Episode Transcript
This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Sukey Lewis: Hi, everyone. We’re back this week with a special bonus episode of On Our Watch. If you’re a new listener to the podcast, welcome. But this episode won’t make a lot of sense. So I suggest you go back to episode one of the season and start from the beginning of what became a really epic journey to trace the footsteps of two whistleblowers at New Folsom Prison. For those of you who’ve been following along, we have some news to share. And we got our hands on some really interesting new tapes where you can hear from some of the key figures at New Folsom who never agreed to speak to us for the podcast. Later in the episode, we’re also going to talk to a lawyer who’s played a big part in state reforms, including helping get body cameras into some California prisons. My co-reporter for this series, Julie Small:, is with me today so we can talk about what all these developments mean. Hey, Julie.
Julie Small: Hi, Sukey.
Sukey Lewis: First of all, we want to share that we’ve been writing an article about Sergeant Kevin Steele and Correctional Officer Valentino Rodriguez, which you can check out on KQED.org, or click the link in the show notes.
Julie Small: There are some really interesting tidbits in there which will be totally new to even listeners of the podcast. A video of Steele and some of the evidence that we relied on for our reporting. And it’s a summation of the findings that we came to as a result of two years of investigation in a format where you can really review what those findings are and see what the implications are and really understand the journey of Sergeant Kevin Steele and Valentino Rodriguez Jr. How they affected each other and what that led them to do.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah. And the other big news that we have to share is about the warden, Jeff Lynch.
Julie Small: Right. CDCR announced Warden Jeff Lynch is retiring this month. This is the guy who Steele blamed for failure of leadership at New Folsom Prison and who Val Senior blamed for not protecting his son.
Sukey Lewis: Now, prison officials wouldn’t comment on Lynch’s retirement, but it is interesting timing I think.
Julie Small: We now know who’s replacing Lynch. Well, what do you think about the incoming warden?
Sukey Lewis: Yeah. So CDCr just named this new acting warden. And this is a man named Jason Shultz. He used to work at New Folsom from 2008 to 2020. He’s also spent time at the California health care facility in Stockton and California State Prison Solano. He’s a pretty well known actor in New Folsom, and he was, in fact, the head of the facility where the Ronnie Price incident happened, the captain of that facility. So for listeners, if you’ll remember from episode four, Ronnie Price is the man who told Steel that he had been tripped by officers and his face was smashed and pretty severely. And then he died the next day of a pulmonary embolism. It was a really big deal there.
Julie Small: I mean, that case eventually resulted in criminal conviction of three officers who tried to cover up the excessive force. And you know, that this guy was, you know, involved with that unit. That’s that’s very interesting.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, it is. It is really interesting. And I don’t know much more, you know, about, you know, why he got this position or if he’ll end up being the permanent warden there.
Julie Small: Right. And we did check in with some of our sources who said that this guy is you know, he follows the rules. He’s worked hard. But, you know, he’s a company man.
Sukey Lewis: So anyway, that’s kind of what we know so far about the acting warden. Now, I know, Julie, you talked to Val Senior recently as well. How does Val Senior feel about the warden’s retirement? And also just how is he doing in general?
Julie Small: Well, in general, like right after the podcast came out, Val Senior, he felt relief for the first time since his son’s death. You know, he got a lot of he felt like he was finally doing something. He got a lot of sympathetic emails and text messages, but he feels that CDCR is not holding the right people accountable. There were some disciplinary actions taken against some of the lower level people involved, other officers. But the warden, he is getting to retire and go on with his life. Meanwhile, Val Senior, you know, continues to suffer. This is not over for him. It will never be over.
Sukey Lewis: Okay. And what about what about Valentino’s widow, Mimy? You know, how’s she doing? Have you talked to her recently?
