Responses of Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV
Nominee to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee
To Additional Written Questions of Senator Diane Feinstein

1. Classification of Zero-Tolerance Events. Ronald T. Jones, a former
employee of Corrections Corporation of America, has alleged that you
oversaw a system in which reports of disturbances and major violent
incidents at CCA prisons were downplayed. According to press reports, it
was not unusual for Mr. Jones to be instructed not to count major incidents
as "zero-tolerance events," even though the incidents met CCA's internal
criteria for being counted in that category.

Please respond to Mr. Jones's allegations.
Response: The allegations are false. I appreciate this opportunity to respond
to them. Incident reports are made by facility employees to appropriate
governmental personnel as provided by contract or regulation, and are
designed to complement the observations of the governmental agency's own
on-site monitors. The Quality Assurance Department (in which Mr. Jones
once worked) is not involved in the reporting of incidents at a CCA facility to
governmental customers.
CCA's governmental customers usually have an on-site contract monitor to
whom incident reports can be made, though, in a major incident, there may be
elaborate incident reporting mechanisms that can include notification to very
senior governmental officials (e.g., a state corrections commissioner) and to
local law enforcement authorities. These procedures vary by facility,
customer and event, and thus the reporting of incidents is decentralized.
After the incident is appropriately reported, the CCA Quality Assurance
Department collects all CCA incident data and classifies it for the sole
purpose of improving the quality of CCA's operations. At the request of
CCA's Operations Department, five types of incidents are internally
designated as "Zero Tolerance" events: unnatural deaths (homicides or
suicides), sexual assaults, hostage-takings, escapes, and disruptive events.
The designation of such data is used for internal purposes only. It is neither
designed for nor provided to anyone outside of CCA.
With this background in mind, I have never sought to "downplay" violent
incidents within CCA, nor is there any reason for me to do so. The
compensation of CCA's executive officers, including my own, is not affected
in any way by "Zero Tolerance" events, as is made clear in CCA's annual
proxy statement, which is publicly available. My interest has always been to
ensure that our internal incident reports are accurate. As a lawyer, my
primary ethical duty to CCA is to its Board of Directors, which receives the

Zero Tolerance data collected and classified by the Quality Assurance
Department. To fulfill that duty, I have sought assurances from Mike
Quinlan, the Senior Vice President who supervises the Quality Assurance
Department, that Quality Assurance was getting all incident data from
facilities.
For that reason, I am the internal sponsor of the Company's significant new
investment in a technology system to automate incident reporting. This
system should not only reduce delays in the notification of incidents to the
Quality Assurance Department, but also should improve the accuracy and
reliability of the data received.
Most important, I strongly believe in hiring the right person and trusting that
person to perform his or her function. Mike Quinlan is one of the most
experienced corrections professionals in the country. He has spent 37 years in
corrections, with 22 years at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He served as
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for five years, and, while serving as
Director, oversaw the creation of the Program Review Division - the Bureau's
own quality audit process. He has been a colleague of mine at CCA since my
first day with the Company, having previously served as CCA' s Chief
Operating Officer. The American Correctional Association recently bestowed
upon him its highest honor, the E.R. Cass Award. I trust his jUdgment in
corrections matters, and I have confidence in his honesty. Because of his vast
expertise and experience in this area, Mr. Quinlan is responsible for defining
"Zero Tolerance" events and applying those definitions to specific incidents.
I have also supported at least two changes that I recall Mr. Quinlan making to
the defillitionsof"Zero Tolerance" events. Specifically, Mr. Quinlan changed
the definitions of "disruptive event" and "sexual assault." These changes
broadened those definitions and thereby increased the potential number of
such events to be repOlted. These changes are discussed in more detail later.
Finally, to clarify the false nature of Mr. Jones's allegations, I attach a letter
from Mr. Quinlan to Representative Mike Turner of the Tennessee House of
Representatives. See Exhibit A. This very detailed letter and its attachments
address the same concerns that you have raised in these questions, and I
believe it sheds important light on the press accounts underlying them.
Did you ever discuss, create, develop, implement, or approve a policy to
classify or to reclassify incidents at CCA prisons, either in general or in
response to specific incidents?
Response: Yes. On at least two occasions that I recall Mr. Quinlan informed
me that he was expanding the definition of two types of "Zero Tolerance"
events. I have never discussed, created, developed, implemented, or approved
a policy that would have had the effect of contracting the number of incidents

2

reported as "Zero Tolerance" events, either in general or in response to
specific incidents.
In 2006 the definition of "disruptive event" was broadened, while in 2007 the
definition of "sexual assault" was broadened to include behaviors not
previously covered. The effect of these changes is potentially to increase the
number of incidents classified as "Zero Tolerance" events at CCA prisons. I
do not recall that Mr. Quinlan's changes were prompted by specific incidents.
While I approved of the changed definitions, I left the development of such
definitions and the application of the definitions to particular incidents
squarely within the discretion of Mike Quinlan.

To your knowledge, was anyone at CCA ever instructed to reclassify an
incident as something other than a "zero tolerance" event?
Response: I believe Mr. Quinlan informed me of two or three incidents over
the last three and one-half years that were initially classified as "disruptive
events" (i.e., a type of "Zero Tolerance" event) based on original incident
reports that he later reclassified as a result of his learning additional
information about each incident. It is thus possible that he would have
instructed someone within the Quality Assurance Department to reClassify
those events; however, I have not.

Did you ever tell or advise anyone directly or indirectly that an incident
should be reclassified?
Response: No.

Did you ever discuss, agree with, or approve a suggestion made by
someone else that an incident should be reclassified?
Response: I believe Mike Quinlan informed me of two or three incidents
over the last three and one-half years that were initially classified by Quality
Assurance as "disruptive events" based on original incident reports that he
later reclassified as a result of his learning additional information about each
incident. I recall agreeing with Mr. Quinlan'S changes.

2. Use of Attorney-Client Privilege. Mr. Jones has also alleged that starting in
2005 you ordered him to label detailed audit reports, which included factual
data on incidents at prisons, as attoniey-client privileged documents.
According to Mr. Jones, senior quality assurance staff at CCA told him you
wanted this label to be added to prevent the information from being
accessible under sunshine laws. The effect of this practice, according to Mr.
Jones, was that CCA's contract partners received only summary audit

3

reports - with much less information about serious incidents - starting in
2005.

