Comments of Prisoners Legal Sel'vices of Massachnsetts
Introdnction
Prisoners Legal Services (PLS) is a non-profit law office serving Massachusetts
prisoners.

We welcome this opportunity to submit comments in response to the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking issued in FCC 12-167.
PLS represents a group of prisoners, family members and attorneys who petitioned the
Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications (DTC) to reduce intrastate inmate calling
services (rCS) rates and investigate the poor quality of prison telephone service, DTC no. 11-16.
PLS undertook this representation after years of witnessing its clients and their family members
struggle to maintain ties in the face of un affordable telephone bills and inaudible conversations.
On July 19, 2012 the DTC held public hearings in connection with this petition and
received an outpouring of grievances from prison families and other consumers over ICS rates
and quality of service. The comments we submit below draw upon the oral and written
testimony provided by members of the public for that hearing, as well as the affidavits of the
petitioners and data gathered by PLS in connection with the petition. l
The Petitioners are waiting for the DTC to decide whether to go forward with an
adjudicatory proceeding on the Petitioners' claim or to grant the Respondents motion to dismiss.
Action by the Federal Communications Commission to establish a just and reasonable rate for
interstate calls will provide national leadership for state regulatory agencies in Massachusetts and
elsewhere looking to ensure the same principle within their jurisdictions.

I Filings and public comments related to the petition are available at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/government/oca-agencies/dtc-Ip/dtc-ll-16.html. The quotes in the
textboxes throughout this document are excerpted from public comment letters submitted to
DTC for its July 19,2012 public hearing and available at this website under each individual's
name, with the exception of Anna Ledlum's letter, which, by error, is not available online, but is
attached as Ex.!.

1

I.

The importance of affordable ICS
The heavy burden of high prison telephone rates prevents Massachusetts families from

keeping in touch with loved ones in prison. As the FCC, Government Accountability Office and
Bureau of Prisons have already recognized, keeping in as close contact as possible is paramount
to ensuring stability and success both inside and outside of the prison walls? In fact, a half
centnry of studies show a consistent relationship between strong family and community contact
during incarceration and reduced recidivism rates. 3 Furthennore, where 97% of the prison
population will be released to our communities and the Massachusetts DOC's latest available
data shows a recidivism rate of 44%, we simply cannot afford to compromise support systems
that are proven to contribute to successful reentry and lower recidivism.4
"We look forward to fundamentally functional prison phone services at MCI [Norfolkl for inmates and
pertinent families and friends. With God's blessing, Cedric may be paroled in about two years. Phone
service now, while he is an inmate, has extended ramifications. It is another crucial factor in building and
maintaining his future. He cannot be totally cut off from the "outside world" for two more years, then
face society in reality and expect normalcy." Anna Lednum

See 28 C.F.R. § 540.100 ("The Bureau of Prisons extends telephone privileges to inmates as part of its overall
correctional management. Telephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining community and family ties
that will contribute to an inmate's personal development."). See also United States Gov't Accountability Office.
GAO-12-743, Bureau of Prisons: Growing Imnate Crowding Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure
(2012), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648123.pdf; see also United States Gov't Accountability Office,
GAO-08-11-893, Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could Improve Cen Phone
Detection 18 (2011), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/322805.pdf.
3 See Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Corrections Reform, Strengthening Public
Safety, Increasing Accountability, and Instituting Fiscal Responsibility in the Department of Correction (i) (2004),
available at http://www .mass.gov/eopss/docs! eops/govcommission-corrections-reforrn. pdf; Daniel LeClair,

2

Massachusetts Dep't of Correction, The Effect a/Community Reintegration on Rates ofRecidivism: A Statistical
Overview ofData for the Years 1971 Through 1987 at 2, 10, 11 (1990), available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/Digitizationl137240NCJRS.pdf; Christy A. Visher & Jeremy Travis, Transitions
From Pn;"m to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways, 29 Ann. Rev. of Soc. 89, 100 (2003); U.S. Dep't
of Justice & Office of the Inspector Gen., Criminal Calls: A Review althe Bureau of Prisons' Management of
Inmate Telephone Privileges, Ch. II. n. 6 (Aug. 1999), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/speciaI/9908/;seealso
supra note 2 and footnotes 19 and 20 of FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking WC Docket No. 12-375.
4 See generally Massachusetts Dep't of Correction, Prison Population Trends (2011),
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dociresearch-reports/pop-trends/poptrends20 11 finaL pdf

2

The DTe received 228 letters from prisoners and their families for the public healing
held in July of2012. Almost all, 95%, discuss the reliance of prisoners and their families on the
telephone to maintain family bonds and provide mutually needed support, but that the costprohibitive nature of the phone calls is a serious barrier to maintaining this connection. Many
plisoners come from the poorest communities in the state so that the high cost of these calls
causes families additional financial stress in struggling to keep lines of communication open with
their loved ones and further financially straps those who can least afford it. Moreover, many
correctional facilities are located in remote areas far from where prisoners' families live and not
accessible by public transportation, making phone communication all the more important.
"We are elderly and retired. We have health issues and the distance to visit our son is too much, therefore
our only means of communication are via telephone .... We live on a limited income and do the best we call

to provide funds to our son so that he can make telephone calls home, however due to the high cost of a 20
minute telephone call ... our communication is extremely limited. It is very important for all of us to keep
the lines of communication open to keep a family bond. Also, our son is challenged with a terminal illness

and it is important for all of us to be able to stay well informed of each of our health conditions and
issues." Henrique and Joyceanne Nunes

"[T]he pain I feel when I have to hurriedly tell my daughter that our phone time is up and I can only talk
to her again next week, is hard to bear. She doesn't understand why it's such a big deal for daddy to call
her especially when she can talk all day on her cell phone without worries ... [want to l<eep in close contact
with my children so they won't go down the road I traveled. Hearing their voices and giving them my
wisdom is an important way to insure they remain on the positive path. I hope you will help us-the
prisoners~ to stay connected with our families by lowering the cost of phone calls." Michael Gomes
"My dad works very few hours on his job. Most of the time he has to choose between taklingl my call or
hanging up because there [are] bills to pay. It br[eaks] his heart but he has to do it. I can go months
sometimes without any outside contact. He Jives in California so he can't visit .... [f prices could be reduced,
I believe it would bring more friend and family support, not only into my life but into others as wen."
eyria I ..ewis

"This company [Securus] has very lousy service ... J call home twice per day, usually so I can talk to my
fiancee during the day and at night to speak with our children, as this is important. I also rely on the phone
because visit hours are Friday 8am-9:30am which often is the hours my fiancee works and when our
daughters are at daycare. Unfortunately, as a result of the phone rates~ the calls have been becoming less
frequent. As a result of the calls being less frequent, our children's behavior and emotional attitude has
changed." Robert Assad

3

n.

The need to eliminate site commissions
In the Notice, Sec. Ill, A (37), the Commission requests comment on site commissions

paid to facilities, including the ways that commissions are used, how contracts vary facility by
facility, and whether commissions cause telephone rates to be unreasonable in violation of 47
U.S.C .. § 201(b). Massachusetts practices demonstrate that site commissions do not reflect the
cost of providing rcs, but are kickbacks to correctional agencies made by ICS providers to
secure contracts and passed on to consumers. Under both § 20] (b) and Massachusetts law,s
commissions should be treated as shared profit.
A. Commission rates and the use offunds generated by commissions in
Massachusetts

PLS has presented to the DTC an affidavit of expert witness Douglas Dawson analyzing
the rates of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) and four of the Massachusetts
counties whose rcs contracts PLS had obtained 6 Commissions account for nearly sixty percent
ofthe rates paid by customers in Plymouth County, 50-52 percent in the three other counties, and
approximately 24 percent in the DOC. 7 Commissions paid to comlty facilities in Massachusetts
8

are placed in a fund available for use by the facilities while commissions paid to the Department

See infi'a Section II(C).
Amended Aff. of Douglas Dawson, attached as Exh. 2, pp. 6-8. The rates relied upon on this
affidavit were based on the most recent contracts available as of the date it was filed, April 20,
2012. Some or all contracts relied upon may have since expired.
7 Id.
8 See "An Act transferring county sheriffs to the Commonwealth." Senate. No. 2045. Section
12.a (enactnlent of the Senate and House of Representatives providing that inmate telephone
funds shall remain with the office ofthe sheriff in abolished counties) (2009); see also Appendix
C to "Inmate Fees as a Source of Revenue: Review of Challenges." Report olthe Special
Commission to Study the Feasibility qlEstablishing Inmate Fees (Power Point). Massachusetts
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (July 1.2001) (listing use offees collected by
counties and DOC).
5

6

4

of Correction are transferred to the General Fund of the Commonwealth 9 In the case of county
facilities, the commission funds are used for the general welfare of the plisoners, 10 and often
SUppOlt programming and treatment for plisoners. 11 Although PLS clients in county facilities
lack adequate programs and treatment, it is unjust and unreasonable to fund these rehabilitative
activities as a hidden cost in telephone bills paid by the families of plisoners. It is even more
unfair to require DOC telephone consumers to pay extra into the state budget. This is a hidden
tax on a largely low-income and vulnerable population.

B. The effect of commissions on ICS rates in Massachnsetts
As the Dawson affidavit demonstrates, the cost of providing ICS service varies little
between states and between facilities, largely because of advances in technology and the
centralization of rcs operations. Yet rates vary widely between states. Commissions appear to
be responsible for most, if not all, of this disparity.

rcs consumers in Massachusetts counties typically pay a per-call surcharge of$3.00 for
intra-state calls, which is the maximum pennirted by Massachusetts law,12 plus $ 0.10 per
minute; inter-state call surcharges run as high as $3.95. The consumers in state prisons pay a

See G.L. c. 29 § 2 (April 1, 2003).
G.L. c. 127 § 3 ("Any monies derived from interest earned upon the deposit of such money and
revenue generated by the sale or purchase of goods or services to persons in the correctional
facilities may be expended for the general welfare of all the inmates at the discretion of the
superintendent. ").
11 Transclipt of Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable public healing for
docket number 11-16 Testimony of Russell Homsy, Assistant General Counsel of Suffolk
County Sheriffs Office, at p.88, lines 18-24 and p.89, lines 1-3, relevant pages attached as Exh.
3.
12 Investigation by the Dept. of Telecommunications And Energy on its own motion regarding (1)
implementation o/Section 276 o/the Telecommunications Act of 1996 relative to Public Interest
Payphones, (2) Entry and Exit Barriers/or the Payphone Marketplace, (3) New England
Telephone and Telegraph Company d/b/a NYNEX's Public Access Smart-pay Line Service, and
(4) the rate policy/or operator services providers, ORDER ON PAYPHONE BARlERS TO
ENTRY AND EXIT, AND OSP RATE CAP, D.P.U'/D.T.E. 97-88/97-18 (Phase II) (April 17,
1988).
9

10

5

surcharge of$0.65 for debit calls plus $0.075 per-minute and $0.86 for collect and advance pay
calls, plus $0.10 per-minute. As discussed below in Section III, PLS has received myriad
complaints of dropped calls in both county and state facilities resulting in multiple surcharges for
a single conversation.
ICS consumers in states that have eliminated site commissions by statute pay far lower
rates. The rate in New York is less than five cents per minute for all calls, and in Michigan it is
$0.12 per minute for intra-state and $0.15 for interstate, with no surcharge in either state. In
Nebraska, consumers pay a surcharge (except for local calls) of$0.70 and $0.05 per minute. 13
All three states have eliminated commissions.
By the terms of Massachusetts

14

rcs contracts, half or more of the telephone bill that

county consumers pay covers site commissions rather than the cost of service, and DOC
consumers pay approximately a quarter of their bill toward the commissions. Indeed, in fiscal
year 2012, the DOC collected $1,717,504 from ICS consumers (and transferred it to the state
general fund),15 while in fiscal year 2010, the latest year for which we have complete data,
Suffolk County Jail and House of Con'ection alone collected $1,320,000. 16 Thus commissions
are responsible for much of the difficnlty reported by families of prisoners in bearing the cost of
communicating with their loved ones.

13 See Dawson Affidavit at 8-9.
14 New York, see McKinney's Correctional Law § 623 (2008); Michigan, see Act No. 245,
Public Acts of 2008 (effective Jnly 18, 2008), available at
http://www .legislature.mi.gov /documents/2007 -2008/publicact/pdf/2008-P A -0245 .pdf; Nebraska
see Department of Correctional Services, Administrative Regulation 205.023, Section XII,
available at http://www.corrections.state.ne.us/pdf/ar/maillAR %20205.03 .pdf.
15 See "Commission History, Fiscal Year 2012," from Attachment C to Massachusetts
Department of Correction Request for Responses for a Secure Inmate Calling System, DOC File
No. 13-DOC-Imnate Phone, December 11, 2012, attached as Exh. 4.
16 http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/inmate-fee-final-7-1-ll.pdf at 32.

6

C. Commissions are not a legitimate business cost and should be treated as shared
profit
Like 47 U.S.C. § 201, Massachusetts law requires that telephone rates must be just and
reasonable,17 pennitting a utility to meet its cost of service and make a "fair and reasonable
return" on its investment. 18 Thus under Massachusetts law, as under Federal law, ICS providers
may not pass on to consumers a charge which is unrelated to the cost of service.
Commissions do not reimburse correctional facilities for any actual cost of providing
telephone service. As noted above, commissions paid to county facilities in Massachusetts are
placed in a fund available for use by the Sheriff, 19 while commissions paid to the Department of
Correction are transferred to the General Fund of the Commonwealth 2o Con'ectional facilities,
by requesting that ICS bidders offer commissions, base their selection of contractor at least in
part on the amount of cash inducement offered rather than solely seeking high quality service at
the most affordable rates for prison consumers. The telephone companies, in turn, offer cash
inducements to win contracts, paid for by the consumers.
While the FCC has not previously barred ICS providers from including the cost of
commissions in interstate rates, it has refused to allow companies to pass on the cost of
commissions to customers through preemption of state rate caps or through a surcharge above

17

See G.L. C. 159, § 14
See Hingham v. Dept' of Telecommunications and Energy, 433 Mass. 198,203 (2000) (citing
Lowell Gas. Co. v. Dept. o/Public Uti/s., 324 Mass. 80, 94-95 (1949».
19 See "An Act transferring county sheriffs to the Commonwealth," Senate. No. 2119, Section
12.a (enactment of the Senate and House of Representatives providing that inmate telephone
funds shall remain with the office of the sheriff in abolished counties) (2009) (attached as Exh.
5); see also Appendix C to "Inmate Fees as a Source of Revenue: Review of Challenges,"
Report of the Special Commission to Study the Feasibility ofEstablishing inmate Fees (Power
Point) , Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and SecUlity (July I, 200 I) (listing use
offees collected by counties and DOC).
20 See G.L. c. 29 § 2 (April 1,2003).
18

7

state rate caps for local collect calls, recognizing that commissions are not a business

COSt.

21

The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC)
have also detennined that commissions are not a cost of service and have refused to let telephone
companies pass on the cost of commissions to consumers22
The inclusion of a commission requirement in a bid solicitation for regulated utility
service conflicts witb the regulatory objective of ensUling that utility costs are necessarily
incurred and rates are just and reasonable.... By allowing commissions to be recovered
through rates, the governing regulatory body acquiesces in this commission-based bid
process and promotes a system where the service provider has an incentive to increase the
price of service regardless of the actual costs incurred. 23
In Massachusetts, ICS providers have attempted to argue that commissions are equivalent
to fees or payments made to govemment agencies. However, under Massachusetts law,
commissions are not governmental fees 24 A governmental fee is collected "not to raise
revenues but to compensate the govenunental entity providing the services for its expenses.,,25
Regulatory fees are ordinarily "imposed by an agency upon those subject to its regulation" to
"serve regulatory purposes," raising money "to help defray the agency's regulation-related
expenses.,,26 The Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance, following

In re Implementation o/Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of
Telecommunications Act of 1996. ORDER ON REMAND & NOTIC'E OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING ("FCC Prison Payphone Order"), FCC No. 02-39,2002 WL 252600 **7, 17
F.C.C.R. 6347 (Feb. 21, 2002).
22 Re Evercom Systems Inc., ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART,
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, Regulatory Commission of Alaska No. U-00-143, 2001
WL 1246903 (April 24,2001); Re Investigate Long Distance Charges, CORRECTED ORDER,
Georgia Public Service Commission No. 14530-U, 2002 WL 31096880 (March 19, 2002).
23 Re Evercom Systems. Inc., Regulatory Commission of Alaska, 2001 WL 1246903 at *4.
24 Emerson College v. City (~fEoston, 391 Mass. 415 (1984), at 424. See also Nextel
Communications ofMid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Town ofRandolph, 193 F.Supp.2d 311, 321 (D. Mass,
2002), Greater Franklin Developers Ass'n v. Town of Franklin, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 500 (2000).
25 Id., at 425.
26 Nuclear Metals, Inc. v. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Ed., 421 Mass. 196 (1995),
citing Justice Breyer's opinion in San Juan Cellular Tel. Co. v. Public Servo Comm 'n of P.R.,
967 F.2d 683, 685 (1st Cir. 1992).
21

8

these principles, provides in its fee-setting procedures that "[fJees may not be used purely as a
tool to raise revenue, but should reflect the government's expense in providing the service
associated with the fee.,,27
Commission payments to the correctional facilities in Massachusetts are used to raise
general revenue in precisely the way that a governmental fee may not. They are not used to
cover costs related to ICS but, rather, payments to the DOC are channeled into the general fund
of the state treasury,28 while county facilities use the commissions for the general welfare ofthe
prisoners 29 In addition, commissions are not regulatory fees because they do not "bear at least a
'rough correlation to the expense to which the State is put in administering its licensing
procedures or to the benefits those who make the payments receive. ",)0 The large amounts
collected in commissions -- $1,717,504 to the DOC in FY 2012, and $1,320,000 to the Suffolk
County Jail and House ofCorrectionJI

--

surely dwarf the actual cost of any rCS-related

expenses that are not already assigned to the providers under the tenns of the contract.

Executive Office of Administration and Finance, "Procedures for Setting Fees" (ANF 6), June
25,2008, Appendix C, at p. 30, available at http://www.mass.gov/anflbudget-taxes-andprocurement/admin-bulletins/procedures-for-setting-fees-anf-6.html.
28 See G.L. c. 29 § 2 (April 1, 2003).
29 G.L. c. 127 § 3, "Any monies derived from interest earned upon the deposit of such money and
revenue generated by the sale or purchase of goods or services to persons in the correctional
facilities may be expended for the general welfare of all the inmates at the discretion of the
superintendent. "
)0 Walton v. N.Y. Slate Dep't ofCorr. Svces., 921 N.E.2d 145, 151 (N.Y. Court of Appeals 2009)
(citation omitted) (holding, where state legislature had passed a law banning commissions from
telephone charges, that customers were not entitled to a refund of charges paid previously
because the practice did not violate the state constitution, commissions were not a tax or fee, and
therefore there was no entitlement to a refnnd as an unlawful tax or fee).
31 See "Commission History, Fiscal Year 2012," from Attachment C to Massachusetts
Department ofConcction Request for Responses for a Secure Inmate Calling System, DOC File
No. 12-DOC-lnmate Phone, December 11,2012, attached as Exh. 4;
.http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/inmate-fee-final-7-1-II.pdf at 32.
27

9

Neither do commissions reimburse con'ectional facilities for the rental value of the
telephones' location. Indeed, the FCC has held that prison payphones actually add value to the
premises: "A payphone that 'earns just enough revenue to warrant its placement, but not enough
to pay anything to the premises owner' is 'a viable payphone ... because the payphone provides
increased value to the premises.' Therefore, location rents are not a cost ofpayphones but

should be treated as projit.,,32 The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission similarly
detennined that the space occupied by prison payphones has no rental value, noting that prisons
have a legal obligation to provide access to telephone service, telephones do not occupy an
additional room, and prisons have no other potential paying tenant other than one commissary at
each elaC!'1'!ty. 33
In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, the rcs providers have argued that site commissions are

a required cost of doing business because they are demanded by facilities in requests for
proposals. A utility regulator cannot, of course, dictate the terms of ICS contracts. However,
the providers' argument asks that utility regulators subordinate their own legal standard to the
dictates of correctional facilities. Taken to the extreme, such an argument suggests that a
facility could in its RFR require 90 percent commissions, or could require services and hardware
that fail to meet safety, environmental or other regulatory standards.

It is trne that protecting

consumers from bearing the cost of commissions, as the 'Just and reasonable" standard requires,

32 FCC Prison Payphone Order at **4, quoting Implementation of the Pay Telephone
Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1966, THIRD
REPORT AND ORDER, AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND REPORT
AND ORDER, 14 FCC Rcd.2545, 2562 (l999),pet. Den. Sub nom American Public Comm.
Council! FCC, 215 F.3d 51 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("Third Report and Order") (emphasis supplied).
33 In the Matter of a Commission Inquiry into the Rates and Charges of Institutional Operator
Service Providers, RECOMMNENDED DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, New Mexico
Public Regulation Commission No. 07-00316-UT, November 4,2010, at 67 ("New Mexico
Rate Inquiry"), adopted by the Commission in ORDER REMANDING CASE ON THE ISSUE OF
RATE-OF-RETURN, December 22,2010, at 2.
10

will limit drastically or eliminate the amount of commissions that facilities can require and that
providers can offer. But contracts are bounded by many aspects of consumer protection law.
This agency is not powerless to enforce its own standards.
D. The FCC should support state efforts to protect ICS consumers from site
commissions
Ensuring that consumers pay a just and reasonable rate is the guiding principle of state
regulatory law across the country.J4 The FCC's leadership on this issue is essential to give
meaning to this common standard.

Many states have already protected consumers from site

commissions in intra-state rates, through statute, the discretion of correctional agencies, or - in

See Ala. Code § 37-1-80 (2013); Alaska Stat. § 42.05.381 (2013); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40361 (2007); Ark. Code Ann. § 23-4-103 (West 2012); Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 451 (2012); Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 40-3-101 (2013); Del. Code. Ann. tit. 26, § 303 (2013); D.C. Code § 34-911 (2013);
Ga. Code Ann. § 46-2-23 (West 2012); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 269-16 (2013); Idaho Code Ann. § 61301 (2013); 220 Ill. Compo Stat. 5 / 9-101 (2013); Ind. Code § 8-1-2-4 (2012); Iowa Code §
476.1D (2013); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 66-1,189 (2013); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278.030 (2012); La.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45:163 (2012); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 35-A, § 301 (2012); Md. Code Ann., Pub.
Util. Cos. § 4-201 (West 2013); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 159, § 17 (2012); Minn. Stat. § 237.05
(2012); Miss. Code Ann. § 77-3-33 (2012); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 392.200 (2012); Mont. Code Ann. §
69-3-807 (2011); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 75-119 (2012); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 704.040 (2013); N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 374:1 (2012); N.J. Rev. Stat. § 48:3-1 (2013); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 63-9A-8.1 (2012);
N.Y. Pub. Servo Law § 91 (Consol. 2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 62-132 (2012); N.D. Cent. Code §
49-04-02 (2011); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4905.22 (2012); Okla. Stat. tit. 17, § 137 (2012); Or.
Rev. Stat. § 759.035 (2011); 66 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1301 (2012); R.I. Gen. Laws § 39-2-1 (2011);
S.c. Code Ann. § 58-3-140 (2011); S.D. Codified Laws § 49-31-4 (2012); Tenn. Code Ann. §
65-4-122 (West 2012); Tex. Util. Code Ann. § 53.003 (2011); Utah Code Ann. § 54-3-1 (2012);
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 218 (2010); Va. Code Ann. § 56-234 (2012); Wash. Rev. Code §
80.36.080 (2012); W. Va. Code § 24-3-1 (2012); Wis. Stat. § 196.03 (2013); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §
37-15-404 (2012). See also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-20 ("If any public service company or private
water company uureasonably fails or refuses to furnish adequate service at reasonable rates to
any person within the territorial limits within which the company has, by its charter, authority to
furnish the service or, in the case of a nonfranchised, nonchartered private water company, the
general territorial limits within which it operates, and if no other specific remedy is provided in
this title or in regulations adopted thereunder, the person may bring a written petition to the
Department of Public Utility Control alleging the failure or refusal."); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16247b (2013) ("(b) Each telephone company shall provide reasonable nondiscriminatory access
and plicing to all telecommunications services, functions and unbundled network elements and
any combination thereof necessary to provide telecommunications services to customers.").

