jurisdiction: US

text: b'U.S. Department of the Interior\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n FOLLOWUP OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n RELATING TO THE\n BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS,\n DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,\n GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\n\n\n REPORT NO. 98-I-468\n MAY 1998\n\x0cI\n V-IN-VIS-003-97\n\n United States Department of the Interior\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Washington, D.C. 20240\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n\n Honorable Roy L. Schneider MAY 29 I998\n Governor of the Virgin Islands\n No. 21 Kongens Gade\n Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands 00802\n\n Subject: Audit Report on Followup of Recommendations Relating to the Bureau of\n Corrections, Department of Justice, Government of the Virgin Islands\n (1\xe2\x80\x99Jo. 98-I-468)\n\n Dear Governor Schneider:\n\n This report presents the results of our followup review of recommendations contained in four\n prior audit reports on the Bureau of Corrections, Virgin Islands Department of Justice (see\n Prior Audit Coverage). The objective of this review was to determine whether the Bureau\n had satisfactorily implemented the recommendations in the prior reports and whether any\n new recommendations were warranted.\n\n BACKGROUND\n The Bureau of Corrections was established within the Office of the Governor by Title 5,\n Chapter 401, of the Virgin Islands Code. In fiscal year 1987, the Bureau was placed under\n the administrative control of the Virgin Islands Department of Justice as a result of the\n Government\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Branch reorganization. The mission of the Bureau includes\n providing for the custody and care of inmates detained in correctional and detention facilities\n for felonies and misdemeanors. The Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s operating budget totaled $12.7 million in\n fiscal year 1996 and $13.8 million in fiscal year 1997.\n\n The Director of Corrections is the chief administrator and fiscal officer of the Bureau and is\n appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislature. The Bureau\n operates four correctional facilities within the Virgin Islands: the Golden Grove Adult\n Correctional Facility and the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope Adult Detention Center on St. Croix and the\n Alexander Farrelly Criminal Justice Complex and the Criminal Justice Complex Annex on\n St. Thomas. As of September 1997, these facilities housed more than 500 inmates, with\n another 190 inmates (including 70 inmates who were transferred to Arizona in July 1997)\n held in correctional facilities in the continental United States because of overcrowding\n conditions.\n\x0cSCOPE OF AUDIT\nTo accomplish our audit objective, we reviewed documents and records pertaining to the\nBureau\xe2\x80\x99s operations during fiscal years 1995 through 1997 and to policies and procedures\nin effect at the time of the audit. We also inspected the four facilities administered by the\nBureau and interviewed Bureau and Virgin Islands Department of Justice personnel\nregarding actions taken to implement the prior audit recommendations.\n\nOur review was made, as applicable, in accordance with the \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Auditing\nStandards,\xe2\x80\x9d issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, we\nincluded such tests of records and other auditing procedures that were considered necessary\nunder the circumstances. Because of the limited scope and objective of our review, we\nreviewed internal controls only to the extent that they related to corrective actions taken on\nthe prior recommendations.\n\nPRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE\nFrom 199 1 to 1993, the Office of Inspector General issued four audit reports on the Bureau,\nwhich disclosed deficiencies in the areas of security and maintenance; prison overcrowding;\ninmate care, rehabilitation, and safety; and administrative functions. The four audit reports\ncontained a total of 45 recommendations on the Bureau of Corrections as follows:\n\n - The August 1991 report \xe2\x80\x9cSecurity and Maintenance of Correctional Facilities,\nGovernment of the Virgin Islands\xe2\x80\x9d (No. 9 1 -I- 1188) stated that the Bureau of Corrections had\nnot implemented adequate measures to ensure that correctional facilities in the Virgin Islands\nwere secure and properly maintained. Specifically, the report noted that (1) inmates were not\nadequately monitored and supervised, (2) internal and perimeter security equipment and\nsystems were not fully operable, (3) inmates and visitors were not adequately screened to\nprevent the introduction of contraband such as drugs and weapons, (4) a comprehensive\npreventive maintenance and repair program had not been established, and (5) available\nFederal funds for needed maintenance and repair were not used effectively. The report\xe2\x80\x99s\n16 recommendations were classified as resolved but not implemented based on the\nGovernment\xe2\x80\x99s response to the report.\n\n - The October 1991 report \xe2\x80\x9cPrison Overcrowding, Bureau of Corrections,\nGovernment of the Virgin Islands\xe2\x80\x9d (No. 92-I-90) stated that correctional facilities in the\nVirgin Islands housed 80 percent more inmates than their designed capacity. The report\nfurther stated that (1) the Bureau of Corrections had not effectively analyzed and planned for\nexpansion of the prisons; (2) the Territorial and Federal Courts did not implement special\nsentencing programs which could assist in relieving overcrowding conditions; and (3) the\nBureau improperly credited inmates with good conduct allowances that were not earned,\nwhich reduced inmates\xe2\x80\x99 prison sentences to less than court-ordered sentences. The report\xe2\x80\x99s\nfive recommendations were classified as resolved but not implemented based on the\nGovernment\xe2\x80\x99s response to the report.\n\x0c - The December 1992 report \xe2\x80\x9cInmate Care, Rehabilitation, and Safety, Bureau of\nCorrections, Government of the Virgin Islands\xe2\x80\x9d (No. 93-I-363) stated that the Bureau of\nCorrections and the Department of Human Services, which was responsible for programs at\nthe Youth Rehabilitation Center, had not adequately provided for the care, rehabilitation\xe2\x80\x99 and\nsafety of incarcerated individuals. Specifically, the report noted that (1) bathing and drinking\nwater at correctional facilities was contaminated and unsafe for human use, (2) kitchen and\nmedical facilities at the Golden Grove prison were not clean and were unsanitary, (3) the\nlevel of medical and dental services provided to inmates was inadequate, (4) existing\neducational programs were only to the fifth-grade level, (5) vocational and prison industries\nprograms were not effective, (6) substance abuse treatment programs reached only a small\npercentage of the target inmate population, (7) emergency alarm systems and emergency\nexits were not functional, and (8) adequate fne fighting equipment was not available. The\nreport\xe2\x80\x99s 10 recommendations were classified as unresolved based on the Government\xe2\x80\x99s\nresponse to the report.\n\n - The March 1993 report \xe2\x80\x9cPersonnel, Property Management, and Procurement\nFunctions, Bureau of Corrections, Government of the Virgin Islands\xe2\x80\x9d (No. 93-I-670) stated\nthat the Bureau of Corrections needed to make improvements in its personnel, property\nmanagement, and procurement practices. Specifically, the report noted that the Bureau\n(1) did not adequately staff or properly utilize corrections officers, which resulted in overtime\ncosts of about $1.3 million annually; (2) did not always hire the most qualified officer\ncandidates; (3) incurred excess salary costs of $138,000 by using corrections officers to\nperform certain administrative duties; (4) did not develop a comprehensive, cost-effective\ntraining program for new recruits and for in-service training; (5) did not maintain current and\naccurate records of equipment and supplies; (6) did not comply with procurement regulations\nconcerning the use of over-the-counter purchases; and (7) lost about $37,000 in prompt\npayment discounts because of delayed payments to vendors. The report\xe2\x80\x99s\n14 recommendations were classified as unresolved based on the Government\xe2\x80\x99s response to\nthe report.\n\nIn addition, in January 1997, the Government of the Virgin Islands was cited by the U.S.\nDistrict Court for failing to comply with a court order to reduce overcrowding, house\nmentally ill patients separately, and fix the deteriorating physical plant at the Criminal Justice\nComplex on St. Thomas. Our current review disclosed that the Government had not fully\ncorrected these deficiencies.\n\n RESULTS OF AUDIT\nOf the 45 recommendations made in our four prior audit reports, we found that\n7 recommendations were fully implemented, 22 recommendations were partially\nimplemented, and 16 recommendations were not implemented. (A summary of the status\nof the recommendations is in Appendix 1, and the status of each recommendation and of the\ncorrective actions taken is in Appendices 2 through 5.) We found that the Bureau took\nactions to (1) develop a plan to correct building deficiencies; (2) develop maintenance plans\nto meet the grant requirements of the Federal agencies which provided funds for the repair\nof correctional facilities; (3) institute a formal system for classifLi.ng inmates as to level of\n\n 3\n\x0crisk; (4) provide uniforms to corrections officers and inmates; (5) provide inmates with\nmedical and dental care, which included assigning a full-time registered nurse at the\nGolden Grove prison; (6) transfer the Youth Rehabilitation Center to the Department\nof Human Services; (7) provide a training facility on St. Croix for corrections officers; and\n(8) develop \xe2\x80\x9cpost orders\xe2\x80\x9d (descriptions of required duties) for all corrections o&er\npositions. However, we found that deficiencies disclosed in the prior reports still existed,\nprimarily because (1) the Bureau did not have a permanent management team (the positions\nof Director, Assistant Director, Warden, and Assistant Warden were all vacant at the time\nof our follow-up review) which ensured that corrective actions were initiated and completed,\n(2) the prison facilities on St. Thomas and St. Croix did not have standard operating\nprocedures and only the St. Thomas facilities had a comprehensive procedures manual, (3)\ncorrections personnel did not always follow established procedures, and (4) the\nrecommendations were not always implemented consistently on the two islands. As a result,\nphysical security at the correctional facilities continued to be compromised, repair and\nmaintenance problems existed, prison facilities were overcrowded, rehabilitative programs\nfor inmates were not fully effective, and deficiencies related to staffmg and training existed\nwithin the Bureau.\n\nSecurity and Maintenance of Correctional Facilities\nRegarding our August 1991 audit report on the security and maintenance of correctional\nfacilities, our follow-up review determined that 3 of the 16 recommendations had been fully\nimplemented, 12 had been partially implemented, and 1 had not been implemented (see\nAppendix 2). Although the Bureau had made improvements in the security and maintenance\nof correctional facilities, further improvements were needed in the areas of physical security,\nsupervision of inmates, and inmate classification.\n\n Physical Security. The Bureau did not have a comprehensive procedures manual for\nits St. Croix facilities that included specific policies on maintaining an adequate level of\nsecurity within the facilities, disposing of contraband found in the facilities, and controlling\nthe issuance of disposable razors to inmates. In addition, the Bureau allowed inmates at the\nGolden Grove prison to cover their cell door windows and lock cell doors from the inside.