The Daily Record

PRISON
The State Highway and Public Works Commission at its regular November meeting ran smack into a controversy between opposing philosophies about prison administration, whether humanitarian-social reform or hard-boiled business principles should be paramount. Walter Anderson, director of prisons, carried the ball for the humanitarian side. George S. Coble, highway commissioner for the sixth division, championed the business idea. There were auxiliary and side-line issues, including problems of legal procedure and methods of bookkeeping, but the core of the controversy was whether an additional half million dollars a year should be allocated out of available highway revenue to let prison guards have an extra day off week, or whether that half million should be devoted to maintenance of public roads.

BASIC - The discussion paramounted the basic issue and forecast a real scrap in the upcoming General Assembly over the question of divorcing prison administration from the highway commission. Coble succinctly stated his attitude, which has seemed to be the majority opinion of the commission, when he said "The purpose of this commission is to build and maintain roads." Anderson's expressed and implied philosophy is that prisoners should not be treated like machines, and that prison guards should have comparable status with all other highway employees in the five-day work-week plan. This basically different approach led into discussion of some indirectly related matters, such as the distinction between operations that must be carried on seven days a week, like guarding prisoners or taking care of hospital patients and others which can be temporarily reduced or suspended, like construction projects or manufacturing plants. There was involved too the legal question of whether the highway commission had any choice in the premises under a Personnel Council mandate to limit work of "all employees" to 50 hours a week. None of the talk ever got very far from the beginning fact that a half million dollars was at stake and that if it went to hire additional guards for idle weekend folks it would not be available for building roads.

SURFACE the half-million dollars and incidental questions about perennial prison division deficits, and whether the deficits should be liquidated by changing figures on the books - by allowing $3.60 or $4.00 or some other per diem for prison labor on highways instead of the $3.50 now in effect were in the open. Not a word was said about separating prisons from highway administration, but it was apparent the real issue was whether chief obligation was to the prisons or to the roads. And there was an almost as significant undercurrent of feeling about the merits of continually shorter working time for employees. Because, actually the welfare of prisoners was not directly at stake. It was the matter of more pay or less work for the prison guards at State expense.

ADEQUATE - It developed that while the average pay check for guards now runs about $200 a month, that their actual compensation which includes board, room and uniforms is close to $300 per month. Coble insisted that on basis of education and capacity to obtain other employment that represented a higher level of pay than drawn by many other State employees. It was also noted that during the idle week-ends most of the guards still ate and slept at the camps, so that their compensation would not be counted only on basis of time worked. The recurring reference to the half million dollars extra cost also emphasized that while admittedly contributing to general efficiency the short work week can not be practiced without adding to the monetary cost of public employment.

SKIRMISH - The highway commission argument was just a minor skirmish preparatory to a major battle looming in the General Assembly about prison administration and the new equitable valuation to be placed upon perquisites at numerous State institutions.

INEQUITIES - The whole question of perquisites - housing, board laundry, servants, vegetables, and other produce, medical attention and what have you - is one of the most bothersome facing institutional management in this State. The hospital board has been studying the question for at least six years without much success in solving it. There is also distinction between employees who are on the job for a stipulated number of hours and then completely off duty as are most clerical workers; and those who have stipulated hours but are subject to call even when off duty, such as law enforcement officers and numerous type of highway workers - including prison guards. There is further distinction between those whose jobs make it advantageous for them to stay on the premises at night and those who are free to live where they please. The most bothersome questions are little ones. The big issues can be handled satisfactorily. How about the employee who is subject to call when off duty and his home telephone? If a telephone is a requirement for the job, should the State pay for it? If the State does pay for the phone, should the employee be allowed to use it for personal calls? Should the same charge be made for a meal which the employee has no choice in selecting as for one of similar content ordered from a varied menu? If an employee of a test farm who has to look after livestock before daylight and after dark is entitled to a free house is another employee who can leave the job at 5:30 until 8:30 next morning entitled to the same perquisite? There are just a few of the little-big questions involved, and for which no satisfactory answers have been discovered.