H 4495 Session 109 (1991-1992)
H 4495 Concurrent Resolution, By J.W. Tucker, J.M. Baxley, D.M. Bruce,
J.G. Felder, Harrison, Haskins, T.E. Huff, J.R. Klapman, D.E. Martin,
J.G. Mattos, McKay, M. McLeod, Meacham, Riser, T.F. Rogers, Sharpe, R. Smith,
J.J. Snow, C.H. Stone, S.S. Wofford and D.A. Wright
A Concurrent Resolution to request the Attorney General of South Carolina, in
consultation with the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and other
necessary State officials, to seek that relief he considers appropriate and
attainable from the requirements of the consent decree in the case of "Nelson
V. Leeke".
03/04/92 House Introduced HJ-16
03/04/92 House Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-16
03/19/92 House Committee report: Favorable Invitations and
Memorial Resolutions HJ-2
03/25/92 House Adopted, sent to Senate HJ-47
03/26/92 Senate Introduced SJ-9
03/26/92 Senate Referred to Committee on Corrections and Penology SJ-12
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 19, 1992
H. 4495
Introduced by REPS. Tucker, Felder, McLeod, Sharpe, Haskins, Wright,
Riser, Harrison, Klapman, Huff, Wofford, Smith, Snow, Stone, Bruce,
Meacham, Baxley, McKay, Mattos, D. Martin and Rogers
S. Printed 3/19/92--H.
Read the first time March 4, 1992.
THE COMMITTEE ON
INVITATIONS AND MEMORIAL
RESOLUTIONS
To whom was referred a Concurrent Resolution (H. 4495), to request
the Attorney General of South Carolina, in consultation with the
Commissioner of The Department of Corrections and other necessary
State officials, to seek that relief, etc., respectfully
REPORT:
That they have duly and carefully considered the same, and
recommend that the same do pass:
SAMUEL R. FOSTER, for Committee.
A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION
TO REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND OTHER
NECESSARY STATE OFFICIALS, TO SEEK THAT RELIEF HE
CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE AND ATTAINABLE FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSENT DECREE IN THE CASE OF
NELSON V. LEEKE.
Whereas, on January 8, 1985, in the case of Gary Wayne Nelson, et
al., vs. William D. Leeke, Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Corrections, and Members of South Carolina Board of
Corrections, a consent decree was entered into which obligated the
State of South Carolina acting through the Department and Board of
Corrections to take certain actions to alleviate the problems caused by
prison overcrowding in this State; and
Whereas, this consent decree contained many varied and comprehensive
provisions including those relating to:
(1) a minimum amount of square feet of sleeping space per
inmate and a prohibition against double and triple-celling under
certain conditions;
(2) restrictions on ward or cubicle-style housing and
restrictions on areas deemed suitable for housing of inmates;
(3) restrictions on the use of temporary structures for housing
inmates;
(4) a maximum count on the number of prisoners then existing
facilities may house, the maximum count for future housing, and
a schedule for renovating existing facilities and for construction
of new facilities;
(5) staffing and training requirements of employees for safety
and security purposes;
(6) required standards for health and food services for
inmates; and
(7) vocational training programs for inmates and special
standards for female inmates under certain circumstances; and
Whereas, the State of South Carolina and the Board and Department of
Corrections, since the execution of this consent decree, have made a
good faith effort with all the resources available to comply with the
terms of the decree; and
Whereas, the problem of prison overcrowding is nevertheless not
improving. Corrections officials estimate that the institutional population
of the Department of Corrections is growing at a rate of one hundred
fifty inmates per month, may increase more rapidly than this with the
addition of new circuit judges, and by 1997 will rise to twenty-three
thousand inmates far exceeding the ability of existing and planned
facilities to accommodate them; and
Whereas, South Carolina has committed significant and scarce financial
resources to this problem. The Department of Corrections' 1991-92
appropriation is $254,515,015 of which $205,154,267 comes from state
general funds. Since 1985, the State has spent almost two hundred forty-two million dollars for prison construction, and under the 1992 bond
bill, the General Assembly has approved $105,057,866 for the
Department of Corrections for the following capital improvement
purposes:
(a) Lee County Institution
Additional Funding$23,000,000
(b) Turbeville and Ridgeland
Institutions 22,250,000
(c) 10 96-Bed Additions 6,464,933
(d) 1130-Bed Medium Institution 37,750,000
(e) 576-Bed Replacement -- Aiken
Youth Center 14,300,000
(f) General Renovations 1,292,933
Total $105,057,866; and
Whereas, as large as the construction costs are for new prisons, the
operating costs are much more. It is not uncommon for the cost to
operate the prisons to exceed the construction costs in just three years.
If the facilities last twenty-one years, for example, their total operating
costs will be at least seven times as great as their construction costs; and
Whereas, building more prison space and continued compliance with all
the other requirements of the Nelson consent decree pose a serious fiscal
problem for the State at a time of declining revenue growth, coupled
with a demand for other services. The percentage of the state budget
spent on corrections in South Carolina is increasing every year. As
recently as 1988, South Carolina ranked seventh among all states in the
percentage of its state budget spent on corrections; and
Whereas, the current economic recession is making it very difficult, if
not impossible, for the State to meet all the needs of its citizens
including provisions for adequate health care, education, job and
employment opportunities and countless other deserving demands. If the
Department of Corrections remains bound to the full requirements of the
Nelson consent decree and the State of South Carolina to the funding of
these requirements, this without question will impose a hardship on
others truly in need; and
Whereas, the members of the General Assembly therefore believe that
because of the above reasons it is in the best interest of the people of
South Carolina acting through the Attorney General to request
appropriate judicial relief from the Nelson consent decree or
amendments to the decree so that South Carolina may have the resources
to try to deal with this very difficult and complicated problem as well as
having the resources to try to deal with the other very serious problems
now facing our State. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:
That the members of the General Assembly hereby request the Attorney
General of South Carolina, in consultation with the Commissioner of the
Department of Corrections and other necessary state officials, to seek
that relief he considers appropriate and attainable from the requirements
of the consent decree in the case of Nelson v. Leeke.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Attorney General.
-----XX----- |