dress code of a button-down shirt with lapels and dress slacks, reciting the “Pledge of Allegiance” to the American flag.

One morning, immediately after our recitation of the Pledge, we were shown a film clip of children in China – wearing gray outfits and standing at attention toward a picture of Mao – saluting him with outstretched arms.  The nun was teaching us the ills of Communism. I could not – hell, I still can’t understand the difference between what we were doing and what the Chinese kids were doing.  Okay, we saluted a flag and they were saluting a picture.

House File 77, a bill allowing public school districts to adopt dress code policies, went through the subcommittee process this morning [Wednesday, Jan. 26].  The bill is the result of a challenge to a Waterloo School District dress code.

Anyway, I traveled back through time this morning as we discussed school dress codes.  Today, schools want to keep gangs out of school.  In order to do that, there is an ill-conceived concept that if we keep gang-related colors out of school – gangs will cease to exist.  Gang related colors change about as much as Iowa’s weather.

Clothing worn by students has been an issue for quite some time, and it’s been an issue throughout the country, not just Iowa.  The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of dress codes in relation to students’ First Amendment rights. Iowa is within the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate stop before moving up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  There is a lack of case law on this matter in the 8th Circuit as well.

Several state and federal district court cases have ruled on related issues, but most of those cases have been decided in the 1980s and 1990s.  For instance, a 1982 case from the Fifth Circuit, which consists of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has dealt with the matter of “hairstyle regulations.”  In Domico v. Rapides Parish School Board, 75 F. 2d 100 (5th Circuit 1982), the Court said that a school board could instill the student dress code upon teachers and other employees.  But Cf; Colorado Indep. School Dist. v. Barber, 864 S.W. 2d 806 (Tex. App. Eastland 1993) (Male students successfully challenged enforcement of a school dress code, which prohibited male students from having long hair or from wearing earrings.).

Earrings are another matter.  In Olesen v. Board of Education of School Dist. No. 228, 676 F. Supp 820 (N.D. Ill 1987), a school board in suburban Chicago was sued in federal district court by a group of high school students questioning the constitutionality of a school anti-gang rule that prohibited males from wearing earrings.  The students lost the case.  The Court determined that the students’ message of individuality was not protected within the scope of the First Amendment, and that discouragement of gang-related membership and affiliation were legitimate objectives of the school.  But see; Colorado Indep. School Dist. v. Barber, 864 S.W. 2d 806 (Tex. App. Eastland 1993). (Male students successfully challenged enforcement of a school dress code, which prohibited male students from having long hair or from wearing earrings.)

T-shirts have drawn a lot of attention.  In Broussard V. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 801 F. Supp. 1526 ( E.D. Virginia 1992), a student sued a school board because she was suspended for one day for refusing to change out of a shirt printed with the words “Drugs Suck!” Although she claimed that the suspension violated her rights of due process and free speech, the court found otherwise.  Contra McInyre v. Bethel School Indep. Dist. No. 3, 804 F. Supp 1415 (W.D. Ok. 1992).

In Pyle v. South Hadley School Committee, 861 F. Supp. 157 (D. Mass. 1994), two high school students sued the school committee, challenging the school’s policy which prohibited their wearing of two T-shirts. One read “See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don’t be a Dick” and the other read “Coed Naked Band: Do It to the Rhythm”. The District Court held that school officials could restrict vulgar expression by students regardless if there was any risk of substantial disruption, but that a dress code which prohibits apparel that harasses others violates the students’ First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit denied the motion to intervene and did not disturb the district court’s judgment in relation to the enjoined enforcement of the harassment provision.

All of the previously mentioned cases come from various federal district courts in other circuits in the country.  The only comparable case from the Eighth Circuit (which includes the state of Iowa) is a case called BWA v. Farmington R-7 School Dist., 554 F. 3d 734 – Court of Appeals, (8th Circuit 2009)

The facts in this case are far too unusual to use as an example of prohibitive clothing within the Eighth Circuit.  That’s because the two students who were suspended from school were wearing T-shirts that depicted the Confederate flag symbol.  However, it goes much further than that.  Prior to their suspension for wearing the T-shirts the two were also involved in several racially-charged incidents.  The case deals with viewpoint discrimination and does not offer much constitutional direction by the Eighth Circuit on the issue of dress codes.

If House File 77 is enacted, public school administrators will be gambling with an issue that could cost them thousands and thousands of dollars over the long haul if it makes its way to the United States Supreme Court.  Some administrators and school boards may gamble; some won’t.  I predict that this issue will someday find its way to the United States Supreme Court, especially since the lower courts appear to be all over the place on their decisions.  But then, the issue hasn’t made it there, yet.  So it may take another forty years before someone gets their question before the High Court.  Willing to gamble?

© Copyright 2010-2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Issues, Privacy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Love To Vote

Posted on January 17, 2011 by Marty Ryan

Stephanie and I met over the issue of ex-felon voting rights.  As each of us represented a non-profit organization that opposed the disenfranchisement of ex-felons, we began to see each other more and more at meetings as the movement progressed.  We became friends.

After a period of months, we became very good friends.  Soon, we started to date.  Our friends noticed that we were dating and asked us when we were going to get married.  We sort of joked and said: “When ex-felons get their voting rights restored.”  Several months after that, Governor Vilsack’s legal counsel, Gary Dickey, called me to inform me that Governor Vilsack was going to announce at a media conference that he would be signing an executive order on July 4th, restoring voting rights to thousands of ex-felons.

Once Governor Vilsack signed Executive Order 42 we kept seeing each other.  We became best friends, and I asked Stephanie to marry me.  We were married in October of 2005 and many of our friends who helped with the movement to gain voting rights for ex-felons attended our small wedding in the back yard.

Last Friday, in the second action of the new administration, Governor Branstad signed Executive Order 70, which rescinds the July 4, 2005 action of Governor Vilsack.  A reasonable person might come to the conclusion that, since the voting rights of ex-felons are jeopardized, this could weaken our marriage.  Oh, quite contrary!  Our love grows deeper (if that’s even remotely possible) as we gear up to fight for the rights of the disenfrachised – most of whom are dirt poor.

Why does this society continue to throw rocks at poor people?  The only real power most poor citizens possess is the power to elect their community leaders.  Disenfranchisement prevents a true representative form of government.

© Copyright 2010-2011 Fawkes-Lee & Ryan.  All rights reserved.

Posted in Issues, Voting Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment