He sent me his time sheet and I am wrecking my brain trying to figure out what it all means. What does mandatory supervision parole mean? The sheet says he's a prospect for this... And what does trusty class III W mean?

Mandatory Supervision means that's when he gets out on parole, I think. My fiance has a Discretionaty MS date which means he still has to be voted out. I'm sure Centexlyn will be along to help you...

Mandatory Supervision is the date they must be released on parole, but I think that also is dependent upon whether or not they have any write ups against them since returning to the system. My husband has a MS date of Feb 12, 2009, but he can be released before that time if voted to by the board. We are currently waiting on their verdict for that at this time.

The other is his classification, which determines a number of things including how much good time you can earn. But it is all greek to me so, yeah, CenTexLyn will explain it I'm sure once she's back around.

Hang in there!

so... when it says mand supv credits 17 years 4 months and 23 days - that is how long he has to serve to get out on parole, but he is eligible for some early parole in October 2004?

I did ask CenTexLyn and she has answered some of my questions on PM - but she's out of town now, so I'll bug the rest of you till she gets back. Hehe.

The mandatory releease date is also what's called their short way or short time release - it's the date given on the status line as the 'projected release date'. Depending upon the date of the offense it may or may not have to be voted upon by the parole board.
Here's the info from the tdcj site:
Mandatory Supervision Release: Certain offenders may accrue enough combined "calendar time" and "good time" to qualify by law for mandatory supervision release prior to completion of their entire sentence. Mandatory releasees, like parolees, are subject to conditions of release as determined by the Board and are obligated to complete the remaining portion of their sentences under TDCJ Parole Division supervision in the community.
The slideshow on the BPP site also discusses Mandatory Supervsion:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/what_is_parole/first_page.htm

Thank you.

Mandatory supervision is a form of release just as is parole supervision. Parole is entirely subject to the discretion and mandatory supervision may or may not be mandatory...the key on MS is when the eligible offense occurred. If the eligible offense occurred prior to September 01, 1996, then the release is automatic when the combined credits equal the sentence of record and if the offense occurred after September 01, 1996, then the Board must still review the file to determine whether release is appropriate.

The only real difference in the releases is how they occur and a few differences in language in the certificate of release. Both still have to report to a parole officer for the balance of the sentence.

The October 2004 date you referenced was the Next Review date that was established when the Board denied the release at the prior review.

Thank you CenTexLyn. I believe the crime that added to his sentence happened in 1998. His first offense was not an aggravated one, but the second was. Is it "better or worse" that it happened while being in prison? Stupid question maybe, but "knowing" how rough it is and what may happen if they don't defend themselves... I don't know. I have read a lot about gang activity inside prison and I have read a few stories what happened to inmates that declined paying for protection and all - some of them ended up dead. If someone attachs you in prison, have you NO right to defend yourself? And I wonder - where are the guards in all of this? Are they not there to protect the inmates from the others ALSO?

I also wonder what comes under "Civil rights". When someone goes to prison do they lose all their civil rights? Do they get them back when they come out?

In-prison felony conduct is always a very big negative in the eyes of the Board. It sends the message of "If you can't follow the rules inside, why should we even begin to think you can act right in the world." Being in Seg with a gang tag compounds the problems with a vote.

On a percentage basis, there are very few attacks that result in "self-defense" with a weapon. The mere possession of a weapon is a pre-meditated act, which is why those cases that do occur often have free-world charges that are pursued. In many instances, the inmate accepts the plea bargain because they are not real convinced of their ability to persuade a jury that it was self-defense and fifteen looks a lot better than 99.

With the second one being aggravated, he likely is not eligible for mandatory supervision but I have seen some strange entries in the mainframe that do not always match up with the law.

I hear ya, CenTexLyn. I guess the parole board will deny him then and set a time frame for his next review and what we can hope for is that they "tell him" to come back in two years and not five or... worse. I hope the prison will find place for him in the program he needs to get out of Ad. Seg. Hopefully his chances will be better "if" the board denies him this time around also. He has documented that he's no longer a member of a gang. How he's done that I do not know. He has also taken GED while being incercerated and has a job to come out to.

Ha - ha - that was my defense speech. Hehe.

since this thread is going..i have a question CEN..(makes me think of dear abby..lol :D)

when someone see's the parole board...and they give a set off. how do they determine how long to set the set off for? because i read somewhere that starting jan 1,04, texas is upping the set off to 5 years...which billy's last set off was 3 years. :( just wondering how they determine what they give them..and, it is between 1-3 years..or am i mistaken?

Set-offs in the past could be given for a period of up to three years. Courtesy of the last legislative session, there are some cases that can be set off for up to five years and others that can be set off for no more than one year. The distinction is made in whether the case is one that is eligible for mandatory supervision- if not, it could be set off for up to five years.

I should also add that there is no change in the requirement that someone be eligible for parole consideration. If someone is a Line Class III, they are not going to be reviewed until they regain their eligibility. The only exception to that rule is the initial PED vote, which is, as a general rule, going to be denied for poor institutional adjustment in addition to other factors.

Now, before anyone gets overly concerned, the change on length of set-offs was a tool and not a mandate. The prevailing thought from those I have spoken with is that there are not likely to be many set-offs that exceed the three year window, and those that do are likely some very egregious cases and/or serial pedophiles that really are not ever likely to be released even if they were reviewed annually. Let's face facts...Texas has some people locked up that are the Texas equivalent to Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan.

Now, as to what goes into the decisions that had been made up to the change and what will take place for the non-mandatory cases...it is/was very much the gut instinct of the panel that votes the case. There are no written guidelines. Ultimately, it came down to "Is this a case that I would change my mind if I saw it again in another year or is two or three years more likely to best serve the ends of justice." Non-violent offenses with clear disciplinary histories were more likely in the past to get a one year set-off as opposed to those with a disciplinary history of any sort in the past few years or who had other risk factors in their case.

Oh...some of the Board offices began using the new criteria in mid-December.

Originally posted by CenTexLyn
it is/was very much the gut instinct of the panel that votes the case. There are no written guidelines.

And there in lies the problem... at least in my opinion. There should be guidelines to follow and less 'gut instincts' because even those within the system admit to there being 'bad cards' that cast a negative vote just because of a personal opinion or preference. If there were guidelines, I believe that would no longer be an issue.

Originally posted by north star
And there in lies the problem... at least in my opinion. There should be guidelines to follow and less 'gut instincts' because even those within the system admit to there being 'bad cards' that cast a negative vote just because of a personal opinion or preference. If there were guidelines, I believe that would no longer be an issue.

It would be impossible to micromanage the system so much to create voting guidelines that cover every possible scenario that the Board could see in a file. You also create a situation where people who would otherwise be released were kept in longer than the present system is keeping them in.

It would be no better than the legislature trying to micromanage the agency the way they have (a review of bills that never made it out of committee would illustrate that point).

As to the "bad cards," I do not recall any such personalities on the Board during my tenure with the agency. Escobedo was perhaps the closest I saw to an automatic denial, but even that was not an absolute.

There are some situations which would be better managed by guidelines, such as technical violations. And if the legislature would spend less time acknowledging Mr & Mrs So-n-So for X# years of marriage, or John/Jane Doe for achieving an Eagle badge, or such-n-such restaurant for 50 years of business, they could get more things done that were worthwhile. They could spend less time in session and it would cost us less money in the long run.

As for 'bad cards' ... it came from the mouth of the IPO herself. I would assume she would know since she deals with them.

IPO= glorified clerk. And, no, the Institutional Parole Officer has very little dealing with the Board. Those that did have any meaningful input basically lost it around 1990 or 1991 when they became paper-pushers. There was a point in time where an IPO could make or break someone come review time.

Reviews on technical violations still have to consider the essential elements of the file...let's face it, a release to parole supervision is a defacto vote that you trust someone not to screw up- if you come back, that trust has been violated. It should be at least as difficult to get back out in those instances as it was to make it out the first time since in theory, those that have been in should have absolutely no desire to go back.

Even glorified clerks can gain a pretty good idea of what goes on in an office if they but keep their eyes and ears open, and their mouths shut. I haven't worked for the past 30 years not to know that first hand.

My husband had NO DESIRE to go back. If he had, it would have certainly been a lot sooner than 11 years and 8 months after the fact, and NOT after having a damn good paying and responsible position with one of the 10 largest construction firms in the country.