\nFurther, corrections officers stationed in the perimeter guard towers at Golden Grove were\nnot provided with firearms that could serve as a deterrent to inmates attempting to escape\nfrom the prison. At the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope facility, a secure control room with monitoring\nequipment was not available, and the plumbing needed to be repaired. On St. Thomas,\naccess to the main control center at the Criminal Justice Complex was not restricted to\nauthorized corrections officers, and there was no full-time maintenance unit. The emergency\ngenerator, ventilation system, and roof at the Criminal Justice Complex needed to be\nrepaired.\n\nWe also found that the Bureau had not fully implemented the corrective action plan imposed\non the Bureau by the U.S. District Court for improvements at the Golden Grove facility on\nSt. Croix. Although improvements were made in the areas of emergency care, medication,\nand sanitation, the Bureau had not fully complied with the order in the areas of improving\nfire safety, screening windows, and controlling tools. For example, we found that the central\n\n 4\n\x0cfire alarm system was inoperative, and the majority of dormitory windows were bent or\nmissing or had large holes in them. As a result, inmates got wet when it rained, and many\nplaced plastic bags or cardboard over the windows to prevent the rain from coming in. In\naddition, the majority of window screens in the dormitories were missing or had large holes\nin them.\n\n Supervision of Inmates. The Bureau had formal procedures for the work detail\nprograms at the correctional facilities on both islands. However, the established procedures\nwere not always followed\xe2\x80\x99 particularly at the Golden Grove facility. For example, of the 108\ninmates enrolled in the work detail program on St. Croix, 24 maximum security prisoners,\nwho had committed violent crimes such as first degree murder, were allowed to work in\nareas such as the farm, the carpentry shop, and the kitchen, where they had access to tools\nand other sharp objects that could be used in the conduct of violent acts against other inmates\nor prison personnel. In addition, we found that 12 inmates had not served at least one-third\nof their sentences, as required by established policies, before being considered for more\nindependent work detail assignments. We also found that, on both islands, inmates enrolled\nin the work detail program were not always paid for their hours of work. Specifically, on\nSt. Croix, inmates had not been paid since 1995 because the money allotted for that purpose\nwas used for other Bureau expenses. Based on our review of records for the period of\nDecember 1995 to August 1996, we found that 150 inmates at the Golden Grove facility\nwere owed about $69,000 for that 9-month period.\n\nAlthough inmates at the Criminal Justice Complex on St. Thomas were allowed to\nparticipate in work release programs based on the courts\xe2\x80\x99 sentencing orders, the Bureau did\nnot have formal procedures for the work release program, and controls over inmates\nparticipating in the work release program were not adequate. For example, the only\nsupervision of inmates in the work release program was in the form of occasional telephone\ncalls made to the inmates\xe2\x80\x99 places of employment to determine whether they were at work.\nAt the time of our follow-up review, the work release program was not active on St. Croix.\n\n Inmate Classification. The Bureau did not ensure that emergency situations and\nunusual incidents which occurred in the correctional facilities were recorded in the facilities\xe2\x80\x99\nlogbooks. The number and the type of unusual incidents in the prisons were factors used by\nBureau officials to reclassify inmates from maximum to medium security or from medium\nto minimum security. In addition, good conduct allowances, through which inmates\xe2\x80\x99\nsentences were reduced for good behavior, were also based on the number and type of\nunusual incidents that occurred. However, because emergency situations and unusual\nincidents were not routinely recorded in the correctional facilities\xe2\x80\x99 logbooks for later\ntranscription to the individual inmates\xe2\x80\x99 prison files, the potential existed for inmates to be\ngiven a less restrictive security classification or a greater level of good conduct allowances\nthan was appropriate.\n\nOn St. Croix, cell assignments were not always appropriate based on the classification of the\ninmates. For example, we found that high-risk prisoners were housed in the same cells as\nlow-risk prisoners at the Golden Grove facility. In one instance, a maximum security inmate\nwho had been convicted of frost degree murder and who was serving a mandatory life\n\n 5\n\x0csentence was housed in a medium security dormitory and shared a cell with an inmate who\nhad committed robbery and had only 4 years remaining on a lo-year sentence. Another\ninmate convicted of first degree murder who was serving a mandatory life sentence shared\na cell with an inmate who was serving his sentence on weekends. Moreover, because the\nAnna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope Detention Center did not have separate facilities for female detainees,\nmaximum security inmates and minimum security detainees, along with mentally ill females,\nwere housed together in the Golden Grove facility\xe2\x80\x99s female dormitory.\n\nOn St. Thomas, the Bureau made cell assignments without regard to inmate classifications.\nSpecifically, all types of inmates, minimum to maximum security, were housed in the same\ncell clusters. We believe that this practice did not provide adequate physical security for the\ninmates, since the cell clusters at the Criminal Justice Complex were small. For example,\none convicted murderer who was serving a life sentence plus additional years shared a cell\nwith a minimum security inmate who was convicted for witness tampering. In addition,\nbecause the Criminal Justice Complex was frequently understaffed, proper supervision was\nnot ensured. For example, one officer sometimes guarded two cell clusters simultaneously.\n\nPrison Overcrowding\nRegarding our October 1991 audit report on prison overcrowding, our followup review\ndetermined that two of the five recommendations had been partially implemented and that\nthe remaining three had not been implemented (see Appendix 3). Specifically, although the\nBureau made efforts to alleviate prison overcrowding, it had not developed a comprehensive\nplan to increase the overall capacity of prisons in the Virgin Islands. As a result\xe2\x80\x99\novercrowding still existed.\n\n Overcrowding. The Criminal Justice Complex remained the most overcrowded\ncorrectional facility, with an occupancy of 15 1 inmates and detainees, which was 196 percent\nover the facility\xe2\x80\x99s design capacity of 5 1 inmates and detainees. We observed as many as four\ninmates occupying cells designed to hold an individual. As a result, inmates slept on\nmattresses placed on the floor, some of which were directly adjacent to toilets or under bunk\nbeds. Although the Bureau had plans to complete renovation work on an annex to the\nCriminal Justice Complex, which would have a capacity of 52 inmates, we found that the\nrenovation project was not progressing as intended because of insufficient funding.\n\nOvercrowding was not as severe at the Golden Grove facility, where no more than two\ninmates were assigned to each cell in the male section of the prison. However, the female\ndormitory had one small room that contained seven bunk beds.\n\nIn an attempt to address the overcrowding, the Bureau, in July 1997, moved 70 inmates\n(40 from Golden Grove and 30 from the Criminal Justice Complex) to a correctional\ninstitution in Arizona. However, the Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s projected cost of incarceration for each inmate\nin Arizona was $60 per day, or more than $1.5 million per year, for the 70 inmates. The\nBureau also transferred 24 inmates from the Criminal Justice Complex on St. Thomas to the\nGolden Grove facility on St. Croix, thereby reducing some of the overcrowding observed at\nthe St. Thomas facility.\n\n 6\n\x0c Alternative Sentencing. During our followup review, we did not find any\ndocumentation that the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands had conducted a feasibility\nstudy on alternative sentencing programs, as had been recommended in our October 1991\naudit report. However, the Territorial Court did make attempts to alleviate prison\novercrowding by implementing an alternative sentencing program known as the Pre-trial\nIntervention Program. The purpose of this program was to give first-time misdemeanor\noffenders an opportunity to perform community service instead of going to prison.\nAccording to Territorial Court officials, about 500 individuals have participated in the\nPre-trial Intervention Program since 1985.\n\n Our follow-up review found that improvements were needed in the computation of good\nconduct allowances earned by inmates. Based on our review of the records for 20 inmates\n(10 on St. Thomas and 10 on St. Croix), we found that, for all of the inmates, the computed\nrelease dates based on good conduct allowances were in error by amounts ranging from 1 day\nto 6 l/2 months because of the mathematical formula used by the Bureau in computing good\nconduct allowances. In addition, we found that the longer the inmates\xe2\x80\x99 original sentences,\nthe larger the discrepancies in the computation of good conduct release dates because of the\nlonger time periods during which a discrepancy could be carried forward. Further, the\nBureau had not developed written procedures that included minimum-to-maximum ranges\nfor the forfeiture of good conduct allowances for subsequent incidences of misconduct, and\nthere were no formal procedures for recording infractions, forfeited good time allowances,\nor adjustments to inmate release dates for misconduct in Bureau logbooks. As a result, the\npotential existed for inmates to be awarded good conduct allowances to which they were not\nentitled.\n\nInmate Care, Rehabilitation, and Safety\nRegarding our December 1992 audit report on inmate care, rehabilitation, and safety, our\nfollow-up review determined that 2 of the 10 recommendations had been fully implemented,\n4 had been partially implemented, and 4 had not been implemented (see Appendix 4).\nSpecifically, we found that\xe2\x80\x99 although medical care had significantly improved, medications\nwere not adequately supplied; substance abuse and other rehabilitative programs were not\neffective; and safety deficiencies existed\xe2\x80\x99 such as inoperative smoke detectors and emergency\nlighting, which could adversely affect inmate safety in an emergency situation.\n\n Inmate Care. The Bureau took actions to improve the level of medical and dental\ncare provided to inmates, including the assignment of a full-time registered nurse at the\nGolden Grove facility. However, at the Golden Grove facility, 67 types of medicines were\ncompletely or almost out of stock. Therefore, some inmates did not have the medications\nthey needed on a regular basis, such as those needed to control high blood pressure or mental\nillness.\n\nRegarding general cleanliness and sanitation, we found that the kitchen at the Criminal\nJustice Complex had not passed its most recent (March 1997) inspection by the Department\nof Health because food items in stock had expiration dates which had passed and also\nbecause insects were found in the kitchen area. We also noted that kitchen equipment and\n\n 7\n\x0cutensils were blackened from years of use and were in generally poor operating condition.\nIn addition, corrections officers were allowed to take home kitchen equipment, such as pots\nand pans, for personal use. Further, the Bureau was not providing inmates with personal\nhygiene items (such as toothpaste, toothbrushes, and deodorant) on a regular basis.\n\n Rehabilitative Programs. We found that in fiscal year 1996, the Bureau received\ntwo grants through the Virgin Islands Law Enforcement Planning Commission for vocational\neducation programs at the Golden Grove facility: $150,000 to purchase tools and video\ntraining equipment and $137,000 to purchase supplies. Although $106,000 of the First grant\nand $53,000 of the second grant had been expended through October 1996 to purchase such\nitems, the Bureau had not officially started a vocational education program. However,\nclassroom equipment had been purchased, and the classroom areas were being prepared.