Julie Small: I have talked to her recently. You know, she reached out to me, actually, and, you know, wanted to see what, if anything, had happened since the podcast came out. She is, you know, picking up her life, putting it back together. She has gone back to school, which before she couldn’t concentrate well enough to stay in in her courses. She’s finishing up an undergraduate degree. She she has made a decision, though, that she was going to go into corrections and now she is not because of everything that she and her husband, Valentino, went through and her loss of Valentino. She may still do something in the law, but she seems to becoming interested in making the criminal justice system work better. But it’s really a struggle for her still. You know, she’s still in shock. You know, she’s said that this was not what her life was supposed to be. You know, she should never have ended up here. This was not the way it was supposed to go. She married the love of her life, and days later, he was dead. And it’s hard. It’s hard. How do you move on from that? And. And she doesn’t really even have people to talk to about it because how do you talk to somebody about such a profound loss and with so many questions surrounding it still? So she holds a lot of it in I think. What about some of the incarcerated people that you interviewed? Have you checked in with any of them?
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, I’ve been in touch with a number of people. You know, Joel Uribe, who listeners will remember from episode four of the podcast, who was, you know, injured in the use of force incident with officers. And he is looking at a potential release date next year and getting ready for that. He’s really excited about that. And one of the things that he’s doing is getting the tattoos removed from his face. Um if listeners remember, this was something that his mom was like a really hard ass with him about and was like, I won’t, you know, see your face. I won’t look at your face while you have those tattoos on it. So I was in touch with Joel. He’s getting those tattoos, you know, starting the process of that. And he said he’s going to do a video call with me as well when he gets them removed so I can see the his new face that he hopes to present to the outside world. Yeah. You know, he is also a little fearful, I think, about something out of prison, like it just is difficult. He’s been kind of in and out of prison for most of his life, and so you get so conditioned to experience there. So I think he’s really excited for that, hoping to get out even sooner. And also, you know, has some trepidation.
Julie Small: Yeah. Well, I mean, that’s totally understandable that he would have trepidation. What have you been hearing about what’s been going on in New Folsom?
Sukey Lewis: So, you know, it was another deadly year there. There were four people that were killed by homicide. CDCR only released very thin information about these incidents. But we do know that one of them was the result of a use of force. This man died after being restrained by officers. And, you know, overall, preliminary numbers that have been posted show that the rates of use of force at New Folsom remain the highest in the state. So sounds like much the same. Now, CDCR says, you know, they they declined to speak to us. We asked them again for an interview with the head of CDCR, the secretary with the outgoing warden, with the incoming warden. They declined all of those requests, but they did send us an email in which they, again, really doubled down on their statement that they’re really trying to reform things and that they don’t tolerate a code of silence and that they are really committed to officer accountability. They did not once again respond to any questions about use of force. And I asked them to at least explain why they wouldn’t talk about use of force. And they also wouldn’t talk about why they wouldn’t talk about use of force. So that continues to be a frustration just in terms of getting information about an issue that’s really, you know, I think high public interest and importance.
[Music]
Sukey Lewis: So that’s the latest that we’ve heard, you know, from CDCR officially. But thanks to our lawsuit that’s forced them to produce more documents and recordings, we did recently get something really fascinating. They sent us the interrogation tapes from that internal affairs investigation into Valentino’s harassment. Listeners will remember he really struggled in the investigative services unit because his fellow officers could be quite cruel to him. And he finally told the warden about all this misconduct he said he’d witnessed just six days before his death. So after he died, the Office of Internal Affairs talked to those officers and to higher ups at New Folsom, ostensibly to get to the bottom of things. And that’s what these tapes are from. And it was really interesting to hear from some of the players who never agreed to speak to us for the podcast. We’re going to start with someone we’ve been interested in talking to for a while.
Julie Small: Yeah, Gina Jones. I called her up and she told me to never call her at that number again. I reached her, but she was like, I have nothing to say to you.
Sukey Lewis: So can you remind listeners, you know, who is Gina Jones and what was her role?
Julie Small: Well, Jones was the second in command at New Folsom, just under Warden Lynch. During our reporting, it was hard to pin down her role exactly in everything that transpired. For listeners, you’ll remember Jones is the person who convinced Valentino to go out on stress leave instead of resigning completely from the department. They had this consequential meeting in which, according to Mimy, Valentino, broke down to her and divulged all the harassment he’d been experiencing, as well as misconduct that he’d witnessed from his colleagues. Here she is talking about that meeting.
