Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand prison vocational construction work draws mixed reaction from unions and DOC
Summary
House Bill 572 would let Montana Correctional Enterprises undertake larger construction projects and expand vocational programming at Montana State Prison; DOC officials framed the change as a way to create pre‑apprenticeship training tied to industry demand, while unions urged sideboards to prevent competition with private contractors.
Representative John Fitzpatrick presented House Bill 572 at the department's request, describing changes to Montana Correctional Enterprises that would raise the construction-project threshold for inmate crews from $200,000 to $1,000,000, remove a dealer network requirement for some sales and broaden language to allow more tailored vocational and educational programming.
Fitzpatrick said the goal is vocational training that matches private‑sector demand and leaves the prison's work focused on prefabrication or other tasks that would not directly compete with local contractors: “The bill and its changes are not seeking to build a construction program that's going to be competing with private sector enterprises,” he said.
Scott Eichner, rehabilitation chief at the Department of Corrections, and Natalie Smith, the department CFO, appeared in support and described conceptual plans for pre‑apprenticeship models run on prison grounds. Eichner said some existing contracts (for example, assembly work for a company called Under Canvas) show how industry partnerships can provide a training pipeline when paired with community apprenticeship programs.
Several labor union witnesses urged caution. Jay Reardon (Mon [union]) and Al Ekblad (Operating Engineers Local 400) said the bill as drafted lacks sideboards to prevent prison work from competing with private contractors and could create unintended consequences if project scope expands. Reardon warned that the bill's language does not restrict projects to on‑site, training‑only work and that the cap increase could be used repeatedly to expand outside work. Operating Engineers asked for explicit pathways from prison training into registered apprenticeship programs before supporting the bill.
Mae Simmons, testifying as a proponent with equity concerns, said the bill as written appears to leave out women incarcerated in other facilities and asked the committee to consider how programming would reach women and contract facilities.
Committee members questioned how the enterprise fund model would cover start‑up materials and staffing; Eichner said Montana Correctional Enterprises is an enterprise fund that reinvests sales revenue into materials and equipment and that some industry‑partner programs pay prevailing wage when required. Members also asked whether programs would require inmates to leave secure grounds; Eichner said planned construction/training work would take place on prison property and that inmates would not be used to perform off‑site construction.
No committee vote was taken. Legislators and witnesses discussed possible amendments to tighten language, add explicit training and apprenticeship pathways, and clarify whether and how women's facilities would be included.