\n\nDuring fiscal year 1996, the Bureau requested a grant budget adjustment whereby a 1 -year\nextension, through September 30, 1997, was approved by the Law Enforcement Planning\nCommission to begin the vocational education program at the Criminal Justice Complex.\nThe Bureau identified a Government-owned building that could be used rent free for the\nprogram and earmarked $2 1,000 of the grant to purchase equipment. However, at the time\nof our followup review, the program had not been started. Although the grant director wrote\nto the Acting Warden requesting required status reports on the rental of the building that\ncould accommodate the vocational education program so that grant funds could be released,\nwe found no documentation that the Bureau had responded to those requests.\n\n Educational and substance abuse treatment programs were not effective. During fiscal years\n 1996 and 1997, the Law Enforcement Planning Commission also awarded Bureau grants\ntotaling about $400,000 to establish substance abuse treatment programs within the\ncorrectional facilities. Of that amount, $175,000 was specifically earmarked for construction\nof separate facilities within the prisons to accommodate substance abusers. However, we\nfound that the potential existed for the Bureau to lose the grant funds because it may not be\nable to use the funds for the construction of separate facilities or other program requirements\nby September 30, 1998. Law Enforcement Planning Commission personnel told us that if\nthe grant funds were not used, they would be reprogrammed for use by the Youth\nRehabilitation Center, which was operated by the Virgin Islands Department of Human\nServices. The potential also existed for the Government to lose an additional $170,000 of\nthe grant funds if a program for controlled substance testing is not implemented by\nSeptember 1998. At the time of our followup review, the only substance abuse treatment\nprogram within the prisons consisted of occasional visits by representatives of Alcoholics\nAnonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Bureau officials told us that those meetings\ngenerally were not well attended by inmates.\n\nOn St. Thomas, improvements were also needed in the implementation of a comprehensive\neducational program for inmates. At the time of our followup review, the Bureau had two\nvolunteers who taught basic education courses to seven inmates at the Criminal Justice\nComplex. However, a program had not been developed\xe2\x80\x99 in coordination with the Department\nof Education, to help inmates acquire functional literacy or obtain General Education\n\n\n 8\n\x0cDevelopment high school equivalency certificates. In contrast, educational programs were\nfully operational on St. Croix.\n\nWe believe that, without effective substance abuse, vocational education, and basic education\nprograms, inmates may not have the skills necessary to be successfully integrated into the\ncommunity upon their release.\n\n Inmate Safety. We found that the smoke detection system, emergency lighting, and\nexit signs at the Golden Grove facility were not working effectively. In addition, doors of\nthe emergency exits at the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope Detention Center could not be opened, and\nemergency keys were not easily accessible to corrections officers. These deficiencies could\nadversely affect inmate safety in an emergency situation such as a fne.\n\nPersonnel, Property Management, and Procurement Practices\nRegarding our March 1993 report on personnel, property management, and procurement\npractices, our followup review determined that 2 of the 14 recommendations had been fully\nimplemented, 4 had been partially implemented, and 8 had not been implemented (see\nAppendix 5). Specifically, the Bureau (1) was not recruiting and retaining an adequate\nnumber of qualified corrections officers, (2) did not have comprehensive pre-service and in-\nservice training programs, and (3) had not implemented effective procedures to control its\nproperty management and procurement functions.\n\n Recruitment and Retention. The Bureau continued to have a shortage of\ncorrections officers, which resulted in overtime costs of $1.4 million in fiscal year 1996 and\n$446,000 in fiscal year 1997 (through April 1997). In addition, the Bureau hired individuals\nwhose background investigations disclosed irregularities or potential reasons for not being\nhired. For example, we reviewed the personnel files for a sample of 21 officers and found\nthat 2 applicants\xe2\x80\x99 background investigations had disclosed that their social security numbers\nand dates of birth were in conflict and that another 2 applicants had prior convictions or prior\ninvolvement with selling and using illegal drugs. The Bureau also hired three applicants\nwithout waiting for their entrance test scores, drug test results, or background investigation\nresults. We found one instance in which a member of the Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s candidate selection\ncommittee provided a personal recommendation for an applicant who was hired. We believe\nthat this personal recommendation may represent a conflict of interest on the part of the\nselection committee member. These discrepancies occurred, in part, because the Bureau did\nnot have or follow formal policies and procedures for recruiting and hiring corrections\nofficers.\n\nOur followup review also disclosed that the Bureau did not have a sufficient number of\nadministrative staff. As a result, corrections officers were assigned to administrative\npositions, such as payroll clerk, purchasing officer, property manager, and cook.\n\nAlthough the Bureau issued policy memoranda regarding the use of overtime, we found that\nbecause of inadequate control, there was little assurance that time and attendance records\nwere reconciled with the overtime approval records.\n\n 9\n\x0c Training. The Bureau continued to operate without a territorial training coordinator,\n who would be responsible for providing overall supervision and coordination of staff training\n programs at all facilities operated by the Bureau. Although the Bureau included a training\n plan as part of its procedural manual for the St. Thomas facilities, the training plan was not\n implemented. In addition, we found that the training provided was not standardized in that\n newly hired corrections officers on St. Thomas received 7 weeks of pre-service training but\n newly hired corrections officers on St. Croix received 12 weeks of pre-service training.\nFurther, we found that the personnel files for 14 corrections officers who had been on the\njob over 1 year did not contain any documentation that they had received the 40 hours of\nannual in-service training required by the corrections officers\xe2\x80\x99 union contract.\n\n Property Management and Procurement. The Bureau did not have formal\nproperty management procedures to ensure that Government identification numbers were\naffixed to all equipment. In addition, inventory control procedures for materials and supplies\nwere inadequate. For example, although Bureau personnel on St. Croix maintained perpetual\ninventory cards and performed weekly physical inventories, the inventory results were not\nreconciled with the inventory cards; therefore, the cards did not accurately reflect the results\nof the physical inventories. Additionally, the property officer was responsible for procuring,\nreceiving, and distributing supplies, which resulted in a lack of segregation of duties.\nFurther, access to the supply storeroom was not restricted during the weekend, when the\nproperty officer was off duty. On St. Thomas, the acting property officer did not maintain\nperpetual inventory cards or perform periodic physical inventories. We also found that the\nBureau had not established policies and procedures to ensure that purchases were not split\non over-the-counter purchases. *\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommend that the Governor of the Virgin Islands require the Bureau of Corrections to:\n\n 1. Reconsider the 38 recommendations in the prior audit reports that have not been\nfully implemented (see Appendices l-5) and develop a plan which identifies the specific\ncorrective actions to be taken and includes titles of responsible officials and target dates to\nachieve full implementation of these recommendations.\n\n 2. Take necessary actions to expeditiously fill the Bureau positions of Director,\nAssistant Director, Warden, and Assistant Warden.\n\n 3. Ensure that Bureau personnel at the St. Croix facilities adopt the procedures\nmanual used by personnel at the St. Thomas facilities to provide consistent policies and\nprocedures for operations at all of the Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s correctional facilities.\n\n\n\n\n*Title 3 1, Section 239(3), of the Virgin Islands Code states that purchases in amounts not to exceed $5,000 may\nbe made on the open market without using competitive procurement procedures. However, not more than one\nsuch purchase may be made f+om the same vendor for the same goods or services within a 30&y period.\n\n 10\n\x0c 4. Establish procedures which ensure that adequate supervision is provided to\ninmates who are allowed to leave the correctional facilities on work release assignments and\nthat inmates are promptly paid for work performed under the work release and work detail\nprograms. In addition, the recently developed procedures for operating the work detail\nprogram should be implemented.\n\n 5. Evaluate the level of staff resources and take actions to ensure that the\ncorrectional facilities are adequately staffed to maintain a reasonable level of security at all\ntimes and to minimize the need for overtime work by existing staff.\n\n 6. Revise the existing recruitment and retention policies to ensure that all applicants\nfor corrections officer positions are properly qualified and pass all pre-hiring tests and\nbackground investigations before they are hired. In addition, the Bureau should adopt\nprocedures to ensure that candidate selection committee members do not compromise their\nindependence by giving personal recommendations for applicants.\n\nGovernor of the Virgin Islands Response and OffIce of Inspector General\n\n\nOn March 19,1998, we transmitted a draft of this report to you requesting a response by\nMay 8, 1998. At the request of your Special Assistant for Audit and Policy Evaluation, we\ngranted an extension until May 15, 1998. However, a response to the draft report has not\nbeen provided. Therefore, since this final report is being issued without benefit of your\nresponse, all of the recommendations are considered unresolved (see Appendix 6).\n\nThe Inspector General Act, Public Law 95-452, Section 5(a)(3), as amended, requires\nsemiannual reporting to the U.S. Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to\nimplement audit recommendations, and identification of each significant recommendation\non which corrective action has not been taken.\n\nIn view of the above, please provide a response, as required by Public Law 97-357, to this\nreport by June 30, 1998. The response should be addressed to our Caribbean Regional\nOffice, Federal Building - Room 207, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802. The response\nshould provide the information requested in Appendix 6.\n\nWe appreciate the assistance of Bureau personnel in the conduct of our audit.