AUGUSTA – A compromise jail consolidation plan, reached after hundreds of hours of negotiations involving the Baldacci administration, county officials and lawmakers, was up for legislative debate as the 2008 session ground toward a hoped-for midweek adjournment.

The latest version of the plan is a major departure from the proposal advanced last summer by Gov. John Baldacci, which called for consolidation of 15 county jail systems and the state corrections system into a statewide system managed by the Department of Corrections.

The latest plan backs away from the state takeover first envisioned and instead calls for creation of a nine-member state Board of Corrections, which would develop and implement a unified correctional system.

“We worked hundreds of hours to come to an agreement on this,” said state Corrections Commissioner Martin Magnusson. Neither the House nor Senate voted on the bill Monday.

The board’s members would be appointed by the governor and serve three-year terms. They would seek efficiencies to cut costs, such as joint purchases of medications and fuel, rather than 15 counties having separate purchase agreements.

The board would manage bed space in the jails and coordinate transportation of inmates between facilities, said Magnusson. In addition, the board would evaluate and determine uses of each facility and review any future public or private construction corrections projects to see whether they are needed.

The board members would include a sitting sheriff, a sitting county commissioner, two members of the executive branch including one from the Corrections Department, a municipal official, and four representatives of the public from distinct regions of the state. They would all be subject to legislative confirmation.

The compromise approved by 12 of the 13 members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee specifies that the legislation does not confer ownership of any county property to the state.

In advancing the idea of jail consolidation last August, Baldacci called the present structure “intolerable” and said changes must be made to save taxpayers’ money. His initial proposal drew harsh opposition from county officials. The counties and state later came back with alternative plans, leading to the compromise.