It is this one sided train of thought that that the offender is always wrong no matter what that is a major problem with TDC now. Each situation comes with its own set of circumstances, and when other options are available, but the most costly to the tax payers and most profitable to TDC is the one that is chosen, then there's a lot of room for improvement.

Originally posted by north star
Even glorified clerks can gain a pretty good idea of what goes on in an office if they but keep their eyes and ears open, and their mouths shut. I haven't worked for the past 30 years not to know that first hand.


Not when they work in completely different offices and have no interaction.



My husband had NO DESIRE to go back. If he had, it would have certainly been a lot sooner than 11 years and 8 months after the fact, and NOT after having a damn good paying and responsible position with one of the 10 largest construction firms in the country.


Based upon what you have on your website, your husband did not go back as a technical violator. Yes, he had technical violations, but he also had a new law violation. And, to compound the actions, he failed to report the arrest AS REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF HIS ANNUAL REPORT.

It is this one sided train of thought that that the offender is always wrong no matter what that is a major problem with TDC now. Each situation comes with its own set of circumstances, and when other options are available, but the most costly to the tax payers and most profitable to TDC is the one that is chosen, then there's a lot of room for improvement.

When I was reviewing cases, I had more sympathy for the releasee on SISP that happened to be late getting home for a legitimate reason than I did for anyone committing a new offense. I also had a lot more of an inclination to cut some slack on a file where someone took responsibility for their actions instead of trying to claim "Even though this same DPS officer had released two people earlier that evening for the same offenses -- and one of them a minor -- I was the one taken to jail and charged with a Class B Misdemeanor DWI ". Acceptance of responsibility is a big key in decision making and is definitely a factor in whether to return someone to the streets. And, it is also very important to note that this was not his first dance at the rodeo- he had been revoked on a previous period of supervision.

Might the hearing have turned out differently with competent counsel? Hard to say. When people choose to commit violations of their release conditions, they are playing Russian Roulette with their liberty. Going into a hearing without competent counsel is like adding a second round to that loaded gun.

And before anyone tries to throw the flag for comments about a case being unfair, my original post was general in nature. The comments about this particular case come directly from the case of NorthStar's husband as it appears on their website.

Hi,
I know all about it. My husband's been on mandatory supervision since 1988.

It's exactly the same thing as parole. He reports to a parole officer (boy, has he ever over the years).

And it's HARD, I ain't gonna lie.

Okay, well I hope that answers your question!

Good luck!

Geez - how LONG does he have to be on parole???

Originally posted by CenTexLyn
Based upon what you have on your website, your husband did not go back as a technical violator. Yes, he had technical violations, but he also had a new law violation. And, to compound the actions, he failed to report the arrest AS REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF HIS ANNUAL REPORT.

IF you had paid closer attention to what you were reading, you would have also noticed that the 15 months probation for the DWI had already been served successfully and he was released before the revocation. Thus, there are no new charges the state can use to apply today's laws to, but are doing so anyway. The only charge that is current is the 25 year sentence for burglary of a habitation, and I have the PAPERWORK that shows the reason as a TECHNICAL VIOLATION.


Originally posted by CenTexLyn
I also had a lot more of an inclination to cut some slack on a file where someone took responsibility for their actions instead of trying to claim "Even though this same DPS officer had released two people earlier that evening for the same offenses -- and one of them a minor -- I was the one taken to jail and charged with a Class B Misdemeanor DWI ". Acceptance of responsibility is a big key in decision making and is definitely a factor in whether to return someone to the streets. And, it is also very important to note that this was not his first dance at the rodeo- he had been revoked on a previous period of supervision.


It certainly shows that you used to be part of the system. They only see one aspect and then grab ahold of it and maul it like a pit bull. Yes, he was on parole when he got the burglary charge in 1986, but you failed to mention that when he was paroled in 1990, that conviction was successfully completed in 1993, and after he was put on annual parole, which was not easily gained.

That and the fact 11 years and 8 months passed before he got that DWI should say something for his behavior and determination this time around, but as usual TDC doesn't look at the GOOD that anyone does, only what they've done wrong. In 1982, the time of his first conviction, he was only 16. Young and stupid as he says. Over the years he matured a lot and began taking on a LOT more responsibility than you will ever know. The comment about the DPS officer was not made to deny his responsibility. It is merely another example of how favortism plays a part in the entire process, from the street to the prison.

