The Hudson County Board of Freeholders kicked off the new year with some old issues, as members continued to push for changes in employee operations at the Hudson County Correctional Facility in Kearny.
At the Jan. 8 caucus, the freeholders said they had come to agreements with the Hudson County Executive’s Office and the director of corrections about a study of policies and procedures for infractions by employees. Late last year, representatives from the union for jail employees complained to the freeholders during a public session about what they perceived as excessive disciplinary actions taken against African-American employees at the facility.
For more than a year, some employees had grumbled about perceived disparity between jail management – which is primarily Latino – and the staff, which is primarily African-American.
Several key administrators at the jail, however, said they reviewed each charge and seemed to find fewer discrepancies than claimed.
Once the matter was brought to light, Freeholder Chairman Jeff Dublin and Freeholder Bill O’Dea asked to begin a review of the operations and the policies to determine if there is any truth to the reports – including a lawsuit filed against the county by an employee detailing some of the problems.
In December, Kabali Tayari, president of the Jersey City chapter of the NAACP, requested that the board begin looking into practices, policies, and procedures at the correctional facility.
O’Dea said the litigation is creating a roadblock for the Freeholder Public Safety Committee, because some of the questions posed at the meeting could not be answered.
Since the issue was raised, the freeholders met with County Executive Tom DeGise, who agreed that a review of employee policies could be undertaken with the possible aim of changing them to meet current needs.
O’Dea said that the board is still seeking to formulate a committee to review policies and procedures at the jail, but that the meeting with DeGise had been a very productive step forward.
One change
One of the changes already implemented at the jail could help significantly, O’Dea said.
“We’ve changed the policy so that no one involved in the process of preparing a complaint against an individual can serve as a hearing officer on that complaint,” O’Dea said. “In the past, we heard that in some cases an officer who is involved in writing the complaint would serve as the hearing officer. This is a change I see as a move in the right direction.”
Another step, O’Dea said, may be to have the law firm that currently reviews sexual harassment charges also be accessible to the employee charged with a procedure complaint.
“This law firm would review the complaint, not for the merit of the complaint, but to see if there is any racial or gender bias in it,” O’Dea said.
Punishment too strict?
O’Dea and Dublin have raised concern about the overly strict punishment for what may be relatively minor infractions of rules.
“We think there may need to be an informal process and procedure for dealing with minor issues,” O’Dea said. “For instance, an employee shouldn’t get a 30-day suspension for being late.”
One solution for the situation would be to bring in an outside expert, perhaps a national correctional officers’ organization, who will look at operations in the Hudson County Correctional Facility and come up with a series of recommendations.
“This firm would look at how complaints are handled, formerly or informally, and make recommendations as to how we can do it better,” O’Dea said. “Then we can set up a committee to look at those recommendations.”
He said the freeholders are hoping to find a firm that has experience with these issues in other correctional facilities.
“We want to determine if we have cases of over-disciplinary action, and a review of the process and procedures used to handle it,” O’Dea said.
During a discussion at the freeholder caucus, Freeholder Jose Munoz said it is critical that the county organize the jail’s rules and regulation into one book.
“We need a complete update,” he said.
Oscar Aviles, director of the jail, said he has agreed to seek an expert in order to look at the policies and procedures.
While Munoz pressed for the process to start, County Administrator Abe Antun said it is not something that can likely be done by existing staff.
Transporting prisoners out of state
Munoz, too, raised concerns about a contract for transport of prisoners from out of state, who are wanted on warrants in Hudson County and apprehended elsewhere in the country.
The company that had transported the prisoners in the past will not be bidding on the service this year. Apparent questions about the company’s activities in other states have raised legal issues that may have led to the company doing away with the service.
The service was privatized in the 1990s in order to reduce the cost associated with sending Hudson County officers to collect and accompany a prisoner back to Hudson County.
O’Dea suggested the county might look more closely into the issue to determine if Hudson County is at legal risk for any of the practices coming under scrutiny in other states.
Munoz said he was concerned with possible safety and security risks imposed by having a private contractor dealing with the transport of prisoners, especially when drivers are not trained in police procedures.
Munoz was also concerned by the fact that a contract had come to the freeholders for a vote, claiming the Hudson County Sheriff’s Department had recommended it, when a check with the Sheriff’s Office showed that the sheriff had not seen contract details at all.
The freeholders also raised concerns about other jail-related issues, such as the cost of providing furniture to a newly expanded facility.
In reducing the $24,000 furniture request by nearly $8,000, Aviles said new furniture was needed for newly expanded spaces, and replacement future needed for older offices.