The acon’ Rts Paget THE 199 Water Street LEGAL AID ‘New York, NY 10038 CRIMINAL eau DEFENSE fle Laine June 12, 2023 oe ne (hier Executive Offcer Nicole Austin-Best Justine M. Luongo Deputy Director Gheratoney, Office of Compliance Consultants Etininal Practes ieikers tend Mary Lynne Werlwas East Elmhurst, NY 11370 Drector deputydirector@compliance-consultants.us Prisoners Rights Project Re: Benjamin v. Molina, 75 Civ. 3073 (LAP) Plaintiffs’ comments to Draft Progress Report on Environmental Conditions, January ~ April 2023 Ms, Austin-Best: ‘Thank you for continuing to perform the arduous task of evaluating the environmental conditions in the NYC jails, despite the ever-increasing challenges. Plaintiffs remain dismayed at the chronic lack of compliance with the Environmental Orders, as reflected in the Draft Progress Report on Environmental Conditions, January — April 2023 (the “Draft Report”). And unfortunately, all indications are that the conditions are worsening on several fronts. Defendant’s counsel has expressed hope that we can finally begin to move towards compliance. We are eager to engage with the Department to do so, but its recent actions in other arenas! give us reason for skepticism. ‘The Department not only continues to fail to produce reports explicitly required in by the existing Benjamin orders, but it also refuses to work with Plaintifié to ensure that OCC has access to all information and systems that would allow it to fully evaluate compliance with existing orders, despite the fact that Court orders governing the creation and duties of OCC mandate that it have free access to documents and information in the Department's control. Examined alongside its other efforts to eliminate any lingering transparency, these acts are consistent with a Department more focused on optics than on remedying the inhumane conditions and practices occurring within the jails. Sanitation ‘The Department currently incarcerates over 6,000 people in squalid, unconstitutional conditions. The Draft Report describes intolerable conditions —large roaches in a shower in GRVC, (id. at 30); a dead mouse inside a light shield at AMKC Main Intake, (id; filthy toilets, showers, floors, and walls in areas of all inspected facilities, (id. at 35-36); a “strong sewer smell” in RNDC, " The Department has taken several actions this year that clearly and intentionally limit outside access to the jails. These include: a decision earlier this year to limit the NYC Board of Correction's access to camera footage from inside the Jails, its decision to cut programs and services provided by nonprofit organizations, and its decision to stop notifying the public and press when someone dies in its custody. Justice in Every Borough.Page 2 (id. at $0); mildew and mold growing in showers in GRVC, (id. at 38-40); standing water, sometimes itself dirty, in showers throughout the facilities, (id. at 41); and dusty and clogged vents system wide, (id. at 50-56). These problems are compounded by the perennial lack of cleaning supplies and chemicals and “inoperable Diversey dispensers [that are] not repaired for months, . . . despite work orders being submitted and resubmitted in some cases.” (/d. at 22, 28.) As the Diversey dispensers are the primary source of cleaning solution, when they are not functional, cleaning cannot occur. What's more, the report notes that safety glasses and gloves—protective equipment that to safeguard incarcerated individuals when cleaning supplies happen to be available—were missing during 155 and 138 inspections respectively, creating another health and safety concern. (Id) ‘The Draft Report is a sobering reminder that the Department's abysmal sanitation compliance ratings, appear higher than they are. Despite having agreed to certain sanitation standards for intake and living areas in 2013, the Department now brazenly ignores the final step of those standards when evaluating its compliance. (Jd. at 6.) Thus, OCC’s already unacceptable conclusion, based on its review of PHS reports, that 68% of intake and living areas were compliant during the monitoring period, is inflated. (Id. at 6-7.) ‘The Draft Report also implies that signs of progress in the Department’s sanitation are the result of happenstance rather than improved procedures. The Progress Report for September- December 2022 showed that inspection reports from the EHU contained “more indications of the cleaning of vacant cells, which may account for what is actually an improvement in compliance this monitoring period over prior periods.” (OCC Progress Report on Environmental Conditions, September -- December 2022 at 14.) Three months later, a mere 15% of vacant cells that OCC could identify in the EHO reports complied with the sanitation standards. (Id. at 11.) This percentage does not include the cells viewed during 86 additional inspections because the EHOs who conducted those inspections did not identify the cells they viewed, but all of those cells were deemed unclean. (Id) In other words, the Draft Report's rating of 15% compliance is generous—if the analysis included the unidentified unclean cells and if the Department followed the sanitation standards to which it agreed, that percentage would be much lower. This performance is, to put it mildly, unacceptable. And it makes evident that any perceived improvement during this reporting period in intake areas—an improvement that appears the result of starting from rock bottom—will almost certainly be short-lived. (Id. at 7-8). ‘As mentioned above, OCC was unable to identify the vacant cells that EHOs inspected in 86 inspections, which illustrates another serious problem identified by the Draft Report. OCC observed “significant reporting differences among the individual facilities in the EHO reports” and that “facility reporting practices also indicate varying skill levels about the [EHOs] indicating some may need additional training in conducting inspections.” (Jd. at 4-5.) These administrative failures undermine OCC’s ability to complete its work. (Jd. at 5) (“The extensive variability in what is reported by the EHOs and how, means that adequate data is simply not available for review and inclusion in the compliance calculations.”). In a recent meeting between the parties and OCC, a Justice in Every Borough.Page 3 representative of the Department condoned lower standards for the EHOs, referring to the fact that they are not trained sanitarians, like the Public Health Sanitarians, However, the captains who are Environmental Health Officers are trained by the Department's Environmental Health Unit, which is staffed by expert sanitarians. There really is no excuse for the EHO reports to exhibit the deficiencies that they do, Plaintiffs demand that the Department institute immediate, and regularly repeated, training for EHOs to ensure consistency among their reporting. ‘The Department continues to be plagued by their seeming inability to complete work orders when submitted, In the Draft Report, OCC again pointed out instances in which “deficiencies, although reported repeatedly, largely remain unrepaired,” and instances in which “work orders were submitted and resubmitted” across monitoring periods.” (Id. at 43.) In short, the Department continues to fail—dramatically—in its obligations to maintain basic sanitation in the facilities that in which thousands of people currently reside. It must do better. DOHMH Reports In the Draft Report, OCC notes that the Department has not yet provided it with responses to the DOHMH inspection reports as required by Paragraphs 6 and 6-a of the Environmental Order. ‘The Department therefore remains in violation of this straightforward reporting requirement. Last monitoring period, the Department purported to comply with Paragraph 6-a by disclosing to OCC, in response to its draft progress report and after the monitoring period had closed, actions that it planned to abate the deficiencies noted in the DOHMH inspection reports. It provided neither OCC nor Plaintifis with information about whether those “planned” actions ever took place or whether the conditions were ever abated. We are disappointed that the Department construes its obligations under Paragraph 6-2 so narrowly. If it intends to respond to its Paragraph 6-a obligations by merely explaining what actions it planned to take to abate the conditions, then Paragraph 6-a has been made ineffective and is therefore ripe for modification. To avoid that, we ask the Department to consider supplementing responses (assuming that they are forthcoming) to include “ameliorative actions [actually] taken” after DOHMH inspections. This would require minimal effort on its part, Vent tion ‘The Department continues to violate its ventilation reporting obligations by either submitting reports late or not submitting them at all. In this reporting period, it has not provided any reports, from EMTC, (id. at 65 & n.12, 66, 68, 69), even though the facility houses pretrial detainees. (See Order re: Testing and Repair of Ventilation Systems dated Nov. 14, 2003.) Also inexcusable is the Department's failure to provide any intake equipment inspection reports or corresponding intake Justice in Every Borough.Page 4 airflow deficiency reports from RNDC “for the past few years,” other than one—an intake equipment inspection report from August 2022. (Jd. at 68-69.) This failure to produce ventilation reports is a chronic issue. Plaintiffs have moved for contempt in the past and will do so again if these failures continue, As with sanitation, the Draft Report describes a disturbing pattern of ventilation deficiencies that are identified but not abated quickly or even scheduled to be abated at all. (Id. at 63-70.) To name just a few, the Department did not offer an abatement date for inoperable heating uni RNDC, (id. at 64); it took “several weeks” to clean vents in several facilities and to reset a broken fire alarm in NIC, (id. at 66); and there are no abatement dates to address the lack of vents in numerous areas across facilities, (id. at 66-67). ‘The importance of effective ventilation systems was highlighted by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Now, we face a new threat of dangerous air quality caused by wildfires. As always, there is no sense of urgency from the Department to act proactively. In fact, it hardly acts reactively. Plaintiffs look forward to the upcoming ventilation expert inspections so that the parties can get a more fulsome understanding of the state of ventilation in the jails. Fire Safety Interim Plans of Correction: On May 17, 2023, after a about a year of requesting that the Department inform Plaintiffs of its intentions with regards to the interim plans of correction for GRVC, NIC, RMSC, and VCBG, it disclosed that it had secured $2,571,255 in funding and noted which items on the “punch lists” would be completed with it. We thank the Department for setting forth its plans, which Plaintiffs are still reviewing. We ask that it provide Plaintiffs and OCC with a detailed timeline for the implementation of these plans. We also expect that interim plans of correction will be developed for the remaining facilities. April 6 NIC fire: Plaintiffs continue to await an explanation about how the April 6 NIC fire got out of control. As noted in the Draft Report, we requested information and records about the fire mere hours after it had been extinguished and have repeated those requests multiple times since. At the time of this writing, the Department has provided some video footage, but no other records or information responsive to our requests.” 2 On May 31, the Department provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with a thumb drive with two files that apparently depict the NIC fire. There are many as-yet unexplained gaps in the video footage. Plaintifls’ counsel communicated these gaps to the Department via email. To date, the only reason offered for these gaps isthe fact that their “system is motion-based, so if there is not enough motion in the field of view forthe camera there will not be any recorded video.” This cannot be the reason for missing camera coverage during an active fire, where movement of incarcerated people and staff can be cbserved on camera immediately preceding the missing blocks of footage. Justice in Every Borough.Page 5 ‘The only information that plaintiffs have about the NIC fire has come from journalists and Mr. Antonetti’s interim report dated April 24, 2023. Even the paltry available information is damning. It appears that the Department's failure to track its work orders and their status -- an evergreen issue in this case—was a primary cause of the Department's inability to extinguish the fire quickly. Graham Rayman’s description seems apt: “Correction Department recordkeeping is so poor, officials couldn’t say how long ago they shut down a sprinkler system that should have protected detainees and staff in an April 6 fire that injured 20 people.” Graham Rayman, NYC Correction Department couldn't explain why it delayed Rikers Island sprinkler system fixes before fire that injured 20, NY Daily News, May 6, 2023, available at https://bit.1y/30GpsOB (last visited June 2, 2023). OCC’s interim report raised other questions, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ May 11, 2023 letter to the Department: * CO Copeland: Why did CO Copeland not extinguish the fire? Did something prevent him from doing so, and if so, what was it? What steps have been taken to ensure that in the future an officer in CO Copeland’s position would be able to successfully extinguish the fire if sprinklers fail? ‘© Evacuation: How many people in custody were evacuated, and which cells or other living areas were involved? Where were people in custody evacuated from, and where were they brought after they were evacuated? How long did the evacuation take, from beginning to end? Were the paths of egress along the evacuation route protected by fire suppression ‘measures, and if so, what fire suppression measures? What method(s) did correction officers use to open gates that confined people in custody (e.g., gang release, manual door-by-door unlocking, etc.), and were there any delays in opening cells doors during the evacuation? * Factory Mutuals’ Red Tag System: Please provide records describing the operation of Factory Mutuals’ Red Tag System. As to the system itself, how will it prevent a recurrence of the Department's failure to track the inoperability of the sprinkler systems at issue in this fire? Has the system been fully implemented in all facilities, and if not, when will that be completed? Have staff at all facilities been trained to use the system, and if not, when will that training be completed? We eagerly await the Department's response to these questions and our records requests. ‘West Facility Fire Watch Posts: On May 31, 2023, Plaintiffs’ counsel completed inspection of West Facility’s fire watch post logbooks; we thank the Department for facilitating it. By letter dated June 9, 2023 (attached to this submission), Plaintiffs summarized their findings, and just like last year, they were disturbing: the post remains frequently abandoned, often for two consecutive shifts. In addition, our findings were limited because only logbooks from two West Facility sprungs (Sprungs 6 and 10) were produced for inspection, and those logbooks were in tatters — some with missing covers and almost all with missing pages. Justice in Every Borough.Page 6 ‘The logbooks reviewed showed frequent abandonment of the fire watch posts. Between December 10, 2022, and January 27, 2023, the fire watch post in Sprung 6 was abandoned 15 times, at least once a week, for an average of over 8 hours without coverage each time, Between January 28 and March 11, 2023, we identified 7 instances in Sprung 6 where the post was abandoned for more than 3 hours; those instances also averaged over 8 hours. Our review of the Sprung 10 logbooks dated July 19, 2022 through April 3, 2023, revealed 30 instances where the fire watch post was abandoned for more than 3 hours, with an average of 8 hours without fire watch coverage each time. ‘The logbooks for a sprung we could not identify because it was missing the logbook cover revealed similarly frequent instances of long periods without fire watch coverage. One particularly disturbing observation about the logbook for an unknown sprung was the lack of entries between June 20, 2022 and June 28, 2022, inclusive. We therefore presume that this post was abandoned for 9 consecutive days. Last year, the Department suggested to class counsel that the gaps in the logbooks do not support an inference that they were abandoned during that time, But as we explained in our June 9. 2023 letter: “We presume that the Department requires its officers to make regular, accurate logbook entries because they would be used for exactly this purpose. As you know, if itis not written down, it did not happen.” (citation omitted). As a result of our findings, we have requested that the Department make available its Fire Safety Unit Director for an in-person meeting with Plaintiffs’ counsel and OCC to discuss ways to enhance fire protection at West Facility, which sorely needs it In any event, the shoddy condition of the logbooks screams out for automation. To that end, on May 9, 2023, we asked the Department whether its InTime (or its CityTime) staffing software could be a superior way to assess whether the fire watch posts are constantly staffed. In relevant part, we wrote: ‘The Nufez monitor's recent Status Report on DOC’s Action Plan explained that the Department is in the process of implementing In-Time, which is an “automated workforce management/scheduling software for roster management.” Status Report at 12, The Monitor “In recent months, SMART [Schedule Management and Redeployment Team] and facility staff were trained to use the system, and InTime replaced the legacy paper-based system at RNDC in January 2023, GRVC in February 2023, and EMTC and VCBC in March 2023. A rolling schedule of implementation for the remaining facilities has been established to meet the June 1, 2023 timeline in the Action Plan.” Id. at 19. The Monitor continued: “Prior to implementing the InTime system at a given facility, several analyses are conducted. ‘These actions address multiple requirements of the Action Plan. A facility-specific staffing analysis is conducted to identify the number of people (and their assigned shift) on the facility’s staffing roster and a post analysis is conducted to examine the number and job responsibilities of each post in the facility. Further, a list of uniformed staff assigned to each command is created, along with a post assignment classification system for every command.” It therefore appears, on its face at least, that InTime data could be useful for ascertaining the Justice in Every Borough.Page 7 extent to which WF fire watch posts are abandoned. We would appreciate an explanation of whether InTime would be useful for this purpose, and if so, disclosure of the relevant data, We await the Department's response, and we look forward to discussing InTime’s potential in future meetings. Complaints Yet again, the Department blocked OCC’s and Plaintiffs’ efforts to learn about the status of environmental complaints during the monitoring period, preferring instead to provide responses to only a sampling of complaints submitted by counsel. As OCC noted, counsel submitted 15 environmental complaints last monitoring period, It cannot be credibly argued that it is overly burdensome to respond to a mere 15 complaints. We therefore assume that the Department’s, intransigence is motivated by something other than resource constraints. Worse, during the May 19, 2023 meeting between counsel for the parties, agency counsel, and OCC, we learned that the Department construes its obligations under the OCC records access orders extremely narrowly. Specifically, it stated that it need only provide OCC with updates about environmental complaints submitted by counsel, not those submitted by other entities (¢.g., grievances from people in custody or from advocates other than Legal Aid) or by other means (¢.g., 311 complaints). That construction cannot be squared with any of the OCC access orders. (See Order dated May 20, 1982, 4 2(a) (granting OCC the authority to “inspect all records and documents required to be maintained by the Judgments, and any other records and documents maintained by defendants”); Order dated October 23, 1987, { 2(a) (same); Order dated August 2, 1991, § 2(a) (same); Order dated January 19, 1993, § 2a) (same); Order dated February 14, 1995, § 2(a) (same); Order dated January 18, 2000, § 2 (granting “access as needed to an Inmate Information System (IIS) terminal”).)) None of those orders have been modified, and all of them remain in effect. If the Department wishes to be relieved of those access obligations, it can move to modify them. But it cannot unilaterally narrow their construction without the Court’s blessing. Plaintiffs have been raising OCC’s “records access” for well over a year. We had assumed that the Department was working in good faith to formulate a way for OCC to get the records access required by multiple court orders, but the May 19 meeting has given Plaintiffs substantial reason to doubt that. Particularly given the events of the past several months — in which the Department brazenly cut off the Board of Correction’s access to Genetec video (see Matt Katz, NYC Correction Dept. blocks watchdog from unfettered access to Rikers video footage, Gothamist, Jan. 18, 2023, available at https://bit.ly/3qsgxCE (last visited June 2, 2023), concealed information trom the Nurez ‘monitor that was required to have been disclosed (see Letter from Nutiez monitor to court dated May 31, 2023, Nuitez v. City of New York, No. 14-CV-5845 (LTS) (ECF No. 537); Sahalie Donaldson & Annie McDonough, Rikers officials chip away at transparency measures, City & State New York, June 1, 2023, available at https://bit.ly/3WQA4c7 (last visited June 2, 2023), and rejected Plaintifis’ Justice in Every Borough.Page 8 proposal for a protective order that would bar OCC from reviewing or disclosing non-Benjamin information in the Service Desk — we view the Departments actions as a conscious choice to flout the Court’s orders. This issue appears ripe for enforcement. eo oe oe Ithas become redundant to end these comments on OCC’s draft progress reports with a note about Plaintiffs’ continued dismay at the Department’s inability or, more likely, refusal to comply with the Benjamin Environmental Orders. We believe that progress is possible, and more likely to occur with a fully staffed and functioning court monitor and a Department willing to provide that monitor with access to information necessary to make accurate assessments of compliance and recommendations for improvement. We hope to make progress on these issues relating to OCC before the next progress report is drafted. But despite being hindered by the Department's now chronic practice of withholding information and failing to produce mandated reports, OCC’s Draft Report nonetheless compellingly describes jail conditions that overall are completely unacceptable and, in some cases, such as fire safety, downright dangerous. Several areas of the Department's chronic noncompliance are ripe for enforcement actions, and itis evident that the Department will not take any remedial actions towards compliance without being compelled to do so by court order or threat of sanctions, Respectfully submitted, (42 Veronica Vela Robert M. Quackenbush Lauren Stephens-Davidowitz Counsel for Plaintiffs Ce: Chlarens Orsland, NYC Law Department John Doody, NYC Law Department Justice in Every Borough.THE Prisoners’ Rights Project (GAL 199 Water Steet LE AID New York, NY 10038 SOCIETY (212) 877-3530 sw legen. org CRIMINAL Twyla Carter Atomey-n-Chiot (Chior Exocutvo Officer stine M. Luongo ‘era VIA EMAIL ONLY a June 9, 2023 Mary Lynne Wervas DBrector Caen Prisoners’ Rights Project John Doody New York City Law Department General Litigation Division corsland@law.nyc.gov johdoody@law.nye,gov Re: Benjamin v. Molina, No. 75-CV-3073 (LAP) May 31, 2023 inspection of West Facility fire watch logbooks Dear Chuck and John: On behalf of the plaintiffs, I write advise you of the disturbing results of my May 31, 2023 inspection of the West Facility fire watch logbooks and to request an in-person meeting with Fire Safety Unit Chief Christopher Currenti to discuss them. In short, I discovered that this critical post is frequently abandoned, often for two consecutive shifts, if not more, leaving incarcerated individuals at serious risk My review focused on logbook entries from June 1, 2022 onwards. Following the lessons learned from my May 11, 2022 inspection, I only documented gaps in logbook entries lasting three hours or more. Therefore, my summary does not include posts abandoned for (the still troubling) less than three houts.). I further, while most entries were made on the quarter hour, a few were made at irregular intervals. To simplify, I rounded entries to the nearest 15-minute interval. also note that my review was incomplete due to problems with the logbooks I was provided. First, several of the available logbooks lacked cover pages and had missing internal pages, rendering them uninformative. I cannot, therefore, evaluate the fire post coverage contained within most of those logbooks that lack covers and internal pages. Furthermore, logbooks for housing areas other than Sprungs 6 and 10 were not produced for my review. Therefore, this review likely does not capture the full extent of dysfunction at all fire watch posts in the West Facility. My review shows the following:‘Sprung 6, December 10, 2022 to January 27, 2023 DATE TIMEENTRY1 | TIMEENTRY2 | GAP 12/10/22 16:30 19:00 2.5 hours 12/10/22 - 12/11/22 12.5 hours 12/11/22 13.5 hours 12/20/22 3.0 hours 12/22/22 — 12/23/22 3.5 hours 12/23/22 4.5 hours 12/23/22 — 12/24/22 8.5 hours 12/31/22. 7.25 hours 12/31/22 5.5 hours 1/1/23, 7.5 hours 1/2/23 — 1/3/23, 16.0 hours 1/4/23, 8.0 hours 1/12/23 — 1/13/23, 16.5 hours 1/13/23 — 1/14/23, 3.0 hours 1/16/23 — 1/17/23, 115 hours Sprung 6, January 28, 2023 to March 11, 2023 DATE TIME ENTRY 1 [TIMEENTRY2 [GAP 1/30/23 — 1/31/23 | 22:30 09:30 11.0 hours 1/31/23 ~ 2/1/23, 20:00 08:30 12.5 hours 2/6/23 08:30 15:30 7.0 hours 3/1/23 14:00 22:15 8.25 hours 3/8/23 01:30 5.25 hours 3/10/23, 06:30 9.0 hours, 3/11/23, 03:30 5.0 hours‘Sprung 10, July 19, 2022 to April 3, 2023 DATE TIME ENTRY 1 | TIMEENTRY2 | GAP 7128/22 11:30 15:5 4.25 hours 9/15/22 16:00 23:30 7.5 hours 9/20/22 10:00 23:30 13.5 hours 9/21/22, 20:00 23:00 3.0 hours 9/24/22, 03:00 15:30 12.5 hours 9/29/22. 13:30 18:00 4.5 hours 10/11/22 — 10/12/22 | 23:00 15:30 16.5 hours 10/12/22, 02:00 16:15 14.25 hours 10/15/22 02:00 07:15 5.25 hours 10/16/22 22:30 13:00 14.5 hours 10/17/22 02:00 16:00 14.0 hours 10/21/22 08:30 16:00 75 hours 10/23/22 07:00 15:30 8.5 hours 10/29/22 01:30 07:30 6.0 hours 11/7722 09:00 15:00 6.0 hours 11/13/22 09:30 15:30 6.0 hours 12/13/22, 09:30 16:00 6.5 hours 12/15/22. (07:00 15:30 8.5 hours 12/20/22, 07:30 16:45 9.25 hours 12/23/22, 01:30 07:30 6.0 hours 12/25/22, 13:00 16:00 3.0 hours 1/3/23, 00:00 07:30 7.5 hours 2/6/23 — 27/23 23:00 07:00 8.0 hours 2/8/23 08:30 16:00 7.5 hours 2/8/23 — 2/9/23 23:00 07:30 8.5 hours 2/17/23 18:00 23:30 5.5 hours 3/2/23 18:30 22:30 4.0 hours 3/23/23 - 3/2623 | 22:30 03:00 4.5 hours 3/2623 —3/27123__| 22:30 10:30 12.0 hours 3/29/23, 07:00 14:30 7.5 hours11, 2022 t 21 Unknown Sprung (logbook cover missing), M: DATE TIMEENTRY1 | TIMEENTRY2 | GAP 6/8/22 15:30 00:00 8.5 hours 6/16/22 19:00 23:30 4.5 hours 6/28/22 05:30 z 3.5 hours 714/22 09:30 6.0 hours 72222 4.5 hours 8/5/22 5.0 hours 8/8/22 8.5 hours 8/10/22 6.0 hours 8/12/22 6.25 hours 8/13/22 3.25 hours. 8/14/22 7.75 hours: 8/29/22, 8.0 hours 8/31/22 7.25 hours 9/4/22 — 9/5/22 18.0 hours 9/19/22 4.5 hours Unknown Sprung (logbook cover missing), March 2: 1, 2022? Initially, I note that on pages 109 and 110 of this logbook, there are no entries between June 20, 2022 and June 28, 2022, inclusive. I therefore presume that this post was abandoned for nine consecutive days. Other results are summarized below. DATE TIMEENTRY1 | TIMEENTRY2 [GAP 6/2922. 23:30 8.5 hours 718122 15:30 8.5 hours 719122 15:30 4.5 hours TNSR2 23:00 6.5 hours 8/22 07:30 7.0 hours 79/22 15:30 8.0 hours 72722 13:00 4.0 hours 8/9/22 6.0 hours 8/9/22 4.5 hours 8/17/22 — 8/18/22 4.0 hours 10/6/22. 7.0 hours 11/72/22. 5.5 hours 1/16/22 = 11/17/22 8.0 hours 12/21/22, 13.5 hours “in order to limit my review to the past 12 months, I began my review at June 1, 2022 on page 104. 2 Based upon entries in the logbook, I believe that this may be Spung 6, but I cannot be sure. In order to limit my review to the past 12 months, I began my review at June 1, 2022 on page 88. 4‘The Department's response to our summary of the May 11, 2022 West Facility fire watch logbook inspections claimed that the posts were not regularly abandoned. It essentially suggested that imperfect recordkeeping — which the Department posited was caused by chronic absenteeism despite the vastly improved attendance numbers over the past 18 months does not suggest frequent abandonment. (Letter from Chuck Orsland to the Prisoners’ Rights Project, dated Nov. 3, 2022, at 1.) We flatly rejected that suggestion then, and do say again today. We presume that the Department requires its officers to make regular, accurate logbook entries because they would be used for exactly this purpose. As you know, “if itis not written down, it did not happen.” People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Tri-State Zoological Park of W. Maryland, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 34 404, 412 (D. Md. 2019), aff'd, 843 F. App’x 493 (4th Cir. 2021). That said, if the Department is aware of a more accurate way to track how often it abandons this post (such as the InTime / CityTime staffing software about which plaintiffs have repeatedly inquired), we would welcome a discussion about that. In the meantime, though, the current situation is dangerously untenable. We therefore respectfully request an in-person meeting between counsel for the parties, OCC (including its fire- safety consultant), and Chief Currenti to discuss fire protection measures at West Facility and how they can be improved in light of the Department's failure to regularly staff those posts. ‘We look forward to the Department's response. Very best regards, Ish Robert M. Quackenbush ce: Nicole Austin-Best, OCC (via email)