BUDGET COMMITTEE IS CALLED TO
ORDER --
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WEBER FEAR JONES SAWYER.
LACKEY.
MELENDEZ STONE.
OKAY WE CAN START OF THE MEETING
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY --
AND IF WE'RE FOCUS IT SHOULDN'T
TAKE IS FOR EVER.
OF WHAT OUR FIRST ITEM IS FLEET
REPLACEMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO
CALL FOR A PERSON FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE LA
OFFICE.
DEAL THE ISSUE OF FLEET
REPLACEMENT [inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
THE OKAY [inaudible]
I HAVE.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU PLEASE
INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND AND WILL
BEGIN.
SURE GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS
ERIC SWANSON ON THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF CDC OURS OFFICE OF
FISCAL SERVICES.
THE FIRST ITEM YOU HAVE BEFORE
YOU IS A REQUEST FOR TWENTY FOUR
MILLION GENERAL FUND AND FOR
POSITIONS IN. TWO THOUSAND
NINETEEN TWENTY AN ON GOING TO
ESTABLISH A SEVEN YEAR SCHEDULE
FOR CRITICAL FLEET VEHICLES.
AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL CDC ARE
WOULD REDIRECT. EIGHT MILLION
FROM OUR BASE D. A. I. BUDGET
FOR A TOTAL OF THIRTY TWO
MILLION DOLLARS AND WITH ME
TODAY.
IS DEVON FONG HE'S THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
BUSINESS SERVICES.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS --
CITY START INCARCERATE
APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED TWENTY
EIGHT THOUSAND OFFENDERS AND
THIRTY FIVE INSTITUTIONS AND
CONSERVATION CAMPS.
CITIES HERE AS A FLEET OF
APPROXIMATELY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR OWNED ASSETS
THESE AFTER TO PROVIDE SUPPORT.
FOR FIRE WASTE DISPOSAL RATIONS
AND SECURITY.
CDC ARE DOES NOT HAVE DEDICATED
FUNDING FOR ASSET REPLACEMENT --
THE CDC ARE HAS UTILIZED
DEPARTMENT OF ADULT INSTITUTION
PROGRAM BUDGETS TO REPLACE
ASSETS IN PRIOR YEARS --
THIS PROPOSAL HELP AND PROVIDE
WHAT WOULD PROVIDE DEDICATED
FUNDING TO HELP --
PROVIDE FOR FLEET ASSET
REPLACEMENT.
AB CA ARE ARE IS NOT ASSERTING --
SAVINGS WITH THIS OUR PROPOSAL --
AS AS SUGGESTED --
HOWEVER THAT LANGUAGES --
THE POSITION OF THE GS HOWEVER
WE ARE WORKING ON A MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR MODUL IN OUR SYSTEM
OF RECORD. TO HELP IDENTIFY SOME
FUTURES --
EFFICIENCIES --
IN MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR --
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE BACK --
WE DON'T HAVE ANY BASELINE DATA
TO TO MEASURE AGAINST BASS I
SAVINGS --
APPROXIMATELY FIFTY TWO HUNDRED
OF CDC OURS ASSETS MEET THE
DIGEST THRESHOLD FOR REPLACEMENT
CURRENTLY.
CDC ARE HOWEVER IS TAKING A MORE
CONSERVATIVE APPROACH AND
PROPOSES TO REPLACE
300-080-83000 FOUR EIGHTY SIX
ASSETS.
OVER A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD --
SMOOTHING IN THE BACKLOG OF
ASSET REPLACEMENTS WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY
STANDARD --
WHICH WE BELIEVE IS A MANAGEABLE
IS --
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE
PLANNING TO REPLACE OUR LIGHT
DUTY ASSETS BUT EVERY SEVEN
YEARS WHAT WE PLAN TO PLACE.
REPLACE THOSE ASSETS.
SO WE UTILIZE A REPLACEMENT TOOL
THAT --
MEASURES AGE MILES AND
CONDITIONS --
CONDITION BEING A MORE
CONSERVATIVE APPROACH THAN JUST
AGE AND MILEAGE CURRENTLY BY THE
DEPARTMENT GENERAL SERVICES --
ABOUT 28% OF OUR ASSETS RIGHT
NOW OR TWENTY YEARS OLD --
FOR AND HALF OUR AVERAGE --
US AT AGE IS FOURTEEN YEARS OLD.
SO WHAT WHAT WE'VE DONE IN
PREVIOUS YEARS --
WE'VE WE SPEND ABOUT FIFTEEN TO
SIXTEEN MILLION DOLLARS AND
DEPARTMENT OF FUNDS WHICH HAS
BEEN INSUFFICIENT TO KEEP UP
WITH THE BACKLOG --
SO THESE ANTIQUATED ASSETS --
MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE DIGEST
RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD FOR
REPLACEMENT.
IS PROPOSING A REST TO THE
DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO PERFORM
ITS MISSION CRITICAL FUNCTIONS.
CORRECT.
ME COMMENTS FROM FINANCE.
RIGHT TO MY DEPARTMENT FINANCE I
JUST WANTED.
TO ADD THAT WHEREAS IN THE PAST
THE DEPARTMENT IS REDIRECTED
FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE IN THIS
PROPOSAL PROPOSING A SEPARATE
FUND -- SUB
PROGRAM TO TRACK SPECIFICALLY
FOR TRACKING PURPOSES FOR FLEET
EXPENDITURES.
OKAY ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PART
LA L..
YES THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR
CAITLYN O'NEILL WITH THE LA OKAY
WE THINK THAT MORE FREQUENT
REPLACEMENT OF VEHICLES MAKES
SENSE AS A PART OF A STRATEGY TO
MINIMIZE OVERALL COSTS OF FLEET
OWNERSHIP.
AND BY THAT I'M AYE SENSUALLY
MEANS SELLING VEHICLES NEAR THE
POINT WHEN THEY'RE INCREASING
REPAIR AND FUEL COSTS.
START TO EXCEED THEIR ANNUAL
DEPRECIATE THIS IS CONSISTENT
WITH BEST PRACTICES IN THE FIELD
OF FLEET MANAGEMENT.
HOWEVER WE DO HAVE TO CONCERT --
A FEW CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSAL --
AND THOSE ARE THAT --
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT
ADMINISTRATION DOES OR DOESN'T
AND IS IT EITHER ISN'T PURSUING
THIS PROPOSAL WITH A GOAL OF
ACHIEVING SAVINGS WE THINK THAT
IT WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN SAVING
SO -- WE
THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO SCORE
SAVINGS IN VEHICLE VEHICLE FUEL
MAINTENANCE.
REPAIR AND HIGHER RESALE VALUE.
HOWEVER THE PROPOSAL DOESN'T
ACCOUNT FOR THOSE SAVINGS THAT
WE THINK WOULD BE LIKELY TO
ACCRUE.
WE ALSO NOT NOTE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT --
GIVEN THE WAY THAT THIS PROPOSAL
IS SCHEDULED OUT --
THE DEPARTMENT COULD STILL RE
DIRECT MONEY TO OTHER PURPOSES
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION.
I'M DOING SO COULD INCREASE
FLEET COSTS AS IT WOULD TAKE
AWAY RESOURCES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE USED TO REPLACE
VEHICLES.
AT IN A MANNER THAT --
MINIMIZING OVERALL COSTS.
IT ALSO NOTE THAT WHILE
DEPARTMENT.
I JUST IDICATED THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE A BASE BUDGET.
FOR A FLEET REPLACEMENT AND THEY
DO HAVE EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS
AND OF THE RIP ADD.
ASSET REPLACEMENT FUNDS THAT
THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING.
TO YOU TO PERMANENTLY DEDICATE
VEHICLES SO ESSENTIALLY THEY DO
HAVE AN EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR
BASE BUDGET FOR VEHICLES --
THESE ARE THEY'VE ALSO SUGGESTED
THAT THEY'RE HAVING CHALLENGES
IN --
MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE
INSTITUTIONS WITH THEIR EXISTING
FLEET THAT --
BUT THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY
EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ARE
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE THE INADEQUACY OF
THEIR CURRENT FLEET.
SO WE RECOMMEND --
THAT THE LEGISLATURE REQUIRE CDC
ART ESTIMATE SAVINGS THAT WOULD
RESULT FROM THIS PROPOSAL BY
APRIL FIRST.
TWENTY NINETEEN WE FULLY REALIZE
THAT IT --
AND MAYBE.
THIS WILL HAVE TO BE IN STILL
POSSIBLE TO PREDICT PRECISELY
HOW MUCH SAVINGS WOULD RESULT --
WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE REDUCE THE MINISTRY
OF THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET BY
THAT SAVINGS AMOUNT AND THEN
APPROVING A SEPARATE
APPROPRIATION THE THIRTY TWO
MILLION FOR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
THANK YOU.
SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT
WE WOULD WE TAKE THE EIGHT
MILLION OUT OF THAT BUDGET BUT
THEN PUT IT BACK IN IN THE WITH
THE THIRTY TWO MILLION OR SO
THAT THIRTY TWO MILLION.
SO THAT THE EIGHT MILLION IS
ALREADY IN THE BUDGET RIGHT JUST
BE DEDICATED SOLELY TO VEHICLES
WHICH IS PART OF THE PROPOSAL
RIGHT AND AN ADDITIONAL TWENTY
FOUR MILLION DOLLARS AN ON GOING
FUNDING FOR THE FUNDING WOULD BE
BASICALLY THE SAME JUST ROOF
STRUCTURE.
CORRECT THANK YOU OKAY RIGHT.
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM.
MEMBERS HERE.
OKAY ANY COMMENTS SO --
FROM THE AUDIENCE ONE MINUTE.
ANY OTHER ANY CLOSING REMARKS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS BRINGS US TO AYE ISSUE TO
THEIR TWO PANELS AN ISSUE --
TOO THIS CAN DEALS WITH THE PRO
PROCESS OVERVIEW AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REFORMS TO PAROLE
CONSIDERATION THE FIRST PANEL IS
MADE FROM --
SOMEONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION REHABILITATION FROM
THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS AND
OF COURSE THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND LA L..
OKAY.
OUR SECOND PANEL WOULD BE FROM
SOMEONE FROM THE BOARD OF PAROLE
HEARINGS AND PROFESSOR HEIDI
RAMOS OF FROM U. S. SEES.
A SCHOOL OF LAW OKAY.
AS WELL AS KEEP WHAT WIDELY ON
COMMON LAW AND MICHAEL MENDOZA
ANTI RECIDIVISM THAT'S THE
SECOND PANEL SO WE'LL CALL THEM
UP AFTER THE FIRST.
ALL RIGHT YEAH SO THIS PANEL IS
WE'RE GONNA DEAL WE'RE GONNA
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT --
TO BE PH PROCESS IN GENERAL I'M
ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE THE REQUEST WE MADE IN THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.
WHICH IS FOUR POINT SEVEN
MILLION GENERAL FUND AND TWELVE
POINT FIVE POSITIONS IN --
TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN TWENTY AND
MONEY ON GOING FOR TO ADJUST THE
RATES -- AND
FOR WORKLOAD RELATED TO
PROJECTED AND THE BUDGET TO
ADJUST THE RATES WE PROVIDE
ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENT INMATES
AND PAROLE HERE ONLY HEARINGS AS
WELL.
OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT FOR
THIS ISSUE AND THE NEXT TWO
ISSUES IS JENNIFER SCHAEFFER
SHE'S THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR
THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS.
AFTERNOON THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME HERE TODAY I AM A HAPPY TO
SHARE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PRO HEARING PROCESS WITH YOU.
I'VE BEEN AT THE BORDER PRO
HEARINGS FOR I'M GOING ON EIGHT
YEARS IN --
IN JUNE.
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW
OF THE PRO HEARING PROCESS IN
GENERAL SO.
HERE WE GO.
ROLL HEARINGS ON THE INMATES ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE SUITABILITY
HEARING BEFORE THE BORDER PRO
HEARINGS ONCE THEY'VE SERVED A
MINIMUM TERM.
SO FOR INSTANCE FOR A LIFE TERM
IN MAY TWENTY FIVE TO LIFE --
THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR
PAROLE HEARING ONCE THEY'VE
SERVED TWENTY FIVE YEARS LESS
ANY CREDITS THEY MIGHT EARN.
THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE
THEIR INITIAL HEARING FOR YOUTH
PAROLE --
YOUTH OFFENDERS YOUTHFUL
OFFENDERS THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
HEARING AFTER THEY THERE ARE TWO
TWENTY SIX YOUTH OFFENDERS UNDER
AGE TWENTY SIX WHEN THEY
COMMITTED THEIR COMMITMENT
OFFENSE.
THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR PRO
SUITABILITY HEARING AFTER
THEY'VE SIR FIFTEEN TWENTY OR
TWENTY FIVE YEARS DEPENDING ON
THE SENTENCE IT'S BEEN IMPOSED
BY THE COURTS. FOR ELDERLY
PAROLE --
INMATES WHO ARE AGE SIXTY YEARS
OF INCARCERATION ARE ELIGIBLE
FOR HEARING.
AS WELL SO OUR PROCESS BEGINS --
DURING THE SIXTY YEAR PRIOR TO
AN INMATE'S INITIAL HEARING.
WE SIT DOWN A COMMISSIONER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WILL SIT
DOWN AND MEET WITH PAT --
INMATE ONE ON ONE FOR WHAT'S
CALLED A CONSULTATION AND THEN
THE CONSULTATION WHAT WE DO IS
WE EXPLAIN THE PRO HEARING
PROCESS WE TALK ABOUT THE
PROGRAMMING THAT THEY'VE DONE SO
FAR.
AND WE GIVE THEM RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THINGS THAT THEY SHOULD DO
IN ORDER TO BECOME A MORE
SUITABLE FOR PAROLE PRIOR TO
THEIR HEARING.
IN THE COMING UP WITH THAT TERM
THAT THAT DURING THE SIXTY YEAR
PRIOR TO THEIR INITIAL HEARING --
WE ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND TALKED
TO MANY PRO LIFERS AS WELL AS
INMATES AND ASK THEM WHAT WHEN
DO YOU THINK WHEN DURING YOUR
PERIOD OF INCARCERATION DO YOU
THINK OF THE MOST MEANINGFUL. TO
SIT DOWN AND TALK TO A PRO COULD
COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
AND MOST --
RESPONDED THAT ROUGHLY FIVE THEY
WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS PREVIOUSLY THE
LAW REQUIRED THEM AS TO MEET
WITH THEM AFTER THEIR THIRD YEAR
OF THEIR LIFE TERM WHICH COULD
EVEN DECADES BEFORE THEIR
INITIAL HEARING SO.
THAT CHANGED.
ALL RIGHT ONCE WE HAVE A
CONSULTATION THE NEXT THING WE
DO IS WE SCHEDULE THEIR HEARINGS
WE SCHEDULE HEARINGS FIVE TO SIX
MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
THE REASON IT'S SO FAR OUT IS
BECAUSE SO MANY MANY THINGS NEED
TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO HEARING.
FIRST THING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
IS WE HAVE A COUNSELOR A
CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR THAT
NEEDS TO DO A POST CONVICTION
REPORT FOR US.
SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE MANY OF
THESE ARE MADE TO ME DOWN FOR
DECADES MANY MANY YEARS.
BASS HELP SUMMARIZE THEIR
INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR ALL THE
PROGRAM IT THEY'VE TAKEN OVER
THAT THOSE VERY LENGTHY TIME
PERIODS.
THE NEXT THING THAT HAPPENS IS A
HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS PRIOR TO
THE HEARING WE APPOINT THEM
COUNSEL ALL INMATES HAVE A RIGHT
TO COUNSEL WE APPOINT THEM AN
ATTORNEY WE HIRE AND PAY THOSE
ATTORNEYS. TO REPRESENT THEM IF
THEY IF THEY DON'T HAVE A
PRIVATE COUNSEL SO THAT HAPPENED
A HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS OF THAT
THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
WITH OUR CLIENTS.
AND REVIEW THE RELEVANT
DOCUMENTS.
AT NINETY DAYS WHERE WE ALSO
SKEWS ME A HUNDRED AND TWENTY
DAYS WE ASSIGN OF FRIENDS A
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST OF THAT
WORKS FOR THE BOARD TO GO OUT
AND INTERVIEW THE INMATE.
AND REVIEW THEIR CENTRAL FILE
AND PUT BASED ON SEVERAL TOOLS
RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS --
THAT THEY ADMINISTER.
THEY THEN PUT TOGETHER WHAT'S
CALLED KIND OF THEIREXPERT
OPINION REPORT ITS COMPREHENSIVE
RISK ANALYSIS RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR US FOR USE BY THE BOARD IT'S
ALSO PROVIDED TO THE INMATE IN
MAKE COUNCIL AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.
AT NINETY DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING
UNDER THE LAW WE ARE REQUIRED TO
SEND NOTICES TO VICTIMS OF CRIME
IN THE REGISTER VICTIMS.
AND TO THE LAW REQUIRES US TO
ALSO SEND A NOTICE TO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO
THE HEARING BUT WE FOUND IT'S
MUCH MORE EFFICIENT --
WE CAN SAVE A LOT OF PHONE CALLS
IF WE ACTUALLY SEND THE NOTICES
OUT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
AT NINETY DAYS AS WELL BECAUSE
FREQUENTLY THE VICTIMS WILL CALL
THE DA'S OFFICE WHEN THEY
RECEIVE THEIR SERVICES.
SO WE SEND OUT ALL THE NOTICES
NINETY DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A
HEARING. SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE
HEARING WE SEND OUT A HEARING
PACKET COMPRISED OF WHAT WE
BELIEVE IS THE MOST RELEVANT
DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PRO HEARING PROCESS.
IN TWENTY THIRTEEN THE BORDER
PRO HEARINGS WENT COMPLETELY
PAPERLESS SO WE TAKE ALL THE
DOCUMENTS FROM THE CENTRAL FILE
THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WE PUT
THEM INTO A WHAT'S CALLED A A
MASHUP -- WE
UPLOAD THEM TO A SECURED FILE --
CLOUD BASED FILE SHARE TO THE
INMATE COUNCIL AND TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY THEY CAN THEN
DOWNLOAD THEM ENCRYPTED AND CAN
REVIEW THEM IN ADVANCE OF THE
HEARING.
