Prisons are full. Now what?

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

When critical needs aren’t being met, solutions come as a result of two activities: making hard choices and thinking creatively. With prisons, Arkansas has reached the point where it needs to do both.

The state’s prison system is now so full that about 2,500 state convicts are being housed at county jails that were never built for that purpose. The state reimburses counties $28 a day per inmate, the same rate as in 2001, despite counties’ average cost rising to $49 a day. Adding insult to injury, the state doesn’t reimburse counties until the inmate is discharged from jail or moved to the penitentiary. As a result of all this, counties are owed $7.7 million.

County governments, needless to say, are not happy about this. Testifying before four legislative committees Tuesday, Jackson County Sheriff David Lucas, president of the Arkansas Sheriffs Association, said his jail is so full that he’s had to obtain a court order ensuring only violent offenders are locked up. Because of this, nonviolent offenders are no longer paying their fines, and why should they? They know there’s no room in the jail. County voters have approved a tax increase to enlarge the facility, but construction has not begun.

Aware that this can’t continue, the Department of Correction is requesting a new 1,000-bed prison costing in the neighborhood of $100 million. That’s about the same size as the income tax decrease Gov.-elect Asa Hutchinson pledged to enact during the campaign.

Sounds like it’s time for some of those hard choices mentioned in the first paragraph, doesn’t it? Should Arkansas build the prison and forego the tax cut? Should it do both, and cut somewhere else?

Another option – both a hard choice and the result of creative thinking – is to stop sending so many people to prison. Maybe there are better options for offenders who aren’t really threats to society. If the state stopped sending some of these struggling but save-able people to several years of “criminal school” in prison, maybe they wouldn’t become hardened criminals.

Here’s another case of creative thinking. Officials with LaSalle Corrections, a private prison provider based in Louisiana, told legislators Tuesday that they have room right now for 1,000 inmates near the Arkansas border. The cost would be about $28 a day – about what the state is paying as it underfunds counties. They can take them as fast as we can get them there.

It was a compelling case. The state Board of Corrections voted the next day to check into something like that.

Here’s the thing about using the private sector to perform traditional government operations: The private sector really is more efficient in many areas, but it tends to focus on picking low-hanging fruit and leaving the harder cases to the government. LaSalle Corrections does have medical staff at its facilities, but the $28 doesn’t cover big medical costs such as expensive drugs – and some inmates’ needs can be very expensive.

There’s also a philosophical question about the incentives created when imprisoning people becomes a commodity. What happens when corporations backed by lobbyists make more money by imprisoning more people as cheaply as possible? You might get more prisoners than you ought to have, and their needs might not be met – and yes, prisoners have needs. The officials with LaSalle seemed admirably sincere in their desire to help their inmates create better lives, but the state a few years ago tried using a private prison provider – Wackenhut Corrections Corp. – and it did not go well.

Is it worth a second try? It may have to be. Private prisons may be one necessary creative solution. But, as is usually the case when critical needs aren’t being met, hard choices still will have to be made.

Term limits probably will work out

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

For term limits supporters unhappy about what happened in November, it probably will work out for the best in the long run. Some reforms occurred that likely wouldn’t have happened otherwise, and voters probably will get a chance at a do-over in 2016.

Amendment 3 was a 22-page resolution with many provisions that was shrunk to a single paragraph for the ballot. It prohibits state candidates from accepting campaign contributions from corporations and unions. It prohibits legislators and constitutional officers from accepting gifts from lobbyists, which has already significantly changed the culture at the Capitol. It also increases from one year to two the amount of time that legislators must wait to register as a lobbyist after they leave office – the goal being to reduce the incentive for them to pass laws that would get them hired and help their future employers.

It also created a citizens commission to set salaries for legislators, constitutional officers and judges. In the past, legislators have set their own salaries, a conflict of interest that ironically has kept salaries low because of the awkwardness of it all. Commission members have been appointed by the governor, the leaders of the House and Senate, and the Supreme Court’s chief justice. In other words, they’ve appointed their own salary deciders. The result is that pay hikes probably are coming.

Finally, the amendment extends term limits from the current six years in the House and eight years in the Senate to 16 years total.

Actually, they could serve longer than that. Pages 16 and 17 of the resolution state that partial terms don’t count and that members who reach their 16th year in the middle of their term can finish it out.

The language voters saw on the ballot said the measure was “establishing” term limits. Polled shortly before the election by Talk Business and Hendrix College, 62 percent of respondents said they opposed the measure, while only 23 percent supported it. However, unlike the ballot title, the poll question spelled out that the measure would “extend term limits … to 16 years.”

Term limits supporters fought Amendment 3 before the election and will soon open up a new front. Bob Porto, co-chair of Arkansas Term Limits, said in an interview that organizers will meet to determine next steps, including what the 2016 proposal will look like. A ballot initiative will be created, and signatures will be gathered. Two years from now, voters should have the chance to vote on a simple term limits measure.
Nick Tomboulides, executive director of U.S. Term Limits, which spent $400,000 in ads opposing the measure, said it’s too early to know how big of an investment his group will make in 2016, but it will support the effort.

