Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
LEGISLATIVE CORRECTIONS OMBUDSPERSON
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
Senate Bill 493 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Analysis available at
Sponsor: Sen. Sylvia A. Santana http://www.legislature.mi.gov
House Committee: Government Operations
Senate Committee: Oversight
Complete to 12-3-24
SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 493 would amend 1975 PA 46, which creates the Office of the Legislative
Corrections Ombudsman in the Legislative Council. 1 The ombudsman is a nonpartisan agency
primarily charged with investigating actions of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(DOC) that are alleged to be unlawful or contrary to policy. If at the end of an investigation
there are recommendations or concerns, the ombudsman must make a report of them to the
Legislative Council. The bill would do all of the following:
• Change the word ombudsman to ombudsperson in the names of both the office and the
position of ombudsman. 2
• Specifically allow complaints to be submitted to the ombudsperson by family members
or individuals or organizations that advocate on behalf of prisoners or parolees.
• Require the ombudsperson to create and make available a standardized complaint form.
• Require the ombudsperson to let a person submitting a complaint know that their
complaint was received.
• Specifically allow the ombudsperson to use qualified experts for assistance in its work.
• Provide time frames for making certain statements and notifications.
• Require that certain information be included in the ombudsperson’s annual report.
• Require the ombudsperson to post monthly reports about complaints it has received.
Complaints
The act now authorizes the ombudsman to begin an investigation upon receiving a complaint
from a prisoner or parolee or a legislator about an action, omission, decision, recommendation,
practice, or procedure of the Department of Corrections that is alleged to be against the law or
against departmental policy. The bill would specifically add that family members and prisoner
advocates also can make complaints to the ombudsperson that can become the basis of an
investigation.
Family member would mean a family member of a prisoner or parolee who advocates
on behalf of that prisoner or parolee.
Prisoner advocate would mean an individual or organization that advocates on behalf
of a prisoner or parolee or on behalf of prisoners or parolees.
1
The Legislative Council consists of twelve members, six representatives and six senators, who are respectively
appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. Each group of six must include at least two
members from the respective chamber’s minority party.
2
The legislative corrections ombudsman (as now called) is the head of the office. The act, the bill, and this document
generally use ombudsman or ombudsperson to refer to the office, not the position.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 4
 By not later than 120 business days (about five and a half to six months) after the bill takes
effect, the ombudsperson would have to create and make available a standardized complaint
form that can be used to submit a complaint by a person described above. The form would have
to be available on the ombudsperson’s website, with printed copies available in all correctional
facility (prison) law libraries and other locations in correctional facilities as requested by the
ombudsperson.
The bill also would require the ombudsperson to notify a person who submits a complaint that
their complaint was received.
Qualified experts and testing equipment
The bill would allow the ombudsperson to consult or contract with qualified experts for
assistance with investigations, inspections, hearings, or other work. The qualified expert would
have to be allowed to enter correctional facilities with the ombudsperson and to bring any
necessary testing equipment. As long as it does not compromise security, the ombudsperson or
qualified expert could bring photographic equipment into correctional facilities to take pictures
the ombudsperson or qualified expert determines necessary.
Qualified expert would mean a professional with substantial experience in a field, such
as environmental, medical, or mental health professionals.
At least 72 hours before taking an expert into a correctional facility, the ombudsperson would
have to give DOC advance notice and provide all of the following:
• The expert’s name.
• A completed Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) form to allow DOC to
conduct a background check on the expert.
• The expert’s credentials, including any licensure information in their area of expertise.
• A description of any testing equipment the expert may need.
A qualified expert would have to adhere to state or national standards for their area of expertise.
DOC could ask the ombudsperson to reconsider taking testing equipment into a correctional
facility if it determines that the equipment may interfere with the facility’s operations and
provides the ombudsperson with a written statement explaining that specific impact. DOC
would have to notify the ombudsperson if a requested testing procedure is under litigation, in
which case the ombudsperson would have to delay that testing until the litigation is completed.
DOC could search any testing equipment brought into a correctional facility for contraband.
Time frames for response and notifications
Under current law, the ombudsman must consult with a person (including DOC) before it
announces a conclusion or recommendation that is critical of that person. When publishing an
opinion adverse to a person (including DOC), the ombudsman must include a statement from
that person in response, if the statement is of reasonable length and submitted in a reasonable
period of time as determined by the Legislative Council. In addition, the ombudsman can
request to be notified by DOC, within a specified time, of action taken on a recommendation.
The bill would retain the provisions described above, but would change the italicized time
frames and add new provisions. Under the bill, the ombudsperson would have to include the
response statement in its publication as long as the statement is of reasonable length and
House Fiscal Agency SB 493 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 2 of 4
 provided within 30 business days after the ombudsman’s consultation with the person. DOC
could request one 14-business-day extension to this time limit. The ombudsperson would have
to report to the Legislative Council if DOC fails to provide a response statement within the
time limit. In addition, under the bill, DOC would have to notify the ombudsperson within 30
business days after an action is taken on a recommendation.
As under current law, the ombudsperson would have to notify the person who submitted the
complaint of any actions taken by the ombudsperson and DOC—but the bill would newly
require the ombudsperson to do so within 45 business days after the action is taken.
Annual report
The ombudsman is currently required to submit an annual report on the conduct of the office
to the legislature and the Legislative Council. The bill would require the report to also be made
available on the ombudsperson’s website. In addition, the bill would require the annual report
to include all of the following:
• The total number of complaints that were received, investigated, denied, resolved,
unsubstantiated, or undecided.
• The number of complaints received, broken down by correctional facility.
• The number of complaints received, broken down by subject matter (including at least
racial discrimination and medical treatment issues).
• Significant issues that were investigated.
• Each recommendation made to DOC.
• DOC’s response to each recommendation.
Monthly reports
The bill would require the ombudsperson to make monthly reports available on its website that
include the following information for each month:
• The total number of complaints that were received, investigated, denied, resolved,
unsubstantiated, or undecided.
• The number of complaints received, broken down by correctional facility.
• The number of complaints received, broken down by subject matter (including at least
racial discrimination and medical treatment issues).
MCL 4.351 et seq.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Senate Bill 493 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the Department of Corrections.
Revising the definition of complainant to include family members or prisoner advocates most
likely would result in additional complaints being filed which would result in additional
investigations being conducted. The ombudsperson would be authorized to contract with
qualified experts for assistance with investigations and the experts would be authorized to take
testing equipment into correctional facilities. The department would have to conduct additional
background checks and would have to search all equipment brought in by experts for
contraband. These activities would require an indeterminate amount of additional staff time
and resources. Because there is no way to determine the number of additional background
checks or searches of equipment, there is no practical way to project additional costs to the
state.
House Fiscal Agency SB 493 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 3 of 4
 Senate Bill 493 would have no fiscal impact on the legislative corrections ombudsman. Any
additional costs incurred from consulting or contracting with experts for assistance with
investigations, inspections, or hearings would be able to be supported through ongoing annual
appropriations.
Legislative Analyst: Rick Yuille
Fiscal Analysts: Robin Risko
Michael Cnossen
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency SB 493 (S-1) as passed by the Senate Page 4 of 4


Statutes affected:
Substitute (S-1): 4.351
Senate Introduced Bill: 4.351
As Passed by the Senate: 4.351