Anthony L. Brown
August 18, 1998
In accordance with established Department of Corrections Policy and Procedures (P&P's), I prepared seven (7) "Appeal Grievances," each addressing separate issues or aspects of the restrictions placed upon me by Superintendent Kincheloe through the Individual Determination Restriction (IDR) process or the substantiating documentation supporting those IDR's, developed through the (non-) investigation of Sgt. Prentice, the institution's Security/Compliance Officer. Each of these Appeal Grievances began with a statement, quoting the appropriate rules per the P&P's, that circumstances require that the Appeal Grievances must be investigated by a party "outside of the facility" and responded to by the Director of Institutions.
On 08/05/98 I submitted the first six of these Appeal Grievances. In his capacity as the institution's Compliance Officer, the overseer of the Grievance process, Sgt. Prentice immediately abused his authority and, in defiance of the rules and policies, "screened" (rejected) five of those six Appeal Grievances. This action equates with a complaint being rejected by one of the same persons against whom the complaint is written. And, the appeal of that "screening" is then placed in the hands of the other person against whom the complaint is written!
No, the "screening" by Sgt. Prentice was not appropriate, and his actions are precisely why the P&P’s specifically prohibit the handling of those Appeal Grievances by staff at this facility. On 08/11/98, I submitted "Screening Appeals" for the five rejected Appeal Grievances, along with the seventh Appeal Grievance.
On 08/16/98, Sgt. Reimer, the other Institution Security/Compliance Officer and author of the 05/07/98 IDR, met with me to discuss his investigation of the one Appeal Grievance not rejected by Sgt. Prentice. The conversation began with my objections to any facility personnel being involved with the screening, investigation, or response to any of the Appeal Grievances concerning the IDR's or the substantiating documentation, quoting the various rules and policies that prohibited those actions. He acknowledged that he had authored the 05/07/98 IDR and could not be considered "uninvolved" by P&P definition, and that it was indeed illogical that the primary party in the grievances would also be the same person who would be allowed to "screen" those grievances, but stated that the administration would most likely not send them outside of the facility for investigation and response. In fact, at one point he stated plainly that his finding would be to support the restrictions placed upon me by Mr. Kincheloe, and that Mr. Kincheloe would support Sgt. Prentice's "screening" of the other Appeal Grievances. When I stopped the conversation and asked him to consider his last statement, he said he should have said those were the "most likely" actions.
In the end, Sgt. Reimer finally did acknowledge that the policies plainly require that the Appeal Grievances should be responded to by the Director; since both Compliance Officers participated in the IDR process neither could be considered non-involved, objective investigators by definition of the P&P's; and since several of the Appeal Grievances concerned allegations of misconduct by Sgt. Prentice, he should not have participated in the "screening" of those grievances. He stated that he would seek to have the grievances that were under his control (the first and seventh) handled by someone outside the facility per the P&P's, and would recommend that the "screened" grievances also be handled per the P&P's.
As of this date, I have
heard nothing further about the Appeal Grievances. I do know that
Mr. Chris Lyou, the Department of Correction's Grievance and Compliance
Administrator, has been apprised of the situation by Eclectica's
publisher, by my wife, and, supposedly, now by Sgt. Reimer.
What will occur is yet to be seen, but will definitely be reported.