Unless there’s a problem with the ballot title – or unless a judge decides there’s a problem – that effort will pass, and Arkansas probably will return to having some of the strictest term limits laws in the nation. In the end, it probably will work out.

Amendment 3’s sponsors say the amendment included the term limits provision as part of a compromise. It was needed to gain enough legislative support to get the ethics provisions on the ballot. Many legislators believe that six years in the House just isn’t long enough.

I’m not one who says all elected officials are crooks. At the State Capitol, most legislators seem to act mostly ethically most of the time, which is about like most of us.

But a bit of a fast one was pulled this time, and it shouldn’t have happened. Legislators should not have folded all of these provisions into one ballot initiative and should have been clearer about what “establishing” term limits meant. The attorney general should have disapproved the ballot title. The amendment shouldn’t have survived a court challenge. Voters should have been aware of its provisions – unless, of course, they actually were.

And I should have written about it before the election, not afterwards. Sorry about that.

Asa and Bret

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Two Arkansans from very different walks of life personify that old expression – Gov.-elect Asa Hutchinson and Bret Bielema, Razorbacks head football coach. In this post-Thanksgiving column, let’s celebrate their achievements before returning to day-to-day politics next week.

Hutchinson not only tried again, but he tried, tried, tried again. Three times he lost badly in statewide elections – the last a 56-41 shellacking at the hands of Gov. Mike Beebe in the 2006 governor’s race. (Remember “Asa!”?) He faced good opponents, but he also lost those races because he chose to put an “R” beside his name instead of a “D,” when many other aspirational candidates simply joined the majority party.

For some reason, the former congressman, Drug Enforcement Agency director, and under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security really, really wanted to be governor of Arkansas, so he placed his name on the ballot again. Now 63 and about to turn 64, this year probably was his last chance to be elected. Naturally reserved, he seemed confident, relaxed and cheerful throughout the campaign. The swirling winds of history had shifted in his favor, and he knew it.

The dog has finally caught the car, but unlike the dog, Hutchinson seems to know what to do with his prize. He is methodically preparing his budget and determining who will lead the various state agencies. He’s been measured in his public comments and seems genuinely interested in uniting the state under his leadership – even, as columnist John Brummett recently reported, having a long phone conversation with Bill Clinton, whom Hutchinson prosecuted during the impeachment trial.

You have to add a few more “try agains” to Bielema’s situation – 12 in fact. The coach left a winning situation in Wisconsin to rebuild an Arkansas program that hadn’t yet recovered from the Bobby Petrino scandal. Thirteen times Bielema faced an SEC foe, and 13 times he lost, coming heartbreakingly close to victory against some of the nation’s best teams this season. Oh, yes, people were complaining – about Bielema’s throwback style of smashmouth football, and about the fact that native son Gus Malzahn, the coach many Arkansans wanted, took his Auburn team to the national championship game at the same time Bielema was going winless in the SEC last season.

Few are complaining now. Bielema’s style – both coaching and personal – seem a perfect fit for this state. He may be an Illinois native, but he was raised on a hog farm – yes, a hog farm – and he’s unquestionably one of us. Prior to the loss against Missouri Friday, Arkansas had shut out LSU and Ole Miss by a combined score of 47-0. The Razorbacks had finished one spot out of the Associated Press Top 25 poll. Has a 6-6 team ever been this good or this respected?

Arkansas’ future looks very bright. The Hogs are bowl-eligible, which didn’t seem likely a few weeks ago. They’ll enter next season with talent, depth, experience and high expectations. With so many other programs adopting the pass-first spread offense, blue-chip high school offensive linemen and running backs have to be placing Arkansas near the top of their lists. And just as Hutchinson did this year, the Razorbacks will continue to have success in future Novembers, particularly when the weather turns colder and the game becomes less about airing it out and more about grinding it out.

Grinding it out – that’s Hutchinson and Bielema. They tried and tried again, and then they succeeded.

Happy Giving Thanks Day

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

I let certain things get to me more than they should, such as the misuse of the apostrophe to pluralize a word on hand-lettered signs. (Just add an “s” to most words, people.) Another is calling the holiday we celebrate this time of year “Turkey Day.”

I know it’s just a way of taking the stuffing out of a holiday that could use a little more fun. Cooking a big meal is hard work. Family gatherings can be stressful. And the way the word is constructed, “Thanksgiving,” is not really how we talk. We don’t go cardriving for foodbuying for mealpreparing for suppereating.

Still, “Turkey Day” sounds like we’re celebrating a big meal with a big bird, not our many real blessings. We eat turkey all the time. In fact, judging by our waistlines, we feast all the time. It feels like we’re celebrating excess, not plenteousness – like we’re celebrating only the gift, not The Giver.

Maybe we should call it “Giving Thanks Day.” Would that remind us what the day should be about?

