The theory in this approach seems to be that non-offending inmates will come forward and tell on the actual perpetrators, or that the perpetrators will have awakened consciences and "turn themselves in" to release the other inmates from their undeserved punishment, or that all the inmates will be intimidated from further abuse of rules. If an inmate tells "snitches" on another inmate, he is in trouble (lasting trouble) with his fellow inmates. The "guilty" inmates do not come forward to accept their punishment unless they are intimidated to do so by much tougher non-offending inmates. Most inmates would not be intimidated into obeying all the rules, even if death penalties were assigned to the discipline administered. Those who would be intimidated would be those who would not break the rules in the first place.

This type of arbitrary and capricious reaction to such rule infractions in this institution is usually made by Unit Managers usually at the insistence of their subordinate employees. "We gotta show ‘em (inmates) who’s da boss!" mentality. It never produces the intended results, but it makes the guards feel better. It is easier to manage inmates when they are "confined to quarters," in punishment.

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Administrative Regulations 5120—9 Series, Re.: 5120-9-05, reads:

"Institutional Rules Statement of Policy, (A) Rules governing the conduct of offenders and the consequences which may follow from a violation shall be printed and furnished to the inmates together with any explanations that may be necessary for their guidance. Rules shall be corrective, not abusive or punitive, in purpose. They shall be no more numerous or restrictive than is necessary to produce responsible and orderly conduct, and be related to valid institutional concerns. (B) Discipline: Enforcement of institutional rules shall be for the purpose of developing patterns of behavior which will be of help to the inmate in his future adjustment in the free community, and the maintainance of order in the institution. Enforcement of institutional rules shall be rehabilitation oriented, and for the purpose of developing self-control and self-discipline. No action shall be taken against an inmate for the violation of a rule except in accordance with established disciplinary procedures...."

This is an excellent policy in theory, ‘however it ‘seems to fall short of the mark when unethical--but legal--practice is made by Rules Infraction Boards in the state Correctional Institutions such as the one at Belmont C.I. The A.R.’s are generated and written by competent, rational professionals in Columbus, Ohio. The "loop-holes" in the wording allows administrative abuses through point of manipulated interpretation. The statement, "Rules shall be corrective, not abusive or punitive, in purpose." restricts the purpose of the "rule;" to corrective function, but not the "discipline" for infraction of the rule. The statement, "They (rules) shall be no more numerous or restrictive than is necessary to produce responsible and orderly ccnduct, and be related to valid institutional concerns." allows administrators to determine just what is "necessary" to produce what they may choose to call "responsible and orderly conduct" and to define just what "valid institutional concerns" may be. If these processes are made in the true spirit of the policy directives and with ethical motives, there is no problem for the inmate or the institution. The problem is when those in authority make arbitrary and capricious rulings within the parameters allowed through "twisting" the areas of discretion. I will focus this in the Rule 30 definition.

Discipline is defined for intent as "enforcement" to develop helpful behavior patterns in the inmate, through rehabilitation orientated measures and for development of self-control and self-discipline, and that no action may be taken against an inmate for violation of a rule except in accordance with established disciplinary procedure (due prcecess). Sounds great! However, the term "purpose" or "intent" keeps issues theoretical and "accordance with established disciplinary procedures" is a bit mysterious; what is the "established procedure?" This is likely whatever the R.I.B. decides through its discretionary powers to determine innocence or guilt for infractions.

Administrative Regulations 5120—9 Series, Re.: 5120—9—06, Rules of Conduct has a Rule 30, which reads: "Establishing or Attempting to Establish a Personal Relationship with an Employee, without authorization from the Managing Officer, including BUT NOT LIMITED TO (emphasis mine):

a) Sending mail to an employee at his or her residence or other address not associated with the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction;

b) Making a telephone call to or receiving a telephone call from an employee at his or her residence or other location not associated with the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction;

c) Giving a gift to or receiving a gift from an employee;

d) Giving a favor or service to or receiving a favor or service from an employee;

e) Engaging in any act of a sexual nature with an employee."

The catch-phrase" is ". . .but not limited to:" because it allows the authorities to include basically anything they choose to find an inmate guilty. Even the "...Attempting..." gives the authorities great leave way in finding guilt against an inmate.

If my "inmate" appeal could have been heard through the interview I had been promised in writing, I believe my Rule 30 conviction would have been overturned at the institution level, because of the facts I offered at my hearing that were basically ignored by the three members of that Rules Infraction Board (R.I.B.).

The female employee I was alleged to have "Attempted to establish a personal relationship with..." testified at my R.I.B. hearing that she did not share that opinion; that I had been an excellent employee (for 7 months) and that she had never had a moment’s problem with me. She said that I had been over-protective of her (when other inmates spoke disrespectfully in her presence). Further, and just as important, was the fact that I had testified that I had told her on the morning of April 15, 1996, that if I did not fit into the program goals of the commissary in my work there, that I would quit my job right then. She had told me, "No, don’t quit; just chill out a bit and keep a low profile;" that I was doing just fine. When a member of the R.T.B. asked her about my statement, she testified on my R.I.B. hearing tape that this was exactly what had happened; that I had said exactly that. I thought at that time, I would have been found not guilty as charged, and that I would have been released from the "hole" to return to my "normal" life. But this didn’t happen. Instead, I was sentenced to fifteen (15) days in DC (disciplinary control) with no credit for the 1.0 days I had been locked up in SC (Security Control) for investigation.

When the R.I.B. asked her why she didn’t let me quit the work assignment, she said that I had received a perfect work evaluation just a few months earlier and that the three commissary staff members thought it was too soon to write me a "bad" evaluation so that the Institution Job Coordinator could remove me from the assignment. This didn’t make sense to me, but if I had actually been guilty of violating even the spirit of the Rule 30 conditions, I could have been removed from the assignment by her request alone. No female employee would need to "justify" having an inmate removed from her proximity in a prison setting.

No warden in his right mind would force her to keep the inmate near her. Also, I had been kept on a full work schedule at the commissary up to and including April 15th, 1996. If I were such a problem, why hadn’t my hours of work been reduced like was done with other undesirable inmate employees? I could have been cut down to an hour a week at a time when the female employee in question was not working in the same area as I had been assigned. This was also ignored by the R.I.B.

I made it known for the record that I wanted to appeal and signed accordingly on the Rules Infraction Board Disposition sheet. After I had served the total of 25 days in the hole, I was released back into the regular institution population at 6:00 PM on May 8th, 1996. 15 hours later, at 9:00 AM on May 9th, 1996, I was returned to the hole and locked up again for "investigation." This continued on for 53 more days, keeping me in the hole for 78 days total. My security review was made without me being allowed to provide input in my behalf. Before I could be granted a transfer out of Belmont and its hole, I had to threaten to press charges against two of the employees who had written incident reports against me to the State Investigator, Mr. W, who contrived the misconduct report without so much as questioning me throughout the entire process.

The lady that I was accused of the Rule 30 violation over was the wife of the SRT (Special React Team) Commander, who is also a Housing Unit (8) Manager, I have been told since I left Belmont C.I. I have also been told that the lady is no longer in the Commissary, but has been reassigned to the Records Office. My contention is that I have done nothing wrong and that I do not, in my honest opinion deserve the stigma of being considered a "Stalker" or a danger to women, or that I had attempted to eatablish a persona relationship with an employee, Mrs. V. Their lives are intact; my life is in shambles because of the contrived conviction at Belmont C.I. R.I.B..

This is a continuing letter content that I have been writing to Ms. P, Principal Research Associate for the Ohio General Assembly Correctional Institution Inspection Committee.