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would make sure you have ALL your facts straight BEFORE you make comments about this case.

If anyone else would like to read the website for themselves instead of reading only the negative aspects of it as posted here, it's at www.injusticeintexas.com

Back in the early 1990's Annual Report was granted on a routine basis, in a number of cases, within six months of being put on the streets. It was not until roughly 1996 or 1997 that it became less and less frequent, and then most annual reports were rescinded when Victor Rodriguez replaced Veronica Ballard as Director of the Parole Division.

AR was used too frequently as a caseload management tool because of staffing issues, and it was partially because of unreported conduct (both felony and misdemeanor) that Victor wanted everyone to report to a parole officer.

I based my comments on exactly what was posted on the website. I also tried to explain to you why the Board is looking at the case in a light you do not believe is appropriate. The simple fact is that the Board is presented with a file of a person on supervision who has previously been revoked on a period of parole supervision, was on Annual Report and committed a new offense and for whatever reason made a conscious decision not to report the conduct as required. Knowing the practices of the agency at that time, there is no question that the Annual would have been voided, but it is possible that he would have been continued on supervision without a warrant having been issued.

Criminal history and periods of supervision play just as much a role in a cumulative view of a file as when a Court is looking at someone for sentencing. Little stuff adds up, and once compounded, you get results like this case. Each component of the criminal justice system is not in place to give kudos for doing what one is supposed to be doing, but rather is in place to address violations of the law or in this case, supervision.

I'm not going to address the 1649 credits any further because I already have discussed that with you via PM and basically agreed that it would have seemed from what you had posted that he ought to be eligible for them despite the prior aggravated offense conduct that renders any future convictions ineligible for mandatory supervision.

I based my comments on exactly what was posted on the website.
Then as I said, you didn't read it closely enough because it states the obligation to the county, which in this case was the 15 months probation, had been met and he had been released. TDC could not have revoked him on the new charges without risking double jeopardy. Therefore, the only recourse left to them was revocation for technical violations.

Criminal history and periods of supervision play just as much a role in a cumulative view of a file as when a Court is looking at someone for sentencing. Little stuff adds up, and once compounded, you get results like this case. Each component of the criminal justice system is not in place to give kudos for doing what one is supposed to be doing, but rather is in place to address violations of the law or in this case, supervision.

Those comments alone should be enough to scare the hell out of everyone! Do we not represent our justice system with a woman who is blindfolded and carrying a set of scales in her hand? This is a symbol of being blind to the prejudices and being more interested in the balance of things in order to reach a just decision. TDC and the courts are no longer doing that. If they are going to compound every little thing wrong a person has ever done, and they are even going back to juvenile records to do this, then they should also consider everything a person has done RIGHT.

It only goes to show this quote I came across more than amply applies to our system today: "Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do."

TDC and our court system needs to change their mentality and weigh all the measures of a case instead of only those that support their current reasoning.

Originally posted by north star
Then as I said, you didn't read it closely enough because it states the obligation to the county, which in this case was the 15 months probation, had been met and he had been released. TDC could not have revoked him on the new charges without risking double jeopardy. Therefore, the only recourse left to them was revocation for technical violations.


The Board can always sanction on a law violation that occurred after the release to supervision without double jeopardy being a factor. The fact that probation obligations might have discharged does not preclude the Board from revoking on the new law violation. I would hazard a guess that if I were to request and obtain a copy of the revocation hearing report, I would find that there was a finding of a Rule 2 violation (IIRC, the rule 2 from regular certificates carries over to the Annual Report certificate, and is the condition that states the releasee is to obey all municipal, state and federal laws).

The receive code on the mainframe probably does reflect RK instead of RC because the return as a violator does not include a new [i[felony[/i] conviction. However, the hard copy of the minutes sheet may very well reflect the stamp "Grounds include new conviction" or similar language.