AT THIRTY DAYS --
BUT WE HIRE ANY INTERPRETERS --
THAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY FOR THE
HEARING.
THEN AT THE HEARING ITSELF THE
HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN PERSON
AT THE PRISON WHERE USUALLY AT
THE PRISON WHERE THE INMATE IS
HOUSED.
AT THE HEARING.
CAN BE --
BUT DEFINITELY WILL BE OUR PANEL
pCOMMISSIONER --
SOMETIMES WE TWO COMMISSIONERS
AND A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALL
PRO HEARINGS REQUIRE AT LEAST.
MISSION.
AND THEN A SECOND PERSON EITHER
COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
WE AT THE HEARING --
THERE WILL ALSO BE PRESENT THE
INMATE WHO HAS A RIGHT TO BE
PRESENT AT THE HEARING.
SOMETIMES THEY WAIVE THEIR RIGHT
TO BE AT THE HEARING BUT THEY
HAVE A RIGHT TO BE THERE SO IF
THEIR HOUSE OUT OF STATE WE WILL
BRING THEM BACK TO CALIFORNIA
UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. TO
ATTEND THEIR HEARINGS.
WE ALSO HAVE AT THE HEARING THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM THE
COUNTY OF COMMITMENT SOMETIMES
THERE'S MORE THAN.
ONE IF THEY HAD MULTIPLE
CONVICTIONS FROM MULTIPLE
COUNTIES AND ANY REGISTERED
VICTIMS THEIR SUPPORT PERSONS
AND A VICTIM REPRESENTATIVE.
THE WAY A PAROLE HEARING USUALLY
GOES TODAY IS WE START WITH
THEIR SOCIAL HISTORY REVIEW
THEIR UPBRINGING --
FAMILY DYNAMICS RELATIONSHIPS
AND THEN WE GO INTO THEIR
CRIMINAL HISTORY AND THEN WE GO
INTO THEIR COMMITMENT OFFENSE
AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THEIR
INSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR.
AND PROGRAMMING SO VOCATIONAL
AND REBUILT HEAD OF PROGRAMMING.
ALL OF THAT IS DONE WITH A FOCUS.
TO DETERMINE WHAT THE BORDERS
VESTED -- BY
LAW TO DO IS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE INMATE SITTING
BEFORE US POSES A CURRENT
UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBLIC
SAFETY.
AND THAT'S A LEGAL --
STANDARD THAT'S BEEN PUT OUT
FROM OUR SUPREME COURT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA.
WHEN SOME WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL
THE QUESTIONING THE INMATES OF
THE INMATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE A CLOSING STATEMENT THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY --
TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PANEL
AND THE VICTIMS --
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR
AS LONG AS IT LIKE UNINTERRUPTED
WITHOUT --
WITH THEIR OPINIONS AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT --
TO THE INMATE SHOULD BE RELEASED.
AND THE IMPACT OF THE CRIME ON
THEM.
THE OUTCOME OF HEARING IS EITHER
GRANT OR DENIAL GENERALLY
SPEAKING SOMETIMES THERE'S A
CONTINUANCE IF WE GRANT PAROLE
THERE'S A HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAY
PERIOD WHERE WE REVIEW THAT
DECISION.
AND THEN THE GOVERNOR HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT
DECISION FOR THIRTY DAYS. FOR A
DENIAL UNDER THE LAW WE CAN DENY
SOMEBODY PAROLE FOR THREE FIVE
SEVEN TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS
THAT'S UNDER MARCY'S LAW.
I'M ALL HEARINGS ARE RECORDED
AND TRANSCRIBED AND AS I SAID
ALL INMATES HAVE A RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.
WE ALSO HAVE AN INVESTIGATIONS
UNIT COMPRISED OF PRO AGENTS
THEY CAN GO OUT AND CONDUCT.
INVESTIGATIONS IS NECESSARY WHEN
THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP
DURING HEARING.
WHEN SOMEBODY IS DENIED PAROLE?
FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME THEY HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY UNDER MARCY'S LAW
AND UNDER A COUPLE OF Q.
LAWSUITS. TO ADVANCE OUR NEXT
PRO SUITABILITY HEARING DATE WE
CALL THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
WHERE WE DO IT ON OUR OWN WE
LOOK AT EVERYBODY WHO IS.
HAS BEEN DENIED PAROLE FOR THREE
YEARS -- HAS
A LOW OR MODERATE OVERALL RISK
GRADING.
AND WHO HAS NOT HAD A SERIOUS I
SIGNIFICANT RULES VIOLATION
SINCE HER LAST HEARING DATE WE
REVIEW THEM ELEVEN MONTHS AFTER
THEIR HEARING AND WE DETERMINE
UNDER THE LAW WHETHER OR NOT.
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
ADDITIONAL INCARCERATION
REQUIRED BY MARCY'S LAW FOR THAT
THREE YEAR DENIAL LINK THAT IS
NO LONGER NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC WERE VICTIMS.
SO THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT
NUMBER OF CASES THE RESULT A
THREE YEAR DIAL AND THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CASES
WHOSE HEARING DATES GET ADVANCED
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
PROCESS.
WHEN THEY'RE HEARING DATES GET
ADVANCED THEY WILL HAVE THE NEXT
HEARING EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER
THEIR LAST HEARING?
INSTEAD OF THREE YEARS.
AN INMATE CAN ALSO PETITIONED
THE BOARDS MADE A PIT WHAT WE
CALL A PETITION TO ADVANCE THEIR
NEXT PEARL SUITABILITY HEARING
THEY CAN FILE THAT ANYTIME THEY
CAN FOLLOW AT ONCE EVERY THREE
YEARS AND THE IT'S THE SAME
STANDARD.
DOES THE ADDITIONAL KERR
SERRATION REQUIRED BY MARCY'S
LAW NECESSARY --
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC THE
ANSWER'S NO IF THERE'S BEEN A
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES A NEW
INFORMATION SUCH THAT IT'S NOT
NECESSARY THEN WE WILL ADVANCE
OUR NEXT HEARING DATE.
CELL.
THOSE OF THE HEARINGS THAT
RESULT IN A GRANT OR DENIAL --
THE OTHER OUTCOMES OF HEARING
CAN BE A WAIVER AN INMATE --
CAN VOLUNTARILY WAIVE THEIR
HEARING FOR ANY REASON FORTY
FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THEIR
HEARING AND THEY CAN WAVE I'M
FOR ONE TO FIVE YEARS.
THEY CAN DO THAT THREE YEARS AND
SIX THREE TIMES IN SUCCESSION
AND THEN WE REQUIRE THEM TO GO
TO HEARING.
AND EITHER STIPULATE TO
UNSUITABILITY WHICH IS ANOTHER
OUTCOME AN INMATE CAN SAY I
AGREE I'M NOT SUITABLE TO GO
FORWARD AND STIPULATE TO BE
UNSUITABLE FOR THREE FIVE SEVEN
TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS.
WE ALSO HAVE POSTPONEMENTS IS A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF POSTS
MOMENTS WHICH IS ROUTE RELEVANT
TO ONE OF THE REQUEST THAT WE
HAVE TODAY.
IF SINCE WE SCHEDULE OUR
HEARINGS --
SO FAR IN ADVANCE.
COMMISSIONERS IN PARTICULAR NEED
TO REQUEST IN THE NECESSARY TIME
OFF SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE
OTHERWISE WE SCHEDULED A PANEL
FOR THEM TO SIT AND CONDUCT
THEIR HEARINGS --
LAST YEAR WE HAD A VERY
UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCE OF THREE
DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS NEEDING
TO BE OUT FOR A A MERCY MEDICAL --
ISSUES AND WE HAD TO GET FULL OF
THOSE HEARINGS SO ONE OF THE
THINGS YOU HEAR ABOUT TODAY IS
THAT WE'RE ASKING TO EXPAND THE
BOARD BUT OUR INTENT IS TO ONLY
HAVE SIXTEEN PANELS.
INSTEAD OF SEVENTEENS OF
SEVENTEEN MEMBERS SIXTEEN PANELS
SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ONE
COMMISSIONER THAT WE WILL KEEP
IN ADVANCE.
WHO CAN FILL IN IF THERE EVER
ANY OF THOSE SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL
ISSUES THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO
BRING DOWN SO MANY HEARINGS IT'S
VERY COSTLY TO THE STATE? TO
HAVE TO POSTPONE HEARINGS.
OKAY -- LAST
YEAR WE HAD ELEVEN HUNDRED AND
THIRTY SIX GRANTS IN.
TWENTY EIGHTEEN THAT IS 23% OF
SCHEDULED HEARINGS RESULTED IN A
GRANT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HOWEVER
THAT THE REMAINING SEVENTY OF
77% RESULTED IN A DENIAL AS I
JUST MENTIONED HEARINGS CAN
RESULT IN A POSTPONEMENT.
THE COULD BE CANCELED THEY CAN
BE WAIVED AND THE AMERICAN
STIPULATE IF YOU LOOK AT JUST
HEARINGS THE GO FORWARD THAT TO
A DECISION OF GRANT OR DENY.
THE GRANT RATE LAST YEAR WAS 39%
SAID 39% OF THE HEARINGS THAT
WENT FORWARD --
RESULTED IN A GRANT [inaudible]
HI I'M.
EXPLAIN THE WAIVER IN THE
STIPULATION POSTPONEMENTS --
MANY TIMES INMATES WILL ALSO
REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT SO
THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS --
STATE FAULTS MEANING A MEDICAL
EMERGENCY OR SOMETHING TO THAT
EFFECT THEY MAY REQUEST A
POSTPONEMENT.
TO RESOLVE SOME UNRESOLVED
ISSUES SUCH AS MAYBE A PENDING
RULES VIOLATION --
THEY MAY WANT --
TO MORE TIME TO DO PRO PLANS
THEY MAY HAVE SOME ISSUE --
THAT THEY WANT.
TO TAKE CARE OF OKAY TYPES THE
PRO HEARINGS INTEL TWENTY
FOURTEEN THE ONLY TYPE OF PRO
HEARING THAT WE DEALT WITH WAS
YOUR WILL CALL THE AT THE TIME --
WE HAD DETERMINEDLY SINCE
INMATES AND WE GET INTO
TERMINALLY SENDS INMATES SO --
PRIOR TO THE CHANGES A LOT FOR
YOUTH OFFENDERS AND FOR ELDERLY
PAROLE WE JUST DID HEARINGS FOR
INMATES WHO WERE SENTENCED TO
PRISON FOR LIFE WITH THE
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE MOST OFTEN
TWENTY FIVE TO LIFE.
OR LONGER.
I'M SINCE ELDERLY PAROLE IN
YOUTH OFFENDERS WE NOW DO
HEARINGS FOR DETERMINEDLY
SENTENCED INMATES AND THAT WAS A
REALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FOR
THE BORDER PRO HEARINGS.
NO THAT SOUNDS STRANGE BUT
INMATES WHO WERE NOT EXPECTING
TO HAVE A PRO HEARING WHO WERE
GOING TO BE JUST RELEASE ON A
DATE CERTAIN IN THE FUTURE OR
NEVER BE RELEASED BECAUSE OF
DETERMINATE SENTENCES FOR SO
LONG -- THAT
HAS BEEN IT HAS BEEN A A
CHALLENGE FOR US AND IT'S BEEN A
CHALLENGE I THINK FOR EVERYONE
IN THE SYSTEM.
ALTHOUGH I WERE SEEN SOME
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES NOW THERE
ARE A LOT OF INMATES WERE
PROGRAMMING KNOWING THAT THEY
HAVE A HEARING COMING UP WHO
NEVER BEFORE --
ANTICIPATED HAVING A PRO HEARING
HI I'M.
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL OF THE
PRO HEARING ISSUES.
ALL RIGHT I'LL KEEP MOVING ALONG
OTHER THINGS THAT THE BOARD DOES
JUST VERY QUICKLY WE ALSO HAVE A
NON VIOLENT PRO REVIEW PROCESS --
THAT'S FOR DETERMINEDLY SENTENCE
NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS IT'S UNDER
PROPOSITION FIFTY SEVEN IT IS A
PAPER REVIEW PROCESS IT IS NOT A
PAROLE HEARING.
IT'S ONE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT
WE ALSO DO POLL DISCHARGE
REVIEWS SO WE JUST CHARGE --
PAROLEES FROM PAROLE IF THEY
COMMITTED THEIR CRIME --
PRIOR TO JULY OF TWENTY THIRTEEN
UNDER REALIGNMENT THAT DUTY
SHIFTED TO THE DIVISION OF ADULT
PRO OPERATIONS FOR ANYBODY --
WHOSE COMMITMENT OFFENSE
OCCURRED AFTER JULY OF TWENTY
THIRTEEN WE ALSO DO SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR SCREENINGS AND
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER
HEARINGS AND WE DO COMPUTATIONS
AND PARDON --
SCREENINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS
FOR THE GOVERNOR.
SO WHY WERE HERE TODAY AND WHAT
WE'RE REQUESTING THE BOARD IS
FACED WITH A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE IN WORKLOAD FOR FISCAL
YEAR.
NINETEEN TWENTY THE MAIN DRIVERS
OF JUST FOR CONTEXT IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN WE CAN'T WE SCHEDULE
FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY SIX HEARINGS.
ARE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
NINETEEN TWENTY ARE THAT WE ARE
GOING TO NEED TO CONDUCT SEVENTY
TWO HUNDRED HEARINGS.
AND EIGHTY THREE HUNDRED
HEARINGS THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
EIGHTY THREE HUNDRED THE MAIN
DRIVERS FOR THIS --
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED --
THREE YOUR BILLS --
SB TWO SIXTY WHICH HAS BEEN
TAKEN CARE OF THAT WAS YOUTH
OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER THE AGE
OF EIGHTEEN WHEN THEY COMMITTED
THEIR FENCES.
SB -- TWO
SIXTY ONE INCREASE THAT AGE TO
YOUTH OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER
THE AGE OF TWENTY SIX WHEN THEY
COMMIT THEIR OFFENSE.
AND I'M SORRY TWENTY THREE AND
THEN AB THIRTEEN AWAIT INCREASED
THAT AGE TO ANYONE WHO IS UNDER
THE AGE.
TWENTY SIX THOSE TWO BILLS THE
LATTER TWO BILLS SB TWO SIXTY
ONE AND A. B. THIRTEEN AWAIT
HAVE A DEADLINE WHEREBY WE HAVE
TO GIVE EVERY DETERMINEDLY
SENTENCED YOUTH OFFENDER THEIR
HEARING BY THE END OF TWENTY
TWENTY ONE WE PROJECT WE HAVE
ABOUT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED
DETERMINEDLY CENTS YOUTH
OFFENDERS.
THAT WE NEED TO GET ON CALENDAR
BY THE END OF TWENTY TWENTY ONE
THAT WE COULD HAVE HANDLED.
WE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST FINE I
THINK ABSORBING THAT WORKLOAD
HOWEVER WE HAVE A COUPLE OF
OTHER DRIVERS THE MORE HEARINGS
THAT WE DO THE MORE
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS WE DO SO
THE MORE HEARING ADVANCEMENTS WE
HAVE.
SO WE'RE PROJECTING THAT WE'RE
GONNA HAVE ABOUT TWELVE HUNDRED
WHICH IS THE MOST EVER ADVANCED
HEARING DATES WHICH ARE ALSO
GOING TO HAVE TO COME ON
CALENDAR.
IN A NINETEEN TWENTY THE OTHER
MAIN DRIVER IS THE RESULT OF
SOME CASE LAW AND UNDER
PROPOSITION.
FIFTY SEVEN AND THAT IS FOR THE
NON VIOLENT INDEED COMMONLY WE
NON VIOLENT THIRD STRIKERS
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A FEW OTHERS
THAT WERE SENTENCED UNDER OTHER.
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEMES
THAT GAVE THEM LIFE TERMS FOR
NONVIOLENT OFFENSES BUT THEY'RE
RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE.
SO FOR THE NON VIOLENT THIRD
STRIKERS JUST BECAUSE IT'S EASY
FOR EVERYONE HOW REFER TO THEM
AS THEM --
AS THAT WE HAVE WE ARE
PROJECTING ABOUT EIGHTEEN
HUNDRED TO TWO THOUSAND HEARINGS
THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT
ON CALENDAR IN THE NEXT FISCAL
YEAR.
UNDER THE PROPOSITION FIFTY
SEVEN A LITIGATION.
IT'S A CASE CALLED IN RAY
ADWORDS BASICALLY WHAT THE COURT
SAID WAS THERE'S DESPITE THE
FACT THAT --
PROPOSITION.
FIFTY SEVEN FROM SAID THAT --
THAT NON VIOLENT OFFENDERS WOULD
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PAROLE
REVIEW AFTER THEY SERVE THE FULL
TERM OF THEIR PRIMARY OFFENSE
DESPITE THE REGARDLESS OF EXCUSE
ME EXCLUDING ALTERNATIVE
SENTENCES.
I'M.
THE COURTS BASICALLY SAID THAT
DESPITE THE PUBLIC SAFETY --
pOPTED NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH
INCLUDING --
NONVIOLENT THIRD STRIKERS IN THE
PRO REVIEW PROCESS IN A PROP.
FIFTY SEVEN DESPITE THAT --
THE COURTS BASICALLY SAID THAT
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES US TO
PROVIDE PRO REVIEW FOR
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING I
WANTED -- TO
JUST UNDERSTAND BECAUSE LEGAL
FIRST AS YOU KNOW I'M NOT BY THE
THIRD STRIKERS ARE USUALLY
SENTENCED TO A FLAT TERM TWENTY
FIVE TO LIFE PER A THIRD STRIKE.
SO WHEN THE COURT IMPOSES THAT
TWENTY FIVE TO LIFE THAT IN AND
OF ITSELF UNDER THE LAW IS AN
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE THE COURT
DOESN'T ACTUALLY IMPOSE.