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Robert J. Williams\n Acting Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cI\n APPENDIX 1\n\n\n SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF\n PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n Audit Report Fully Partially Not\n Subi ect Total Implemented Imnlemented Imnlemented\n\n Security and\n Maintenance\n (Appendix 2) 16 12 1\n\n Prison Overcrowding\n (Appendix 3) 5 2 3\n\n Inmate Care,\n Rehabilitation,\n and Safety\n (Appendix 4) 10 2 4 4\n\n Personnel, Property\n Management, and\n Procurement Practices\n (Appendix 5) 14 2 4 8\n\n Total 45 =7 22 . J&\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS\n FOR AUDIT REPORT\n \xe2\x80\x9cSECURITY AND MAINTENANCE OF\n CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES,\n GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\xe2\x80\x9d\n (No. 91-1-l 188)\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nA. 1. Develop and implement a Partially implemented. The Bureau\ncomprehensive procedures manual for the developed and implemented a\nBureau of Corrections which includes comprehensive procedures manual, which\nspecific policies with regard to the was being used at the two correctional\nmaintenance of an adequate level of facilities on St. Thomas. The manual\nsecurity and control at all correctional addressed issues such as security and\nfacilities. maintenance, control of inmates, and\n health services. We found copies of the\n manual at all corrections officer posts in\n the St. Thomas facilities. However, a\n comprehensive procedures manual had\n not been implemented at the correctional\n facilities on St. Croix. Although the\n Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s St. Croix branch had written\n procedures for certain areas, such as\n inmate work assignments and inmate\n classification, written guidance was\n lacking for most operational areas.\n\nA.2. Institute and enforce procedures to Partially implemented. We found, by\nensure (a) that accurate and complete reviewing all logbooks located in the cell\ninmate counts are conducted in clusters at the facilities on St. Thomas,\naccordance with established time frames that inmate counts were conducted by the\nand that the results of such counts are corrections officers every hour on the\nrecorded in a logbook; (b) that routine hour. In addition, the Criminal Justice\ninformation, emergency situations, and Complex had a \xe2\x80\x9c15-minute log book\xe2\x80\x9d in\nunusual incidents are recorded in the which corrections officers logged a quick\nlogbook; and (c) that the practice of walk-through inspection of the clusters\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 2 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nallowing prisoners to cover their cell door every 15 minutes. We found, by\nwindows and lock their cell doors from reviewing all logbooks located in the\nthe inside is discontinued. prison dormitories at the facilities on St.\n Croix, that inmate counts were conducted\n by the corrections officers four times\n daily. However, there were no written\n procedures specifying the frequency or\n the manner in which inmate counts\n should be made.\n\n We also found that the Bureau was not\n recording emergency situations and\n unusual incidents in logbooks. In\n addition, the practice of allowing\n prisoners to cover their cell door\n windows and lock cell doors from the\n inside existed at the Golden Grove\n facility on St. Croix.\n\nA.3. Develop and enforce formal Partially implemented. The Bureau had\nprocedures for the work detail and work formal procedures for the work detail\nrelease programs. These procedures programs at the facilities on both islands.\nshould (a) clearly define the eligibility Those procedures clearly defined the\nrequirements for each program, (b) eligibility requirements for each work\nspecify types of crimes which would detail program, specified the types of\nprohibit an inmate from participating in crimes that would prohibit an inmate\nthe programs, and (c) ensure adequate from participating in the programs, and\ncontrols over inmates while they are ensured that adequate controls existed\nparticipating in the programs. over inmates while they were\n participating in the programs. However,\n we found that the established procedures\n were not always followed at the Golden\n Grove facility on St. Croix.\n\n The Bureau did not .have an active work\n release program on St. Croix, and the\n work release program on St. Thomas was\n based on specific court orders. However,\n formal procedures were not developed for\n the work release program, and no specific\n controls were in place for inmates\n participating in the program.\n\n\n 14\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 3 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nA.4. Develop post orders for all Partially implemented. Post orders were\ncorrection officer positions and ensure developed for all corrections officer\nthat these orders are available to and positions on both islands and were made\nunderstood by the respective officers. available to all respective officers.\n However, on St. Croix, some of the\n orders were dated as long ago as 1977\n and were probably obsolete. On that\n island, post orders were also issued in the\n form of program statements issued by the\n former warden. We found that at least\n three senior corrections officers were not\n aware of the existence of these program\n statements.\n\nA.5. Develop and enforce formal Partially implemented. Procedures for\nprocedures for controlling contraband controlling contraband within the\nwithin the correctional facilities. These correctional facilities were included in\nprocedures should include provisions for the procedures manual developed\n(a) screening visitors and items brought on St. Thomas. However, these\nto the facilities by visitors, (b) limiting procedures were not always followed\xe2\x80\x99\nphysical contact between visitors and especially regarding shakedowns and\ninmates, (c) requiring periodic disposal of contraband. We found that\nunannounced shakedowns of inmates and virtually no records were kept on\ncell areas, (d) disposing of contraband shakedowns or the disposal of\nthat is discovered in the facilities, and (e) contraband. In addition, our review of\ntaking actions against inmates and others prison logbooks for a 6-month period\nwho bring contraband into the facilities or found that only one shakedown was\nare found possessing contraband. conducted and that this was only a partial\n search conducted in two of the seven cell\n clusters.\n\n St. Croix had unwritten policies regarding\n shakedowns, with the chief or acting\n chief corrections officer determining the\n disposition of confiscated items, such as\n drugs or weapons, and determining when\n senior-level authorities should be called\n in. During our review, we noticed that\n disposable razors were issued to prisoners\n by the Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s procurement officer but\n that the razors were not picked up by\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 4 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n corrections officers when inmates were\n finished shaving. We also found that\n disposable razors could be bought by any\n prisoner from the prison commissary. A\n review of incident reports in inmate files\n disclosed that razors had been used as\n weapons during prison disturbances.\n\nA.6. Develop a plan to correct building Implemented. A plan was developed and\ndeficiencies which result in inadequate implemented. We found that guard\nsecurity and control for all facilities. This towers at the Golden Grove facility on St.\nplan should address, at a minimum, Croix were reconstructed and a new\n(a) reconstruction of guard towers, guard tower was positioned on the\n(b) installation of perimeter and other western side of the prison\xe2\x80\x99s perimeter. In\nsecurity alarm systems, (c) repair of addition, a new perimeter fence was\nsurveillance equipment, and (d) repair of constructed and linked to the control\nlocking mechanisms in all cells and other room to notify corrections officers if\nsecured areas. anything pressed against the fence.\n Locking mechanisms in all cells and\n perimeter areas were repaired at the time\n that cell doors were replaced in 1995.\n\n On St. Thomas, the surveillance\n equipment was repaired and was in good\n working condition. In addition, all\n electronic locking mechanisms for the\n doors and cells in the facility were in\n good working condition. These repairs\n were also completed in 1995.\n\nA.7. Acquire sufficient communication Partially implemented. The Bureau\nequipment and firearms for correction provided corrections officers with\nofficers assigned to inmate and perimeter sufficient communication equipment. All\nareas of the facilities. officers in inmate areas had both a hand\n held radio and a telephone, which were\n used to contact the control areas of the\n prisons. However, continued\n improvements for perimeter security are\n needed at the Golden Grove facility.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 5 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nA.8. Institute procedures and physical Partially implemented. The Bureau did\nlayout changes to ensure that access to implement physical layout changes to\ncontrol centers at all facilities are ensure that alarms, communication,\nrestricted to authorized officers and that surveillance, and locking mechanisms\nalarm, communication, surveillance, and were controlled from the center.\nother systems are controlled from within However, procedures to ensure that\nthe control centers. access to the control center was restricted\n to authorized corrections officers had not\n been implemented at the Criminal Justice\n Complex on St. Thomas. All corrections\n officers and civilian employees at the\n facility had access to the control center.\n\n At the Golden Grove facility on St. Croix,\n access to the control center was restricted\n to authorized corrections officers, and all\n prison systems, including fire and\n perimeter alarm systems, were monitored\n from the control room. The Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope\n Detention Center on St. Croix did not\n have perimeter alarms or a formal control\n room. However, the control area was\n moved away fi=om the visitor\xe2\x80\x99s desk,\n where it was located at the time of the\n prior audit.\n\nA.9. Develop formal procedures for the Partially implemented. Formal\ncontrol of firearms, security equipment, procedures for the control of firearms,\nand tools and culinary equipment. These security equipment, and tools and\nprocedures should (a) limit access to culinary equipment were developed and\nstorage areas to authorized personnel, (b) implemented as part of the procedures\ninclude actions to ensure that corrections manual for St. Thomas. However, the\nofficers are strictly accountable for established procedures were not always\nweapons assigned to them, and (c) provide followed. Specifically, weapons were not\nfor monthly physical inventories of the stored away from the facility, monthly\nweapons. . inventories of weapons were not\n conducted, officers were not required to\n sign out for weapons assigned to them,\n and unauthorized Bureau employees had\n access to the weapons.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 6 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n\n Written policies and procedures had not\n been developed for St. Croix for the\n control of firearms, security equipment,\n tools, and culinary equipment.\n\n Additionally, regular inventories of\n fvearms were not conducted. In\n September 1996, several weapons were\n found to be missing from the armory at\n the Golden Grove facility, and the\n Federal Bureau of Investigation was\n called by Bureau of Corrections officials\n to investigate the disappearances.\n Subsequently, the locks at the armory\n were changed, and only the acting\n assistant chief had the keys.\n\nA. 10. Provide uniforms to all correction Implemented. We observed that all\nofficers and inmates that distinguish corrections officers at the Criminal\nofficers from prisoners. Correction Justice Complex on St. Thomas were in\nofficers and inmates should be required to full uniform. In addition, all inmates\nwear the uniforms. were in full inmate uniforms when they\n were outside of their cell clusters. On St.\n Croix, the corrections officers\xe2\x80\x99 uniforms\n were generally faded and in short supply.\n However, despite this factor, we observed\n that corrections officers were easily\n distinguished from the inmates, who were\n in full inmate uniforms or in grey and\n white clothing while on laundry duty or\n in recreational status.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 7 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nA. 11. Institute a formal system for Partially implemented. The Bureau had\nclassifying inmates as to level of risk and standard policies on both islands for\nmake cell assignments so that low-risk classifying inmates as to level of risk.