Did you ever discuss, create, develop, implement, or approve a policy of
extending or adding a privilege label to facility audit documents that
previously were not treated as privileged? If yes, please explain why and
explain the legal analysis to support a claim of privilege for such
documents?
Response: Before responding to the first question presented, I appreciate the
opportunity to clarify certain statements attributed to Mr. Jones. First, I never
spoke to Mr. Jones about a substantive issue or the labeling of documents.
There were three inteITI1ediate supervisors between Mr. Jones and me, and I
simply did not have anything more than very casual, incidental conversations
with him.
Second, quality assurance auditors do not usually provide information on
individual incidents. Thus, audit reports do not usually include "factual data
on incidents at prisons." The actual audit reports contain measurements of a
facility's operational competency. They are not investigations of incidents.
Further, as a point of clarification, the internal labeling of documents is not an
assertion or claim of privilege. In fact, I know that CCA has produced
documents to parties litigating against CCA that bear "privileged" labels
(many of which were designed before I arrived at the Company and are still in
use today), as well as to governmental investigators. This production
underscores the fact tl1at inte111al labeling cannot convert otherwise
unprivileged documents into privileged ones. Assertions of privilege must be
made on a case-by-case basis in response to a legal request for the document.
Documents are labeled merely to ensure that a company has every opportunity
to assess whether a privilege applies to a particular document before
producing it in response to a legal request to produce that document.
Returning to the question you have posed, I did have a discussion with Mike
Quinlan and Don Murray (Managing Director, Quality Assurance) about our
desire to encourage auditors' complete candor in sharing observed concerns
outside of the audit measurements. As I understood it, these observations
might be made while conducting the audit, and they could relate to areas of
potential risk to the Company, including threatened or likely litigation.
Messrs. Quinlan and Mun"ay were concerned that including such observations
in the audit document itself could lead to their disclosure, which would
ultimately chill frank communication. In fact, as I recall it, since those
observations were written into one of the first few audit reports, such
comments had already been released pursuant to an open-records request.

4

We then discussed the limited number of facilities where such audit
documents had to be released to the customer (I believe there were two such
facilities). We also discussed that these observations were not a part of the
audit measurements themselves. Finally, we discussed the desirability of
continuing to receive such suggestions from the auditors in order to improve
the quality of CCA' s operations.
At that time, I suggested that the Company may have an additional basis for
seeking to protect such observations. I believe I mentioned possible attorneyclient privilege issues, work product protections, and potential self-evaluative
privilege issues (in some jurisdictions). I asked that Mr. Quinlan and Mr.
Murray speak with Steve Groom and any members of his staff he wished to
involve. Mr. Groom serves as Deputy General Counsel and Vice President,
Litigation Management. He is a lawyer with 30 years of experience, some as
a trial lawyer and some in the general counsel's offices oflarge corporations.
I was later told that Mr. Groom had met at length with Messrs. Quinlan and
Murray. I was informed that, as a result ofthat meeting, the Quality
Assurance Department clarified that any observational concerns separate from
the audit measurements were to be included only in documents addressed to
the legal department and seeking its advice, and that such documents were to
be marked as privileged. In the sense that I suggested the meeting and was
comfortable with my understanding of its result, I was involved in the
"discussion" or "creation" of such labels.
The labeling of these documents was of far less significance to me than
making sure we were getting candid information to advise the Company to
take steps to protect the health and safety of our employees and the inmates
entlUsted to our care. I did not perform legal research on the subject, and I did
not review the implementation or labeling of document types. In any event, I
believed then, and believe now, that flagging such documents for
consideration of any applicable privileges before they might be released was
plUdent, appropriate, and conducive to candor.
To my knowledge, CCA has not claimed a privilege in litigation with respect
to these documents.
Did you ever communicate that you wanted to use the privilege label to
shield information from sunshine or freedom-of-information laws?
Response: I did not communicate that the privilege label would be used to
shield information from sunshine or freedom-of-information laws; however,
the label was intended to ensure legal review of any such document before it
would be given to a third party. This is a common practice among
corporations. This confidentiality is particularly important here, because it
ensures that CCA gets candid observations from auditors about observed
concerns. If an auditor assumed that such docwnents would appear in the

5

press, that auditor would be hesitant to convey serious concerns to the
company, especially if such concerns might impact an employee's continued
employment.
Since the issue of whether such a document might be subject to sunshine or
freedom-of-information laws is not controlled by the "hibel," I would not have
communicated that the label would shield document production from such
laws.
At all times, I and the others discussing the manner in which these
observations would be made were motivated by a desire to encourage frank
and candid observations that might prevent tragedies in CCA's facilities. The
desire was to improve the safety and security of our facilities, which would be
of benefit to both CCA's employees and the inmates entrusted to CCA's care.
Did CCA ever consider using a different designation, such as
"Confidential" or "For Internal Use Only," instead of the attorney-client
privilege label?

Response: I do not recall any discussions of such different designations.
From a legal standpoint, of course, the "label" does not define the right to
confidentiality in the face of an appropriate discovery or other legal request.

In addition, who was made aware that the more detailed, newly
privileged audit documents existed?
Response: Our customers received the new audit report with its detailed
measurements. As to any separate observational concerns raised by auditors
for internal use, many members ofthe Quality Assurance and Legal
departments were aware that confidential documents existed containing those
observations, as did senior personnel within the Operations Department.
Were CCA's contract partners (including federal, state, and/or local
corrections authorities) aware?
Response: Because the intent was to use such documents for internal
purposes only, so that auditors would feel free to make candid observations to
help protect the health and safety of tCA's employees and inmates, we did
not make customers aware of these documents. Customers were already
receiving, if they wished, the audit report with its detailed measurements, and
they were receiving all incident reports required from the facility.
CCA's contract partners receive more data now than ever. The audit
measurements in use now (and available to any customer that requests them)
are far more detailed and relevant than what was provided to CCA's contract
partners before Quality Assurance was moved under my supervision. The

