I would approach the policy issue cautiously. Of course from the first instance, I would not give in to the Governor’s demands entirely. I would want to pursue a hybrid system that retains some of my policies and programs and blends with his demands. Exactly how I would do that depends on the personality and understanding of the Governor. But firstly, I would try to dissect the problem with him. I would purposely belabor on the essence of my programs, and how convenient and effective they have been to the society. I would attempt to provide arguments substantiated primarily by the statistics such as the reduced cases of recidivism, the changing professional attitude towards working in rural areas among other positive observations of my programs. At worst, I would threaten to resign if my policies are not given due consideration in the drafting of new policies.
Is there room to negotiate?
Of course, there is room for negotiation with the Governor. This is because the nature of policy planning demands that the input of professionals be taken into consideration. Even from the Governor’s communication, one can see the fact that he merely issues suggestions and expects the officer to respond to the suggestions. This gives the officer the opportunity to interrogate, critic and challenge the suggestions before considering their implementation. The fact that the detailed drafting and implementation rests with the officer and not the Governor gives the former an opportunity to negotiate with the latter.
Concerning programs that would be tough on inmates, I would offer to include the same programs. This is for the benefit of the prison system and for the interests of the Governor to be taken care of. In management, one essential element usually concerns the need to compromise so that the approach taken should be the win-win situation. In that spirit, I would consider introducing tough policies on the inmates. As to examples of tough policies, I would apply strict schedules for the inmates in that they would be subject to a rigorous system in the prison that consumes all their time and does not allow them any time to sit idling around. The spirit in this policy is informed by the fact that prison must never be or appear to be a leisure destination. Prisoners must never lose the course of the reason as to their stay in prison.
Attempting to see how much external and internal support
I would engage in the business of evaluating the external and internal support I have for my policies. The process of evaluating support either internally or externally sounds to me as a political rather than a professional function. My job designates me as a professional officer, and I would not engage in any business with political undertones. At worst, I would resign from my designation rather than implement policies that my conscience is against. Otherwise, I would to the best of my abilities implement the new provisions.
Demonstrating the success of my policies
In demonstrating the success of my policies, I would pursue that in two limbs. The first limb entails the use of correctional officers, that is, the wardens and prison subordinates. I would carry out extensive research that captures their interests, aspirations and motivations and run questionnaires that would gather information directly from them. This information would be submitted to the Governor to be able to see how effective my policies have been received and practiced in the prisons. The second limb in my approach entails the use of reformed and rehabilitated former prisoners. I would use them to illustrate how successful my policies have been in as far as correctional aspect of prison is concerned.
Reference
Ashworth, A. (2010). Sentencing and Criminal Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
