John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight
The leader of the South Dakota Department of Corrections told lawmakers she doesn’t want to answer to the state’s Corrections Commission, a body that exists to provide oversight and guidance to prison officials.
Some commission members told South Dakota Searchlight in recent weeks that they’ve felt uninformed and uninvolved lately, noting that they’ve heard no details about two bouts of violence in the space of four months in two of the state’s prisons. Some even questioned the value of the commission and suggested it serves no purpose.
According to the DOC’s own website, “state law requires the Corrections Commission to undertake a continuing study of criminal justice issues in South Dakota, which may include a review of current felonies, felony sentences, sentencing options, practices, programs, trends and initiatives.”
The DOC has taken the position, however, that the commission’s only role is to sign off on funding requests from the prison industries where inmates work. That role is also listed in state law.
The shift in focus came recently, according to two of the commission’s longest-serving members.
DOC Secretary Kellie Wasko told the Legislature’s Government Operations and Audit Committee on Wednesday in Pierre that she also questions the commission’s purpose, and suggested that lawmakers ought to take “another look” at what the commission does.
Rep. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, chairs the audit committee and is a member of the Corrections Commission.
For weeks, Otten did not return calls from South Dakota Searchlight seeking comment on the commission. During Wednesday’s meeting, he offered a sentiment similar to the corrections commissioners who did respond.
“I’ve been thinking about how to phrase this, but me being me, I’ll just do it my way,” Otten said. “It’s the biggest waste of time I’ve ever had to endure. And so to have it rethought, we need to do that.”
Lawmakers: Information gap after security failures
Wasko told lawmakers she believes she ought to answer to lawmakers, not a commission that includes community members.
Wasko was on hand at the audit committee meeting to present the agency’s annual “performance metrics,” something state agencies are required to do.
After her presentation, Sen. Tim Reed, R-Brookings, wanted to know if the Corrections Commission might be able to offer more oversight and information on security issues than audit committee members can in their once-a-year meetups with prison officials.
Reed’s taken plenty of questions lately about the prisons, he said.
The South Dakota State Penitentiary saw two nights of violence, sparked in part by the shutdown of tablet-based text messaging, in March. That incident included injuries to staff and inmates, and led to 11 inmate indictments.
Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield saw two skirmishes between inmates July 9-10.
Before Wednesday’s meeting, the DOC had released only two pieces of information about the Springfield incidents: that six inmates were injured, and that order was restored.
Reed told Wasko it’s difficult to talk with constituents about prison issues without information, noting that the committee only sees her once a year. Members of the Legislature’s budget committee see Wasko more often to talk about funding, most recently on Tuesday, but those meetings are also infrequent and lack representatives from the general public.
At some point, Reed said, “the incidents probably need to be reviewed by a broader group of people.”
Wasko: Public wants information too quickly
Wasko disagreed.
She didn’t know anything about the commission or its role before her arrival from Colorado in the spring of 2022. The commission’s role as an overseer of prison industries “made sense to me,” she said, because Colorado had a similar commission made up of similar people.
The commission in South Dakota has four legislators, as well as judges and representatives from the labor, manufacturing and retail sectors.
Wasko described the non-lawmakers on the committee as “people from industries in the community.”
“I don’t feel like some of my high-security, high-risk incidents, I’m not accountable to share that with somebody from the community,” Wasko said. “And those are public meetings.”
Wasko told the committee members she’s comfortable “being accountable to you” because she’s legally required to be.
The problem, she said, is that “people want information within 24 hours of what happened.”
“In those first 24 hours, we’re still trying to figure out what happened,” she said.
At one point, she’d heard that 40 “shanks” – a slang term for items fashioned by prisoners into knife-like weapons – were found after the Springfield violence.
There were actually only four, she said. With regard to the number of inmates involved in the fighting, she said, “I got four numbers in four weeks.”
Wasko did not specify where those numbers – on shanks or inmates involved – may have come from.
The public wants answers before they’re ready, she said.
“That’s the problem. They’re firing at us when we’re in the midst of this: I wanna know this, I wanna know this.”
She’s willing to “close the doors and get into the nitty-gritty” with lawmakers once the DOC completes an after-incident report, she said. She also trumpeted the DOC’s annual statistical report, which she said is more detailed than recent annual reports to the Corrections Commission.
The DOC secretary is obligated by law to call at least two Corrections Commission meetings a year. Based on her experience in Colorado and her review of the group’s annual reports, she said, she’s conducted the group’s meetings “the way I understood it to work and that made sense to me.”
Commission: Either involve us or change it
Reed told Wasko he understands the difficulty of responding with public information when information is in flux. But he also said he wasn’t asking about reviews in the immediate aftermath of a problem.
Once there is an after-incident report, he said, there ought to be a way for lawmakers and the public to learn what happened and how the situations were addressed.
He said the commission’s makeup could be changed, but that the information ought to be available.
“There’s probably actions that have been taken since things happened, and those should be reported out and talked about to a group,” Reed said.
Otten offered his take on the commission being a waste of time, then closed the discussion by asking for a motion to accept the DOC’s performance measures report.
Dave McGirr is a representative for retailers on the Corrections Commission, as well as the former mayor of Huron and the former liaison to the police department for the Huron City Commission. McGirr now lives in the Sioux Falls area.
He said Wednesday he’s been pushing the commission to take up more serious matters for several years, and that he intends to bring up the issue again at the commission’s September meeting.
Outside perspectives can be helpful for any agency, he said, and he argued that the role of the commission is meant to reflect that.
There are labor and business representatives on the commission to address prison industries, but he said the presence of judges and lawmakers suggests it’s meant to address broader issues than metal shop operations.
“The staff would prefer, and apparently Secretary Wasko would also prefer, that they not communicate any of that to us,” McGirr said. “And yet state law would seem to indicate that they need to.”
McGirr pointed to the issues surrounding the proposed new men’s prison in Lincoln County as an example of why outside voices and transparency matter. Neighbors to the project – some of whom have sued the state over its site selection process – have repeatedly complained about a lack of information and consultation on the project.
One neighbor a half-mile from the site told South Dakota Searchlight she first learned of the DOC’s site plans less than 24 hours before the agency announced them to the public.
Had the public been consulted and informed up front, McGirr said, the current controversies might have been avoided. Wasko may be experienced in corrections, but he said she clearly doesn’t have much experience dealing with the public as he does.
“I’ve served in elected positions for over 20 years, been on many, many boards, and gone through many, many trials and tribulations,” McGirr said. “And the worst thing you can do is not tell them as much as you’re legally allowed to.”