Mr. Richard A. Lanham, Sr.
Commissioner,
Maryland Division of Correction
6776 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21215
Re: MCAC and "The Good Guys Who Blow Up Buildings"
Dear Mr. Lanham:
I was present at House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, January 17, 1996 when Mr. Bishop Robinson with you at his side, said that you were charged with the responsibility of finding new uses for the MCAC ("Supermax") building after the Department of Justice inquiry barred continuing housing of the mentally ill.
It has been with distress and dismay that it has now come to my attention that DOC has moved all candidates affected by the death penalty statute to MCAC regardless of their true "security" status. I, too, am aware, as is the Department of Justice, that the January Inmate Characteristics Report denoted a total of 176 persons inhabiting the structure, down from 254 prior to DOJ intervention, and well below its capacity figure of 288, in contrast to most other DOC facilities.
I am also aware that at least two MCAC residents no longer belong in the building. They are Harold Dean and Merle Unger. Though the two of them have extensive "escape" records, there is nothing keeping them in "Supermax" save to populate a sorely depleted building. MHC Annex, designed for maximum security, has since been built since their admission to MCAC -- MHC Annex is certainly a preferable option for this type of inmate. For FY 1997, the "dollar per inmate" number at MHCA is $12,335 -- for the same period, MCAC clocks in at $61,864.
It is evident, by the "death penalty" transfers that the Division of Correction is grasping at straws (and not very well) trying to maintain a facility at 61% capacity. It is also evident that the Division is choosing to opt for overclassification in other areas with no other reason than to occupy bedspace. The death penalty transfers signify DOC has now adopted a policy to use "control unit" architecture for punitive means -- to exploit and victimize selected inmates if and when other considerations cannot be addressed otherwise.
MCAC (or "Supermax" as it is better known) was conceived, designed and constructed as a memorial to a slain correctional officer on the Penitentiary's notorious South Wing. I have provided you with a "Clipping Chronicle" which well demonstrates this point. Architecturally speaking, the only possible use of the structure is as a "Control Unit" seen elsewhere at Pelican Bay, California and Marion, Illinois. Yet, Maryland is not California and Maryland does not mimic or reflect the federal prison system.
We are faced now with the fact that Maryland does not have the numbers of population to sustain the existence of a 288-bed "control unit". We are also faced with the fact that Maryland's convention in recent years has been to erect "192s" ever after the creation of ECI on the Eastern Shore. "192s" may be treated as maximum or medium. MHC Annex now houses about 1,800 while the "new joint", WCI, shall be capable of housing 1,296 and maybe more pending present capital budget expenditures. Neither of these existed or promised to come into existence at the time MCAC had its origin. Either of these would be eminently suited to MCAC's present population.For [Footnote 1: women, there is already a "192" on the MCIW campus.]
Another consideration for alternate uses of the facility or its location is that MCAC occupies what could be said to be a prime piece of real estate. It is across the street from the back end of the Penitentiary complex (soon to become medium) and the BCDC Administration building. It is adjacent to the BCDC Jail Industries building. Central Booking and/or Diagnostic Center are but stones' throws away. Around corners are BCCC, BPRU, O'Brien Work Release House and so forth. What the square block could really use would be drug and alcohol abuse treatment facilities and expansion of the proven-successful correctional options programs instituted in recent years by Mr. Robinson working in conjunction with BCDC Commissioner Flanagan, yourself and others. While other buildings, such as the Jail Industries building, may be "retrofitted" with relatively minor internal restructuring of space, MCAC is fixed in time and cannot be adapted and cannot be adopted for any other purpose than "control unit" use.
MCAC is no longer the "high tech", "super modern", "crown jewel" of the DOC as it was when it opened in January, 1989, and it is no longer extolled, acclaimed or urged by certain members of one or more labor unions. As your Internal Investigation Unit investigations last year may have shown, MCAC is far from being an attractive workplace, oversight and supervision of employees is far from optimum, and turnover, sick leave and workmen's compensation claims certainly rival if not exceed other Baltimore facilities. Mr. Toulson, the officer slain in 1994 on the Pen's South Wing, is memorialized in the correctional options program known as the "boot camp" instead. Despite a certain amount of (uninformed) public outcry, as occurred when inmate Eric Tirado was discovered to have been moved to MHCA last year, the no nonsense and commonsensical approach to MCAC at this time is to investigate the possibility of demolishing the structure altogether.
From an architectural standpoint, mistakes have been made in the past and it is possible to rectify them. When I was in college, the most famous example was a housing project in St. Louis known as Pruitt-Igoe. The high-rise building was designed by a prominent architect from a prominent firm and much ballyhoo and high hopes accompanied its opening. Very soon thereafter, however, the structure proved to be virtually uninhabitable with extraordinarily high crime, vandalism and other ills. Sociologists and criminologists flocked to the scene as the project presented the most fascinating case study of the decade and perhaps in post- war United States. Countless studies were undertaken and presented. Finally, the leadership and fathers of the City of St. Louis faced the inevitable: The project was an unparalleled disaster and had to come down. As you can see by the enclosed copy of a recent magazine article, Pruitt- Igoe then achieved yet a third reason for being famous: it made the demolition literature as one of the largest and newest buildings of the time to be destroyed -- an admission of failure but indicative of a resolve to make good.With [Footnote 1: federal funding and cooperation, Baltimore and other U.S. cities are presently embarking on the demolition of similar structures, including Lafayette Court, Lexington Terrace and Murphy Homes.]
Finally, for all of the reasons discussed above, I am requesting that the Division of Correction and Department of Public Safety at least undertake a cost-benefit analysis examining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of demolishing MCAC either in whole or in part. The study should comprehend the real costs of continued operation. For example, a personnel detail analysis I generated on MCAC last year did not list a psychologist nor a chaplain. Yet, it is well known that MCAC has at least one of both. I am surmising these employees are instead addressed by the Penitentiary budget -- the real costs of MCAC therefore understated. Are there other areas such as Administration and Maintenance where costs have been distributed to other budgets?
The photocopy enclosed was taken from Parade magazine, a regular circular with Sunday newspapers nationwide. It is dated April 28, 1996, and although it features a relatively new hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, it presents a compelling alternative to our own problem of MCAC. This article and this letter will also be shared with selected members of the Committee for Responsible Corrections Policy and others.
If you have questions or other concerns, please call me at (410) 727-5099.
cc: Secretary Bishop Robinson
Governor Parris Glendening
Lt. Governor Kathleen Townsend
Warden Eugene Nuth
Judy Preston, Esquire, Department of Justice