Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Commissary Telephone topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House Corrections Committee asks DOC for contract and testimony on commissary, phone systems after testimony citing 32% commission

3111568 · April 23, 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

Committee members said they will seek Department of Corrections testimony and contract records about the commissary provider’s fees and the flow of commissary dollars to recreation programs, and asked for details on telephone access and how calls are delivered to incarcerated people.

House Corrections and Institutions Committee members on April 23 said they will request Department of Corrections records and testimony about the contract for the state’s commissary and about phone access for people in custody, after witnesses and committee members raised questions about fees and how commission dollars are spent.

Committee members said they have taken testimony on H294, a bill described in the meeting as covering commissary and telephone use, and asked DOC to produce the contract it has with the vendor identified in testimony as “Keith” and to explain the flow of commissary dollars to programs such as the REC recreation program. “I think it would be useful to actually see the flow of the commission money and, and how that's being spent and who gets input and how it's spent,” said Speaker E, a committee member.

Members said testimony included a commission figure that was not reflected in the contract text the committee has reviewed. “The commission number which they finally disclosed does not appear in the contract at all,” Speaker E said. Committee discussion referenced a 32% commission that had been disclosed during testimony; the contract, members said, mentions a commission but not a percentage. Members also reported seeing a wide range of reported markups in materials the committee has reviewed, ranging in one example from roughly 200% down to about 2.5% on different items.

Committee members described specific follow-ups they want before advancing any bill: the DOC contract with the commissary vendor, a current itemized price list and the vendor’s profit/overhead information, the percentage of incarcerated people using the commissary, photographs or video of commissary operations, and an accounting of what portion of commissary receipts flow to recreation programs. The committee also asked DOC staff to determine whether state statute or other legal constraints would prevent operating an in‑house commissary rather than using the private vendor. “So John is the one that would need to see if there's any statutes that prevent in house,” said Speaker A, a committee member, referring to staff who will review legal constraints.

On telephone service, members said they want DOC to explain how phone access currently operates, whether calls are handled through wall phones, tablets, or other devices, and what programming (for reentry, education or support) is available through phone or tablet access. One committee member noted testimony that programming may be unavailable by phone until about 18 months before release and asked staff to clarify what uses of phones occur earlier in a person’s sentence beyond family contact. The committee also requested any peer‑reviewed studies the staff have on how increased phone access affects recidivism and mental health; the chair noted such evidence had been emailed to members.

Members said they will attempt to summon both DOC officials and representatives of the commissary vendor for testimony. Committee staff were directed to try to obtain contact information for the vendor and to invite the vendor’s sales representative; members said it would be preferable for the provider to appear rather than only relying on DOC’s characterization of the vendor contract. The committee scheduled additional work sessions to gather the requested materials and testimony, and discussed trying to have DOC appear the following day if possible.

The committee did not take a final vote on H294; members said they expect further fact‑finding. The next steps identified were: (1) DOC to provide the commissary contract and an accounting of commission flows; (2) DOC or vendor to provide an itemized price list and profit/overhead information; (3) DOC to report on telephone delivery systems (wall phones, tablets) and on programming availability; and (4) staff to seek vendor testimony, photographs/video of commissary operations, and the percentage of incarcerated people who use the commissary.