A STATES AN UNDERLYING BURGLARY --
THAT MIGHT HAVE A RUNNING
SENTENCE OF FOUR YEARS OR
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT THEY
DON'T SAY FOUR YEARS IMPOSE THAT
SENTENCE AND THEN IMPOSE TWENTY
FIVE TO LIFE.
THEY BASICALLY SAY YOU'VE BEEN
CONVICTED YOU BE CONVEYED IT'S A
THIRD STRIKE.
WE'RE GONNA SENTENCE YOU TO AN
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE OF TWENTY
FIVE TO LIFE SO WHEN THE WHEN
THE CONSTITUTION UNDER PROP
FIFTY SEVEN SAYS THAT --
WE ARE TO PROVIDE SOMEBODY A PRO
HEARING A NONVIOLENT OFFENDER A
PRO HEARING AFTER THEY SERVE THE
FULL TERM OF THEIR PRIMARY
OFFENSE REGARDLESS YOU
DISREGARDING ANY OTHER
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES.
THERE WAS AN IMPOSED BY THE
COURT --
THERE WAS NO SENTENCE IMPOSED BY
THE COURT OTHER THAN THE
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE SO THE
QUESTION BECAME NGUYEN WHICH
WHEN WITH THESE PEOPLE WHEN WITH
THESE INMATES BE ELIGIBLE FOR
HEARING.
WHAT THE COURT SAID IN IN RAY AT
WORDS WAS THAT THE STATES WOULD
HAVE TO GIVE SOMEBODY A PRO
HEARING ONCE THEY'VE SERVED?
THE WOULD HAVE FOR PURPOSES OF A
THIRD STRIKE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK
AT THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND
ASSUME THAT THE COURT THAT THE
COURT IMPOSE THE AGGRAVATED TERM
FOR THE UNDERLINE OFFENSE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR
THE NON VIOLENT THIRD STRIKERS --
AND THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE
SENTENCES [inaudible]
SO.
WE AT THE BOARD TO TRY VERY HARD
WHENEVER THERE'S AN INCREASE IN
WORKLOAD TO TRYING STREAMLINED
OUR PROCESS SEES MAKE THINGS
MORE EFFICIENT BEFORE WE COME
AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.
SO YOU'RE NOT SEEN A
COMMENSURATE REQUEST OF A 38%
INCREASE AND IN BOARD MEMBERS OR
IN STAFFING AT THE BOARD.
INSTEAD WE ARE TRYING A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT THINGS --
TO IMPLEMENT A NEW STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESSES WORKLOAD ONE IS YES
WE'RE ASKING TO EXPERIENCE FOUND
THE BOARD BY TWO MEMBERS SO WE
CURRENTLY HAVE FIFTEEN MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR
SUBJECT SENATE CONFIRMATION.
WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO MORE.
THOSE ARE IN THE PENAL CODE SO
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BUDGET
TRAILER LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
EXPAND THE BOARD --
UNDER THE PENAL CODE.
THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT DOING ONE WHICH WILL
BE THE SUBJECT I'M SURE OF SOME
DISCUSSION TODAY IS THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING WHAT'S
CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURE DECISION
MAKING FRAMEWORK.
IT'S USED BY THE NATIONAL PRO
ABORT OF CANADA THAT'S WHERE WAS
DEVELOPED ADMITTEDLY IT WAS
DEVELOPED MOSTLY FOR
DETERMINEDLY SENTENCED INMATES
BECAUSE AS YOU MAY KNOW MANY
COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE LIFE TERM
INMATES OR REALLY LENGTHY
SENTENCES LIKE WE DO.
SO IT'S BASED ON EVIDENCE AND
RESEARCH THAT SHOWS --
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES FACTORS
EITHER AGGRAVATE OR MITIGATE AND
INMATES RISK FOR RECIDIVISM UPON
RELEASE.
WE ARE USING THAT TOOL HARD
LOOKING TO USE THAT TOOL AND
HAVING A MODIFIED --
VERY QUICKLY ADMITTEDLY THE THIS
GOT SPED UP WE WERE PLANNING ON
DOING THIS OVER THE COURSE OF
THE NEXT YEAR STUDYING IT DOING
ALL KINDS OF THINGS.
AND THEN THE ADWORDS HIS
DECISION HIT AND WE WERE FACED
WITH WE NEED TO INCREASE --
OUR WORKLOAD CAPACITY SO WE CAN
EITHER SCHEDULE MORE HEARINGS
PER DAY AND TO DO BUSINESS AS
USUAL ONLY FASTER OR WE COULD --
TRY TO DO IT IN A MEANINGFUL WAY --
WITH SOME STRUCTURE DECISION
MAKING AND THAT'S FAR WHAT WE'RE
RECOMMENDING IS A LADDER.
SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE THE
CARLETON UNIVERSITY OUT OF
OTTAWA CANADA THAT CREATED THE
TOOL IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED SEVEN
OTHER STATES.
AGAIN I WOULD JUST ONE EMPHASIZE
OTHER STATES PAROLED --
PRO SYSTEMS ARE INCREDIBLY
DIFFERENT FROM CALIFORNIA MOST
STATES DO NOT GIVE A LIBERTY
INTEREST IN PAROLE LIKE
CALIFORNIA DOES SO WE HAVE THE
ADDED BONUS OF LOTS OF SCRUTINY
FROM THE COURTS --
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE IN OTHER
STATES IT'S ACTUALLY.
I DON'T MEAN THAT SARCASTICALLY
IT IS ACTUALLY AN ADDED BENEFIT
IT'S VERY GOOD FOR US TO HAVE
SOMEBODY SCRUTINIZING OUR
DECISIONS.
WE'VE --
BENEFITED GREATLY FROM THAT
DON'T PROVIDE ATTORNEYS THEY
DON'T HAVE WIFE HEARINGS --
IF THEY DO HAVE LIKE HEARINGS
THEY COULD BE MAYBE TEN MINUTES
FOR AN INTERVIEW --
BUT THEY'RE NOT ALSO DEALING
WITH LIFE TERM INMATES WHO HAVE
COMMITTED --
HEINOUS CRIMES SO IN CALIFORNIA
WE HAVE A RATHER PROTRACTED
HEARING PROCESS WE'RE LOOKING TO
MODIFY THE STRUCTURE DECISION
MAKING FRAMEWORK WITH THE HELP
OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
CORRECTIONS.
THEY PROVIDED SOME TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO US BROUGHT OUT
SOME --
PRETTY AMAZING --
EXPERTS TO HELP US IN
IDENTIFYING WHETHER OR NOT THIS
WOULD BE A GOOD TOOL FOR US AND
RECOGNIZING WHAT MODIFICATIONS
MIGHT NEED NEED TO BE MADE. TO
CONFORM THE TOOL.
TO CALIFORNIA'S GOVERNING LAW.
THE IDEA BEHIND THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK IS TWO
FOLD ONE IT THREEFOLD SKEWS ME
ONE IS -- TO
IMPROVE CONSISTENCY AMONG BOARD
MEMBERS WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT
WE ALWAYS ARE STRIVING FOR IT
SHOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER IN IN
MAY TWO OR OR VICTIM COMES
BEFORE ONE PANEL VERSES ANOTHER
THE OUTCOME SHOULD BE RELATIVELY
THE SAME.
THE OTHER THING AND THE RATE THE
WAY THE TOOL DOES THAT IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS
CONSIDERING THE SAME INFORMATION --
IN A IN A SIMILAR WHAT WOULD
AGRA EIGHT SOMEBODY'S REYES THEY
ARE FOR LEE ON THE FACTORS --
INCREASE FOR WE DO SO YES
[inaudible]
I MIND IF I JUST INTERRUPT YOUR
NASCO PLEASE YEAH I'M JUST
CURIOUS WHAT JUST.
HAS THERE NOT BEEN CONSISTENCY
UP TO THIS POINT WITH RESPECT --
TO HOW THE SITUATION IS
CONSIDERED AMONG PAROLE BOARD
MEMBERS.
SO I DON'T THINK THE OUTCOMES
ARE THAT.
THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT --
INSTANCE IF YOU HAVE A
COMMISSIONER SPENDS A MAJORITY
THEIR TIME MIDDLE LEVEL FOR
INSTITUTIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE
MORE DENIALS.
THEN IF THEY'RE AT A HIGH
PROGRAMMING INSTITUTION SO IT'S
A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO FACTORY IN
THOSE THINGS BUT I CAN TELL YOU --
WHEN WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS AT OUR
MONTHLY EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
WHERE WILL HAVE A CASE THAT
COMES FORWARD SAY IT WAS A TIE
VOTE OR THERE'S RECONSIDERATION
OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT NEW
INFORMATION?
HEARING THE COMMISSIONERS TALK
ABOUT HOW THE ADDRESS DIFFERENT
THINGS IT DOES VERY I'M NOT SURE
THAT IT IT RESULTS IN A
DIFFERENT OUTCOME BUT I THINK IT
DEFINITELY THEY THEY TAKE
DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND KIND
OF APPLIED DIFFERENTLY I THINK.
SO IN YOUR SOLUTION TO REMEDY
THAT SITUATION IS WHAT AGAIN SO
THIS STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING
FRAMEWORK WOULD HAVE IT
IDENTIFIES SEVEN KEY DOMAINS
THAT EACH COMMISSIONER WOULD
FOCUS ON IN EVERY HEARING BOTH
IN PREPARING FOR HEARING AND AT
THE HEARING.
AND IT BASICALLY.
I'LL TELL YOU I THINK THE THE
BIGGEST --
PLUS TO IT BESIDES ORGANIZING
THINGS --
AND FOCUSING THEIR THEIR
ATTENTION IS.
PERHAPS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT RESEARCH
SUGGESTS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO
IMPACT ON RISK. FOR INSTANCE
SOCIAL HISTORY IF WE STAY TIME
TALKING TO SOMEBODY ABOUT THEIR
UPBRINGING AND WHAT IMPACT THAT
MAY HAVE HAD ON THEM WHEN THIS
IS THEIR TENTH HEARING.
AND THEY'VE BEEN INCARCERATED
FOR FORTY YEARS.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT AS PROBATIVE
AS YOU KNOW WHAT I'M JUST I AM
FORGIVE ME I'M JUST I'M IS THERE
IS THERE A A DOLLAR AMOUNT
ATTACHED TO THIS REMEDY THAT
YOU'VE SUGGESTED YOU'RE JUST NO
COLLUDING THAT I'M INCLUDING IT
AS THAT MOST PEOPLE ASK US --
IF WE'RE LOOKING 238% INCREASE
IN WORKLOAD WHY ARE WE NOT
ASKING --
FOR AND MORE COMMISSIONERS TO
EXPAND OUR BUT IN A HE WOULD
HAVE OR THAT RATHER THAN SENDING
GOVERNMENT.
YEAH.
SO I APOLOGIZE THEM.
IT'S IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
PUTTING FORWARD AS A REMEDY TO
THAT WORKLOAD SO YES THERE'S NO
MONEY ATTACHED TO IT.
BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT
WILL BE VERY NOVEL IN VERY
DIFFERENT --
FOR THE PRO ABORTS SO YOU'RE
GONNA HEAR SO MADAM CHAIR I IF
YOU WANT TO FOCUS JUST ON THE
FIFTH NO NO I JUST WANT TO MAKE
A COMMENT I GUESS I'M --
SURPRISED THAT THAT TYPE OF TEST
IF YOU WILL HAS NOT BEEN PUT
INTO PLACE.
IN THE PAST I DON'T UNDERSTAND --
WHY WE DON'T HAVE STRUCTURE
DECISION WE GOT NOW SO WE DO
HAVE OUTLINES FOR HEARINGS AND
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT BY
LAW AND?
THROUGH TRAINING WE DO A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TRAINING AT
THE BOARD THAT EVERYONE COVERS.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT UP UNTIL
NOW -- THIS
THIS WHOLE AREA THE LAW HAS
EVOLVED SIGNIFICANTLY AND THE
PRO HEARING PROCESS HAS JUST
KIND OF GROWN --
SIGNIFICANTLY OUR HEARINGS ARE
ROUGHLY THREE HOURS ON AVERAGE
SINCE THE LONGEST I'VE SEEN IN
ANY OTHER JURISDICTION WE KIND
OF OUR MANTRA --
BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS SO
SCRUTINIZED BY.
OUR LEGAL STAFF THE GOVERNOR AND
THE COURTS IS TO TALK OF A
BETTER TERM LEAVE NO STONE
UNTURNED
SO THE IDEA IS TO TRY IT RIGHT
NOW OUR EMPHASIS HAS BEEN ON
CREATE THE MOST COMPLETE RECORD
THAT YOU CAN IN THAT TRANSCRIPT
TO COMPLETELY --
MAKE SURE YOU'VE COVERED
EVERYTHING AND THAT YOU'VE LEFT
NOTHING --
ON TOUCH AND IT'S JUST EVOLVE
THAT WAY OVER TIME --
THROUGH RATES WITH THE COURTS
AND THROUGH DECISION GOING TO BE
A VERY GOOD WAY. TO RESTRUCTURE
IT PROBABLY WILL FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN DECADES.
AND REALLY FOCUS OUR ATTENTION
ON THE THINGS THAT MATTER.
I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE YEAH IT
I MEAN IT DOES I'D I THINK THIS
WARRANTS PROBABLY FURTHER
CONVERSATION --
OUTSIDE OF THIS COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOMS THEY DO HAVE SOME
MORE QUESTIONS THAT ARE
LINGERING ABOUT THIS WHOLE
PROCESS AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE
CREATION OF WORK THAT ISN'T.
NECESSARY BUT AS PART BECAUSE
MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND
EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO TRIED
LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
FURTHER AFTER THIS ON BUT THANK
YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS
ABOUT TRUMP.
SO.
IN ADDITION TO EXPANDING THE
BOARD AND DOING THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK ANY
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHAT WE TALK
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE
STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING
FRAMEWORK.
IT IS ON A FAST TRACK ADMITTEDLY.
I A QUESTION THAT.
WE HAVE KIND OF GONE.
BEYOND NOW BUT I BACK WHEN YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE
COUNSEL YES --
WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE PRIVATE
COUNSEL IT'S GOT TO BE PRETTY
LOW?
I'M WHICH IS PROBABLY ABOUT
10215% IT'S EVEN HARDER THOUGHT
IT WOULD BE.
THAT'S ALL I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT
AS I FIGURED IT WOULD FIVE BE
PRETTY LOW.
IT IF OKAY.
I'M THE THIRD THING THAT WE'RE
GONNA BE LOOKING TO DO TO TRY
AND ABSORB THE WORKLOAD WITHOUT
ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
IS TO COME UP WITH SOME --
COME UP SOME DRAFT REGULATIONS
THAT WILL HELP STREAMLINE AND
MORE IT NARROWLY DEFINED THE
DOCUMENTS --
THAT ARE MOST RELEVANT TO
PROCEED ABILITY HEARING CON --
HEARING.
AND THE REASON BEING LIKE I SAID
BEFORE RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND OF A
SHOTGUN APPROACH.
IT'S A FREE FOR ALL ANYTHING
ANYBODY CAN DISCUSS ANYTHING AT
A PRO HEARING AND IT'S ALL KIND
OF DEEMED THE PANEL IS IN CHARGE
OF DETERMINING WHAT'S RELEVANT
WHAT'S RELIABLE.
IN ADVANCE OF A PRO HEARING IF
THE INMATE IN MAKE COUNCIL IS
NOT PROVIDED WITH A DOCUMENT AT
LEAST TEN MADE TEN DAYS IN
ADVANCE OF THE HEARING THE BOAR
CAN'T USE IT DURING THE PRO
HEARING UNLESS HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A RECESS GO
REVIEW IT AND COME.
BACK --
OTHERWISE IS A POSTPONEMENT.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE --
WHEN SOMEBODY'S LIBERTY INTEREST
IS AT STAKE AS WELL AS PUBLIC
SAFETY WE HAVE?
A BOTH SIDES IN MAY COUNCIL AND
THEY JUST VOLUMES I MEAN VOLUMES
OF PAPER IN ADVANCE OF A PAROLE
HEARING.
AND IN PREPPING FOR PRO HEARING
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE YOU HAVE
THIRTEEN HEARINGS OR EVEN TEN
HEARINGS A WEEK.
YOU'RE DOING TWO TO THREE HOURS
OF PREPARATION FOR EVERY HEARING
TRYING TO REVIEW EVERY DOCUMENT
THAT'S BEEN SENT AND PLUS THE
ENTIRE CENTRAL FILE.
IN PREPARATION FOR THIS HEARING
PLUS PRIOR TRANSCRIPTS THE RISK
ASSESSMENT THE VOLUME IS IS
QUITE SIGNIFICANT SO WE'RE
LOOKING AT STREAMLINING THAT SO
THAT PEOPLE NEED TO DO.
SOMETHING I CAN DO WOULD LIKE AN
OFFER PROOF THIS IS WHY THIS IS
RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING.
DON'T DON'T GIVE US INFORMATION
FROM THE C. FILE THAT WE ALREADY
HAVE IN FACT WE PROBABLY SET YOU.
YOU KNOW DURING.
ELECTRONICALLY --
TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE THE
ORIGINAL CRIMINAL TRIAL.
PROBABLY NOT RELEVANT IN EVERY
CASE AND CERTAINLY NOT WHEN IT
SUBMITTED FOR THE FOURTH TIME --
BECAUSE ASSIST THE INMATES
FOURTH HEARING SO WE'D LIKE TO
REALLY STREAMLINED THAT SO THAT
IT CUTS DOWN ON SOME OF THE
HEARING PREPARATION --
FOR COMMISSIONERS.
OKAY HI I'M.
THE FOURTH THING THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT DOING IS IMPROVING
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION.
AND THAT IS A BUDGET PROPOSAL
WERE ASKING TO INCREASE THE FEE --
PER HEARING FROM FOR FOUR
HUNDRED AND FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS --
PER HEARING TO SEVEN HUNDRED AND
FIFTY THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
OUR PLAN HOWEVER IS NOT JUST
INCREASE THE HEARING OF THE FEES --
WE ALSO WANT TO DO A SIGNIFICANT
CREASING EXPECTATIONS --
FOR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE APPOINTED
BY THE BOARD TO REPRESENT
INMATES.