6

vast majority of these contract partners also conduct their own audits of
CCA's facilities and have their own on-site monitors that scrutinize CCA's
operations.
Was anyone else aware?
Response: CCA did not make anyone else aware to my knowledge. The
intent was to use such doclill1ents for intemal purposes only, so that auditors
would feel free to make candid observations that might protect the health and
safety ofCCA's employees and inmates.
Has CCA ever shared such documents with a contract partner or with
others?
Response: CCA does share the audit report containing ratings and
measurements, but not the separate commentary made by auditors. I am not
aware of any request to share such documents.
CCA does share the audit report with any customer that desires to see it,
regardless of whether CCA is obligated by contract or regulation to provide it.
(I am aware of only two contracts that specifically require CCA to conduct a
quality assurance audit of a facility and provide that report to the customer,
though the fonn ofthe audit and accompanying report are unspecified.)
Moreover, as discussed, most contract partners conduct their own audits of
CCA facilities in addition to having a full-time on-site monitor.
Has CCA used a claim of attorney-client privilege to withhold such
documents when requested by a contract partner, by a government
investigator, by a party in litigation or arbitration, or in a sunshine or
freedom-oC-information request?
Response: Neither I nor others within CCA's legal department are aware that
CCA has asserted a privilege to withhold such documents.
3. Hutto Facility. A report in the New Yorker magazine in March 2008
indicated that a guard at CCA's T. Don Hutto immigrant detention center
was caught engaging in sexual activity with a prisoner in May 2007. The
guard reportedly was not prosecuted.
Please explain your response to this incident.
Response: As you lmow, I serve as a commissioner of the National Prison
Rape Elimination Commission, and an event like this is extremely troubling to
me. I have leamed, both through my service on that commission and my work
at CCA, that sexual activity between corrections officers and those confined to
such facilities is regrettably too common. All of us involved in corrections

7

systems have an obligation to strive to prevent such events from taking place.
CCA has worked and is continuing to work to strengthen its prevention
systems and its response systems in this area. As a general matter, CCA is
continuing to expand staff training in this area; CCA is using new
technologies to increase residents' safety and security; and CCA's medical
personnel continue to refine protocols designed to protect both the safety and
the dignity of victims of sexual assault.
I was infonned of this particular incident, which was discovered because of
alert staff monitoring of the camera system at the facility. Because of the
severity of the incident, it was fully investigated by the facility and largely
resolved within hours after it occurred by leadership at the facility. Neither I
nor the Quality Assurance Department was involved in that resolution.
I understand that immediately after the event, facility management distributed
a pamphlet to residents about sexual assault awareness, that staff and
translators met individually with residents concerning the materials, and that
"Town Hall" meetings were held to address questions or concerns any
residents might have.

Was the incident subject to an internal investigation or audit?
Facility staff did perform an internal investigation. Local law enforcement
conducted a parallel investigation at the facility; CCA cooperated fully with
that investigation.

What disciplinary actions did CCA take against the guard?
CCA immediately relieved the accused officer of his duties, expelled him
from the facility, and placed him on administrative leave pending the
investigation's conclusion. Once the investigation was completed by law
enforcement, CCA immediately terminated the officer's employment.

Did CCA take a position on whether the guard should be prosecuted?
Yes. CCA referred the case for prosecution to both local law enforcement and
to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. I understand that both agencies
declined to prosecute. CCA fully supports the prosecution of any employee
who sexually abuses someone in CCA's care. CCA believes that aggressive
prosecution against such individuals deters future misconduct by other
officers, and thereby increases the safety and security of the facility.

Is the guard still employed by CCA?
No. As discussed, CCA telminated his employment immediately upon
resolving the investigation.

8

Did CCA withhold any information about the incident from investigators
by claiming attorney-client privilege?
No. CCA provided its incident investigation packet (labeled "PRIVILEGED
AND CONFIDENTIAL") to law enforcement personnel who were in the
facility to assist them in their investigation.
Given your supervisory responsibility over the quality assurance
department at CCA, what steps did you take to prevent similar abuse of
prisoners from occurring in the future?
First, CCA promptly terminated the employment of the officer who engaged
in this abuse, to prevent him from having any opportunity to repeat these
activities. Second, CCA fully cooperated with investigators and turned over
its incident reports to them, and refened the officer for prosecution, which
was intended to have the effect of detening any such abuse by others in the
future. Third, facility management at Hutto immediately distributed pamphlets
and conducted briefings on sexual assault awareness for residents to ensure
that residents were fully aware of how to report any misconduct.
In addition, the Hutto facility operates under the close supervision of
numerous on-site ICE personnel, as well as ongoing monitoring by a United
States Magistrate Judge. Most of the facility is under constant surveillance by
an extensive camera system that records digitally. In fact, it was this camera
system that enabled CCA to learn of this officer's entirely inappropriate and
illegal sexual relationship with the resident. This camera system is designed
to 8.1.1gmentthe on-site supervision provided by facility management andICE.
The system should help detect and deter such abuse.
CCA's Operations Deparhnent has the primary responsibility for responding
to such events. The Quality Assurance Department is charged with two tasks:
(1) conducting annual, unannounced audits of corrections facilities to measure
the facility's compliance with policies, procedures, and best practices; and (2)
collecting, categorizing and analyzing incident data. The Quality Assurance
Department employs 18 people to accomplish those functions. The Quality
Assurance Department is not expected to respond to isolated incidents.
Despite the fact that the Quality Assurance Department does not respond to
isolated incidents, it does try to incorporate lessons learned from such
incidents into monitoring tools to prevent recun'ences of similar incidents, and
both the Quality Assurance Department and the Legal Department provide
feedback to improve and refine CCA's processes, staff training, and physical
security. In this particular case, I am not aware of any process changes,
additional staff training, or physical systems changes that were suggested. It