Gena Jones: Gena Jones: J-O-N-E-S, Chief Deputy Warden, CSP Sacramento.
Sukey Lewis: Just a note, you’ll hear some redactions that CDCR made in these tapes.
Special Agent Biggs: When you met with Officer Rodriguez, was anybody else in that meeting?
Gena Jones: No, it was just he and I.
Special Agent Biggs: And you said it was in ISU?
Gena Jones: Yes.
Special Agent Biggs: And and you described in that meeting you talked about [REDACTED]. And and and that the issues that he was having, as you mentioned, that he had some issues with with crime scenes and autopsies, you know, issues related to the work in ISU, that was that the source of his problem?
Gena Jones: Yes. I mean, he never said anything other than just cumulatively it was getting to be too much and he couldn’t handle the stress and he wasn’t sleeping.
Special Agent Biggs: All right.
Julie Small: So Jones really makes it sound like the only thing bothering Valentino was this kind of persistent violence and brutality at New Folsom, which is really different from what we heard from Mimy, who said that Valentino came home really in despair and told her that he’d broken down in front of the chief deputy warden about everything.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, And here’s what Jones says about, you know, the harassment and whether or not she knew anything about that.
Special Agent Biggs: Was there anything said during the meeting about Officer Rodriguez being treated inappropriately by other ISU staff?
Gena Jones: Absolutely not.
Special Agent Biggs: So just based on questions I’ve asked you to this point, is there anything that I haven’t asked you about this matter that you think is important for me to know?
Gena Jones: Um there’s been a lot of scuttle going on. Obviously, the situation is pretty taxing. I apologize.
Special Agent Biggs: If you need to take a break that’s fine.
Gena Jones: Yeah. Can I?
Special Agent Biggs: Yeah. Yes. Let’s do that. Time is 1513. I’m going to pause the recording and we’re going to take a quick break. Okay. We’re back on the record. Time is 1514. Just for the record, Chief Jones, did I ask you any questions about the case while we were on break?
Gena Jones: No you did not.
Special Agent Biggs: Okay. You were getting ready to say something.
Gena Jones: You know, there’s there’s a lot a lot going on and it’s very unfortunate on what happened to this young man. At no time was I ever made aware of any allegation of staff misconduct, inappropriate behavior for this kid. I had a great working relationship with this young man. I was very fond of him and his work. He had a very good work ethic. When I talked to him that day, you know, he was very concerned, you know, he because he enjoyed his job. So he felt like he was letting himself down.
Sukey Lewis: So we’ve just heard Jones kind of make these pretty strong statements, you know, about what she knew and she didn’t know. And also, you know, about her personal care for Valentino.
Julie Small: I mean, it’s strange. She is so emphatic about not knowing anything about the harassment or anything else. And she sounds like she has some emotion about Valentino’s death. But if Valentino told her about the harassment he was getting, as he had said he did as his supervisor, she was required to investigate any allegations of misconduct.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah. And I think there are a few other things that are kind of concerning about this exchange. You know, the Office of Internal Affairs investigator doesn’t even ask her about the allegations regarding planted drugs or weapons. And it’s potentially, you know, potentially they did ask her about it and it’s redacted. But if even so, if they did ask her about it, they really moved away from it very quickly because the entire interview is quite short. And we do know from testimony in front of the state personnel board that Jones was there for that search that happened that happened the day before Valentino died. So it just kind of raises questions about why they don’t ask the questions that I think we would ask or that they should ask if they were really kind of concerned and probing for where the failures were along the way. You know, next up, let’s get into some of the tape about this other guy who had a key role in the story, who didn’t agree to talk to us. Brandon Strohmaier:, this guy was the internal affairs sergeant, then he moved up to Lieutenant. I now know that he is working actually for the Office of Internal Affairs at headquarters. So he has since promoted. And he had a had a really kind of key role in how this whole thing played out.
Julie Small: Okay. Yeah. He is another person I actually spoke to on the phone, but who refused to talk to me. He said something like, “Why would I talk to you?” Anyway, this was the guy Valentino finally vented to in the text messages, pages of them that are really painful and make these huge allegations, including that everyone from the warden on down could get fired based on what Valentino knew and what he had witnessed. The same series of texts triggered that final conversation with the warden. So here’s what Strohmaier says about that conversation.