REASON BEING I THINK ARE YOU
HERE IN THE NEXT PANEL THE BULK
OF THE WORK THAT IN A MAKE
COUNCIL NEEDS TO DO IN ADVANCE
OF A PAROLE HEARING IS TO
ACTUALLY PREPARE THEIR HERE.
PREPARE THEIR INMATE THEIR
CLIENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THEY
ACTUALLY DO AT THE HEARING IS
NOT PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT IN
MOST CASES IT'S REALLY THE
HEARING THE PREPARATION WORK IN
ADVANCE.
ALSO THE WAY OUR HEARING OUR FEE
STRUCTURE FEES ARE STRUCTURED
RIGHT NOW IT'S CREATED AN
INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY
GO TO HEARING EVEN OTHER INMATE
MAKE THEIR CLIENT MAY NOT BE
SUITABLE.
BECAUSE THEY GET MORE MONEY IF
THEY ACTUALLY GO TO HEARING.
SO WE'D LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO
GET THE INCREASE BUT ALSO WORK
WITH IN MAY COUNSEL.
AND PLAINTIFFS IN A PENDING
LAWSUIT TO FIGURE OUT --
A BETTER WAY RECRUITING --
ATTORNEYS TRAINING THEM.
PUTTING A FEE SCHEDULE TOGETHER
THAT MAKES SENSE THE DOESN'T
EITHER I INCENTIVIZE OR D.
INCENTIVIZE A CERTAIN BEHAVIOR.
AND THAT --
PROVIDES A MORE QUALITY
ASSURANCE FOR IN MAY COUNCIL.
SPECIFICALLY A COUPLE THINGS
THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING FOR
SO I WANNA SAY IT'S VERY AWKWARD
FOR US TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF
APPOINTING COUNSEL WHO APPEAR
BEFORE US.
UNDER SUPERIOR COURT SETTING IF
YOU EATING --
IT'S IT'S THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE IF THEY NEED A CONFLICT
OUT THEY GO THROUGH THE
APPELLATE PROJECT A NONPROFIT
THIRD ENTITY TO APPOINT TO
RECRUIT AND APPOINT COUNSEL.
ON SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT --
WE LOOKED INTO THAT IT WAS GOING
TO BE A LOT MORE COSTLY TO GO
THROUGH A SET UP SIMILAR --
TO THE PALLET PROJECT OR EVEN TO
GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE COURTS.
SO WHAT WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING --
THIS IS JUST OUR RECOMMENDATION
IT'S GONNA BE SUBJECT TO
PROBABLY SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS --
IN A PENDING LAWSUIT RIGHT NOW
WE'RE BEING SUED BECAUSE WHAT
THE ALLEGATION IS THAT IS THERE
ARE ATTORNEY FEE SCHEDULE IS SO
LOW THAT EVEN QUITE STAND
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
SO THAT'S GOING FOR EVIDENTIARY
PROCEEDINGS VERY SOON AND IT'S
PROBABLY ONE THAT WE WILL NOT DO
VERY WELL AT SO WE ARE LOOKING
AT HOW TO REMEDY THIS.
WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING OR WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING ELEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS WE WON'T
CONFIDENTIAL SO WE CAN'T TALK
ABOUT IT BUT I CAN TELL YOU?
KIND OF OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT IT
RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT STARTS
PROBABLY IN A COUPLE WEEKS.
I'M ONE IS WE WOULD LIKE TO DO
MORE NUTS AND BOLTS TRAINING
FROM THE BOARD SO THESE ARE LAWS
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IT A
PROFITABILITY HEARING HERE THE
BASIC EXPECTATIONS.
WE'D LIKE TO CONTRACT WITH AN
OUTSIDE ENTITY PREFERRED LEAH A
LAW SCHOOL OR CLINIC THAT HAS A
HISTORY OF TRAINING ATTORNEYS TO
REPRESENT PEOPLE BEFORE THE
PROBOARDS.
AND TO HAVE THEM PROVIDE MORE OF
THE ADVOCACY BASED TRAINING SO
MORE OF THE YOU KNOW THIS IS HOW
TO EFFECTIVELY --
IN A DEAL WITH LEGAL STRATEGY
AND THINGS LIKE THAT HOW TO HOW
TO REPRESENT YOUR CLIENT --
I DON'T THINK THE BOARD SHOULD
BE INVOLVED IN THAT AT ALL IT'S
TO SUBJECT TO ITS SUBJECTS US TO
A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS ABOUT BEING
BIASED -- WE
SHOULD NOT BE TRAINING PEOPLE
HOW TO YOU KNOW BEST GET A GRANT
IN FRONT OF US --
JUST NOT APPROPRIATE SELECT
BECAUSE YES.
YEAH JUST.
ONE YOU INDICATED ONE OF THE
BIGGEST CONCERNS WAS THE LACK OF
PREPARATION THE ATTORNEY ENGAGED
IN WITH THE INMATE.
I NEED TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE
BIT MORE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
SO FOR INSTANCE --
OFTENTIMES IN IN MAY --
DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE PRO
HEARING PROCESS --
THEY THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM TO GO
AROUND IN THE PRISONS THAT'S A
LOT OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHAT
WHAT A PAROLE HEARING IS I HAVE
A LOT OF TIME I'M KIND OF
CONFUSED WHY THAT'S SO DIFFICULT.
IT'S SOME IT'S A VERY YOU'RE
GOING TO HEAR FROM SOMEBODY
WHO'S GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS
AND NOT ON THE SECOND PANEL AND
YOU COULD PROBABLY HEAR BEST
FROM THEM BUT IT.
IT IS A PROTRACTED PROCESS IS A
VERY LENGTHY PROCESS IT CAN BE
VERY CONFUSING --
THERE A LOT OF RIGHTS THAT ARE
INVOLVED THERE'S A LOT OF REVIEW
OF THEIR CENTRAL FILE SO THEY
CAN ACTUALLY SIT DOWN WITH THE
INMATE TALK ABOUT.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE
INSIGHT INTO YOUR CRIME WHAT
DOES IT MEAN --
TO TO REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND
THE IMPACT OF THE CRIME THAT
YOU'VE HAD ON ON YOUR VICTIMS IN
THE COMMUNITY --
WHAT TYPES OF PROGRAMMING HAVE
YOU TAKEN TO ADDRESS THOSE
FACTORS --
WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS A SYSTEM
THAT?
REWARDS INMATES ARE PARTICULARLY
ARTICULATE.
AND AND JUST KEEPS PEOPLE
INCARCERATED WHO MAYBE AREN'T SO
INTO ARTICULATE BUT WHO STILL DO
NOT POSE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR US SO IT'S
THINGS LIKE THAT.
YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ITEM YOU
MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS IN TERMS
YES ASSEMBLY BILL TWENTY EIGHT
FORTY FIVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
OKAY.
SO IT'S SIMPLY BILL TWENTY FORTY
FIVE REQUIRES THE BOARD --
TO RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE
COURTS CERTIFICATES OF ROUTE
REHABILITATION --
WHICH ARE DIRECT FULL PARDON
APPLICATIONS THIS IS THE I'M
SORRY.
AB TWENTY FORTY FIVE PARDON.
OKAY LOOKING VERY IT'S A IT'S A
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET OKAY
NEVER MIND THEN I'LL SAVE THAT
FOR ANOTHER HEARING.
WE HAVE RECEIVED IT YET OKAY.
RIGHT SORRY.
IF ANYONE FINANCE SEVENTY COMMON.
ADJUSTING IT AMEND DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE WE JUST WANTED TO
REFERENCE THIS SEVEN FIFTY AS
PART OF THE ATTORNEY FEE REQUEST
THE IT IS IT APPEARS --
IN LINE WITH THE COUNTY SURVEY
THEY ATTORNEYS.
AS FAR AS THEIR PAYMENT
STRUCTURE AND WHAT THEY RECEIVE
GENERAL OKAY.
NO TRAVELS AS AFFILIATE NO
TRAVEL FUNDS IS GOOD SEVEN FIFTY
DOLLARS THAT DEAL CORRECT BUT I
SHOULD EXPLAIN HOW WE APPOINT
COUNSEL --
AS OLIVER HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED
AT THE PRISONS.
WE BUILD OUR SCHEDULE ONE WEEK
AT A TIME EACH PRISON.
RIGHT SO WILL CLUSTER THE
HEARINGS AND WE'LL HAVE ONE
WEEK'S WORTH A HEARINGS THAT
IRON WOOD.
WE APPOINT COUNSEL FOR EVERY
INMATE DURING THAT WEEKS WORTH
OF HEARINGS.
SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
TRAVEL THEY CAN'T THERE'S SOME
ECONOMIES OF SCALE BUILT INTO
THAT THEY CAN GO OUT ONCE FOR
SEVERAL --
CLIENTS MEET WITH THEM SO THEY
ARE IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE
TRAVELING FOR ONE HEARING IN ONE
INMATE YOU'RE TRAVELING FOR
SEVERAL HEARINGS AND SEVERAL
INMATES.
SO THERE ARE SOME ECONOMIES OF
SCALE AGO WITHOUT.
THANK YOU AT WE HAVE COMMENTS ON
BOTH OF THE PROPOSAL SO IT SO
YOU AND HOLD IT TO THE SO WE
HAVE THE OTHER --
ONE SO ONE ON THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING OVER MARKET AND
THE ATTORNEY PAY ALL RIGHT --
BOTH FOR THE FULL HEARING BOTH
OKAY -- SO
ON THE PROPOSAL TO ACCOMMODATE
THE INCREASE IN PRO HEARINGS VIA
THAT STRUCTURE DECISION MAKING
TOOL AND IT INCLUDED TO SHOW
RESOURCES.
WE THINK THAT THE FRAME AT THE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK IDEA
SEEMS PROMISING BUT WE NOTED
THAT SOME KEY INFORMATION WAS
LACKING FROM THE PROPOSAL.
AND NOT INFORMATION THAT CAN
PERMISSION IS TO AND WHAT WE
FOUND LACKING WAS MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCESS --
AND TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE TOOL HOW IT WILL BE USED AND
HOW IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND
EVALUATED.
AND WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN
INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT NOT
ONLY FOR LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT.
BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE FUNDING
REQUEST ASSUMES THE SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK.
IN OTHER WORDS IT ASSUMES THAT
THE FRAMEWORK WILL BE
IMPLEMENTED ON TIME AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET YEAR AND
HAVE THE INTENDED --
EFFICIENCY --
A FACTOR STREAMLINING EFFECT ON
THE TIME THAT PRO HEARINGS TAKE --
IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT A FACT
OR IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS
DELAYED IT'S POSSIBLE THE
DEPARTMENT MAY NEED MORE
RESOURCES TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR
ANTICIPATED PRO NUMBER PRO
HEARINGS.
SO WE RECKON WE WITHHOLD
RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMEND
DIRECTING SEE SHARED PROVIDE KEY
INFORMATION BY APRIL FIRST AND A
PROTOTYPE OF THE TOOL FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW.
AND THEN ON THE PROPOSAL TO
RAISE COMPENSATION FOR ATTORNEYS
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD.
WE THINK THAT A NEW PATIENT
ARCHER DOES APPEAR NEEDED BUT
AGAIN WE FOUND THE PROPOSAL TO
BE LACKING SOME KEY INFORMATION
WHICH AGAIN AGAIN AS DESCRIBED
IN MORE DETAIL IN YOUR AGENDA.
BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL WOULDN'T
FEEL LIKE AS AS IF THERE WAS A
CLEAR BASIS FOR THE SEVEN
HUNDRED DOLLAR --
PAYMENT OR INK --
THE REYES FROM A HUNDRED DOLLARS
PER CASE --
OR CLEAR BASIS FOR OUR OR CLEAR
INFORMATION THAT I SHOULD SAY
ABOUT THAT WHAT THE NEW
STRUCTURE OF THE PAY SCHEDULE
WOULD BE OR THE CHANGES TO
RECRUITMENT TRAINING AND
EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE ATTORNEYS --
SO WE RECOMMEND DIRECTING THE
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THE KEY
INFORMATION BY APRIL FIRST --
AND IF IT IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE
THE INFORMATION WE RECOMMEND
REJECTING THE PROPOSAL AND
HAVING THE DEPARTMENT COME BACK
NEXT YEAR [inaudible]
OKAY -- ONE
SEVENTY QUESTIONS THE SYSTEM.
JUST A COMMENT ON THAT THE
STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING TO IT
I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE.
SOMETHING THAT THAT IS VERY
APPROPRIATE.
AND MY PROVIDE SOME OF THE VA
SOME BUT I THINK THAT.
THAT WE NEED THOSE REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS AND HOW
IT GETS IMPLEMENTED THAT HOW
QUICKLY GETS IMPLEMENTED.
IT SOUNDS LIKE EVEN THOUGH YOU
CAN'T PUT TOGETHER THAT PROPOSAL
GETTING ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS
TRAINS.
AND CHANGING HOW THEY'VE BEEN
MAKING DECISIONS MIGHT TAKE A
LITTLE BIT LONGER.
SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE GET SOME
SOME INTERACTION WITH THAT.
AND RATHER THAN I UNDERSTAND THE
NOTION OF WAITING UNTIL NEXT
YEAR BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DATE
WE HAVE THE TIME TO WAIT TILL
NEXT YEAR.
BUT RATHER THAN PUTTING
SOMETHING FORWARD THAT WE DON'T
NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND IN THERE
SOME DANGERS TO SOMETHING THAT'S
VERY FORMULAIC WHICH I KNOW
YOU'RE NOT SO TALKING ABOUT YEAH
BUT IF YOU BECOMES FORMULAE CAN
BECOMES KIND OF COOKIE CUTTER
AND THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT.
THE THE DIFFERENCES OF THE
INDIVIDUALS THERE AND I KNOW
RIGHT THAT'S NOT CHOI HOUSES I
BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A LITTLE BIT
MORE INFORMATION.
OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
HOW IT WORKS HOW WOULD BE
DEALING WITH THE VARIETIES OF
SITUATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS THAT?
THAT WE WOULD BE DEALING WITH
BUT I'M VERY INTERESTED IN THIS
BUT I THINK THAT WE DO NEED THAT
INFORMATION.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND THEN.
BUILD INTO IT SOME FEEDBACK
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR SO THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS A SENSE OF ORGAN
INVEST IN THIS.
HAS A SENSE OF HOW IT'S GOING
WHAT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES ARE
WHAT IMPLEMENTATION LOOKS LIKE
HEY THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
SO WE DO HAVE MONTHLY BOARD
EXECUTIVE A PUBLIC SESSIONS AND
EVERY MONTH FROM HERE ON OUT --
WE WILL BE PROVIDING UPDATES AS
TO HOW THIS IS DEVELOPING.
I WILL CAUTION FOLKS.
ADMITTEDLY WE ARE FAST TRACKING
THIS --
BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT TO
EXPAND THE BOARD SO.
IT'S GOING A NEEDS TO GO UNDER
GO I'M NOT SURE APRIL FIRST WILL
HAPPEN.
BUT I'M DEFINITELY APRIL --
WE ACTUALLY HAVE SCHEDULED --
TO NOT CONDUCT HEARING STATEWIDE
APRIL TWENTY EIGHTH AND TWENTY
NINTH OR TWENTY NINTH AND
THIRTIETH WHATEVER THAT MONDAY
AND TUESDAY ARE. TO DO TRAINING
ON THIS TO ALL OF OUR HEARING
OFFICERS WE WILL IN HAVE A FEW
MONTHS. TO PILOT IT.
AND TWEAK IT IS NECESSARY TO SEE
HOW IT'S WORKING AND WHAT THE
ISSUES ARE BEFORE WE SEE THE
INCREASES IN IN SCHEDULED
HEARINGS.
SO THERE IS KIND OF A STEPPING
PROCESS AND WE WILL BE
PRESENTING AT PUBLICLY.
JUST TO PUT A LAY SOME OF YOUR
CONCERNS IT IS NOT A FORMULA
THERE'S NO NUMBERS ASSOCIATED
WITH IT.
KIND OF THE DESIGN OF THE TOOL
THE WAY HE PUTS IT WHICH MAKES
SENSE TO ME IF EVERYTHING IF
EVERYONE OF THESE KEY DOMAINS
COMES UP AS AGGRAVATED AND
YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT GRANTING
PAROLE.
YOU NEED TO STOP AND REALLY
THINK ABOUT IT THIS IT'S NEEDS
TO ADD UP AND MAKE SENSE
CONVERSELY IF EVERYTHING IS
MITIGATING AND YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT DENYING.
YOU NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT
IT AND THERE IS ONE OF THE ONE
OF THE SIGNIFICANT DOMAINS THAT
WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING OUT
UNDER THE TOOL IS A FENDER
CHANGE SO IT WILL BE VERY
OFFENDER SPECIFIC.
AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD NOT TAKE
AWAY THE PORTION OF OUR HEARING
WHICH WE THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT.
HOW HAS THIS INMATE TRANSFORMED
WHO ARE THEY TODAY AND HOW ARE
THEY DIFFERENT FROM WHO THEY
WERE WHEN THEY COMMITTED THEIR
CRIMES?
SO THAT PART WILL NOT ADMITTEDLY
THIS IS NOT HOW WE WOULD
NORMALLY DO BUSINESS IT WOULD BE
MUCH MORE PROTRACTED WE JUST SAW
THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY.
YOU KNOW WHAT LET'S DO IT
SIMILAR TO WHEN WE MIGHT
PAPERLESS THERE WAS NO PLAN B..
BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT.
THEY WOULDN'T CONVERT TO WRITE
SO -- TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT.
THERE IS THERE IS A RISK FACTOR
ADMITTEDLY TO THIS.
WHICH IS WHY SUCH I'M ASKING
THAT YOU NOT GET TOO FAR AHEAD
OF THE YES TO BE DOING PUBLIC
HEARINGS.