As to the lady with the scales, that enters a completely different philosophical realm beyond sanctioning conduct. It implies that one's status does not impinge upon the ability to get a fair trial. It does not mean that past actions will not be considered in sanctioning conduct. If it did, then we would not have (and not just in Texas) statutes that provide for enhancement of penalties for past convictions. And I dare say we have not seen anything in Texas nearly as egregious as the recent case in California where the guy got 26 to life under their Three Strikes law...the offense was perjury for having taken a driver's license test for a family member, with the State having offered four years prior to trial.

I am wondering how someone who is no longer a part of the system can request records on anyone. Seems to me that would really be none of your business unless you had something to do with this case. But let me save you the trouble since you seem to be intent on dragging this out and making me the target of your posting for whatever reason.

Rule #2(MC) A violation of the law (Driving While Intoxicated)
Rule #5 Failure to report in writing the fact of any arrest within five days of its occurance
Rule #5T Using alcoholic beverages


Clearly we do not agree on the aspects of this case, just as the legal department does not agree with classification's interpretation of 1649 and are still debating the issue.

So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

NorthStar, as I stated on the 29th, my comments did not turn towards your case until you directed what had been a general discussion into specifics of your husband's case.

Your own post at 5:30PM today confirms that the revocation is not purely technical in nature as you previously stated that it was...surely you were aware that MC denotes Misdemeanor Conviction. If you wish to still consider it a revocation on technical violations only, fine...but your own post shows otherwise.

As to how records can be obtained, a request for written minutes sheets can be made by any person, and a properly worded request directed to the appropriate office can often obtain copies of any hearing reports contained in the file.

Terminology must necessarily be precise in discussion of matters, not just with TDCJ but in any technical area. It is the lack of familiarity with those processes that contribute to the situations like you have encountered on the 1649 credits and that others encountered with DMS issues. Unfortunately, when the person unfamiliar with the system sends letters and phone calls all over the place, it complicates matters more than you can imagine, especially if imprecise language or interpretations have been used or made by any party. A good example on language and why it needs to be precise goes back to an old file...there was a warrant issued in the 80's and a decision for ISF made, but no indication that the warrant was ever withdrawn. Guy should have discharged, but TDCJ processed him as a violator upon his return with a new conviction because there was no withdrawal of the warrant in the computer. A transmittal was drafted for the Board to discharge him, but the Board could not sign it because they lacked the authority to discharge someone from the sentence- that was a function of the Institutional Division. What the Board was authorized to do was withdraw the warrant, which had the effect of continuing supervision, which then meant that the sentence could be discharged (even though the decision to withdraw the warrant was more than a decade after the ISF decision). The manner of terminology and presentation had everything to do with what could and could not be accomplished.

While I still believe that the 1649 credits could be applied. However, this definitely has gone beyond a point where I could do for you the same as I have done for others here and make a phone call to get the problem resolved. I dare say that you are going to need to muster up the resources to retain counsel that knows TDCJ and the various players within the agency.

All I have to say to this is "Huh?", no wonder the system is so bogged down and there are so few regular schlubs that can even begin to understand and act within this system. It's an elitist system at best. You guys have just proved this point. My eyes just glaze over even attempting to keep up with this, anyone else feel that way? I hope so, because I don't think I am stoopid, maybe I have been fooling myself all this time.

Alas, CenTexLyn speaks "bureaucrateeze fluently" but it is a language nobody understands and it seems TDCJ likes it that way. The agency does not want "meddling" reporters asking questions. It doesn't want inmate families sticking their noses into "state business", etc., ad nauseum. Goose, old man, you have stumbled through the looking glass into a rabbit's hole of mirrors and smoke and linguistic double speak that rivals anything the CIA may devise. As CenTex suggests, the answer may lie in finding a mean, hungry lawyer who hates bureaucratic darkness and illegitimate cloak room power as much as most of us do. Then the bureaucrats and their obfuscating rule books and all of the gibberish they use to justify draconian behavior will be swept into the unemployment lines where they belong.

I'm one of many in debt to CenTex and grateful for her expertise in navigating and interpreting the tdc bureaucracy for us while taking great care not to violate confidentiality or rules.

Jim, you're expressing your frustration with tdcj and we all understand that. Regardless of intent tho, your comments could be taken as bordering on a personal attack against a pto member.

GooseBumps, if you don't understand every exchange, don't worry, there's a lot of 'shorthand' goes on between posters that I don't get but as long as they do that's cool. I sure as heck have learned a lot from CenTexLyn.