\ninmates are separated from violent high- However, our reviews of cell assignments\nrisk prisoners. disclosed that the policies were not always\n complied with at the Golden Grove facility\n on St. Croix. We noted instances in which\n high-risk prisoners were housed in the\n same cells as low-risk prisoners,\n including the dormitory housing female\n prisoners at Golden Grove.\n\n On St. Thomas, cell assignments were not\n made with regard to inmate\n classifications. All types of inmates,\n from low- to high-risk, were housed in\n the same cell clusters.\n\nB. 1. Develop a comprehensive Not implemented. The Bureau did not\npreventive maintenance plan for the implement a comprehensive maintenance\nBureau of Corrections. The preventive plan for any of its correctional facilities.\nmaintenance plan should (a) identify Although monthly preventive\nspecific plant and equipment items which maintenance checklists were prepared for\nrequire regular maintenance, (b) specify the Golden Grove facility and the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s\nthe minimum inspection interval for such Hope Detention Center on St. Croix, such\nitems, (c) provide standards and checklists were not available on St.\nprocedures for completing regular Thomas.\nmaintenance, (d) provide procedures for\ndocumenting the completion of regular\ninspections and actual maintenance\nprovided, and (e) provide procedures for\nhandling special repair and maintenance\nneeds in a timely manner.\n\nB.2. Take the actions necessary to Partially implemented. Although some\nimplement the corrective action plan progress was made on implementing the\ndeveloped in response to the 1986 corrective action plan for the Golden\nconsent decree concerning the Golden Grove facility on St. Croix, some\nGrove Adult Correctional Facility. deficiencies still existed. We found that,\n although improvements were made in the\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 8 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n areas of emergency care, medication, and\n some sanitation issues, the Bureau was\n not in full compliance in the areas of\n providing fire safety, screening windows,\n and controlling tools.\n\nB .3. Provide the Bureau with the Partially implemented. On St. Croix, the\nresources necessary to staff a full-time Bureau created a full-time maintenance\nmaintenance unit consisting of a unit at the Golden Grove facility in\nsufficient number of qualified March 1997.\nmaintenance personnel at each\ncorrectional facility. On St. Thomas, the Bureau hired a\n civilian in 1995 to be its maintenance\n engineer, but there was no full-time\n maintenance unit. Additionally, despite\n the presence of the maintenance engineer,\n we noted numerous maintenance\n problems at the Criminal Justice\n Complex, including needed repairs of the\n emergency generator, the ventilation\n system, and the roof.\n\nB.4. Take immediate action to correct Partially implemented. Most of the repair\nthe repair and maintenance deficiencies and maintenance problems disclosed by\nnoted by our audit and other studies our prior audit and studies conducted by\nperformed for the Government of the the corrections experts have been\nVirgin Islands by Federal Bureau of corrected. Light fixtures, cameras,\nPrisons and National Association of monitors, and plumbing were all found to\nCorrections experts. be in working condition at the Criminal\n Justice Complex on St. Thomas. In\n addition, all doors and locks in the cell\n areas, which were previously operated by\n draw bolt, had electrical buttons or dead\n bolts.\n\n At the Golden Grove facility on St. Croix,\n most of the repair and maintenance\n deficiencies have been corrected by the\n Bureau. However, most windows in the\n dormitories were in disrepair and were\n bent, could not be opened and\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n Page 9 of 9\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n closed (which caused inmates to get wet\n when it rained), or were completely\n missing. In addition, the majority of the\n window screens in the dormitories were\n missing or had large holes in them.\n\n Conditions at the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope Detention\n Center were essentially unchanged from\n the time of the prior audit. We found that\n most of the urinals and toilets were\n inoperative and that the ones which were\n working were in an unsanitary condition.\n\nB.5. Take immediate action to develop Implemented. We reviewed\nmaintenance plans required to meet the correspondence which showed that the\nrequirements of the U.S. Department of Bureau developed maintenance plans\nInterior, the U.S. Marshals Service, and required to meet the requirements of two\nthe Federal Emergency Management of the three grantor agencies.\nAgency grants for prison renovation and Additionally, although Bureau officials\nexpansion to correct noted deficiencies. could not locate documentation\n concerning the submission of the\n maintenance plans to the U.S. Marshals -\n Service, we found that the Bureau\n received the grant from the Marshals\n Service, which we believe indicates that\n the Service was satisfied with the\n Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance plans.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 1 of 2\n\n\n STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS\n FOR AUDIT REPORT\n \xe2\x80\x9cPRISON OVERCROWDING,\n BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS,\n GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\xe2\x80\x9d\n (No. 92-I-90)\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n A. 1. Develop and implement a Not implemented. The Bureau of\n comprehensive plan to increase the Corrections did not develop a\n available prison capacity in the Virgin comprehensive plan to increase the prison\n Islands. This plan should consider (a) capacity in the Virgin Islands. As a result,\nrealistic projections of future needs, the Criminal Justice Complex on St.\nconsidering the high level of crime, and Thomas was filled to 196 percent of its\nlonger mandatory sentences; (b) the return design capacity. Cells at the Complex\nof inmates currently housed in Federal that were designed to hold one inmate\nprisons to the Virgin Islands; (c) the level housed as many as four inmates.\nto which existing prison facilities can meet\ncapacity needs; (d) special facilities and In an attempt to address the problem of\nprograms to provide inmates with medical, overcrowding, in July 1997, Bureau\nsubstance abuse, and mental health officials moved 70 inmates to an\ntreatment and a variety of rehabilitative institution in Arizona. They also\nservices; (e) physical layout, including transferred 24 inmates from the Criminal\nsecurity and isolation measures to protect Justice Complex to the Golden Grove\nthe general community; and (f) detailed facility on St. Croix. However, the total\ncost estimates and potential funding projected cost of incarceration for the\nsources, including the possibility of inmates in Arizona will be $1.5 million\nFederal funding and the issuance of bonds. per year.\n\nA.2. Encourage the Territorial Court to Partially implemented. The Territorial\nconduct a feasibility study of Court implemented an alternative\nimplementing alternative sentencing sentencing program known as the Pre-\nprograms in the Virgin Islands. If such trial Intervention Program. This program\nprograms are found to be feasible, allowed first time offenders who\nlegislation should be submitted to allow committed misdemeanor crimes to\nthe Territorial Court to consider participate in a community-based\nalternative sentencing programs when program rather than to serve time in\nsentencing non-violent convicted prison. However, neither a feasibility\ncriminals. Thereafter, the Territorial Court study nor legislation concerning\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c APPENDIX 3\n Page 2 of 2\n\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nshould establish policies and procedures alternative sentencing was developed.\nfor the operation of such programs.\n\nB. 1. Recompute good conduct Partially implemented. Good conduct\nallowances earned for all inmates serving allowances were recomputed, but we\nsentences to ensure that good conduct found that the allowances were not\nallowances are credited in accordance with accurate. As a result, we did not find any\nthe Virgin Islands Code. This instances in which an inmate was released\nrecomputation should include crediting on the correct release date.\ngood conduct allowances to inmates only\nfor the full months they served and\nexcluding months in which infractions\nwere committed or forfeitures were\nordered.\n\nB.2. Establish written procedures for the Not implemented. Although penalties for\nforfeiture of accumulated good time for committing infractions were included in\nmisconduct. These procedures should written procedures for St. Thomas, the\ninclude minimum-to-maximum ranges for procedures did not contain any ranges for\nthe forfeiture of good time for each type of the forfeiture of good time allowances for\ninfraction and should be included in the each infraction. The facilities on St.\npenalties listed in the Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s Rules for Croix did not have written procedures for\nInmate Conduct. the forfeiture of good time for\n misconduct.\n\nB.3. Establish written procedures to Not implemented. Although the\nensure that inmates\xe2\x80\x99 official records procedures manual for St. Thomas\ndocument the infractions committed and contained a section on inmate\nthe forfeitures of good conduct classification, it did not include any\nallowances ordered and that inmate release procedures for recording infractions good\ndates are adjusted to reflect the amount of time forfeited\xe2\x80\x99 or the adjustment of\ngood conduct time disallowed or forfeited inmate release dates. There were no\nfor infractions of Bureau rules. written procedures at the facilities on St.\n Croix to ensure that inmates\xe2\x80\x99 official\n records documented the infractions\n committed, the forfeiture of good conduct\n allowances ordered, and the adjustment of\n inmate release dates.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 1 of 6\n\n STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS\n FOR AUDIT REPORT\n \xe2\x80\x9cINMATE CARE, REHABILITATION, AND SAFETY,\n BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS,\n GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\xe2\x80\x9d\n (No. 93-I-363)\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nA. 1. Develop and implement a Not implemented. The Bureau did not\ncomprehensive system, including formal develop a comprehensive system,\nwritten policies and procedures, to correct including written policies and procedures,\ndeficiencies in sanitation and personal to correct the identified deficiencies.\nhygiene conditions. The system should Although the Bureau provided clean and\n(a) require at least monthly sanitation safe water for drinking and bathing\ninspections by Bureau sanitation purposes for inmates at all facilities by\nspecialists and annual inspections by the installing ultraviolet water purifiers at\nVirgin Islands Department of Health; (b) both facilities on St. Croix and by\nprovide inmates with clean and safe water receiving monthly water safety tests by an\nfor drinking and bathing; and (c) provide outside contractor on St. Thomas,\ninmates with personal hygiene items such monthly sanitation inspections were not\nas soap, toothbrushes, toothpaste, combs, conducted at any facility. In March 1997,\nand toilet paper. the Criminal Justice Complex on St.\n Thomas did not pass an inspection\n conducted by the Department of Health.\n In addition, on both St. Thomas and St.\n Croix, the Bureau did not provide\n personal hygiene items such as soap,\n toothbrushes, toothpaste, combs, and\n toilet paper to inmates on a consistent\n basis. These items were regularly in short\n supply at all facilities.\n\nA.2. Develop and implement a Partially implemented. The Bureau\ncomprehensive system, including formal established standard operating procedures\nwritten policies and procedures, to correct that included procedures to correct the\ndeficiencies in food service operations. identified deficiencies for St. Thomas.