Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee questions commissary markups, recreation fund use and oversight in corrections bill
Loading...
Summary
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.
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.