34

II

the case of Alaska and Georgia - through the rulings of state regulatory agencies. 35 In other
states, such as Massachusetts, ICS consumers are struggling to rid themselves of this burden.
If the FCC fails to protect consumers from paying site commissions through interstate
rates, this will undennine the efforts of those states that have already acted to protect consumers.
ICS providers may seek to recover the cost of commissions through interstate rates where they
are banned from passing on such charges through intrastate rates.

This burden will fall hardest

on families of plisoners held in far-off states, those least able to visit in person. Perhaps more
importantly, FCC action is needed in order to encourage states that have not yet acted, such as
Massachusetts, to give meaning to the "just and reasonable" standard.
E. The need to eliminate per-call surcharges

IOCS service were reliable, then it might be reasonable to suggest that some cost be
recovered up fi'ont in a surcharge, rather than spread out in per-minute charges, and that
consumers making a short call should effectively pay more per-minute than those making longer
calls. However, because ICS service is unreliable, consumers often pay the same surcharge two
or three times for a single call, whether because the call is dropped or because the connection is
For statutes and regulations, see Califomia, Cal. Gov't Code § 15819.40 Amended by Stats.
c. 175 (S.B.S1), R 1, eff. Aug. 24, 2007; Michigan, Act No. 245, Public Acts of2008 (effective
July 18, 2008); Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Administrative Regulation
205.023, Section XII, available at
http://www.corrections.state.ne.us/pdf/ar/mail/AR %20205.03.pdf; New York, McKinney's
Correctional Law § 623 (2008); Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws New Mexico, N.M.S.A. 1978,
Section 33-14-1 (2001); § 42-56-38.l(c) (2007); South Carolina, S.C. St. § 10-1-210 (2008);
Washington D.C., D.C. Code § 24-263.01 (2001). Michigan, Act No. 245, Public Acts of2008
(effective July 18, 2008); Nebraska, Department of Correctional Services, Administrative
Regulation 205.023, Section XII, available at
www.corrections.state.ne.us/pdf/ar/maiIlAR%20205.03.pdf; for rulings of state regulatory
agencies, see Re Evereom Systems Inc., ORDER GRANTING IN PART. AND DENYING IN
PART. PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, Regnlatory Commission of Alaska No. U-OO143,2001 WL 1246903 (April 24,2001); Re Investigate Long Distance Charges, CORRECTED
ORDER, Georgia Public Service Commission No. 14530-U, 2002 WL 31096880 (March 19,
2002).
35

2007,

12

so bad they must reinitiate. This would be an unfair burden even if the surcharge were small, but
with exorbitant surcharges such as charged in Massachusetts and elsewhere, dropped and
inaudible calls create an intolerable burden on prisoners' families.
The Notice, Sec. III, A (19), asks for data and comments regarding multiple per call
charges for a single call. Petitioners in the pending complaint with the DTC reported bad
connections and dropped or cut off calls as the most pervasive problems they faced as ICS
consumers. In the 32 affidavits filed with the petition, consumers reported experiencing static
frequently. Although some reported experiencing static in about a third of thc calls, many
reported that most or almost all of the calls were plagued by static, making the call virtnally
inaudible and forcing them to reinitiate the call incurring another surchargc. They also reported
dropped or cut off calls in as many as 60 to 70% of the calls. 36
The 228 letters the DTC received £i'om prisoners and their loved ones in 2012 very
clearly echo the same problems and frustrations experienced by the 32 petitioners who submitted
affidavits in2010. Experience with dropped calls was mentioned in 79% of the letters, while bad
connections and/or poorly maintained equipment was mentioned in 68% of the complaints.
Below are some excerpts from those letters.
In addition to bad connections and dropped calls, the comments of prisoners and their
families to the DTC in 2012 frequently repOlied billing problems, including overcharging,
(43%); false detection of third party calls (17%); and excessive playing of recorded
announcements during the call (25%).

See Amendment 1 and Supplement to Petition at 6-14 at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/amend 1suppS181 O.pdf.
36

13

'''1 am a customer of global tel link and am having trouble with my phone service. I am experiencing caUs
dropping. I can hear him when hel'sl talking but he cannot hear me. He Ihasl to call me back several times in
order for the phone to get back right. This is still taking money off my accoun!. .. ! don't have ... trouble getting
calls from anyone else that caUs my phone." Sonia Sellers
"Despite the high cost of telephone calis, we have experienced poor quality connections, at other times we could
hear our son but he could not hear us and vise-versa. We have experienced dropped calls, and that is an
increased expense because the largest portion of the call is to connect for the first minute. Further, at least three
times per call an over-riding and intrusive telephone recording states ''''this call is from a Massachusetts
Correctional Facility." We are well aware that our son is incarcerated and do not need this over-riding and
intrusive recording to interrupt our conversation that we are paying for." Henrique and Joyceanne Nunes

"The quality of the phone system is very poor, despite the exorbitant rces they charge. I constantly have to tell
my son to speak up; there is always static in the phone; my son often states he cannot heal' me, so he will have
to cut my call short, only to change to another phone, which is sometimes even worse than the first one."
Lula Koonce

Sec. III, A (19) also requests comment on how to ameliorate the problem of multiple
surcharges for a single call. In addition to eliminating the surcharge altogether,

res providers

should: 1) repair or replace all non- or malfunctioning telephone equipment as part of providing
its service, including telephone units and lines; 2) calibrate three-way calling detection systems
such that prisoner telephone calls in the state are not prematurely tenninated unless genuine
attempts to evade telephone security measures are initiated; 3) provide each of their customers
who initiate or rcceive calls from prisoners and have prepaid accounts with the company a
detailed accounting of how the funds deposited into such accounts are actually allocated and
spent; and 4) limit the number of recorded warnings concerning the recording and monitoring of
calls that are played during a prisoner telephone call to one at the beginning of such call.
The Petitioners' suggestion that a call reinitiated within two minutes should not incur
another per-call charge is constructive, to the extent that per-call charges are permitted as part of
the pricing structure. However, PLS fears that such a policy might be inconsistently
implemented, leaving consumers to seek refunds

~

14

if they can ~ through a burdensome and often

ineffective phone company process. In fact, 41 % of the public comments received by the DTe
state that customer service is unresponsive to complaints by consumers.
"Some of the problems that I am encountering with the GTL service is: Idlropped Callis], no
response from the customer service dcpartmentl,] ... IcJommunication on the phone sometimes breaks
up, [iJf mouey is placed on the phone by inmates, when we call and can not get through and attempt
to recall sometimes the system states that we have a lower amount or none at all. We then have to
wait for an hour or so until the system resets itself." Ricardo Feliciano

" ... GTL takes no responsibility on the quality of their phone service, eveu after I med complaints to
them they have never admitted any error in their system and Hever have refunded me on caBs where
I was disconnected or overbilled." Brian Davis

PLS therefore urges that per-call surcharges be eliminated. There is no reason that IeS
providers cannot recover costs plus a reasonable return on investment through per-call charges,
as demonstrated by existing IeS contracts with no surcharges, such as those in New York, Rhode
Island and Michigan. Per-minute charges would appear to be even more likely to yield a profit
for interstate calls than intrastate, since these are most likely to substitute for in-person visits and
therefore to be of substantial duration.

III.

The need for per-minnte rate caps
A cap on the per-minute rate is necessary to ensure just and reasonable IeS charges. The

Dawson Affidavit highlights large differences in res rates between various states and between
state and county facilities in Massachusetts. The fact that providers are able to profitably offer
low rates in some jmisdictions (under five cents per minute in New York) suggests that where
rates are much higher the providers and facilities (through commissions) are reaping profits far in
excess of their costS. 37

37

See Dawson Affidavit pp. 8-9.
15

In support of this argument Dawson points to technological changes that have centralized

rcs operations and reduced capital investment costs.

Not only has this created economies of

scale and brought down the cost of providing rcs service, it has also radically reduced or
eliminated the difference in the cost ofproviding rcs to different facilities, be they small or
large 38 In essence, ifICS service can profitably be offered at under $0.10 in some facilities, it
can profitably be offered at that rate in all facilities.
Dawson supported the benchmark rates proposed in the Wright Petitioner's Alternative
Petition of2007, of $0.20 per minute for debit calls and $0.25 per minute for collect calls.
However, in the attached affidavit he argues that technological changes since then have further
reduced the cost of providing service, and he estimates that per-minute costs have probably been
cut in half sincc 2007, supporting a far lower rate.
IV,

Marginallocatioll methodology
In the Notice, Sec. III, A (24), the Commission asks ifit is appropriate to rely on

"marginal location methodology" adopted to calculate public payphone rates in order to calculate
ICS rates, as advocated in the CIS Provider Proposal. PLS has not analyzed this question in
detail, but does not agree that marginal location methodology is appropriate for analyzing the
costs of rcs. It is clear, however, that ICS rates should take into acconnt the far higher volume
of calls at prison pay phoncs than other pay phones, which resnlts in greater profits than at pnblic
pay-phones even at a lower per-call or per-minute rate. While public pay phones have fallen to
disuse as residential service and then cell phone service expanded, plisoners remain a captive
market for the pay phones in their facilities.

38

See Dawson Affidavit pp. 9-27.
16

In its 2005 Request for Responses, the Massachusetts DOC required 1,028 telephones for
prisoners,39 and it is fair to assume that the existing contractor, GTL, maintains approximately
that number of telephones today. There are approximately 11,000 prisoners in DOC custody,40
all of whom must use these telephones for all legal and personal phone caIls.

This means that

on average about eleven prisoners depend exclusively on each telephone for all calls. DOC
statistics for FY 2012 show that accepted phone caIls totaled 48,699,751 minutes, which means
that each telephone was used on average about 47,374 minutes over the year and, on average,
about 130 minutes each day41
While PLS does not have data on public pay phone usage, it seems apparent that these
telephones do not come close to such usage, but rather are largely abandoned and frequently
broken. PLS clients report having to wait to use telephones 42 ICS use in Massachusetts would
seem not only to dwarf pubic payphone use, but even to exceed residentiallandline use. It is
extremely doubtful that many landlines exclusively serve ten individuals (particularly given the
availability of cell phones and the spreading of calls between home and office), or are in use an
average of 130 minutes per day.
V.

Impact of Rate reductions on call volume
In the Notice, Sec. III, A (24), the Commission asks whether call volumes have increased

where call rates have been lowered. PLS does not have data on the plice-sensitivity of call

See Exh. 6, DOC Request for Responses, July 11,2005, Attachment B, "Required Number of
Imnate Telephone Instruments."
40 See Exh 7, Weekly Count Sheet, Massaehusetts DOC, March 18, 2013, p.2.
41 See DOC Request for Responses for a Secure Inmate Calling System, DOC File NO. 13-DOCInmate Phone, December I 1,2012, Attachment C, attached as Exh. 4
42 See public comments submitted to DTC of Michael Borodine at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc!docketsll 1-16/mborodinecmts.pdf; Thomas Koonce at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketsll 1-16/tkooncecmts.pdf; and Lula Koonce at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketsll 1-16/Ikooncecmts.pdf.
39

17

volume. However, many prisoners have stated that they cannot afford to speak with their loved
ones as frequently or as long as they would like43 , suggesting that demand for rcs service would
increase if rates were limited.
VI.