Special Agent Biggs: And, uh, back in approximately September of 2020. Did he describe some mistreatment that that he he alleged by other ISU staff?
Brandon Strohmaier: He did.
Special Agent Biggs: Can you just describe what he told you in that text?
Brandon Strohmaier: I mean, the text was extremely long. I’m sure you’ve seen it. I read about half of it. He was talking about how he was pretty much being picked on [redacted]. Any little, called names. He was his anxiety was so high that he was throwing up in the restroom for you know being in the bathroom for hours at a time. Vomiting. He didn’t like going to work.
Sukey Lewis: Julie It’s interesting because Strohmaier sounds of two minds in this interview. Remember, he’s the one who took action and passed Valentino’s allegations on to the warden. But in this interview, he doesn’t really want to own that. Like he claims he only read half of Valentino’s texts. And there’s something else like he definitely fudges some things in this interview. For example, he says he forwarded these texts to the warden right away.
Brandon Strohmaier: Asked if I could call and set up a meeting with the warden to um, because he want to let him know what’s going on in the unit. When I got the phone, I immediately called Jeff Lynch. He said, “No problem I’ll send uh Gena Jones: who’s the chief deputy to come in for me tomorrow and have him come up here at nine o’clock in the morning.” And that’s what happened.
Sukey Lewis: And we know that is not accurate. Like there was at least another three weeks before he sent these to the warden. And then the meeting happened the next day. So I don’t know if he was just sitting on it or considering whether he wanted to forward it or not, but he did end up forwarding it to the warden. But in this interview, he kind of misrepresents the timing on those things. And then, you know, that fateful meeting happens. Here’s what Strohmaier says about the meeting.
Brandon Strohmaier: Mr. Lynch said, “Well, depending on what you tell me, there’s no guarantee no one’s going to get in trouble.” We sat down for about an hour. He went over every little thing that he pretty much said in the text. Reiterated to Mr. Lynch while he took notes, every allegation Rodriguez made, Lynch would write it down and say, “was there a supervisor present?” And he would pretty much say yes [redacted].
Special Agent Biggs: You said you observed Warden Lynch taking notes. Do you know what happened to those notes?
Brandon Strohmaier: I do not know.
Sukey Lewis: This was another point where my jaw kind of dropped when I was first listening to these tapes because Lynch explicitly told OIA that he can’t remember if he wrote notes. Internal Affairs asks him to go take a look for them. He claims he can’t find them. So just the fact that Strohmaier kind of has this very clear memory that he tells Internal Affairs about, of Lynch taking down these meticulous notes and the fact that those were never located just seems like a really big red flag.
Julie Small: Yeah. And at the end of the interview, despite everything that transpired, he sings the praises of the Investigative Services Unit.
Special Agent Biggs: Anything else that’s come to mind about the things I should know about what’s what, you know, related to the topics that we discussed?
Brandon Strohmaier: Not really, I really I mean, I looked at it as, I mean, I think that was the best ISU unit in the state, you know? And we’ve been told, I mean, there’s all your agents here that uh I get it. There might have been a conflict and maybe locker room gossip talk, you know, who knows? And it’s true. They never did it in front of me they’re not stupid enough to do it in front of their supervisor. But, I don’t know.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, it’s kind of incredible, right? Okay. Last but not least at all, we also did get the Office of Internal Affairs interview with the warden with Lynch, in which he answers questions about that final meeting that he had with Valentino shortly before he died. And I’m not going to play that much of it because it’s honestly like he doesn’t say very much that’s new and it just didn’t have that much value. But I’m going to play you a little bit here just so you can kind of hear the tone of it.
Special Agent Biggs: So you mentioned earlier that he had he had talked about making statements have been made that would violate the EEO policy. And you’ve given me a couple examples that would clearly violate that. Were there any others that he brought up that you recall?
Jeff Lynch: The awkward silence is me thinking so I apologize.
Special Agent Biggs: No that’s okay. That’s okay.