\nThe system should (a) provide for routine However, we found that many of the\ncleaning of the kitchen facilities and sanitation deficiencies continued to exist.\nequipment and (b) ensure that kitchen For examnle. during its insnection of\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 2 of 6\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nequipment and fixtures are in good the Criminal Justice Complex, the\noperating condition. Department of Health found that some\n food items were past their expiration dates\n and toxic materials were stored on the\n same shelves as food items. We also\n found that kitchen equipment and fixtures\n were blackened and in poor operating\n condition from years of use without repair\n or replacement.\n\n Sanitation procedures had not been\n developed for the facilities on St. Croix,\n and the kitchen at Golden Grove had been\n operating without a health permit for 3\n years. Despite these deficiencies, we\n noted that the kitchen equipment and\n fixtures were clean and in good operating\n condition.\n\nA.3. Develop and implement a Implemented. A comprehensive plan was\ncomprehensive system, including formal established to provide medical and dental\nwritten policies and procedures, to correct care to inmates at the Criminal Justice\ndeficiencies in medical and dental Complex on St. Thomas. Preventive and\nservices. The system should (a) provide a general dental care was provided by a\nfull-time registered nurse for the Golden contracted dentist. We did note, however,\nGrove Correctional Facility and (b) that the nurse\xe2\x80\x99s station was frequently\nprovide inmates and juvenile offenders manned by a licensed practical nurse\nwith preventive and general dental care. without the supervision of a registered\n nurse, who would have been trained to\n deal with emergency situations.\n\n The Bureau provided a full-time\n registered nurse for the Golden Grove\n facility on St. Croix and also provided\n preventive and general dental care to\n inmates in a medical and dental facility\n constructed within the prison complex.\n\nB. 1. Introduce legislation to amend Not implemented. Legislation was never\nTitle 5, Chapter 40 1, of the Virgin Islands introduced, and participation in the work\nCode to allow the Bureau of Corrections programs continues to be voluntary.\nto require inmates to participate in prison\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 3 of 6\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nwork programs unless they are\nparticipating in an approved educational\nor vocational training program.\n\nB.2. Ensure that a comprehensive Partially implemented. The Bureau\neducational program for incarcerated established and implemented an\nindividuals with courses leading to educational program with courses leading\nfunctional literacy and achievement of a to literacy and achievement of a GED\nGeneral Education Development (GED) diploma for inmates at the Golden Grove\nhigh school equivalency certificate is facility on St. Croix. Classrooms were set\nestablished and implemented in up in the facility, and 52 inmates were\ncoordination with the Department of enrolled, with 30 inmates in either the\nEducation. Incentives should be advanced GED or pre-GED groups. Five\nimplemented to encourage inmates who inmates have already graduated from the\nhave not achieved the level of education GED program. In addition, the Bureau\ncommensurate with their age to established literacy programs for inmates\nparticipate in the educational program. who could not read or write. Inmates were\n recruited, and incentives for participation\n were provided, including contact visits\n and graduation exercises to which the\n inmates\xe2\x80\x99 families were invited.\n\n Although Federal funds were available,\n the Bureau did not provide classes on St.\n Thomas that would prepare inmates for\n the achievement of a GED diploma or that\n would lead to their achievement of\n functional literacy. We found that St.\n Thomas inmates had the opportunity to\n attend only adult basic education classes\n which were taught by two volunteer\n teachers. These classes were held 3 days\n a week in a small room at the Criminal\n Justice Complex that also serves as a\n library, and only seven inmates\n participated.\n\nB.3. Establish and implement a Not implemented. The Bureau had not\ncomprehensive program of vocational and established and implemented a\nprison industries activities to afford comprehensive vocational program at any\ninmates the opportunity to learn skills to of the correctional facilities. The Golden\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 4 of 6\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nhelp them obtain employment when Grove facility on St. Croix had limited\nreleased from prison. Incentives should vocational programs in the fields of\nbe provided to encourage inmates to carpentry, automotive repair, and\nparticipate in at least one such vocational agriculture, but these programs were used\nor prison industries activity. Inmates who primarily for work detail purposes.\nchoose not to participate should be However, we found that the Bureau was\nrequired to perform other work within the in the final stages of developing a\ncorrectional facilities. comprehensive vocational and prison\n industries program and had received two\n grants for this purpose through the Virgin\n Islands Law Enforcement Planning\n Commission.\n\n There were no vocational programs for\n inmates at the Criminal Justice Complex\n on St. Thomas. The Criminal Justice\n Complex Annex had a carpentry shop in\n which two inmates who were skilled in\n carpentry made mahogany clocks and\n other items for sale at the island\xe2\x80\x99s annual\n agricultural fairs. However, the program\n was not designed to provide vocational\n education to unskilled inmates.\n\nB.4. Establish and implement a Not implemented. Although the Virgin\ncomprehensive substance abuse program Islands Law Enforcement Planning\nand actively encourage inmates with Commission made about $400,000\nsubstance abuse problems to participate in available to the Bureau for the\nthe program. establishment of substance abuse\n programs, such programs had not been\n established at any of the correctional\n facilities.\n\nB.5. Provide the Department of Human Implemented. The Youth Rehabilitation\nServices with the funding necessary to Center was transferred to the Department\naccomplish the planned transfer of the of Human Services from the Bureau of\nYouth Rehabilitation Center from the Corrections in 1993. Comprehensive\nBureau of Corrections and establish educational programs presented by the\ncomprehensive educational, vocational, Department of Education were established\nsubstance abuse, and other rehabilitative at the Center, along with programs in\nprograms for juvenile offenders. horticulture, air conditioning and\n refrigeration repair, and electronics.\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 5 of 6\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n Counselors were also provided for\n substance abusers.\n\nC. 1. Improve the emergency capabilities Partially implemented. Although\nof all correctional facilities by (a) emergency capabilities were improved at\ninstalling centralized smoke detection and all correctional facilities, several\nalarm systems, (b) ensuring that all deficiencies existed. On St. Croix, we\nemergency exits are operational, and (c) found that centralized smoke detectors\nproviding those correction officers on and alarm systems were installed at both\nduty in inmate living areas with facilities. However, the system at the\nemergency keys. Golden Grove facility was inoperative at\n the time of our review. Golden Grove\n also had a working centralized alarm\n system to notify corrections officers of\n any activity at the perimeter fences. All\n emergency exits were working at Golden\n Grove, and all officers had access to\n emergency keys.\n\n However, we found that the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope\n facility on St. Croix still did not have a\n perimeter alarm system and that several\n emergency doors could not be opened. In\n addition, keys were not easily accessible\n and identifiable during an emergency\n because they were kept on rings with a\n large number of other keys.\n\n On St. Thomas, the smoke detection and\n monitoring systems were in good\n operating condition, all emergency exits\n were in an operative condition, and keys\n were accessible to the corrections officers\n on duty in inmate living areas.\n\nC.2. Obtain new or repair existing fire Partially implemented. On St. Croix, the\nfighting equipment to ensure that all Fire Service had not conducted a tie\ncorrectional facilities meet minimum safety inspection at the Golden Grove\nstandards necessary to pass fire facility in 1 and l/2 years. At that time,\ninspections by the Virgin Islands Fire although most sections of the prison\nService. This equipment should include passed the inspection, the Fire Service\nan adequate number of fne extinguishers, found problems with the smoke detection\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c APPENDIX 4\n Page 6 of 6\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nemergency lighting, continuously and electrical systems. We found that a\nilluminated exit signs, and operational fire major deficiency at the facility was a lack\nhydrants or water standpipes. of maintenance of fire extinguishers in the\n dormitory areas. More than one-half of\n the extinguishers needed recharging and\n therefore were inoperative. Bureau\n officials had the extinguishers recharged\n when we brought this problem to their\n attention. We also found that, although\n emergency lighting was sticient, there\n were no lighted exit signs in any of the\n dormitory areas. We also found that none\n of the fire hydrants at or around the\n Golden Grove facility were working.\n\n We could not locate a Fire Service\n inspection report for the Anna\xe2\x80\x99s Hope\n Detention Center. We found that fire\n extinguishers were available in all areas of\n the Center, but several smoke detectors\n were inoperative. To repel mosquitoes,\n detainees were allowed to use fire-lighted\n pieces of rolled up toilet paper, which\n constituted a fire hazard. Also, there were\n no lighted exit signs or emergency\n lighting at the Center.\n\n On St. Thomas, Fire Service inspections\n were conducted at the Criminal Justice\n Complex on a regular basis. We also\n found that all fire extinguishers were in\n working condition, there were illuminated\n exit signs over all doors, and an adequate\n number of water standpipes were\n available. However, according to the Fire\n Service inspection reports, the Bureau\n needed to make improvements in the\n facility\xe2\x80\x99s ventilation system and manual\n fire alarms. We also noted that\n emergency lighting at the Complex was\n inoperative.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cI\n APPENDIX 5\n Page 1 of 5\n\n STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS\n AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS\n FOR AUDIT REPORT\n \xe2\x80\x9cPERSONNEL, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,\n AND PROCUREMENT PRACTICES,\n BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS,\n GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS\xe2\x80\x9d\n (No. 934470)\n\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n A. 1. Establish a comprehensive Not implemented. The Bureau did not\n correction officer recruitment and establish a comprehensive officer\n retention program, similar to the one recruitment and retention program for any\n recommended in September 1991 by the of its facilities. As a result, the Bureau\n Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s training supervisor, to ensure that continued to experience shortages of\n the Bureau has a sufficient number of corrections officers, resulting in overtime\n correction officers to provide adequate costs of $1.4 million in fiscal year 1996\n security at correctional facilities and to and $445,952 in fiscal year 1997 (through\n reduce the amount of overtime work April 30, 1997).\n necessary to maintain such security.