[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6256077,"mediaKeyId","3159554-586a04262bdcacc5f9d6b8456f5819f6","parentId",3159554,"title","Committee questions commissary markups, recreation fund use and oversight in corrections bill","audioSeconds",1014,"startMs",2406380,"endMs",3421000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3159554-586a04262bdcacc5f9d6b8456f5819f6&start=2406&end=3421","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3159554-586a04262bdcacc5f9d6b8456f5819f6/thumbnail_2406380.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6256077/Vermont/Committee-questions-commissary-markups-recreation-fund-use-and-oversight-in-corrections-bill","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256077-95d4d7d790936ccdb92f2367b589a2b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775879028&Signature=fAVX7sdMyfxXdJFWSv7yk83R0BspzkuGjCOHjDjiIaLvrKi4upZ3UysKMckkdiYLROXkZIHyz7wYVyUW3q6dxCIg1jyylS185iJ9kt37FFthrqs1r2~9LHkdS7oa0uekyZQlUP0iAPktuJ~2ShBuIFxaJ2jTVeg5-PB1lJBdje1luUBeItIOmkrfTKMxSNJK4EjITIbSlI0WRMKjgTHgF3G85yl3SCbSErxRVFBsyAe4nZBNOpwBWKnqVtMSYAEXzpzb~7mpcUMumKpUXCRRw3zL4AIhk420LhdnrluYxqoVQ6UNCTb3Y5D9~WvIt4~O513YHSp-9faMvuaQODrdXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-30T19:55:59.837Z","article","Committee member (Speaker 1) moved the session to commissary language after telecommunications, and members spent substantial time scrutinizing the draft bill's new commissary provisions and the inmate recreation special fund.

Why it matters: the bill would codify aspects of commissary contracts and how revenue generated from commissary sales and telephone commissions is deposited and spent. Committee members said they need a clearer picture of dollar values, how funds are dispensed, who has decision-making authority, and whether those funds could be used to reduce access barriers to communications.

Committee members said the draft creates a new section governing commissary services and instructs the department to establish an inmate recreation special fund from revenues on telephone and commissary commissions and sales. The bill text indicated those funds may be used for postage, oversight and accounting of inmate cash accounts, and at the commissioner's discretion to hire persons or buy services and equipment “to establish or enhance recreation activities.” The draft also allows an inmate recreation fund committee to create a loan fund governed by administrative rules.

Members requested concrete accounting. The committee discussed examples of commissary markups drawn from a small sample the staff provided: a 1.5-ounce bag of potato chips priced at $1.35 (a ~45% markup compared with an online catalog sample), a 5.3-ounce bag of candies and other examples with markups ranging across items (one example of ramen showed ~193% markup in staff-supplied comparisons). Committee members said markup percentages varied by facility and questioned the fairness of tying commissary pricing to local convenience stores near each facility instead of a statewide standard.

Several members asked whether commissary commissions (the committee heard a reported commission percentage of about 32%) are explicitly stated in contracts and where that money flows. Committee member (Speaker 1) said the contract materials provided to the committee did not include commission percentages, and members said they had to request that number multiple times.

Committee members also debated whether commissary revenue should be used to subsidize telecommunications costs for incarcerated people. Some members suggested that funds collected from commissions could provide a partial revenue stream to reduce per-minute or per-message charges; others raised equity concerns about tying recreation funding and inmate well-being to the volume of commissary purchases.

The committee asked DOC for an accounting of commissary revenues and expenditures, clarification on who controls rec-fund spending (committee materials indicate a facility-level inmate recreation fund committee may have input), the dollar value of commissions by facility, and whether any administrative fees or overhead are deducted before funds reach the rec fund. Members asked DOC to explain how commissary is defined operationally and whether commissary practice differs by facility because of space or local arrangements.

No votes were taken. The committee directed staff to request DOC provide written accounting and to schedule DOC to appear at the next meeting to testify on commissary contracts, commission percentages, rec-fund balances and governance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","HCI-2025-04-30-2:15 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Corrections & Institutions Committee examined new bill language on commissary services and the inmate recreation fund, asking DOC for an accounting of commissary commissions, price markups, how commission revenue is directed and whether commissary revenue could be used to subsidize telecommunications.","taxTitle","Corrections & Institutions, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30574,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6256083,"Committee reviews bill to shift inmate telecommunications costs to department, raises questions about access and oversight",2352,57684,2410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3159554-586a04262bdcacc5f9d6b8456f5819f6&start=57&end=2410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3159554-586a04262bdcacc5f9d6b8456f5819f6/thumbnail_57684.jpg","/articles/6256083/Vermont/Committee-reviews-bill-to-shift-inmate-telecommunications-costs-to-department-raises-questions-about-access-and-oversight","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256083-38f78d82d24df2b4b5dc1c361a78f0b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775879028&Signature=om61o-iY1Lt4HqQHT3jsuwJLcMsLsKIEzI2tooTizy5sWjLrTDGPU8qJldFbUKCjngyLJ5rb640a-8GeA1Fkk6KWl8oVAzwlD0EWwX6LEZMpvPXuDhnuvFfJwC7CHSUtWsuwGkHZBJlVQH9k5DIESmJmy-iHQt8t60FJII34Cm1o6~KrCJuZOWCQwEzIZiQdWOwl0Y2g2MPtBua3UcW2SEh45IqYpCpl76Thcf6kKtP5GeDq5yVOeC9kLEVyww5cTrDinKrF8lLgX~4wwYHz42TDwqNNyx48JPlxogIqpDddgSZfAHKrWRiWBQw4zyzmCmtucMnILNQwfEbSO-ZZ4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee member (Speaker 1) said Wednesday that the Corrections & Institutions Committee would spend the session going “through the bill” that would change how telecommunications are provided and paid for in state correctional facilities, and asked the Department of Corrections to return with clarifications.

The committee discussed shifting the expense for inmate telephone, tablet messaging and video calls from individuals to the Department of Corrections (DOC). Committee members raised questions about who pays under current contracts, which calls are monitored, whether incoming calls are allowed, how approved-call lists are created, and how the change would affect usage and department costs.

Why it matters: the bill would alter who bears the cost for in-custody communications and could change the volume of calls and video sessions, with budget implications for DOC and access implications for incarcerated people and their families.

Committee members cited figures from DOC documents that in December of the previous year incarcerated people made roughly 80,000 phone calls and about 3,100 video calls in a single month; the bill text cited an estimated current annual cost of roughly $1.3 million to cover calls at prevailing usage, and committee members noted testimony from Massachusetts suggesting usage — and therefore costs — could rise if the state pays for calls.

Committee discussion focused on several technical and policy questions. Speakers described current rates in the DOC document as 6¢ per minute for voice calls and 25¢ per tablet message; committee members debated whether the tablet video per-minute rate shown in the document (rendered there as “0.025¢ per minute” in a place where a notation error was suspected) should be confirmed with DOC before publication. Committee member (Speaker 5) said, “I don't wanna presume that more calls is inherently a bad thing,” and urged the committee to look at research on whether reducing cost barriers increases contact with support systems.

Members asked DOC to clarify operational details the committee said were not clear from the bill text and DOC materials: whether tablets are issued individually or shared, which communications are monitored and which are confidential, how approved-contact lists are created and who signs them off, whether incoming calls are allowed (other than calls from attorneys), whether DOC bears any hidden costs for the system, and what limitations exist on call length and frequency.

Committee members also pressed for clarity about the vendors and the contract terms. The transcript records the current vendor name as “Vipass” and a forthcoming contractor referred to as “IC Solutions” (members used both names); committee members asked DOC to provide the contract, commission percentages and the vendor pricing schedules so the committee could compare costs and competition in the market.

The committee directed staff to invite DOC to the next meeting to answer the outstanding questions. Committee member (Speaker 1) summarized the list of items DOC should address: whether calls are on tablets or wall phones, how the approved-call list is created and approved, what the current free-call allowances are under the new contract, whether incoming calls are allowed and how they are monitored, whether there is any cost to DOC in the current contracts, limitations on call length, and how tablets and contact lists are provisioned during booking.

The committee did not take a vote on the bill during the meeting. Members said they would request DOC return the following week and supply the contract documents and corrected, itemized pricing and usage data to support the proposed statutory change.","A legislative Corrections & Institutions committee reviewed draft language that would move the cost of inmate telephone and tablet communications from incarcerated people to the Department of Corrections, and asked DOC to return with details on costs, vendor contracts, monitoring and equitable access.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee questions commissary markups, recreation fund use and oversight in corrections bill

Committee reviews bill to shift inmate telecommunications costs to department, raises questions about access and oversight