Billing-Related Call Blocking

rcs providers in Massachusetts are reluctant to enter into agreements with Local
Exchange Carriers to provide for billing collect calls, as described in the Notice, Sec. II, A (40),
meaning that collect calls will not be placed to most homes, unless their carrier has an agreement
with the rcs provider. Massachusetts rcs consumers are therefore forced to go through the
process of establishing a prepaid account with the provider for the facility housing their loved
one, and must pay an exorbitant fee to do so. While the Massachusetts DOC has insisted that
GTL eliminate service charges to set up prepaid accounts, consumers who receive calls £i'om
county facilities pay Securus a 13.9% service charge and to set up a prepaid account with a credit
card, or $6.95 for a $50 deposit. This charge essentially increases telephone call costs by almost
14%.
In an era of computelized billing and instant credit card transfers such fees cannot bear
any relation to the actual costs of administering prepaid accounts. The FCC should regulate this
as an important component ofICS rates.

See letters submitted to DTC for public comment of: Tyran Daniels attacbed at Exh. 8; Dennis
Kelley at http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/dkelleycmts.pdf; Ky Jamcs at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/dockets/ll-16/kjamescmts.pdf; Michael Rompa at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/mrompacmts.pdf; Robert Assad at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16Irassadcmts-20 120802102415 .pdf; Pernell
Saunders at http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/psaunderscmts.pdf; Michael
Marney at http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/mmarneycmts.pdf; Michael
Gomes at http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/dockets/ 11-16/mgomescmts.pdf; Brian Davis at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16Ibdaviscmts.pdf; Cyria Lewis at
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dtc/docketslll-16/c1ewiscmts.pdf
43

18

Conclusion
Massachusetts

rcs consumers look to the FCC to vindicate their right to just and

reasonable rates, which is the same under governing state law as under federal law.

FCC

regulation will not only ensure affordable interstate calls to many who now simply cannot afford
them, it will also establish guidance as our state regulatory agency evaluates intrastate rates.
This matter is urgent for children and other relatives who long to speak with loved ones in
prison, and for prisoners who need family ties and outside connections for successful reentry.
We hope the FCC will act speedily to end profiteering at the expense of these consumers.

19

EXHIBIT 1

July 13, 2012

Anna Lednum
121 Palmetto Drive
Edgewood, MD 21040
Prisoner's legal Services
Attn: Ms. Leslie Walker
10 Winthrop Square
rd

3 Floor
Boston, MA

02110

Subject: Phone Service For Inmates at MCI -Norfolk, MA Concerning Cedric lednum, W88861
Dear Ms. Walker:
I am the mother of Cedric Lednum, W88861, an inmate at MCI - Norfolk, MA. Since his Dad
and I support Cedric's phone debit account, we truly appreciate and thank you for your efforts
to rectify the very poor phone service we receive.
Cedric says it may help you to hear from others involved, as well as the inmates; otherwise I
would simply not bother you with our complaints.
Cedric calls us averaging four times per week, depending on what needs to be discussed
(health, real estate, family, etc.) MCl's phone service is deplorable. I will try to be concise in
my details.
1) Cedric's Voice Quality: Always very poor. Volume weak with a "cave" effect often
during calls. The words are often garbled and his sentences are obliterated or
interrupted by static, clicking and announcements. This results in indiscernible speech
and missed content.
2) Dropped Calls: Occasionally our call is simply dropped/cut off, or ended one or two
minutes early.
3) Switching Phones: Due to the poor phone service, often we must drop a call and try
again. Cedric will go to a different phone; usually it is having the same problems also.
4) Repeated Calling: Again, due to the poor quality of phone reception repeated calling is
common occurrence. Having to repeat the call is expensive, and especially troublesome
when due to Poor Service.

2

5) "20 Minute" Call Rule: Not only is repeating the call expensive and troublesome, but
there are times when we have to discuss personal family business. The rule of "20
Minute Calls" becomes ridiculous because the majority of the time is spent trying to
establish a decent connection and we can't discuss our personal matters within this
timeframe. I feel this rule "fills someone's coffers" unnecessarily.
6) Inaccurate Debit Amounts: Very frequently erroneous remaining debit amounts are
quoted; this results in difficulty budgeting and replenishing Cedric's phone fund in a
timely manner.
We look forward to fundamentally functional prison phone services at MCI for inmates and
pertinent families and friends. With God's blesSing, Cedric may be paroled in about two years.
Phone service, now, while he is an inmate, has extended ramifications. It is another crucial
factor in building and maintaining his future. He cannot be totally cut off from the "outside
world" for two more years, then face society in reality and expect normalcy.
letters for communication are wonderful. No letter, however, can compare to hearing Cedric's
voice and conversing with him. We love him dearly. He is a wonderful person and son. Phone
conversation not only provides voice contact, but also immediacy and voice inflections, i.e.,
modulations of voice: tone, pitch and distribution of stress placed on particular phrases/words.
We anxiously await his calls. They are very important to us as well as to Cedric.
Again, we thank you greatly for your representation to improve the phone service for the
inmates at MCI.

Yours truly,

Anna R. lednum

EXHIBIT 2

Before the
COMMONWEALTH OF MASACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
No. D.T.C 11-16
PETITION OF REIPIENTS OF COLLECT CALLS FROM
PRISONERS AT CORRECTIOANL INSTITUTIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM
THE UNUST AND UNREASONABLE COST OF SUCH CALLS

AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF DOUGLAS A. DAWSON

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

My name is Douglas A. Dawson, and I am President of CCO Consulting, Inc.

("CCO"), located at 7712 Stanmore Drive, Beltsville, Maryland, 20705. CCO is a general telephone
consulting firm. CCO works for over 450 communications companies, which includes competitive
local exchange companies (CLECs), local telephone companies, cable TV providers, electric
companies, wireless providers, wireless companies, municipalities and governments and internet
service providers.
2.

This affidavit has been amended at one place. In paragraph 17 I have changed the

commission rate collected by DOC and added a footnote explaining the change.
3.

I have specific experience that is relevant to the issues in this case. This case involves

the cost of providing local and long distance calling for jails and prisons. I have assisted in the
launch of over 50 long distance companies in my career. In that role, I have done just about
everything possible associated with creating or running long distance companies. I am familiar with
all regulatory aspects oflong distance service including the development of prices and costs and the
writing and filing of tariffs. I have helped numerous companies select the hardware for providing

long distance service. I have negotiated numerous times with wholesale long distance providers such
as Sprint, AT&T, Level3 and Century Link. I understand the details about the underlying long
distance networks and issues associated with using them. I have had extensive experience with and,
consequently, have an in-depth understanding of the capabilities and configurations of network
switching systems, which lie at the heart of what all telephone systems can do. I also have helped
numerous companies with the provisioning of ancillary long distance products such as calling cards,
operator services, pre-paid cards, international toll, and Voice Over IP (VoIP) long distance.
4.

In this affidavit, I have bcen asked to support the original petitioners in the case who

claim that the rates charged for prison calling in Massachnsetts are unreasonable. Recently Securus
and OTL made arguments in their responsive pleadings asking for the case to be dismissed and said
that the petitioners provided insufficient evidence that the rates charged in the state are too high. I
believe that the DTC should hear this case. My primary argument is that there are other states with
lower long distance rates for prisons, and the fact that prison providers accept contracts in those other
states is sufficient evidence that thc rates in Massachusetts are higher than necessary. Further,
Respondents make claims that the costs of providing prison calling have increased since the original
petition for this case was filed in 2009. I will argue below that the prison provider's costs to provide
long distance services have dropped precipitously in the last few years. The petitioners have retained
me as an expert witness and the original plan was for me to file extensive testimony once this docket
moved forward. For now, since time is short, my goal is to explain briefly why the claims made by
Securus and OTL are without merit and why the DTC should hear this case.
S.

For the reasons set forth in this affidavit and based on my extensive background in the

telecommunications field, I conclude that the rates charged for calling in Massachusetts are
excessive. I further contend that thc costs of providing prison calling has dropped precipitously over
the last few years, rather than increased as claimed by the petitioners. In brief, in this affidavit, I will
a) discuss my background and qualifications in the field of telecommunications, b) briefly discuss
2

how the rates in Massachusetts are higher than rates in many other places, and c) discuss how costs
have dropped dramatically for prison telephone providers in the last few years.

n.

Background
6.

I received a Bachelor of Science in Accounting from the University of Maryland in

1977. In addition, I received a Masters degree in Mathematics from the University of California at
Berkeley in 1985.
7.

I began my telephone career in 1975 as a test technician building telephone switches

for Litton Industries in College Park, Maryland. In this position I did system integration testing and
learned in detail how early digital switches operate.
8.

My next telephone job began in 1978 with John Staurulakis, Inc. ("JSI"). JSI is a

telephone consulting firm that specializes in consulting for independent telephone companies (those
smaller telephone companies that were not part of the Bell System). In this job, I worked on
separations cost of service studies for Independent Telephone Companies. In this role, I had my first
detailed exposure to developing the costs of providing telephone service. Additionally, I performed
numerous traffic studies for switches. These studies were used to determine the patterns of customer
usage for switches, and were used to determine costs, but also were used to determine the most
efficient way to configure the switch and the network.
9.

Next, in 1981 I became a Staff Manager ofIndustry Relations at Southwestern Bell

Telephone Company in St. Louis, Missouri. Southwestern Bell was a huge regional telephone
company that is now part of AT&T. My functions there included tracking issues that impacted Bell's
relationships with the independent telephone industry, calculating and negotiating various
interconnection and settlement rates between companies for local calling and other network
arrangements, and overseeing the review of an independent telephone company's traffic and toll cost
studies. In performing the traffic studies I had hands on experience working with measuring usage on

3

a number of different brands of switches. I also served tor a period of time as a member ofthe rate
case team for the Missouri operations. In working on rate cases, I further developed my knowledge
of calculating and developing telephone costs.
10.

In my next position, beginning in 1984, I gained operating telephone company

experience at CP National in Concord, California. CP National was a holding company that owned,
among other things, 13 telephone companies. I had several jobs with increasing responsibility and
ended as Director of Revenues. In that capacity, I oversaw a large group that performed telephone
accounting, separations and traffic engineering studies for a seven-state area. My group also
monitored earnings, developed access and local rates, maintained tariffs, filed rate cases, and
monitored and commented in state and federal regulatory proceedings. In this role, I was directly
responsible for setting rates and for defending those rates in front of various regulatory authorities.
Thus, I testified in a number of rate-making cases and regulatory proceedings in California, Texas,
Nevada, Oregon and Arizona and New Mexico. Part of my responsibility at CP National included
calculating costs and setting rates for four separate operator centers where the company maintained
telephone operators for completing collect and other types of operator-assisted calls. While at CP
National, I also became responsible for earnings monitoring and rate case development for electric,
gas and water properties.
II.

In my next position,

111

1991 I again joined John Staurulakis, Inc. in vanous

capacities. My final position there was as Director of Special Projects. In that capacity, I oversaw all
projects and clients who were not historically part of JSI's core cost separations business. Some of
the projects I worked on included assisting clients in launching long distance companies and to
become internet service providers; studying and implementing traditional and measured local calling
plans; developing optional toll and local calling plans; performing embedded Total Element
Long-Run Incremental Cost ("TELRIC") and incremental cost studies for products and services;
assisting in local rate case preparation and defense; and conducting cross-subsidy studies
4

determining the emhedded overlap between telephone services. In this role, I gained in-depth
experience in long distance rates rate setting and the regulatory process. I also became thoroughly
familiar with the underlying costs of running a long distance company, and providing telephone
servIce.
12.

In 1997, I became a founder and owner of Competitive Communications group, LLC.