Originally posted by jim brigance
Alas, CenTexLyn speaks "bureaucrateeze fluently" but it is a language nobody understands and it seems TDCJ likes it that way. .

Since you are not privy to my personal correspondence or have recordings of phone calls I've made, it can't be said that I've used any 'incorrect terminology' in them. Those I have spoken with on the phone seem to have no trouble understanding my explanations since most of what I supply to them are laws copied straight from the books themselves. I show them what it says in black and white and say now show me one that says you can do what you are doing. They can't. The only ones interpreting the law are those in classification. And therefore there is now a debate between them and legal as to what is correct. This is not something that will just affect my husband's case, but a number of other people currently in the system.

TDCJ's problem is they are loathe to admit they are wrong. The fact it is still being debated only shows that yes, we will have to sell our souls for the money necessary to hire a competent attorney to get the court to make a final decision.

I am glad you have been able to help others by making a few phone calls, but I never asked you to do such a thing for me. All I ask now is that you stop boring everyone else with it because -- yes to Goosebumps, it is hard to understand. TDC does love to keep you dazed and confused so you can't figure out what they're doing that they're not supposed to.

And Biscuitmom, I don't think Jim was attacking CenTex. She does speak the jargon quite well. I've read a number of her posts that make no sense to me. Instead of quoting TDC chapter and verse, how about explaining it in English where the normal person can understand it?

Anyway, CenTex, if you simply must comment further about my situation, I ask you to please do so in a PM and not in some thread here on the boards.

Thank you.

PLEASE!!! This was by no means an attack on CTL, at all Biscuitmom. We are all better off having CTL here and I appreciate her many efforts at explaining the way things work and the help she has provided others, that normally would still be walking and thinking in circles because of what I see as an elitist type club, she knows how to walk with those in that club and we are indeed lucky to have such an ally here at PTO, many kudos to her, I hope she never forgets us in her further career where ever that may take her. We need her here for just the reasons I am talking about to help us understand what the hell is being said. I just think because of the precise language we have to use to weave our way through a system none of are familiar with until we have to be, we are at a disadvantage. One simple example about language and the precise manner in which it is used and abused by anyone who can, the CO's at a unit. Before my sister passed away, I was at Mountain View to meet my future wife for the very first time and visit my sister before I saw my then "friend". I asked the CO if I can go over to the noncontact side and have a visit with her as soon as I finish with my sister. She said "No you can't have two visits at the same time." I was crushed, what do I do? See my sister or have a visit with this girl that I knew I was in love with. As I was pondering what to do, another CO came over to me and said "Yes, you can visit them both, but you have to go out and reprocess yourself back in to see the other girl". Cool done deal, but because I didn't ask in the correct way, the CO was going to make me choose. She knew the answer, but because I didn't know the system yet and because I didn't ask in the right way, she gave me an answer that was literal to what I asked, but not knowing how to ask, I could have really been forced to make a choice like that. This CO chose not to offer any help either in solving my predicament. I am afraid that happens too often in the system of criminal justice also. It happens a lot when some one is faced with a plea bargain, trial or take the plea. Not knowing all the facts about each choice, they are forced to make a desicion based on someone's opinion not facts. Mind you this IS NOT EVERY TIME, but it happens a fair amount, I would be willing to bet. Bottomline, we almost must blame the lawyers for this, but then again weren't some of the founding fathers of our country barristers too?