9

appeared that physical systems and staff alertness at the facility detected this
wrongful conduct by the officer.
The same New Yorker article also cites a 2007 report by federal
immigration officials that found numerous "deficiencies" at the Hutto
facility, including poor sanitation and the lack of an immunization
program for children. The federal inspectors reportedly said that CCA's
"overall attitude is of disinterest and complacency," and concluded that
the "overall review of the facility can accurately be rated as deficient."
As the head of the department that oversees quality assurance at CCA,
what steps did you take to address the deficiencies identified in the
federal inspectors' report?
The Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Public
Health Service (which is responsible for health services at Hutto), and CCA's
Operations Department have made many improvements to Hutto. While
neither I nor the Quality Assurance Department has had a direct role in
making these improvements, I understand that CCA and ICE have made
substantial changes both to the physical plant and to the health, education, and
recreational services provided at Hutto.
Due to the evolving regulatory and contractual framework governing Hutto
during 2007, as well as ongoing litigation involving ICE, the Quality
Assurance Department's role with Hutto has been particularly limited during
the facility's start-up. Because Hutto is not operated as a prison or traditional
detention center, the Company's quality assurance audit instrument (designed
for traditional prison and detention facilities) is simply not applicable to the
highly unique operations at Hutto (family residential housingJ.Thus, Hutto
was the only CCA facility not audited during 2007. The Quality Assurance
Depamnent could not create an audit instrument last year for use at Hutto,
because an audit instrument measures a facility's perfOlTIlanCe against certain
standards, and those standards were in a state of flux.
Now that the standards for operations at Hutto have been made clear by ICE,
Mr. Quinlan has directed personnel in the Quality Assurance Department to
create an audit instrument for this unique facility. Once the instrument is
created, the Department will audit the facility.
What have you done to improve the conditions at Hutto and other CCA
facilities in response to the report? Please specify which actions CCA
took on its own and which resulted from a settlement, consent decree, or
other legal or regulatory obligation.
ICE, the U.S. Public Health Service, and CCA's Operations Department have
made numerous changes at Hutto. While neither I nor the Quality Assurance

10

Department has had any direct involvement with those changes, I am aware of
several improvements that have been made at Hutto.
First, razor wire was removed £i'om the perimeter fence. Second, steel
bathroom fixtures were replaced with porcelain. Third, the interior was
repainted, carpet was installed, and steel doors were replaced. There were
many revisions to the recreational areas (indoor and outdoor), and changes to
policies concerning the locking of doors at night. In total, hundreds of
changes have been made to the facility's physical structure and its processes.
I understand that some changes were suggested by CCA, some by ICE, and
some required by the settlement of litigation between ICE and the American
Civil Liberties Union (to which CCA was not a party). I believe that ICE
takes the position that it was already undertaking or contemplating all of the
changes incorporated into the settlement agreement, while the ACLU
disagrees. I am not in a position to resolve that conflict.
As the New Yorker article acknowledged, "It's clear that Hutto is now a very
different, and more humane place than it was before the lawsuit." Since the
New Yorker article, there have been more news articles written about
conditions at Hutto. I attach to these responses three news articles from last
week concerning the Hutto facility's present conditions. Moreover, I also
attach a letter from Rosa Rosales, National President of the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which had previously organized protests
against the Hutto facility. The letter recognizes that Hutto now provides
"improved services for the families." Accordingly, ICE, the U.S. Public
Health Service, and CCA's Operations Department have made substantial
improvements to conditions at Hutto.

11

cc~

CORRECTIONS CORPORATJON OFAMERICA

Via Hand·Delivery
Honorable Mike Turner
House of Representatives
State of Tennessee
37 Legislative Plaza
Nashville TN 37243
April 29, 2008
Dear Representative Turner:
Commissioner Little forwarded your letter dated April 16 to CCA for a written
response. In your letter, you raise concerns about allegations regarding CCA's reporting
of incidents at its facilities that were voiced in articles written in the Tennessean and on
the website TIME.com.! The allegations that CCA mischaracterizes or fails to report
incidents to its customers are in fact completely false, and I welcome the opportunity to
set the record straight. CCA provides TDOC -- and all of its customers -- with reports of
all incidents. That information is transmitted directly by CCA's facility operations
personnel to TDOC and complements TDOC's own reports from its own on-site
monitoring personnel who work in CCA's facilities every day.
By way of background, I currently serve as Senior Vice President of CCA and I
have supervised the Quality Assurance Department since 2004. Prior to serving at CCA,
I earned a law degree, served in the United States Air Force, and spent more than two
decades with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, including serving as its Director for five
years. The American Correctional Association has honored me with their highest honor,
theE.R.Cass Award.
In late 2004, I suggested to John Ferguson, CCA's President and CEO, that the
Company's Quality Assurance Department be moved under CCA's General Counsel to
guarantee its independence from facility operations. Mr. Ferguson agreed and he and
CCA's General Counsel, Gus Puryear, asked me to lead this new Quality Assurance
Department.
Under my supervision, and with Mr. Puryear's full support, CCA has dedicated
new resources to improving the quality of its operations. Two full-time audit teams,
staffed by trained auditors, perform an unannounced audit of each CCA facility each
year. This audit process is modeled after the Federal Bureau of Prison's highly-regarded
Program Review Division, which was created while I was its Director. We at CCA
believe thal this audit process has been used to greatly enhance our quality over the past
three years. Although we are nol contractually obligated to provide these audit results to
the Tennessee Department of Corrections at facilities that we operate for it, we are happy
to provide our audit measurements to it. These measurements are far more detailed and
informative than the audit tool that CCA formerly used for quality assurance audits.
I

Time magazine never printed the article appearing on the TIME.com website.

10 Burton Hills Boulevard, Nashville, Tennessee 37215, Phone: 615-263-3000, Fax: 615·263·3140

Of course, TDOC need not rely on our audits to know the quality of our
operations. TDOC is free to audit our facilities at any time, and it does so. TDOC also
has contract monitors at CCA's facilities to ensure our compliance. As the Tennessean
article noted:
CCA is required to file reports with the state on incidents such as inmate. on-inmate assaults. disturbances and a daily censUs of inmates at its
prisons that house state inmates. said Dorrinda Carter, a spokeswoman for
the Tennessee Department of Corrections. The department has onsile
contract monitors and other designated employees at the prisons that
report daily on incidents and another division that conducts annual audits
of the CCA prisons, she said.
"We feel pretty sure that we're finding out about incidents as they
happen," Carter said. She added that CCA is required to follow the same
policies as the 13 prisons run by the state and that officials are confident in
their monitoring of the company.
Gethan Ward, "Ex-CCA official: Puryear misled clients," Tennessean March 14,2008 at

