One of the guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the right to petition for redress of grievance. That means that everybody has a protected right to complain to governmental bodies where he or she is dissatisfied with some governmental conduct. An important aspect of the "right of petition," and all other constitutional rights, is that the government is legally barred from retaliating against a citizen who exercises his or her rights. If you complain to some governmental agency, they are legally forbidden to retaliate against you for making your complaint. In Pennsylvania that proteciton is stolen from prisoners. They are habitually the object of official retaliation. One of the most well known rights secured by the First Amendment is "freedom of the press." These two constitutional guarantees, free press and petition, came together recently at the state prison at Smithfield in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. The incident shows how our government respects the Constitution. Each state prison operates a commissary, little stores where prisoners are allowed to buy a few necessities at greatly inflated prices. Typically, prison officials buy goods from retailers in the rural community where the prison is located and sell the goods at a 5% premium to the prisoners. Generally speaking, the local businesses are operated by friends and relatives of the prison officials, or sometimes, by the officials themselves. Sunday newspapers are sold in the prison commissaries. A prisoner at the Smithfield prison ordered a Harrisburg Sunday Patriot-News and paid the retail price of $1.75 plus a 5% premium of 9 cents for a total cost of $1.84. The papers are bought from a place called "Mark's Corner Store," a gun shop in Huntingdon Borough. In redneck country, hand guns are available like loaves of bread in corner stores. On Sunday, when the newspaper was delivered to the prisoner, some of it was missing. A principle reason for him to invest 2 days of his prison wages for the Sunday newspaper was to get the TV section and the store coupons. He clipped the coupons to send to his wife who had taken care of him during many years of imprisonment. Realizing that the paper was incomplete and missing sections which were essential to him, the prisoner refused to accept it. He asked for a refund of his two day's wages. Unfortunately, the Commissary Manager, a competent man, was out recuperating from heart surgery. The prisoner "petitioned for redress" to the Business Manager, Edward B. Mason. The esteemed Mr. Mason responded, "no credit/refund is authorized." If prison is supposed to teach offenders how they're expected to conduct themselves, this "like-it-or-lump-it" attitude teaches them that integrity is not important. If you can make yourself powerful enough it's acceptable to treat other people badly. Dissatisfied with the response, the prisoner filed a formal complaint. The Department of Corrections ("DOC") pretends to operate an elaborate Inmate Grievance System. It's a kind of inane red-tape intended to frustrate the resolution of problems. In reality, the Inmate Grievance System is a bureaucratic device designed to protect prison officials from suits and from having to answer for their misdeeds. Sharon Burks, the prison's Grievance Coordinator, refused to docket or answer the prisoner's complaint. Refusal to docket complaints is standard practice. It serves two purposes. Firstly, it frustrates the prisoner, thwarting his efforts to resolve a problem in an orderly, legal and non-violent way. Secondly, by refusing to docket the complaint, the DOC gives the false impression that there aren't many complaints. They mislead the Legislature by reporting far, far fewer grievances than they actually receive. The truth is that prison officials are notoriously dishonest. After more red-tape and delay, the prisoner filed a second grievance. Ms Burks docketed it as SMI-257-00, but she turned it over to Edward B. Mason for action. Edward B. Mason was the very Business Manager against whom the grievance was directed. Not surprisingly, Mr. Mason decided that he'd done everything exactly right. He repeated the "take-it-or-leave-it" integrity of the prison and wrote "...consider not purchasing this paper. Your grievance is dismissed." Being a subborn kind of guy who foolishly believes that even prisoners should be treated fairly, the prisoner took his complaint to James Morgan, the venerable Superintendent of the prison. Mr. Morgan's response was NOT to respond. He simply ignored the matter. The prisoner wrote reminders and finally complaint to the Central Office of the DOC. Eventually his persistence provoked a reply from Mr. Morgan which echoed Mr. Mason's attitude of contempt. Immediately thereafter, the Business Manager ordered that the commissary would no longer sell Sunday newspapers. In response to the prisoner's legitimate grievance, he and all other prisoners would be punished by having the newspapers removed from commissary sale. Mr. Mason wrote that "this is no way a retaliatory action." An irony is that only a sort time prior to this "non-retaliatory" action Governor Thomas Ridge paid a fortune in tax money for a report which found that prisoners have FAR too little to do. They have too much idle time on their hands. By cutting out Sunday newspapers, officials assured that prisoners would have even less to do. This is a real example of how the prison Inmate Grievance System works and of the respect that prison officials have for the press. No retaliation here, right?