GIVEN OUR SCHEDULES WE MAY OR
MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE
IN THOSE SO COULD KEEP A LITTLE
BIT CLOSER LETTING US KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON CHALLENGE ME
WOULD GIVE US A LOT MORE COMFORT
IF WE'RE GOING TO BE.
INVESTING IN A CHANGE YES AND
THE AND FONG SOMETHING WELL
WORTH US KEEPING TRACK.
ABSOLUTELY.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CALL ON THE
SECOND PANEL NOW AND THEN WE CAN --
WAS AT THE END OF THAT WHEN WE
HAVE IS IF THEY'RE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS.
WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT --
THE SECOND PANEL IS SOMEONE FOR
THE BORDER.
PATROL PATROL PAROLE HEARING.
THIS YOU.
PROFESSOR HEIDI ROMMEL WHO IS
WITH USC SO GOALS OF SCHOOL
SCHOOL OF LAW.
A POST CONVICTION JUSTICE
PROJECT.
AND KEEP WIDELY WHO IS WITH
UNCOMMON LAW.
AND THEN MICHAEL MENDOZA WHOSE
AND I WAS THE RECIDIVISM
COALITION --
WANNA GIVE EACH ONE OF YOU JUST
A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO INTRODUCE
YOUR YOUR YOUR ISSUE --
WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT --
AND THEN WE CAN GO INTO A
CONVERSATION OKAY HOW.
EXCELLENT GOOD MORNING OR GOOD
AFTERNOON EVERYONE MY NAME IS
HAITI RUMMEL I RUN THE POST
CONVICTION JUSTICE PROJECT AT
USC LAW SCHOOL --
WE HAVE BEEN DOING STUDENTS FOR
OVER TWENTY YEARS M. IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY
INVOLVED SINCE TWO THOUSAND SIX
SO I HAVE REALLY BEEN PRESENT
FOR THE THE DEVELOPMENTS IN IN
IN PAROLE WHEN I STARTED DOING
THESE HEARINGS --
THE GRANT RATE WAS
EXTRAORDINARILY LOW --
THE MOST DESERVING CLIENTS ARE
NOT.
BEING FOUND SUITABLE FOR PRO
THERE WAS ALMOST NO HOPE OF
REALLY BEING FOUND SUITABLE FOR
PAROLE AND IT WAS REALLY A
CRAPSHOOT WE BROUGHT A LOT OF
LEGAL CHALLENGES UNDER THE IN
THE COURTS --
AND THROUGH THAT LITIGATION AND
THEN ULTIMATELY REALLY GOVERNOR
BROWN BECOMING THE GOVERNOR AND
MYSTERY FOR TAKING OVER THE
BOARD -- WE
STARTED TO SEE --
SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS
INCREASES TRANSPARENCY
COLLABORATION --
AND A REAL IMPROVEMENT IN THE
PROPUESTAS SO BEFORE I WENT INTO
MY CRITICISMS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR WHAT COULD BE BETTER OR
DIFFERENT I DO WANNA --
REALLY GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO THAT
WHAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA TODAY
IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT WE HAD GOING ON IN
CALIFORNIA TEN OR TWELVE YEARS
AGO -- I
ALSO DO A LOT OF WORK INSIDE THE
PRISONS DOING WORKSHOPS I'VE
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE
THE LAWS THAT HAVE --
EXPANDED THE PROPOSED SAYS
EXPANDED IT FOR YOUTH OFFENDERS
AND I'VE BEEN INSIDE MANY OF THE
PRISONS IN CALIFORNIA PRESENTING
TO PEOPLE ON WHAT IT TAKES TO BE --
SHIFT IN PEOPLE IN IN IN MEN AND
WOMEN INSIDE PRISONS WANTING TO
CHANGE AND GROW AND REHABILITATE
AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED IN MY
OPINION TO THE FACT THAT THE
PAROLE BOARD IS WORKING VERY
HARD TO TRY TO SEND THE RIGHT
PEOPLE HOME AND DOING A PRETTY
GOOD JOB OF SENDING.
THE RIGHT PEOPLE HOME SO I WILL
START WITH THAT --
I HAVE MY I HAVE I HAVE.
SOME -- I
THINK MY BIGGEST I'VE BEEN
SAYING THIS TO MISS SCHAEFER AND
BEFORE MISS A FOR WAS THE THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER THAT THE
BIGGEST --
FACTOR IN SOMEONE GETTING A FAIR
PAROLE HEARING IS HAVING A GOOD
ATTORNEY I WANT TO SPEND JUST A
MINUTE EXPLAINING TO WHAT.
IN OUR PROJECT WE DO WHEN WE
REPRESENT PEOPLE IN THE PRO
PROCESS WE'VE HAD ABOUT A
HUNDRED AND FIFTY CLIENTS
RELEASED THROUGH THE LIFE
APPROVAL PROCESS.
THE GRANT RATE FOR OUR PROJECT
IT RUNS AROUND 7275% OF OUR
CLIENTS ARE GRANTED PAROLE WHEN
THEY GO HEARING.
AND WE DO NOT SELECT THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO GET
PAROLE OR WHO HAVE.
ACCOMPLISHED THE MOST PERFECT
CHANGE WE REALLY HAVE A RANGE OF
CLIENTS --
BUT WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF OUR
STUDENTS SPENDING MANY HOURS
PREPARING THEIR CLIENTS FOR
PAROLE HELPING THEM UNDERSTAND
THE PROCESS.
GAINING THEIR TRUST --
AND MAKING SURE THEY ARE READY
TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE
PUT TO THEM IN THE IN THE PRO
PROCESS.
IS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE MANY PEOPLE
IN THE PRISON SYSTEM COGNITIVE
CHALLENGES HAVE CHALLENGES THAT
COME FROM TRAUMA BEING RAISED IN
TRAUMA HAVE VERBAL PROCESSING
DISORDERS AND HAVE ALL KINDS OF
OF ISSUES.
THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
APPARENT IN A PRO PROCESS BUT
WOULD INHIBIT THEM FROM GOING
INTO THE BOARD ROOM AND TALKING
ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO
TALK ABOUT.
SO I ECHO ISTY FOR HIS COMMENT
ABOUT ATTORNEY PAROLE
REPRESENTATION THE CRITICAL THE
MOST VALUE AN ATTORNEY CAN ADD
TO THE PROCESS.
IS THE TIME SPENT WITH THEIR
CLIENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING
MAKING SURE THEY UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE
HEARING.
EARNING THEIR TRUST SO THEY CAN
TALK ABOUT THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED
CHILDHOOD TRAUMA CAUSATIVE
FACTORS --
SEXUAL ABUSE ADDICTION AND THE
THINGS THAT LED TO THE VIOLENCE
BEING ABLE TO HONESTLY AND
OPENLY DISCUSS THE VIOLENCE THAT
THEY PERPETRATED BOTH WHAT
THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT FOR WHAT
THEY'VE NOT BEEN.
CAUGHT FOR AND THEN BEING ABLE
TO DISCUSS THEIR CHANGE --
ONCE YOU'RE IN THE BOARDROOM
OBVIOUSLY HAVING A STRONG
ATTORNEY WHO KNOWS THE LAW AND
WILL FIGHT FOR YOU MATTERS IT
CAN I THINK IT KEEPS THE
COMMISSIONERS --
IN THEIR LANE AND FOLLOWING THE
RULES AND AND PAYING ATTENTION
TO EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO PAY
ATTENTION.
TO BUT THE TRAVEL TO AND FROM%
THE PRISON THE FAMILIARITY WITH
THE LARGE PRISON FILE AND THE
RECORDS RELATED TO THE CRIME --
AND THE CLIENT PREPARATION IS
WHAT'S CRITICAL AND PAROLE
REPRESENTATION MY COMMENT WOULD
BE THAT SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY
DOLLARS EVEN WHEN YOU.
AGGREGATE ALL OF THE ANY FIRST
OF ALL THAT'S DIFFICULT IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO DO MORE THAN A
COUPLE OF HEARINGS A WEEK AND
MORE THAN TWO A DAY.
ON IN MY OPINION BUT SEVEN
HUNDRED DOLLARS DOESN'T EVEN
COME CLOSE TO COVERING WHAT
SOMEONE REALLY NEEDS --
IN TERMS OF BEING FOR THE FOR
THE PRO BOARD PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
RATES I THINK I MISSED ABOUT THE
COMPOSITE SPEAK TO THIS BETTER
THAN I CAN.
VERY WOULD SAY FROM 300-021-0000
DOLLARS FOR OUT FOR A PAROLE
HEARING THERE WAS AN EMPIRICAL
STUDY THAT A SOURCE FELLOW OUT
OF USC RAN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO
SHOWING THAT THE GRANT RATES.
FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE RETAINED
ATTORNEYS COMPARED TO THE GREAT
RATES FOR PEOPLE WHO GO TO THE
TO THE PROVIDE WITH BOARD
ATTORNEYS IS NEARLY DOUBLE FOR
THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE ALMOST DEFINITELY NOT GOING
TO GET IT A PAROLE DATE AND YOU
TAKE WITH PEOPLE WHO ALMOST
CERTAINLY WILL GET A PRO DATE.
THAT SORT OF MIDDLE GROUP WHERE
THERE'S SOME GRAY THE GRANT
RATES ARE MORE THAN DOUBLE FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAVE OF RETAINED
ATTORNEY --
WORKING FOR THEM.
AND IT'S IT'S A COMBINATION OF
FACTORS HAVING MISSED A FOR DID
A GOOD JOB OF OUTLINING FEW SOME
OF THE PROBLEMS THE FACT THAT
THE BOARD ITSELF.
HIRES SUPERVISES --
AND PAYS AND IT IS IS OBVIOUSLY
A YOU KNOW A HUGE PROBLEM I
DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THE
DETAILS ON THAT I THINK
SEPARATING THOSE FUNCTIONS WOULD
BE.
WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT I THINK
THE YOU KNOW THERE'S LIMITS IN
THE KIND OF TRAINING THAT THE
BOARD CAN --
PROVIDE BECAUSE YOU ARE TRAINING
PEOPLE TO LITIGATE SORT OF
LITIGATE AGAINST YOU I MEAN
ESSENTIALLY LITIGATE AGAINST YOU --
MISTER WELL AND I'VE TEAMED UP
TO DO TRAINING FOR THE GOODNESS
OF OUR HEARTS WE'RE BOTH REALLY
BUSY WE HAVEN'T DONE IT FOR A
FEW YEARS IT'S DIFFICULT IT'S
ONEROUS IT'S HARD TO GET THE
ATTORNEYS TO ATTEND --
I COULD REGALE YOU WITH STORIES
OF PEOPLE I'VE MET IN PRISON AND
CLIENTS HAD TAKEN OVER THEIR
CASES THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH
BOARD LAWYERS --
THAT SOMETIMES JUST MAKE ME
WANNA CRY --
IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT THAT
THEY'RE ALL BAD AND IT'S NOT
THAT THERE ARE NOT WORKING HARD
BUT THERE ARE SOME.
TERRIBLE TERRIBL STORIES ABOUT
THE LEVEL OF REPRESENTATION THAT
SOMEONE CAN EXPECT TO GET WITH
THE BOARD APPOINTED ATTORNEY.
SO I COMMEND THE EFFORT TO
IMPROVE THE REPRESENTATION I
DON'T THINK SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
DOLLARS IS ENOUGH --
I THINK IT'S A START BUT I THINK
THAT THIS COMMITTEE MOVING
FORWARD SHOULD BE LOOKING AT A
BIGGER.
BROADER SOLUTION TO THAT
SITUATION AND IN IN THIS YOU
KNOW WHAT IN TERMS OF THINKING
ABOUT COST --
A LOT OF A LOT OF PEOPLE IN
PRISON SEEKING PAROLE THAT FIRST
PAROLE HEARING BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE GOOD REPRESENTATION
IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT THAT
THEY POSE A DANGER TO THE
COMMUNITY IT'S THAT THEY'RE JUST
NOT READY TO PRESENT THEIR
NARRATIVE TO THE BOARD.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE A LEARNING
EXPERIENCE FOR THEM AND THEN
THEY GET THEIR THREE DENIAL AND
THEY HAVE TO GO BACK FOR A
SECOND HEARING WHICH IS ALSO
HUGELY EXPENSIVE TO THE STATE --
WE GO IN THE WE GOING TO
WORKSHOPS IN THE PRISONS WITH MY
LAW STUDENTS AND EIGHT IT'S NOT
UNCOMMON FOR MEDIA COMMENT FROM
THE STUDENT LIKE WE COULD GET
HIM A DATE.
BUT I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO
GET A DATE THE FIRST TIME AROUND
WITH HIS BOARD ATTORNEY HAVE
PROBABLY GET FOUND SUITABLE THE
SECOND TIME AROUND BECAUSE HE'S
HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
THE PROCESS HE DOESN'T HOW TO
PRESENT HIMSELF HE DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND.
THAT BEING HONEST ABOUT.
YOU KNOW HE FROM.
CHILDHOOD TRY COULD REALLY HELP
INSTEAD OF HER HIM OR BEING OPEN
ABOUT THE MISCONDUCT YOU KNOW
DIFFERENT THINGS --
SO I I ECHO THE NEED FOR AN
IMPROVEMENT IN ATTORNEY
REPRESENTATION I THINK IT'S THE
SINGLE LARGEST FACTOR THAT WILL
IMPROVE OUR PRO PROCESS LEAD TO
MORE OF THE CREW THE RIGHT
PEOPLE BEING GRANTED PAROLE --
AND ULTIMATELY COULD HAVE THE
IMPACT OF REDUCING ON THE NUMBER
OF HEARINGS THAT ARE THAT ARE
NECESSARY LET US HEAR FROM US TO
WHAT WE THEM WHOSE BECAUSE
MISTER WHAT LIVE ABOUT OKAY YES.
UHHUH.
GOOD AFTERNOON I I BUT ECHO MANY
OF THE COMMENTS THAT PROFESSOR
FROM HIS --
SHARED I I HAVE BEEN.
DOING THIS WORK --
FOR ABOUT TWENTY YEARS OR SO I'M
THE FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF ON COMMON LAW IT'S A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION WE
PROVIDE.
COUNSELING LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO
PEOPLE WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE
PAROLE BOARD --
I'VE HANDLED HUNDREDS OF OF
HEARINGS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
I I ORDINARILY PERVERT NOT A
GROUP TO USE NOTES BUT I WANT TO
MAKE SURE I PROVIDE CONTEXT AT
THAT AS I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT
THIS BUDGET CHANGE RIPPLES
REALLY BECOME RELEVANT --
AND MORE OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT TO
ME -- FAIRLY
RECENTLY IT HAS TO DO WITH --
FOR ONE OF THE WHAT I THINK IS
ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS THIS
THIS BOARD SHOULD BE ASKING THIS
COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ASKING WHICH
IS -- WHY
SHOULD SHOULD WE GIVE THE BOARD?
MORE MONEY [inaudible] TWO TO
FURTHER A PROCESS THAT HAS NEVER
REALLY PRODUCED THE STATUTORILY
MANDATED RESULT.
THE PENAL CODE SECTION THAT
GOVERNS THIS PROCESS IS.
THIRTY FORTY ONE IT TELLS THE
BOARD TO NORMALLY GRANT PAROLE
THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE APPEARS
FOR PAROLE.
THE BOARD IS NEVER APPROACH THAT.
THAT RATE --
AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE HAPPENING
IS THAT --
THERE ARE THEIR APPROACHES HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN HOW DO WE HOLD MORE
HEARINGS NOT HOW DO WE RELEASE
MORE PEOPLE.
AND THIS THIS TODAY'S PROPOSALS
IS VERY SIMILAR --
TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
FOR THE PROCESS FOR FOR GETTING
SOMEONE READY FOR THIS FOR FOR
HEARING -- I
AM A LAWYER BY TRAINING BUT MOST
OF MY WORK WITH MY CLIENTS THIS
IS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE I'M A
PRETTY GOOD LISTENER AND I'M OF
A COUNSELOR --
I GUIDE THEM INTO THIS
INTROSPECT THE DRAMATIC
EXPERIENCES THEY HAD IN THEIR
THEIR OWN CHILDHOODS AND
ADOLESCENCE AND HOW THAT THEN
IMPACT THEIR DECISIONS AND
ASSOCIATIONS AND AND ACTIONS.
LATER IN LIFE --
WHAT I FIND IS THIS WORK TAKES
MONTHS --
SOMETIMES YEARS --
BUT WE ARE FILLING A CRITICAL
GAP IN THE AVAILABLE PROGRAMS
WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE
OFTENTIMES PEOPLE HAVE NO ACCESS.
TO HELP ANSWERING THOSE
QUESTIONS NOR SAFE SPACE TO DO
THAT TO DO THAT WORK.
AND WHAT I THE THE BUDGET CHANGE
PROPOSAL IDENTIFIES THE THE
BOARD'S CURRENT PROGRAM GREAT
18%.
THEY HEARD THE SHAPER MENTION
THAT A HIGHER NUMBER TODAY --
MAYBE THAT'S AN UPDATED NUMBER --
BUT OUR RESULTS TELL US THAT
WHAT WE'RE DOING --
WORKS YOU KNOW WE HAVE --
AS BASS RUMBLE SAID.
OUR OUR RATES ARE PRETTY HIGH
LAST YEAR WE'RE 81% OF OUR
CLIENTS WERE GRANTED PAROLE IT'S
NOT BECAUSE WE CHOOSE THE BEST
CLIENTS EITHER --
WE COULD JUST ASK THE PERSON WHO
I WORK WITH FOR TEN YEARS OF THE
PERSON WHO HAVE MET WHEN HE WAS
ABOUT A GANG MEMBER THE SHOE OR
THE PERSON WHO HAD A HIGH
PROFILE CASE FOR THE PERSON
WHO'S -- WHO
STEADFASTLY DENIED GUILT?
ON HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT IN THE
PAROLE BOARD WE DON'T CHERRY
PICK.
IT'S BECAUSE WE DO THE WORK.
