CR 16-054 Rule Text

Illinois’s inmate complaint rules states that inmates that are unable to speak or read English may request the procedure to be conducted in the inmate’s own language. (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.810 (d) (2)) Wisconsin’s DOC 310 does not contain any similar rules.

Illinois does not address the issue of confidentiality specifically. Wisconsin requires that all filed complaints must be kept confidential, though confidentiality may be waived by the inmate. (DOC 310.14 (1),(3))

Illinois allows records of the complaint process to be maintained in offender’s master file without restriction (20 Ill. Adm. Code § 504.860) whereas Wisconsin mandates that a record of the complaint process cannot be maintained in the inmate’s file unless a reviewing authority gives permission, or maintaining a record in the inmate’s file is reasonably necessary to investigate the complaint, administer a remedy, or for litigation purposes. (DOC 310.14 (2)-(4))

Illinois refers to people within state custody for correctional purposes as offenders. Wisconsin refers to people within state custody for correctional purposes as inmates. The Illinois system used to resolve inmate issues upon request is referred to as a grievance system. The Wisconsin system used to resolve inmate issues upon request is referred to as a complaint system.

2. Iowa

Iowa administrative code has only one provision that addresses an inmate complaint system. 201 IAC 50.21(3)(c) requires that an inmate complaint system be available to all prisoners and that prisoners unable to read English receive an explanation of the complaint process. (201 IAC 50.21 (3)) The complaint system must include at least one level of appeal, and a jail is allowed to limit the use of the system to ensure it does not become abused.

Iowa does not have any further administrative rules which govern the complaint process for inmates in prison. The Iowa department of corrections has issued a policy and procedure which addresses complaint procedures in institutions. (Policy Number IN-V-46 (eff. 1/2005))

3. Michigan

There are no Michigan statutes or administrative code rules that set out procedures to address complaint processes. However, MCL § 791.203 gives the director of corrections the power “to supervise and control the affairs of the department, and the several bureaus thereof.” Under this authority, Michigan’s department of corrections implemented Policy Directive 03.02.130 (eff. 7/2007) to address inmate complaints.

4. Minnesota

There is only one Minnesota administrative code rule that governs inmate complaint procedures. Minn. R. 2911.900 requires that inmates have access to a written complaint procedure that includes at least one level of appeal. Additionally, Minn. Stat. § 243.56 gives inmates the ability to communicate in writing with the facility’s chief executive officer and with the commissioner of corrections. Under this authority, Minnesota’s department of corrections implemented Policy 303.100 (eff. 9/2012) to address inmate complaints.

H. Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that DOC used in support of its determination of the rule’s fiscal effect on small businesses under s. 227.114, Stats.

The department of corrections has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses since the rule does not regulate small businesses as that term is defined in s. 227.114, Stats. See attached.

I. Any analysis and supporting documents that DOC used in support of the department’s determination of the proposed rule’s effect on small businesses or that was used when the DOC prepared an economic impact report.

Not applicable.

J. Effect on small businesses.

Not applicable.

K. Agency contact person.

Katharine Ariss, Assistant Legal Counsel, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 3099 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 7925, Madison, WI, 53707-7925; by phone: [phone]; or by email: [e-mail].

L. Place where comments were to be submitted and deadline for submission.

Written comments on the proposed rule were accepted and received consideration if received by December 23, 2016. Written comments were to be addressed to: Jeffrey Pugh, c/o Glen Mercier II DOC, P.O. Box 7925, Madison, WI 53707-7925, or by email: [e-mail].

FISCAL ESTIMATE. See Attached.

ANY STATEMENT, SUGGESTED CHANGES, OR OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO THE AGENCY BY THE SBRRB. N/A.

A COPY OF ANY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE AGENCY. See Attached.

A COPY OF ANY REVISED ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE AGENCY. N/A

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT. See Attached.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE RULE INCLUDING HOW THE RULE ADVANCES RELEVANT STATUTORY GOALS OR PURPOSES:

1. The department is seeking revision of ch. DOC 310 to reflect changes in law and correctional practice and to clarify provisions relating to the complaint process for inmates. The last full review of the chapter occurred November 30, 2002 Since then there have been many changes in procedures and practices due to developing law.

2. More details and a listing of significant changes can be found in the Plain Language Analysis Section of this document.

A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED RULE AND THE AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS, AND AN EXPLANATION OF ANY MODIFICATION MADE IN THE PROPOSED RULE AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT A PUBLIC HEARING:

Summary of comments and the department’s response to those comments:

1. Concerns expressed about limiting complaints to 25 per year.

Response: Accepted. The department decided to expand this limit to be one complaint per week.

2. Concerns expressed about 500-word limit.

Response: Rejected. The department decided the limit was reasonable and provided sufficient room for alleging a complaint.

3. Concern expressed about complaint process timelines.

Response: Rejected. The comment did not address specific timeline concerns, and the Department decided timelines addressed in rule were sufficient.

4. Concern expressed about lacking data to support changes.

Response: Accepted. The department reviewed data to support its decision to expand the previously drafted limit of 25 complaints per year, and modified that limit to be rather one per week.

5. Concern expressed about lack of an impartial third party involved in complaint

process.

Response: Rejected. The Department determined that inmate complaints would best be addressed as established in this rule.

6. Concern expressed about the postage cost for sending in complaints.

Response: Rejected. The Department determined that legal costs would not be properly addressed in this particular rule.

7. Concern expressed that portions of the rule were vague concerning s. DOC 310.07(1).

Response: Rejected. The department determined that the rule was not vague rather the process will vary per institution handbooks.

8. Concern expressed that the rule lacked flexibility for late complaints.