It seems a case of “thin skinitis” is trying to take root here and that is absolutely the wrong “disease” any open discussion can endure. I have not seen nor have I posted any “personal attacks” on CenTexLyn. I have attacked the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice and its incompetent, backward, mean-spirited attitudes and the costly, injurious policies that flow from TDC’s unyielding attitude. Anyone who identifies with and supports that agency’s approach to “justice” is the target of my remarks. One of the glaring failures of any bureaucratic functionary is that they don’t debate or explain or teach --- they run and hide behind a rule book and point to the sign over their door that says” “Well, that’s just the way it is.” Michael Corleone told his hot-headed brother, “It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s business.” I tell writing clients that I try not to write words for them that are not clearly understood because any other kind of communication wastes their time and mine. I don’t want to express ideas with words they can’t understand. They don’t want to pay for them. And readers shouldn’t be forced to wade through a lot of obscure phrases and pontifical jargon in order to find meaning and reason. I can appreciate CenTex’s seeming knowledge of TDCJ rules and policies but I am not impressed. Anyone who has invested a lot of years doing anything ought to know something about it. You may have noticed that a good doctor does not speak to you in the same language he learned in med school. You are a paying patient, perhaps worried, who wants clearly expressed answers to your questions delivered to you with an air of compassion, comfort and understanding. I have asked CenTex on a couple of occasions to please speak English. Every industry has its jargon, including my own. I have never tried to impress anyone here with journalism jargon. CenTex has brushed me and others aside, saying we should know TDCJ’s acronyms. That’s exactly the kind of nonsense I would expect while sitting in a TDCJ office. If I wanted mere recitation from a rule book delivered in a patronizing tone of voice I would go to Austin where I can listen to it all day long. It’s not what I expect from an inmate family support group. TDCJ is bad. It is the bureaucratic enemy of people in its custody and their families. Most of the people in prison are there because a judge and jury put them there. In most cases it was a necessary decision. The Texas prison system is not a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. TDCJ’s behavior is not necessary; it is not warranted; it does not in the least address basic humanity issues; it is a bureaucracy out of control, feeding off your tax dollars to pursue its own agenda of power and control. Simply and clearly put, if CenTexLyn or you or anyone else identifies and sympathizes with their behavior and position, then you are the enemy of everyone on this forum with a loved one who suffers every day from humiliation, depravity and inhumanity. You are the problem and not part of the solution. Goose Bumps simply expressed his exasperation with the system and those who contribute to its status quo. So, if the shoe fits, wear it. As a PTO member, I seek reasonable, comprehensive answers to the questions I may pose. If I may contribute to answering someone else’s question then I will try to do so in language they can understand, and with a measure of feeling and support for their situation. None of us needs nor wants to be lectured in an officious, pompous tone. Virtually everyone on this forum is dealing with very stressful, very personal issues we must grapple with every day. These issues have nothing to do with a broken refrigerator, being late to work or a menacing health problem. They are concerned with real, live people who spend 24 hours a day in prison surrounded by mostly mean-spirited, low wage people who couldn’t get a job on the world’s worst county sheriff’s department.
When seeking help with and assessment of these prison issues none of us needs talking “down to.” I don’t know about you but my doctor is sensitive to communication. He speaks to me in layman’s terms and doesn’t try to impress me with his medical school degrees. Likewise, I don’t try to impress him with my background. It’s a relationship grounded in mutual respect. I don’t know the first thing about electricity but when I speak with an electrician I expect plain English, what repairs will cost and why. Most of us here are trying to help family members and friends through a very rough time in life. This isn’t the place for thin skins and Greek lectures. A good teacher will tell me what TDCJ is doing and why but they won’t do it with an air of justification. Indeed, they will do it with understanding and offer some ideas as to how to beat the devil at his own game. The agency is in financial trouble but that is the least of its troubles. It is also bankrupt of compassion, caring, and competence. Some of us are speaking out against it.
I’m certainly not here to praise TDC and its employees. I regret the few good ones get tarred with the same brush as the bad apples but ---- nobody forced them to work there.

Thanks for the clarification.

E]Originally posted by jim brigance
[B] I have not seen nor have I posted any “personal attacks”

Simply and clearly put, if CenTexLyn or you or anyone else identifies and sympathizes with their behavior and position, then you are the enemy of everyone on this forum with a loved one who suffers every day from humiliation, depravity and inhumanity. You are the problem and not part of the solution.



I'm going to just step in here with a few comments because I do not like the way this thread seems to be going.

First of all, all members are appreciated here who give their support and those who are in a position to help and share their knowledge.

CenTexLyn has offered a lot of support to members here both on and off the boards. In no terms will any disrespect be tolerated towards her or any other member who has a working knowledge of the system.

From an administration view, NO ONE has the right to ask another member to stop their posting. If there is something that one does not understand, request more information. The DOC system is complex and yes, for those who are caught up on the inside and out, there will be a need for on-going 'education' to learn how to face and handle situation.