THAT HELPS OUR PLANTS ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS THE PAROLE BOARD IS
INTERESTED.
AND AGAIN WE'RE FILL AN
IMPORTANT GAP IN THAT --
OF SOME OF MY COMMENTS ARE
FOCUSED ON ON THIS EFFORT TO
INCREASE.
THE BOARDS ABILITY TO HOLD MORE
HEARINGS THEY THEY ARE ASKING
FOR TWO MORE COMMISSIONER
POSITIONS.
THIS IS A A FAMILIAR REQUEST --
WAY BACK IN.
TWO THOUSAND ONE THERE WAS A
BACKLOG OF OVER TWO HEARINGS
THAT WAS DUE TO INEFFICIENCIES
IN SCHEDULING HEARINGS AND THE
FACT THAT THE TIME IS MISS
ROMMEL NOTED.
THE PROGRAM RATE WAS AROUND 1%.
AT THAT TIME 1%.
AND THE GOVERNOR TO TIMES
REVERSING ALMOST ALL THOSE BUT
PROGRAM RAY THE BOARD WAS ABOUT
1%.
AND AT THE TIME THERE WERE NINE
POSITIONS ON THE BOARD NINE
COMMISSIONERS --
SENATE BILL SEVEN SEVENTY EIGHT
PASS AND ALLOW THEM TO TO SPLIT
PANEL SO YOU COULD HAVE ONE
COMMISSIONER HERE CASE AND A
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
SO THEY COULD HEAR MORE TO TRY
TO ELIMINATE THE BACK.
THE BACKLOG HAD ACTUALLY
INCREASED.
TOPPING FOUR THOUSAND OVERDUE
CASES.
SOME BY OVER TO BUY A YEAR OR
MORE -- AND
IN THAT YEAR TWO THOUSAND FIVE
SENATE BILL SEVEN THIRTY SEVEN
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
COMMISSIONERS SO THEY COULD
CATCH UP.
THEY WENT FROM NINE
COMMISSIONERS TO TWELVE
COMMISSIONERS AT THAT POINT.
THREE YEARS LATER THE BOARD
INCREASE THE NUMBER COMMISSION
TO GET.
FROM.
TWELVE TO FIFTEEN NOW WHAT WHAT
I THOUGHT WAS REALLY INTERESTING
AT THAT TIME IN.
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT THE BOOK WAS
PROJECTING ROUGHLY THE SAME
NUMBER HEARINGS WOULD BE DO.
SEVENTY ONE HUNDRED AS THEY ARE
NOW SAYING WILL BE DUE NEXT YEAR
[inaudible]
OF SO.
IN THE PROVIDE PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR PROPOSED BUDGET THEY'RE
ASKING FOR TWO MORE COMMISSIONER
POSITIONS. TO HANDLE BASICALLY
THE SAME NUMBER OF HEARINGS AS
WERE TO ELEVEN YEARS AGO --
IN OTHER WORDS.
IS THIS CAR PROPOSAL.
WITH IT THE NUMBER OF
COMMISSIONS WILL HAVE NEARLY
DOUBLED.
FROM NINE TO SEVENTEEN OVER THE
LAST FIFTEEN YEARS.
AND THEY'RE STILL PROPOSED THE
SAME SOLUTION.
MEANWHILE.
THE PROGRAM RATE.
HAS NOW RISEN TO IT'S STILL
BELOW 20%. 18% IS WHAT THEY'RE
BUDGET CHANGE HOLES AS AT HOME
PAGE.
TEN UP AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF
THE PROPOSALS OVER THE LAST
FIFTEEN TWENTY YEARS.
HAS SUGGESTED A WAY TO INCREASE.
THE MOST OBVIOUS FIX IS THE HAVE
FEWER PEOPLE GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
BUT THEIR RESPONSE HAS BEEN TO
DATE HOW DO WE JUST ADD MORE.
CAPACITY TO HEAR MORE CASES AND
I SUGGESTTHAT THERE ARE WAYS TO
DO THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE WILL
OF THE TRAUMA WORK THAT WE DO.
WITH OUR WITH OUR CLIENTS --
THAT WORK.
I WAS IS NOT JUST DEPEND ON THE
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS BUT YOU
KNOW YOU YOU HEARD LAST WEEK BUT
IN THE SAME COMMITTEE FROM A LOT
OF PEOPLE WHO WERE.
WHO PROVIDE SERVICES WITHIN THE
INSTITUTIONS OF DEALING WITH
THIS TRUMP --
THE WORK MAKES A DIFFERENCE IT'S
A CRITICAL MISSING PIECE AND I
WOULD I WOULD URGE IS THAT THIS
THAT THE EPA'S WORK WITH CDC R.
AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS TO
ADDRESS THAT --
AND THAT THE PROPOSAL ACTUALLY
REFLECT AN INTEREST IN --
EXPLORING THE WEIGHT OF TO
BETTER COMPLY WITH THE LAW NOT
JUST BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S
RIGHT BUT ACTUALLY REQUIRE --
AND I THINK IT'S A IT'S A MAJOR
MISSING PIECE OF FROM THIS.
I ALSO THINK THAT --
SOME PEOPLE SAY AND THEY'VE
THEY'VE TOLD ME THIS MANY TIMES
BECAUSE I I'VE BEEN INVOLVED A
LOT OF LITIGATION --
DEALING WITH THE PRO ABORT THIS
A LITIGATION IS THE WAY TO MOVE
THAT NEEDLE. TWO OF TWO TO PUSH
THE BOARD CLOSER TO GRANTING
PAROLE MORE OFTEN --
IN MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT --
AND THEY'VE BEEN HUNDREDS OF
COURT CASES OVER THE YEARS
SUCCESSFUL ONES.
THAT HAVE.
IN THE LAST ALMOST TWENTY YEARS
PUSH THE PROGRAM RATE FROM 1%
218% -- IT
CAN'T GET THEIR IT WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO GET THERE BY ITSELF BUT
I THINK THAT.
THROUGH OF BETTER COORDINATION
WE CAN GET FOR EXAMPLE A LITTLE
LITIGATION IS.
IT'S NOT ONLY NOT ENOUGH IT
ACTUALLY GETS IN THE WAY.
IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT
CASES ARE USUALLY LITIGATED BY
YOU KNOW ON SKILLED LITIGANTS
WITHOUT THE HELP OF COMPETENT
COUNSEL.
CLASS ACTIONS --
AT THE EVENTUAL UNFORTUNATELY
PRODUCED REALLY LIMITED RESULTS
I THINK WELL HAVING A CHILLING
EFFECT.
ON OPEN DIALOGUE AND
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEMS UP.
AND SO I THINK THE SOLUTION LIES
IN IN --
LEGISLATION OTHER POLICY CHANGES
THAT WHAT WOULD WOULD CHANGE
THOSE THINGS.
I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT --
ABOUT THE STRUCTURE DECISION
MAKING -- I
APPRECIATE AND AGREE WITH THE LA
OWES OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NEED
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION TRAINING AND AND
EVALUATION --
IN DISCUSSING THE B. PAGES
INTENTION TO INTRODUCE THIS
MODEL.
THEY SAY THAT --
IT IS.
EVIDENCE BASED --
BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT
SUPPORTS USE ON A POPULATION I
CALIFORNIA'S LIFERS AND AND HOW
CAN YOU.
HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT CLAIM
REALLY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS
PROPOSED FRAME WORK WHEN YOU
HAVEN'T YET CUSTOMIZE IT FOR
CALIFORNIA'S UNIQUES UNIQUE LAWS
AND POPULATION WE DON'T REALLY
KNOW ENOUGH --
YET AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
LEARNING LEARN A LOT MORE --
I'D ALSO NOTE THAT WITH THE
STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING
PROCESS.
THEY'RE PROJECTING.
THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
SCHEDULE ELEVEN HEARINGS PER
WEEK AT LEVEL TWO AND THREE
PRISONS AND FOURTEEN HEARINGS.
HELLO FOR PRISONS.
WHICH IS ACTUALLY FEWER HEARINGS
THAN THEY WERE HOLDING EACH LEE
EACH WEEK WHEN THE BACK WHILE I
WAS AT FOUR THOUSAND SO I DON'T
KNOW HOW THEY DO THAT I DON'T
KNOW HOW THAT MATH WORKS --
I LOOK FOR LEARNING MORE BUT
FROM WHAT I SEE IT DOESN'T QUITE
WORK -- THE
THE THREE APPOINTMENT PROCESS.
I AGREE THAT THAT --
THEY HAVE A PROVIDE ENOUGH
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE
CHANGES --
WILL RESULT IN BETTER
REPRESENTATION --
I KNOW THAT THEIR FEE SCHEDULE --
AS IT IS CALLED FOR SINGLE
INTERVIEW WITH THE CLIENT I HOPE
THAT CHANGES --
THEY PUT THEIR PAID --
THAT FOR THE INTERVIEW WITH THE
CLIENT THEN THEY ARE FOR SHOWING
UP AT THE HEARING BUT YOU'VE
HEARD REALLY ALL OF US.
AGREED THAT THE PART OF THE
PROCESS DURING WHICH ATTORNEYS
HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT.
IS IN THE LEAD UP TO THE HERE
MONTHS SOMETIMES AN A AND R.
CASES YEARS SOMETIMES --
AND ONE THEIR COUPLE EASY
CHANGES AYE IF THE EASY FEET
RELATIVELY EASY FIX. ONE IS THAT
YOU IF YOU REQUIRE THE ATTORNEYS
ACTUALLY REVIEW THE RISK
ASSESSMENTS WITH THEIR CLIENTS.
EARLY ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY HELP
THEM PREPARE FOR THE YEAR.
AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR
THOSE WITH INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITIES A MENTAL ILLNESS --
A COUPLE OTHER.
QUICK WHAT I THINK A RELATIVELY
EASY EASY FIXES --
ONE IS -- TO
INCLUDE A BUDGET ITEM --
FOR TRANSLATING PAROLE HEARING
TRANSCRIPTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS
FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T SPEAK
ENGLISH.
THE BOARD PROVIDES INTERPRETERS.
FOR THE HEARINGS BUT THEY DON'T
TRANSLATE RISK ASSESSMENTS OR
HEARING TRANSCRIPTS INTO A
LANGUAGE THE PERSON CAN
UNDERSTAND.
SO THEY'RE UNABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE CRITICAL
INFORMATION THOSE DOCUMENTS TO
IMPROVE THEIR CHANCES THE NEXT
TIME.
ANOTHER IDEA IS TO TO BETTER
SUPPORT PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL
DISABILITIES A MENTAL ILLNESS --
THAT CAN INVOLVE SPECIALLY
TRAINED ATTORNEYS.
ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR
PSYCHOLOGISTS PREPARING RISK
ASSESSMENTS AND MORE HELP WITH
POST RELEASE PLANNING --
AND THEY SHOULD REALLY START BY
TRACKING AND REPORTING HEARING
OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE IN THESE.
CATEGORIES --
AND I'LL JUST CONCLUDE WITH WITH
WHAT I THINK ARE [inaudible]
BROADER RECOMMENDATIONS --
BECAUSE MUCH THE DISCUSSION I
THINK.
IT TENDS TO FOCUS ON WHAT.
COULD AMOUNT TO SORT OF TAKE IT
AROUND THE TIKRIT AROUND THE
EDGES OF PRO REFORM BUT I DO
THINK -- IN
I WAS IN THIS IS THIS IS NOT A
POLICY HEARING THIS IS ABOUT THE
ABOUT THE BUDGET.
BUT IF WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE BOTTOM LINE.
AND IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY THERE
COUPLE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE TIES
INTO LAST WEEK'S HEARING --
AND IT RECORD I RECOMMEND BETTER
COORDINATION BETWEEN BPH AND CDC
ARE. TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE
WITHIN THE PRISONS ARE IN LINE
WITH THE NEEDS OF PEOPLE TO HEAL
FROM TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCES.
AND ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES BPH
WANTS TO SEE RESOLVED BEFORE
RELEASING THEM --
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT THERE
SHOULD BE WIDER SUPPORT FOR
COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS TO COME
IN AND FILL THAT GAP --
THAT'S WHAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE
IN OUR SUCCESS RATE COMPARED TO
OTHER ATTORNEYS --
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
I RECOMMEND THE USE OF SOCIAL
WORKERS AND THERAPIST IN THE
MONTHS AND YEARS LEADING UP TO
PAROLE HEARINGS.
IT'S A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ROLE
THAN THE ATTORNEY.
I HAVE ALMOST AS MANY SOCIAL
WORKERS ON MY TEAM IS THAT DO
LAWYERS BUT LIKE --
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE WORD
COMES FROM.
AND THAT'S THE MISSED THE
BIGGEST GAP TO BE FILLED --
AND THEN THE LAST THING IS IS
THAT I RECOMMENDED THE BOARD
WORK WITH US TO DEVELOP A
PROGRAM THAT ENSURES EFFECTIVE
REPRESENTATION FOR THOSE
APPEARING FOR FOR OF THE BOARD --
I THINK THE BETTER OUTCOME
SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS WITH
TREMENDOUS COST SAVINGS OUR OUR
EFFORTS --
WITH OUR CLIENTS WE'VE HAD TWO
HUNDRED ELEVEN OF OUR LIFE
SENTENCE CLIENTS RELEASED SO FAR.
EVERY YEAR THEY STAY OUT OF
PRISON SAVE THE STATE SIXTEEN
MILLION DOLLARS.
JUST OUR GROUP --
YOUR MISS RUMBLE TALK ABOUT
THEIR NUMBERS THAT IT ADDS UP
REALLY QUICKLY --
SO WE'RE WE'RE INTERESTED IN IN
DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOLUTIONS
THAT THE SAME THING OVER.
THANK YOU THANK YOU MR MENDOZA
YOU HAVE A COMMENT.
YEAH I'LL TRY TO MAKE A BRIEF
THANK YOU THANKS FOR YOUR TIME --
JUST A BRIEF HISTORY AT THE AGE
OF FIFTEEN I WAS ARRESTED TRIED
AND CONVICTED AS AN ADULT.
SINCE IT'S TWO FIFTEEN TO LIFE
SENTENCE AND SPENT ALL MY TIME
IN ADULT PRISON --
AND IS THE THIRD BEEN MENTIONED
DURING THAT TIME --
BEFORE THE SHIFT IN THE BEACH
BPH PROCESS.
THERE WAS A VERY NEGATIVE
MESSAGE SENT TO MOST PEOPLE THAT.
YOU WOULD NEVER GO HOME BECAUSE
OF CERTAIN.
LEADERSHIP BECAUSE OF THE THE
WAY THAT THE BOARD WAS WAS
MOSTLY MADE UP OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OF TIME.
AND SO REALLY.
IN TRYING TO PREPARE FOR THE
BOARD IT WAS A HOPELESS GOAL AT
THAT TIME.
IT SEEMS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
TO EVER EARN YOUR WAY HOME OR TO
PROVE THAT YOU WERE NO LONGER
THE INDIVIDUAL WHO.
MADE A REALLY REALLY BAD
DECISION --
BUT AS TIME IS CHANGING THINGS
THAT CHANGED.
OTHER HAVE BEEN A FEW THINGS
THAT HAVE STAYED THE SAME AND
ONE OF THEM IS A C. FILE.
ARE YOU SEE FOLLOW IT'S
BASICALLY YOUR LIFE IN A FILE IN
BLACK AND WHITE.
AND IT'S A C. FILE THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE GONE OVER --
BY AN ATTORNEY WHO IS GOING TO
ADVOCATE FOR YOU --
ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS --
TO REALLY BE ABLE TO ASSESS
WHETHER YOU ARE.
NO LONGER THAT SAME INDIVIDUAL
WHO MADE A REALLY BAD DECISION
AND COMMITTED A CRIME.
AND THE DIFFICULT PART ABOUT
THAT IS IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE
ASSIGNED AN ATTORNEY MAYBE A
HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS IF YOU'RE
LUCKY OR EVEN CLOSER TO YOUR
BOARD HEARING --
IT'S IT'S NOT ALONE IS NOT
ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY GO OVER
DECADES OF WHAT'S IN YOUR C.
FILE. TO ASSESS YOU AS THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO YOU ARE.
IN PERSON --
BEFORE THE BOARD --
TO RELEASE GET IT THAT
ASSESSMENT --
YOU KNOW THERE ARE FOR FOR
MYSELF.
I DID EVERYTHING IN MY POWER
THAT I COULD. TO WRITE MANY MANY
LETTERS ASKING.
ANY ATTORNEY THAT WOULD TAKE MY
CASE PRO BONO.
BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID OF OF A
STATE APPOINTED ATTORNEY --
HEARING EVERYTHING THAT I WOULD
HEAR FROM --
MANY MEN WHO WERE INSIDE WITH ME
ABOUT THEIR HORROR STORIES THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE.
WITH THEIR EXPERIENCE OF A STATE
APPOINTED ATTORNEY --
THEY WOULD BE LUCKY TO SEE THEM
ONCE BEFORE THE BOARD HEARING --
THEY WOULD TELL ME ABOUT HOW
UNPREPARED SOME OF BOARD TURNS
WOULD BE --
NOT ALL OF THEM WERE REALLY.
ADD TO THAT PART BUT I DIDN'T
WANT EXPERIENCE THAT.
AND SO I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO
HAVE. TWO ATTORNEYS ON BOTH MY
HERE IS THAT WERE PRO BONO --
AND BEING ABLE TO SEE THEM MORE
THAN ONCE --
WAS VERY VERY VERY HELPFUL FOR
ME.
IT ALLOW ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
BE ABLE [inaudible]
TO PREPARE HOW.
MY ANSWERS WILL BE IN TERMS OF
REAL INSIGHT THE REAL DRAMATIC
WORK THAT BEEN ABLE TO DO
THROUGHOUT MANY DECADES IN
PRISON. TO SHOW THAT I WAS NO
LONGER THAT PERSON --
IS SO I THINK IN TERMS OF
PREPARATION --
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE A PROCESS WHERE.
YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S GONNA
PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL DURING THE
HEARING --
AND ALLOW YOU TO FOCUS ON THE
ACTUAL WORK THAT YOU'VE BEEN
DOING ON THE INSIDE LAWYER
PRESENT.
