JUN 7R -BUILDING TENDER SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WORKING PAPER TO JOINT ON PRISON BY JOHN ALBACH COMf1ITTEE STAFF /' THIS WORKING PAPER REPRESENTS OF ONE MEr·1BER OF THE STAFF , ...·"' .. c.,. AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE' JOINT ON PRlSON oR ANY oF ITS . ·BE IT BY THE LEGISLATURE OF 'THE STATE OF TEXAS: seJtion 1. An inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Corrections or in any jail in this state may not act in a supervisory or_ administrative capacity over trle other inmates. 5¢ction 2. An inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Corrections or in any jail in this state may not administer disciplinary action over another inmate. -House Bill No. 1056 - House Bill 1056 was passed. by the 63rd Legislature and became effective I on August 27, 1973. • The bill was intended to end a practice within I ! the prison system the ."Bu_ilding Tender" system. Testimony. · I given before the Legislature at the time the bill was being considered described "Building Tenders" as inmates who exercised authority over other inmates with the sanction of the prison officials. The Department has consistently maintained that "Building Tenders" never exercised _any authority over other inmates and therefore H.B._l056 did not effect any change. Beginning last September, were made . . !I that even though sometimes the titles were changed, the ":ST"_system I remained. Representative Ron Waters, testifying before the Joint · Committee last October, said that the "BT" system per-sisted and he requested that the Joint Committee investigate (See attached letters). Since that time the Committee has received literally hundreds of letters from inmates claiming that the "Building Tender" system continues· to exist in direct violation to H.B. 1056. The staff has attempted to learn whether or not H.B. 1056 was being violated. the one On inmates claimed it existed and we met many inmates whose official job title was "Building ·Tender." On the other side, Director Estelle maintained that although "BT' s" existed, they had n'o authority and acted only as janitors within the wings. • The Committee staff has been gathering information and has now prepared reports on the topics of "Personnel" and "Disciplinary Procedures". these reports are not complete without an understanding of the "Building Tender" system. · The existence of the system has important ramifications on both staffing and discipline in TDC. ·- Therefore, I present the information which we have collected concerning the controversial "Building Tender" system. 2 I of The Corrections has taken the position that House Bill i 1056 did not affect the operation of the prisons because "Building nevJr exercised any supervisory, acministrative, or disciplinary I control over other inmates. I believe that ample evidence exists to indicate that such a position is not accurate. In a master's thesis . prepared by Major Norman Jarrell in 1972 for the Institute of .Contemporary . . Corrections ;at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, the role of the "Building Tender" system was discussed in regard to problems of i staffing. . Major Jarrell based his observations on visits and interviews at 12 TDC units over an extensive period of time. Major Jarrell reported the following: Very few state prisons could.continue to function in the present fashion if the practice of using inmates to help maintain order to many of the small problems created by the very existence of prison life was discontinued. These inmates, referred to by such names as 11 row or building tenders," "turnkeys, 11 or 11 floor boys," exercise real power in the prison. They settle fights, arbitrate disputes, and take punitive action against the other inmates •.• ••• Today's large, overcrowded institutions are inadequately staffed, and many use inmate assistance to maintain control.· TDC, for example, often staffs four cell blocks with only one correctional officer. Without "building tenders," that officer would never be able to keep up with the large number of inmates under his charge. In fact, many of these qfficers deal almost exclusively with the "building tenders" and hardly know the names of the other inmates. That TDC has an extremely good record of security and control is undeniable. It may very well be the best in the country. Yet the administration is sanctioning a highly structured ir.mate sub-culture, ii!.nd the social distance between the majority of the inmates and the officer is considerable. The "BT" system Major Jarrell described was the system House Bill 1056 was intended to end. The important point that Major Jarrell makes is ·' that, with present levels of staffing, it may be impossible to run the prisons without the use of "Building Tenders" who are no more . than "convict guards." Major Jarrell's account describes how the System worked in 1972 •. next question is - does it still exist in violation of the law? The