Commissioners direct staff to negotiate stricter MOU language with DOC for proposed prerelease site

Flathead County commissioners on April 16 reviewed a memorandum of understanding draft from the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) related to operations at a proposed DOC-managed prerelease facility and instructed county staff to seek clarifications and stronger protections before agreeing to terms.

County Administrator Pete Melnick said he had circulated the DOC draft and a comparative analysis and that Charity Yonker, an attorney for the DOC, had most recently provided the MOU text. “If you guys want to come up with a counter proposal, I can send it back to the DOC,” Melnick told commissioners.

Commissioners focused on several substantive items: the need to define “sanctioned beds,” clarify when someone could be transferred directly from the county jail to the prerelease rather than to another DOC facility, and how notification and notification timing would work. One commissioner urged that definitions be clear before approving any MOU language: “I don't want them transferred out of our jail as a stop gap between there and... Deer Lodge,” the commissioner said.

The board also debated who should serve as the designated county liaison in the MOU. Some commissioners recommended including both the sheriff’s office and the county attorney to ensure county access to court records and criminal-history detail; others discussed the idea of a citizen panel but expressed concern that an ad hoc panel would be advisory only and might have limited access to protected information.

Commissioners asked staff to seek answers or negotiate the following items before further action: a clear definition of sanctioned beds and local jail transfers; a named county liaison arrangement that includes both the sheriff and the county attorney (rather than only a single citizen contact); firm reporting requirements on placement, recidivism and other outcome data, with an agreed definition and time frame for measuring recidivism; and explicit penalties or remedies for noncompliance, including reference to county processes for revoking conditional-use approvals if necessary. Staff noted that an MOU is not the same as a contract; commissioners asked staff to begin negotiations from a “gold standard” position (seeking contractual terms and penalties) and to request that the DOC agree to enforceable provisions.

No final agreement or vote occurred at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to begin negotiating with the DOC’s attorneys and to return with a draft MOU that clarifies the above items and specifies reporting metrics and enforcement language.

Ending: Commissioners emphasized the need for data and enforceable remedies so the county and the public can judge whether the prerelease center meets stated goals (for example, reducing recidivism) and so the county retains remedies if obligations are not met.