AI.
This gets to the heart of the allegations contained in your letter. CCA provides
TDOC - and all of its customers -- with reports of all incidents subject to its contractual
requirements. That information does not flow from the CCA's Quality Assurance
Department to TDOC. Instead. it is transmitted directly by facility operational personnel
to TDOC. It is likely for this reason that neither the TIME.com nor the Tennessean
article identifies a single incident occurring at a CCA facility that was collected by the
Quality Assurance Department but that was not disclosed to the relevant customer
agency. Moreover, I am sure that you agree with me that the very idea that CCA could
hide murders, suicides, escapes and riots from our customers is absurd.
The only role that CCA's Quality Assurance Department plays with respect to
incident reporting is that it aggregates and categorizes events across the more than 60
facilities operated by CCA. This is performed at the request of our Operations
Department, so that aggregate data on incidents can be used to improve the quality of our
operations. We merely count them and categorize them for internal purposes. We are
not required by any contract to collect such events across our entire corrections system,
but we do so as an internal metric to improve quality. The exclusively internal tracking
of such incidents obviously has no effect on payments to CCA.
The most severe of these incidents are categorized internally as "Zero Tolerance"
incidents. These include unnatural deaths (suicides and homicides), escapes, hostagetaking incidents, sexual abuse of inmates, and disturbances. I categorize incidents as
"Zero Tolerance" if they meet our internal definitions. Mr. Puryear defers to my
correctional experience in classifying these events, and he has never overruled me.

Since CCA's Quality Assurance Department has nothing to do with reporting
incidents to TDOC Or other customers, and since its aggregation and categorization of
data relating to incidents is purely for internal distribution, it is reasonable to wonder how
TIME.com and the Tennessean reached the conclusions that they did.
The simple answer may be that they relied on only one source - a disgruntled,
former CCA employee named Ronald Thomas Jones. While your letter asserts that Jones
"and other CCA staff' were directed to reclassify incidents, no "other CCA staff' has
ever been identified to corroborate Jones' assertions. Because Mr. Jones either
completely misunderstood our process or is acting out of malice, he may have provided
false information to the media. Attached as Exhibit A to this letter is the last
organizational chart I have for the Quality Assurance Department that shows Mr. Jones.
As you will note, there were two managers between Mr. Jones and me, and, since I repon
directly to Mr. Puryear, there were three between Mr. Puryear and Mr. Jones. Though
press reports variously described Mr. Jones as a "CCA officer" or "official," these reports
were wrong. A "senior manager" is several grade levels below a Vice President. Mr.
Jones' primary job responsibility was to collect, compile, and disseminate facilitygenerated incident data. He did not have decision-making responsibility concerning
incident classification, as that responsibility rests with me.
Interestingly, during his time at CCA, Mr. Jones never raised any concerns to me
or anyone else with respect to the integrity of our processes. To my knowledge, he never
utilized the anonymous hotline maintained by CCA's ethics office. In fact, CCA's ethics
officer had an office around the corner from Mr. Jones' cubicle, but Mr. Jones never
made any complaint. Mr. Jones received training on CCA's Code of Ethics and Business
Conduct as recently as December 2006 - about six months before his departure. In the
course of that training, he executed a written certification that he had no knowledge of
any ethics concerns. He also certified that he knew he had a duty to report any such
concerns. See Exhibit B.
I regret that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Jones' resignation from CCA
were less than amicable. After months of deteriorating performance, a tendency to be
error-prone in his computations, and a failure to comply with CCA's leave policies, Mr.
Jones was summoned to meet with us. Mr. Jones then informed one of his supervisors
and me that he intended to go to work for one of our competitors in the near future (while
still seeking to be paid for some time by CCA). He was then allowed to resign
voluntarily. Had he not resigned on June 4,2007, I would have terminated his
employment on the spot.
Regardless of Mr. Jones' motivations and the overtly political motivations of
groups like Private Corrections Institute (an anti-private prison organization) that repeat
those allegations, the reports are false. I hope that my description of our process, as weB
as your own knowJedge of TDOC's oversight of CCA, fully answer the concerns raised

in your letter? I also attach a copy of a letter that I circulated to all of our customers
immediately following the articles giving rise to your letter. See Exhibit ~.
I hope this letter answers the questions that were raised by the articles that you
cited. Let me conclude by reiterating to you that the allegation that CCA is using my
Quality Assurance Department to hide facility events from TDOC or any other customer
is flatly false. I am willing to stake my 37 years as a recognized leader in the corrections
community on this assertion.
Sincerely,

cc:

Rep. Bill Harmon, Chair, Joint Select Oversight Committee on Corrections
Sen. Jim Tracy, Vice-Chair
Commissioner George Little

While 1 have no personal knowledge of the facls and circumstances of the death of inmate Estelle
Richardson, I undersland that a\l charges against CCA's former guards were dropped, Ms. Richardson's
family settled with CCA, and the plaintiffs' lawycr who represented the family praised CCA's conduct
during the litigation and supports Mr. Puryear's nomination to the federal bench. Similarly. while I have
no personal knowledge of the events with respect to inmate Frank Horton, I understand that Mr. Horton
routinely refused to shower or lake recrealion.
2

cc~

Quality Assurance
Sr. Vice Preslden~ Quality

Assurance
Mike Quinlan

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OFAMERICA

Coordinator.
Quality Assurnnoe
TIOa Englarnl

Olt'llctor, QA
Researdl & Analy$ls

DlnIctor, Operational

:·····[i~~~,·····:

PalJ1ck Jab/onsk!

Audits

:OperntJonal AudIts:

Penny Thomas

Senior Manager,
QAAnaIysis
Tom Jones

Manager, SeeUrlly
Audits
Sam Ussery

Manager. Hea"h
Services Audits
BUry Harris

Manager.
Proglllms Audits

MIchelle

Robinson

-=I'
5ervlces Audits
Jason Copll

Manager.
Programs Audits
Robin Hollon

Manager, Human

Resoun:es&
Trafnlng Audits
rlI>hbl.. Wlllla"",

: .... M:lltacer;' ... :
: Mafnlenanc:e :

Audits
:.......Opjln ...... ;

.

c..._._._._.J

Manager. Health

Rescurces &
KattWMlner

I

Manager,
5ecurity Audils
John Rychen

Manager. ~ uf!Illn
Training Audits

r'-'-' ._._.
.
I
I Contract Auditors i

Mahager.
Malnlenanoe
Audits
David Mall9

Confidential
Updated 2/2612007

. ......

cc~

.

..

· '

;.

