News, Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona. (Phoenix: felony, purchasing)

[kdog]

Originally Posted by roundball

That's the problem. This $25 fee does not go straight towards public run prisons. It goes into a special fund that only the legislature can dole out.

Originally Posted by roundball

SB 1621, Sec. 13, 41-797. Department of corrections building renewal fund
(private prisons are eligible for these funds.)

Thank you. I'm not seeing how this supports your statement about the legislature doling out the funds though. What is says is, "THE DIRECTOR SHALL USE THE MONIES IN THE FUND FOR BUILDING RENEWAL", also "THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. " I'm assuming "the director" being referenced here is the director of the prison. At least it appears that way in reading other parts of the bill.

Here's the section you referenced.

Sec. 13. Title 41, chapter 4, article 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is
11 amended by adding section 41-797, to read:
12 41-797. Department of corrections building renewal fund
13 A. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BUILDING RENEWAL FUND IS ESTABLISHED
14 CONSISTING OF MONIES DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-230, SECTION 41-1604,
15 SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 3 AND SECTIONS 41-1604.02, 41-1604.03 AND 41-1624.
16 THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO
17 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION AND ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
18 35-190 RELATING TO LAPSING OF APPROPRIATIONS.
19 B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL USE THE MONIES IN THE FUND FOR BUILDING RENEWAL
20 PROJECTS THAT REPAIR OR REWORK BUILDINGS AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
21 ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THAT RESULT
22 IN MAINTAINING A BUILDING'S EXPECTED USEFUL LIFE. MONIES IN THE FUND MAY NOT
23 BE USED FOR NEW BUILDING ADDITIONS, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITIONS, LANDSCAPING
24 AND AREA BEAUTIFICATION, DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF A BUILDING AND, EXCEPT AS
25 PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION C OF THIS SECTION, ROUTINE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE.
26 C. THE DIRECTOR MAY USE UP TO EIGHT PER CENT OF THE ANNUAL
27 EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUND FOR ROUTINE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE.

[jimj]

But I thought the charge was to cover the cost of the background checks? If that's the case shouldn't it be used to pay the wages of the personnel that DO the checking instead of a profit center or maintenance slush fund?
Now if they'd said "visitors cause wear and tear to the visitor rooms etc so we need the fee to keep up those areas" then it might just maybe make a little sense.
This is a tax plain and simple extracted from unpopular people who can't fight back, levied because they can't get more from the general public and know as long as someone else is paying the public will be fine with it.
BTW, I don't know anyone in prison nor do I visit there BUT I have a big problem with these so called public officials picking on any single segment of the population just because they can.

[roundball]

Originally Posted by kdog

Thank you. I'm not seeing how this supports your statement about the legislature doling out the funds though.
16 THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADMINISTER THE FUND. MONIES IN THE FUND ARE SUBJECT TO
17 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION

The line right after

[kdog]

Originally Posted by roundball

The line right after

The way I read it is that the "LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION" species that the money is to be used by the director to improve the building. They're pretty specific exactly how the money is to be used by the director, are they not? I suppose that the legislature has the final authority, but the default case assigns it to the director. I freely admit that I'm from an expert in interpreting legislative bills. Maybe Observer will chime in with her analysis as she seems pretty savvy in legislative law.

[roundball]

maybe. Like I said before, maybe I'm a bit to cynical.

[Java Jolt]

Bear in mind that this charge will be paid for by the visitors of the prisoners, the inmates won't have to shell out a dime.

The visitors are not the criminals, why stick them with this charge?

It sounds like another ploy by our state government to target a certain group, and then use the collected money for their own special interests while claiming the state is too broke to pay for improved schools, healthcare, or transportation.

The knuckleheads in the state government are the real criminals.

[BrianH]

I am sure the State would have no problem taking money off of an inmates books if he wanted to pay.
But then again that would go against the "I love you, hey can you put money on my books" routine that they love to do.

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

Bear in mind that this charge will be paid for by the visitors of the prisoners, the inmates won't have to shell out a dime.

The visitors are not the criminals, why stick them with this charge?

It sounds like another ploy by our state government to target a certain group, and then use the collected money for their own special interests while claiming the state is too broke to pay for improved schools, healthcare, or transportation.

The knuckleheads in the state government are the real criminals.

"why stick them with this charge?"

You make it sound like they are being FORCED or REQUIRED to visit their loved one behind bars. NOT THE CASE. It is no more required than buying a carton of cigarettes or a case of beer to name just a few. Do you feel the same way towards paying a few to obtain a Driver's License?

The $25 Background Check Fee is only assessed to those who have chosen to exercise the privilege of visiting an inmate.

[observer53]

I think what that language means is that while the DOC director administers the fund, if the legislature decides to "appropriate" it for some other purpose, it can. I suspect that provision is in response to all the lawsuits that were lost regarding agencies complaining when the Legislature just came in and took money designated for another purpose to plug holes in the budget.

[Java Jolt]

Originally Posted by Bummer

"why stick them with this charge?"

You make it sound like they are being FORCED or REQUIRED to visit their loved one behind bars. NOT THE CASE. It is no more required than buying a carton of cigarettes or a case of beer to name just a few. Do you feel the same way towards paying a few to obtain a Driver's License?

The $25 Background Check Fee is only assessed to those who have chosen to exercise the privilege of visiting an inmate.

Nobody is forced or required to visit loved ones in a hospital either but hospitals don't charge visitation fees, why should prisons?

It is different than purchasing beer, smokes, or even a drivers license because those are goods.

Call it a tax, a service charge, or what have you, this inmate visitation fee is targeting one specific group, and I see it as another easy money grab for the state to use for their own special interests.