\n\n A.2. Establish written payroll policies Not implemented. Although the Bureau\n and procedures to ensure that time and issued memoranda outlining overtime\n attendance records are reconciled to procedures, the Bureau did not establish\n approved overtime slips and that officers detailed written payroll policies and\n are prohibited from accumulating procedures to ensure that time and\n approved overtime slips. attendance records were reconciled to\n approved overtime records.\n\n A.3. Reconcile the time and attendance Not implemented. We found that payroll\n records for the 66 correction officers transactions were not consistently\n identified in our sample who were either recorded, resulting in overpayments and\n overpaid or underpaid for overtime work underpayments to corrections officers.\n and make the necessary payroll\n adjustments to correct these errors.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0c APPENDD(: 5\n Page 2 of 5\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n A.4. Provide the Bureau with sufficient Not implemented. The Bureau continued\n administrative staff so that the practice of to have a shortage of administrative staff\n assigning noncorrection duties to that resulted in the assignment of\n correction officers can be discontinued. corrections officers to perform\n administrative duties. On St. Croix,\n corrections officers were assigned to\n positions of classification officer,\n purchasing officer, and cashier. On\n St. Thomas, corrections officers held\n administrative positions of payroll clerk,\n property management officer, and cook.\n\nA.5. Establish policies and procedures to Not implemented. Policies and procedures\nensure that recommendations by the were not established to ensure that the\nBureau\xe2\x80\x99s Selection Committee and Committee\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations and\nbackground investigation reports are background investigations were\nconsidered and that Bureau actions considered in the selection of corrections\ncontrary to those recommendations are officer candidates. In addition, minutes of\nfully documented and justified. Committee meetings were not maintained.\n We found that, as a result, discrepancies\n identified by background investigations\n were sometimes ignored and there was\n little assurance that the Committee\xe2\x80\x99s\n recommendations were taken into\n consideration. _\n\nB. 1. Establish and fill a position for a Not implemented. A territorial training\nterritorial training coordinator, who would coordinator was not hired, and the Bureau\nbe responsible for overall supervision and was without the services of an official\ncoordination of staff training programs at responsible for the overall supervision and\nall facilities operated by the Bureau of coordination of staff training programs.\nCorrections.\n\nB.2. Develop and implement a Partially implemented. A comprehensive,\ncomprehensive, formal training plan for formal training plan was included in the\nuse in administering the Bureau of St. Thomas procedures manual. However,\nCorrections staff training program. This the manual did not contain the specific\nplan should include the establishment of items recommended in the prior audit,\nwritten training policies and procedures such as the type and length of required\nand a requirement that the training plan training, and the manual\xe2\x80\x99s training\nshould be evaluated and updated annually. procedures were not complied with. In\nImplementation of the training plan should addition, a comprehensive training plan\nensure that (a) training courses are had not been developed for St. Croix.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c APPENDIX 5\n Page 3 of 5\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\nconducted in a cost effective manner, with Because the two islands were not using\nconsideration to minimum class sizes and the same training policies and procedures,\nefficient scheduling of classes; (b) the training courses were not standardized.\nannual training budget is suAficient to meet Further, complete records were not\nthe training needs of all correction maintained on the training received by\nofficers; (c) the type and length of pre- corrections officers.\nservice, in-service, and specialized training\ncourses offered on St. Thomas and St. We also found that because the Bureau\nCroix are standardized; (d) policies and did not budget or receive funds for a\nprocedures are established to evaluate training program, corrections officers who\npre-service, in-service, and specialized conducted training classes were not\ntraining programs on an ongoing basis; provided with the equipment necessary to\nand (e) accurate and complete training conduct the training and that they\ninformation is maintained for each purchased classroom supplies with\ncorrection officer to identify the type and personal funds.\nnumber of hours of training received.\n\n\nB.3. Discontinue the practice of allowing Partially implemented. Although the\nnew employees to function as correction practice of assigning new employees to\nofficers before they have successfully function as corrections officers before\ncompleted pre-service training they completed pre-service training was\nrequirements. discontinued on St. Croix, this practice\n continued on St. Thomas. We also noted\n that new employees did not receive\n firearms training until periods of up to 4\n months after they completed other pre-\n service training.\n\nB.4. Ensure that the training supervisor Not implemented. Training supervisors\nis allowed to perform the full duties and were not able to perform the full duties\nresponsibilities of the position. and responsibilities of their positions\n because of the lack of a training budget.\n\nB.5. Require that all correction officers Partially implemented. Corrections\nmeet annual requirements for pre-service, officers met annual requirements for pre-\nin-service, and specialized training. To service training, but the amount of\nensure that these requirements are met, training received by officers on St.\nofficers who do not attend scheduled Thomas and St. Croix differed because of\ncourses should be rescheduled; officers the lack of a standardized training plan.\nshould successfully complete and achieve Officers on St. Thomas received about 7\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\x0c APPENDIX 5\n Page 4 of 5\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\npassing grades in each course; and officers weeks of training as compared with the 3\nshould receive required training in the use months of training received by corrections\nof firearms, emergency first aid, and riot officers on St. Croix.\ncontrol.\n Annual training and specialized training\n requirements were not met by the Bureau.\n None of the officers reviewed received the\n mandatory 40 hours of in-service training\n required by union contracts, and\n specialized training courses were not\n provided for all corrections officers.\n Specifically, 10 officers did not receive\n firearms training, 9 officers did not\n receive self-defense training, and 1 officer\n did not receive cardiopulmonary\n resuscitation (CPR) training.\n\nB.6. Provide a suitable training facility Implemented. A facility with a safe and\non St. Croix to conduct classes in a safe controlled environment suitable for\nand controlled environment. training was provided at the Department\n of Justice\xe2\x80\x99s Toro Building location on St.\n Croix.\n\nC.l. Require that Bureau of Corrections Partially implemented. The Bureau did, . I\nofficials comply with the provisionsof 1 not comply with property control\nTitle 3 1, Section 242, of the Virgin Islands requirements, and standardized property\nCode and the Government\xe2\x80\x99s Property control procedures were not implemented\nManual regarding the control of equipment to ensure that property numbers were\nand supplies. To ensure compliance, the assigned and affixed on all equipment.\nBureau should (a) implement standardized Regarding supplies, on St. Croix, the\nproperty control procedures, (b) maintain Bureau prepared property cards for each\naccurate and complete property records, item and performed weekly physical\n(c) establish procedures to ensure that inventories. However, the inventory\nproperty numbers are assigned and affixed results were not reconciled to the\nto items, (d) perform physical inventories property cards, resulting in inaccurate\nand reconcile inventory results to property balances on the cards. In addition, there\nrecords, (e) segregate accounting and was an inadequate level of separation of\nphysical control duties at each storeroom duties because the property officer was\nlocation, and (f) limit storeroom access to responsible for procuring, purchasing,\nauthorized personnel. receiving, and distributing equipment and\n supplies. Also, access to the storeroom\n was not limited during the weekend, when\n the property officer was off duty.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0c APPENDIX 5\n Page 5 of 5\n Recommendations Status of Corrective Actions\n\n On St. Thomas, the acting property officer\n did not maintain supply inventory cards\n and property cards or perform periodic\n inventory counts. In addition, the\n property officer was the only person who\n had access to the storeroom and the only\n person authorized to accept deliveries of\n equipment and supplies, which did not\n provide an adequate level of segregation\n of duties.\n\nC.2. Appoint a property management Implemented. A property management\nofficer at the St. Thomas Criminal Justice officer was appointed at the Criminal\nComplex. Justice Complex. That individual\n resigned in May 1997, but a corrections\n officer was subsequently assigned the\n responsibilities of that position.\n\nC.3. Require that the Bureau of Not implemented. Policies and\nCorrections establish policies and procedures were not implemented to stop\nprocedures to stop the practice of splitting the practice of splitting purchases and to\npurchases to circumvent the established ensure that vendors are paid within the\nlimit on over-the-counter purchases and to prompt discount periods offered by the\nensure that vendors are paid within the vendors. Therefore, the procurement-\nprompt discount periods offered by the related problems identified in the prior\nvendors. audit report still existed.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\x0c APPENDIX 6\n\n 1\n STATUS OF AUDIT REPOR RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\nFinding/Recommendation\n Reference Status Action Reauired\n\n l-6 Unresolved. Provide a response to each recommendation\n indicating concurrence or nonconcurrence. If\n concurrence is indicated, provide an action\n plan that includes a target date and title of the\n official responsible for implementation. If\n nonconcurrence is indicated, provide specific\n reasons for the nonconcurrence.\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0c ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES\n SHOULD BE REPORTED TO\n THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:\n\nSending written documents to: Calling:\n\n\n Within the Continental United States\n\nU.S. Department of the Jwjterior Our 24-hour\nOffice of Inspector General Telephone HOTLINE\n1849 C Street, N.W. l-800-424-508 1 or\nMail Stop 5341 (202) 208-5300\nWashington, D.C. 20240\n\n\n TDD for hearing impaired\n (202) 208-2420 or\n l-800-354-0996\n\n\n Outside the Continental United States\n\n Czkibbean Retion ..-\n\nU.S. Department of the Interior (703) 235-9221\nOffice of Inspector General\nEastern Division - Investigations\n4040 Fairfax Drive\nSuite 303\nArlington, Virginia 22201\n\n North Pacific Retion\n\nU.S. Department of the Interior (67 1) 647-605 1\nOffice of Inspector General\nNorth Pacific Region\n415 Chalan San Antonio\nBaltej Pavilion, Suite 306\nTamuning, Guam 96911\n\x0cToll Free Numbers:\n l-800-424-5081\n TDD l-800-354-0996\nFI\xe2\x80\x99S/Commerciai Numbers:\n (2021 2085300\n TDti (202) 208-2420\n\n\n\n1849 C Stree& N.W. EII,.\nMail Stop 5341 s\n ..\nWashington. D.C. 20240 .\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Kuldīgas Svētās Trīsvienības Romas katoļu baznīca ir Romas katoļu Rīgas metropolijas Liepājas diecēzes draudzes baznīca. Tā atrodas Kuldīgā. Adrese: Tirgus ielā 2. Vienīgā katoļu baznīca pilsētā. 2018. gada 6. oktobrī šo Dievnamu pasludināja par svētvietu Vissvētākās Jaunavas Marijas Dzīvības Mātes godam.
