DES MOINES - The interpretation of a fiscal discrepancy in inmate pay between the Department of Corrections and the office of Citizen's Aide/Ombudsman has been turned over to the Iowa attorney general's office for review.
Five inmates at the North Central Correctional Facility in Rockwell City complained that deductions from their payroll checks are in violation of state code - and that they are paid less for their private sector work than employees who are not inmates.
The inmates were paid $6.15 an hour; workers who were not inmates were paid $10 an hour.
Deputy Ombudsman Ruth Cooperrider outlined the issues for the Iowa Board of Corrections Friday morning at the Iowa Prison Industries building in Des Moines.
Those issues include:
Inmates were paid less than people in similar jobs who are from outside the correctional institution.
The amount of $3.85 was taken as an up-front deduction from the inmates' pay; the deduction was made payable to North Central Correctional Facility.
Deductions for restitution are a top priority; any other deductions should follow that.
A state auditor's report found that inmates employed by local grain elevators were paid less than other grain handlers in Webster County, and that the prison kept the balance of the remaining wages, which should have been deposited into the state's general fund, by law.
The $3.85 difference was being used for transportation, supervising the workers and work-related materials, such as work clothes, which is permissible by law, according to North Central Correctional Facility Warden Jim McKinney.
"There were no irregularities, no violation of state law and codes," McKinney told the board. "What it is is a misinterpretation, or difference of interpretation, in the Iowa code and some of the other factors that we were dealing with. We visited with the state auditor ... each time we met with people ... they said we've done nothing illegal or nothing wrong."
The difference of opinion is the result of an exception for agriculture under the guidelines, McKinney said.
"That's where we thought under our interpretation that we were OK, that it was considered agriculture," according to Fred Scaletta, spokesman for the Department of Corrections. "All three entities interpreted it differently."
The Department of Corrections, state auditor and ombudsman are the three agencies involved, seeking the action of the attorney general.
Bill Roach, of the attorney general's office, said the office will review the report.
Cooperrider questioned whether the prison has the legal authority to enter into agreements with the private sector, and wondered how it figured the amount of deductions from an inmate's pay. The law states a company can charge up to $1 per hour for transportation costs to and from the prison in such circumstances.
From their gross payroll earnings, inmates keep 20 percent; 5 percent of the payroll goes to the state victim compensation fund, and all applicable taxes are deducted, according to Iowa law.
From the balance remaining, all court-ordered restitution and support for dependents is subtracted.
The department can keep up to 50 percent of the remaining balance, to be used for administrative costs. Any balance after that is to be deposited into the state's general fund.
Cooperrider told the board her office believes the facility incorrectly prioritized deductions and that, according to a pay receipt from an inmate, the prison was in violation of code for not putting the money in the general fund.
"We believe that means the entire amount of restitution must be paid off before any subsequent deductions can be made," Cooperrider said. "To do otherwise would render the word 'priority' meaningless."
The Department of Corrections said it will do what is needed to resolve the issue.
"We have done our part once the auditor made their comments. We have turned it over to the attorney general's office and they will rule on it," said Department of Corrections Director John Baldwin. "There's never been a question about where the money is or where it went. It's just a classic case of 'here's this, here's that.' The trail is there. The question is, as the ombudsman has raised, was this proper interpretation of both state and federal law that impacts the private sector? Our bottom line is this is an important issue, and we want to do things correctly."
As for the ombudsman's office, Cooperrider said it wants to ensure everything is in compliance with the law.
"I just want to add that we firmly support the use of private sector employment and other employment opportunities for inmates," Cooperrider said. "We just want to ensure that in terms of taking wages and deducting wages, where the money goes ... (needs to) be done in accordance with the law."
Baldwin said the next step will depend on what the attorney general's office rules and that they do not have a specific time period during which the ruling will come.
Until it is resolved, "everything is off the table," he said.
Contact Angela Burch at (515) 573-2141 or aburch@messengernews.net