Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Sheriff: We'll do prints at jail

In a meeting with the county administrator, he reiterates his determination to assume the role unless the commission says no.

By JONATHAN ABEL
Published July 5, 2006

BROOKSVILLE - Hernando Sheriff Richard Nugent is determined to take over fingerprinting at the county jail unless he gets specific instructions to the contrary from the County Commission.

That was the outcome of the latest round of discussions on the $305,000 question of who should be in charge of fingerprinting at the jail.

On Monday, Nugent met with County Administrator Gary Kuhl to talk over the status of the fingerprinting takeover.

On Feb. 14, the County Commission voted unanimously to put the sheriff in charge of fingerprinting at the troubled jail because Corrections Corporation of America, the private company that runs the jail, had failed to log 758 arrests in the statewide fingerprint database.

Since then, however, despite the commission's decision, there has been more finger pointing than actual progress in the fingerprinting takeover.

The contract language giving Nugent control of the LiveScan digital fingerprinting machine was never approved, and the money was never transferred from Corrections Corporation to the Sheriff's Office.

The debate about whether the company should continue with the fingerprinting is in some ways a proxy for the County Commission's confidence in the jail's new warden and the facility's new direction.

But there is also a lot of money at stake for Corrections Corporation of America and the Sheriff's Office.

In February, the commission voted, and CCA agreed, that the $305,000 a year needed to hire six full-time deputies would come out of CCA's pocket.

Last week, however, Kuhl sent a memo to Nugent suggesting that there were "other alternatives not yet considered" beside putting the fingerprinting under Nugent's control.

Kuhl's memo argued that CCA had been doing a good job with fingerprinting for the last six months and, under strict monitoring, it could be trusted to continue the fingerprinting without any problems.

Kuhl's letter also faulted the Sheriff's Office for rejecting draft contract language about the fingerprinting machine that was written by the staff in February. He said the Sheriff's Office rejected it without making any suggestions on how to make the contract acceptable.

The main legal holdup has been the issue of liability. As it currently stands, CCA is liable for anything that happens in the jail. For example, if someone who is being fingerprinted breaks free and somehow manages to burn down the jail, the liability for that act would fall on CCA.

But if the Sheriff's Office takes over fingerprinting, it must assume the liability for anything that happens during that process. And that responsibility ultimately falls back on county taxpayers rather than a deep-pocketed private company.

Nugent's July 3 letter, however, showed the sheriff unswayed by arguments to relinquish his claim on the fingerprinting duties.

"I do not feel it would be appropriate to pursue other options without authorization or further direction from the Board of County Commissioners in light of their existing vote," he wrote.

His letter also disputed the claim that his office rejected the county's contract proposal without making suggestions on how to fix it.

He wrote that the letter from his attorney that was seen as a rejection in fact came four days before the commission voted on the fingerprinting issue and was intended merely as preliminary information to let the county know the Sheriff's Office would not indemnify CCA or the county.

At the Feb. 14 meeting where the fingerprint changes were voted on, the commission also voted to negotiate an increase in the fines that could be levied against the jail and to create a county jail monitor to be paid for by deductions from CCA's contract.

Two months later, on April 18, purchasing director Jim Gantt presented two of the amendments to the commission, but the draft of the fingerprinting amendment was never presented.

Nugent blamed county staffers for letting the fingerprinting contract fall by the wayside and thus leading to the long delay in implementing the commission's instructions.

"It is interesting to note that no one in my office was contacted for further input on the issue prior to board approval of CCA contract changes on April 18, 2006, in which no language appeared related to Live Scan responsibilities."

Both Kuhl and Nugent said the meeting between them this week had been successful. Nugent delivered a line-item revision of the fingerprinting proposal, which will be run past the county attorney and presented at an upcoming commission meeting.

"CCA has improved what they've been doing with fingerprinting," Nugent said. "But there's no guarantee that will continue. A year from now, I don't know. It could be back in the same situation."

For his part, Kuhl said he was looking forward to bringing the issue back to the board: "I'd just like to get it taken care of one way or another."

Jonathan Abel can be reached at jabel@sptimes.com or 352 754-6114.

[Last modified July 4, 2006, 23:12:02]