Attachment 3·3C

CCA Code of Conduct
Ac'knowledgement Form
I have been provided the opportunity to read and understand CCA's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and the
Facility Employee Supplement to the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct (together, the "Code of Conduct").
I understand that the standards and policies contained and referred to in the Code of Conduct represent official CCA
policy and that I am responsible for being familiar with them, and that I also am responsible for being familiar and
complying with the other standards, policies, procedures and guidelines that apply to my position at CCA.
I agree to abide by the policies and standards contained the Code of Conduct and to use my best efforts to act in a
manner consistent with the CCA Way Guiding Principles at all times. I understand that my failure to do so may result in

disciplinary action, up to and including termination of my employment or service relationship with CCA.

.

I understand that Ihave a duty to report apparent or potential misconduct and seek guidance when I have questions
concerning a compliance or ethics issue. I acknowledge that I am aware of CCA's reporting resources and procedures.
I understand CCA's policies regarding confidentiality and non-retaliation and will work to uphold those policies. I will not
retaliate against, or tolerate retaliation by others against, anyone who makes a report or seeks guidance in good faith.
If I supervise others, I acknowledge that I have a duty to assist those who report to me in understanding their obligations
and responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. If I am a corporate officer or otherwise have significant oversight
responsibility, I understand that I have a special duty to set the right tone and ensure that those I lead carry out their
responsibilities in a manner consistent with the Code of Conduct.

I acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge and other than exceptions previously reported or described below, I
have not violated the Code of Conduct and am not currently aware of any violations or potential violations of the Code
of Conduct.
Please initial the applicable statement.

,/
,

I have read the Acknowledgement Form and have no exceptions to report.

_ _ _ _ I have read the Acknowledgement Form and have the attached exceptions to report.

Signature

~(J:T:S;N£stl1JlmtfJCQII
Name & Positi

(flnt or Type)

/&4101;

Date

March 14,2008

«First Name»«Last Name»
Address
City, State ZIP

Dear «Name»,
As our Executive Vice President and General Counsel Gus A. Puryear faces a highly
publicized federal judicial nomination, both TIME magazine (March 13,2008) and The
Tennessean (March 14,2008) published articles questioning the integrity of CCA's
quality assurance program which he oversees. The articles suggest that CCA underreported and re-classified incidents in order to surreptitiously produce misleading and
inaccurate records of incidents at our facilities.
The articles - apparently based on the claims of a former disgruntled employee, and
fueled by a former CCA imnate who is employed by an anti-private prison group (Private
Corrections Institute) -- paint a misleading and inaccurate picture of CCA' s quality
assurance process and Mr. Puryear's role in it. As you are aware, your own contract
monitors, many ofwhomo.p~[a.t~ on site in our facilities, are made aware ofincidents
immediately as they occur. Your own corrections department has full access to facility
reports, and your agency conducts its own audits. Furthermore, CCA's quality assurance
process serves as an instrument that assesses our performance and analyzes our internal
processes; it is not the means by which customers are informed of incidents. CCA
responds directly according to the terms of our contract, which generally mandate
notification to the contract monitor as well as detailed record-keeping through established
facility incident reporting mechanisms.
As CCA's Senior Vice President of Quality Assurance, I personally have overseen our
quality assurance process for more than three years. Having served as CCA's Chief
Operating Officer, and as the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
supported by the expertise of veteran correctional professional Rick Seiter, Executive
Vice President and Chief Corrections Officer, we offer correctional knowledge and
expertise that enhance our collaborative work with our government partners, CCA facility
management and contract monitors in each CCA facility to help ensure constancy in our
daily operations.
CCA operates with integrity in our relationships with our government partners, the
financial community, the media, our employees and the citizens in the communities

where we operate. Though both publications were provided with thorough and accurate .
information about CCA' s quality assurance process and related details on our policy on
and prevention of zero-tolerance incidents, such information was framed in a negative
and unbalanced way that seeks to undennine our time-tested image and well-earned
reputation. These articles also indirectly - and mistakenly - suggest that our customers
are not providing their own level of expected monitoring of our facilities. Such an
assertion is an affront to the professionalism ofpartnering systems and the diligence of
your staff.
CCA remains committed to openness and transparency with our customers and the
greater public. We stand by our strong - and accurate - record. Further, I am personally
willing to stake my 37 years of correctional experience and reputation as a corrections
professional on the integrity of our work. We believe in the accuracy of our records, the
professionalism of our employees and the quality of services we provide in partnership
with our customers. Our president and CEO, John Ferguson, Rick Seiter and I avail
ourselves to you at any time should you have questions or seek further information from
CCA. You may contact me at (615) 263 -3000.

Sincerely,

Mike Quinlan
Senior Vice President

Immigrant family detention center shows
upgrades
Settlement in a lawsuit that criticized Taylor facility's conditions called for changes
By ANABELLE GARAY, Associated Press
April 23, 2008

discuss more improvements to the facility where families live
in small cells furnished with bunkbeds, a toilet and sink.

TAYLOR -Pastel-eolored
walls adorned withcartoon
characters,
porcelain
instead of metal toilets in
cells and other upgrades
have softened the inside
of a former prison where
dozens
of immigrant
children and their families
are detained.

Advocates disagree and contend that public awareness, a
report last year detailing conditions at Hutto and the lawsuit
spurred ICE to acdon.

U.S. Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement
officials who conducted a media tour Tuesday at the T. Don
Hutto Family Residential Center in Taylor say the facility
has become more family friendly thanks to more than 100
modifications.

"It is true that some of the changes were made before the
settlement ... but they certainly were not in effect at the time
we made our report," said Michelle Brane, director .of the
detention and asylum program at the Women's Commission
for Refugee Women and Children.·"They were very Clear that
they thought it was an appropriate place to hold families."

The changes were required under a settlement reached in a
lawsuit alleging children were held in prison-like conditions.

Guards accused of threatening children

Children now receive night lights, sneakers and colorful
T-shirts with Superman and other characters on them when
they arrive at Hutto. A teleconference room for immigration
hearings has a large mural of the Rugrats and the large brick
walls leading into the sleeping area - former prison pods are painted in muted tones and feature Tinkerbell.

When the facility first opened nearly two years ago, advocates
say, uniformed, handcuff-toting correctional officers called
"counselors" threatened children with separation from their
families. Children received only one hour of classroom
instruction a day, lost weight and had limited access to health
care, attorneys alleged.

The facility's health care staffhas expanded to 35 and contracts
outside when more specialized services are needed.