The company has subsequently been reformed as CCO Consulting, LLC. My title at CCO is
President and I am directly responsible for all of the consulting work perfonned by our company. As
a firm we offer the following telephone consulting products and services that are needed by
companies that are launching new ventures or entering new markets, all under my direct control and
supervlSlon:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Engineering services, including:
• Analysis of telephone hardware for switching and networks
• Detailed network design and development
• Developing switching specifications and provisioning new switches
into service
• Developing RFPs and analyzing vendors;
Development of financial business plans;
Market segmentation studies to understand markets and customers;
Competitive research including rates and services of other providers;
Strategic analysis and planning;
Marketing plans;
Regulatory work including certification of companies to provider service,
development and filing of tariffs and regulatory compliance to make
certain companies are meeting regulatory requirements;
Implementation assistance for start-up companies including:
• Negotiating interconnection agreements with other carriers
• Negotiating network implementation and collocation of equipment
with other carriers;
• Choosing vendors for billing, back office, operator services and other
external requirements
• Ordering trunks (telephone lines that go between different networks)
• Detailed hands-on project management;
• Assistance in developing and implementing accounting systems;
• Development of rates;

5

•

m.

Calculation of costs.

RATE ISSUES

15.

The purpose of this section is to highlight a few other states where rates are

significantly lower than the rates charged today in Massachusetts, which is sufficient proofthat the
rates in Massachusetts are too high. If and when this case proceeds to an evidentiary hearing, I will
provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of rates in other states as they compare to
Massachusetts.
16.

One thing that anybody who looks at prison calling rates will instantly see is how

widely the rates vary. This is often the case even within the same prison or jail where the rates for
state and interstate rates might be quite different, although the costs are nearly identical. Generally it
seems like prison telephone providers will charge as much for calls as they can get away with in each
jurisdiction. As can be seen by a few of the rates I list below, there is a big discrepancy even within
Massachusetts between the rates charged by state prisons and those charged by County facilities.
17.

Following are some examples of the rates charged in Massachusetts today. The first

rates below are the rates used by GTL for the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. In this
document I will refer to those as the DOC rates.
The DOC Commission rate is rates is 15% for debit calls and 30% for collect calls. The
composite effective Commission rate is 24%. I

In the 'Third Amendment to Contract for a Secure Inmate Calling System and Related Serves, DOC File
No. 1000-PHONE2006' dated September 9, 2010 the commission rate was lowered to 30% on collect calls
and 15% on debit calls. In the most recent 'RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System and Related Services,
DOC File No. 13-DOC-Inmate Phone' the effective commission rate for the two types of calling combined
can be calculated at just over 24% for 2012 based on the revenues and commissions listed on the final page
of Attachment C. That page shows $7,132,095.44 of calling revenue for 2012 and $1,717,504.80 of
commissions paid.
I

6

Debit Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.65
$0.65
SO.65
$0.65

Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus

$0.075
$0.075
$0.075
$0.075

Collect Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.86
$0.86
$0.86
$0.86

Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus

$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10

18.

per minute
per minute
per minute
per minute

per minute
per minute
per minute
per minute

In addition to the DOC rates, there are contracts for different rates among many

County and city-owned correctional facilities. Following are some examples of these other rates:

Rates for the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department (GTL)
The Plymouth rates include a 60% commission plus a monthly fee of$2.89 for anybody who
receives a bill.
All Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$3.10 for
$3.10 for
$2.60 for
$3.95 for

the
the
the
the

1sl minute
1sl minute
1sl minute
1SI minute

and then
and then
and then
and then

$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.89

Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (Securus)
The Suffolk rates include a 50% commission.
Debit Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.50 per minute
$0.50 per minute
$0.50 per minute
$0.50 per minute

Collect Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$2.85
$2.85
$3.00
$3.00

Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus
Surcharge plus

7

$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.89

per minute
per minute
per minute
per minute

per minute
per minute
per minute
per minute

Hampden County Sheriff's Department (Securus)
The Hampden rates include a 52% commission plus payment of $3,500.
All Calls
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$2.50 Surcharge plus $0.50 per call
$2.50 Surcharge plus $0.10 per minute
$2.50 Surcharge plus $0.10 per minute
$3.95 Surcharge + $0.89 the 1st minute then $0.10 per minute

Barnstable County Sheriff's Department (Securus)
The Barnstable rates include a 52% commission
All Calls
Local
Interstate
State IntraLata & InterLata

$3.00 Surcharge plus $0.10 per minute
$3.95 Surcharge plus $0.89 per minute
$3.00 Surcharge plus the following per minute rates:

Day

0-10 Miles
11 - 14 Miles
15+ Miles

$0.10 for 1st minute then $0.06 per minute
$0.10 for 1st minute then $0.09 per minute
$0.10 for 1st minute then $0.10 per minute

Evening

0- 10 Miles
11 - 14 Miles
15+ Miles

$0.074 for 1st minute then $0.055 per minute
$0.10 for 1st minute then $0.055 per minute
$0.10 for 1st minute then $0.061 per minute

Night/Wknd

0 - 10 Miles
11 - 14 Miles
15+ Miles

$0.046 for )"t minute then $0.036 per minute
$0.054 for 1st minute then $0.036 per minute
$0.078 for 1st minute then $0.036 per minute

19.

Following are now some examples of state rates that are priced far lower than some of

the rates being used in Massachusetts particularly by the Counties. These are examples of the collect
calling rates from some other state DOC contracts.
New York (UnisysN AC)
All calls

$0.048 per minute with no surcharge

Michigan (Embarq)
8

Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.12 per minute with no surcharge
$0.12 per minute with no surcharge
$0.12 per minute with no surcharge
$0.15 per minute with no surcharge

Rhode Island (GTL)
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.70 per call with no surcharge
$0.70 per call with no surcharge
$0.70 per call with no surcharge
$1.30 Surcharge plus $0.30 per minute

Nebraska (PCS)
Local
State IntraLata
State InterLata
Interstate

$0.70 per call with no surcharge
$0.70 Surcharge plus $0.05 per minute
$0.70 Surcharge plus $0.05 per minute
$0.70 Surcharge plus $0.05 per minute

20.

The fact that there are states that have lower rates than Massachusetts is reason

enough for DTC to investigate the rates charged in Massachusetts prisons and jails, especially given
the lack of significant discrepancy in the cost of providing these services across states. Fnrther, the
fact that there is a big disparity between the rates charged by the State and Counties is yet another
reason why this docket should move forward.

IV.

THE FALLING COSTS OF PRISON CALLING

21.

Like the rest of the telephone industry, the methods and costs of providing prison

long distance have dropped precipitously over the last few years. There are several technological
changes in the industry that have enabled the prison providers to drastically streamline their
operations and greatly increase profit margins. These changes relate to the ability to process calls
from centralized locations, which is often referred to as 'using the cloud'. There is also a

9

dramatic change ongoing in the cost of transport and bandwidth that have made it cheaper to
connect to ajail facility. Finally, the large providers like Securus and OTL have benefitted
greatly by centralization and economies of scale.
22.

Of these changes, the most important one is the ability to process and switch

prison calls at locations outside the prisons. In the past each prison would have needed a
telephone switching device of some sort that would have required a significant capital
investment. Further, the requirement of having sophisticated equipment at prisons also meant that
the prison calling provider had to maintain an extensive fleet of technicians to keep the dispersed
equipment in the network functioning. But the day of needing to make big capital investments at
prisons is gone. Today, the prison providers can deploy one, or a few large softswitches in their
network nationwide to handle the calls from all ofthejails and the prisons on their network.
23.

This change to a centralized switching and processing has been further enabled by

a change in the way that calls get to and from prisons to the outside world. It was not too many
years ago that prison providers had to buy very expensive TI s to carry voice calls. And since one
T1 can handle 24 calls at most, larger prisons required multiple T1 s. Today the prisons (along
with many normal businesses) are converting to IP based voice switching. The prison provider
now can order DSL, a cable modem or some other sort of ethernet connection at a prison and use
that connection to route calls back to the centralized switching location. These connections are
significantly less expensive than TI s and are more efficient. This new method of sending and
receiving calls over ethernet is generically referred to as Voice over IP (VoIP).
24.

Today there is very little capital investment made by prison telephone provider at

each prison. All of the brains of the prison calling network are housed now at large centralized

10

locations. Today a prison calling system consists primarily of the telephones, an ethernet pipe to
the outside world and some sort of small data router. Everything else is done at the centralized
hubs in the network. One of the benefits of centralization for the prison providers is that there is
significantly less labor required to keep prison systems operating. It was not unusual in the past
for a prison telephone provider to maintain large f1eets of service personnel who were needed to
trouble shoot and keep the prison telephone systems operating. Today that task is mostly done
from a centralized location and technicians rarely have to visit the prisons other than to deal with
the telephone handsets. When trouble shooting is needed it can usually be done be a technician
from the centralized hub. The savings in labor costs are dramatic compared to just a few years
ago.
25.

I have participated in many dockets in the past that looked at prison calling

systems where the prison providers testified about their investments in developing centralized
software for handling the penological requirements of a prison. In the not too distant past they
would have to create different versions of software for different prisons and different states.
However, software has also gotten much more sophisticated in the last few years. Prison calling
providers now have one large software system that will handle just about any penological need
and allows providers to quickly choose the functions they want from a menu to apply to a given
prison. In the past they might have maintained different versions of software for different prison
systems, but today they maintain one giant program that can accommodate every system.
26.

Prison telephone systems are the perfect example of an economy of scale

business. The morc jails and prisons anyone provider can add to their system, the more
profitable they can be for every prison on the network. Most of a prison provider's costs are now
II

fixed at big hub locations and a much smaller percentage of their costs are driven incrementally
at each prison.
27.

Several years ago I did costs estimates of the cost of prison calling where I

estimated that the cost per minute was in the six to seven cent per minute range. I have not yet
updated that estimate for the issues discussed above, but I would have to guess today that the net
effect of all of the above changes have probably cut the cost at least in half on a per minute basis.
Almost every important cost component of prison calling has gotten significantly less expensive
over the past few years.

V.

SUMMARY
28.

This affidavit summarizes an abundance of evidence that prison rates are now out of

line with costs, which I am prepared to present in more detail as this case proceeds. First there are
states where prison providers are operating today using rates that are significantly lower than the
rates charged in Massachusetts today, while costs across states remain virtually the same. That fact
alone is enough evidence that there is room for rate cuts in the rates here and that Massachusetts rates
are umeasonable. Secondly, the prison providers are benefitting from tremendous reductions in their
cost of providing service without having seen any corresponding cut in the rates they charge. Prison
providers should, of course, make a profit, but the existing rates yield excessive profits that are
unnecessarily burdensome to consumers in this instance. There are sufficient issues worth exploring
in this docket that would support this Commission taking a harder look at prison telephone rates in
Massachusetts.

DOUGLAS A. DA WSON

dc·346162

12

EXHiBiT 3

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
1

1

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

2

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

3

DOCKET NO.:

4

DTCll-16

5
6

*************************

7

PETITION OF RECIPIENTS OF COLLECT CALLS FROM

*

8

PRISONERS AT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN

*

9

MASSACHUSETTS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE UNJUST

*

10

AND UNREASONABLE COST OF SUCH CALLS

*

11

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

12
13

14

BEFORE:

HEARING OFFICER KALUN LEE

15
16

OFFICE OF THE DIVISION OF INSURANCE

17

First Floor, Hearing Room E

18

1000 Washington Street

19

Boston, Massachusetts

20

Thursday, July 19, 2012 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

21
22

23

Laurie J. Jordan

24

Professional Court Reporter

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
88
MR. HOMSY:

1

Good afternoon.

2

Homsy.

3

Suffolk County Sherriff's Department.

I am Russ

I am the Assistant General Counsel with the

THE HEARING OFFICER:

4

Since you are

5

not entered into this matter, if I could just ask you

6

to spell your name for the court reporter.
MR. HOMSY:

7
8

Sure, R-U-S-S-E-L-L,

H-O-M-S-Y.
THE HEARING OFFICER:

9

And the phone

10

number I have for you is 617-704-6535.

11

MR. HOMSY:

12

THE HEARING OFFICER:

13

That's correct.
Then you may

begin.

14

MR. HOMSY:

Thank you.

I just wanted

15

to point out that the use for the funds we receive

16

from the commissions, what those are actually used

17

for.

