For over two years Bristol County for Correctional Justice has been hammering away at a painfully obvious truth: Sheriff Tom Hodgson is neglecting the job voters elected him to do — caring for and rehabilitating prisoners — at the expense of his collaboration with white supremacists.
Recent disclosures of responsive documents from a FOIA request the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU) made to the Bristol County Sheriffs Office (BCSO) last March prove just how true that contention is.
In the ACLU’s repository there are literally hundreds of communications between White House officials, including dozens from White Supremacist Stephen Miller and demonstrating coordination between Hodgson, the White House and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Hodgson’s real and only focus. Yet even though a majority of Hodgson’s prisoners have substance abuse disorders, his office could not provide a single email or Tweet documenting a shred of concern for helping prisoners with medically-assisted treatment (MAT).
The ACLU archives make for pretty interesting reading. Hodgson’s slavish, unctuous attempts to ingratiate himself with the White House are exposed in 74 emails to Stephen Miller. We find White House talking points that Hodgson receives, and we see Hodgson notifying Miller that he’s been a good boy and used them in various interviews. We see his pettiness in action as he blasts New Bedford representative Tony Cabral, the Immigrant Assistance Center, and — as Yvonne Abraham reported in the Globe — Hodgson even removes information cards on ICE from the back of his own church, St. Julie’s in Dartmouth, and dutifully reports it to Miller. And although the ACLU did not request Hodgson’s correspondence with FAIR, he CC’s fairus.org in emails with Miller and Britt Carter, Associate Director of the White House Office of lntergovernmental Affairs. The ACLU’s trove of documents follows the release by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of extensive correspondence between Stephen Miller and a number of white supremacists.
All Hodgson’s efforts paid off recently when he was rewarded with a White House doggy bone — honorary chair of Trump’s Massachusetts re-election campaign.
Last April members of BCCJ attended a so-called “public hearing” on ICE 287(g) agreements and the topic of medically-assisted opioid treatment came up.
Hodgson has received several large grants for opioid treatment, so the public is entitled to know what he’s doing with all the money — a question that still must be answered. In addition, under Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2018, five sheriff’s offices have started piloting MAT treatment of prisoners — Hodgson isn’t one of them.
At the 287(g) hearings Hodgson offered a number of excuses for not offering treatment. The worst was that his officers — now serving as state-paid, part-time ICE agents — can’t afford ten minutes to supervise the treatments.
Currently, prisoners now receive a spritz of Vivitrol — a drug Alkermes already gives National Sheriff’s Association members a “taste” of for free.
Needless to say, BCCJ was not satisfied with Hodgson’s response and on September 23, 2019 we began trying to get better answers to what kind of MAT treatments, if any, the BCSO and its medical contractor provided. We contacted Beth Cheney, the Chief Operating Officer of Correctional Psychiatric Services (CPS), to ask what sort of treatment CPS provides prisoners in Bristol County.
In response, Cheney sent us a link to an article about the sheriff’s pilot program — the very program Hodgson and CPS refuse to participate in. Cheney also directed us to Jonathan Darling, the Sheriff’s spokesperson, for authorization to speak to CPS. So we did — and Darling passed the buck back to CPS:
“If you feel that CPS is not answering your questions, that’s an issue between you and CPS.”
In October we tried again, telling Darling that the “public would be well-served by knowing what types of MAT treatment the BCSO currently offers its prisoners.”
On October 22, 2019 Darling agreed — but he never followed up:
“I agree, I think we can do a better job at sharing with the public about our Mat and substance abuse programs. I’ll be working to update our website with more information on this. I believe you’ll find your answers there in weeks ahead.”
But the ACLU was also interested. On March 18, 2019 the ACLU requested the following from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office:
All records of any request, decision, or recommendation by BCSO to participate in, or not to participate in, any pilot program for the delivery of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder at county correctional facilities, including under Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2018.
All records concerning the formulation or preparation of any request, decision, or recommendation described in paragraph 8, above, including without limitation any discussion of the reasons for such request, decision, or recommendation
The responsive documents the ACLU received to the request show that — while Hodgson was emailing Stephen Miller and numerous White House and anti-immigrant organizations almost daily — there was absolutely no correspondence regarding medically assisted treatment. None. Zero.
On May 29, 2019 — more than two months past the required 10 day window for response to FOIA requests — Hodgson’s office replied to the question of MAT treatments:
“No records exist that are responsive to this request.”
So on August 20, 2019 the ACLU’s legal counsel at Foley Hoag LLP wrote back to the Sheriff’s Office to obtain information the sheriff refused to divulge.
Among the many non-responses to the ACLU’s FOIA request, the BCSO had refused to provide records from the sheriff’s supposedly “personal” Twitter account.
The ACLU also disputed the BCSO’s contention that no records existed on MAT treatment because the Sheriff had made a public statement about collaboration with other sheriffs at the aforementioned 287(g) hearing on April 10th:
At the BCSO’s annual 287(g) steering committee meeting held on April 10, 2019, Sheriff Hodgson publicly announced that the BCSO will not implement the pilot program established by Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the 2018 Acts, and will, instead, continue its current practices for treating inmates for opioid disorder. ‘ During this meeting, Sheriff Hodgson made a number of statements that suggest he and/or the BCSO have records concerning this decision. For example, he stated:
- “The sheriffs all met not too long ago — a few months back — and collectively we decided, for those that were going to decide to use medically-assisted treatment, that there would be a sampling of four or five sheriffs who were going to do it to see how it goes. Medically-assisted treatment is very controversial with regards to the types of medication that have to be given. For example, when somebody is on a medically-assisted treatment program, there are certain medications where it takes ten minutes per person to have that medication dissolve in their mouth, and they have to watched by a person on our staff until it is done.”
- “We have probably the most difficult county when it comes to detoxing people for drug use.”
- “I am not going to institute a program that’s going to have people come to jail who want to get off drugs, be exposed to more drugs. Because if you can’t go to jail to get off drugs, I don’t know where you’re going to go to get off drugs.”
- “We aren’t going to institute programs that we don’t know [are] working yet, as are a number of other Sheriffs, until we know it works.”
Accordingly, no later than September 10, 2019, please: (1) confirm whether records responsive to Requests 8 and 9 exist and produce any such records; (2) confirm whether any documents responsive to Requests 8 and 9 are being withheld on the basis of any assertion of privilege; and (3) provide a description of what, if any, searches the BCSO undertook to identify records responsive to these requests, including the sources and custodians BCSO searched and any date ranges and/or search terms that it applied.
The BCSO replied on September 20, 2019, offering the following explanations to Foley Hoag and the ACLU:
- “… the Sheriff’s Office states that Sheriff Hodgson is referring to a Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association Meeting (‘MSA’). any records of decisions made, if any exist, would be records of the MSA.
- “… Sheriff Hodgson’s statements refer to his decisions to not institute medically-assisted treatment in its entirety. The decision was not reduced to writing and, thus, no record exists …”
Apparently Hodgson didn’t have time to jot anything down. He was too busy being a White House errand boy.
Comments are closed.