ICE officials have denied that guards used threats or that
health care was limited. The agency did say that the school
day has been significantly expanded since Hutto opened.

Immigration officials say the T. Don
Hutto Family Residential Center in
Taylor has become more family friendly
-Donna McWilliam, Associated Press

The cafeteria now offers a main menu and a hot bar to
provide more variety of foods. Children - currently from Z
months old to teenagers - now go on field trips. Past visits
outside Hutto have included a museum in Austin, the zoo
and a Dairy Queen.
ICE officials said the changes would have been implemented
even without the lawsuit, and added that they continue to

"Everything that was included in that settlement was either
done prior to the settlement, in progress during the settlement
or contemplated prior to the settlement," said Gary Mead,
ICE's acting director for detention and removaL

A federal judge approved the lawsuit settlement in August. It
called for changes including installation of privacy curtains
around toilets in the cells, a full-time pediatrician and
elimination of a counting system rhat required families to be
in their cells for hours a day.
Those changes have been made, and a federal magistr<lte also
(continue...)

continues to periodically review conditions at Hutto.
Immigration officials have described the nearly SOO-bed
Hutto as a residential environment that keeps families
together while they seek asylum, await deportation or seek
other outcomes to their immigration cases.
Officials say Hutto - operated by Corrections Corporation
of America under a contract with Williamson County - is
meant to end the "catch and release" practice that in the past
permitted families in the U.S. illegally to remain free while
awaiting a court hearing. Many never showed up in court;
some borrowed other people's children and posed as families
to avoid detention, ICE officials have said.
ICE is considering opening more facilities to detain families
around the country, making Hutto a sort of prototype, Mead
said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropoLitan/5722513.htm1

Detainee center gets
'family..friendly' makeover
Immigration officials give tour of much-maligned facility in Taylor
By Juan Castillo, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
April 23, 2008

!:"

......-.

say it is a humane way to keep families together while enforcing
immigration law.
Last year, immigrant advocates sued U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, charging that conditions at the
faCility were inappropriate for families and children. As part
of a court settlement, immigration officials in December
implemented for the first time federal standards at detention
centers for immigrant families.

In addition to new privacy curtains and other changes, the facility also got
a kid·friendly paint job. The center holds families accused of immigration
violations.
. Donna McWilliam ASSOCIATED PRESS

TAYLOR - The concertina wire is gone. So are rhe imposing
steel doors in the booking area and the green and purple
hospital-type scrubs issued to immigrants and their children.
Also gone are the routine head counts by uniformed guards
that awakened children in the middle of the night at the T.
Don Hutto immigrant detention center.
New are the privacy curtains around toilets in the cramped
cells and glass-enclosed cubicles where immigrants can meet
with their attorneys.
Federal immigration officials opened up the detention
center to reporters Tuesday to showcase these and more
than 100 other changes they say make the former mediumsecurity prison more family-friendly. The changes have
been implemented in the past year, many of them after a
lawsuit was filed challenging the treatment of families at the
controversial facility.
The 470-bed detention center, which opened in 2006, is one
of two in the country that confine families on immigration
violations while they await disposition of their cases. Officials

"Candidly, when (Hutto) opened, we were new to the family
residential facility business. We learned a lot," Gary Mead,
acting director for detention and removal at Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, said Tuesday.
Mead said the modifications - he estimated 110 in all would have taken place even withoutthe lawsuit.
Advocates like Michelle Brane of the Women's Commission
for Refugee Women and Children in New York disagree.
They say the lawsuit, public pressure and media exposure of
conditions at T. Don Hutto moved the immigration agency
to take action.
Brane said she was "quite overwhelmed" by the changes she
saw during a brief visit to the facility in February.
"There wasn't nearly the oppressive atmosphere that you felt
before," Brane said.health care was limited. The agency did
say that the school day has been significantly expanded since
Hutto opened.
A federal judge approved the lawsuit settlement in August. It
called for changes including installation of privacy curtains
around toilets in the cells, a full-time pediatrician and
elimination of a counting system that required families to be
in their cells for hours a day.
Those changes have been made, and a federal magistrate also

(conlinlte...)

continues to periodically review conditions at Hutto.
Immigration officials have described the nearly 500-bed
Hutto as a residential environment that keeps families
together while they seek asylum, await deportation or seek
other outcomes to their immigration cases.
Officials say Hutto - operated by Corrections Corporation
of America under a contract with Williamson County - is
meant to end the "catch and release" practice that in the past
permitted families in the U.S. illegally to remain free while
awaiting a court hearing. Many never showed up in court;
some borrowed other people's children and posed as families
to avoid detention, ICE officials have said.
ICE is considering opening more facilities to detain families
around the country, making Hutto a sort of prototype, Mead
said.

htt 1':/1wWw.stlllesrnan.com!news/content/news/stDries/loCl11/04/23/0423hutto.html

Detention center for immigrant
families looks much..reformed
Hernan Rozemberg, Express-News
April 22. 2008

TAYLOR - After two turbulent years, the country's largest
prison for detained immigrant families has been revamped to
serve as a model for three more such centers the government
hopes to open next year.
The T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center, a former srate
prison about 35 miles northeast of Austin, is one of only
two places that holds entire families caught in the country
illegally.
Mired in controversy since its opening in May 2006,
the 512-bed center has been through several makeovers.
Administrators opened it for a swift media tour Tuesday to
show how much has changed since the first tour 14 months
ago.

August are complete, along with some additional measures,
and Hutto now is as family-friendly as it's going to get, Mead
said.
Just as happened last year, reporters were quickly and closely
escorted to major areas and barred from interviewing
detainees.
Children have more freedom to run around, Mead said, and
there are structural changes - door styles went from steelbolt institutional to country Dutch, and the razor wire that
lined the fence surrounding the campus is gone. Hallways
are brightly painted and adorned with cartoons and drawings
done by a staffer.

Gary Mead, in charge of all detention centers for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, flew in from
Washington with a cadre of public affairs officers to lead the
tour.

Formerly strict daily schedules have been relaxed, Mead said.
Children 12 and older may play outside by themselves with
written parental permission. The ourdoor recreation area,
previously home to two swing sets, now features two soccer
fields, a volleyball court and two playgrounds.

Mead said most but not all of the 110 showcased changes
stemmed from the settlement of a lawsuit brought by
immigrant advocacy groups that alleged deplorable conditions
and intimidation by guards.