 Vēsture
 Tā ir celta 1640. gadā pēc Polijas karaļa pieprasījuma, apstiprinot Hercogu Jēkabu par Kurzemes hercoga troņa mantinieku. Tā ir trīsjomu celtne ar vienkāršu ārējo arhitektūru, kas veidota itāļu renesanses ietekmē. Iekštelpa — grezna, rotāta ar skulptūrām un ornamentiem, kas darināti tipiskā XVII gs. baroka stilā ar stipru rokoko ietekmi. Ievērojamākie mākslas priekšmeti — skulptūra "Madonna ar bērnu" (XVI gs.), biktssols (1691. gads) ar gleznojumiem, Sv. Trīsvienības altāris (1818-1820). Pēc mākslas vēsturnieka Imanta Lancmaņa domām, kanceles figūras XVII gs. pirmajā ceturksnī baroka stilā darinājis Liepājas koktēlnieks Joahims Kreicfelds (1673—1721), bet sānu altāri, ērģeļu prospektu un altārtelpas barjeru 1775. gadā rokoko stilā darinājis čehu koktēlnieks Jozefs Slavičeks.
 Madonna ar bērnu
 Kuldīgas katoļu baznīca ir viena no senākajām Kurzemes baznīcām, un arī Dievmātes statuja ir ar senu vēsturi, kas pilnībā vēl nav izpētīta. Gan mutiska, gan vēlāk uz papīra pierakstīta tradīcija vēsta, ka statuja uz šo dievnamu pārvietota no Kuldīgas pils baznīcas, kur starp 1596. un 1617.gadu bija Kurzemes hercoga Vilhelma rezidence. 1656. gadā Kuldīgu iekaroja zviedri, un pils tika izlaupīta. 1701. gadā zviedri pilsētu ieņēma otrreiz un pili izpostīja. Gandrīz visu katoļu reliģijas kultam nepieciešamo inventāru no pils kapelas izvāca, kad sāka svinēt luteriskos dievkalpojumus, un tos nodeva birģermeistaram. No pils baznīcas 1535. gada inventāra saraksta izriet, ka tad mācītāja rīcībā bija tikai trīs biķeri un divas patēnas, bet pārējais inventārs glabājās pilī. Sīkāks dārgmetālu inventārs, kā arī mazāk vērtīgi priekšmeti nonāca „ēkas komtura” glabāšanā, tomēr Madonna uz mēness sirpja šajā sarakstā nebija minēta. Martins Konrāds 1938. gadā veica piezīmi, no rādot, ka ap 1860. gadu mācītājs Harfs Madonnu nonesis no Katrīnas baznīcas bēniņiem un nodevis katoļu baznīcai. 2018. gada 6. oktobrī Kuldīgas katoļu draudze piedzīvoja īpašu dienu. Tika kronēta Bērna Jēzus statuja, kuru gadsimtiem ilgi varēja redzēt uz Dievmātes, Kurzemes Karalienes, rokām vienā no baznīcas altāriem, kā arī šīs vietas pasludināšana par svētvietu Vissvētākās Jaunavas Marijas Dzīvības Mātes godam.
 Atsauces
 Ārējās saites
 Baznīcas attēli www.foto.eks.lv
 Baznīcas Kuldīgā
 Romas katoļu baznīcas Latvijā
 Liepājas diecēzes baznīcas


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
14.4.2014
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 112/31
 Rettens kendelse af 31. januar 2014 — Frankrig mod Kommissionen
 (Sag T-79/09) (1)
 ((Statsstøtte - rammeordning vedrørende de foranstaltninger, som gennemføres af de i Frankrig anerkendte brancheorganisationer inden for landbruget til fordel for de repræsenterede landbrug - finansiering gennem frivillige bidrag, der er gjort obligatoriske - beslutning, der erklærer støtteordningen for forenelig med fællesmarkedet - tilbagetrækning af beslutningen - ufornødent at træffe afgørelse))
 2014/C 112/41
 Processprog: fransk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Den Franske republik (først ved E. Belliard, G. de Bergues og A.-L. Vendrolini, derefter ved E. Belliard, G. de Bergues og J. Gstalter, og endelig ved E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas og J. Bousin, som befuldmægtigede)
 Sagsøgt: Europa-Kommissionen (først ved B. Stromsky og C. Urraca Caviedes, derefter ved B. Stromsky, som befuldmægtigede)
 Sagens genstand
 Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning K(2008) 7846 endelig, af 10. december 2008, vedrørende statsstøtte N 561/2008, omhandlende rammeordningen vedrørende de foranstaltninger, som gennemføres af de i Frankrig anerkendte brancheorganisationer inden for landbruget til fordel for de repræsenterede landbrug.
 Konklusion
 1)
 Det ikke længere er nødvendigt at træffe afgørelse
 2)
 Europa-Kommissionen betaler sagens omkostninger.
 (1) EUT C 113 af 16.5.2009.


text:
 12.8.2006
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 190/9
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Corte suprema di cassazione (Taliansko) 12. januára 2006 – Militzer & Münch GmbH/Ministero delle Finanze
 (Vec C-230/06)
 (2006/C 190/15)
 Jazyk konania: taliančina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Corte suprema di cassazione
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Dovolateľ: Militzer & Münch GmbH
 Účastník, ktorý podal vzájomné dovolanie: Ministero delle Finanze
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 a)
 Má sa článok 11a ods. 1 nariadenia 87/1062/EHS (1) zmeneného a doplneného nariadením 93/2454/EHS (2) vykladať tak, že umožňuje namietať jedenásťmesačnú lehotu, ktorá plynie colnému úradu odoslania na oznámenie neukončenia dopravy tovaru v tranzitnom režime Spoločenstva za predpokladu, že sa zistí, že k ukončeniu colného režimu došlo zo strany colného úradu určenia na základe sfalšovaných dokumentov, ktorých sfalšovanie nie je ľahké rozpoznať;
 b)
 majú sa na účely výkladu uvedeného ustanovenia uplatniť zásady vyslovené v rozsudkoch Súdneho dvora vo veciach C-325/00 a C-222/01;
 c)
 je za daného predpokladu pripísanie odosielateľovi v colných veciach všetkých dôsledkov nezákonnej operácie tranzitu Spoločenstva v rozpore so zásadou proporcionality?
 2.
 Možno za predpokladu uvedeného v otázke č. 1 uplatniť článok 11a ods. 2?
 3.
 Má sa článok 215 ods. 1 nariadenia 92/2913/EHS (3) vykladať tak, že za predpokladu uvedeného v otázke č. 1 sa právomoc colného orgánu určí na základe kritéria stanoveného v druhej alebo tretej zarážke uvedeného ustanovenia?
 (1) Ú. v. ES L 107, s. 1.
 (2) Ú. v. ES L 253, s. 1.
 (3) Ú. v. ES L 302, s. 1; Mim. vyd. 02/004, s. 307.


text:
Die Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Altenberg ist eine Verwaltungsgemeinschaft im Freistaat Sachsen im Landkreis Sächsische Schweiz-Osterzgebirge.
 Geographie
 Sie liegt im Süden des Landkreises, zirka 20 km südlich der Stadt Dippoldiswalde und zirka 50 km südlich der Landeshauptstadt Dresden. Das Gemeinschaftsgebiet liegt im Osterzgebirge, dessen höchster Punkt sich mit dem Kahleberg (905 m über NN) auf dem Gemeindegebiet befindet. Im Gemeinschaftsgebiet entspringen die Gimmlitz, Weißeritz und die Müglitz. Durch das Gemeinschaftsgebiet verläuft die Bundesstraße 170, die bei Zinnwald-Georgenfeld die Grenze zu Tschechien überquert. Die Gegend wurde jahrhundertelang durch den Bergbau geprägt, welcher aber im Jahr 1991 aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen eingestellt wurde. So erfolgte eine noch stärkere Konzentration auf den Fremdenverkehr und das Erholungs- und Kurwesen. Die Stadt Altenberg ist, neben Geising, das touristische und auch wintersportliche Zentrum im Osterzgebirge.
 Geschichte
 Die Verwaltungsgemeinschaft wurde am 1. Januar 1999 mit den Mitgliedsgemeinden Altenberg und Hermsdorf gegründet. Zum 1. September 1999 kam die Stadt Bärenstein dazu, die durch die Eingemeindung nach Altenberg zum 1. Januar 2004 wieder aus der Verwaltungsgemeinschaft ausschied.
 Derzeitige Mitgliedsgemeinden
 Die Verwaltungsgemeinschaft setzt sich aus zwei Städten und Gemeinden zusammen:
 Stadt Altenberg mit den Ortsteilen Bärenfels, Bärenstein, Falkenhain, Fürstenau, Fürstenwalde, Geising, Gottgetreu, Hirschsprung, Kipsdorf, Kratzhammer, Lauenstein, Liebenau, Müglitz, Oberbärenburg, Rehefeld-Zaunhaus, Rudolphsdorf, Schellerhau, Waldbärenburg, Waldidylle und Zinnwald-Georgenfeld
 Gemeinde Hermsdorf/Erzgeb. mit den Ortsteilen Seyde und Neuhermsdorf
 Einzelnachweise