Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inmate Payment Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Visitor criticizes jail payment kiosk, alleges hiring irregularities
Summary
At the Lawrence County Prison Board meeting a visitor said the jail's payment kiosk malfunctions, charges excessive fees and exposed her financial accounts; she also alleged improper hiring for a deputy warden post and said she will seek outside investigation if the board does not act.
Terry Bridal, a visitor who identified herself during the public-comment period at a Lawrence County Prison Board meeting, criticized the jail's inmate-payment kiosk and said she would ask outside authorities to investigate staffing decisions if the board did not act.
"My issues go back probably 6, 8 months regarding the kiosks problems with it and why it exists," Bridal told the board, saying the kiosk sometimes forces users to submit banking details to vendors overseas and that she has evidence of subsequent fraud: "Both my bank account ended up being hacked. My credit card ended up being hacked, which I have on record and have the forms and so forth to document this." She said fees were excessive: "If I wanna send $25 through your system, I'm paying $35." Bridal also questioned the hiring process for a deputy warden and said she planned to file complaints with the auditor general and the attorney general if the board did not address the issues.
A jail staff member responded that the facility offers multiple ways to place funds on an inmate's account and described a no‑fee option. "We offer 4 different ways to put the money on to the inmates' accounts," the staff member said, citing accesscorrections.com and a phone option as two fee-bearing, near-immediate methods and noting a free option: money orders received and manually posted by jail staff. The staff member said the facility uses a commissary vendor and that the lobby kiosk and other services carry service charges because they are fast.
Board members acknowledged the complaint and said they had looked into kiosk problems earlier in the year; one member said a kiosk replacement had occurred in January. No formal action or investigation was announced during the meeting.
The public comment highlights two distinct concerns raised at the meeting: (1) a visitor's claim of repeated kiosk failures, high fees and alleged financial intrusion tied to third-party vendor processing, and (2) an allegation that a deputy‑warden hiring process was improper. Board staff described the facility's posted options for adding funds and said money orders, though slower to process, remain a fee-free method.
The board did not vote on the visitor's request during the meeting; the speaker said she would pursue outside complaints if the matter is not resolved.