SO WE LOOK AT THOSE THINGS AND
THEN YOU LOOK AT THE HEARING
ITSELF --
THE THAT THE HEARING COULD BE AT
THE YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AS THE
JOB INTERVIEW OF A LIFETIME.
IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT
INTERVIEW OF YOUR LIFE.
AND YOU HAVE TO REALLY FOCUS ON
ON WHO YOU ARE AT THAT MOMENT.
AND SO YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT THREE
TO FOUR HOURS. TO BE ABLE TO
TELL YOUR STORY WHO YOU ARE AS A
PERSON --
INTO.
REALLY.
PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY ON
INDIVIDUALS BOARD MEMBERS AND
ATTORNEYS. TO BASE THAT OFF OF
C. FALL WITHIN THREE HOURS OR
WHATEVER TIME IS SPENT ON BEFORE
THEY IS IT IS UNFAIR.
I I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE
TIME ALLOCATED ON ALL OF THIS
THE PARTIES.
WHO ARE TRYING TO ASSESS
INDIVIDUAL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING
ON THE CHANGES THAT THEY HAVE
MADE -- TO
PREPARE TO GO HOME.
AND SO I THINK THERE ARE A LOT
OF VARIABLES THAT WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER THAT MAKE THE PROCESS
TO PREPARE. FOR A THREE HOUR
HEARING.
VERY VERY DIFFICULT.
AND SO THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS
THAT I THINK CAN BE DONE
DIFFERENTLY --
ONE IS TO ALLOW ATTORNEYS OR
STATE APPOINTED ATTORNEYS TO BE
ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH
THEIR CLIENTS. TO GO OVER WHAT'S
IN THERE SEE FILE WHAT'S MISSING
IN THE CITY FATHERS SOMEBODY.
A LOT OF TIMES THERE ARE SOME
THINGS THAT DON'T GOING TO SEE
FILE WHICH IS WHY IT'S NORMAL.
TWO THERE'S A PRACTICE NOT AMONG
THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO THE BOARD
TO CREATE THEIR OWN FILE THE
FOLDER. TO PRESENTED TO THE
BOARD.
BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO ENSURE
THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO GOOD
WHILE YOU'RE IN PRISON.
ISN'T A PACKET MORE THAN THE
PERSON IS ACTUALLY DOING THOSE
THINGS -- SO
IN ORDER TO TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE
WHILE IN PRISON IS NOTED.
THEN MOST OF THE TIME
INDIVIDUALS --
CREATE THEIR OWN PACKAGE. TO
PRESENT --
SO I JUST THINK THAT THERE'S A
EASIER PROCESS TO REALLY.
MAKE THE HEARING MORE PERSONABLE
SO THAT THEY CAN GET TO KNOW YOU.
AS A PERSON MORE THAN.
JUST YOUR C. FILE OKAY THANK YOU.
THE QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS
YES MY SYSTEM THANK YOU.
SOMETHING I'M NOT QUITE TRACKING.
BECAUSE LOOK AT SOME LEGISLATION
THAT WE'VE DONE WE ARE
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
HEARINGS THE MISS WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING.
TALK ABOUT NOT INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF HEARINGS THAT WOULD BE
BE BETTER TO HAVE FEWER HERE.
AND I'M --
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF
THAT SINCE WE WE'VE BEEN.
WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SHOULD BE
GIVING MORE ACCESS TO HEARINGS
AND AND GIVE MORE PEOPLE THE
ABILITY? TO TO HAVE THAT HEARING
IN ORDER TO GO TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT SO I
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THAT A
LITTLE BIT BETTER PEOPLE SHOULD
ABSOLUTELY BE HAVING.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR
CASES HEARD YEAH.
BUT IF ULTIMATELY MOST ARE
DENIED PAROLE WHICH THEY ARE.
THEN YOU HAVEN'T REALLY IMPROVE
THE PROCESS YOU'VE SPENT IT UP.
BUT IF THE RESULTS ARE ABOUT THE
SAME WHICH THE THEY HAVE THEY
IT'S TRUE THEY HAVE DRAMATICALLY
IMPROVED.
IF 1% 220% IS DRAMATIC AND I
THINK I THINK IT IS.
BUT IT'S NOT NORMALLY GRANTING
PAROLE AND SO I'M MORE I'M
INTERESTED IN NOT JUST.
THIS ACCOMMODATING MORE PEOPLE.
IT IS A COMMON WAY SO THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO DO FIVE OR EIGHT
OR TEN PAROLE HEARINGS BEFORE
THEY ACTUALLY GET RELEASED.
OKAY SIDE SO I THINK I
UNDERSTAND ECONOMIC BETTER AYE.
I AM ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN.
IN GETTING MORE BUT I ALSO
UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE
THE ULTIMATE SUCCESS RATE IN.
AND HAVING THAT BE THE BEST
OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE
DONE THE WORK AND TO MAKE A CASE
WHICH AND SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON
BUILDING.
AROUND THE REHABILITATION ONE OF
THE VAST.
I TRACTORS TO DOING THE
PROGRAMMING THAT WE WANT TO DO
AND WE ARE WORKING AS WE TALK
ABOUT LAST UP ON THE PROGRAMMING
ITSELF IN ENSURING THAT THAT.
IS FUNCTIONAL THAT IT IS WORKING
THAT DAY IS GOING TO LEAD TO THE
OUTCOMES WE WOULD EXPECT.
BUT ONE OF THE BEST INCENTIVES
IS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET
PAROLE AND TO GET TO HEARING IT
AND TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT IT IS
AS I'VE BEEN INSIDE A TALKING
INTO THE JEWELS.
THEY'RE MUCH MORE EXCITED ABOUT
DOING SOME THE PROGRAMMING
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE'S SOME
HOPE OUT THERE AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO LOOK
AT SO YES THE THE OUTCOMES AND
AND THEN TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT.
THAT.
WE TEND IT GOVERNOR WE TEND THE
STOVE PIPE THINGS AND THIS IS
WHAT IT BEGINS TO FEEL LIKE THAT
IT WE'RE LOOKING AT PROGRAMMING
INSIDE.
SO THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN WORK ON
THE TRAUMA THE ISSUES THAT THEY
HAVE HAD TO TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUES THAT THEY'VE HAD AND
THAT'S SORT OF THROW IT OVER TO
A PAROLE HEARING.
WHEN IF WE DECIDE TO A BETTER?
CAN TAKE YOU SYSTEM THAT THAT
ARTICULATED BETWEEN THE TWO WE
WHAT I WOULD HOPE TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE [inaudible]
THAT.
PROGRAMMING THAT LEADS TO THE
THE REHABILITATION THAT HAVE A
LOT OF THAT WORK BUILD INTO
BUILDING YOUR OWN FILE BUILDING
TO BUILDING YOUR OWN.
ABILITY AS A PRISONER TO MAKE
THAT CASE AND SO.
ONE STEP TRANSLATES SOURCE
SEAMLESSLY INTO THE OTHER AND
THAT WOULD LEND FOR MORE TIME.
ALSO THE COME ABOUT THE
TOURNEY'S VERY WELL TAKE AND
THEN WE DEAL WITH ATTORNEYS
WEATHER'S DEPENDENCY COUNCIL.
LEGAL SERVICE SAYS AND IF THE
OTHERS THOSE ARE SOME OF THE
HARDEST PRESSED.
MOST STRAPPED ATTORNEYS WITHOUT
IF THEIR CLIENTS THAT THEY NEED
TO SPEND.
BUT IF WE CAN SOMEHOW TO A
BETTER JOB I THINK OF LINKING.
THE PROGRAMMING THAT THAT WE
KNOW.
WE WANT AND LOOKING FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND THAT
PROGRAM THE THAT PROGRAM AND
GETTING SOME RESULTS.
THE DECIDED BETTER TO TO FEED
INTO WHICH IS WHICH SHOULD BE
INTO THE PAROLE PROCESS SO THAT
THEY BUILT A BODY OF WORK.
AROUND THEMSELVES IT ON
THEMSELVES THEY THAT ARE BETTER
PREPARED TO GET TO THAT HEARING.
JUST LIKE STUDYING FOR THE BAR
GOING THROUGH THE HOUSE WILL
RIGHT PREPARE YOURSELF FOR THAT
ULTIMATE [inaudible]
TEST.
AND LOOK AT SUCCESS RATES THERE.
AND AND UNDERSTAND THAT
PROGRESSION THAT ARTICULATION I
THINK WE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE
BETTER OFF AND I THINK WE CAN
SOLVE.
SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
HOW WE ADDRESS WHAT WE PAY FOR
THOSE ATTORNEY BECAUSE I WOULD
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT SOMETHING
WE NEED TO LOOK AT?
WE HAVE TO ADEQUATELY PAY
ATTORNEYS THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST
SPENDING ITS WORKLOAD.
AND IT'S APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS OF
OF COMPENSATION. FOR THEM TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE A CAREER AND AND
BUILD IT AND STAY WITH IT
WITHOUT HAVING TO DO EVERYTHING
PRO BONO WITHOUT HAVING.
TO GO OUT AND TRY AND FIND SUB
SUPPLEMENTAL --
MONIES BECAUSE OF FOR PROVIDING
A STATE'S ATTORNEY THAN.
THEN THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD
TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIND
ADEQUATELY THAT'S GOING TO BE
DIFFICULT AND I KNOW WE'RE WE
ARE DEALING WITH SOME BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS AROUND THERE.
I THINK WE LINK TITLE THIS
TOGETHER WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE
GETTING MORE PEOPLE TO HEARINGS
THAT ARE THEN SUCCESSFUL.
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT
PROVIDING THAT INCENTIVE TO DO
THE WORK TO DO THE PROGRAMMING
INSIDE WHICH WE ALSO HAVE.
TO PROVIDE AND WE ARE WORKING ON
THAT AS WELL THEN I THINK WE
HAVE A MUCH MORE SIT SENSIBLE
SYSTEM THAT HAS SOME CONTINUITY.
TO IT AND SOME RATIONAL'S ABOUT
THAT I I WOULD I WOULD ADD --
I'VE NOTICED THAT.
ESPECIALLY SINCE MID SHAPERS
COME ON BOARD.
THAT -- THE
BOARD HAS BECOME LESS OF A
MYSTERY TO PEOPLE.
AND BUT WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT
AND AND PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE
THEY ACTUALLY SEE THERE'S A
PATHWAY.
THAT IF THEY CAN DO THIS WORK
THEN THEY CAN SHOW UP TO THE
BOARD IN A WAY THAT WILL MAKE A
DIFFERENCE HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
OUTCOME OF THE HEARING WHICH
WASN'T ALWAYS THE CASE NOW THE
MISSING PIECES.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THE
PROGRAM MATIC OPPORTUNITIES ARE
THERE SO THEY CAN DO THE WORK?
YES AND SO AND SO THAT'S THE
PART THAT WE NEED TO DO AND
THAT'S WHY ALSO THIS STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING.
BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
MORE ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WITH
THE HOPE OF BUILDING IN THAT
SUCCESS SO THAT WE'RE NOT AND I
I THINK I I GET YOUR COMMENT NOW
ABOUT THAT.
THE HEARINGS IS IT'S THE
MULTIPLE HEARINGS AROUND AN
INDIVIDUAL WE WANT.
TO IDEALLY HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR
EVERYONE INSIDE TO PUT THEIR
BEST FOOT FORWARD.
AND BE ABLE TO MOVE THOSE
NUMBERS SO WERE ESSENTIALLY
GRANTING PAROLE WELL DESERVED.
FOR MORE OF THE INMATES ARE
GOING THROUGH.
THAT HELPS WITH OVERCROWDING IF
WE DO IT RIGHT IT HELPS WITH
RECIDIVISM
IT IT TO SORT OF TAX A LOT OF
THE BLOCKS.
AND THE DISTRICT DECISION MAKING.
LOOKS LIKE THAT MAY LEAD INTO
THAT BUT I THINK I DON'T
UNDERSTAND ENOUGH OF WHAT THAT
MEANS AROUND AROUND THIS.
AND HOW THAT CAN WORK WITH.
HELPING TO GET PEOPLE TO THOSE
HEARINGS.
REALLY GIVING THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ARTICULATE WHO
THEY ARE WHAT CHANGES A BED
THROUGH ALL OF THAT WORK THAT
THEY'VE DONE INSIDE SO THAT THEY
HAVE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY OF
SUCCESS.
THANK YOU WE HAVE QUESTIONS TO
JONES SAWYER.
OF WHEN OUR FIRST --
GOT ELECTED I WHICH I HAD THE
HONOR OF BEING CHAIR DISK THIS
COMMITTEE --
I HAD A FRIEND I HAVE A FRIEND I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU STILL WORKS ON
THIS.
THAT DID TO PROLETER TWO IS WHEN
HE ATTORNEYS THAT THEY HIRED.
AND THE FIRST THING YOU CAME TO
ME AND SAID WE'RE NOT PAID
ENOUGH.
AND YOU KNOW I JUST.
KIND OF TOOK IT LIKE.
YOU KNOW OF MY BROTHER ONE TO
GET A RAISE YOU JUST TELL ME
THIS.
AND THEN HE STARTED EXPLAINING
THE PROCESS.
AND WHAT HE NEEDED TO DO NOW
HE'S A TRUE BELIEVER.
AND SELL FOR HIM THIS WASN'T PRO
BONO JUST WAS HIS LIFE
[inaudible]
BLOG.
OBSESSION THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE HE GOT AS MANY PEOPLE OUT
AS POSSIBLE AND HE HE KEPT GOING
ON AND ON ABOUT WE NEED AND I
DIDN'T REALIZED.
I THOUGHT YOU MEANT LIKE OF A
THOUSAND OR TWO THOUSAND MORE I
DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS.
I MEAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT
YEAH THIS IS THE CHAIR SAID
PENNIES ON ON THE DOLLAR.
AND AND SO IN NINETEEN DOES.
AT MY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE
QUALITY --
MY FRIEND SPENT AN INORDINATE
AMOUNT OF TIME PREPARING FOR
EACH OF THESE PAROLE HEARINGS I
MEAN IT AND EATING IT PAY FOR IT.
AND YOU YOU WANT THE BEST AND
THE BRIGHTEST BECAUSE SAYS SOME
PEOPLE SAID YOU GET THIS ONE
SHOT.
SOME TIME TO GET UP THERE AND
MAKE YOUR CASE AND YOU WANT TO
HAVE THE BEST REPRESENTATION AND
SOMEBODY.
DOES REALLY COMMITTED AND SO --
AND I NOTE DEBTS OF PROFESSOR
ROMMEL YEAH I'D AN AND I KNOW
FOR FOR EXAMPLE YOU YOU COME OUT
ONE OF THE BEST LAW SCHOOLS
UNIVERSITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
GOLD BY THE LAW.
NO BY GOD NOBODY'S THERE AND BUT
HOW DO WE ATTRACT.
SOME OF OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST
TO WORK IN AND I SAID THIS ABOUT
PUBLIC DEFENDING UP OFFERS RIGHT
IT IT'S LIKE.
EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE A D. A. A
PROSECUTOR IN.
AND IN ALL OF THAT BUT HOW DO WE
GET PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY CARE A
LOT ABOUT IT BY THE TIME THEY'RE
FINISHED AND YOU GET SOME OF THE
TRUE BELIEVERS.
BUT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH OF THEM
YEAH AND THE PEOPLE IF IF CAN'T
GET ENOUGH OF THEM YOU NEED TO
PAY PEOPLE FOR THE WORK --
AND YOU KNOW I I AGREE WITH WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING UP THERE'S A
THERE'S FOR BELIEVERS NEED TO BE
PAID.
THANK YOU VERY TO BELIEVE HER
DOESN'T GET PAID THAT MUCH FOR
THE WORK.
EVERYONE SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE
WORK -- AND
TO BE INCENTIVIZED TO DO THE
BEST JOB THAT THEY CAN DO FOR
FOR THEIR CLIENTS AND IT'S IT'S
CRITICAL I AGREE WITH YOU THAT.
IF SOME OF THE UNDERLYING
PROCESSES WERE IMPROVED IN TERMS
OF THE PROGRAM AND THE TRAUMA
TREATMENT IDENTIFYING PEOPLE
WITH COGNITIVE.
ISSUES THAT THAT THAT REALLY
TRULY INHIBIT THEM IN THE PRO
PROCESS IT WOULD MAKE THE
ATTORNEYS WORK LAST --
BUT THERE'S STILL A FUNDAMENTAL
LEVEL OF WORK WHERE YOU HAVE TO
HELP YOU CONCRETE THE NARRATIVE
BELIEVE IN THEM GET THEM TO
TRUST YOU TAKE THEM TO THE BOARD
FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS --
AND IF YOU GET INTO YOUR DOESN'T
WHILE THE I MEAN THE GRANT WHICH
SHOW THAT THERE ARE TWO
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER GRANT RATES AND I HAVE A
LOT OF DIFFICULT CLIENTS WITH
DIFFICULT CASES I DON'T JUST
PICK THE THE CLIENTS WERE THE
EASY.
WAY AND THEIR PRESENCE WHERE YOU
CAN WALK IN I MEAN THERE WANTED
TO PRISONS WHERE YOU CAN WALK IN
AND YOU CAN KNOW THAT MOST OF
THE MEN YOU'RE GONNA REPRESENT
THEIR WE CAN BE A PRETTY GOOD
PLACE TO GO TO PRO IN YOUR ONLY
JOB IS. TO HELP THEM --
IN WHICH THE BUT THEY'VE DONE
ALL THE WORK BUT MOST OF THE
PLACES WE WALK INTO TO REPRESENT
PEOPLE WE ARE PART OF WHAT HELPS
THEM.
TAKE THAT LAST TWO OR THREE OR
FOUR STEPS TO BE WHERE THEY NEED
TO BE THAT SHOULDN'T BE TRUE IT
SHOULD BE THE PRESENT IN THE
PROGRAMS AND THE PRISON SHOULD
BE IDENTIFYING PEOPLE COGNITIVE
ISSUES AND GETTING THEM THE
APPROPRIATE.
