Current Status Introducing Body:House Bill Number:4495 Primary Sponsor:Tucker Committee Number:03 Type of Legislation:CR Subject:Nelson V. Leeke Residing Body:Senate Current Committee:Corrections and Penology Computer Document Number:CYY/18764.SD Introduced Date:Mar 04, 1992 Last History Body:Senate Last History Date:Mar 26, 1992 Last History Type:Introduced, referred to Committee Scope of Legislation:Statewide All Sponsors:Tucker Felder McLeod Sharpe Haskins Wright Riser Harrison Klapman Huff Wofford Smith Snow Stone Bruce Meacham Baxley McKay Mattos D. Martin Rogers Type of Legislation:Concurrent Resolution
Bill Body Date Action Description CMN
---- ------ ------------ ------------------------------ ---
4495 Senate Mar 26, 1992 Introduced, referred to 03
Committee
4495 House Mar 25, 1992 Adopted, sent to Senate
4495 House Mar 19, 1992 Committee Report: Favorable 24
4495 House Mar 04, 1992 Introduced, referred to 24
Committee
View additional legislative information at the LPITS web site.
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.
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
That they have duly and carefully considered the same, and recommend that the same do pass:
SAMUEL R. FOSTER, for Committee.
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.