Jeff Lynch: I’m sure there were. It’s just not coming right to me.
Special Agent Biggs: Okay. All right.
Julie Small: Yeah. He gave a pretty sanitized version of Valentino’s harassment allegations. And then he describes how he asked Valentino to write a memo.
Jeff Lynch: I asked for a written statement. He said he wasn’t willing to provide it, that he didn’t want anybody to get in trouble. I explained to him kind of how we operate, how we work. And I encouraged him to give me a written document, particularly from the perspective of the EEO side of things. He was resistant to do it, but said he would at least consider it. But of course, I never saw it. We waited for it for the, you know, through the weekend and then hopefully to see it maybe the first part of the week. And then obviously the whole thing fell apart after that.
Sukey Lewis: Again, most striking is what the investigators don’t push him on. You know, they don’t appear to really question Lynch at all about the choices that he made. You know, his choice not to turn to OIA with those serious allegations of drugs and weapons. You know, the decision to do this search, which exposed Valentino as a whistleblower. They don’t really push him on anything, you know, even about the notes that he clearly, at least should have taken about that meeting. You know, the investigator has this tone that just sounds really deferential.
Julie Small: Yeah, I think they’re very, very careful with wardens. You know, he’s worked his way up through the ranks. He is the face of CDCR. To do anything that would discredit him. It sort of undermines the whole public image of CDCR. And wardens are very powerful. They really control what goes on inside there. And they also control what information gets out about what happened. He or she decides what gets investigated. And also, even though they’ve changed this process a little bit at CDCR to bring in some more outside influence in looking at allegations, it still comes back to the warden at the end of the day. Even if an outside even outside office, a statewide office says, “yeah, we think there’s a problem here, here, warden, do something about this misconduct.” The warden can say, “I agree and I’m going to discipline them,” or, “I don’t agree,” or, “I do agree, but I’m not going to discipline them.” Still has so much power.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, and it seems like they’re given a lot of power. They’re given so much trust, you know, by the agency. They’re these kind of official representatives of it. So if they are found to be doing wrong or if they are found to, you know, be betraying the public’s trust in any way, it really kind of undermines the entire agency it feels like in a different way than just, you know, if if a line officer does and then is fired or something like that. You were mentioning, you know, some of the changes that CDCR has made. And we’re going to get into that in the next section. We’re going to talk with somebody who’s been involved in prison reform in California for decades, been part of a really important effort. And we’re going to bring you that conversation after the break.
[Music]
Sukey Lewis: This whole series and our focus on New Folsom in particular began because we noticed this anomaly in the investigative records that we were getting from CDCR. There were so many more of these really serious use of force incidents at this one prison. And one of our first calls to try and understand what these numbers meant was to this law firm, Rosen Bien Galvin & Grunfeld, which has been involved in a class action lawsuit against CDCR since 1994 — 30 years. A result of that have been a number of really widespread reforms ordered by the court that have affected all people in prison, even though the lawsuit is specifically focused on people with disabilities. When we called them up, they said, “We don’t have as many clients at New Folsom, but we have heard about some problems at that prison. And have you guys heard about the two whistleblowers that died there?” That conversation was more than two years and a podcast ago. And so and I wanted to sit down with an attorney with that law firm again to hear what they have been up to and to get their reaction to the series. Here’s that conversation.
Julie Small: Hello. Thanks so much for coming in, can you please introduce yourself?
Penny Godbold: My name is Penny Godbold and I’m an attorney at Rosen Bien Galvin and Grunfeld were a civil rights law firm. And I represent people in prison with disabilities under the Armstrong class action case.
Julie Small: And can you describe in your own words the Armstrong class action case? Like, what is the nature of that litigation that your firm brought against CDCR?
Penny Godbold: This is a long standing class action that’s about making prisons physically accessible to people with disabilities and making sure that the people who are incarcerated in the state of California, for example, if they need a wheelchair, that they have a wheelchair, if they need hearing aids, that they have hearing aids.
Julie Small: Can you give me an example of why that would be important and how people’s needs have not been met?