18

Those funds are generally used for lots

19

of inmate programming.

Life-skills programs, GED

20

programs for inmates, vocational programs and

21

reentry programs.

22

supplies.

23

are necessary but things that help inmates during the

24

time cf their incarceration like library supplies,

They're also used for inmate

These are generally not of the types that

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

89
1

certain recreational supplies, computers and

2

software.

3

commissions derived are used to spend on.

4

This is what the funds from those

I also want to point out that the

5

telephone systems that are used in these facilities

6

are not garden-variety telephone systems, which is

7

what I'm hearing it's often compared to.

8

buy a calling card and it's very similar in terms of

9

the cost of those systems.

10

Where you

Here we have a system that's tied to

11

inmate accounts, which costs considerably more.

12

There's a very advanced system in place for

13

monitoring the telephone calls.

14

public and victims from harassing calls.

15

provides unfettered attorney-client communication.

16

Those are all things that are used as part of this

17

system.

18

And it protects the
It also

The benefits of those funds I think we

19

all can agree are beneficial to the inmates

20

themselves.

21

security of the institutions.

22

beneficial to the public as a whole.

And they are also very

Those funds are used to help prevent

23

24

They are beneficial to the staff and

recidivism.

They provide security to the staff at

EXHIBIT 4

Department of Correction
Request for Responses
for an

Secure Inmate Calling System
& Related Services
DOC File No. 13-nOC-Inmate Phone

December ,11} 2012

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Relaied Services
DOC File Number: 13-DOC-Inmate Phone

December 11\

2012

Attachment C
Current Inmate Call Volume and
Commission History
SUMM.ARYBYMONTfl-ALL CALL TYPES

,
~J~u~lv~,2~O~1~I____~__~I.~,2~1~1,~4.8~'2~-+i__~3209~,~36~8~ ___j ____4~,O~4~5,~8~85~~
Amrust, 2011

1,141,032

September, 2011

1,055,988

Ocmber,2011

1,154,263

·
i

. I,
I

288,941

3,779,846

274,499

3,601,850

299,541

3,964,056

1

i!-,Nc:o"-v:.::e",m",b,,,erL,:::20",1",1_t-_1"".=-18"'9"',9""7-'1_-1__----'3=00, 649

4,032,564

I December, 2011

1,288,070

317,734

4,247,364

I January, 2012

1,201,485

307,839

4,158,387

I Februarv,2012

1,143,967

310,474

4,165,804

i March, 2012

1,270,034

335,562

4,499,781

I April, 2012

I

I May, 2012

I

i

2=---i1__---'3'--'1~5"',1"'03"--_-l-_4"',=.:20"'O"-,4""6"'3_-i

1,250,0..:,4

1,223,165

311,637

4,119,418

\ June, 20 12?-c-..c-"---c.,,,i.,---c-'-l,:.;,1""65",A",2,,,0'cc-cc+II ",-_.293,6. 16., ... ,. ••.,., .. 1..............

3.884'~.'.33 .. _,

K.· .,.·.·.·.•··.·\t~laW:I::'l.4,294:9)j'· ',. ·i(3A6~,963 ,....... ··.·.<t8~~9,75t . ..

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 01757

EXHIBIT 5

Senate, No. 2045, printed as amended
[Senate. April 28, 2009 - Text of the Senate Bill transferring county sheriffs to the Commonwealth, (Senate
No. 2031, printed as amended)]

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

IN THE YEAR OF TWO THOUSAt"\TD AND NINE

1

SECTION 1. Section 17 of chapter 37 ofthe General Laws, as appearing in the 2006
Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the second and third paragraphs and

3
4

inserting in place thereof the following paragraph:The sheriffs of the counties of Barnstable, Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk and of

5

the former counties of Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire. Middlesex and

6

Worcester shall each receive a salary of$123.209. The sheriff of the cormty of Dukes shall

7

receive a salary of$97 ,271. The sheriff ofthe county of Nantucket shall receive a salary of

8

$71,332.

9
10

SECTION 2. Chapter 64D of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out
sections 11 to 13, inclusive. and inserting in place thereof the following 2 sections:-

11

Section 11. Except for Barnstable and Suffolk counties. there shall be established upon

12

the books of each county of a transferred sheriff, the government of which county has not been

13

abolished by chapter 34B or other law, a fund, maintained separate and apart from all other

14

funds and accounts of each county, to be known as the Deeds Excise Fund.

15

Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, except for Barnstable and

16

Suffolk counties, on the fIrst day of each month, 10.625 per cent ofthe taxes collected in the

17

county of a transferred sheriff under this chapter shall be transmitted to the Deeds Excise Fund

18

for each county. The remaining percentage of taxes collected under this chapter, including all

19

taxes collected under this chapter in Barnstable and Suffolk counties and all counties the

20

government of which has been abolished by chapter 34B or other law, but not including the

21

additional excise authorized in section 2 of chapter 163 of the acts of 1988, shall be transmitted

22

to and retained by the General Fund in accordance with section 10.

23

Section 12. (a) There shall be within the executive office for administration and fInance

24

a county government fmance review board to consist ofthe secretary of administration and

25

fmance or his designee, the commissioner of revenue or his designee a county commissioner

26

annually selected by the Massachusetts Association of County Commissioners and the state

27

auditor or his designee. The secretary of administration and fmance or his designee shall serve

28

as chairperson of the board.

29

(b) Notwithstanding any general or special law or county charter to the contrary, the

30

arumal or supplementary budget of a county shall not take effect until reviewed and approved by

31

the board. Except for Barnstable and Suffolk counties, the board shall not approve a budget of a

32

county unless it is satisfied that:

33
34

(l) the estimates of revenue are reasonable and adequate funding has been provided for

all necessary county expenditures;

(2) of the amounts deposited in the Deeds Excise Fund for each county from revenues
36

derived under this chapter: (i) not more than 60 per cent of the deposits shall be disbursed and

37

expended for meeting the costs ofthe operation and maintenance of the county; and (ii) not less

38

than 40 per cent shall be disbursed and expended for the automation, modernization and

39

operation ofthe registries of deeds; and

40

(3) with respect to funds appropriated for the purpose designated in subclause (ii) of

41

clause (2) and which are not dedicated to the Deeds Excise Fund in each county under section

42

11, the submitted proposed budget shall provide a continuing amount of expenditure of not less

43

than 102.5 per cent ofthe amount expended for that purpose in the precedi.'1g fiscal year.

44

In the case of Barnstable county, the board shall not approve a budget unless it is

45

satisfied that the estimates of revenue are reasonable and that adequate funding has been

.~

provided for all necessary county expenditures.

47

(c) If a proposed budget is disapproved by the board, the county commissioners or a

48

successor body shall, with the approval of the county advisory board, if applicable, and within

49

30 days of notification of disapproval ofthe proposed budget, resubmit a revised proposed

50

budget to the board which addresses the board's concerns.

51

(d) The board shall develop guidelines for implementing this section.

52

SECTION 3. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the offices of

53

the Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfollc, Plymouth, and Suffolk county sheriffs are

54

hereby transferred to the commonwealth as provided in this act.

55

SECTION 4. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, all functions,

56

duties and responsibilities of the ottice of a transferred sheriff pursuant to this act including, but

q

not limited to, the operation and management of the county jail and house of correction, and any

58

other statutorily authorized functions of that office, are hereby transferred from the county to the

59

commonwealth.

60

SECTION 5. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the

61

government of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk counties,

62

except the office of county sheriff, shall retain all existing authority, functions and activities for

63

all purposes including, but not limited to, the purposes established in chapters 34, 34A, 35 and

64

36 of the General Laws or as otherwise authorized by this act. This act shall not affect the

65

existing county boundaries.

66

SECTION 6. All valid liabilities and debts of the office ofa transfen'ed sheriff which are

67

in force on the effective date of this act shall be obligations of the commonwealth as of that

68

date, except as may be otherwise provided in this act. All assets of the offices of a transferred

69

sheriff on the effective date of this act shall become assets of the commonwealth, except as

70

otherwise provided in this act,

71

SECTION 7. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, all rights,

72

title and interest in real and personal property, including those real property improved upon

73

through construction overseen by the division of capital asset management and maintenance and

74

paid with commonwealth funds and which are controlled by the office of a transferred sheriff on

75

the effective date of this act including, without limitation, all correctional facilities and other

76

buildings and improvements, the land on which they are situated and any fixtures, wind

77

turbines, anteunae, communication towers and associated structures and other communication

78

devices located thereon or appurtenant thereto, shall be transferred to the commonwealth,

79

except as otherwise provided in this act. This transfer of all buildings, lands, facilities, fixtures

80

and improvements shall be subject to chapter 7 of the General Laws and the jurisdiction of the

commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance as provided therein, except as
82

otherwise provided in this act. The commonwealth shall take all necessary steps to ensure

83

continued access, availability and service to any assets transferred to the commonwealth under

84

this subsection, to a local or regional organization that currently uses such assets.

85

(b) If a transferred sheriff occupies part of a building or structure owned by a county, the

86

county shall lease that part of the building or structnre to the commonwealth under reasonable

87

terms detennined by the commissioner ofthe capital asset management and maintenance.

88

(c) The transfer under this section shall be effective and shall bind all persons, with or

89

without notice, without any further action or documentation. Without derogating from the

90

foregoing, the commissioner of capital asset management and maintenance may, fi"om time to

91

time, execute and record and file for registration with any registry of deeds or the land court, a
certificate confirming the commonwealth's ownership of any interest in real property formerly

93
94

controlled by the office of a transferred sheriff pursnant to this section.
(d) This section shall not apply to the land and buildings shown as Parcel C on a Plan of

95

Landin Braintree, Mass, dated October 2, 1997, prepared by County of Norfolk Engineering

96

Dept., 649 High Street, Dedham, filed at the Norfolk county registry of deeds in plan book 454,

97

page 128. (e) This section shall not apply to the former Barnstable county house of Gon"ection

98

located at the Barnstable County Complex on state highway route 6A in the town of Barnstable.

99

SECTION 8. Once the commonwealth has refmanced any outstanding bonds of the

100

Plymouth County Correctional Facility Corporation, said corporation shall be dissolved and its

101

assets shall be transfelTed to the commonwealth. The criminal detention facility constructed

102

under chapter 425 afthe acts of 1991 shall be transfen-ed to the commonwealth. The revenue
held by the corporation in the Repair and Replacement and Capital Improvement Accounts shall

104

be transferred to the Plymouth Sheriffs Facility Maintenance Trust Account. The Plymouth

105

sheriff shall make expenditures from this account only for the maintenance, repair and

106

replacement of the sheriff s facilities.

107

SECTION 9. All leases and contracts of the office ofa transferred sheriff which are in

108

force on the effective date of this act shall be obligations of the commonwealth and the

109

commonwealth shall have authority to exercise all rights and enjoy all interests conferred upon

110

the county by those leases and contracts except as may be otherwise provided in this act.

111

SECTION 10. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, begirming in

112

fiscal year 2010 and thereafter until terminated, Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk,

113

and Plymouth counties shall appropriate and pay to their respeetive county retirement boards,

114

and any other entities due payments, amounts equal to the minimum obligations to fund from

115

their own revenues in fiscal year 2009 the operations of the office of the sheriff for the purpose

116

of covering the unfunded cOlmty pension liabilities and other benefit liabilities of the retired

117

sheriffs office employees that remain in the county retirement systems, as determined by the

118

actuary of the public employee retirement administration commission. Pursuant to section 20 of

119

chapter 59 of the General Laws, the state treasurer shall assess the city of Boston and remit to

120

the State-Boston retirement system an amolmt equal to the minimnm obligation of Suffolk

121

county to fund from its own revenues in fiscal year 2009 the operations of the office of the

122

sheriff. The secretary of administration and [mance shall establish a plan for county

123

governments to payoff these unfunded county pension liabilities and shall establish an

124

amortization schedule to accomplish this task. These payments shall remain in effect for the

125

duration of that amortization schedule, which shall not exceed the funding schedule established

126

by the respective county retirement board. lfthe unfunded pension liability ofretil'ees exceeds

any county's minimum obligation to fund operations from its own revenues as set forth in this
128

section, the retirement system for such county may extend its pension funding schedule to the

129

extent necessary to eliminate that excess unfunded pension liability. In the case of any such

130

county, when the COW1ty has paid such unfunded pension liabilities in full, or the cOW1ty has

131

completed the amortization schedule as established under this section, whichever occurs first,

132

the county's obligation to make payments of its minimum obligations to fund its sheriffs office

133

operations, as determined under this section, shall terminate.

