Tag Archives: Law

Why did CCA pick Lowndes County for a private prison?

Apparently CCA picked Lowndes County for a private prison for reasons that were not what VLCIA’s consultant seemed to think would influence the selection.

According to Valdosta-Lowndes County, GA / CCA Partnership: Talking Points (undated, but it refers to “The agreement formalized by the Industrial Authority on 8/17”),

The Valdosta/Lowndes site became the primary due to the local and regional workforce, collaboration of local leadership, site characteristics, 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 Decatur County. More about that in another post.

-jsq

Apparently VLCIA misunderstood what CCA was looking for

Apparently VLCIA, or one of its expert consultants, thought CCA was looking for a thriving county economy in choosing a private prison location. That doesn’t seem to be what happened.

Economic Impact of Project Excel by Clifford A. Lipscomb, Ph.D., 2 November 2009:

The VLCIA has noted that Project Excel is considering other locations. Below I provide a comparison of key economic indicators for these alternative counties — Grady and Decatur.
Table 1. Characteristics of Selected Counties
VariableDecaturGradyLowndes
Population, 2008 28,82325,115104,583
% Pop w/ Bachelor’s degree 12.1%10.6%19.7%
Median HH Income, 2007 32,65033,06038,666
Persons below poverty, 2007 22.5%22.2%20.5%
Persons white non-Hispanic, 2008 54.8%60.6%60.0%
In closing, it appears that Project Excel is an excellent candidate for location in Lowndes County.
So which other county did CCA actually pick? Continue reading →

CCA documents from VLCIA

All the CCA documents VLCIA provided in response to Matt Flumerfelt’s Open Records Request are 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.

-jsq

Missing: CCA Submission of Preliminary Specifications

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 the NTP and is moving on with implementing the project. Seems to me the community should be informed, one way or the other.

-jsq

How the Industrial Authority can stop the CCA private prison: no third extension by 13 March 2012

Apparently the Industrial Authority can end the contract for CCA’s private prison six weeks from now, by simply not doing anything until then.

CCA has already paid for two extensions on their Option Agreement for land purchase. The Second Extension Term was paid for in March 2010 and forwarded to the land owner. Here’s video of Col. Ricketts announcing it to the VLCIA board 15 March 2011. That second extension expires 13 March 2012, six weeks from today.

A Third Extension Term is possible, but has to be negotiated. Here’s what Purchase and Development Agreement of 17 August 201 says:

1.4.2.3. 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 the problem with Industrial Authority confidentiality agreements

In the confidentiality agreeement 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 Evaluation Period.
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 acknowledge that.

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 →

Pop the drug war balloon: legalize and regulate the drug trade —Terry Nelson, LEAP

LTE in the WSJ, 21 January 2012:
The article illustrates what I learned over my 30-year career as a federal agent: Cracking down in one place doesn’t make drugs disappear, it only moves the trade elsewhere. This so-called “balloon effect,” combined with the insatiable demand for drugs across the globe, means that no level of law-enforcement skill or dedication can make a significant dent.

The only way to pop the proverbial balloon is to legalize and regulate the drug trade, which would eliminate the opportunity to make enormous black-market profits. It wasn’t easy for me to come to this revelation after dedicating so many years to enforcing drug laws, but it is common sense. Law-enforcement officers don’t have to chase gangsters selling booze from town to town because we ended the failed experiment of alcohol prohibition decades ago. It is time we do the same for other drugs.

Terry Nelson
Executive Board Member
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Granbury, Texas

And that will pop the incarceration bubble, as well, according to CCA’s own 2010 report to the SEC. -jsq

“We’ve been chosen” —Barbara Stratton

Received Saturday on Public hearing doesn’t mean the public gets to know anything. -jsq
I’ve made these same comments before. It’s just part of the attitude that is popular with some elected & appointed officials “We’ve been chosen. Now go away & don’t ask any questions about what we are doing until it’s time to vote again.” I don’t think all the individuals share the attitude, but some do & over time it has become standard procedure. Hopefully, as more citizens pay attention & ask for more insight procedure will adjust. There is a reason for open meetings & sunshine laws & it’s not so citizens can listen to or read about decisions based on information they are not allowed to hear or observe.

-Barbara Stratton

Cobb EMC backing off of coal at Plant Washington

Could Plant Ben Hill be next?

Kim Isaza wrote for MDJOnline yesterday, Cobb EMC’s pursuit cools on coal-fired power plant

Cobb EMC’s interest in building the coal-fired Plant Washington appears to be dead, and the company has begun soliciting bids for its future power supplies.

The electric cooperative has already spent $13.5 million toward permitting for the coal plant, which would be a new direction for the company from simply delivering electricity to also generating it.

On Jan. 24, Dean Alford, a spokesman for the Power 4 Georgians consortium of EMCs behind Plant Washington, is slated to address the Cobb EMC board, presumably in an effort to save the plant, for which his company, Allied Energy, got a no-bid development contract from P4G.

The Cobb EMC board could decide at that meeting whether to put any more money toward the project.

Many details of the 850-megawatt Plant Washington, including exactly why it is needed and any firm idea of what it will cost to build and operate, have been kept quiet, sparking critical questions from EMC members and environmental groups. It was proposed under former EMC head Dwight Brown, who is facing 34 criminal charges of theft and racketeering relating to his leadership at EMC.

So can somebody come up with an 850 MW solar plant to propose by 24 Jan 2012?

-jsq

Who gets to serve on the Brooks County School Board —VDT

The VDT caught up with the TV stations today on the Quitman 10 story, and provided updates and context they did not.

David Rodock wrote on the front page of the VDT today, Gov. suspends `Quitman Ten’ officials,

On Tuesday, Deal issued his order prior to the Brooks County Board of Education’s first meeting of 2012. Dr. Nancy Whitfield-Dennard, Elizabeth Diane Thomas and Linda Faye Troutman were notified of this suspension at approximately 4:30 p.m., according to sources.
That’s a bit more context than the TV stations provided.

The VDT also says who gets to serve instead:

Following the governor’s suspension this week, Brooks County school board member Brad Shealy, who is also an assistant Southern district attorney, was appointed to serve as president of the board with board member Larry Cunningham serving as vice president. Shealy served many years as the school board president prior to Whitfield-Dennard being named president last year.
That seems to be the same Brad Shealy who used to be chairman until the recent election.

The VDT adds this context: Continue reading →