Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
New disciplinary oversight board says credit removals rose sharply; seeks staff and better system access
Loading...
Summary
The Inmate Disciplinary Oversight Board told the committee it has reviewed thousands of incidents since formation and helped increase disciplinary credit removals; the board asked for additional staff, an IT support position and fuller access to TDOC records to do its work.
The Inmate Disciplinary Oversight Board told the House Finance, Ways and Means Committee that its work to review disciplinary cases coincided with a large increase in sentence-credit removals and that the panel needs staff and better system access to sustain and scale its review process.
Director Stahl, accompanied by board chair Jerry Vassbinder and other board members, said the board reviews grant, denial and removal decisions for sentence credits across the state's 14 correctional facilities. Stahl said the board—s monthly workload had expanded; she told the committee that in calendar 2024 the department removed "more than 320,000 credits ... from more than 2,200 inmates," and that the oversight board itself had added roughly 900 credit days through second-level review.
Why it matters: board members and several legislators framed the oversight work as a public-safety measure intended to ensure inmates who repeatedly commit serious disciplinary infractions do not retain credits that would shorten their incarceration.
Board requests and operations: the board asked for a full-time deputy director and a part-time IT manager to handle a heavy manual workload. Stahl and board chair Jerry Vassbinder said nine volunteer board members have reviewed more than 11,000 class A incidents in 2024 and that manual extraction and reconciliation of data from the department—s Tomas (eTOMA) system is time-consuming.
On matrix and sanctions: Vassbinder described a new, stricter sanction matrix developed with the Department of Correction that reduces the previous upper bounds that left "0" in early steps; under the revised approach, a first offense for some class A infractions carries a nonzero baseline of credit loss and escalates on repeated offenses. Vassbinder said the matrix allows, for serious offenses causing bodily harm to an officer or another inmate, taking "up to 5 years" of sentence credits and noted the board looks closely for repeat offenders: "a person . . . that has 8 class A infractions in the last 12 months, each one of his will lose a year at least of sentence credits," he said.
Access, cooperation and constraints: the board reported generally cooperative relations with TDOC but said it had not been granted full screen-level access to the department—s ThomA system. Stahl said some screens requested (for example, visitation records and other disciplinary context) were not provided because TDOC determined those screens fell outside the board—s statutory mandate; board members said statutory language could be clarified if necessary.
Victims and outreach: the board said it has begun notifying corrections of release-date mismatches arising from credit accounting and that it has received public contacts and victim input. Stahl said the board can be reached through its website and that public meetings are held; lawmakers said they want improved pathways so victims and district attorneys can flag cases for review.
Ending note: the board asked for recurring supplemental funding for a small staff increase and noted the workload of nine volunteer board members and two staff is generating a heavy manual burden that limits the capacity for more proactive review.