134

In fiscal year 2010 and succeeding years, if the amoW1t that represents 31.875 per cent of

135

deeds excise collections in a county exceeds the cost ofthe operation ofthe office ofthe sheriff,

136

including health insurance and retirement costs, such COW1ty shall provide suffIcient deeds

137

excise revenue to the commonwealth to fund those costs as identified by the general
appropriations act for that fiscal year. Any deeds excise revenue ofthe 31.875 per cent

139

collected by a county that is in excess of the costs of operations of the office of the sheriff

140

as identified in the annual state budget shall remain with the county's Deeds Excise Fund to

141

fund obligations of the county tmder section I of chapter 64D of the General Laws. Amounts in

142

this paragraph shall be as determined by the secretary of administration and finance, in

143

consultation with the appropriate sheriff and county officials.

144

SECTION II. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, any funds

145

including, but not lmiited to cOW1ty correctional funds and other sources of income and revenue,

146

to the credit of the offIce of a transferred sheriff on JW1e 30, 2009, shall be paid to the state

147

treasurer, but the COW1ty treasurer may pay appropriate fiscal year 2009 sheriffs department

148

obligations after JW1e 30, 2009. Payment of obligations to be charged to (he sheriffs fiscal year

149

2009 budget as approved by the county government fmance review board shall be within that

150

budget or shall be approved by the secretary of administration and finance.

151

SECTION 12. (a) Not'hithstanding any general or special law to the contrary and except

152

for all counties the governments of which have been abolished by chapter 34B or other law,

153

revenues of the office of sheriff in Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth

154

and Suffolk counties for civil process, inmate telephone and commissary funds, shall remain

155

with the office of sheriff.

156

(b) In order to encourage umovation and enterprise, each sheriff's office shall annually

157

confer with the house and senate committees on ways and means regarding that sheriff s efforts

158

to maximize and maintain grants, dedicated revenue accounts, revolving accounts, fee for

159

service accounts and fees and payments from the federal, state and local governments and other

160

such acconnts and regarding which revenues shall remain with the sheriff's office.

161
162
163
164
165

(c) Any sheriff who has developed a revenue source derived apart from the state treasury
may retain that funding to address the needs of the citizens within that county.
Cd) Any unencumbered carry-forward deeds excise or other funds to the credit of the
sheriff on June 30, 2009 shall be paid to the state treasurer.
(e) Notwithstanding any general or special law or county charter to the contrary,

166

regional services and contracts for such services, including, but not limited to, regional

167

communication centers and law enforcement support, shall continue until expired, termu1ated or

168

revoked under the terms of the agreement or contract for such services.

169

SECTION 13 Ca) All employees of the office oftransfened sheriff, including those who

170

on the effective date of this act hold permanent appointment in positions classified under

171

chapter 31 of the General Laws or those who have tenure in their positions by reason of section

9A of chapter 30 ofthe General Laws or do not hold such tenure, are hereby transferred to that
173

transferred sheriff as employees of the commonwealth, without interruption of service within

174

the meaning of said section 9A of said chapter 30 or said chapter 31 and without reduction in

175

compensation or salary grade.

176

(b) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, employees of the office

177

of a transferred sheriff shall continue to retain their right to collectively bargain pursuant to

178

chapter 150E of the General Laws and shall be considered sheriffs office employees for the

179

purposes of said cbapter 150E.

180

(c) All petitions, requests, investigations and other proceedings duly brought before the

181

office of a transferred sheriff or duly begun by that sheriff and pending on the effective date of

182

this act, shall continue unabated and remain in force, but shall be assumed and completed by the
office of a transferred sheriff.

184

(d) All orders, rules and regulations duly made and all approvals duly granted by a

185

transferred sheriff which are in force on the effective date of this act, shall continue in force and

186

shall thereafter be enforced until superseded, revised, rescinded or canceled in accordance with

187

law by that sheriff.

188
189
190

(e) All books, papers, records, documents and eqnipment which, on the effective date of
this act, are in the custody of a transferred sheriff shall be transferred to that sheriff.
(f) All duly existing contracts, leases and obligations of a transferred sheriff shall

191

continue in effect. An existing right or remedy of any character shall not be lost or affected by

192

this act.

193

194

SECTION 14. The rights of all employees of each office of a transferred sheriff shall
continue to be governed by the terms of collective bargaining agreements, as applicable. If

195

collective bargaining agreement has expired on the transfer date, the terms and conditions of

196

such agreement shall remain in effect until a successor agreement is ratified and funded.

197

SECTION 15. Notwithstanding any general or speeiallaw to the contrary, a transferred

198

sheriff in office on the effective date of this act shall become an employee of the commonwealth

199

with salary to be paid by the commonwealth. The sheriff shall remain an elected official for the

200

purposes of section 159 of chapter 54 of the General Laws. The sheriff shall operate pursuant to

201

chapter 37 of the General Laws. The sheriff shall retain administrative and operational control

202

over the office of the sheriff, the jail, the house of correction and any other occupied buildings

203

controlled by a transferred sheriff upon the effective date of this act. The sheriff and sheriff s

204

office shall retain and operate under all established common law power and authority and

205

consistent with chapters 126 and 127 of the General Laws and any other relevant General Laws.

206

SECTION 16. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, a transferred

207

sheriff shall be considered an "employer" as that term is defmed in section 1 of chapter 150E of

208

the General Laws for the purposes of said chapter 150E. The sheriff shall also have power and

209

authority as employer in all matters including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, promotion,

210

discipline, work-related injuries and internal organization ofthe department.

211

SECTION 17. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law or rule or regulation to the

212

contrary, the sheriff, special sheriff, deputies, jailers, superintendents, deputy superintendents,

213

assistant deputy superintendants, keepers. officers, assistants and other employees ofthe office

214

of a transferred sheriff, employed on the effective date of this act in the discharge of their

215

responsibilities set forth in section 24 of chapter 37 ofthe General Laws and section 16 of

216

chapter 126 of the General Laws shall be transferred to the commonwealth with no impairment

217

of employment rights held on the effective date of this act, without interruption of service,

"",

without impairment of seniority, retirement or other rights of employees, without reduction in

219

compensation or salary grade and without change in union representation, Any collective

220

bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of this act shall continue in effect and the

221

terms and conditions of employment therein shall continue as if the employees had not been so

222

transferred. Nothing in this section shall confer upon any emplo yee any right not held on the

223

effective date of this act or prohibit any reduction of salary, grade, transfer, reassignment,

224

suspension, discharge layoff or abolition of position not prohibited before the effective date of

225

this act. Such employees shall not be considered new employees for salary, wage, tax, health

226

insurance, Medicare or any other federal or state purposes, but shall retain their existing start

227

and hiring date, seniority and any other relevant employment status through the transfer.

228

(b) All demands, notices, citations, writs and precepts given by a sheriff, special sheriff,

""g

deputy, jailer, superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant deputy superintendent, keeper,

230

officer, assistant or other employee of the office of a transferred sheriff, as the case may be, on

231

or before the effective date ofthis act shall be valid and effective for all purposes unless

232

otherwise revoked, suspended, rescinded, canceled or terminated.

233

(c) Any enforcement activity imposed by a sheriff or special sheriff or by any deputies,

234

jailers, superintendents, deputy superintendents, assistant deputy superintendents, keepers,

235

officers, assistants or other employees of the office of a transferred sheriff before the effective

236

date of this act shall be valid, effective and continuing in force according to the terms thereof

237

for all purposes unless superseded, revised, rescinded or canceled.

238

(d) All petitions, hearings appeals, suits and other proceedings duly brought against and

239

all petitions, hearings, appeals, suits, prosecutions and other legal proceedings begun by a

;AO

sheriff, special sheriff, deputy, jailer, superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant deputy

241

superintendent, keeper, officer, assistant or the employee of the office ofa transferred sheriff, as

242

the case may be, which are pending on the effective date of this act shall continue unabated and

243

remain in force notwithstanding the passage of this act.

244

(e) All records maintained by a sheriff or special sheriff or by any deputies, jailers,

245

superintendents, deputy superintendents, assistant deputy superintendents, keepers, officers,

246

assistants and other employees of the office of a transfelTed sheriff on the effective date of this

247

act shall continue to enjoy the same status in a court or administrative proceeding, whether

248

pending on that date or commenced thereafter, as they would have enjoyed in the absence of the

249

passage of this act.

250

SECTION 18. All officers and employees of the office ofa transferred sheriff

251

transferred to the service of the commonwealth shall be transferred with no impairment of

252

seniority, retirement or other rights of employees, without reduction in compensation or salary

253

grade and without change in union representation, except as otherwise provided in this act. Any

254

collective bargaining agreement in effect for transferred employees on the effective date of this

255

act shall continue as ifthe employees had not been so transferred until the expiration date of the

256

collective bargaining agreement. Nothing in this section shall confer upon any employee any

257

right not held on the effective date of this act prohibit any reduction of salary, grade, transfer,

258

reassignment, suspension, discharge, layoff or abolition of position not prohibited before that

259

date.

260

SECTION 19. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, employees

261

or retired employees of the office ofa transferred sheriff and the surviving spouses of retired

262

employees of the office of a transferred sheriff who are eligible for group insurance coverage as

263

provided in chapter 32B ofthe General Laws or who are insured under said chapter 32B, shall

264

have that eligibility and coverage transferred to the group insurance commission effective 4

265

months after the effective date ofthis act and those employees shall cease to be eligible or

266

insured under said chapter 32B. These employees shall not be considered to be new employees.

267

The group insurance commission shall provide uninterrupted coverage for group life and

268

accidental death and dismemberment insurance and group general or blanket insurance

269

providing hospital, surgical, medical, dental and other health insurance benefits to the extent

270

authorized under chapter 32A of the General Laws. Employees who were covered by a

271

collective bargaining agreement on the effective date of this act shall continue to receive the

272

group insurance benefits required by their respective collective bargaining agreements until a

273

successor agreement is ratified and funded.
(b) The human resources division of the executive office for administration and [mance

275

shall assume the obligations ofthe office of a transferred sheriff to employees who become state

276

employees and who are covered under a health and welfare trust fund agreement established

277

under section 15 of chapter 32B of the General Laws pursuant to a collective bargaining

278

agreement until the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement

279

(c) The group insurance commission shall evaluate, in consultation with appropriate

280

county officials and county treasurers, the value of any monies in a claims trust fund established

281

pursuant to section 3A of said chapter 32B ofthe General Laws that would otherwise have been

282

reserved for claims made by employees of a transferred sheriff Any monies therein shall be

283

transferred to the group insurance commission on the effective date of this act.

284

SECTION 20. Notwithstanding chapter 32 of the General Laws or any other general or

2P-

special laws to the contrary, the retirement system in the county of a transferred sheriff shall

286

continue pursuant to this section and shall be managed by the retirement bomd as provided in

:his section. Employees of a transferred sheriff who retired on or before the effective date of this
act shall be members of the county retirement system, which shall pay the cost of benefIts
annually to such retired county employees and their survivors. The annuity savings funds of the
employees of transferred sheriffs who become state employees pursuant to this act shall be
transferred from that county retirement system to the state retirement system, which shall
thereafter be responsible for those employees, subject to the laws applicable to employees
whose transfer from one governmental unit to another results in the transfer from one retirement
system to another, except for paragraph (c) of subdivision (8) of section 3 of said chapter 32. All
other provisions governing the retirement systems of the c01111ties of Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes,
Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk shall remain in effect.
7

SECTION 21. County conunissioners, county sheriffs, county treasurers, county

8

retirement systems, the State-Boston retirement system, and all executive branch agencies and

J9

officers shall cooperate with the secretary of administration and fmance in effecting the orderly

00

transfer of the county sheriffs to the commonwealth. The secretary may establish working
groups as considered appropriate to assist in the implementation of the transfer.

