If enacted, an independent reviewer would investigate eligible complaints about Montana state prisons, inspect facilities, and publish yearly findings and recommendations.
The governor would choose a prison reviewer from an advisory board's list. If the governor did not act within 30 days, the board's top candidate would take the job.
People seeking a prison complaint review would usually need to finish the department's complaint process first. The reviewer could allow earlier review to serve justice or prevent imminent harm.
The reviewer could inspect prisons without warning, using reasonable procedures, and hold private interviews. A public dashboard and yearly reports would share prison data, findings, and recommendations.
State and local agencies could not fire, blacklist, or otherwise discriminate against people for asking the reviewer for help or taking part in an investigation.
The governor would appoint an independent prison reviewer, called an ombudsman, from an advisory board's list. Candidates must be qualified Montana residents who never worked for or contracted with the corrections department and have no family member currently doing so. If the governor missed the appointment deadline, the board's top candidate would receive the appointment. The governor would have 30 days after receiving the candidate list to make the appointment.
The reviewer would investigate eligible complaints about corrections services. Reviews would concern people held in Montana state prisons under the corrections department's authority. People must finish the department's complaint process, but the reviewer could accept complaints earlier to serve justice or prevent imminent harm. Complaints must personally affect the requester and cannot be trivial, frivolous, harassing, dishonest, too delayed to justify review, or already investigated by the office. The reviewer could not investigate an inmate's underlying criminal conviction.
The reviewer would inspect prisons and publish safety and staffing data, findings, and recommendations. Prisoners and facility staff could speak privately with the reviewer during investigations. Visits could occur at any time, with or without notice, but unannounced inspections would have to follow reasonable procedures. The department could not monitor or record private interviews. The public report of findings and recommendations would be issued each year.
State and local agencies would be barred from punishing people for seeking help or participating in the reviewer's investigations or proceedings. Protection would cover people who request help, testify, assist, or otherwise participate in an investigation or proceeding. Employers could still supervise, discipline, or dismiss employees for other reasons. A person who believes they faced retaliation could file a complaint within 30 days after the violation.
No hearings or votes scheduled.