The staff has the names of hundreds of inmates who want to testify that the •auilding Tender" system still exists with all of its brutal.consequences. We can provide the Committee with the names of ex-building tenders wh2 . are willing to testify. We also can supply the names of a few present and past employees of the Department who are willing to testify. We- . '3 I have docfrnentary evidence from one TDC unit that outlines the "Duties and of "Wing Floor Tenders" which is another name for "BuJlding Tenders." This TDC Inter-Office-Comrninication (which is attached fo this report) is dated December 5, 1973, long after the effective date of H.B. 1.056. Tenders." The memo is The memo lists 20 duties of "Wing Floor 'l.vi th the statement: The primary responsibility of the WING FLOOR TENDER is the maintenance of a clean and orderly wing which is well informed on all procedures, rules, and assignments pertaining to assigned inmates in the wing. I I The memo's 20 duties include the following: 1. The FLOOR TENDER is directly responsible to the Building Officers and Shift Senior Officers. 2. He shall be maintaining a current Bed Roster and Wake-Up Schedule on all inmates assigned to the Wing. The Roster shall include inmates name and number, bed, locker, work assignment, ·and wake-up time. 3. He shall be responsible for cleanliness and care of the Wing and the equipment in the Hing. The floor shalL be swept and mopped at 7:30 AM after again at 12:30, 6:30, and 10·: 00 PM, and as needed. (DO· NOT ALLOW CIGARETTE BUTTS AND TRASH TO ACCUMULF-.TE ON THE FLOOR) • 4. He shall advise Staff Officers of any problems or· conflicts which an inmate may have. 7 .. Be shall show inmates the proper procedure for making up bunks and shall touch up bunks where needed. He shall make up vacant bunks with blankets only. 9. Be shall wake up inmates each morning for breakfast and shall wake up special assigned inmates (20) minutes prior to turn out time. 10. He shall see that an inmate called for reports to the Hall. If out of the Wing, notify the Hall Officer where he.can be located. 12. Be shall wear black leather he may remove attitudes can a11d attitude. 13. FLOOR TENDER hours shall be as follows: DAY FLOOR TENDER •.••••••••••••••••• 6:00AM to 6:00PM NIGHT FLOOR TENDER ••••••••••••••••• 6:00PM to 6:00AM (6:15am.BATH: 14 .. He shall have the opposite shift FLOOR TENDER on his shift watch while he is out for chow, shower, or recreation. 15. He shall operate the television volume, which shall not · become loud. He shall see that the television and radios are turned off at count time and any other time outlined according to the Unit Procedures. · He shall NOT allow sex malpractice, brewing of alcoholic beverages -;-gambling, possession of contraband i terns, or fight_s in his Wing. (SHALL REPORT ANY ILLNESS OF INMATES). 17. 18. his shirt tucked inside trousers and wear a belt while on duty. While mopping 'the floor, his shirt. Your personal appearance and be a great help in other inmates appearance - THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HANGING DOWN FROM THE TOP BUNK IN THE WINGS OR PLACED BETWEEN THE SECURITY BARS. 4 He advise inmates of current and new procedures or posted notices. I believe it/is clear from this memo that .the "Wing Floor Tender" exercises a4ministrative, supervisory, and disciplinary control over other inmates. Duty #17 clearly states that the "Wing Floor Tender" shall not allow certain rules to be broken. The Jester unit only unit in which we have found a memo outlining the practice. I the practice is the same in all of the units. the .. However, TDC is clearly•yiolating the spirit knd the letter of House Bill 1056. ! The Committee staff had been told repeatedly that "BT's" are used to enforce discipline and to carry out physical punishment on other inmates. The Committee has received letters which detail hundreds of cases in which inmates are allegedly beaten by "BT's" either directly or indirectly under the authority of the officials. l The staff lias seen too t -:many "Incident Reports" in which one of the two parties to an "altercation" turned out to be a "Building Tender" to believe that· everything the •."' ;nmates say is a lie. J[nowing that TDC still operates the "Building Tender" system in violation. ·the law is not enough. By carefully and honestly investigating reports beatings administered by "BT' s," the Department could ·.some of the brutality which attends a system where inmates .have quasi·.,.official authority over other inmates. However, eliminating the "BT" -system entirely will require a much'higher level of staffing than the · :Department presently has. The "Building Tender" system should be To do so, however, will require more than House Bill 1056 • .:I:t:. -will require a determination on the part of TDC to f:nd the brutal it sponsors and the determination of the Legislature to pay for .· .,sr.eplacing "convict ·guards" with well trained Correctional 0 fficers.