Our Valdosta/Lowndes County site quickly became our primary due to its
local and regional workforce, collaboration of local leadership, site
characteristics, proximity to necessary services and infrastructure,
and accessibility to name a few.
So who is this local leadership?
We look forward to working closely with Valdosta/Lowndes leadership as we move forward in the months to come.
Finally, I’d like to take a moment to recognize a few folks that have been essential to the project:
The Valdosta/Lowndes site became the primary due to the local and
regional workforce, collaboration of local leadership,
proximity to necessary services and infrastructure, accessibility, etc.
Nothing in there about
low poverty or high wages.
One could even read that the other way around,
as in a low-wage population looking for jobs.
Looks to me like our Industrial Authority didn’t do much due diligence
about private prisons.
Also note that the contract of 17 August 2010 between VLCIA and CCA
was signed after the announcement in July 2010 that CCA had selected
More about that in another post.
All the CCA documents VLCIA provided in response to Matt Flumerfelt’s Open Records Request
on the LAKE website.
I will continue posting what I see in them (in the category
CCA), but you may find things in them I don’t.
If you find something particularly interesting, please send it to the
LAKE blog submission address or comment on the blog so we can all see it.
Has CCA supplied a key document required by the contract?
If not, is the contract still valid?
According to “SCHEDULE 1.6.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE”
CCA was supposed to provide to VLCIA
Submission of Preliminary Specifications (Section 1.6.1)
No later than 6 months after receipt of the Survey
CCA did provide a
Title Objection Letter
19 November 2010,
and that was due “within 30 days of receipt of the Survey”.
So these Preliminary Specifications were due
about six months ago.
Let’s see them!
If those specifications have not been received by VLCIA,
maybe the contract with CCA is no longer valid.
Or maybe VLCIA already received
and is moving on with implementing the project.
Seems to me the community should be informed, one way or the other.
188.8.131.52. Third Extension Term.
The Authority shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain an option
for a third extension term of twelve (12) months
(the “Third Extension Term“).
In the event the Authority is able to obtain such extension option
on terms and conditions such that any required earnest money to be paid
by the Company in connection with the exercise of such extension option does not
exceed $75,000, and there is no increase of the price of the Site
or any other payments not already required by the Option Agreement,
then the Authority shall enter into a written agreement
(the “Third Extension Term“)
with the Seller reflecting the terms and conditions of such extension option….
What happens if the Authority does not provide such an extension option?
Continue reading →
CCA and VLCIA signed way back on 17 August 2009,
I see nothing that says the Industrial Authority can’t talk about CCA
in general terms.
And I see a lot of things that a governmental entity by state law
can’t hide if the public requests them.
And that VLCIA has now revealed.
Which means the Industrial Authority has violated that agreement because
state law required it to.
So what does that say about the validity of other contracts VLCIA
has signed with CCA?
And what does it say about the practice of this governmental entity
signing confidentiality agreements?
That agreement includes this legal boilerplate:
it will use any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information to
which it has access solely for the purpose set forth herein and that it will
indefinitely protect the confidentiality of such information and will not
directly or indirectly disclose, reproduce, distribute, transmit or transfer
by any means in any form any confidential documents, information
and/or trade secrets that AUTHORITY may have or acquire during the
There’s nothing in there that says VLCIA can’t even say in their board
meetings that Project Excel is a private prison for CCA.
And outside board meetings, some board members have no reluctance to
Confidentiality agreements like that are normal between two business entities.
They seem a little odd between a business entity and a governmental agency.
For example, that Agreement continues:
For purposes of this Agreement, “confidential, proprietary, or trade
secret information” includes, but is not limited to, marketing materials,
conceptual site drawings and images, form contract agreements, the
identities of business contacts and the relationships developed with
such contacts during the Evaluation Period, proposed terms of purchase
and sale, if any….
Yet many of those things are by their nature public records that VLCIA
is required to hand over in response to an open records request,
such as the one Matt Flumerfelt made which produced documents such as these:
Continue reading →