Leadership Culture in Arizona Prisons
It was his concern for bad
publicity that created the culture to develop an attitude of unawareness
related to agency deaths, critical incidents e.g. staff assaults, and inmate
assaults, disturbances, excessive natural deaths, suicides and homicides etc.
so that when the time came to face the accusers, the director and his executive
staff could make claims of lack of knowledge of such issues and walk away from
these problems or allegations.
The matter of accountability however does not rest just with the agency director but also with the Governor and her Chief of Staff to whom the director reports to on a regular basis.
Thus it is reasonable to speculate
that these most powerful people have no personal knowledge of the director’s
ineffectiveness how his agency is operating and whether or not they are in
compliance with their own policies and procedures as they are written.
The first responsibility of
the prison director is to protect the public. Secondary and other
responsibilities include compliance with “color of law” requirements, federal
constitutional care mandates e.g. proper custodial care and handling of
prisoners, budgetary decisions and operational concerns directly related to
public safety, staff safety and inmate safety.
It is the opinion of this
critic that the director has failed to protect the public, those who work for
him and those convicted felons under his care and custody.
It is reasonable to say that
the director exhibits an extraordinary lack of empathy for those under his care
[mainly dedicated state employees] by failing to make the appropriate inquiries
how business is being conducted under his command structure that varies from
location to location.
It is also the opinion of
this critic that through his ignorance of those internal and external agency
failures he has jeopardized individual safety of those under his care by not
inquiring about their wellness and not attempting to find root problems that
contributed to those failures and injuries and solve them with logical and
cost-effective methods.
Based on his lack of empathy
and awareness he has created a culture that will inflict future harm and
additional damage to those human elements of the agency’s mission statement as
he has allowed those subordinate to him run unchecked to make decisions that
are contrary to policy and procedures signed by him as the agency director.
The director, through his
silence and unawareness has imposed a most harmful environment for those
working and living within the prison system. He has enabled and empowered
wrongful decision-making regarding the supervision of human resources and
incarcerated persons, the effective management of the prison population through
poor classification procedures and logistic and support services paid for by
Arizona taxpayers.
During the past several
years, the director has been warned by many of serious issues within the
agency. The raising of many red flags
that indicated trouble and internal issues that have yet to be addressed by him
or his chain of command as he refuses to act on those matters until they are at
critical mass.
The Kingman escape for
example caused him to review private prison supervision and inmate
classification for such locations but did nothing for the training or staffing
of the public prisons that are just as susceptible to escapes, hostage taking
or other disturbances. Eight months after the Kingman escape, internal audits
revealed similar security breaches at other state prisons with no immediate
desire to fix the problems.
Although he has sought
temporary and weak corrective actions regarding the issue of medical care,
deaths, suicides, staff issues and inmate on staff assaults, he has not taking
any affirmative action to reduce prison violence on staff and inmates.
Instead he has chosen methods
of punishment of those at the lower levels as an alternative of focusing on the
lack of leadership within those state complexes throughout the state.
In fact, he has replaced
wardens with formerly retired warden that were once members on his executive
team in the past. This ‘good ole boy” system prevents effective communication
and fairness for those who depend on leadership to balance the workplace. It
also developed barriers for others who have worked with dedication and loyalty
for future promotions and opportunities.
Today his subordinates are
still operating unchecked and unsupervised in areas where consultation should
be made with the higher echelon to ensure legal implications and agency
objectives and statements are met in according with the strategic plan and
ethical conduct.
The director, claiming to
have an open door policy has always re-directed anyone’s complaint back to the
institutional level creating or causing extreme hardship, embarrassment or
harassment to the individual who took him up on his open door policy. This is detrimental
to staffs morale and often includes disciplinary action some time after the
meeting was conducted.
Unfortunately, this critic has
warned the director personally several times while inside his office with a
face to face meeting while his direct and indirect supervisors ignore these red
flags and refuse to advise the director of issues at the lower end of all
institutional operational locations.
The director does not yet
acknowledge the potential risks that are present today in the Arizona prison
system. He denies there are systemic flaws and denies problems with staffing
patterns, medical and mental health care, physical plant deterioration and
fiscal squandering by those under his command.
Hence this avoidance for bad
publicity has resulted in:
·
The Governor’s
Office not being aware of operational and support failures under the care of
the agency director
·
One could argue
that the Governor’s Chief of Staff has a responsibility to ask the right
questions when meeting with the director and should be held accountable for all
failures or damages.
·
Since many red
flags have been raised, the Chief of Staff or Governor’s Office have failed to
inquire specifically on related corrective action and findings.
·
The director has
engaged in an attitude of no discussion and no dissent with those who know the
problems of the agency by creating a culture of fear and intimidation so that
no encounters can be made safely without retaliation.
·
A lack of
awareness of his responsibilities as the director, information delivered
through whistleblowers or critics including the media and ignorance of his own
policies and procedures.
It is the opinion of this
critic that in order to rectify and correct this status, the director should
enable a team for monitoring and oversight on all those dire and pressing
issues brought forth by the whistleblowers, the media and other red flag
reports given to him through time since he took office.
He should implement an assessment
/ investigative tool that can monitor and assess progress, corrective action
and promulgate new policies and procedures to change the standards at all
prison complexes in accordance with all legal standards including federal,
state and local laws.
This assessment tool should
not be interdependent on his direct supervision or control. It must function
independently without fear of intimidation or retaliation if in disagreement
with the director.
No comments:
Post a Comment