Penny Godbold: Years ago, the example that came to mind was a case of a person with a disability who was being made to crawl up a flight of stairs in order to have access to the what is now the Board of Parole hearings, in order to be able to argue his case that he should be released on parole. So the state of California has come a long way towards providing basic disability accommodations to people in prison. But there’s still more work to be done.
Julie Small: Is there anything that you heard in the podcast that jumped out at you in terms of recognizing similar themes to what you’ve heard from your clients?
Penny Godbold: Yeah. One of the aspects of the podcast that has really resonated with me is the difficulty people face in coming forward to report problems in prison. There’s a reluctance to believe incarcerated people. And there was a person who was deaf and use sign language to communicate, failed to follow a verbal order that he didn’t hear that was ordered by staff. And that also resulted in a use of force incident. And he complained and there was no accountability action. So we took these reports, declarations to the court and said this is what’s happening in California prisons and something needs to be done to protect the disability rights. And there’s a lot of people out there who have experienced staff misconduct who were willing to eventually talk to us, who were not willing to come forward and report it to CDCR or report it to a federal court, because there’s a very real risk of retaliation. When somebody files a staff complaint in CDCR, one of the first things that happens is that the staff member is notified that a complaint has been filed against them.
Sukey Lewis: Can you talk a little bit about the kind of spiral of retaliation that can happen for somebody who makes a complaint against a correctional officer?
Penny Godbold: What we hear from our clients is if you file a staff complaint about the use of force incident that you were involved in, then you get sucked into a cycle of retaliation that starts with receiving a disciplinary write up for something that happened during the use of force incident itself. Typically, assault on a police officer during the course of the officer using force against you. And that starts a chain reaction of negative consequences for an incarcerated person. You’re moved to segregation. You lose your property, including letters and and photos from family members that mean so much to people. Your hearing aids might get lost in the transfer. And that’s just the common example that we hear people talk about. But there’s a lot of other less obvious forms of retaliation that people share with us. Something like an officer failing to release them from their cell to to receive medication — that can be retaliatory. And the officer might be able to say that’s not retaliation. I just wasn’t able to release them from their cell at that moment.
Penny Godbold: What it took to get people to come forward, to tell those stories was tremendous. I would say it it took years to bring the kind of litigation that prompted the most recent orders by the court.
Julie Small: You mentioned the most recent orders. Let’s get into that. This started from events happening in a particular prison, but it’s gotten bigger than that. Can you walk us through what the impetus of that was?
Penny Godbold: We initially started hearing about reports of staff misconduct at one particular prison. And what we learned over time through talking to other incarcerated people is that that phenomenon of disability related staff misconduct and staff misconduct generally, it’s of course, not limited to one prison.
Julie Small: I know from my reporting that that particular prison you’re referencing is Richard J. Donovan in San Diego. Can you just tell me a little bit more about the types of incidents that were happening there?
Penny Godbold: There was an extreme amount of force being used and force that was resulting in broken bones and serious bodily injury. And in fact, the Department of Corrections convened a strike team and the strike team went down there and found that there were very serious problems and filed a report and called for changes at the institution. Those changes were not implemented and that was part of the impetus for the court ordering changes. But CDCR’s own findings were that there was a level of violence being reported at that prison. And in particular, people with disabilities and other vulnerabilities were being impacted, and something needed to be done.
Sukey Lewis: But wait a minute, CDCR came to that decision itself, right, that there were these serious problems? So why weren’t those changes implemented?
Penny Godbold: That’s a good question. I think at the end of the day, CDCR headquarters would be responsible for receiving a report like that and implementing changes. And I can’t answer the question about why it wasn’t done. That is the question. But, in terms of the the court orders themselves right now, they extend to six different CDCR institutions that house a large number of people with disabilities. The most significant remedy has been the implementation of body worn cameras and fixed cameras at these six prisons. And almost immediately, we started hearing reports from our class members at the institutions where the cameras were implemented that unreported, serious use of force incidents went way down.
Julie Small: So what’s the latest of what’s going on with the lawsuit? And is there a particular area you’re focusing on now?
Penny Godbold: One of the challenges that we’re seeing after implementation of the court orders right now is that there are body worn cameras. There is video evidence at the six prisons. And yet there are a lot of reasons why the video evidence is not preserved or produced for investigations. Video evidence right now under policy is preserved for 90 days. Somebody who’s involved in a staff misconduct incident might want to wait until they’re moved off of a prison yard, particular yard with an officer who they had this problem with. And that might occur after 90 days. So if they wait until they are located somewhere else and then they filed their complaint, the video is lost. So one of the the primary areas where there is a need for significant improvement is extending the preservation time for footage for all footage. Also just attempting to extend the body worn camera requirements statewide.
Julie Small: Is that something that CDCR has indicated any willingness to do to spread to all the institutions? I mean they have been sort of, “No, we’re not going to do this. Yes, we will do it. Okay. We’ll do it at a few prisons.”
Penny Godbold: I want to give CDCR credit for extending camera coverage at four additional prisons that they were not court ordered to have cameras at. That’s significant.
Julie Small: Including New Folsom.
Penny Godbold: Yes, there were a lot of staff complaints coming out of New Folsom. They so far have been unwilling to extend body worn cameras beyond those four additional prisons. So that’s something that we continue to push on.
Julie Small: One of the things we found in the podcast was, of course, that the incarcerated person will have this write up on them. And even if what the incident is investigated and even if the officers are found to have engaged in misconduct, the write up of the incarcerated person doesn’t disappear. They continue to pay for the thing that didn’t happen.
Penny Godbold: Yeah, that’s one area that we have been working really hard to bring to the court’s attention and to the fact that in the same way that the staff misconduct investigations are not complete reports of what happened, neither are these disciplinary charges that people are found guilty of, and yet it remains in their file and they continue to suffer the consequences of it.
Julie Small: Right. You know when I step back from this… been reporting on California prisons for almost 20 years and have seen a lot of court orders issued and a lot of evidentiary hearings, and, to prove that court orders are not being followed and subsequent court orders, etc., etc. It can be like the court comes up with a prescription and there’s a new rule, but the spirit of the rule is not followed. I hear this a lot that that CDCR will implement a change, but it’s more like they’re checking off a box. “Yeah, we did this.” But not actually addressing the fundamental underlying problem, which is often a lack of respect and a complete imbalance of power because we are talking about prison and just always assuming the worst of the incarcerated population. Do you have any hope that that will change? The way that prisons are run will actually shift?
Penny Godbold: I am hopeful, but it’s more than can be accomplished through a court ordering additional training. Staff can go sit in a one hour training once a year and learn that they are required to accommodate people with disabilities. But that has to be put into practice throughout the prisons and supervisors need to model how that’s done.
Julie Small: Well, the governor introduced the California model last year. Can you define it? Do you think it’s going to make a difference?
Penny Godbold: I have to say that I do have hope for change. I have learned the art of having hope from my incarcerated clients, because if they can get out of bed in the morning while they’re, you know, locked in a prison cell and facing 20 years in that situation, if they can have hope, then I can have hope. I do see some shortcomings in the way that California has conceived of the California model, which is largely based on taking some principles from these Scandinavian prison systems and implementing them in California. There are significant differences between the systems. The Scandinavian systems hire differently than California does. Just the the role of the officer is perceived of as something totally different in those systems. So I think there’s a lot more work to be done to make that a reality.
Julie Small: Thank you so much for sharing your time with us and your expertise.
Sukey Lewis: Yeah, Thanks so much for your work, Penny.
Penny Godbold: Thank you for having me.
Sukey Lewis: You’ve been listening to a bonus episode of On Our Watch from KQED. I’m Sukey Lewis. Julie Small is my co-reporter. Chris Egusa produced this episode. It was edited by Jen Chien, who is our Head of Podcasts. Original Music by Ramtin Arablouei, including our theme song. Additional music from APM Music and Audio Network. Funding for On Our Watch is provided in part by Arnold Ventures and the California Endowment. Thank you to Katie Sprenger, our Podcast Operations Manager, our Managing Editor of News and Enterprise, Otis R. Taylor Jr., Ethan Toven-Lindsey, our Vice President of News and KQED Chief Content Officer, Holly Kernan. And thanks to all of you for listening.
