Ma Prisoner Phone Rates Amendment 1 to Petition Against Gtl Evercom With Affidavits 2010

• Topics: Telephones

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

AMENDMENT #1 AND SUPPLEMENT ON QUALITY OF SERVICE
TO
PETITION OF RECIPIENTS OF COLLECT CALLS FROM
PRISONERS AT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM
THE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE COST OF SUCH CALLS

James Pingeon, Esq.
Leslie Walker, Esq.
Massachusetts Correctional Legal
Services
8 Winter Street, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Patricia Garin, Esq.
Stem, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin
90 Canal Street, 5 th Floor
Boston, MA 02114

Dated: May 18, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AMENDMENT #1 AND SUPPLEMENT ON QUALITY OF SERVICE
Page
I.

BACKGROUND ................................................ 1

II.

AMENDMENT MODIFYING AND ADDING PETITIONERS .......... 1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING PETITIONERS ....... 3

IV.

PETITION SUPPLEMENT ON QUALITY OF SERVICE .............. 5
A. Connection Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
i.
GTL ............................................... 6
ii.
Evercom............................................ 10
B. Disconnected Calls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
i.
GTL ............................................... 12
ii.
Evercom............................................ 14
C. Call Reporting and Details of Charges ......................... 17
i.
GTL ............................................... 17
ii.
Evercom............................................ 19
D. Customer Service Problems .................................. 20
i.
GTL ............................................... 20
ii.
Evercom............................................ 22
E. Other Service Issues: GTL ..................................
i.
Problems with Broken or Malfunctioning Equipment. . . . ..
ii.
Excessive Recorded Warnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
iii.
Long Periods of Silence at Commencement of Calls .......

24
24
27
29

CONCLUSION.................................................. 30

APPENDIX I Petitioners and their Telephone Service Providers
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Affidavits
Affidavitsfrom Family and Friend Petitioners
A-I Affidavit of Sonia Booker dated April 30, 2010
A-2 Affidavit of Lula Bozeman dated April 29, 2010
A-3 Affidavit of Roger Carver dated May 3, 2010
A-4 Affidavit ofJean Conti dated May I, 2010
A-5 Affidavit of Barbara DiGirolamo dated May 3, 2010

A-6 Affidavit of Kimberly Eckmann dated April 29, 2010
A-7 Affidavit ofpatricia Gonet dated April 30, 2010
A-8 Affidavit of Virginia Polk dated May 3, 2010
A-9 Affidavit of Christine Rapoza dated May 5,2010
A-IO Affidavit of Shirley Turner dated May 3,2010
A-II Affidavit of Cheryl Williams dated May 4,2010
4ffidavits from Prisoner Petitioners
A-12 Affidavit of Leonardo Alvarez-Savageau dated May 3, 2010
A-13 Affidavit of David Baxter dated May 6, 2010
A-14 Affidavit ofJames Carver dated April 29, 2010
A-I5 Affidavit of Samuel Conti dated May 2,2010
A-16 Affidavit of Eric J. Mathison dated May 2,2010
A-17 Affidavit of Shirley Jay McGee dated May 6, 2010
A-18 Affidavit of Stephen Metcalf dated April 28, 2010
A-19 Affidavit of Kem1eth Moccio dated May 1,2010
A-20 Affidavit of William Nadworny dated May 1, 2010
A-21 Affidavit of Marcos U. Ramos dated April 28, 2010
A-22 Affidavit of Gerardo Rosario dated May 6, 2010
A-23 Affidavit of Edward Sarmanian dated April 28, 2010
Affidavits from Lawyer and Institutional Petitioners
A-24 Affidavit of Beverly Chorbajian, Esq. dated May 4, 2010
A-25 Affidavit ofJames R. Logar, Esq. dated April 30, 2010
A-26 Affidavit of Peter T. Sargent, Esq. dated April 29, 2010
A-27 Affidavit of Debra Beard-Baker, Esq. dated April 29, 2010
A-28 Affidavit ofJohn S. Redden, Esq. dated May 5, 2010
A-29 Affidavit of Patricia C: Voorhies dated May 3, 2010
A-30 Affidavit of Patricia Garin, Esq. dated April 30, 2010
A-31 Affidavit of Leslie Walker, Esq. dated May 4, 2010
Affidavits from Non-Petitioners
A-32 Affidavit of Peter C. Puopolo, Jr. dated May 1,20] 0

Exhibit B
GTL Advance Pay Brochure
Exhibit B-1 Advance Pay Brochure from 2007 or 2008
Exhibit B-2 Advance Pay brochure from 2009
ExhibitC
Letter of James Saba, Superintendent NCCI-Garduer to MCLS dated February 23,
2010
ExhibitD
Massachusetts Department of Correction contract with Global TeI*Link Corporation
dated February 10,2006: Selected Pages

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE

)
)
)

Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls
from Prisoners at Correctional
Institutions in Massachusetts Seeking
)
Relieffrom the Unjust and Unreasonable)
Cost of such Calls
)

D.T.C. 09-

)

AMENDMENT #1 AND SUPPLEMENT ON QUALITY OF SERVICE
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioners by their co-counsel filed the original "Petition of Recipients of Collect Calls

from Prisoners at Correctional Institutions in Massachusetts Seeking Relief from the Unjust and
Unreasonable Cost of such Calls" (Petition) with the Department of Telecommunications and
Cable (DTC) on September 1, 2009. In a letter to co-counsel Massachusetts Correctional Legal
Services dated September 29, 2009, the DTC requested clarification of Petitioners' status. That
clarification is set forth in Sections II and III below. In addition, Petitioners are requesting that
DTC investigate the pervasive quality of service issues Petitioners encounter in connection with
prisoner telephone calls. In response to DTC's September 29 letter, Petitioners provide more
details about quality of service issues in Section IV below.

AMENDMENT MODIFYING AND ADDING PETITIONERS
Petitioners request that the following changes be made to the original list of Petitioners

named in the Petition:
1. Petitioner David Hallinan, Esq. is deleted and Essex County Bar Association
Advocates Inc. is added as a new Petitioner. David Hallinan is Executive Director of Essex
County Bar Association Advocates Inc.

2. The spelling of Petitioner Lula Bozeman's last name is corrected.
3. Petitioners David Baxter and Shirley Jay McGee have moved from NCCI-Gardner to
MCI-Concord, and Petitioner Kenneth Moccio has moved from NCCI-Gardner to MCI-Shirley.
4. Raymond Gauthier passed away on January 22,2010 and is no longer a Petitioner.
5. The following individuals are hereby added as Petitioners:
a.

Barbara DiGirolamo
669 Saratoga St.
East Boston, MA 02128

Shirley Turner
116 High St.
Ipswich, MA 01938

Cheryl Williams
196 Beach St.
Quincy, MA 02170

Leonardo Alvarez-Savageau (W92556)
MCI-Shirley
P.O. Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464

James Carver (W475 14)
MCI-Shirley
P.O. Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464

Stephen Fernandes (W51196)
Old Colony Correctional Center
One Administration Road
Bridgewater, MA 02324

Anthony Giugliano (W86282)
MCI-Norfolk
2 Clark Street
Norfolk, MA 02056

Eric J. Mathison (W93154)
Old Colony Correctional Center
One Administration Road
Bridgewater, MA 02324

III.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING PETITIONERS
I. Each of the Petitioners requested prisoner telephone call service. Except for

Petitioners who are prisoners, Petitioners (i) receive telephone calls from prisoners incarcerated
in state and/or county correctional institutions in Massachusetts, and (ii) utilize collect call,
prepaid account, and/or direct bill services to pay for at least some of the calls they receive I
Petitioners who are prisoners initiate telephone calls from Massachusetts Department of
Correction (DOC) facilities and use prepaid debit-based account services maintained at DOC
facilities to pay for at least some of the calls they initiate.
2. As set forth in Appendix 1 hereto, each Petitioner other than the Prisoners' Rights
Clinic at Northeastern University Law School is the customer of record with one or more of the
following prisoner telephone providers or their billing affiliates: Evercom Systems Inc.
(Evercom); Correctional Billing Services, a billing affiliate of Evercom (CBS); Global Tel*Link
(GTL); ILD Teleservices Inc., a billing affiliate of GTL (ILD); and/or Digital Solutions/hnnate
Telephone, Inc. (DSI). Some Petitioners are billed for their prisoner telephone calls through
Verizon, and are customers of record with Verizon.
3. Petitioners who are prisoners, all of whom are incarcerated in DOC facilities, maintain
prepaid debit calling accounts with DOC that are debited for telephone calls paid by the
prisoner. 2 DOC acts as a conduit to GTL of funds from all prisoners with prepaid debit calling
accounts. According to Peter Macchi, DOC's recently retired Director of Administrative
Services, DOC collects money from prisoners for debit account calls and transfers such amounts

1 See footnote 7 for an explanation of the different payment options non-prisoner Petitioners use to pay
for prisoner telephone calls.
2 For purposes of the Petition, prepaid accounts set up by prisoners are generally referred to as debit
acconnts or debit calling accounts. Prepaid accounts established by non-prisoner Petitioners are referred
to as prepaid or advance pay accounts.

to GTL monthly.3 Each evening, DOC sends an electronic file to GTL detailing the amount of
money DOC has collected on behalf of each prisoner who deposited money for debit account
calls that day. This allows GTL to update and credit each such prisoner's debit calling account
daily.
Any DOC prisoner with available funds can establish a debit account with GTL simply
by asking that money be transferred from her or his inmate account to a pre-paid, debit-based
calling account. Mr. Macchi estimates that at least one-third of calls made by DOC prisoners are
paid from prisoners' debit calling accounts 4 Since DOC housed 11,315 prisoners in its facilities
as of December 28, 2009, it is likely that between 3,500 and 4,000 prisoners now utilize debit
calling accounts to pay for at least some of their telephone calls. 5 This number is expected to
grow as telephone calls paid from prisoners' debit accounts cost 25% less than collect, prepaid,
or direct-billed calls.
4. With respect to the Prisoners' Rights Clinic at Northeastern University Law School,
the customer of record is Northeastern University. Calls are then broken out by "budget
centers," including the Prisoners' Rights Clinic, which is responsible for payment of the calls
billed to it including prisoner-initiated calls. 6
5. Each Petitioner is responsible for paying for the telephone services rendered to the
Petitioner by Evercom, GTL, and/or DSI. Each Petitioner pays for calls it is responsible for by
making payments to Evercom, CBS, GTL, ILD, DSI, Verizon, and/or DOC (in the case of

J Conversation with Peter Macchi, October 7, 2009. The description of how GTL updates its prisoner
telephone accounts in this paragraph is based on that conversation.
4

Id .

5 DOC Quarterly Overcrowding Report for the Fourth Quarter 2009, p. 3, available online at
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/doc/researchJeports/4th_09 _overcrowding.pdf.
6 Affidavit of Patricia C. Voorhies, attached as Exh. A-29, 'Ii 2.

telephone calls paid from prisoners' debit calling accounts).7 See Appendix I for a list of the
telephone service provider(s) utilized by each Petitioner.

IV.

PETITION SUPPLEMENT ON QUALITY OF SERVICE
Virtually all individual Petitioners have experienced some quality of service problem

with their prisoner telephone service provider. In general, the family and friends of prisoners
and prisoners themselves all experienced more (and more severe) quality of service problems
than did Petitioners who are individual attorneys or legal services offices.
Data in this section are drawn primarily from Affidavits submitted by Petitioners and
attached as Exhibits A-I to A-32 hereto. Based on the data collected, quality of service issues
fall into five general categories: problems with poor connections and difficulty hearing the other
party; disconnected or dropped calls; failure to provide details of calls and call charges; customer
service issues; and other problems. Data have been organized into these five general areas.
Separate sub-sections for responses relating to GTL and Evercom have been included for the first
four categories where quality of service complaints were lodged against both companies. The
final section contains additional service problems identified by GTL telephone customers who
are DOC prisoners. 8

7 Verizon no longer provides direct telephone service to prisoners as Evercom, GTL and DSl do. (DSl
provides service in MA only to the Norfolk County Correctional Center.) Petitioners who receive collect
telephone calls from prisoners and have Verizon accounts are billed by Verizon on behalf of CBS and
lLD for those calls, subject to credit caps set by GTL and Evercom. Other Petitioners who receive
prisoner telephone calls but do not have Verizon accounts must set up prepaid accounts or seek to be
billed directly by the telephone provider if they wish to pay for prisoner-initiated telephone calls. In
October, 2009 GTL instituted a policy limiting the amount of telephone calls that a party billed through
Verizon can receive in a month to $75. If that limit is reached in any month, the recipient will no longer
qualify for collect calls paid through Verizon but will have to set up a prepaid account with GTL, apply
for a direct bill account, or ask the prisoner(s) the recipient receives calls from to establish and use a
prepaid debit calling account set up by the prisoner( s) with DOC.
8 More information is available about telephone service problems at DOC facilities than at county
facilities because 16 DOC prisoners are Petitioners. Debit calling is not available to county prisoners, so
only DOC prisoners can be telephone company customers and therefore qualify to be Petitioners. Five
Petitioners are family members and friends of current or recently released county prisoners.

Connection Problems

i.GTL
Poor connection problems, including difficulty hearing a party, static, echoes,
unexplained silences, crossed lines, etc. are one of the most pervasive quality of service issues
experienced by Petitioners and others who make or receive calls from DOC-run facilities. All
six Petitioners who are family members and friends of prisoners in DOC facilities experienced
poor reception or connection problems at least part of the time as did other GTL customers who
contacted MCLS but are not Petitioners. A Petitioner who is the fiance of a prisoner at NCClGardner and receives at least four calls a day from him remarked that almost all the calls she
receives from him have poor reception: "sometimes his voice is broken up, or he'll sound
muffled, like he is underwater.,,9 Her fiance tells her she cuts in and out sometimes, and asks,
"Are you three? Are you there?"IO The Petitioner who is the mother of the same prisoner
estimated that at least one-third of the fourteen calls she receives each week from him had static
or some other problem with the connection, including hearing other prisoners' voices on the
line. I I Another Petitioner who usually speaks with her son at the same institution three times a
week reported that reception is "generally terrible," and that often she can barely hear him. 12
The aunt of a prisoner at MCl-Norfolk, also a Petitioner, reported that she "usually" had
difficulty hearing her nephew, and that he sometimes had difficulty hearing her during the one or
two calls a week she receives from him. 13 The brother of a prisoner at MCr-Shirley who speaks
with him twice a day estimated he had a bad connection 20-30% of the time. 14

Affidavit of Cheryl Williams, attached as Exhibit A-ll, ~'Ii 3, 4,
Id. ~ 4. See similar report of prisoner Petitioner referenced at fn. 21.
11 Affidavit of Jean Conti, attached as Exhibit A-4, 'If'li 3, 5.
12 Affidavit of Virginia Polk, attached as Exhibit A-8, 'Ii~ 4, 6.
11 Affidavit of Barbara DiGirolamo, attached as Exhibit A-5, ~ 3,5.
14 Affidavit of Peter Puopolo, Jr., attached as Exhibit A-32 'Ii 3.

The father of another prisoner at MCI-Shirley infonned us that poor reception is "a
frequent problem" for the four-to-five weekly calls from his son IS He noted difficulty hearing
his son and vice-versa. 16 This Petitioner reported it was especially problematic because often
when the connection is bad and he is straining to hear his son, he turns up the volume on his
receiver, and suddenly a recording will come on that is very loud ("blasts into my ear"). 17 It
presents a marked contrast to the often faintly audible sound of his son's voice. The girlfriend of
this prisoner at MCl-Shirley also reported that almost everyone of the daily calls she receives
involved a bad connection, with her boyfriend sounding garbled and words cut off as they
speak. 18
Almost all prisoner Petitioners reported significant problems with poor connections.
Three frequent callers housed at NCCI-Gardner noted poor sound quality, with the inability of
one party (or both) to understand the other, and sometimes the inability of parties to even hear
one another. 19 The son of the Petitioner mentioned in the previous paragraph who tries to make
two calls each day from MCI-Shirley to family members estimates that 90% of his calls have
some problem with the connection.

He reported several calls with his daughter during which

he would suddenly hear her ask, "Daddy? Daddy? Are you there?" while he was speaking, and
vice versa, where he heard nothing but silence while his daughter would later confinn that she
could still hear him. 21 When speaking with his father over a bad connection, this Petitioner

Affidavit of Roger Carver, attached as Exhibit A-3, "il"if 3, 5.
I6ld., "if 5
17 ld.
18 Affidavit of Kimberly Eckmann, attached as Exhibit A-6, "if 3.
19 Affidavits of Samuel Conti, William Nadwomy, and Marcos Ramos, attached as Exhibits A-IS, A-20,
and A-21, respectively.
20 Affidavit of James Carver, attached as Exhibit A-14,"if"if 3, 4.
21 ld. "if 4. See also report of Petitioner at fn. 10.
15

regularly finds himself shouting so his father can hear but other prisoners in the area can hear
everything as well n Any hope of privacy is gone.
One Petitioner at NCCI-Gardner estimated that he could not hear the individual on the
other end clearly and vice-versa for about 50% of the 25 calls he makes per week, noting that
"[tJhere are very few calls with a clear connection on both ends.,,23 Another prisoner Petitioner
at NCCI-Gardner who makes 14-24 calls per week noted that poor connections occur almost
daily, wiili chopped words or the inability of one party to hear another 24 A prisoner Petitioner at
MCI-Concord who places calls every day stated that for about two-thirds of his calls he seemed
to be talking to his family through static, or voices were otherwise hard to hear. 25 He said that
the problem has caused him to call less frequently26 Another prisoner Petitioner at Old Colony
Correctional Center reported cOlmection problems on almost every one of the ten calls he makes
each week, with sound that is choppy, and difficulty of one party hearing the other. 27 A prisoner
Petitioner who recently moved from NCCI-Gardner to MCI-Shirley reported that at Gardner,
about 50% of the ten calls a week he made had bad connections, but that at Shirley "the phones
here are even worse.,,28
Other prisoners who make calls less frequently also noted that poor connection problems
occurred with many if not most of their calls 29 Anoilier noted that crossed lines were a regular
connectivity problem, with prisoners being able to overhear other prisoners' calls, including

ld.

Affidavit of William Nadwomy, attached as Exhibit A-20, ~~ 3,4.
Affidavit of Marcos U. Ramos, attached as Exhibit A-21, 1~ 3, 4.
25 Affidavit of Shirley Jay McGee, attached as Exhibit A-17, ~ 4.
26 Id.
27 Affidavit of Eric J. Mathison, attached as Exhibit A-16, 1~ 3, 4.
28 Affidavit of Kenneth Moccio, attached as Exhibit A-19, ~, 3, 5, and comment in cover note from Mr.
Moccio to MCLS, included in Exhibit A-19 ..
29 See., e.g., Mfidavit of Stephen Metcalf, attached as Exhibit A-IS,
3, 4 (bad connections "95% of the
time"); Mfidavit of Edward Sarmanian, attached as Exhibit A-23, 1 4 ("almost always hard to hear").

attorney calls 30 Prisoners reported that problems with bad connections appeared to be directly
related to broken or malfunctioning equipment, including damaged telephone sets and service
lines. Section E.i, below, outlines prisoners' reports of broken or damaged equipment.
Petitioners who are attorneys or legal services offices also reported problems with
telephone sound quality and connections for phone calls handled by GTL. One attorney who
receives between 70 and 100 calls per month from DOC prisoners reported that up to 50% of her
calls had poor reception.)! The Prisoners' Rights Clinic at Northeastern University School of
Law reported that it was "frequently" difficult to hear prisoners on their main telephone line
unless they shouted, and that other voices, static or echoes could be heard during 10% of the
calls on the administrator's line. 32
Other legal services offices that receive prisoner phone calls experience less frequent
problems with connections. For example, the Brockton office of Petitioner Committee for Public
Counsel Services (CPCS)33 reports that about four of the approximately 45 calls the office
receives each month from DOC prisoners (or just under 9%) have connection problems 34 At
MCLS, which receives between 1200 and 1500 calls from DOC facilities each month, prisoners
are difficult to hear on between 5 and 10% of the calls 35 On occasion there have been more
serious cOlmection problems with calls from an entire institution that have lasted for longer
periods oftime. For example, in late 2008 and early 2009, all calls from the Massachusetts

30 Affidavit of Gerardo Rosario, attached as Exhibit A-22, 'II 4. See also Affidavit of Jean Conti, attached
as Exhibit A-4, 'II 5 (reports "hearing other prisoners' voices on the line.").
31 Affidavit of Beverly Chorbajian, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-24, '\I'll 3,4.
32 Affidavit ofpatricia Voorhies, attached as Exhibit A-29, 1 3.
J3 CPCS has more than 20 offices across the Commonwealth. Its Public Defender Division employs over
200 attorneys throughout the state. Another 3,000 attorneys (bar advocates) also represent the indigent in
their criminal cases under the aegis of CPCS. In 2008, CPCS paid over $100,000 for telephone calls from
prisoners including reimbnrsements to bar advocates.
34 Affidavit of John S. Redden, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-28, 1 3.
35 Affidavit of Leslie Walker, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-31, 1 3.

Treatment Center had a loud echo that made it difficult for the parties to hear one another. 36 The
problem took several months to fix, and there are still calls that come in that are difficult to hear
because of static or faint or garbled voices. 37 The CPCS Alternative Commitment Unit in
Brockton, which receives almost 300 calls from the Treatment Center each month, estimates that
between 15% and 20% of those calls have too much static to hear anything, as well as a less
frequent problem with echoing voices on the line. 38
An attorney who works for Stern Shapiro Weisberg & Garin reported a distinct difference

in the quality of prisoner telephone calls she received at work versus those she received on her
personal cellular phone at home.

The sound quality of calls received at the office was

generally acceptable, with perhaps one in six or seven (14%-16%) exhibiting a problem in
connection or reception. 4o But connectivity issues rose 100% for calls she received on her
personal phone at home: at least one-third (33%) of these calls had a terrible connection and
were hard to hear versus the 14-16% with connection problems at the office. 41 Her experience
highlights the stark difference in quality of prisoner calls between those received by individual
consumers, on one hand, and those received by attorneys and institutions, on the other.
ii. Evereom
Four of the five family and friend Petitioners who are Evercom customers complained of
problems with poor connections. The two family/friend Petitioners who received calls from
Suffolk County House of Correction reported the worst problems. One received two-to-three
calls per day (14-to-20 calls per week) from her fiance and reported that on most calls at least

36Id.
37 Id.
38 Affidavit of Debra Beard-Baker, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-27, ~ 3.
39 Affidavit of Patricia Garin, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-30, ~~ 3, 4.
40

!d. ~ 4.
Id.

one party had difficulty hearing the other.

She reported problems including static on the line,

clicking noises, and voices fading in and out 43 The other recipient of calls from Suffolk County
received four-to-seven calls per week from her son; she also complained that one party usually
had difficulty hearing the other party44 She complained that when the connection was really bad
they would hang up and her son would call her back on another phone, incurring another
connection charge. 45 The family/friend Petitioner who receives weekly calls from her son at the
Bristol County House of Correction reported that sometimes she could not hear any sound on the
line after the cOIDlection was established.

The family/friend Petitioner whose husband was at the Lawrence Correctional
Alternative Center received one or more calls a day.47 She reported that connection problems
were a constant problem, with voices fading in and out, static, or one party able to hear but not
the other.48 Sometimes the connection would be good for a few minutes but all of a sudden
voices would be hard to hear. The problem could sometimes but not always be resolved when
her husband would call back on a different telephone set. But each redialed call "meant I was
charged another $3.00 connection fee because of Evercom's poor service." She reported being
able to hear other prisoners on phones next to her husband shouting to be heard, and cursing the
phones because of problems with the telephone lines. During high volume call times the sound
quality could be really challenging, with her husband sounding muffled, "as ifhe were speaking
underwater."

Affidavit of Christine Rapoza, attached as Exhibit A-9, ~~ 5,6.
Id. ~ 6.
44 Affidavit of Lula Bozeman, attached as Exhibit A-2, ~4i 4,5.
45 Id. ~ 5.
46 Affidavit of Patricia Gonet, attached as Exhibit A-7, ~ 4,5.
47 Affidavit of Shirley Turner, attached as Exhibit A-IO, ~ 4,5.
48 !d. 4i 5. The remainder of this paragraph is based on ~ 5 of Ms. Tumer's Affidavit, Exhibit A-IO.
42

Legal services offices and attorneys also reported problems with telephone connections
or the sound quality of calls from county facilities. One attorney reported that about half of the
8-to-12 calls she receives weekly from county prisoners had poor reception 49 MCLS staff
estimates that approximately 5% of the 90-100 calls they receive per month from prisoners via
Evercom have connection problems. 50 CPCS offices also reported connection problems with
calls from county institutions than from GTL facilities. For example, the Brockton Public
Defenders' Office reported that 3-4% of its approximately 400 calls per month from county
facilities had connection problems 51

Disconnected Calls
i.GTL

Petitioners (and others) who are family members and friends who receive calls from
prisoners in DOC facilities report problems with dropped or cut-off calls. One Petitioner
reported that she receives one phone call daily from her boyfriend at MCI-Shirley, and that one
or two calls are cut off prematurely every week. 52 Another gentleman who receives 14 calls
from his brother each week at the same facility reports an even higher dropped or cut -off call rate
of about 50%, with six-to-eight calls dropped per week. 53 The Petitioner who receives calls from
her nephew at MCI-Norfolk reports prematurely disconnected calls are an occasional problem,
generally prompted by the system's purported detection of three-way calling even though her
phone lacks that capability. 54

Affidavit of Beverly Chorbajian, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-24, ~~ 3, 4.
Affidavit of Leslie Walker, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-31, ~ 4.
51 Affidavit of John S. Redden, Esq., attached as Exhihit A-28, ~ 3.
52 Affidavit of Kimherly Eckmaml, attached as Exhibit A-6, ~ 3.
53 Affidavit of Peter J. Puopolo, Jr., attached as Exhibit A-32, ~ 3.
54 Affidavit of Barbara DiGirolamo, attached as Exhibit A -5, ~ 6. When the telephone monitoring system
detects what it interprets as an attempt to add a third party, a recording comes on telling the parties that
the call is being discOlmected for that reason. At that point the call is cut off.
49

Prisoners also report dropped or cut-off calls. One Petitioner at Gardner reported that in
the past he usually made six-to-nine telephone calls per week, but because about 50% were
prematurely dropped or cut-off because a third-party call was erroneously detected by GTL, he
cut back on the number of calls he now makes. 55 "This forces me and other inmates to call again
and be charged another connection fee," he added.

Another Petitioner at NCCI-Gardner

reported that he calls his 82 year-old father once or twice a week, and that every second or third
call is cut-off with a warning that three-way calling has been detected, even though his father's
ancient phone cannot make third party calls. 57 Two other prisoners at NCCI-Gardner who are
frequent callers report a lower but still significant percentage of calls that are cut off due to
erroneous detection of third party calls: 20% in one case, 10% in the other 58 A fifth prisoner
who tracked his calls closely while he was at Gardner reported that over 60 calls were cut-off in
the course of a two-month period due to three-way calling detection even though the recipients
of his calls did not have that capability. 59 The cut-off calls represented 20% of the
approximately 250-to-300 calls he made in that period. 60 A sixth Petitioner at Gardner reports
that calls are sometimes cut off when another prisoner speaks to him while he is on the phone
due to the system's incorrect detection of a third party call, and on occasion calls are cut-off for
the same reason when someone walks by and the phone picks up their footsteps.61

55 Affidavit of Gerardo Rosario, attached as Exhibit A-22, ~~ 3,5.
"Id.,5.
57 Affidavit of Edward Sannanian, attached as Exhibit A-23, ~~ 3, 4.
58 Affidavits of Marcos U. Ramos, attached as Exhibit A-21 , ~ 5 (20%), and William Nadwomy, attached
as Exhibit A-20, ~ 5 (10%) ..
59 Affidavit of Shirley Jay McGee, attached as Exhibit A-17, ~ 3.
60 Id.
61 Affidavit of Samuel Conti, attached as Exhibit A-15, ~ 5.

A Petitioner at MCI-Shirley also reported that 20% of the approximately fourteen calls he
makes each week were prematurely cut -off or disconnected. 62 Calls are sometimes dropped after
the call has been accepted by the called party, but before the parties can say anything to one
another. "My father, brother, girlfriend and I have all paid for dropped calls where there was no
connection. "
Dropped or cut-off calls are a problem for attorneys as well. For example, one attorney
Petitioner whose office receives between 70 and 100 calls per month from DOC facilities
conservatively estimated that 20% of these calls were dropped prematurely63 The Alternative
Commitment Unit of CPCS reported that approximately 10% of the almost 300 calls it received
from the Massachusetts Treatment Center were cut-off when the recipient of the call pressed "0"
to accept the call. 64 A Stem, Shapiro attorney reported that official attorney/client calls received
in the office are rarely dropped, but when she worked at home for a period of time, calls from
state prisoners received on her personal cellular telephone were frequently dropped, generally
because three-way calling was purportedly detected, even though there was never any third party
or attempt to add one. 65
ii. Evercom

Recipients of prisoner calls from county facilities serviced by Evercom reported
problems with dropped or cut-off calls, though with less frequency than recipients of calls
serviced by GTL. Two Petitioners who are family/friends of prisoners and received calls from
the Suffolk County House of Correction both reported regular problems with dropped or cut-off
calls. One, who received 20-to-30 calls per month from her son while he was incarcerated,
62 Affidavit of James Carver, attached as Exhibit A-14, ~~ 3,6. The remainder of this paragraph is based
on' 6 of Mr. Carver's Affiavit.
63 Affidavit of Beverly Chorbajian, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-24, ,,3,4.
64 Affidavit of Debra Beard-Baker, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-27, ~ 3.
65 Affidavit of Patricia Garin, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-30, , 5.

reports that about five per month (or 15-25% of the calls she received) were cut off due to the
detection of a third party connection, which the Petitioner states she never had the capability to
do. 66 The second Petitioner, who speaks by phone with her fiancee 14-to-20 times per week on a
regular basis, reports that two-to-three calls were dropped weekly (or 15-16% of calls received),
sometimes more. But since he was moved to the Worcester County House of Correction in
February, she reports that the situation is worse: the telephones are "extraordinarily sensitive to
any extraneous sound. Now ifI sneeze or breathe too loudly, the telephone disconnects.,,67
Calls also disconnect "when prisoners' yelling in the background gets too loud." A recent record
of her calls shows many calls of very short duration (less than five minutes) that appear to be
prematurely cut -off since they were immediately followed by new calls of longer duration. 68 She
also reports that calls are cut off for no reason, sometimes before she has connected with or
spoken to her fiance. She reports being charged for these calls because the calls last just over
one minute, in some cases just by seconds, and Evercom refuses to credit cut-off calls if they last
over one minute. Since the recording that announces the call to the caller lasts for more than 40
seconds and time is needed for the mechanics of the call to be completed, it is not unusual that
the call set -up would take a minute or more before the parties can speak. To be charged for a
call where there was no connection "is really frustrating and completely unjustified."
Attorney Petitioners also reported problems with cut-off calls from county facilities. One
practitioner estimated that 20% of the 8-to-12 calls she receives from county prisoners each week

Affidavit of Lula Bozeman, attached as Exhibit A-2, ~~ 4, 6.
67 Affidavit of Christine Rapoza, attached as Exhibit A-9, ~ 7. The remainder oftms paragraph is based
on ~ 7 of Ms. Rapoza's Affidavit.
68 See attachment to Ms. Rapoza's Affidavit. When a customer's record of charges shows that calls
normally last 15 or 20 minutes (that is, the institution's maximum call length), a call oftwo-, three-, or
four-minutes (and even more) that is immediately followed by another call oflonger duration, it can be
assumed that the initial call was prematurely cut-off (or there was some other problem with the
connection), especially when it costs $3.00 to reconnect a call.
66

are cut-off prematurely due to the system's erroneous detection of third-party calling 69 A
second attorney Petitioner reported that calls he receives via Evercom are sometimes cut-off
when he picks up the call after his assistant has put it on hold, also due to the detection of thirdparty calling. 70
A three-way call detection system can be calibrated to be more or less sensitive to
different auditory and other cues that will prompt the disconnection of a call. TIle experience of
the Petitioner with calls from two different county institutions illustrates this capability: calls
from her fiance at the Worcester County facility were far more prone to disconnect due to
erroneous detection of third-party calling attempts than calls from the Suffolk County facilityn
It is clear that three-way calling detection systems that are overly (and unnecessarily) sensitive

can prematurely cut off prisoner telephone calls where no attempt to add a third party has been
made, as attested to by this Petitioner and many others in this section.72 Indeed, the problem of
prematurely terminated prisoner telephone calls was the subject of an IS-month investigation by
the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), which found last summer that a GTL subsidiary
that provided service to the Miami jail overcharged the recipients of collect calls as much as $6.3
million over seven years. 7J FPSC found that the provider's three-way call detection software
was cutting off calls even where there was no attempt to make a three-way call or otherwise
avoid the security blocks on the system. Petitioners urge the DTC to undertake a similar
investigation in Massachusetts to insure that prisoner telephone calls in Massachusetts are not

Affidavit of Beverly Chorbajian, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-24, ~~ 3, 4.
70 Affidavit of Peter T. Sargent, Esq., attached as Exhibit A-26, , 3.
71 See discussion supra in the first paragraph of this section beginning at fn. 67.
72 See text accompanying footnotes 54-61, 67-70.
73 Mary Ellen Klas, Phone company fined Jor overcharges, Miami Herald, August 18, 2009 available at
http://wv..W.miamiherald.coml2009/0 8/18/11906 80/phone-company -fined-foroverchames.html?storvlink=mirelated (last accessed on-line on May 17, 2010).
69

prematurely terminated unless bona fide attempts to evade telephone security measures are in
fact initiated.

Call Reporting and Details of Charges
i. GTL

Petitioners who are GTL customers who pay for prisoner calls with prepaid accounts are
provided no record of call details or charges except in very limited circumstances. 74 GTL
telephone customers who prepay for prisoner telephone calls they receive or make using GTL's
Advance Pay service or a prisoner debit calling account generally do not receive and have no
access to documentation reflecting what they are being charged for calls or telephone service or
other expenses deducted from their accounts by GTL or its billing agent. The only record GTL's
prepaid customers have of their prisoner telephone transactions is a cancelled check, a credit card
charge entry, a debit slip, or an accounting entry on an Inmate Transaction Statement. These
customers, including many Petitioners, are upset that they have no way of checking how money
is deducted from their accounts, what amounts have been charged for specific calls, what
services or fees they are being charged, or whether the amounts they are billed are accurate or
not. 75 Once funds are deposited with GTL through either type of prepaid account, the company
has sole control over how fees and charges are handled and deducted from the account. The only
on-going notification that GTL's prepaid customers receive of their current aggregate account
balances is an oral recorded statement at the beginning of a calL They receive no other
information about how prepaid funds are actually spent. GTL is simply not accountable to its

Recipients of collect calls that are not prepaid do not experience this problem since they receive details
of calls made (including per call cost) with their monthly phone bills from Verizon. Recipients of
prisoner calls who are direct bill customers of GTL, including most institutions and many attorneys,
receive call details and charges with their GTL bills.
75 See. e.g.,Affidavit of Virginia Polk, Exh. A-S"r 7; Affidavit of Cheryl Williams, Exh. A-II, ~ 5;
Affidavit of Samuel Conti, Exh. A-15, ~ 6; Affidavit of Gerardo Rosario, Exh. A-22, ~ 6.
74

prepaid customers for the use of its customers' prepaid funds. Billing errors carmot be fixed
because they cannot be identified.
GTL is in the midst of a campaign to move all of its collect call recipients (other than
those with direct billing accounts) to some type of prepaid service 76 As a result, an ever
increasing percentage of GTL telephone customers who want to talk with their loved ones and
friends in- or outside of prison are being required to deposit funds into a GTL Advance Pay
account (and incur a service fee each time funds are deposited into the account) or a debit calling
account at the prison. These accounts are essentially black holes, blind accounts into which
funds are deposited but about which customers are provided no details other tharl their current
outstanding balances. One Petitioner whose son is incarcerated at NCCI-Gardner last received
documentation reflecting charges for individual calls in 2007 77 Her repeated requests for
records of call details since then have been unsuccessful. 78
GTL customers with prepaid accounts complain that they have no idea how the money in
their GTL accounts is being spent or otherwise accounted. for. One Petitioner reported that in
November 2009 she had a bala:I1ce on an Advance Pay account but the next month, in December,
the balance was zero even though she had not used that account to pay for a:I1y calls. 79 She

Beginning in October 2009, GTL lowered the monthly credit limit for real collect calls (that is, collect
calls that are not paid from a prepaid account) from $200/month to $75/month and announced that once
the credit limit was reached by a customer, the only way the customer could continue to receive prisoner
calls was to set up a prepaid Advance Pay account with GTL, or to have the prisoner initiating the call set
up a debit calling account at the institution where s/he is incarcerated. The practical impact of the change
is to force collect call customers who spend $75 or more per month on prisoner phone calls, even those
with good credit histories, to use GTL prepaid accounts. The change was never announced directly to
collect call customers as the only notices of the change were those posted at DOC facilities.
77 Affidavit of Virginia Polk, attached as Exhibit A-8, ',[ 7.
78Id.
79 Affidavit of Cheryl Williams, attached as Exhibit A-ll, ',[ 5.

complained "I also do not know when GTL is deducting money from my account for charges
other than phone calls, or for what reason.,,80
GTL turns a deaf ear to routine requests that documentation be provided to substantiate
the charges their customers are paying. Given the serious problem with poor connections and
dropped or prematurely cut-off calls that require customers to place calls repeatedly, the absence
of any detailed accounting of how telephone customers' funds are actually spent is particularly
disturbing. Even the most transparent and conscientious company makes mistakes. Where there
is neither transparency nor an opportunity for customers to determine how their funds are being
spent, mistakes cannot be corrected or rooted out because they cannot be seen. DTC must act to
correct this egregious, anti-consumer business practice.
ii. Evercom
Evercom telephone customers with prepaid accounts do not receive printed
documentation reflecting call charges, but customers with Internet access can check their
accounts on-line, including call details and other charges. However, prepaid Evercom customers
who do not have Internet access are in the same position as GTL's prepaid customers: they have
no way to determine the amounts they are being charged for specific calls or what services or
fees Evercom is assessing against their accounts. A Petitioner who is the mother of a former
county prisoner never saw a detailed accounting of call or service charges from Evercom because
she does not have Internet access.

She had no idea how the money she deposited into her

prepaid Evercom account was spent, how much individual calls cost her, or what other fees and
services might have been charged to her account 82 Evercom must provide all of its customers

8°Id.
81 Affidavit of Sonia Booker, attached as Exhibit A-I, ~ 4. See also the problem another Evercom
customer had with customer service related to Internet accessibility at fn. 97, infra.

Id.

with documentation of call and related charges deducted from their prepaid accounts, even those
without Internet access.

Customer Service Problems

i.GTL
Family members and friends of prisoners relayed several complaints about GTL customer
service. One Petitioner with an excellent credit rating who has been receiving collect calls from
her nephew at MCI-Norfolk for several years described a November 2009 incident where the
GTL agent she reached was abusive and made a disparaging comment about prison families 83
The Petitioner was attempting to reestablish her monthly credit limit of$75 so that she could
continue to receive collect calls without setting up a prepaid account 84 She reports being on
hold for each call an average of 40 minutes, and then told a GTL agent would call her back; one
of the returned calls came from GTL at 11:35 p.m. 85 Her summary comment: "[GTL's] agents
are rude, crude and insulting and need to learn how to speak more civilly to customers."S6
The mother of a prisoner at NCCI-Gardner, a Petitioner who was herself in customer
service for over 30 years, has been trying for over two years to get a printout of call charges she
has paid from her Advance Pay account 87 She requested call documentation on several
occasions in 2008 and again in November 2009 but has received nothing in response to those
requests. She believes the agents have no interest in genuinely helping her. The agents made her

Affidavit of Barbara DiGirolamo, attached as Exhibit A-5, 'Ii 7.
Id. Effective October 2009, GTL lowered the credit limit for its collect call customers, i.e., those billed
through Verizon, from $200 to $75. When Ms. DiGirolamo exceeded the new $75 limit in October by a
few dollars, she lost the ability to receive collect calls. See fu. 76. She was attempting to have the $75
limit -- and the ability to receive collect as opposed to prepaid calls -- reinstated.
85 Id. See also Affidavit of Leonardo Alvarez-Savageau, attached as Exhibit A-12, 'Ii 5 (When GTL
customer service calls back in response to a call, "it's very late, when everyone is sleeping.").
86 Affidavit of Barbara DiGirolamo, id.
87 Affidavit of Virginia Polk, attached as Exhibit A-8, 'Ii 8. The remainder of this paragraph is based on 'Ii
8 of Ms. Polk's Affidavit.
83

feel as if she was imposing on or aggravating them. She speculated that she would have been
fired had she treated her customers the way GTL agents treat her.
Direct bill customers, including most attorney and legal services offices Petitioners,
registered fewer complaints with customer service than other individual customers. In large
measure this is because direct bill customers are assigned special account managers who are
accessible, generally polite, and able to resolve issues directly, or at least willing to investigate
service issues.
The difference in customer service treatment between attorneys and legal services offices,
on the one hand, and other individual customers, on the other, is highlighted by the experience of
a Petitioner who is the father of a prisoner. He reported his initial frustration dealing with GTL
customer service (concerning increasing the new $75 credit limit on collect calls) and getting a
"classic run-around" from them: being referred to someone who couldn't help him and didn't
know who could. 88 His experience changed when he learned the number of a special customer
representative who normally deals with attorneys and other large direct bill telephone customers:
this agent resolved the issue and restored the Petitioner's former credit limit in one cal1. 89 GTL's
treatment of this Petitioner contrasts starkly with that of the first Petitioner described in this
section, who contacted GTL about the very same issue. 9o
Prisoners must rely on written correspondence with GTL to deal with their customer
service issues since they cannot contact GTL by telephone. One prisoner Petitioner contacted
GTL customer service "on many occasions" concerning the company's failure to properly credit
his debit calling account for calls that were cut off due to the erroneous detection of third party

Affidavit of Roger Carver, attached as Exhibit A-3, ~ 4.
!d.
90 See discussion supra at footnotes 83-86.

88
89

calls 91 GTL finally contacted him to say that they would credit him for dropped calls that
required him to call back and incur another connection charge. Subsequently GTL info=ed him
that they would not reimburse him because the calls under dispute were made to cellular phones.
He reported he never called cell phones, brought a claim in small claims court last November,
and was reimbursed for the call connection fees he incurred when he had to call someone back
after being disconnected due to false detection of a three-way call. 92
Another prisoner Petitioner resorted to filing a complaint with the FCC in an attempt to
get the answers to his questions about GTL' s charges and service 93 He received records of
disputed calls from GTL after more than ten months of requests and only after he filed the FCC
complaint. 94 Prisoners with GTL debit calling accounts - indeed all customers provided
telephone service by GTL - are entitled to responsive, courteous customer service
representatives who deal with their telephone service complaints and issues in a timely manner.

ii. Evercom
As was the case with GTL, individual, non-attorney customers generally had worse
customer service experiences than attorneys and institutions. Three Petitioners all reported that
91 Affidavit of Shirley Jay McGee, attached as Exhibit A-17, ~ 3. The remainder of this paragraph is
based on ~ 3 ofMr. McGee's Affidavit.
92 GTL seems to be of two minds with respect to the use of cellular phones to receive collect calls from
prisoners. On one hand, they argued to Mr. McGee that dropped calls made to cell phones are not
reimbursable. On the other hand, GTL recognizes the money-making potential of calls to cell phones:
calls are more likely to be discOimected (see. e.g., the experience of Ms. Garin described supra in the text
at footnotes 66 and 67), so the company stands to earn additional connection surcharges when parties
immediately reconnect to fmish an aborted call. The company's original brochure for prisoners and
customers who needed to set up a prepaid Advance Pay account to receive prisoner calls specifically
noted the problem: the section titled "how to avoid disconnection" lists "DON'T use a cell phone" as one
of eight helpful tips to avoid call disconnection. See Exhibit B-1, a copy of the relevant page from the
brochure. But a more recent brochure lists only six helpful tips to avoid call disconnection. It no longer
warns customers not to use cell phones (or cordless phones). See Exhibit B-2, a copy of the newer
brochure. The company carmot have it both ways: their three-way call detection technology must be
calibrated so that calls to cell phones (and cordless phones) do not prompt erroneous third-party call
detections and premature termination oflegitimate calls.
93 Affidavit of Marcos Ramos, attached as Exhibit A-21, ~ 6.

!d.

dealing with Evercom customer service was a frustrating challenge. The mother of a former
county prisoner noted that she never actually spoke with a human being at Evercom about
service problems: all she ever got was a recording. 95 A second Petitioner, whose fiance is
currently incarcerated in Worcester County, reports that Evercom refuses to credit her for calls
where there was never a cOI1I1ection if the call supposedly lasted for more than one minute. 96
The wife of a former prisoner noted her "serious problems with Evercom's customer
service." 97 They were "completely unhelpful." This Petitioner was told that if she wanted a
credit for problem calls, she had to download a fonn from the company's website and mail it in.
She explained she couldn't access the web, and asked if they could mail her a copy of the form.
They refused. The Petitioner was unable to file claims for calls with bad cOI1I1ections. Evercom
did offer to issue a refund for prematurely terminated calls but only if staff could listen to a tape
of disputed calls. She thought this would have been an unwarranted invasion of her privacy.98
The contrast in customer service treatment between non-attorney and attorney customers
is highlighted by one Petitioner's experiences with Evercom. This Petitioner, an attorney,
encountered a great deal of difficulty trying to contact customer service when he initially sought
assistance from Evercom, including the extraordinary diffi.culty of speaking with a live person. 99
Once he contacted the unit assigned to deal witll attorneys' and other special customers' service
issues, his customer service problems ended. He was given a special number he could call with
telephone or billing questions where he was (and would be) helped by a live human being, unlike

Affidavit of Sonia Booker, attached as Exhibit A-I, 15.
Affidavit of Christine Rapoza, attached as Exhibit A-9, ~ 7. See related discussion of this problem
supra at text following fn. 70.
97 Affidavit of Shirley Turner, attached as Exhibit A-10"
7. The remainder of this paragraph is based on
, 7 of Ms. Turner's Affidavit.
98 A simple review of call records can reveal likely prematurely dropped calls. See fu. 68 supra.
99 Affidavit of James R. Logar, attached as Exhibit A-25, ~ 3. The remainder of this paragraph is based on
~ 3 of Mr. Logar's Affidavit.
95
96

the experience offamily and friend Petitioners who contacted Evercom's customer service to
seek relief for their telephone problems.
E.

Other Service Issues: GTL
i. Problems with Broken or Ma?functioning Equipment.

DOC prisoners, including several Petitioners, reported many instances of broken,
damaged or otherwise malfunctioning telephone equipment. Damaged or broken telephone
equipment undoubtedly causes at least some ofthe connection problems described in section A.i.
above. For example, from October 2009 through January 2010, Petitioners at NCCI-Gardner
reported more and more problems with the telephones in their units. Two Petitioners in the
Thompson-3 unit reported that in January only one telephone out of a total of nine serving the
unit's 159 men was working reliably.loO'!OI Of the others, three didn't work at all, while the five
that did allow a call to go through had serious connection and sound problems as outlined in
section A.i., above. With so many men wanting to make calls, these lines were regularly used
notwithstanding the poor sound quality and resultant poor connections. Prisoners at Gardner
reported rising frustration in the popUlation with the broken equipment and difficulty
communicating successfully with family and friends. It was reported that the challenges
prisoners faced in accessing reliable working phones meant that at least some began using
working telephones outside of authorized time periods and received disciplinary tickets for
breaking institutional rules.

100 Affidavits of Samuel Conti and Gerardo Rosario, attached as Exhibts A-IS and A-22, respectively, ~ 7.
See also the letter ofNCCI-Gardner Superintendent James Saba to MCLS reporting "significant issues"

with telephones at the facility, attached as Exhibit C. The remainder of this paragraph is based on the
Affidavits of Messrs. Conti ('l['l[ 7, 9) of and Rosario ('l[ 7).
101 Two additional phones are accessible only to the 30 prisoners who live in bunk beds in the Thompson
unit dormitory. Neither of those phones was working at least part of the time under discussion.
Affidavits of Messrs. Conti and Rosario, id.. 'If 7.

In late January, both DOC and Petitioners reported that GTL began much-needed
telephone repairs throughout NCCI-Gardner. 102 But even after the repairs, one of the Thompson3 unit's nine phones available to all 159 men in the unit remained inoperable. IOl Connection
problems persisted. For example, one Petitioner at Gardner reported calling his girlfriend five
times on different phones before a successful, audible connection was made. 104 This prisoner,
who estimates he talks on the phone at least one hour per day, noted the high tension that results
from overcrowding, on the one hand, and the pressure of 129 men trying to call families and
friends on the eight phones - not all of which are reliable - that are available to the prisoners in
the Thompson-3 unit who live in prison cells. 105 Another Petitioner who is a prisoner in
Gardner's H unit also noted that telephones were supposed to be repaired in January.I06 Phone
service did not improve, however. "All of the telephones in the H unit continue to be unreliable
and sound quality remains generally poor, unchanged from before," the prisoner noted. I07
A Petitioner who lives in MCl-Shirley reported on February 16 that of the eight phones
serving the C-2 unit and its 96 inhabitants that day, two worked reliably, one was completely
dead, and the others were variable in the quality of connection: sound quality could be poor or
okay, some telephones connected only intermittently.108 If a prisoner chooses one of the phones
that are not working well, he has to shout to be heard. 109 This prisoner also reported a new
problem with the Shirley phones in mid-April: connecting a call can take up to 20 minutes after

102 Affidavits of Messrs. Conti and Rosario, attached as Exhibits A-IS and A-22, respectively, 'lI8; letter
of NCCI-Gardner Superintendent Saba, attached as Exhibit C.
103 Affidavit of Samuel Conti, id., 'lI'lI8, 9.
104 Id., 'liS.
105 ld., 'lI'lI7, 9. As noted above, thirty men in the Thompson-3 unit live in a dormitory with bunk beds.
There are an additional two phones there, exclusively for use by dormitory residents. These 30
individuals can also access the other phones in Thompson-3.
106 Affidavit of Marcos U. Ramos, attached as Exhibit A-21, 'lI9.
107 ld.
108 Affidavit of James P. Carver, attached as Exhibit A-14, 'liS.
109 ld.

dialing the number. 110 The caller is repeatedly told, "please hold; please hold." Then long
periods of silence and a recording that "the called party does not answer." Or a loud piercing
noise that forces the men to hang up. The Petitioner reports that this process can be repeated
several times before a call gets through, with prisoners spending up to an hour to make one call.
"This is all very frustrating," he concluded.
The Shirley Petitioner noted that the hearing volume did not work on any of the
telephone sets, so that if a prisoner is hard of hearing he ean only use the line with the clearest
connection. lll Petitioners at Gardner also noted that volume controls do not work on the
telephones there. ll2 This is a breach of GTL's contract with DOC dated February 10,2006 for
the provision of telephone services (the GTL Contract), which requires that all telephones have
working volume controls. See §5.3.10 (at p. 53) of the Request for Response (RFR), DOC File
No.1000-Phone2006, dated July 11,2005, that is incorporated into the GTL Contract. ll3 Copies
of relevant pages of the GTL Contract that are cited herein are attached as Exhibit D hereto.
Petitioners at both NCCT-Gardner and MCT-Shirley pointed out that inconsistent quality
of service involving the same telephone equipment was another aspect of the problem of poor
telephone connections when using GTL telephones. ll4 Several Petitioners reported that a
telephone set that is working well one day may not be working well the next, and vice-versa.
Prisoners have no reliable means of determining in advance which telephone(s) will actually
work well at any given time and provide them with a clear connection to the persons they are

Id., ~ 9. The remainder of this paragraph is based on ~ 9 ofMr. Carver's Affidavit.
Id., ~ 8.
Il2 See. e.g., Affidavits of Messrs. Conti (Exhibit A-15, ~ 7), Nadworny (Exhibit A-20, ~ 8), and Ramos
(Exhibit A-21, ~ 7).
110

III

Further references to the GTL Contract herein will be to specific sections and/or pages of the RFR,
which contains the substantive content of the GTL Contract.
114 See e.g., Affidavits of Messrs. Carver (Exhibit A-14, ~ 7), Ramos (Exhibit A-21 ~ 8), and Rosario
(Exhibit A-22 ~ 9).
113

calling. The source(s) of and reason(s) for the inconsistency is unknown. Possible causes
include damaged telephone lines and problems with switching or transmission equipment. I IS
Whatever the cause of the problem, it translates into higher telephone bills for prisoners and their
families since prisoners cannot depend on any telephone set to deliver a good, clear connection.
Because of the damaged and malfunctioning equipment, prisoner Petitioners report that they
often have to place a call four, five or more times before a usable connection is made, often
incurring additional connection charges in the process. 116
Under its contract with DOC, GTL is ultimately responsible for 100% of the
maintenance, repair and replacement of all telephone equipment used in connection with prisoner
telephone calls. See Exhibit D, RFR, at p. 3 ("There shall be no cost to the DOC for the
installation or maintenance of the ICS [Inmate Calling System1at each DOC facility. The Bidder
is responsible for replacement of the ICS in its entirety or its individual components regardless of
cause including, but not limited to, normal wear/use, inmate abuse, natural disaster, or inmate
unrest."; §5.1.5 (p. 34); §5.1.43 (p. 39), and § 5.9 (pp. 68-71, particularly §§5.9.3, 5.9.6, 5.9.7).
Many of the quality of service problems described in sections A.i and B.i. above would be
alleviated if mal- or non-functioning (including damaged or broken) telephone equipment and
lines throughout the DOC prison system were adequately repaired and/or replaced.

ii. Excessive recorded warnings.
Petitioners who make or receive prisoner calls from DOC facilities assert that repetitive
and therefore unnecessary recorded messages consume expensive and limited conversation time

115 One Petitioner reported that when he was at MCl-Norfolk, the telephone room, where lines from the
institution converged before calls were transmitted outside the facility, was subject to overheating. When
that occurred, connections were generally poor. Affidavit of James Carver (Exhibit A-14, ~ 5).
116 See e.g., Affidavits of Messrs. Carver (Exhibit A-14, ~ 9), Conti (Exhibit A-IS, ~ 8), and Ramos
(Exhibit A-21 ~ 7).

with incarcerated friends, families, and clients. 117 The current recorded format used by GTL on
calls other than to attorneys begins witb a standard introduction that the call is coming from a
correctional institution and that it will be monitored and recorded. The introduction takes thirtyto-forty seconds. Then, every four minutes or so another recorded announcement declares that
"this message is being monitored and recorded," during which time the parties cannot speak with
one another. On a twenty-minute call, the recording can be heard four or five times. Then
toward the end of the call there are warnings when 60 seconds are left and again when ten
seconds remain.
Petitioners complain that the repeated warning that the call is being monitored and
recorded is completely unnecessary: the warning in the beginning is more than sufficient. lIS
Evercom's practice supports their position: on Evercom calls, the warning about call monitoring
and recording is heard only in the introductory announcement - it is not repeated again during
the call. For a period oftime in February, two Petitioners reported that calls from the Orientation
Unit at Mel-Shirley omitted all but the initial warning that the call would be monitored and
recorded mirroring Evercom's practice of only one warning. 1l9 Both were delighted that GTL
had decided to change its practice and eliminate the unnecessary, time-consuming warnings.
However when the prisoner Petitioner was transferred to his old unit at the facility, the regular,
every four minute warning reappeared. There is clearly no reason for GTL to continue the
unnecessary but time-consuming warnings.

117 Affidavits of Kimberly Eckmann (Exhibit A-6, ~ 4), and Messrs. R.Carver (Exhibit A-3, '16), J. Carver
(Exhibit A-14, ~ 12), Conti (Exhibit A-15 '111), and Ramos (Exhibit A-21 ~ 12). The remainder of this
paragraph is based on the same paragraphs of these Affidavits.
1I8Id.
119 Affidavits of Kimberly Eckmann (Exhibit A-6, '14), and James Carver (Exhibit A-14, '112). The
remainder of this paragraph is based on the same paragraphs in these Affidavits.

iii. Long Periods ofSilence at Commencement of Calls.

Prisoners at NCCI-Gardner and OCCC complain about the long periods of silence - three
to four minutes - they must endure after they place a call and before it connects. I20 Before June
2009, prisoners could hear the phone ringing, or a busy signal, or some other indication of call
status until the call went through or tenninated. I21 This on-going notification of call status is
mandated by DOC's contract with GTL. See §S.l.lS ofthe RFR (p. 36) which states that GTL's
system "must provide notification to an inmate of the call status (e.g., ringing, busy, etc.)."
Previously, prisoners could hear what was going on but could not speak and understood where
they were in the on-going process of placing the call. The current practice of blocking any and
all indications of what is happening on the call recipients' end is a source of deep frustration and
concern for prisoners. One Petitioner with an elderly mother described the practice as "abusive"
as prisoners are left to wonder if an aged parent "is on the phone or on the floor" since they have
no idea of the status of the call. 122 Another Petitioner said "waiting for a long time wondering
what is going on" is a serious problem. I2l The absence of information translates into the need to
call his family back "many times" because he can't tell what, if anything, is happening on the
other end. "I saw this cause fights to happen when others were waiting to use the phones [and
saw guys holding phones to their ears but not talking]." He reiterated: "this is a huge problem
that needs to be fixed."

Affidavits of David Baxter (Exhibit A-l3, ~ 3), Samuel Conti (Exhibit A-I5, ~ 10), Eric Mathison
(Exhibit A-I6, ~ 6), Shirley McGee (Exhibit A-l7, ~ 5), Stephen Metcalf (Exhibit A-IS, ~ 5), William
Nadworny (Exhibit A-20, ~ 9), Gerardo Rosario (Exhibit A-22, ~ 10), and Edward Sarmanian (Exhibit A23, ~ 5).
121 See, e.g., Affidavits of Samuel Conti (Exhibit A-IS, ~ 10), Shirley McGee (Exhibit A-I7, ~ 5), and
Gerardo Rosario (Exhibit A-22, ~ 10).
122 Affidavit of Samuel Conti (Exhibit A-IS, ~ 10).
123 Affidavit of David Baxter (Exhibit A-l3, ~ 3). The remainder of this paragraph is based on' 3 ofMr.
Baxter's Affidavit.
120

CONCLUSION
The original Petition filed in this case provides incontrovertible evidence that Petitioners

and other telephone company customers who initiate or receive prisoner telephone calls are
paying unjust and unreasonable rates for those calls. In this Supplement, Petitioners present
specific and widespread quality of service problems they routinely encounter in connection with
prisoner telephone calls notwithstanding the exorbitant rates they pay for this service. In
addition to the relief sought in the original Petition including an end to unjust and unreasonable
rates for prisoner telephone calls, and based on the quality of service problems presented in this
Supplementt, Petitioners respectfully request that the Department of Telecommunications and
Cable investigate these quality of service issues and order such remedial action on the part of
prisoner telephone service providers as the Department shall deem necessary and appropriate.
Among other actions, Petitioners request that the Department require that all prisoner telephone
service providers (i) replace and/or repair all non- and malfunctioning telephone equipment used
in providing prisoner telephone call service, including without limitation telephone units and
lines, whether such equipment is located inside or outside state and county correctional facilities;
(ii) calibrate three-way calling detection systems such that prisoner telephone calls in the state
are not prematurely terminated unless genuine attempts to evade telephone security measures are
initiated; (iii) provide each of their customers who initiate or receive calls £i'om prisoners and
have prepaid accounts with the company a detailed accounting of how the funds deposited into
such accounts are actually allocated and spent; and (iv) limit the number of recorded warnings
concerning the recording and monitoring of calls that are played during a prisoner telephone call
to one at the beginning of such call.
Respectfully submitted,

Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services
Stem, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin
Committee for Public Counsel Services
Disability Law Center
Essex County Bar Association Advocates Inc.
Prisoners' Rights Clinic at Northeastern University
School of Law
Sonia Booker
Lula Bozeman
Roger Carver
Jean Conti
Barbara DiGirolamo
Kim Eckmann
Patricia Gonet
Virginia Polk
Christine Rapoza
Shirley Turner
Cheryl Williams
Leonardo Alvarez-Savageau
David Baxter
Derek Biggs
J ames Carver
Samuel Conti
Stephen Fernandes
Anthony Giugliano
Eric J. Mathison
Shirley Jay McGee
Stephen Metcalf
Kenneth Moccio
William Nadworny
Marcos Ramos
Isaias Rodriguez
Gerardo Rosario
Edward Sarrnanian
Beverly Chorbajian, Esq.
Howard Friedman, Esq.
James Logar, Esq.
Peter T. Sargent, Esq.
Joshua Werner, Esq., Petitioners
By tqeir Attorneys,

! '

Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services
8 Winter Street, 11th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 482-2773
jpingeon@mcls.net
lwalkeriaJmc1s.net

Patricia Garin, Esq. (BBO 544770)
Stern, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin
th
90 Canal St., 5 Floor
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 742-5800
pgariniaJ.sswg.com
Dated: May 18, 2010

APPENDIX I
Petitioners and their Telephone Service Providers
Petitioner

Telephone Service
Provider

Institutions
Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services (Co-Counsel)
8 Winter Street, 11 th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Attn.: James Pingeon, Esq.

Evercom, GTL, DSI

Stern, Shapiro, Weisberg & Garin (Co-Counsel)
90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Attn.: Patricia Garin, Esq.

Evercom, GTL

Committee for Public Counsel Services
44 Bromfield Street
Boston, MA 02108
Attn.: Anthony J. Benedetti, Esq., General Counsel

Evercom, GTL, DSI

Disability Law Center
II Beacon Street, Suite 975
Boston, MA 02108
Attn.: Kathryn Joyce, Esq., Executive Director

Evercom, GTL

Essex County Bar Association Advocates Inc.
221 Essex Street, Suite 3
Salem, MA 01970
Attn.: David Hallinan, Esq.

Evercom, GTL

Prisoners' Rights Clinic
Northeastern University School of Law
Dockser Hall
360 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
Attn.: James Rowan, Esq.

GTL

Family and Friends ofPrisoners
Sonia Booker
214 Harvard St. Apt. 3A
Dorchester, MA 02124

Evercom

Lula Bozeman
49 Withington Street
Dorchester, MA 02124

Evercom

Roger Carver
12 Briarwood Court
North Andover, MA 01845

GTL

Jean Conti
One Glenwood Ave.
Hyde Park, MA 02136

GTL

Barbara DiGirolamo
669 Saratoga St.
East Boston, MA 02128

GTL

Kimberly Eckmann
11 Bunker Hill Rd.
Ipswich, MA 01938

GTL

Patricia Gonet
II Emerald Drive
Dartmouth, MA 02747
Virginia Polk
7 Sesame Street
Dracut, MA 01826

Evercom

GTL

Christine Rapoza
P.O. Box 9776
Fall River, MA 02720

Evercom

Shirley Turner
116 High st.
Ipswich, MA 01938

Evercom

Cheryl Williams
196 Beach St.
Quincy, MA 02170

GTL

Attorneys
Beverly Chorbajian, Esq.
390 Main St., Suite 659
Worcester, MA 01608

Evercom, GTL

Howard Friedman, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard Friedman
90 Canal Street, 5th floor
Boston, MA 02114

Evercom, GTL

James R. Logar, Esq.
1245 Hancock St.
Quincy, MA 02169

Evercom, GTL, DSI

Peter T. Sargent, Esq.
P.O. Box 425
Gardner, MA 01440

Evercom, GTL

Joshua Werner, Esq.
944 Washington St., Suite 2
South Easton, MA 02375

Evel'com, GTL

Prisoners
Leonardo A1zarez-Savageau (W92556)
James Carver (W47514)
Kenneth Moccio (W86539)
MCl-Shirley
POBox 1218
Shirley, MA 01464

GTL
GTL
GTL

David Baxter (W83642)
Shirley Jay McGee (W88293)
MCl-Concord
965 Elm Street
PO Box 9106
Concord MA, 01742

GTL
GTL

Derek Biggs (W66551)
Samuel Conti (W84707)
Stephen Metcalf (C57664)
William Nadworny (W40533)
Marcos Ramos (W69760)
Isaias Rodrlguez (W80211)
Gerardo Rosario (W90224)
Edward Sarmanian (W45480)
NCCl-Gardner
500 Colony Road
P.O. Box 466
Gardner, MA 01440

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

Stephen Fernandes (W51196)
Eric J. Mathison (W93154)
Old Colony Correctional Center
One Administration Road
Bridgewater, MA 02324

GTL
GTL

Anthony Giugliano (W86282)
MCI-Norfolk
2 Clark Street
P.O. Box 43
Norfolk, MA 02056

GTL

Exhibit A-I
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sonia Booker, do hereby affirm that:
I. I reside in Massachusetts at 214 Harvard Street, Apt. 3A in Dorchester, MA
02124.
2. For two years, from March 2008 until March 20, 20 I 0, my son was
incarcerated at the Middlesex County j·louse of Correction in Billerica, MA (Billerica).
was a customer of Evercom, Inc. (Evercom) for the entire time of my son's incarceration.
The company's telephone service allowed me to receive collect telephone calls from him.
3. While my son was incarcerated, J had a prepaid account with Evercom that
was in my name. I was responsible for paying Evercom for the telephone services the
company provided to me, and regularly deposited my own funds into the Evercom
account.
4. I never received any printed statement or invoice from Evercom that told me
how much I had spent on calls from my son. I never had any idea how the money I
deposited into my account was actually spent, how much individual calls cost, or what
was charged to the account. I do not have Internet access.
5. Whenever J tried to contact Evercom's customer service, all J ever got was a
recording. I was never able to speak with anyone about their service.
Signed under the penalties of perjury thisj..d. day of April, 2010.

Exhibit A-2
AFFIDAVIT
I, Lula Bozeman, do hereby affirm that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 49 Withington Street in Dorchester, MA 02124.
2. For approximately 18 months, from June 2008 until about December 16,2009,
my son was incarcerated at the Suffolk County Jail and House of Correction in Boston,
MA (Suffolk HOC), a correctional facility operated by the Suffolk County Sheriffs
Department. I was a customer of Evercom, Inc. (Evcrcom) for the entire time of my
son's incarceration. The company's telephone service allowed me to receive collect
telephone calls from him.
3. While my son was incarcerated, I had a prepaid account with Evercom that
was in my name. I was responsible for paying Evercom for the telephone services the
company provided to me, and regularly deposited my own funds into the Evercom
account.
4. I generally spoke with my son four-to-seven times a week, sometimes more,
sometimes less.
5. Many of the calls I received from my son werc bad connections, when his
voice wasn't clear, or he couldn't hear me well. Sometimes I could hear him but he
couldn't hear me at all. When the connection was really bad we would have to hang up
and he would call me back on another phone.
6. About once a week, sometimes more, our calls would be cut off by a recording
that said that a third party is on the line. This was never true- there was never a third
party on the line.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this~ day of April, 20 I O.

~£

Lula Bozeman

Exhibit A-3
AFFIDAVIT

I, Roger Carver, do hereby affirm that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 12 Briarwood Court, North Andover, MA 01845.

2. My son is incarcerated at MCI-Shirley in Shirley, MA (MCI-Shirley), a correctional
institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). Global Tel*Link
(GTL) provides me with telephone service that allows me to receive telephone calls from my
son.
3. I receive four-to-fivc collect calls from my son each week on average. Until February
2010, invoices for most of the collect calls I received from my son were billed to me through my
regular telephone provider, Verizon. I paid for those collect calls when I paid my Verizon bill
each month. I am the customer of record with Verizon, and I used (and continue to use) my
personal funds to pay Verizon invoices. In February 2010, I began paying for some ofthe
collect calls r receive from my son using a prepaid Advance Pay account that is in my name.
4. In latc October 2009, I started having problems receiving collect calls from my son.
At that time GTL without notice to me cut off my ability to pay for collect calls billed through
Verizon because I had more than $75.00 of collect calls in one month. My initial calls to
customer service in October to deal with this problem resulted in a classic run-around: a returned
call from customer service that referred me to billing. No one in billing could help me with my
issue, or refer me to someone who could. Not finding anyone who could help me or give me a
straight answer was frustrating. Subsequently I learned the number of a GTL customer
representative who deals with problems of attorneys and institutional clients. Once I reached this
special representative, I was able to resolve the issue quickly and the ability to receive collect
calls from my son that were billed through Verizon was restored.
5. Poor reception is a recurring, frequent problem of telephone calls from my son.
regularly have difficulty hearing him and he tells me he has trouble hearing me sometimes as
well. Sometimes when the connection is bad and I am trying to hear my son, I turn up thc
volume on my receiver. Then while straining to hear him even with the volume up, an advisory
recording will suddenly come at a loud volume that blasts into my ear.
6. The repetitive and annoying recorded announcement that "This call may be monitored
and recorded" continually interrupts the conversation. The announcement comes through loud
and clear, unlike thc poor reception of the actual call from my son. I want to know why is it
necessary to repeat that recorded message over and over, on my time and money?
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

3~r::>day of

ttL"" 'e ' 20 10.

Exhibit A-4
AFFIDAVIT

I, Jean Conti, do hereby affirm that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at One Glenwood Ave., Hyde Park, MA 02136.
2. My son is incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institute in Gardner,
MA (NCC]), a correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of
Correction (DOC). Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides me with telephone service that
allows me to receive telephone calls from my son.
3. ] receive at least two collect calls from my son every day. Until late October
2009, charges for the collect calls from my son were billed to me through my regular
telephone provider, Verizon. I paid for those collect calls when I paid my Verizon bill
each month. I am the customer of record on the Verizon bills, and I used my personal
funds to pay those bills.
4. Starting in late October 2009, collect calls from my son did not come through
unless he paid for them using his prison debit account. J could no longer accept collect
calls hom him that I would pay through Verizon. Even though] always paid my phone
bills on time, my son told me that collect calls were cut off because I had more than
$75.00 of calls in one month. To receive calls from my son after the cut-off~ the calls
would have to be prepaid by my son using his prison debit account, or by me if I set up a
prepaid account with GTL. GTL never informed me of the change. Before the change in
policy in latc October, I spoke with my son at least three times a day. As a result of the
change, I speak to my son less frequently now.
5. The sound quality of the telephone ealls] receive is inconsistent. On average
one-third of the calls I receive bave static or some other problem with the cOImection,
including hearing other prisoners' voices on the line.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

sf,
day of

fir)

17+,2010.

Exhibit A-5
AFFIDAVIT
I, Barbara B, DiGirolamo, do hereby affirm that:
1, I reside in Massachusetts at 669 Saratoga SL, East Boston, MA 02136,
2, My nephew is incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk in Norfolk, MA (MCI-Norfolk), a
correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC),
Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides me with telephone service that allows me to receive
telephone calls from my nephew,
3, I receive one or two collect calls from my nephew each week, Until late
October 2009, charges for the collect calls from my nephew were billed to me through
my regular telephone provider, Verizon, I paid for those collect calls when I paid my
Verizon bill each month, I am the customer of record on the Verizon bills, and I used my
personal funds to pay those bills,
4, Starting in late October 2009, collect calls from my nephew did not come
through unless he paid for them using his prison debit account I could no longer accept
collect calls from him without setting up a prepaid account with GTL which I did not
want to do, I always paid my phone bills on time, but regular collect calls were cut off
because I apparently had more than $75,00 of calls in one month, GTL did not inform
me of the new policy beforehand, or that I would be cut off and not able to reinstate
regular collect call service through Verizon if I exceeded the limit I only learned of the
change and new $75 limit on collect calls (down from $200) after I called GTL in
November,
5, The sound quality ofthe telephone calls I receive is poor: bad connections are
a constant problem, I usually have great difficulty hearing my nephew, and he tells me
he sometimes has a problem hearing me,
6, Dropped or cut-off calls are an occasional problem, The cut-off is usually
preceded by a recorded warning that a three-way call has been detected, But I do not
have the three-way calling feature and cannot make three-way calls,
7, My communications with GTL customer service have been quite unpleasant
When I called them last November to find out why I couldn't accept collect calls paid
through Verizon anymore, I asked some questions about the new policy and whether the
$75,00 limit would reset itself with the new billing cycle, I was told twice that I would
have to move to a prepaid plan to accept collect calls, and after the second time, the agent
became rude and abusive and said something negative about "prison families," After
speaking fUliher, the agent hung up on me, I made several subsequent calls to clarify
billing issues, the cost of setting up a prepaid account (with different agents giving me
different fees and charges), and was hung up on at least two additional times, For each of
the several calls I made to GTL I was on hold for at least 40 minutes and then told GTL
would eall me back within two hours, The last call I got from them came at 11 :35 p,m,

GTL's agents are rude, crude, and insulting and need to learn how to speak more civilly
to customers.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

A~~~-:/~'·~~
Barbara DiGirolamo

I?Jl

day of

iJ1.,4.)!, 20 I O.

Exhibit A-6

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kimberly Eckmann, do hereby affinn that:
l. I reside in Massachusetts at2 Winter Street, Apt. 5, Ipswich, MA 01938.

2. My boyfriend is incarcerated at MCI-Shirley in Shirley, MA (MCI-Shirley), a
correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
Global Tel *Link (GTL) provides me with telephone service that allows me to receive
telephone calls from him. I have two accounts with GTL: one on my work land line and
a second on my cellular telephone. I am billed through Verizon for collect calls I accept
on the work line. The cellular telephone account is a GTL prepaid account.
3. I usually receive one collect call from my boyfriend every day, sometimes less
and occasionally more. Most of our phone calls do not have good connections. My
boyfriend often sounds very garbled and occasionally words are cut out as we are talking.
In addition, once or twice each week phone calls are dropped or cut-off before we end the
conversation and before the 20 minute time limit for calls is reached.
4. It is unnecessary for the recorded announcement "This call is being monitored
and recorded" to play continually, regularly interrupting the conversation. While this
recording is playing we cannot speak to each other. Playing the recording once at the
beginning of the call should be sufficient. When my boyfriend was in the Orientation
Unit in February, the recording was in fact only played at the beginning of his calls to
me. But when he returned to his regular unit, the message started repeating again every
four minutes. The message only needs to play at the beginning of the call.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

f~EJA~

~yE

. ann

tf day of _~, 2010.

Exhibit A-7
AFFIDAVIT
I, Patricia Gonet, do hereby affinn that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 11 Emerald Drive in Dartmouth, MA 02747.

2. My son is currently incarcerated at the Bristol County Jail and House of
Correction in North Dartmouth, MA (Bristol HOC), a correctional facility operated by
the Bristol County Sheriffs Office. I am a customer of Evercom, Inc. (Evercom), which
provides me with telephone service that allows me to receive collect telephone calls from
my son.
3. I maintain a prepaid account with Evercom that is in my name. I am
responsible for paying Evercom for the telephone services the company provides to me,
and regularly deposit my own funds into the Evercom account, generally by charging my
personal credit card.
4. I generally spealc with my son once a week.
5. I have experienced problems with telephone connections in the last several
months. Sometimes after the cOIDlection is established, I can't hear anything- the line is
open, but I can't hear my son, or anything else. There seems to be a problem just trying
to get cOill1ected.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this3()day of

~~\ (~--~
.
\ l(j, ~
~C5YJ:""'t
Patricia Gonet

¥,

2010.

Exhibit A-8
AFFIDAVIT

I, Virginia Polk, do hereby affirm that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 7 Sesame Street in Dracut, MA 02747.

2. My son is incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institute in Gardner,
MA (NCC!), a correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of
Correction (DOC). Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides me with telephone service I
requested that allows me to receive telephone calls from my son.
3. I have a prepaid calling account with GTL. I am responsible for paying for the
telephone services I receive from GTL. and periodically deposit personal funds into the
GTL prepaid account. Funds deposited into this account, which is in my name, pay for at
least some of the phone calls I receive from my son.
4. I receive approximately three calls per week from my son, sometimes more.
5. Calls from my son are prematurely cut off quite often. I estimate that between
one-third and one-half of the calls I receive are dropped or cut off before the twenty
minute limit is reached.
6. The quality of the telephone connection for calls from my son is generally
terrible. On many calls I can barely hear him.
7. GTL last provided me with a printout listing details of charges for telephone
calls from my son sometime in 2007. Since then I have not received any documentation
providing details of call charges or other deductions from my prepaid GTL account
despite several requests that such documentation be provided in 2008 and 2009. I last
contacted GTL customer service in November 2009 and requested that they send me a
printout of call and related charges deducted from my GTL account for 2009. They told
me they would send me the requested records. I still have not received anything from
them as of fhe date of this AffIdavit.
8. My experience with GTL customer service has not been good. When I speak
with a GTL representative and make a request, it does not feel like they genuinely want
to help me. Instead, it feels like I am imposing on or aggravating them. I worked in
customer service for thirty years, and if I had treated customers as rudely as GTL
representatives have treated me, I believe I would have been fired.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this.3 day

/_lJ
rg1l11

olk

~3-~

0'f1:(1at 2010.

Exhibit A-9
AFFIDAVIT

1, Christine Rapoza, do hereby affirm that:
1. 1 reside in Massachusetts at 163 Winter St. in Fall River, MA 02720.
2. My fiance is currently incarcerated at the Worcester County Jail and House of
Correction in Worcester, MA (Worcester HOC), a correctional institution operated by the
Worcester County Sheriff s Department. Evercom, Inc. (Evercom) provides me with
telephone service, which I requested, that permits me to receive telephone calls from my
fiance.
3. From June, 2009 to February 17,2010, my fiance was incarcerated at the
Suffolk County House of Correction in Boston, MA (SCHOC), before being trans felTed
to Worcester HOC. While my fiance was incarcerated in SCHOC, Evercom provided me
with telephone service that allowed me to receive collect phone calls from him.
4. I have a prepaid account with Evercom that is in my name. I am responsible
for paying for the telephone services Evercom provides to me, and regularly transfer or
pay personal funds into the prepaid Evercom account via credit card or otherwise.
5. I generally receive two-three calls per day from my fiance, sometimes more. 1
estimate that I receive between 14 and 20 phone calls from him every week.
6. Phone connections at both SCHOC and Worcester HOC are generally not
good. At both facilities he could not hear me that well or I had difficulty hearing him on
the majority of calls. This was because of static on the line, voices fading in and out, and
sometimes clicking noises.
7. When my fiance was incarcerated at Suffolk, about two or three of the 14-to20 calls I received weekly from him were dropped or cut-off prematurely, sometimes
more. The situation is even worse at Worcester: the telephones seem to be really
sensitive to any sound. Now ifI sneeze or breathe too loudly, the telephone disconnects.
Calls also cut off when prisoners' yelling in the background gets too loud. (See the
attached printout of recent call charges. The two-, three- and four-minute calls -- charged
at $3.30 and $3.40 -- are clearly prematurely cut off especially when my fiance calls me
right back. Other calls oflonger duration are sometimes prematurely cut off too.)
Recently I had a number of calls cut off without our ever connecting and have been
charged for the calls because they last I :03 or 1:05 and are rounded up to two minutes.
Evercom won't credit me for these cut-off calls even though we never connected or
spoke. Considering that the recorded announcement at Worcester lasts over 40 seconds,
and time is needed for my account to be checked and debited and for other aspects of
telephone security to take effect, it is not surprising that the call set-up would take over
one minute. And then to be charged another $3 per call surcharge even when there has
been no connection is really frustrating and completely unjustified. Especially since in

most instances he calls me back immediately, placing a new call and I am charged
another $3.00 connection fee.
8. Evercom provided me the same exact telephone services that allowed me to
speak with my fiance at the different county facilities where he has been incarcerated
over the past three years. But calls overall are much more expensive for me for several
reasons. First, calls are more frequently cut off or dropped at Worcester as explained in
the preceding paragraph. Second, calls from Worcester HOC can last a maximum of only
15 minutes as opposed to a maximum of 20 or 30 minutes at the other county institutions
my fiance has been in over the past three years. At Bristol County Jail and House of
Correction where he was first incarcerated, calls were handled by Evercom and lasted 30
minutes. This meant that a 30-minute call from my fiance at Bristol County cost $6.00.
Now I have to pay $9.00 to speak to him for 30 minutes at Worcester HOC because I
have to pay the $3 connection surcharge twice for 30 minutes worth of calls since calls
are limited to 15 minutes at Worcester. To make matters worse, the recorded
announcement for calls from Worcester is over 40 seconds. I have to pay for the
recordings. With the recorded announcement that we have to sit through twice, this
means that I get substantially less than 30 minutes of talk time with him.
8. I have a serious problem with the automated accounting system that is
supposed to tell me the current balance on my account. The automated system will tell
me one number, but calling back the next day before I have received any additional calls,
the automated system reports a different balance, which is sometimes significant. Once
the difference was $20.00. This means that I have to transfer funds to the account on an
emergency basis so that I can maintain regular contact with my fiance.
Signed under the penalties ofpeJjury tllis

~.4~

day Of~, 2010.

~:i720109:18

PMWORCESTERMA6.00S08926140S ~ 5/3/20109: 15 PMWORCESTERMA2.005089261405
513/20107:38 PMWORCESTERMA5.0050892t;I4Il"5"
0101 :56 PMWORC
MA11.00508926140
4.36
5/3/201010:14 AMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78 5/2/20107:21 PMWORCESTERMA11.005089261405 $4.36
5/2/20107:05 PMWORCESTERMA9.005089261405 $4.15 5/2/201012:47 PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78
5/1/20109: 17 PMWORCESTERMA8.005089261405 $4.04 5/1/20108 :02 PMWORCESTERMA13.00S08926140S $4.57
5/1/20107:49 PMWORCE5TERMA11.005089261405 $4.36 5/1/20104:27 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00S08926140S $4.78
S/1/20104:16 PMWORCESTERMA5.0050892614051lll5/1/20104:07 PMWORCESTERMA6.00S08926140S $3.83
4/30/20107:00 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4.78 4/30/201012: 31 PMWORCESTERMA7.005089261405 .$3.93
4/30/20109:24 AMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S $4.784/27/20108:44 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4.78
4/27/201012:44 PMWORCESTERMA2.00508926140S 1ldQ 4/26/20107: 25 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00508926140S $4.78
4/26/20101:08 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 i'LZll4/?5/201012:32 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S08926140S $4.78
4/24/20108:38 PMWORCESTERMA5.00508926140S1lll'···
7:23 PMWORCESTERMA6.005089 6140~

GL24/20TOT:20·PMijiOR(:tsl'ERMA2.~005089T6T4O"5@4/24/20109:48 AMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140

. 8
PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78 4/23/20107:00 PMWORCESTERMA15,00508926140S .$4.78
PMWORCESTERMA9.00508926140S ~ 4/23/20101 :52 PMWORCESTERMA7.00508926140S $3.93
PMWORCESTERMAl.00508926140S J;;LlQ 4/23/201012:44 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00S08926140S $4.78
PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4.78 4/21/20108:37 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.78
PMWORCESTERMAl5.005089261405 $4.78 4/21/20106:33 PMWORCESTERMA4.00S089261405:1l.§.l
PMWORCESTERMA2.00S089261405 1).404/21/201012:29 PMWORCESTERMA10.00S089261405 $4.25
4/21/20108: 15 AMWORCESTERMA7.00508926140S $3.93 4/20/201010:02 PMWORCESTERMA14.00508926140S $4.68
4/20/20109:53 PMWORCESTERMA2.00S089261405 $3.40 4/20/20104:16 PMWORCESTERMA6.00508926140S $3.83
4/20/20104:00 PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78 4/20/20103:47 PMWORCESTERMA12.005089261405 M.c!l
4l2"O(2"OTa3:32PMW6RCESrl'RMA6-.0lf5llll926140s-n;m 4/20/20103:27 PMWORC
A1.00S08926140S J;;LlQ
4/20/201010:05 AMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140 i'LZll
0109:13 AMWORCESTERMA7.0050892614
3.9
4/19/20109:07 PMWORCESTERMA2.005089261405ll40 4/19/20106:07 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.78
4/19/20105:51 PMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S i'LZll4119/20103:S1 PMWORCESTERMA
OS 8 2
OS 4.78
4/1 20103:37 PMWO
D.5illl9.~ 3,
M19/201012:i3 P W RCEST
.0050892614054:78.'
4/19/201012: 17 PMWORCESTERMA5.005089261405 3.7 4/19/20109: 15 AMWORCESTERMA15.00S08926140'S$4.78
19 0109:00 AMWORCESTERMA1S.00508
84/18/20107:06 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S08926140S $4.78
4/18/20106:50 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4,78 4/18/20104:26 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.78
4/18/20104:08 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4.78
4/18/20103: 12 PMWORCESTERMA15.

4/23/20108:09
4/23/20102'.05
4/23/20101:21
4/22/20107:00
4/21/20107:04
"4/21/20103:27

4/18/20107:41 AMWORCESTERMA15,005089261405 $4.78

4/17/20109: 50 PMWORCESTERMA5.0050892614051lll4/17/20109: 13 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00508926140S $4,78
4/17/20105:56 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.784/17/20105:29 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00508926140S $4.78
4/17/201010:29 AMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S $4.78 4/16/20107:48 PMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S H.78

4/16/20107:12 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.78 4/16/20103:51 PMWORCESTERMA15.00S089261405 $4.78
4/16/20103:34 PMWORCESTERMA13.005089261405 MdZ 4/16/201012:02 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00508926140S $4.78
4 160plOQ'52 AMWO
1405 3.514/16 0108:56 AMWORCESTERMA1S,005089261405 $4.78
4/15/20'106:18 PMWORCESTERMA9
4.154/15/20106:15 PMWORCES . MA·. .,. ......
:40
15/20109:50 AMWOR ESTERMA1S.005089261405 4.78415/20109:46 AMWORCESTERMA2.00508926140
3, 0
·41I4/20ID):OfrPMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S $4.78 4/14/20106: 52 PMWORCEST
15.005U139161405 $4'""8
4/14/20103:38 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 $4.78 4/13/20109:23 AMWORCESTERMA14.00508926140S $4.68
4/13/20109: 18 AMWORCESTERMA4.005089261405 Jbl.,.§l4/13/20109: 10 AMWORCESTERMA6,005089261405 $3.83
4/13/20108:53 AMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 i'LZll4/12/20108: 19 PMWORCESTERMA1S.005089261405 11.,.Zll
4/12/20106: 10 PMWORCESTERMA12.005089261405 M.c!l4/11/201012: 50 PMWORCESTERMA1S.00508926140S $4.78
4/11/201012:33 PMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S i'LZll4/11/201012:28 PMWORCESTERMA3.005089261405 1l£
4/11/20108:49 AMWORCESTERMA2.00508926140S $3.40 4/10/201012:05 PMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S $4.78
4/9/20107:54 PMWORCESTERMA15.00508926140S $4.784/9/20105:30 PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78
4/9/201011:11 AMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 :t1..Zll4/8/20109:36 PMWORC TERMA6,00508926140S $3.83
4 8/20109:00 PMWORCESTERMA8.00508926140S i4M
0102:
RCESTERMA8,005089261405 4.04
4
2
RCEST
1405
4/7/20108:47 PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.78
4/7/20103:16 PMWORCESTERMA15.005089261405 $4.784/7/20103:02 PMWORCESTERMA13,005089261405 $4.57
4/7/201012: 13 PMWORCESTERMAlO.00S08926140S ~ 4/7/201011:04 AMWORCESTERMA1.00508926140S ;t"l.30
4/6/20108:37 PMWORCESTERMA12.005089261405 $4.47 4/6/201011 :05 AMWORCESTERMA12.005089261405 11.,41

Circled call pairs :show-tl!lIllediate2reconnection after being
droppef or cut-off.

Exhibit A-lO
AFFIDAVIT

I, Shirley Turner, do hereby affinn that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 116 High St. in Ipswich, MA 01938.

2. From July 2008 until December 31, 2009, my husband was incarcerated at the
Lawrence Correctional Alternative Center in Lawrence, MA, a correctional facility
operated by the Essex County Sheriffs Department. I was a customer of Evercom, Inc.
(Evcrcom) for the entire time of my husband's incarceration. Evercom's telephone
service allowed me to receive collect telephone calls from him.
3. While my husband was incarcerated, I had a prepaid account with Evercom
that was in my name. I was responsible for paying for the telephone services Evercom
provided to me, and regularly transferred my own funds into the Evercom account.
4. I generally spoke with my husband once, sometimes twice a day, and more
when necessary. We averaged seven-to-ten calls a week. I worked seven days a week at
two jobs during much of my husband's incarceration so I could afford to pay the extra
$200-to-$250 that the calls from my husband cost me each month over my regular
telephone bill.
5. Most of the calls I received from my husband had really poor sound quality.
Sometimes one party could hear but not the other, voices faded in and out, there was
static that made hearing the other party difficult. Other times calls would be good for a
few minutes, then all of a sudden it would be hard to hear one another. During high
volume call times it was particularly bad. My husband's voice would be very hard to
hear, as ifhe were speaking underwater, or there would be a lot of static on the line.
When one of us couldn't understand the other as a result of a poor comlection, we hung
up and he would call me back. Sometimes trying a different phone would improve the
sound quality, sometimes not. But each redialed call meant I was charged another $3.00
counection fee because of Evercom' s poor service. This would happen several times a
week. When there were lots of other prisoners on the phones, I could often hear other
guys shouting to be heard, then getting upset and slamming down the phone.
6. Calls would also be cut off regularly, before the 30 minute time limit on phone
calls was up. This happened about once a week.
7. I had serious problems with Evercom's customer service. They refused to take
responsibility for anything, saying it wasn't their problem if the phones were giving
customers problems and the sound quality was poor. Customer service was completely
unhelpful and insisted that I print out their on-line form if I wanted to claim credit for
problem calls. But I couldn't access their website from work for security reasons. They
told me to go to a library and use its computers. I couldn't get to one when it was open
because I worked two jobs. Evercom refused to send me a fonn by mail, and I couldn't
make a claim. So they refused to credit me for calls cut off prematurely or that had a bad

connection if the call was longer than one minute. Sometimes the sound quality would
deteriorate after the call started; other times it would take a minute to realize there was a
problem with the call. In either event, Evercom would not credit me for calls with bad
connections. Also, Evercom offered to issue refunds for calls that were prematurely cut
off, but only if! consented to their listening to the DOC's tape of the call. This would
have been an unwanted and unnecessary invasion of my privacy.
Signed under the penalties of peljury thisJ"d. day of fY\C{j _,2010.

Shir~~·~-~

Exhibit A-ll
AFFIDAVIT

J, Cheryl Williams, do hereby affirm that:
I. I reside in Massachusetts at J 96 Beach St., Quincy, MA 02170.
2. My fiance is incarcerated at North Central Correctional Institute in Gardner,
MA (NCCI-Gardner), a correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts
Department of Correction (DOC). Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides me with telephone
service that allows me to receive telephone calls from him.
3. I receive at least four calls each day from my fiance. Most of the calls are paid
by my fiance using his debit calling account at NCCJ-Gardner. But I pay for some of
those calls with a prepaid OTL Advance Pay account that I requested GTL establish for
me. I am the customer of record on that account, and regularly transfer personal funds
into it.
4. Almost ali the calls I receive from my fiance have poor reception for one
reason or another. Sometimes his voice is broken up, or he'll sound muffled, like he is
underwater. He tells me I cut in and out sometimes; and asks "are you there? Are you
there?"
5. The only records I have of my GTL account are cancelled checks that I send to
them to keep money in the account, or credit card entries for GTL. GTL gives me the
balance on my account when I use it. But I have no way to determine actual per call
charges. J also do not know when GTL is deducting money from my account for charges
other than phone calis, or for what reason. For example in November 2009 I had a
balance on an Advance Pay account but in December I had no balance on the account
even though I had not used it to pay for any phone calls. I have no idea what amounts
were charged to the account, or for what reasons.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 'HI-. day of Yn0L( ,20 10.

~CJJ)~I;;~iwA
Cheryl Wil ams

Exhibit A-12
AFFIDAVIT

I, Leonardo Alvarcz-Savagcau, do hereby affirm that:
1, I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC),
reside at DOC's MCI-Shirley facility, located at PO Box 1218, Shirley, MA 01464,
2, I have a debit calling account at MCI-Shirley that allows me to place debit
telephone calls to my family and friends, Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone
service to DOC correctional institutions including MCI-Shirley. I requested that the debit
calling account be established, and regularly transfer personal funds into this account so
that I can place debit calls. I call my family and friends using GTL's collect call service
as well,
3, I make between 7 and 20 caIls each week,
4, About 5% to 10% of the time, I'll be in the middle of a conversation and the
phone will cut off before the 20-minute time limit is reached, Most of the time the calls
get dropped about two minutes after the call is accepted,
5, My family reports that they never get to speak to anyone in customer service
when they have a problem. They always get an automated machine that asks them to
leave information and the company will call them back, But when they call back it's
very late, when everyone is sleeping.
Signed under the penalties of perjury

this;rl~ay of _!~' 2010,

~~hLl-ff~,""l-~

Exhibit A-13

AFFIDAVIT

I, David Baxter, do hereby affinn that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). I
live at MCI-Concord operated by DOC (MCI-Concord). It is located at 965 Elm St.,
Concord, MA 01742. Prior to moving to MCI-Concord on December 24, 2009, I was
housed at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner, located at 500 Colony
Road, Gardner, MA 01440 (NCCI-Gardner),
2. I have a debit calling account at MCI-Concord and had one at NCCI-Gardner
as well. I requested that a debit calling account be set up at both institutions so that I
could use debit calling to pay for telephone calls to my family and friends. Global
Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to all DOC facilities. I regularly transfer
money from my inmate account into the GTL account at MCI-Concord, and regularly
transferred my funds into the GTL account at NCCI-Gardner as well.
3. One of the biggest problems with telephone service is that when we make
calls, we caJmot hear anything while we are waiting for the call to be answered, which
can take up to four minutes. This proved to be a huge problem at NCCI-Gardner.
Inmates couldn't hear the phone ring or ifit was busy, so they were stuck waiting for a
long time wondering what is going on. This caused guys, including myself, to call back
the same party many times since we didn't know what was happening. I saw this cause
fights to happen when others were waiting to use the phones. This is a huge problem that
needs to be fixed at all DOC facilities.
Signed under the penalties of peIjury this {if. day of

/'fiR Y
7

,2010.

Exhibit A-14
AFFIDAVIT

I, James P. Carver, do hereby affinn that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). I
reside at DOC's MCI-Shirley facility, located at PO Box 1218, Shirley, MA 01464.
2. r have a debit calling account at MCr-Shirley that allows me to place debit
telephone calls to my family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone
service to MCI-Shirley and other DOC correctional institutions. I requested that the debit
calling account be established, and transfer my personal funds into this account from time
to time so that I can place debit calls. I sometimes call my family and friends using
GTL's collect call service as well.
3. I make (or attempt to make) two calls to family and friends each day using
either my debit calling account or the collect call service, or approximately fourteen calls
in a week.
4. The quality of the telephone connection for calls r place is pretty bad. About
90% of the calls have some problem with the connection, including static, muffled words,
and sometimes complete silence on one end. Sometimes without waming one party will
be unable to hear the other party. A few times I have been on the phone with my
daughter and suddenly she says "Daddy? Daddy? Are you there?" She couldn't hear me
even though I could hear her. Also there have been times where I do not hear anything
but the caller still hears me. Parties I call often have a hard time hearing me and ask me
to speak up even though I'm already speaking loudly. I call my father three-to-five times
each week, and regularly I have had to yell into the phone to be heard, so everyone in the
area hears what I'm saying. There is no privacy.
5. I have been incarcerated at DOC facilities for over 20 years. The quality of
telephone calls has been much worse since GTL took over telephone service from
Verizon several years ago. After call routing shifted from Massachusetts to Texas when
GTL took over the contract, there was a significant deterioration in the quality of call
connections. When I was at MCl-Norfolk and Verizon had the contract, I was told that
there were problems with phone connections when the non-ventilated telephone room
would heat up.
6. I estimate that about 20% of the calls r place are prematurely dropped or cut
off. Sometimes my call will be accepted by the dialed party, but the call will be dropped
before the parties are able to speak to each another. My father, brother, girlfriend and I
have all paid for dropped calls where there was no connection.
7. The quality of service varies on the same telephone set. Sometimes a phone
will provide a good connection in the moming but will not provide a good one in the
afternoon, and vice-versa. So it is impossible to know what telephone will provide a
good connection until a call is actually placed.

8. I am currently housed in Unit C-2 at MCI-Shirley, and was housed there on
February 16. On February 16, the C-2 Unit had eight phones for the 96 prisoners in the
unit. At the time, two telephones worked well, and one telephone did not work at all.
The others were hit or miss. Sound quality could be very poor, or okay. Some of these
phones connected only intermittently. Using the wrong telephone can mean that I have to
shout to be heard. Volume controls do not work on any of the telephones in this unit, in
the yard, or any otber unit where I have lived including the Orientation Unit. If you are
hard of hearing you are out of luck.
9. Since around the middle of April and continuing to at least April 26, there have
been problems with the telephones in many of the units here at MCI-Shirley. It is taking
up to twenty minutes to connect a call after dialing the number. The recording repeats
"please hold; please hold; please hold" for a very long time, followed by silence. After
sitting a few more minutes, another recording will come on that says "the called party
does not answer." Sometimes instead of the recording there is a loud piercing noise and
we have to hang up. This can be repeated several times before a call actually goes
through. Meaning that I and other guys spend up to an hour trying to make one call.
When the call finally does go through, the called party tells me they did not receive any
attempted calls from me. On April 26, I tried to call Prisoners Legal Services and I had
to dial the number 11 times before the call went through. I heard the recording "please
hold" repeated, and then the high piercing sound on many of the attempted calls. It took
10-10-11 minutes to connect. This is all very frustrating.
IO. GTL has never provided me with a record with details of charges for
telephone calls that I paid from my debit account. The only notice I receive from GTL is
a recorded announcement at the beginning of each call that tells me my account balancc.
The account from time to time seems to be reduced by more than the cost of a telephone
call between consecutive calls but there is no way to check this out. I am also charged
for prematurely dropped calls thatl should not be charged for. But I have no way of
knowing or checking what charges GTL is taking from my debit account.
11. When I place a call, about half of the time I hear only silence for the first
three or so minutes ofthe call. This is frustrating and distressing because I do not know
what is happening on the receiving end. In the past, on every call we could hear busy
signals, prerecorded messages, whether anyone answered the call or not, etc.
12. During a phone call, a recording is repeated every four minutes that tells the
parties that "this phone call is being monitored and recorded." While this recording is
playing the parties cannot speak to each other. The recording is unnecessary and reduces
the already short time of the phone call. While I was in the Orientation Unit in February,
this recording was not played when I made telephone calls. But when I returned to Unit
C-2, telephone calls again had the message repeated every four minutes. Also, there is a
recorded warning at 60 seconds that "there are 60 seconds left in this call." Thirty-five
seconds later, there is a recording that "there are 10 seconds left in this call." So in the
last minute there are only forty-five seconds to actually speak. Having both of these
recordings is unnecessary.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this z:1 day of

.t2~

ApI! i

,2010 .

fa [lw~"

f)
~;;'B. Carver (W47514)

Exhibit A-lS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Samuel Conti, do hereby affirm that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). I
reside at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner (NCCI), located at 500
Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I have a debit calling account at NCCI that I use to pay for telephone calls to
my family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to NCC] and
other DOC facilities. I requested that the debit calling account be established, and
transfer personal funds into this account from time to time so that I can make debit calls.
In addition to debit calling, from time to time] also call my family and friends using
GTL's collect call service.
3. I initiate, or attempt to initiate, four-to-six calls to family and friends per day
using either my debit calling account or the collect call service, or approximately thirtyto-forty calls per week. I estimate I am on the phone at least one hour per day.
4. I regularly encounter problems with the quality of telephone service. Bad
connections are a constant problem, including static and the inability of one party to
hear the other clearly. At least once a day, I get a recording that a line is "out-ofservlce.
H

5. Approximately one-in-five, or 20%, of the calls] place are prematurely cut off.
Calls have been disconnected due to the incorrect detection of a third party call when
someone speaks to me while] am on a call, and even on occasion when someone simply
walks by and has loud footsteps. I regularly need to place a call three or more times
before a good connection is made.
6. GTL has never provided me with any document that tells me the cost of calls]
am paying for, what I have spent on calls, or other charges that have been deducted from
my debit calling account with the company. I have no record of how the money in my
debit account is spent or allocated or deducted.
7. Most of the phones here at NCCI are old and/or in need of repair. Volume
controls on the telephones do not work at all. For about three weeks in January 2010,
only one telephone in the Thompson-3 unit worked reliably of the nine in the unit which
houses 159 men. I Three of the nine phones serving the unit did not work at all. Calls
made on the other five telephones went through but there were bad connections on all of
these phones and it was hard for parties to hear one another. Because of the high demand
I There are two additional telephones in the Thompson dormitory, which is a separate pali of the
lInit, where thil1y of the 159 men in the lin it live. Those two additional phones are accessible
only to the men in the dormitory. During parts of January neither of those phones worked either.
One of the phones in the dorm seems to be on the same line with one of the nine phones not in the
dorm.

for telephones, men in the unit used these phones even though the connections were so
poor. The broken and non-functioning equipment led to frustration among the guys in
the unit because of the difficulty communicating with family, fiances, and friends.
Because of the competition for good reliable phones, some prisoners used telephones
outside of permitted hours and received disciplinary tickets.
8. Telephones in the unit were supposed to be repaired in late January. But
problems continued. Sometime soon after the repairs were supposedly finished, I tried
calling my fiance. I had to try five times on different telephones in the unit before I got a
working connection and could talk to her.
9. The units here at Gardner are really overcrowded, and the lack of reliable
working phones creates tension in the population as over one hundred guys try to use
nine phones, not all of which work well and one of which is completely dead as of today.
10. Starting in June or .July last year, I heard nothing on the other end after 1
make a call, only silence. In the past we heard a busy signal, or the phone ringing, some
indication of what was happening at the other end. Now I often have to wait for several
minutes before I hear anything or know whether the call has gone through or not. I don't
know if my elderly mother is on the phone and the line is busy, or is she is on the floor.
We hear nothing, and have no idea what is happening on the other end. It feels like
another form of punishment since it is abusive to have to wonder all night if something
has happened to a family member or someone else who I tried to call.
11. A repeated recording is heard every three-to-four minutes on calls. The
recording states "this phone call is being monitored and recorded." The parties cannot
speak with each other when this recording is playing. The repeated recording is
completely unnecessary and only reduces the short time of the phone call. Once should
be enough.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this '.2- day

~~~
Samuel Conti (W84707)

Of.!dEf'

2010.

Exhibit A-16
AFFIDAVIT
I, Eric 1. Mathison, do hereby affirm that:
I. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
live at the Old Colony Correctional Center in Bridgewater, MA (OCCC), a DOC
correctional facility.
2. I have a debit calling account at OCCC that allows me to place debit telephone
calls to family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to DOC
correctional institutions including OCCc. I requested that the debit calling account be
established, and regularly transfer personal funds into this account so that I can placc
debit calls. I call my family and friends using GTL's collect call service as well.
3. I make about ten telephone calls each week.
4. I experience connection problems on almost every callI make. Sometimes, I
can hear the people I call but they can't hear me. Other times, the sound is very choppy
and it's hard to hear the other party.
5. Dropped or cut-off calls are also a regular problem here. About three-to-four
calls a week rcsult in premature cut-offs, almost always because a three-way call is
supposedly detected. The phones at OCCC are notorious for such cut-offs, even when, as
in my case, my parents don't have that ability or option.
6. DOC and GTL used to let us hear telephones ring, if the line is busy, when the
call is accepted, etc. They no longer allow this. Now there is silence for up to four
minutes until we are told if the call is accepted or not.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

£_- '

EricJ.Mr11

Lfa

y of

~~, 2010

Exhibit A-I?
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shirley Jay McGee, do hereby affinn that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
Since January 6,2010, I have been housed at MCl-Concord, 965 Elm Street, Concord,
MA 01742 (MCI-Concord). Prior to January 6, I was incarcerated at North Central
Correctional Institute at Gardner, located at 500 Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440
(NCCI).
2. I had a debit calling account when I lived at NCCl that I used to pay for
telephone calls to my family. I currently have a debit calling account at MCl-Concord
for the same purpose. Global Tel*Link: (GTL) provides telephone service to all DOC
facilities. I requested that my debit calling accounts be set up at both NCCI and MClConcord. Both of these accounts were funded with my personal money. In addition to
debit calling, I sometimes call my family and friends using GTL's collect call service.
3. In February and March of2009, I made (or tried to make) about 250 to 300
calls to my family. Over 60 ofthese phone calls were cut off after a recording came on
saying that a "3-way call has been detected" and that I will be investigated. In fact, no
one I called ever tried to use a 3-way call or beat the phone system in any way. Yet GTL
continued to regularly take money from me and my family that they were not entitled to.
I contacted GTL on many occasions to try and get back the money back. GTL finally
contacted me and said they would reimburse me. Then they told me they would not pay
me back because I had been calling cell phones. But I never called any cell phones.
Since they never reimbursed me as they had originally agreed to do, I took them to small
claims court on November 23,2009. My claim was successful and the judge awarded me
over $18.00, which represented the call connection fees I improperly incurred when I
called a party back after being wrongly disconnected for non-existent three-way calling.
4. GTL telephone service is bad. I always seem to have to talk to my family
through static or hard to hear lines or bad connections. This happens at least two-thirds
of the time I call my family. I used to call a lot but because GTL has not reimbursed me
for calls they should not have cut off, the poor quality of calls and expensive rates I have
slowed down and do not make as many calls.
5. Until May 2009, I could hear the phone ringing or a busy signal when I called
my family. Starting in mid- or late May whenever I called my family there was silence
when I called for four or five minutes- I couldn't hear the phone ringing or a busy signal
or anything. This was really frustrating since I don't know if or when they start charging
.
me, and I don't know what's going on with my family.
6. Sometimes when other men are using the phones talking to their loved ones
and I go to use an available phone, there is no dial tone and the phone does not work.
This has happened even with a good phone that is nonnally working. The phone won't

work until all the others using the phone hang up. Sometimes the phone won't work until
the next day.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this L day of ~' 2010.

Exhibit A-IS
AFFIDAVIT

!, Stephen Metcalf, do hereby affirm that:
I. ! am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) and
reside at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner (NCCI), located at 500
Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I have a debit calling account at NeC! that I use to pay for telephone calls to
my family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to NCe!. !
requested that the debit calling account be established, and regularly transfer money from
my inmate account into the GTL account so that! can make debit calls. I sometimes also
use GTL' s collect call service to pay for telephone calls.
3. I make up to four calls a week to family and friends using either my debit
account or calling them collect.
4. I have problems with the quality of telephone service here 95% of the time.
Bad connections are a constant problem, including humming or static on the line, echo
effects or not being able to hear the person J called after the call is connected. At least
one call a week is dropped or cut-off without warning before I have completed the call
and before the institution's 20 minute time limit on inmate calls is up.
5. When placing a call, I never hear what is happening before the call is accepted.
I don't hear whether the phone is ringing or busy on the other end, whether the recording
is playing or anything. Sometimes a recording will corne on after several minutes of
silence that says "your call was not accepted." But upon redialing the same party
immediately, the called party tells me that the telephone never even rang. This happens
50% to 75% of the time.
6. Many phones in the unit do not work properly, or do not work at all. I have
made numerous complaints about service issues, but have never received a reply to any
of them.
7. When I make a call using my debit account, the call usually goes through. But
collect calls I dial always have trouble like not going through, not ringing on the other
end, announcing "call no! accepted," and other problems. It seems like GTL is trying to
discourage collect calls with service issues.
Signed under the penalties of peljury this 26 day of

en Metcalf (C57664)

API,' / ,2010.
f

Exhibit A-19
AFFIDAVIT

I, Kenneth Moccio, do hereby affirm that:

I. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
reside at DOC's MCI-Shirley facility, located at PO Box 1218, Shirley, MA 01464. Prior
to moving to MCI-Shirley in April, 2009, I was housed at DOC's North Centni:.l
Correctional Institute at Gardner, located at 500 Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440
(NCCI-Gardner),
2. I have a debit calling account at MCI-Shirley and had one at NCCI-Gardner as
well. I requested that a debit calling account be set up at both institutions so that I could
use debit calling to pay for telephone calls to my family and friends. Global Tel*Link
(GTL) provides telephone service to all DOC facilities. I regularly transfer money from
my inmate account into the GTL account at MCI-Shirley, and regularly transferred my
funds into the GTL account at NCCI-Gardner as well.
3. I make about len calls a week. Out of the ten calls I make each week, about
half have bad connections, with static or not being able to hear the other party clearly.
4. One other problem I have is when we make a call, we can't hear if the call is
going through or not. It is a lot of wasted time.
5. The problems with phone service described in paragraphs 3 and 4 were
problems at NCCI-Gardner and continue to be problems at MCI-Shirley.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

(! .
enneth

.. .

J- day of I1JY't ,2010.

7J7~ £0 fj '.531

Mocci~S39)

.I1CI

S"/tIRLJ?"'( I

5'}r/f..Lc'1

..J-.
() eO 17-vse
!?V5/V

/f-M

/If/9-,

/rp/'£

TJrF

f/P".;;

/'t' J

Bo~ )'2iB

o/'-i(,;.~(.

TfrLS

if'!f-nv;;;-s

/5",//

I/CJ?.. 1:

t.u CI/1.5C

J IT o-fv'k

Y,c/c.>

~:v/~

Exhibit A-20
AFFIDAVIT

I, William Nadworny, do hereby affinn that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Depmiment of Correction (DOC), and reside
at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner (NCCI), located at 500 Colony Road,
Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I have a debit calling account at NCC) that I use to pay for telephone calls to my
family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to NCC! and other DOC
facilities. I requested that the debit calling account be established, and regularly transfer
personal funds into this account so that I can make debit calls.
3. I make approximately 25 calls to family and friends per week using my debit calling
account.
4. The quality ofGTL's telephone service is poor. During approximately half of the
calls I place each week, ) have difficulty hearing the individual on the other end of the line, or
they have difliculty hearing me. Therc are very few calls with clear connections on both ends.
5. Of the approximately 25 calls I make each week, two-to-three calls are cut off
prematurely with no announcement, and I have to call the individual back, meaning that I have to
pay an additional connection fee. An additional two calls are cut off after a recording announces
that "a 3-way call has been detected" or "call waiting not allowed." Again r have to redial the
number and pay another conneetion fee.
6. GTL has never provided me with any document that tells me the cost of calls J am
paying for, what r have spent on calls, or other charges that have been deducted from my debit
calling account with the company. ) have no record of how the money in my debit account is
spent or allocated or deducted.
7. ) have never received any records of the telephone calls I make using the debit calling
account and the charges GTL deducts from my account for the calls. ) have no idea if their
billing is accurate or not.
8. The telephone equipment at NCC) is also poor, with many broken or damaged phones
that need to be repaired or replaced. The volume controls on every phone do not work.
9. One other problem that GTL and DOC need to address: on every call) make, I cannot
hear the telephone ringing on the other end, or hear a recording or busy signal, or know what is
happening. The wait can be over four minutes until there is an actual connection with the party
on the other end.

Signed under the penalties of perjury this /s7 day of /l11JY ,2010.

~4Mz~~~~~

William J. Nadwo ny (W4053o)

Exhibit A-21
AFFIDAVIT

I, Marcos U. Ramos, do hereby affirm that:
1. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).
reside in the H unit at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner (NCCI
Gardner), located at 500 Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I use a debit calling account at NCC! Gardner to pay for telephone calls to my
family. Global Tel'Link (GTL) provides telephone service to DOC facilities including
NCCI Gardner. I requested that this calling account be established, and transfer personal
funds into this account regularly so that I can make debit calls. In addition to debit
calling, from time to time I also call my family using GTL's collect call service.
3. I am a frequent telephone user. I make, or attempt to make, two-to-four
telephone calls per day, sometimes more. To pay for calls I use either my debit calling
account or I call collect. I estimate I make 14-to 24 calls every week.
4. I encounter bad connections almost on a daily basis. Words are chopped up
and not able to be understood because of poor sound quality, and the parties are not able
to understand one another. Other times the called person simply cannot hear me.
5. Three-lo-five of the 14-to-24 telephone calls I make weekly are dropped or cut
off prematurely, before the institutional time limit is reached. The cut-off calls have all
been preceded with a recorded message that the call would be terminated due to the
detection of an attempt to make a third party call. I have never been party to a three-way
phone call from this institution. Moreover, the family members I call do not have the
capability to make third party calls.
6. I received records of phone calls I made from NCCI Gardner, including
charges, on two occasions. First, I received from GTL some records of calls I made and
GTL's charges for those calls but only after I filed a formal complaint with the Federal
Communications Commission. GTL' s response came after more than ten months of
requests and complaints from me about inaccurate and wrongful charges assessed by
GTL including charges for incorrect detection of third party calls. Second, I received
additional records from DOC's Peter Macchi, Director of Administrative Services, after
informing him of complaints I had about GTL telephone service and wrongful charges.
Other than these documents, I have not received calling records detailing charges that are
deducted from my debit account by GTL for calls I made and other charges they may
assess against me.
7. Virtually all of the phones here at NCCI Gardner are old or need repair.
Volume controls do not work on any tclephones. I often have to place a call three, four
or more times before a good com1ection is made.

8. Another problem is that the quality of a telephone can vary from day to day. A
telephone that is reliable and providing good service today will not necessarily provide
good service on another day. There is no way to know in advance if a particular unit will
work well even if it has worked well in the recent past.
9 Telephones in the H unit were supposed to be repaired in late January. But
problems with the phones and quality of calls continue, even after the supposed repairs.
All of the telephones in the H unit continue to be unreliable and sound quality remains
generally poor, unchanged from before.
10. Customer service is non-existent. After contacting GTL customer service on
numerous occasions and not receiving a satisfactory reply, I filed a complaint with the
FCC. GTL did provide me with some records but still has not answered my inquiries
substantively or reimbursed me for funds they overcharged me.
12. A repetitive and unnecessary recording that informs the parties that "this
phone call is being monitored and recorded" is heard every three-to-four minutes on
telephone calls. The recording is needed only once, at the beginning of calls. Because
parties cannot speak when the recording is being played, it only serves to further reduce
the short time of the phone call, and drive up the actual per minute cost of speaking time.
the pen

·es of peljury
/'

this~ay of ~
h _,.1 ,2010.

-~;( ~ ~tAJ:'_/::--_~
i~~.Ramos~
.....

-.,,~

_.-.---

Exhibit A-22
AFFIDAVIT

I, Gerardo Rosario, do hereby affirm that:
1. I am incarcerated at the North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner
(NCCI), located at 500 Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440. NCCI is run by the
Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) .
2. I have a debit calling account at NCCI that I use to pay for telephone calls to
my family. Telephone service here is provided by Global Tel*Link (GTL). I asked that
the debit calling account be set up, and transfer my personal money into this account so
that I can make debit calls. In addition to debit calling, from time to time I also call my
family and friends collect.
3. I now make three-to-four calls each week to family and friends per day using
my debit calling account or calling collect. I used to make calls every day or six-to-nine
calls per week, but the service is so bad that I call much less now.
4. The quality of telephone calls is terrible. I have problems hearing the person I
called, or they have a problem hearing me. Inmate calls sometimes have crossed lines, so
that either party can hear entire conversations on the other line, including attorney calls.
5. Another serious problem is calls that are cut off before the time limit is
reached. What happens is that for no apparent reason a recording comes on that says "a
third party call has been detected. Your call will be directed to the system administrator
for further action." This happens even though no one tried to make a 3-way call. It
forces me and other inmates to call again and be charged another connection fee. I
estimate that this happened about 50% of the time when I was making calls every day, or
three-to-five calls per week. This is a major reason I cqt back making calls.
6. GTL does not provide me or any inmate with a telephone call record that
shows what they are charging for calls. This is a real problem too since we can't tell if
they have made a mistake billing us.
7. The telephones here at NCCI are almost all old and broken and need repair.
The volume controls do not work on any phone I have used. For three weeks in January
2010, only one telephone in the Thompson-3 unit worked reliably out of the nine in the
unit which houses 159 men. (Two additional phones in the dormitory can be used by the
thirty guys who live there, but not by the other 129 men in the unit. At one point during
this period both of those phones were broken and not working.) Tlnee of the nine
phones in the unit did not work at all. Of the other five, calls would go through but there
were bad connections on all ofthem with static and people were hard to hear. Even
though the connections were really bad, inmates in the unit used these phones that didn't
work well because so many guys wanted to make calls. There was a lot of frustration in
the unit because of all the broken and damaged phones. Some prisoners used telephones
outside of official hours and were written up for it.

8. We were told that repairs to the telephones began in late January. But there
were still problems after the repairs were supposedly made. Some phones were fixed, but
others were still unreliable and didn't work well.
9. Another problem is that the quality of a telephone can vary from day to day.
So a telephone that is reliable and providing good service today will not necessarily
provide good service on another day. There is no way to know in advance if a particular
unit will work well even if it has worked well in the last couple of days.
10. Right after I make a call, there is a long silence (three-to-five minutes) when
you hear nothing on the other end. In the past you could hear what was happening on the
other end, ringing or a busy signal. Now there is silence. This was implemented in early
June 2009 for no apparent reason and without warning.

~,,vj 2010.
Signed under the penalties ofpeljury this /; -#I
day of~,

1Vt4ctL a;~A&;)

-Gerardo Rosario (w,(224)

Exhibit A-23

AFFIDAVIT

I, Edward Sarmanian, do hereby affirm that:
I. I am incarcerated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) and
live at DOC's North Central Correctional Institute at Gardner (NCC!), located at 500
Colony Road, Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I have a debit calling account at NCC! that I use to pay for telephone calls to
my family and friends. Global Tel*Link (GTL) provides telephone service to NCCI. I
requested that a debit calling account be set up for me so I could make debit calls. I
regularly transfer money from my inmate account into the GTL account.
3. I make at least four calls a week to family and friends. I call my father once
or twice each .week.
4. I have problems with telephone service here most of the time. It's almost
always hard to hear the people I call and very hard for them to hear me, and there is
almost always static. Every second or third call! make to my father is cut off because
three-way calling is supposedly detected. The recorded alert comes on, and then the call
is cut-off. But my father, who is 82-years-old, doesn't have three-way calling.
5. When I mal(e a call, I never hear the phone ringing, or a busy signal, while I'm
waiting for the called party to answer. There's silence for a long time and then all of a
sudden [' m connected.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this ~g day ofAPe,ib?O I O.

~k0PJ~
Edward Sarmanian (W45480)

Exhibit A-24

AFFIDAVIT
I, Beverly Chorbajian, Esq., do hereby affirm that:
1. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. My mailing address is 390 Main St., Suite 659, Worcester,
MAO]608.
2. I represent and receive telephone calls from clients who are incarcerated in
state and county correctional facilities in the Commonwealth. I requested and
utilize collect and/or direct bill telephone service with Global Tel*Link (GTL)
and Evercom Systems, Inc. (Evercom) (or affiliates) so that I can
communicate with my incarcerated clients by telephone. I am the customer of
record on accounts with GTL and Evercom and am responsible for paying for
the telephone services they render to me .
3. My office receives between 25 and 35 telephone calls per week from clients in
Massachusetts correctional institutions. Approximately one-third of the calls
are from cOlmty institutions serviced by Evercom and two-thirds are from
clients in state institutions serviced by GTL.
4. I conservatively estimate that half the calls we receive from correctional
institutions have poor reception and that one out of five calls are dropped
prematurely. The calls dropped by Evercom every month are almost all
preceded by a recorded message that the system detected an attempt to add a
third party. Neither I nor anyone in my office has ever attempted to add a
third party or forward a call from an incarcerated client.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

day

1kv~~~-'
~.

Beverly Chorbajian

Of~, 20]0.

~xhibit

A-25

AFFIDAVIT

I, James R. Logar, Esq., do hereby affinn that:

1. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. My mailing address is 1245 Hancock St, Quincy, MA 02169.
2. Irepresent and receive telephone calls from clients who are incarcerated in
state and county correctional facilities in the Commonwealth. I requested and
utilize collect and/or direct bill telephone service with Global Tel*Link
(GTL),Evercom Systems, Inc. (Evercom), and Digital Solutions/Inmate
Telephone, Inc. (DSI) (or affiliates) so that I can communicate with my
incarcerated clients by telephone. I am the customer of record on accounts
with GTL, Evercom,and DSland am responsible for paying for the telephone
services they render to me.
3. My experience with Evercom ' s customer service has been mixed. Initially
they were very difficult to reach and it was very difficult to inaugurate service
with them so.that I could speak with my clients. When I finally reached the
person in charge of setting up accounts for defendants' lawyers, customer
service was much better. I was given a dedicated phone number I could use
for service or billing questions, with alive person responding to my inquiries.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 36 day of &PR.I L , 2010.

),#nes R. Logar

Exhibit A-26

AFFIDAVIT
I, Peter T. Sargent, Esq., do hereby affinll that:
1. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. My mailing address is P.O. Box 425, Gardner, MA 01440.
2. I represent and receive telephone calls from clients who are incarcerated in
state and county correctional facilities in the Commonwealth. I requested and
utilize collect and/or direct bill telephone service with Global Tel*Link (GTL)
and Evercom Systems, Inc. (Evercom) (or affiliates) so that I can
communicate with my incarcerated clients by telephone. I am the customer of
record on accounts with GTL and Evercom and am responsible for paying for
the telephone services they render to me.
3. I have two ongoing problems with prisoner telephone calls. First, every other
month or so I get a call from a county institution answered by my assistant
and put on hold that is terminated when I pick up the receiver. The system
appears to perceive this as a third-party call. Second, clients at county
institutions have told me that they cannot get through to me with collect calls
in months when I have run over some preset spending limit. I am given no
warning of the cut -off before it happens, and am not offered an opportunity to
payoff any balance to make it possible to receive more calls.
Signed under the penalties ofpeJjury this 29 th day of April, 2010.

':xhibit A-27
AFFIDAVIT

I, Debra Beard-Bader, Esq., do hereby affinn that:
I. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I am the attorney in charge of the Alternative Commitment
Unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS). Our mailing
address is 144 Main St., 4th floor, Brockton, MA 02301.
2. This office represents and receives telephone calls from clients who are
incarcerated in state correctional facilities in the Commonwealth.
Approximately 95% of the calls come from the Massachusetts Treatment
Center operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction. Global
Tel*Link provides telephone service that allows us to receive telephone calls
from clients incarcerated at the Treatment Center. CPCS is the customer of
record for GTL telephone call charges.
3. On average this office receives 300 calls per month. Approximately 15-20%
of the calls have too much static to hear the other party. Also, there are
occasions when there is feedback or an echo, when what the speaker says is
echoed back after a very slight delay. This also interferes with conversations.
In addition, about 10% of the calls we receive are cut off when we press "0"
to answer the call.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

Debra B!ard-Badef

f/l day of ¥, 2010.

Exhibit A-28

AFFIDAVIT
I, John S. Redden, Esq., do hereby affirm that:
1. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I am the attorney in charge of the Brockton Superior Trial
U nit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Our mailing address is
144 Main St., 4tl' floor, Brockton, MA 02301.
2. This office represents and receives telephone calls liOln clients who are
incarcerated in state and county correctional facilities in the Commonwealth.
The office utilizes collect call telephone services provided by Global Tel*Link
(GTL) and Evercom Systems, Inc. (Evercom) (or affiliates) that allow our
incarcerated clients to call us. CPCS is the eustomer of record on the GTL
and Evercom telephone accounts.
3. This office receives approximately 450 telephone calls from incarcerated
individuals each month. Approximately 10% of those calls come from
individuals in DOC facilities, and approximately 90% come from individuals
in county facilities. We estimate that one call per week from state facilities
have bad connections and are hard to hear, and approximately three calls per
week from county facilities have the same problem.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

S--f1t

day of ~, 2010.

oxhibit A-29
AFFIDAVIT
I, Patricia C. Voorhies, do hereby affirm that:
1. I am the Managing Director of Clinical and Experiential Education at
Northeastern University School of Law. Our mailing address is 360
Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115.
2. The Prisoners' Rights Clinic (the Clinic) represents and receives telephone
calls from clients who are incarcerated in state correctional facilities in the
Commonwealth operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
The Clinic utilizes collect call telephone services provided by Global
Tel*Link (GTL) that allow our incarcerated clients to call the Clinic.
Northeastern University is the customer of record on the GTL telephone
account. Calls are broken out by "budget centers," including the Clinic. The
Clinic is responsible for payment of the calls billed to it including prisonerinitiated calls.
3. This office receives approximately 40-50 telephone calls from incarcerated
individuals each week. On the main telephone line, which receives 30-40
calls per week, it is frequently very difficult to hear what the prisoner is
saying unless he or she shouts. On the second line to the clinic administrator,
with about 10 calls per week, about one-in-ten calls have other voices on the
line, static or echoes.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 3'd day of May, 2010.

4e/&(!Jm~

Patricia C. Voorhies

Exhibit A-30

AFFIDAVIT
I, Patricia Garin, Esq., do hereby affirm that:
1. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
am a partner in the law firm Stern Shapiro Weisberg & Garin, LLP. Our mailing
address is 90 Canal St., Boston, MA 02114.
2. The firm represents and receives telephone calls from clients who are incarcerated in
state and county correctional facilities in the Commonwealth. We requested and
utilize collect and/or direct bill telephone service with Global Tel*Link (GTL) and
Evercom Systems, Inc. (Evercom) (or affiliates) so that we can communicate with our
incarcerated clients by telephone. Stern Shapiro Weisberg & Garin LLP is the
customer of record on accounts with GTL and Evercom. The firm is responsible for
paying for the telephone services rendered by these providers to us.
3. Our office receives between approximately 40 and more than 75 telephone calls per
month from clients in Massachusetts correctional institutions. The number of calls
depends on the number of incarcerated clients and the status oflegal proceedings,
among other factors. We receive from 30 to more than 60 calls per month from state
correctional institutions serviced by GTL. We receive from 10 to 15 calls per month
from county correctional facilities serviced by Evercom.

4. The sound quality of telephone calls received from incarcerated clients varies. For
calls received in the office from clients in state correctional institutions, I estimate
that one in every six or seven calls had a connection or reception problem. But
connection problems with calls from incarcerated clients that I received at home on
my personal cellular phone were markedly worse: at least one call in three received at
home had a terrible connection and was hard to hear versus one in six or seven
problem calls in the office.
5. With respect to dropped or cut-off calls, I had a similar experience: calls at home on
my personal cellular phone from incarcerated clients in state correctional institutions
were much more likely to be dropped or cut-off prematurely than calls received at the
office. Very few calls are dropped or prematurely cut off in the office. But calls
received on my personal phone at home were frequently dropped, generally preceded
by a message that an attempt to make a three-way call was detected. I never
attempted to add a third party to snch a call nor did I ever attempt to forward such a
call to a third party.
Signed under the penalties

Patricia Garin

ofpe~jury this

fl'-

L, ,1

30day of~, 2010.

~xhibit

A-31

AFFIDAVIT
I, Leslie Walker, Esq., do hereby affinn that:
I. I am a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I am the Executive Director of Massachusetts Correctional
Legal Services doing business as Prisoners' Legal Services (MCLS). My
mailing address is 8 Winter St., II th floor, Boston, MA 02108.
2. MCLS represents and receives telephone calls from clients who are
incarcerated in state and county correctional facilities throughout the
Commonwealth. MCLS requested and utilizes collect and/or direct bill
telephone services with Global Tel*Link (GTL), Evercom Systems, Inc.
(Evercom), and Digital Solutions/Inmate Telephone, Inc. (DSI) (or affiliates).
These telephone services pennit our staffto communicate with our
incarcerated clients. MCLS is the customer of record on accounts with GTL,
Evercom and DSI and is responsible for paying for the telephone services the
companies render to MCLS.
3. MCLS receives between 1200 and 1600 calls from Massachusetts Department
of Correction (DOC) facilities each month. Staff estimates that prisoners are
difficult to hear on between 5 and 10% of the calls. On occasion there have
been more serions cOlmection problems with calls from an entire institution
that have lasted for weeks or months. For example, in late 2008 and early
2009, all calls from the Massachusetts Treatment Center had a recurring,
persistent echo that made it difficult for the parties to hear one another. The
problem took several months to fix, and the office still receives calls from the
Treatment Center that are difficult to hear because of static or faint or garbled
VOIces.
4. MCLS receives between 90 and 120 calls per month from county correctional
facilities serviced by Evercom. MCLS staff estimates that approximately 5%
of county telephone calls have connection problems where clients are difficult
to hear and understand.
Signed under the penalties of peljury this 4th day of May, 2010.

Leslie Walker

Exhibit A-32
AFFIDAVIT

I, Peter C. Puopolo, Jr., do hereby affinn that:
1. I reside in Massachusetts at 401 Ferry St., Everett, MA 02149.

2. My brother is incarcerated at MCI-Shirley in Shirley, MA (MCI-Shirley), a
correctional institution operated by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). Global
Tel*Link (GTL) provides my brother and me with telephone service that allows us to speak to
one another.
3. I receive 14 calls per week from my brother. Six-to-eight ofthc calls are dropped or
cut off prematurely without warning. Also, at least three-to-four of the calls have poor
connections when he caiis me. There clicking noises, static, and he is very hard to hear.
4. GTL's service representatives are rude when I call them. Thcy no longer allow me to
accept calls and pay for them through Verizon. They tell me the phones are theirs and they can
do what they want to the rates and who can pay for them. They make their own rules.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this

"M day of tm-"~_, 2010.
'0

information
Questions?
The AdvancePay Service Department is ready to
answer all billing related questions:
Toll Free Number:
1-866-230-7761
Fax Number:
251-473-2802
Hours of operation:
Monday-Friday
7:00 am to 9:00 pm
Saturday
8:00 am to 5:00 pm
Central Standard Time
Mailing Address:
AdvancePay Service Dept.
Department 1722
Denver, Colorado 80291-1722
Website:
www.GTL.net
To establish an AdvancePay account, a payment of
either $25.00 or $50.00 must be made via credit
card.
After the account is established, additional payments
may be made by money order, check, credit card, or
Western Union and Money Gram Wire transfers.
The system is completely automated. Account setup
and additional transactions can be completed via an
automated operator.
Customers may olso ..¢ontad the AdvancePay service
de.p. artment to make,a prepaYt1Jento< .... C/
I'

',I

Family members and friends of inmates are given
using credit cards, checks, money orders or

Toll Free Number:
1-866-230-7761

Western Union. Calls that may otherwise be
blocked are now completed through GTl's
AdvancePay program.

Fax Number:
251-473-2802

the option of setting up prepaid calling accounts

Monday - Friday
7am to 11 pm, CST
Saturday and Sunday
8am to 7pm, CST

When funds on a prepaid account are low, an
automated system will contact customers with the
option to add more money to their AdvancePay
account.
All transactions occur in real time. When an
inmate places a call to a number set up as

prepaid, funds are deducted from the
AdvancePay aCCQl.i"nt as soon as the call
is comp!ete.

Mailing Address:
AdvancePay Service Dept.
Department 1722
Denver, Colorado 80291-1722

o
DON'T press numbers on the touch
tone pad during the call
(inmate phone or called phone)

Website:
www.GTL.net
The easiest way to establish an AdvancePay
account is through GTl's automated phone system
with either $25.00 or $50.00 made via credit card.
Or customers can go to www.gti.net and click on
the web payment link.

(:)
DON'T stop the tonversaiion for any
length of time, even shari pauses may
result in disconnect

In addition to our automated phone system and website, accounts can be established and payments can
be made through our AdvancePay customer service

department, Western Union and by mailing checks or
money orders.

The system is completely automated and can be
accessed by calling 1-800-483-8314.

The AdvancePay Service Department is ready to answer all billing related questions.
Toll free: 1-866-230-7761 Hours of operation: Monday - Friday, 7am to 11 pm, Saturday and Sunday, 8am to 7pm CST
Website: www.GTL.net

DON'T put the inmate on hold

DON'T use or answer Ileal! waiting"

account.

Customers can rest assured that collect call
charges will not reach an excessive amount.

f)
DON'T try to transfer the call

Hours of Operation:

How Does II Work?
AdvancePay allows inmates to call your
telephone number without the restrictions of
standard billing. When an inmate attempts to
dial an un-billable number, the inmate is placed
on hold and AdvancePay will provide the option
to the called party to set up a prepaid account.
After the prepaid account is established, collect
calls to the telephone number may be placed up
to the prepaid amount in the account. After the
amount of money is used, the sysfem will prompt
the user to add funds to their AdvancePay

DON'T attempt a 3-way call

Once a number has been blocked, only the
person the number is listed to may unblock
the number by calling:

1-866-230-77 61

G':':!aL.

::r
t-'0t-'rt

Notice: AI! AdvancePay payments are subiect to
bJ
applicable faxes and fees. Specifications orc subject
r
N
change without notice. This publication may be copit
ond distributed to inmates, family members, and friends.

The Commonwealth

Deval L. Patrick
Governor

of MassachuJettJ

ExecutilJe Office of Public S aje"f)! e::?' Security
Department of Correction
l\forth Centra! Correctional InJtitution
500 Colony Road, P. O. Box 466
Gardne7~ MA 01440

Timothy P. Murray
Lieutenant Governor

(978) 630-6000. Fax (978) 630-6040

Mary Elizabeth Heffernan
Secretary
Feoruary 23, 2010

........ Exhibit

Harold W. Clarke
Commissioner

James R. Bender
Ronald T. Duval
Veronica M. Madden
Deputy Commissioners

James J. Saba
Superintendent

Lauren Petit
Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services
8 Winter Street, 11" Floor
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Ms. Petit:
I have reviewed your concerns outlined in your email. Please see my response to each of your concerns in red.

Phones seem to remain a big problem despite the work GTL has done there. We have reports from lots of people that a
good portion of phones still don't work and that those that do work have malfunctions like frequent "special features"
hang~ups when no features were used or repeated experiences with getting the recording saying there was no answer on
the other end but then calling from another phone and getting through with the person at the receiving end saying the
phone didn't ling earlier. In I building it's reported that two working phones are shared by all the men in the building and
I west has day time hours for calling, I East has nighttime hours. If you try to use the phones off the hours for your
dorm, you are wamed or given a ticket. Those in I West who have working family or loved ones are out of luck for
contacting them during the week. People have raised that aU the institution\s phones have been out for a couple days at
a time sporadically, but that seems to coindde with the repair issues you discussed in our meeting. Because phone
access is so critical to prisoners' ability to remain connected to their family and outside community I it seems that there
may need to be a more systematic way of determining the functioning of phones in the prlson and reporting to GTL when
they need to get someone out to repair them. Is there a current system beyond prisoners telling someone at happy hour
or grieving?
We were having significant issues with the phones for approximately 2-3 weeks. This was a GTL issue and the vendor
was on site nearly every day working to resolve the issues. The issues have since been resolved. GTL installed new
software to the system and then replaced/repaired hardware to phones that were not working. Phone issues are reported
by staff via incident report and then IPS contacts GTL to come in make the necessary repairs. If inmates are having
individual issues with their pin number, caUs getting through, etc. they can fill out a problem sheet which gets forwarded
to the system administrator who is responsible for making the necessary repairs.

I trust this addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact my office if you should any further

questions and/or concerns.

Sincerely, .

eJa:~
f.!.57
Superintendent

JJSlbcm

cc:

File

Exhibit D
Issued in411001

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

This [onn'Sjo'.ntly

,ss~!'1f:u~~,~~~;:~S!!£~~~~!l'!!!/!.o't£::;~c!..",~ "'" ' "

QQCralionaJ Suykes.oiyjsion fOSDl for use by all Commonwealth Departments. Any ebBOgei to the offici:.1 printed language of tflts form sbaD
be void. Tbis shall not prohibit the addition of non-conmcti02" Contract terms. By executing this Contract, the Contractor under the pains and

pena.lties of perjury, makes an ~fications ~ired bylaw and certifies ~tit shall comply with tne following requirements: that the Contractor is
qualified and shall at all times remain qualified W perlonn this Contract; that performance shall be timely and meet or exceed induStry standards, including:
obtaining requisite licenses, permits and resources for perfomunce; that the Con'<tactor and its subconlnlctors are not currently debarred; that the Contr.l.ctar is
responsible for reviewing the Staniiard Conbact Form Instructions available at \:'{WW.c0!11Jn.:W!SS.oom!cornm:pass/forms.asp; that !he terms of this Contract shall
survive its tcnniuation for the purpose of resolving any claim, dispute or other Contract action, or for effootoating any negotiated representations and warranties;
and that the Contractor agrees that all tenns govemmg performance oflhis Contract and doing business in Massachusetts are attached to this Conlnlcl or
incorporated by reference herein, including the following requirements: all reievantMassacbusetts state and federal laws, regulations, Executive Qrden;, treaties,
requirements for access 10 Ctmtractorreooros. the terms of the applicable Commonwealth Terms and Conditiol1s , the terms of this Standard Contract Form and
Instructions including the Contractor Certifications and Legal References the Request for Response (RFR) or solicitation (if applicable), the Contrnctor's respunse
to the RFRor solicitation (ifapplicable), and any additional negotiated provisions.

. rnm CONTRACTOR MUsrCOl\1PLETE ONLY THOSESECTfONS PRECEDED BY AN Of~'~

7VEriDOR CODE:

MMARS .DOCUMENT In:
CONTRACT 10:

-1-CONTRACTOR NAME: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION

DEl" ARl'MRNT NAME: Department oC Correction

~CONTRACTMANAGER: 1i1;1.lESA RIDGEWAY

CON'I'RACT MANAGER: PETER V, MAcCHI., DIRECTOR, ADMIN SER.VICES

-7PHONE: 800489-4500, EXT 2211

PHONE: 508-422-3333
FAX: 508-422-3382

-)FAX: 251-375-8041
-7E·MAlL ADDRRSS~ TERESA..RIDGEWAY@GTL.NET

&-MAIL ADDRESS: PETER,@.nOC.STATE.MA.US

BUSlNESS MAILING ADDRESS: SO !l.1APLE Si1U£ET - Svrrn 3
MlLFORD. MA 01757

-7IJUSINESS MA(UNG ADDRESS: 2609 CAMERON STREET, MOBIL£., AL
36607

TIm FOLLOWING COMMONW&ALllI TERMS AND COND(TIONS FOR THIS CONTRALT HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND FILED WITH CTIt:
~ COMMONWEALTH.TERMs AND CONDITIONS

COMPENSATION: (Check one option ctJly)
~rimum Obligation of this Contract: $.-,.,.,..-:-:---:--:-,,:;-

(Ched: only Olle)

COMMONWEALrniERMS AND CONDmONS FOR HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICES

PAYMENTTVPE: (Checkoneoptionollly)
~ Payment

No Maximum Obligation has been set for this Contract (Oleck one)

Voucher (PV)
_ _Ready Payment (RP) (Scbedule: _ _ _Initial Base Amt:$ _ _ _-')

Rate Contract with a Rate of: $_ _ _ Per:-;:-::-CC7"7Rate Contract with Multiple/Negotiated Rates: (Attach listing of
multiple rates or de.:Jcription of negotiation process)

_ _C<lntnlctor Payroll (CP) (Required for Contract Employees)
_ _ Recuning Payment (Required for Leases and lELPs)

7PAYMENT ME'fHOD: The Contractor agrees to be paid by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT is the Commonwealth's Preferred Paymenl Method): _

Yes l

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CONTMCT PERFORMANCE: (R4erence to altachmeft1s wlihoUlII/WTaJive description ajperformance is insufficient)

Secure inmate calling system,and related services
NOTE: three optIOns 10 renew. up to one year each option
PROCUREMENT OR EXCEPTiON 1"ll'E~ (Check one opiion ono/)

_ Single Department ProcuremenUSingle Department User-Contract; ....JL Single Department ProcurcmentIMultiple Department UserConlract;:_
Multiple Department ProcurementlLimited Department User Contract; _ Statewide Contract (Only for use by QSD or an OSD-designated Department);
_ Grant (as defined by815 CMR 2.00); _
Emergency Contract (attach justification); _ Interim Contract (attach justification); _Contract Employee;
_Collective Purchase (attach OSD approval) _
Legislative/legal Exemption (attach proof); __ Other (Specify):
RFR REP'El\ENCE NUMBER: (or "NtA" if not applicable) RFR# lOOO-PHONE2G06

ANTICU'ATED C()N11tACf E~~ _START~A!.~~ P~~~=~.!h~l b~n_9n March_ 3. 2006 •.w.hicll.sball_bc no earlier than_the 1.aten-date this Contract,is signed-"
by'authorized signafones orth~partment lind Contractor and approved under Section 1 of the .applicable Commonwealth Terms and Conditions.
,

TERM1NATION DATE OF TH.11ft cr/NTR..ACf':

This Contr'!:t~~11 terminate 00

March 2.2010' unless terminated {)r amended by mutual written agreement by the

parties prior to this date un¢r f'xction 4 oftheapplicab~ommol1wealth Terms and Conditions.

-7AurngJUZlkslGN~

-7DATE:

ORTHECONTRACfP:

Ii'.w/I {"'--,...v- --J

'1j' .,(;ontra'1J~tllt~SSignatory)
I

(Date must be tiandwrlttefi at time of signature)

7NAME!

TERESARIOCEWAV

7TI11..E: VICE,PERSIOENTOF LEGAL & ADMINISTRATION

AUTHORIZINyjIGNAllJREFOItTltEDEFARTMENT:

.X:

~ VA.

{Signature o( llepartment's Authorize" Signatory)
. .:l -16~() y
DATE: _____~~___c~~~~~-c~--~~~__c-___
(Date must be handwritten at time of signature)
NAME: _ _"KA."..T..,""L".E"N'-"M=,..,D"'E"NN"."HV"-'-____________

TITLE: __-CC~O~~M~MI~S~S~IO~"~§~.'-_________________
.

Contractors are responsible for reviewing the Standard Contract Form Instructions available at www comm..nass.com/comm-pass/forrns.asp.

.".~

"<I,'

Addendum #1 to the Contract, January 30, 2006
Between
Massachusetts Department of Correction
and
Global Tel Link

This contract will consist of the Request for Response (RFR), DOC File No.
1000-Phone2006, dated July 11, 2005, Responses to Bidder Inquiries and RFR
Amendments, dated August 26, 2005, Global Tel Link (GTL) Response to the RFR (in its
entirety), dated September 14, 2005, including aU attaclunents, GTL Pricing-Rates &
Commissions,. dated September 14, 2005, GTL Response to Clarification Letter, dated
November 2, 2005 and this adden.dum (Addendum #1), dated January 30, 2006.

Section. 1:

The Commonwealth of
Massach usetts

Department of
Correction
Request for Responses
for an

Secure Inmate Calling Systeln
& Related Services
DOC File No. lOOO-Phone2006
,.'

1,\

July 11,2005

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number lOOO-Phone2006
2005

•

3
July 11,

a commission based on a percent factor of all revenue received from calls placed via
the Secure Inmate Calling System operating in pre-paid debit based mode;

All commission percentages must be stated in the Cost Tables (Attachment D). Payments to the
DOC and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts must be paid monthly.
There shall be no cost to the DOC for the installation or maintenance of the ICS at each DOC
facility. The Bidder is responsible for replacement of the ICS in its entirety or its individual
components regardless of cause including, but not limited to, normal wear/use, inmate abuse,
natural disaster, or inmate unrest. This system or component replacement will be performed at no
cost to the DOC and will occur immediately upon notification to the Contractor of the system
problem by the DOC facility.
The current contract with Verizon will expire in March, 2006. The selected Contractor will be
responsible for implementing the proposed ICS in all DOC facilities to coincide with this contract
expiration date. The Bidder must address all aspects of Section 5.7 regarding the transition to and
the installation of the proposed ICS.
SECURITY SENSITIVE INFORMATION

This solicitation (and RFR document) contains security-sensitive information which, pursuant to
MGL c.4, § 7, cls. 26(n), is generally exempt from public disclosure under the Commonwealth's
public records laws and must, for public safety purposes, be safeguarded from widespread public
disclosure.
This security-sensitive information is in the form of blueprints, plans, policies, procedures,
schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures,
emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, and/or any other records relating to
the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation,
information technology or other infrastructure located within the Commonwealth.
Qualified prospective Bidders that are interested in accessing this information for the purposes of
preparing a bid response must, before being allowed to access the information, sign a
confidentiality agreement, thereby agreeing to:

1. a restriction on the use of these sensitive records for any other purpose than as authorized
and for the purpose of putting together a bid proposal; and
2. safeguard the information while it is in their possession.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Senices
DOC File Number lOOO-Phone2006
2005

July 11,

5.1.4

5.1.5

A Centralized System Database located outside of the DOC facilities and
maintained by the Bidder. The Bidder must state, in its response, the physical
location (City/State) where the centralized system database is location.

The proposed I CS must allow for all DOC locations to be networked together thus
allowing the sharing of inmate information, inmate PINs and call records between
system. This network between DOC locations must allow for remote access of the IeS
at one DOC facility by an authorized user at another DOC facility.
The proposed I CS must. a1IQw for administrator password levels that restrict DOC
personnel to the ICS within their particular DOC facility as well as allow certain DOC
personnel to access multiple systems, if required.
5.1.2

The Bidder must propose one type of Secure Inmate Calling System for all DOC
locations. All system hardware, software, software level and support systems must be
the same in each DOC facility.

5.1.3

The I CS at each DOC facility must provide for all telecommunications capabilities for
inmate services as well as administrative capabilities for DOC personnel.

5.1.4

The Bidder must provide a Centralized System Database that is located at a Bidder
provided site and provide full database redundancy for the res at each DOC facility.

5.1.5

The Bidder must propose an IeS at no cost to the DOC and include:
•
•
•
•
•

full design, progrannning and installation;
programming of all inmate PINs and call lists;
post installation maintenance;
all network services (local, IntraLATA, InterLATA);
all network services for administration of the res.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Dep artment of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number IOOO-Phone2006
200S

36
July II,

5.1.14

The proposed rcs must allow for a maximum "ring time" prior to disconnecting the
inmate call. This "ring time" parameter must be programmable by the DOC but must be
consistent among DOC facilities.

5.1.15

The proposed ICS must provide notification to an inmate of the call status (e.g., ringing,
busy, etc.). This notification may either be in the form of ringing, busy tones, SIT tones,
or appropriate recorded messages. This requirement must be implemented for both
direct dial (debit) or collect call mode of operation.

5.1.16

The proposed ICS shall not allow the inmate to speak to the called party until the call
has been positively accepted. This requirement must be implemented for both direct dial
(debit) or collect call mode of operation.

5.1.17

The proposed rcs must not allow the inmate to hear the called party prior to the actual
positive acceptance (via touch tone entry) of the call.

5.1.18

The proposed ICS must allow for the DOC to program times when the system will be
available or unavailable to inmate calling.

5.1.19

The proposed rcs must allow DOC personnel to temporarily restrict or disconnect
service to an individual inmate telephone or station.

5.1.20

As one of the major problems associated with inmate
Conference Calling is a constant issue with the DOC.
must provide
deters an inmate's attempt to
a 3-Way or Conference Call with a
Third Party and provide the ability to immediately terminate the call. The Bidder must
describe, in its response, how this technoiogy operates with regard (0 the proposed IeS
and the options available to the DOC.

5.1.21

It is a desirable
Conference Calling
must explain, in its respollS(;,

5.1.22

As one of the major problems associated with inmate calling, the use of call forwarding
at the destination telephone number is a constant issue with the DOC. The proposed res
must provide technology that deters the use of call forwarding by the party being called
by the inmate and provide the ability to immediately terminate the call. The Bidder must
describe, in its response, how this technology operates with regard to the proposed res
and the options available to the DOC.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction.
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number lOOO-Phone2006

39
July 11,

2005

5.1.42

It is desirable that the Bidder provide an ICS in which the Central Processor Unit (CPU)
and other critical components are redundant. The Bidder must describe, in its response,
those critical components that are redundant with the proposed ICS.

5.1.43

The Bidder must provide standard hardware and software enhancements/upgrades to the
proposed ICS at no cost to the DOC during the term of this contract. The installed ICS
at each DOC facility must always be at the late.st general release of the system's
available hardware and software including operating systems for the system
administration and system reporting function. Beta and freld tested hardware and
software must not be provided unless specifically approved by the DOC. Prior to any
hardware and/or software upgrades or enhancements, the Bidder shall discuss the
software benefits with the DOC and proceed only after DOC approval.

5.1.44

Telephone network services provided by the Bidder shall not he capable of being
detected by the called party for calling number identification (Caller ID).

5.1.45

The Bidder shall provide local exchange service for pre-paid debit-based calling and
collect calling use at each DOC institution. The local calling area shall be equal to or
greater than the local calling area defined in the Verizon Massachusetts Department of
Telecommunications and Energy (DTE) Tariff (MA DPU #10) for each of the DOC's
facilities.

5.1.46

~oposed ICS must allow
_
by DOC personneL This
telephone, specific inmate PIR or by called telephone nnmber. Any and all
equipment and software required to perform this function must be provided with the
proposed system.

5.1.47

The collect call automated announcement function of the Secure Inmate Calling System
must be capable of processing calls on a selective bi-lingual basis: English and Spanish.
The inmate must be able to select the preferred language using no more than a two digit
code.

5.1.48

It is desirable that the ICS be capable of processing calls in additional languages than
those required in 5.1. 47. The Bidder must list, in its response, the languages available
with the proposed ICS.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number JOOO-Phone2006
2005

July 11,

be accomplished with the proposed inmate telephone instruments (e.g., confidencers,
phone enclosures, etc.).
5.3.10

All inmate telephones shall provide volume controls which allow inmates to ampliry the
called party's voice.

5.3.11

The Bidder shall provide dialing instructions as well as a "warning" that states "This Call
is Being Recorded" to the inmate in English and Spanish on each inmate telephone in a
manner which reduces the possibility of being destroyed. Simple labels or other
accessible surface instructions will not be acceptable to 'meet this requirement

5.3.12

The Bidder shall maintain the above required telephone dialing instructions and warning
statements for legibility and accuracy during the course of this contract.

5.3.13

The inmate telephone instrument shall not be capable of being used to program any
feature of the proposed res.

5.3.14

All of. the proposed inmate telephones must be compliant with all applicable
requirements of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Type 2: Special Management Unit Telephones
5.3.15

The second type of inmate telephone instrument shall be portable or "movable" iny1ate
telephones that are used mainly in special management units and must be manufactured
to withstand abuse (physical, liquid, etc.) as well as be compact enough to fit through
standard food slots. Industry standard 2500 telephone sets will not be accept~ble at
meeting this requirement. The Bidder must state how it will allow the DOe to secure the
touch tone pad after the special management unit's inmate's initial call now been placed.
"<,I

5.3.16

The Bidder must describe, in its response, how these movable or portable telephones
will be moved from one cell to another by DOe personnel to allow for inmate calling.

5.3.17

The Bidder must provide a special management unit telephone that includes all call
restrictions of the res with regard to inmate PINs, call duration, etc.

5.3.18

The Bidder must provide a special management unit telephone that allows DOC
personnel to provide the handset only to the inmate thus denying access to the dial pad
by the inmate. The Bidder must describe, in its response, how this is accomplished with
the proposed telephone instrument.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number lOOO-Phone2006
2005

68
July 11,

5.9

EQUIPMENT/SYSTEM MAINTENANCE

5.9.1

The Bidder must provide an ICS at all required DOC facilities that is fully functional in
regards to all labor, materials, programming, system hardware and software.

5.9.2

The Bidder must warrant that the rcs installed for the DOC facilities shall be free of
defects, irregularities, unprofessional installation, code violations and shall operate as
designed and proposed. Should the system not operate as designed and proposed or
violate any local, state or federal code, the Bidder shall immediately correct the defect or
irregularity or bring the system within code and performance specifications at no cost to
the DOC.

5.9.3

The Bidder must provide all post installation system progrannning and maintenance
services at no cost to the DOC.

5.9.4

The Bidder must agree in its response that maintenance service is available on its
seven days per week, twenty-four (24) hours a day

5.9.5

The Bidder must propose an IeS that provides for remote diagnostics and maintenance.

5.9.6

The Contractor is responsible for replacement of the rcs in its entirety or its individual
components regardless of cause including, but not limited to, normal wear/use, inmate
abuse, natural disaster, or inmate unrest. This system or component replacement will be
performed at no cost to the DOC and will occur immediately upon notification to the
Bidder of the system problem by the DOC facility.

5.9.7

The Contractor is responsible for replacing of inmate telephones in their entirety
regardless of cause including, but not limited to, normal wear/use, inmate abuse, natural
disaster, or inmate unrest. The Contractor must replace inmate telephones requiring
repair and not repair components of the inmate telephone on site at the DOC.

res

Response To Maintenance Calls
Should any critical component of the rcs provided by the Bidder fail, the Bidder must respond to
rcs maintenance/repair calls from the DOC in the manner outlined in this section.
5.9.8

Definition of a "Major Emergency"
For the purpose of this RFR, a "Major Emergency" shall be defmed as an occurrence of
anyone of the following conditions. The Bidder is required to further negotiate with the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secnre Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number 1000-Phone2006
2005

69
July 11,

DOC prior to system installation to determine additional specific criteria for a "Major
Emergency".
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

5.9.9

A failure of the ICS processor, its common equipment or power supplies which
render the system incapable of performing its normal functions;
A failure of the recording function or any of its components that affects the full
recording operation;
A failure of 50% or more of the inmate telephones at anyone area within a DOC
facility;
A failure of any of the ICS functions that result in the ability of inmates to place
calls without the use of assigned PINs;
A failure of any of the ICS functions that results in the ability of inmates to make
direct dialed calls when the system is operating in collect call mode;
A failure of any of the system functions that results in the ability of inmates to
reach a "live" operator;
A failure of the system "kill switches" or similar rcs disabling function proposed
by the Bidder.

Response Times for a "Major Emergency"

For a "Major Emergency" the Bidder must respond to the service problem within 30 minutes of
initial trouble report by the DOC facility through the use of remote testing or access. Should the
I CS not be accessible for remote access, the Bidder must have a qualified technician, suitably
equipped for the installed ICS, on site at the DOC location within two (2) hours from the time of
initial trouble report.
Should the problem not be resolved via remote access, the Bidder must have a qualified
technician, suitably equipped for the installed system, on site at the DOC institution within two (2)
hours from the time of initial trouble report.
Response to "Major Emergency" conditions must be performed on a 24 Hours-a-Day/Seven
Days-a-Week!365 Days-a-Year basis through out the term of this contract.
5.9.10

Definition Of "Routine Service"

F or the purpose ofthis RFR, Routine Service shall be defined as an ICS failure or problem other
than a "Major Emergency" item as listed above or defined by the DOC.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
SO Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Services
DOC File Number lOOO-Phone2006

70
July 11,

2005

5.9.11

Response Times For "Routine Service"

For a "Routine Service" the Bidder must respond to the service problem within four (4) hours of
the initial trouble report by the DOC facility through the use of remote testing or access. Should
the IeS not be accessible for remote access, the Bidder must have a qualified technician, suitably
equipped for the installed system, on site at the DOC facility within twelve (12) business hours
from the time of initial trouble report. Business hours are defined as 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Should the problem not be resolved via remote access, the Bidder must have a qualified
technician, suitably equipped for the installed system, on site at the DOC institution within six (6)
hours from the time of initial trouble report.

Answering of Maintenance Calls
5.9.12 . The Bidder must ensure and state, in its response, that all maintenance calls from the
DOC shall be answered by a "live" operator/service representative at all times.
5.9.13

It is desirable that that all maintenance calls from the DOC be answered by a "live"
operator/service representative who is local (within Massachusetts) at all times.

Critical Component Availability
5.9.14

The Bidder must guarantee to the DOC that all parts and materials necessary to repair
the proposed Ies are readily available to on-site service personnel 24 hours per day,
seven days per week, 365 days per year. The DOC will not accept the delay of any rcs
repair based on the fact that service personnel cannot access a system parts warehouse,
office or similar Bidder facility because the facility not being opened "after hours", or on
weekends or holidays.

5.9.15

It is desirable that the Contractor provide "spare" inmate telephone equipment at each
DOC facility to allow for timely replacement of telephones that are not operating for any
reason. The Bidder must provide on site a minimum number of spare sets equal to five
percent (5%) of the total number of inmate telephones installed at each DOC facility.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
SO Maple Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202

RFR for a Secure Inmate Calling System & Related Semces
DOC File Number IOOO-Phone2006
2005

July 11,

Escalation Procedures During Service Maintenance
5..9.16

The Bidder must provide, in its response, escalation procedures to address inadequate
maintenance service of the ICS. These escalation procedures must include multiple
levels of management personnel. Access to additional management personnel must be
made available to the DOC upon request.
The Bidder must provide, in its response, a complete list of its maintenance service
escalation procedures including:
•
•
•
•

a list of personnel at each level of escalation;
contact telephone, fax, pager, cellular numbers;
methods by which escalation is initiated; and
criteria for escalation at each level.

The Bidder must agree, in its response, that the DOC has the right to initiate these
escalation procedures at its discretion based on diminished service or non-performance
of the Bidder.
Maintenance Records
5..9.17

The Bidder must provide to the DOC, upon request during the term of this contract,
maintenance records that include a listing all repair notices including the date and time of
the service trouble report, the nature of the problem reported, and dateltime of problem
resolution.

5.9.18

The Bidder must provide historical maintenance records for 24 months from the current
date.

5.9.19

It is desirable that the Bidder provide historical maintenance records from the initial
contract date of this contract with the DOC.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
50 MapJe Avenue, Suite 3

Department of Correction
Milford, Massachusetts 02202