The gym has added a play area for toddlers, two treadmills
and four stationary bicycles to the basketball court. Kids now
go on field trips in the Austin area, including to a public
library and the Texas State History Museum.

In one case, a Honduran woman who ICE said refused to
leave despite a judge's deportation order was transferred
to another prison and thus separated from her 8-year-old
daughter for three days until they were reunited on the plane
home.

For adults, aerobics and dance classes are offered, as well as a
parents' night outj on Valentine's Day, they were treated to a
catered dinner with guards as servers, said Evelyn Hernandez,
who manages the prison for Corrections Corp. of America,
which contracts with ICE and Williamson County in a threeway partnership.

"Candidly, when it opened, we were new to the family
residential business and we have learned a lot," Mead
said. "Now we have truly created a safe and humane living
environment. "
All the steps ICE agreed

to

take in the settlement reached in

The medical staff has grown from 30 to 35, to include a
dental hygienist. two Spanish-speaking nurses and two social
workers for mental health concerns.
Mead pointed out such other improvements as an expanded
(continue...)

library of about 5,000 books. The compurer lab fearures more
programs and two terminals with Interner access.
There's a salad bar and a "hot bar" in the cafeteria - and
the more homestyle recipes are a hit with the mostly Central
American detainees thanks to one of them working as a
cook, Hernandez said. Ten derainees volunteer to work at
the center for $1 per day, she said.
Sleeping quarters are still former prison cells, bur the steel
toilers and sinks were replaced with porcelain, and curtains
have been added around toilets and showers.
Parents and children previously had to stay in rheir cells
overnight but now can wander into the larger "pod" area if
they want ro watch TV or play video games. They'll still set
off sensors if they open a door afrer lights-our, prompring a
sraffer to make sure norhing's wrong.
Bottom line, administrators said, it'll never be a perfect place
for families, but it's good enough to be replicated.
"I'm nor sure this would be the model if we started with a
clean sheet of paper," Mead said.
Yet no amount of money can change the fact that rhe
Hutto facility remains a prison, say advocates who sued the
government and are srill pushing for a more dramatic policy
shift.
Barbara Hines, .a law professoranddirecror of rhe
immigration clinic at the University of Texas at Austin, has
represented Hutto detainees and brought rhe suit along with
the American Civil Liberties Union.
She got a tour lasr month to see the changes. There's no
doubt conditions have improved significantly, she said.
"But at the end of the day, families are still kept in detention
- they're nor allowed to walk out the door," Hines said.
Congress has ordered ICE to seek alternatives such as
monitored release, bur it continues to overlook those options,
Hines said.
Mead noted that about half of the approximately 4,000
detainees placed at Hutto since it opened have been released
on bond or other supervisory orders.
hrozemberg@express-news.net

http://www.mysanantonio.com!news!mexico/stoTies/M YSA04 23 08.01A. impTOvedhutto. 3bf8d5e.html

,
League ofUnited Latin American Citizens
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
Ro.. Ro.ole.

April 18, 2008

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Brent A. Wi1l<es

T. Don Hutto Residential Center
1001 Welch St., P.O. Box 1063
Taylor, Texas 76574

NATIONAL OFFJCERS
IJeoLor Plotes"

Immediate Pa.,t Presidenl
Jaime P. Martine.
'J're3Surcr
Je88I.. 1 Martine.

Youlh Preaident
Riohard FJmbrea
VP lor Elderly
Margarel Moran
VP lor Women
Berta U'leaga
VP Io,Youth
Michelle M. Pel~o
VP lor Young Adults
Angel G. Luevano
VP lor Fames!
Alicia Rio.
VP lor Midwe,t
Toula Politis Lugo
VP for Northeast
Marla Rod,lgue.-llaiazar
VP lor Northwest
Vivian Feliciano
I'P lor Southeast
Ad'ian Rod,igue.
\'P for Southw"l

Dear Officer Robertson,
On Behalf of the LULAC National Board, I want to thank you for allowing us to tour the
T. Don Hutto detention facility. More importantly, I would like to extend our appreciation
for the initiatives that have taken place in the facility to accommodate the detainees and
their families.

STATE DIRECTORS
Ana Valenzuela Est'ada
Arizona
Carlo. F. Cervanle.
Arkans...
Argentina Davila·Luevano
California
Tom Duran
Colorado
Ada Pena
District of Columbia
.Bettina 'Rodrigo.. AguUe"
Flo'ida
EUg;o Marin
Illinois
Trinidad Allaro, Jr.
Indiana
Gilbe,t Sie"a
Iowa
Roddgo Bonilla
Kansas

Annabelle Gue"a
Massachusetts
Augu.lin Sanche.
Michigan
Beladio F. Zavala
MiIUlesola
Bortenoia Vasquez Wilcox
Missouri
Paul A. Martin••
New Mexico

Rosa Torres Caskey
Ohio
ReyMadrid
Ol:lahoma
Carmen I. Cruz
Puerto Rko
Roger C. Rocha
Te"""
Lonl Gonale.
Virginia
Ricardo S. Rico
Washington
Yolanda Santo. Adams
Wisconsin

We believe the new personnel assigned to the facility will assist the detainees effectively.
The improved services for the families such as the newly attained educational and
technological recreational resources are of great importance. In addition, the privacy
offered for personal visits provide the children and their parents some nomlalcy while in
the facility. Weare glad to have witnessed very adequate hygiene and medical care
services.
I would also like to thank you for providing pro bono legal representation to the detainees,
which will alleviate financial burdens. Just as important as legal representation for the
detainees, church and other religious services provided are very much appreciated.
We had one suggestion for the T. Don Hutto detention facility. We observed that the
center's cooking stafflacked any Latino representation; the inhabitants of the facility
mentioned numerous times they would truly appreciate having some type of Hispanic food.
We would appreciate if you would forward these concems to the appropriate personnel so
they may proceed to incorporate Hispanic meals into their menu plans.
Once again, I would like to extend my gratitude to your staff on bringing these services to
fruition. We look forward to a continued partnership with your facility and US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Sincerely,

~/lvJ~

Rosa Rosales
LULAC National President

2000 LStreet, NW, Suite 610 • Washington, DC 20036 • (202) 833·6130 • FAX (202) 833-6135 • www.LULAC.org