101

SECTION 22. There shall be a special commission to consist of 10 members, 1 of whom

302
303

shall be a member of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, 1 of whom shall be a county

304

commissioner of a county of a transferred sheriff as appointed by the chairs of the county

305

commissioners of the counties of transferred sheriffs 2 of whom shall be appointed by the

306

speaker of the house ofrepresentatives, 1 of whom shall be appointed by the minority leader of

307

the house ofrepresentatives, 2 of whom shall be appointed by the president of the senate, 1 of

308

whom shall be appointed by the minority leader of the senate and 2 of whom shall be appointed

309

by the governor for the purpose of mal(ing an investigation and study relative to the

1$

r

7

reorganization or consolidation of sheriffs' offices, to make formal recommendations regarding
311

such reorganization or consolidation and to recommend legislation, if any, to effectuate such

312

recommendations relating to the reorganization, consolidation, operation, administration,

313

regulation, governance and finances of sheriffs' offices,

314

The chairman of the commission shall be selected by its members, Section 2A of

315

chapter 4 of the General Laws shall not apply to said commission. So long as a member of the

316

commission discloses, in writing, to the state ethics commission any financial interest as

317

described in section 6, 7 or 23 of chapter 268A of the General Laws which may affect the

318

members work on the commission, the member shall not be deemed to have violated said

319

section 6, 7 or 23 of said chapter 268A. Four members of the commission shall constitute a

320

quorum and a majority of all members present and voting shall be required for any action voted
by the cormnission including, but not limited to, voting on formal recommendations or

322

323

recommended legislation.
The commission, as part of its review, analysis and study and in making such

324

recommendations regarding the reorganization, consolidation, operation, administration,

325

regulation, governance and finances of sheriffs' offices, shall focus on and consider the

326

following issues, proposals and impacts:

327

(l) the possible consolidation, elimination or realignment of certain sheriffs' offices and

328

the potential cost savings and other efficiencies that may be achieved by eliminating,

329

consolidating and realigning certain sheriffs' offices to achieve pay parity;

330

331

(2) any constitutional, statutory or regulatory changes or anlendments that may be
required in order to effectuate allY such consolidation or reorganization;

332
333
334

(3) the reallocation of duties and responsibilities of sheriffs' office as a consequence of
any such consolidation or reorganization;
(3 112) the best management practices associated with the current use of civil process

335

funds, including the amount of civil process funds collected by each county sheriff and the

336

actual disposition of said funds currently, and, in the event of consolidation, realignment,

337

elimination or reorganization, the collection and use of civil process fees in the future; and

338

(4) the consideration of any other issues, studies, proposals or impacts that, in the

339

judgment of the commission, may be relevant, pertinent or material to the study, analysis and

340

review of the commission.

341

All departments, divisions, commissions, public bodies, authorities, boards, bureaus or

342

agencies ofthe commonwealth shall cooperate with the commission for the purpose of

343

providing information or professional expertise and skill relevant to the responsibilities of the

344

commission subject to considerations of privilege or the public records law.

345

The commission shall submit a copy of a fmal report of its findings resulting from its

346

study, review, analysis and consideration, including legislative recommendations, if any, to the

347

governor, president ofthe senate, speaker of the house of representatives, the chairs of the house

348

and senate committees on ways and means and the chairs of the joint committee on state

349

administration and regulatory oversight and the clerk ofthe house ofrepresentatives not later

350

than June 1,2010.

351

SECTION 23. A sheriff transferred under this act shall provide a detailed account to the

352

secretary of administration and fmance of all contracts entered into before July 1, 2009;

353

provided, however, that for any contracts entered into after April 1, 2009, the contract shall not

354

be approved without the approval of the secretary of administration and finance. The account

shall include, but not be limited to, descriptions of the nature of the contract, the length of the
356

contract and amounts currently owed.

357

SECTION 24. Not less than 90 days after the effective date of this act, a sheriff

358

transferred under this act shall provide to the secretary of administration and fInance a detailed

359

inventory of all property in the sheriff s possession which shall include, but not be limited to

360

vehicles, weapons, office supplies and other equipment.

361

SECTION 25. This act shall take effect on July 1, 2009.

EXHIBIT 6

The Commonwealth of
Massach usetts

Department of
Correction
Request for Responses
for an

Secure Inmate Calling System
& Related Services
DOC File No. lOOO-Phone2006

July 11,2005

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number 1000-Phone2006
2005

July 11,

Attachment B
Required Number of Inmate Telephone Instruments
Location

Bay State Correctional Center
Boston Pre-Release Center
Bridgewater State Hospital
Lemuel Shattuck Hospital
Correctional Center
Mass Alcohol & Substance
Abuse Center (MASAC)
Massachusetts Treatment Center
MCI - Cedar Junction
MCI - Concord
MCI - Framingham
MCI - Norfolk
MCI - Plymouth
MCI - Shirley
North Central Correctional
Institution at Gardner
Northeastern Correctional Center
Old Colony Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Souza Baranowski Correctional
Center ( Shirley)
TOTAL

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple A"cnne, Suite 3

Inside
Inmate
Telephones

Outside
Inmate
Telephones

Special
Mgmt Unit
Tele[lhoncs

Coin
Telephones

24
12

6

18

4

0
0
0

2
3
I

2

0

0

3

18

0

0

59
79

7

2
20
5
2
3
0
4

2
2
2
I
4
2

0

57
13

4
4
0
II
2

123

0

85
64

1
7

"

106
18
59

5
0
II

11

11

0
0

2
0
2
0
0

159

7

9

4

918

61

49

42

2
2
2
0

2

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

EXHIBIT 7

-~

~~

-~~-'r-~

Massachusetts Depal1ment of Correction
Weekly Count Sheet
3!18i20B

DATe:

DeSIGN
CAPACITY
MAXIMUM
,1ylCi CEDAR JUNCTION @ WALPOLE
SOUZA - BARANOWSKI C. v.
SUB-TOTAL MAXIMUM
~

MEDIUM
BAY STA I E CORRECTIONAL CENTER
MASSACHUSE' IS ! REA'rvIEN! CENTER
Me CEDAR JUNCTION 1i) WALPOLE
MC CONCORD

I
i

Me: FRAl'lillNGHAJV {FEfvlALE)

,lvlCI FRAMINGHAM: ATU (FEMALE)
MCI "ORFOlK
!\:lC1 SHIRLEY dVlecnum)
NCC: GARDNER
@ BRlDGEVVA i ER
SHA j TUCK CORRECTfONAL UN1T(S4)
STATE HOSP: !AL 1i) BRiDGEWATER

ocee

1

SUB-TOTAL MED1UM

MINIMUM
MA ALCOHOL AND SUBS lANCE ABUSE CEN I ER

Mel SHiRLEY ilvllnjmum)
NeC! GARDNER (l'djnirnumi
1)
OCCC
SUB·TOTAL MINIMUM
MIN/PRE-RELEASE
BaS I ON PRE-RELEASE
MCt PLYMOUTH
NECC @ CONCORD
PONDViLLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
SOU i H IAiDDLESEX C.C.(FEMALE\
SUB·TOTAL MIN/PRE-RELEASE

DOC
DOC
DOC
DOC

PERCENT
OCCUPANCY

739 I
1.197 I
1,936 1

265
561
72
614
388
64
1.084
720
568
480
24

331
5 0e
N
71
1.258
358
256
1.445

132%1
1'17'~'cl

122'/,]

124':/0
106%
99°;0
205%

92S·'O
400%

133%

1,182

164%

173°;0
'164'/0

227
5.068

980
786
30
341
7.633

236
299
30

153

65S·'0

270
25

90%
83%
i 27'}b

665

i50
151
150

151%

1

86%

169
168

i 13% MIN
111 (i;C MIN

238

159% MIN
183% MIN
10:% MIN
13-1%

183
128

20
15
35

15
6
21

8.029

11,051

686

.

e

n.s.

13
304

n.a.

n.8,

""}...,"')
~~

11.355

64
49
24

I

r .a.
n.a,

7

60%

n.a.

:nmates jn Feders, CustOdy
J"PI'\ates jn interstates

1411

75~1'~

n.a .
n.a.

r\.8,

D.a.

18 PRE
161 PRE
174 PRE
1'.4 PRE
104 PRE

40%

1

inmates m County Houses of Corre:tlon

inmates if'< DYS Custoc:y

SUS- TOTALDOC INMA res IN NON-DOC FACILITIES
GRAND TOTAL
JURISDICTION POPULATION

125%
150S'o

127 1
5751

100
125
676

CONTRACT PRE-RELEASE{COMMUNITY BEDS B)
BROOKE HOUSE
WOMEN & CHILDREN'S PROGRAM
SUS·TOTAL CONTRACT MINfPRE·RELEASE
DOC FACILITIES
CUSTODYTOTALPOPULATlON

FACILITY
POPULATION

561
1.024
1.585

100

,

revised 4/11

n.a.
n.a.

Page 1

1 of7

3118/2013 5: 13 PM

EXHIB!T 8

:s::...

.""'l:"'<>

. ~I.\\'K\;;'O\)();;;
i

1......:::s'\\\NGs-

THE.

r

~):3oo, oD ~u.. CO·O\:::'

I,

D\-\tJN.E:

r""

"""

"",a~i'i

\",'ThS

"1<."",;;;:..:;

\-)~'-Ic..

:L

.9.0DS (

liSIN(£
,;..1'

'{c::,\.J

.\-\SrE

$~E::N'\'

\fY\t>N\''''

'Tir-"",

AT

)'l:)\J

-Ncdc\'¥-..

.Iv\L1:

~'\JS{~c,.s

'F\N

tl~

~cx~t-:>~ c..()N~<"T w\\."b

."

!1;"'\ ~-\ ~ '0':'\\ i.

l\-..l::

Q\..F t&NT

'TheN ~ '12..\CITE 1& AN

~ ./vi Y ~~M-' \ y. ~~

,ioN /vle

/V\'fX'nP>,",T

.MG:"ThuO C!

~ ..TIr\

.iES,pE'UA\\\(

I~A\s.o

-i-If.\'fS

t

-.1\;;,\t.f~c::.~~\~

/VIArNiAlrJlr.s

G-

Th~

Chi(DtGI\J.

.IV/y

""""{OSh\~

IJN 'Q'-lE

+A'fY\';,\'1

TeES I

TE (EpHONl:..

$'T(e-.s:S\""':>\,\*-,\N 1-1.'(

LES.s;.cN

:l\N

rAM~\

y,

I"

i::tT
i

ibf

(s,

A\.~O

"B\:;.Gu\~{

:!p~{.e NT

:r-s:.

w

~

.LthE:~X'\C.Eo-E

::r:.

C.~\\S

T<::>

V'YI'Aij'..>'TArN

~{'f'>'{

~

l

The

s.'i.bNG-ThI::.NCOO.
ThA:T

\'\-:1'(-',,-/':/'::)""::;

Th¥'rT

e,ECf\\.J~E:

chiLORE.N;

t\'?>S.b~E.N

bOND

~S;:~010

Thl"rT

NOTE

W\T'I-\ /y.'1

C.ONT8CT

-c. h~ \ 0

Q.'Ar--I'-:\c,T

i !COI\rf~C,T

\.'<":""f>"nAr-JT/"o

((t2t.G,llAv;'

WI \\ \.....uWE1(,

AN'O. ,Nt

Y

:!f\~'fIA;\'i .CI4N MA1I'JTll.fN THE"R£Gul~Y p",TTE::rN 0 t
;iC.cNl"'AlT LSE eKe \Js,E:. Tc::.·
,

",j

; I