TESTING AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS THAT'S NOT IN PLACE
RIGHT NOW --
IT EVEN IF ALL OF THAT WAS
PERFECT THERE WOULD STILL BE A
MUCH MORE ROBUST SUBSTANTIAL
ROLE FOR ATTORNEYS I THINK
ESPECIALLY WITH THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING I'M.
I'M I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT
TO REALLY WEIGH IN ON IT I AM I
AM ENCOURAGED THAT THERE MIGHT
BE MORE CONSISTENCY THAT IT'S
GOING TO REQUIRE THE
COMMISSIONERS TO EACH BE
THINKING ABOUT THE SAME FACTORS.
BUT TO SOME EXTENT IT'S GOING TO
BE MORE COOKIE CUTTER THAN WHAT
WE HAVE NOW IT'S JUST INEVITABLE
EVEN IF IT'S NOT A COOKIE CUTTER
PROCESS IT'S GONNA.
IT'S IT'S IT'S GOOD AND AND THAT
FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FALL
OUTSIDE THE EDGES OF THE COOKIE
CUTTER YOU'RE THE GONNA NEED A
GOOD ATTORNEY TO BE ABLE TO
PRESENT THEIR CASE IN THAT
LIMITED TIME WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THAT STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING BECAUSE IT IS
VERY MUCH.
NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL
PROPOSITION.
OKAY -- WE
HAVE ANY ONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO
WANTS TO DO A ONE MINUTE
[inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
GOOD ACTORS.
GOOD AFTERNOON GOING BACK IS FOR
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS FOLLOWING ON THE COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER STONE.
IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE
PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMMING AND
THEREFORE GO AHEAD --
TO THE BOARD FOR POTENTIAL
PAROLE --
FOLKS NEED THE INCENTIVE TO
PARTICIPATE AND I GET CREDITS.
THE CDC ARE HAS DONE A LOT OF TO
HAVE THE I. O. DESIGNATIONS.
THEY HAVE TO GO TO A CRITERIA
PROCESS TO REMOVE THE V. I. O.
DESIGNATION SO THEY CAN
PARTICIPATING FIRE CAMP.
ONCE IN FIRE CAN'T GET A 50%
CREDIT.
HOWEVER THERE'S NO PEOPLE WHO
COULD ALSO QUALIFY IT TO BE I
REMOVED BUT THEY'RE NOT ABLE
BODIED THEY'RE NOT YOUNG.
THEY'RE NOT FIT.
THEY'RE NOT.
A GOOD FIRE CAMP.
THANK YOU SO PARTICIPATING
PROGRAMMING THAT REDUCES THE
LIKELIHOOD OF PRECIPITATION.
AND THEY SHOULD BE BENEFITING
FROM THE 50% CREDIT WE DEVELOP A
PROPOSAL THAT WE WILL SHARE WITH
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE INSTEAD.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS DON KEPT HIM
BEHALF OF CRIME VICTIMS UNITED
OF CALIFORNIA I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS JUST WITH
REGARD TO THE STRUCTURE DECISION
MAKING FREE MARK.
HOW WE WOULD SHARE OTHER
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ON THE
DAILY --
PROPOSED AS WELL AS SOME OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS I JUST REGARDING --
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A
FRAMEWORK THE DETAILS OF THAT
HOW BE USED TO AYE IMPLEMENTED
EVALUATED WHAT HAVE YOU I WOULD
DEFINITELY LIKE TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE
BOARD.
AS WELL AS ON THE LEGISLATURE TO
ENSURE THAT TIME VICTIMS
UNDERSTAND --
KIND OF HOW THAT WILL WORK AND
BE DEVELOPED IN UTILIZED AND HOW
THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR VICTIMS
SIZE STATEMENTS AND OPPORTUNITY
TO BE PRESENT AND HEARD IT
VICTIMS --
RATES --
CONSIDERATION.
OKAY I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM --
OF FROM THOSE WHO HEAR AN
OBVIOUSLY WHAT'S GOOD FOR STAY
IN PLACES IS TRANSITIONING
CHANGE AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
BUT WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
ANSWERED IN TERMS OF GETTING THE
RESULTS WE WANT FROM THE
OBVIOUSLY FROM THE PAROLE
HEARINGS.
IN TERMS OF HIGHER RESULTS MORE
FOLKS GETTING OUT AS WELL AS
MORE PREPARATION IN ADVANCE SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU --
WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT AND
WORKING WITH THAT I SEE HERE
THAT QUESTION FROM LA L. SO
HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THOSE
ANSWERS MAY NOT COME BY.
APRIL ONE BUT MAYBE APRIL SECOND.
IF IT'S IMPACT OF US IN TERMS OF
FUNDING --
AND THE MONEY THAT THE GOVERNOR
HAS REQUESTED AND WHERE IT'S
GOING AND WITHIN THAT IT WILL
ACTUALLY DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO
IN TERMS OF THAT.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS GREAT DETAILS ON THE
PAROLE HEARING SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH AND OBVIOUSLY YOUR PRINT
YOUR PRESENCE THERE HAS MADE A
DIFFERENCE.
THANK YOU KNOW EVEN THOSE WHO
ARE COMPLAINING ARE SAYING HE IS
SOME CHANGES HAPPEN AS A RESULT
OF THIS SHAPE FOR BEING THERE SO
WONDERFUL GOOD TO KNOW THAT.
ALL RIGHT I THINK THEY HAVE
ANOTHER PANEL TO COME NO THE
ISSUE THIS THIS THE INMATE
LITERACY PROGRAM.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO TURN THE GAVEL
OVER TO ONE OF YOU.
WHO'S GONNA BE A YES WILL BE
HERE
.
THIS IS THE LAST ONE THIS IS THE
LAST WEEK.
OKAY SO ABOUT FIVE MINUTES I'M
GONNA HAVE TO RISE UP AND IN MY
COLLEAGUES WILL TAKE OVER THIS
DEALS WITH THE INMATE LITERACY
PROGRAM YES OKAY.
YEAH AND I KNOW --
IN THE INTERESTS OF KEEPING THE
HEARING SHORT WILL JUST GET
RIGHT INTO IT. FIVE POINT FIVE
MILLION DOLLAR GENERAL FUND --
PROPOSAL FOR AND THIRTY FIVE
POSITIONS THIS IS TO ESTABLISH
AND SUPPORT.
IN MADE LITTLE PROGRAMS TO TALK
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS --
RYAN SEES --
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIVISION OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS I WILL
BE BRIEF IN MY COMMENTS --
AS MISTER SWANSON DISCUSS THIS
PROPOSAL REQUEST FIVE POINT FIVE
MILLION AND THIRTY FIVE
POSITIONS BEGINNING IN NINETEEN
TWENTY TO ESTABLISH A LITERACY
MENTOR PROGRAM ACROSS ALL CDC
ARE.
A DAHLE INSTITUTIONS --
WE DEFINE AND NEED --
FOR INMATE LITERACY AS ANYONE
NOT HAVING THEIR HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA OR EQUIVALENT TO WITHIN
THE DIVISION EVERY WILL TAKE A
PROGRAMS WE REALLY WANT THEM TO
ACHIEVE THAT LEVEL.
IN ORDER --
TO HAVE THE POP MOST POSITIVE
EFFECTS UPON RELEASE AT THE TIME
OF THE PROPOSAL ABOUT 53% OF OUR
INMATE POPULATION READ ABOVE THE
NINTH GRADE LEVEL LEAVES 47% NOT
AT THE NINTH GRADE LEVEL.
AND 62% OF INMATES DO NOT
POSSESS A DOCUMENT HIGH SCHOOL
DIPLOMA OR COUPLE AND SEE.
THIS PROPOSAL STEMS FROM THOSE
FACTS --
THAT WE ULTIMATELY HAVE A
CONTINUED NEED TO FOCUS ON
LITERACY IN OUR INSTITUTIONS AND
WE'RE LOOKING FOR CREATIVE AND
COST EFFECTIVE WAY. TO IMPLEMENT
ADDITIONAL --
LITERACY NEEDS A VARIETY OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE SEEKING THAT
LITERACY LEVEL BUT NOT
ALTERNATELY --
ABLE TO OBTAIN IT AT THIS POINT
THIS PROPOSAL --
IS LED BY AN ACCREDITED ACADEMIC
TEACHER AND MENTORS WILL GO
THROUGH A ROBUST TRAINING
INTERNSHIPS AND MENTORING
PROGRAM WHERE THEY WERE ON MY
ALSO COMPLETION CREDITS.
AND ULTIMATELY AN EDUCATIONAL
MERIT CREDIT --
FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE
PROGRAM --
UPON FINAL COMPLETION OF
MAINTAIN PAPER THIS POSITIONS
ARE COMPATIBLE RATES OTHER
HIGHLY REQUESTED WORK
ASSIGNMENTS WITHIN THE
INSTITUTIONS.
AGAIN THIS PROPOSAL NOT INTENDED
TO SUPPLANT OUR EDUCATIONAL
ACCREDITED TEACHERS IT'S REALLY
TO CREATE A LITERACY MENTORING
PROGRAM WHERE THEY CAN --
FOCUS ON TARGETED NEEDS AND
REALLY ACHIEVE THOSE MORE
EXPEDITIOUSLY --
EXPEDITIOUSLY IN A PEER TO PEER
SETTING ON THIS FLEXIBLE NATURE
OF THE SETTING CREATES THE
ABILITY FOR MENTORS TO ME AND
SMALL GROUPS.
AND LOCATIONS THAT ALL
PROGRAMMING MAY ALREADY EXIST
LIBRARIES PLACES WHERE SPACE CAN
REALLY BE FLEXIBLE.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS
FROM THE MEMBERS OKAY --
ANYTHING AND ANY ONE FROM
FINANCE WITH A COMMENT LA --
THANK YOU --
YET LOOKING FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE WE HAVE A FEW
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS NEW THE
UNTESTED NATURE OF THE PROGRAM
WE'RE RECOMMENDING.
APPROVING IT AS A PILOT. THREE
HOURS --
FIVE INSTITUTIONS --
SPECIFICALLY WOULD REQUEST OR TO
RECOMMEND IT SEVEN HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN GENERAL FUND.
FOR NINETEEN TWENTY AND EIGHT
HUNDRED THOUSAND IN THE
FOLLOWING TWO YEARS.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PROGRAM
BE IMPLEMENTED AT FIVE
FACILITIES AND USING. FIVE AN
INMATE STUDENTS.
WE THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO
BE ABLE TO EVALUATE THAT THE
COST EFFECTIVENESS USING THAT
TEST OF ADULT BASIC EDUCATION --
TO MONITOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE PROGRAM RELATIVE TO OTHER
INMATES WHO MAY BE ROLLED IN
TRADITIONAL EDUCATION SETTINGS.
AS WELL AS IN MAY TO HAVE A NEED
FOR ANY LITERACY BUT I'M NOT
COMPANY RECEIVING ANY SORT OF
PROGRAMMING FOR IT --
IN ADDITION THE PROPOSAL
INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
INMATE MENTORS ON A CO COGNITIVE
BEHAVIORAL THERAPY AS PART OF
THE TRAINING PROGRAM.
WE RECOMMEND REVISING THIS
REQUIREMENT SUCH THAT ONLY EMIT
MENTOR TO HAVING THIS TEST
MODERATE TO HIGH NEED FOR
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR THERAPY
UNDERGO THE THERAPY AS PART OF
THE TRAINING.
ANY COMMENTS FOR MEMBERS.
I'M AT SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY.
AS FOR AN AUDIT OF ALL.
LOCATION PROGRAMS AND SO --
AT AND I'M LISTEN TO THE LA --
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IT'S IS.
AS THE DATA IS COLLECTED AND YOU
GET YOUR COMPLETION RATES DO YOU
COMPARE TO RECIDIVISM RATES TO
SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THE PROGRAMS.
BECAUSE SOME MY ISSUE IS --
WE HAVE A LOT OF WHICH IT'S
GOING IN AND IT'S NICE TO SEE
THAT YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO RING
IN MAY TWO ROOM PROGRAM CERTAIN
INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAMS
LIBRARY SERVICES.
ADULT EDUCATION CLASSES --
SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAMS BUT HOW
DOES THAT WORK.
IN GETTING HIM OUT AND KEEPING
THEM FROM RETURNING BACK IN.
INTO INTO THE SYSTEM --
WHICH I THE LA --
IS GETTING AT HOW DO WE DO DO
HAVE SYSTEMS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE
BASED SYSTEMS TO SHOW THAT NOT
ONLY DOES IT WORK BUT YOU GIVE
ME DOLLAR NUMBERS OF WHY.
WE CANNOT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
DO THIS AND IT AT THE RETURN ON
INVESTMENT IS HUGE SO WE CAN
INVEST MORE AND SO THAT WHEN WE
LOOK DOWN IT.
WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR FIVE
POINT FIVE MILLION WE LOOK AT
THAT IS A RETURN OF MAYBE YOU
KNOW TWO HUNDRED MILLION --
I'M JUST MAKING A NUMBER OF BUT
YOU GET WHERE I'M GOING AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT.
THE LA -- IS
GETTING AT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
TO QUANTIFY THIS IN IT IN THE
SUBURBS OF WAY AND THEY PUT.
YOU YOU GET WHAT I'M BY
ABSOLUTELY AND I THINK --
IF I IF I MAY WE BRIEFLY --
DISCUSSED IT AND THE HEARING
EARLIER THIS WEEK BUT WE'RE
SEEING SOME PEARL PRELIMINARY
RESULTS OF A MAJORITY OF THE RP
FUNDING IS SPENT ON ACADEMIC
PROGRAMMING.
AND WE PULLED SOME INITIAL ONE
YEAR A RECIDIVISM RATES FOR
THOSE CONVICTION FOR THOSE
OFFENDERS THAT HAD ACHIEVED A
LEVEL OF LITERACY AS WE DEFINE
HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR
EQUIVALENCY.
NEWS ABOUT NINE POINT 5% WE
COMPARE WORK FOR ONE YOUR
CONVICTIONS IT WAS EIGHTEEN
POINT 3% SO THAT'S ALMOST A 50%
REDUCTION NOW I SAY THAT WITH
CAUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO A
LOT MORE.
DETAILS --
WHICH ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS
OF THE SAME ALL THE LEVELS OF
COMPATIBLES OF THE SAME THE
PROGRAMMING THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS REPRESENT ITSELF BUT
OVERSEEING INITIALLY IS REALLY
HIGH LEVELS OF SUCCESS BY.
FOCUSING ON LITERACY AS WE
DEFINE AND CONTINUING THE
EDUCATION SO WE'RE HOPING IN
THIS UPCOMING PLAN THAT WE
PRESENTED --
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REALLY KIND OF
CLEAN THOSE DOLLAR FIGURES ON
THE COST BENEFIT OF HAVING
CONTINUED EDUCATION.
AND I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO BLINK
DO THAT BECAUSE WHEN THE PRIVATE
PRISON PHí
THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY NEEDED
TEN THOUSAND MORE PRISON BEDS
AND WHEN I ASKED HIM HOW COULD
YOU.
FIGURE THAT NUMBER OUT THEY SAID
BUT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY
CAN'T READ AT THEIR GRADE LEVEL
THEY WOULD NEED. TEN THOUSAND
MORE BEDS OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS SO THIS PROGRAM.
IS REALLY REALLY AN IMPORTANT --
IN DEBT WE HAVE TO GET A RIDE
[inaudible]
OKAY -- WANT
TO THANK YOU ALL OF THE THE
PROBE.
AT THE END AND I THINK WE'LL
LOOK AT IT IS WITHIN THAT ONE TO
A PILOT OR WHETHER WE WANT TO
JUMP INTO THE PROGRAM.
MOST --
MENTOR PROGRAMS IN TERMS OF
LITERACY ARE RELATIVELY
SUCCESSFUL I MEAN THAT'S WHAT
THE RE PROGRAMS IN THE LIBRARY
IS ALL ABOUT.
PEOPLE BASICALLY MENTORING AND
WANT TO TRAIN OTHERS TO LEARN TO
READ.
AND WE KNOW THAT LITERACY IS
VERY FOR ISN'T --
SO WITH IT CHANGES ALL THE
COGNITIVE STUFF REMAINS TO BE
SEEN BUT SURELY HAVING THE
ABILITY TO READ.
AS WELL AS THE FINISHED --
A HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY --
IS IS ONE OF THE BEST IF TO
START TALK MY GETTING A JOB.
WHEN YOU LEAVE PRISON IN MY
NORMAL IF YOUR EMPLOYER?
AND YOU HAVE OTHER KINDS OF
THINGS IN THAT THAT BECOMES A
DIFFERENT OPTION DIFFERENT ROLE
FOR YOU IN THAT SENSE SO WE'LL
LOOK AT WHAT NOT TO DO A PILOT --
NOT I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THE
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM I KNOW YOU'VE
MENTIONED HERE PAYING THE FOLKS
TO DO IT AND GIVING THEM AN
INCENTIVE --
TO WANT TO WORK WITH THEIR PEERS
AND TO ASSIST AT ONCE THEY
TRAINED ON HOW TO IMPROVE --
THE LITERACY OF OF THEIR FRIENDS
AND THEIR COLLEAGUES AT THAT ARE
THERE IN PRISON WITH THEM SO I
THINK I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I'VE SEEN IT WORK IN SCHOOLS AS
WELL AS IN LIBRARIES AND
EVERYWHERE ELSE WHEN YOU GET A
MENTOR AND YOU GET A WELL
TRAINED PERSON.
REALLY MENTORS A PERSON TO LEARN
TO READ A WITH THE FOCUS UPON
BASICALLY DEVELOPING THAT SKILL.
OF THE TO READ AND THEN
OBVIOUSLY ALL THAT OTHER STUFF
SHOULD KICK IN IF WE ALSO
INVOLVING THEM IN SOME KIND OF
OTHER TRAINING PROGRAMS.
OF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL --
THEN THE RECIDIVISM [inaudible]
OKAY FOR ATTENDING THE HEARING.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED