Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Jail Mail Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Jail officials approve mail-handling agreement to scan inmate mail, limit hard-copy photos

5469976 · July 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Officials voted to approve a contract with the jail’s tablet provider to scan incoming mail and photos for inmates, retain scanned files for a set period, and destroy most hard copies unless requested; legal mail will remain subject to a separate process and inmates may request originals from the third-party vendor for a fee.

Meeting attendees voted to approve a mail-handling agreement in which a third-party vendor will scan incoming letters and photographs for inmates instead of delivering most hard copies. The agreement, described at the meeting as part of the jail’s tablet services package, will allow the vendor to scan mail and hold originals for a limited period before destroying them unless an inmate or authorized requester obtains the original. “They scan the letters? Yeah. They scan the phone press? … They get to see them? Correct,” said Staff member (operations) during the discussion. Why it matters: jail staff said scanning aims to reduce contraband entering the facility and to cut costs compared with purchasing and operating a local mail scanner. Staff noted most jails use similar scanning systems and that legal mail will be handled differently to preserve attorney-client requirements. Board members and staff discussed retention windows for originals — for example, 7, 14 or 30 days — and how to notify inmates and correspondents. “We can put a restriction on how many days… 7, 14, 30 days,” said Staff member (operations). The vendor was described as operating through a third party based in Florida that scans and returns electronic copies within a day or so. On printing and obtaining originals, staff said inmates will be able to request printed copies but must pay for those copies; originals could be requested from the third‑party vendor for a fee. “If they have to pay for… They have to pay for the copies of it,” said Board member (member 2). Staff also said the jail does not provide in‑block printers, so most inmates will only have electronic access unless they request a hard copy. Legal mail: meeting comments repeatedly stressed that attorney mail would not be processed through the standard scanning pipeline. Staff said they will notify attorneys and legal aid providers of the new process so legal mail can be routed and opened in accordance with applicable legal-mail procedures. “Legal mail is that wouldn't come here… attorneys here that are sending mail still use the 407 mark,” said Staff member (operations). Notices and acknowledgement: staff said they will post notices on housing blocks and on the tablet system explaining the policy; inmates will have to acknowledge reading the notice before using the mail service. “We're gonna put that… the notification on the walls of every block… and on the tablet that they have to acknowledge that they've read it,” Staff member (operations) said. Costs and alternatives: staff compared the vendor-provided service with a previously considered local mail scanner, saying a local scanner had been estimated at roughly $130,000 and other solutions around $150,000; the staff presentation said the vendor’s scanning service is included in the existing tablet package at no additional fee. Formal action: a motion to approve the mail-handling agreement was made and recorded as carried during the meeting. The minutes do not include a roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt provided. Implementation steps and open questions: staff said they will circulate specific retention-period options, notify attorneys and families, and include the policy text on the tablet and housing areas. The transcript did not specify a final retention window, an exact vendor name, a written schedule for roll‑out, or the text of the final contract to be executed.