I can not understand how ANYONE could be rude to those who are here to help! No one really knows what members do for work unless they post it. I, a moderator, or other members who choose not to disclose where they work may just actually work for the DOC. I certainly do not consider these people as the 'enemy' of this forum.

So in the future posts, I ask that everyone take a little more care in their words. If you do not like something someone has to say, move on...do not cut them down

I stated before and will do so again, for the last time, if I wanted to be talked to in a patronizing tone of voice, to hear a litany of acronyms and TDC jargon and doublespeak, I would simply go to Austin and visit all of the TDC offices where I would hear a full day of their defense. I thought PTO was devised to be pro-family, pro-inmate and not serve as a soap box to white wash and excuse TDC policy. Again, I am working to change the inhumane way TDC treats prison inmates. If you construe that as disrespect then you are on the right track. If this is an open forum then it is an open forum for all ideas and opinions. If it is a love fest for a cruel and hostile state bureaucracy and those who support it, then I'm in the wrong place. I won't be posting again. It was nice meeting some of you who are dealing with tough issues. If you are willing to let this moderator control what you criticize and who you criticize then you hand the TDCJ yet another victory. I walk away.

That Administrator (PammieK) is not controlling what is criticized; she is controlling an aggressive stance against another member here, as spelled out in your own words, Jim. She and everyone else that runs PTO are tasked with making sure everyone follows the guidelines of this community. Of which one is not to attack or abuse another member.;

Simply and clearly put, if CenTexLyn or you or anyone else identifies and sympathizes with their behavior and position, then you are the enemy of everyone on this forum with a loved one who suffers every day from humiliation, depravity and inhumanity. You are the problem and not part of the solution.

You basically named her and said if you have been there, done that, speak their language, or agree with any part of TDCJ, you are the enemy.

PTO was and is devised to be pro-family, pro-inmate and that is apparent to most everyone here. A "love fest for cruel and hostile state bureaucracy" ?? Not even close.
So, you are saying that just because PTO doesn’t ban/block anyone that has had anything to do with the State or Federal Bureaucracy that we are in bed with them? I’m sorry, but that line of thinking never accomplished anything. This site is all about Prisoners and their families. You don’t see CO Support forums here do you?

Jim, one of the reasons PTO is what-it-is, and helps many is because there are people here that have or are involved with the D.O.C. and are HELPING fellow members. We have current and ex-DOC employees in many of the state forums that I know for a fact are helping others. Anyone that is not here for friendly purposes are quickly removed and blocked. Trust me, we monitor it exceptionally close.

Now, to your complaint about "communications". I haven't had the time lately to "surf" PTO as I would like to, so I have not followed many posts by CenTexLyn, or yourself for that matter. Maybe she does talk TDCJ jargon which is hard for some to understand. This doesn't only go for CO's.. (And she is NOT paid NOT to talk that way here, or anyplace else I doubt, like a Doctor is) With regards to that, I do have a good friend that is a MD and on occasion when we are all out he starts talking in terms many of us don't understand, which he then clarifies. He doesn't do it on purpose or to try and make any of us feel "small", even though we didn't go to Med school and head up a large metropolitan ER, he does it out of habit and because he isn’t on guard, like he is when he is in front of patients.

I also have friends that are Engineers and Lawyers. Some of them talk "techie", while others are smooth and you would never know their profession. I think another good example is a friend of mine that speaks 4 different languages. She often breaks into French words right in the middle of an English sentence, which irks me, because she obviously knows I don't speak French. The problem is that since her husband is French, and they talk it so much, she "thinks in French" (or so she says) and then accidentally reverts to the word while speaking English. See my point?

I guess my question is this: would you rather have someone here that can help you with inside information even if they may be hard to understand at times, or would you rather have them gone altogether just because you don’t like the way they talk and where they came from? (Of course, then you could call TDCJ and get all you need from them on the telephone, right?)

If someone is being obviously condescending, rude or anti-prisoner & family, the smart move is to report it to a moderator and let them handle it, rather than to take them on in the forum. Again, I haven’t had, nor do I at this very moment have time to go read everyone’s posts, though I am sure a number of moderators will be doing that now.

What I do expect is that everyone shows other members respect here, no matter where they come from and what they do. AND again, if there is a problem, contact a moderator and it will be taken care of.

Fed-X