I try not to write much about my personal life in this column. If you would like, you can email me, and I’ll respond, and we can get to know each other.

Briefly, for my immediate family that lives beneath our house’s protective roof and sturdy walls, it’s been a good year. My wife and daughters grow more beautiful inside and out every day. We are healthy and can pay our bills.

However, for some who are near and dear, it’s been a very challenging year. There have been times we all have had to remind ourselves to be thankful.

Our society should do a better job of that as well. America is a prosperous and free country. Its biggest internal problems – the ones that make us fight each other most bitterly – center around defining our freedoms and managing what most would consider to be abundance. And yet it seems that much of our public and private discourse is negative. I don’t remember us ever being so cranky.

We can look at this past year as one when we were subjected to many thousands of political ads, or we can be thankful that our prospective lawmakers were compelled to advertise to us. There are no campaign ads in North Korea. And whether or not we happen to approve of the choices voters made in November, the important thing is that they had the chance to choose.

Many years ago, my wife was a sad little girl in a dark place in life. On yet another lonely school bus ride, she prayed looking for answers and heard a voice say, “Thank Me.” She did, and kept doing it. It changed her life.

We all should follow the lead of that little girl. Let’s not allow this holiday to be hijacked by its own traditions. It’s not about turkey, or even getting everybody together. It’s one day a year when we should stop striving for whatever we’re striving for, be grateful for what we have, and then prepare to share our blessings during the Christmas season ahead.

When someone emails me about a column, I try to start each response with, “Thanks for reading and for writing,” even if the writing’s purpose is to tell me I’m an idiot. Most of us want to be heard and to connect. This column lets me do both.

So if you read this column, thank you. If you’ve ever written me for whatever reason, thank you. If you are an editor or publisher who finds a place for my column in your publication, thank you. I hope this holiday is a joyous time for all of you and all of yours. Happy Giving Thanks Day, and enjoy your turkey.

Runoffs: More or less democratic?

By Steve Brawner
© 2014 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

When I told Jill Dabbs that she should already have been declared the winner in her race to be re-elected mayor of Bryant, I was surprised that she disagreed.

Dabbs placed first in a three-person race with 47 percent of the vote. In Tuesday’s runoff, she faces retired fire chief Randy Cox, who won 41 percent.

To me, 47 percent is close enough, but under Arkansas law, leading candidates who fall short of 50-percent-plus-one avoid a runoff only if they win 40 percent and have a 20 percent lead over the second place finisher. So, in Bryant, and in communities across Arkansas, here they go again.

According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 73 runoff elections are being contested across the state. Twenty-two of those are mayoral races, and those should generate some interest. The rest are a variety of local races that will inspire very low turnout.

Most states do not have runoffs. The few that do are mostly in the South, where they were created because Democrats were the only real party, and leaders did not want winners with marginal support to win multi-candidate party primaries. That’s according to Dr. Charles Bullock of the University of Georgia, who wrote a book about runoffs. In other words, it would be bad if a candidate supported by 25 percent but disliked by 75 percent won because all the other candidates split the vote. In Arkansas, runoffs were enacted in the 1930s to keep Ku Klux Klan members out of office, Bullock said.

One problem with runoffs is they attract much lower turnout than general elections. Dabbs won 47 percent of 6,156 votes cast Nov. 4, but she could lose in the runoff if her opponent wins a majority of a lot fewer votes.

Which result is more democratic and reflective of the will of the people? You could argue either way. If I were designing the system, a candidate would win with 40 percent in the general election and face a runoff otherwise.

Before continuing, I should tell you that Dabbs and I volunteered together for a campaign to build a community center in Bryant, and I briefly volunteered with her first mayoral campaign in 2010. I no longer live in Bryant, and this column doesn’t appear in any Saline County news source.

I asked Dabbs what she thought about my position that Arkansas’ current runoffs law might be less democratic than some alternative. I figured she’d agree with me after campaigning all day in cold weather looking for people interested in voting again – or voting for the first time. Instead, she was pretty much pro-runoff.

“I think there’s a silver lining around this runoff,” she said. “I really do. … Any time you can engage the community to move the community forward and for the community to do better, good is going to come from that.”

Dabbs said without runoffs, bad incumbents would remain in office in multi-candidate races because the good challengers would split the vote.

What about the lower turnout? She said the answer is for more people to actually vote. Changing the law to suit the culture would just be giving into apathy.

“The fact that we have low voter turnout is not reason to change the law,” she said. “What we need to do is we need to figure out how to get better voter turnout. We need to change the culture of our country to go back to being committed to voting and recognizing that it’s a freedom that we all need to be exercising.”

Can’t argue with the last part about increasing turnout, though I’m not sure how to do that. Voters had more than two weeks to show up for the general election and a week to vote in the runoff. Maybe we could do like Australia and make people pay a fine if they don’t vote? Nah.

Anyway, the mayor who could lose her job because of the runoffs wants to keep them, and the journalist being paid to write about runoffs wants to see less of them. What do the voters think? We’ll find out Tuesday.