ustxtxb_obs_1978_03_03_50_00010-00000_000.pdf

basis. The money ran out last summer, but supervisor Bill Eignus kept the office open by scrounging from other DHR division budgets. He won’t be safe from similar recurring crises until the department puts the TDC-liaison office into its budget as a line item. He and his staff are hopeful, but by no means certain, that that will happen in the coming fiscal year. Visiting with the children The maintenance of ties with their children is a serious problem for inmate mothers. Some prefer to not even try; they don’t want their children to know where they are. In one popular fabrication, the children are told their mother is in the hospital; in another, that she is away studying at nursing school or college. Believable or not, these lies cause no small measure of anxiety. And the truth comes out sooner or latertoo often in the form of taunts by playmates or schoolmates. Even for those women who choose to tell their children the truth, however, visits are infrequent. The distance and expense of reaching TDC’s remote prisons, the , indifference of the children’s caretakers, and TDC policy are all to blame. Only two visits a month are allowed; they are limited to two hours each and unused visiting time may not be saved up for longer visits. Other TDC policies governing visits make a bad situation worse. If children are brought to see their mother, they see her in a room full of strangers, and under constant surveillance. Mother and children are not allowed to touchno physical contact is permitted. \(The warden at Goree makes an exception for babies 10 MARCH 3, 1978 less than six months old: mothers may hold them. And Mountain View inmates get a once-a-year chance to touch their children on Mother’s Day, when families TDC visiting rooms are typically furnished with long counters and chairs on either side of a glass partition. Inmate and visitor are seated opposite one another, with partitions rising to slightly above adult eye level. For small adults and children, the counter is at least chest high. The decor creates a very effective barrier between mother and child. Some of the women explain to their sons and daughters that they can’t kiss and hug because the ever-present correctional officer won’t allow it, making the COs the object of much resentment. It doesn’t have to be like this. Administrators of the federal correctional institution in Fort Worth have removed many of the obstacles to family contact; their explicit policy is to sustain and reinforce the family structure as much as possible. They can’t do much about the geographic distances separating inmates from their children, but telephone calls are limited only by the family’s ability to pay for them and letters may be freely exchanged. Weekend visits take place in a large playground where the family can picnic together; child care is offered, giving husband and wife a chance to talk alone. If the children live nearby, they are allowed to visit on weekdays after school. Correctional officials in some other states have similar policies. For example, administrators of the state women’s prison in Tacoma, Washington, allow frequent visits and even weekend fur The By David Guarino When Texan John C. White took office as Democratic National Committee chairman Jan. 27, he walked smack into a vicious intra-party rules squabble that pitted White House political operatives against DNC progressives who have labored long and hard for party reform. But White knew what he was getting intoin fact, his selection as chairman was the result of this conflict, since none of the factions had any particular animus for him. The DNC split dates back to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Kenneth Curtis, former governor of Maine, was chosen by the new President in 1977 to head the party, but Curtis and the committee immediately came in for some heavy-handed treatment from White House aides, especially top presidential assistant Hamilton Jordan, who went so far as to suggest that the full committee no longer meet regularly and instead turn over some of its functions \(including the responsibility to plan for tive committee, Jordan, and a few others close to the President. The committee balked, but the White House continued either to ignore or undermine it and chairman Curtis, who finally had his fill of frustration and quit. Enter White, long-time Texas agriculture commissioner and up until two months ago, assistant U.S. secretary of agriculture. Winner -take -all The current focus of his troubles is a January report issued by the Winograd Commission, a 58-member body charged with writing delegate-selection rules for the 1980 presidential convention. Named for its chairman, former Minnesota party chief Morley Winograd, the commission was appointed in 1976 by Bob Strauss, then head of the DNC, and later expanded by Curtis, Strauss’s successor. The Carter White House could not keep its nose out of the commission’s business, however. Mark Siegel, former DNC executive director under Strauss and now a Jordan political lieutenant commission from the start, seeming to go out of his way to antagonize reformers. Siegel persuaded Winograd to cooperate in efforts to push his proposals through the commission. Taken together, Siegel’s rules changes amounted to a giant leap backward for party reformhe called for a virtual winner-take-all delegate