I'D LIKE TO CALL ASSEMBLY BUDGET
SUB SIX ON PUBLIC SAFETY. TO
ORDER. GOOD AFTERNOON. TODAY
WE'LL BE COVERING ALL MAY
REVISION ITEMS FOR THE VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS AND SUB SIX. THE MAY
REVISION PRESENTS MANY
CHALLENGES TO THE LEGISLATURE.
THE TIMING IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT
FOR US TO EVALUATE HUNDREDS OF
NEW PROPOSALS IN A SHORT AMOUNT
OF TIME TO MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DEADLINE TO PASS
A BUDGET BY JUNE 15TH, BUT IT IS
ESSENTIAL BEALL, ESPECIALLY,
DIFFICULT THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO RESPOND TO THE FISCAL
CHALLENGES THE STATE WILL BE
FACING NOT ONLY THIS YEAR, BUT
IN THE NEXT COMING YEARS, AND
FIGURE OUT HOW TO BALANCE A
BUDGET IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. WE
WON'T MAKE THESE DECISIONS
LIGHTLY, AS CHOICES CAN HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE MOST
VULNERABLE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. WE ALSO WANT TO BE
THOUGHTFUL OF THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN HARM THE
PROGRESS THE STATE HAS MADE OVER
THE YEARS. AS SUBCOMMITTEE
CHAIR, I INTEND TO MAKE PRUDENT
DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT ONLY
IMPORTANT FOR THE SHORT TERM,
BUT THE LONG TERM AS WELL. SO
THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO BUILD A
STRONGER, MORE EQUITABLE STATE
FOR ALL OF US IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. FINALLY, IT IS MY
INTENTION TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET
HOLISTICALLY AND
COMPREHENSIVELY, AND NOT IN A
SILO. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE
SENATE ON THE BUDGET THAT
REFLECTS OUR STATE'S VALUES, AS
WELL AS WITH THE SPEAKER AND THE
BUDGET CHAIR. THE PUBLIC HAS
ALREADY BEEN WEIGHING IN ON MUCH
OF THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISE
PROPOSALS, AS I ASK YOU TO
CONTINUE TO WEIGH IN. SO THAT
OUR DECISIONS ARE WEIGHTED BY
THE DECISIONS THAT YOU ARE
MAKING AND THE VOICES THAT WE
HEAR FROM THOSE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT, I ASK ALL PANELISTS,
PLEASE KEEP YOUR PRESENTATIONS
TO THE ALLOTTED TIME THAT OUR
STAFF HAS COMMUNICATED WITH YOU.
WITH THAT, ALL RIGHT. GOOD
EVENING. GOOD EVENING. FAMILIES
WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN UP THE
MEETING AND CALL ON OUR FIRST
PANEL TO MOVE FORWARD. MAY
REVISION OVERVIEW TWO, ISSUE ONE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS OFFICE MAY
REVISION OVERVIEW. DREW
SODERBERG, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE SO TODAY I'LL BE
PROVIDING SOME OVERVIEW COMMENTS
ABOUT THE OVERALL STRUCTURE OF
THE STATE BUDGET CONDITION. OUR
COMMENTS TODAY REFLECT OUR
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AND IN
THE COMING DAYS, WE ARE GOING TO
BE REVISING THESE COMMENTS IN
SOME CASES AND ALSO PROVIDING
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
AS APPROPRIATE. I'D NOTE THAT
OUR INITIAL COMMENTS PUBLICATION
WILL COME OUT TOWARDS THE END OF
THE WEEK, AND TOWARDS THE END OF
THE NEXT WEEK, WE'LL BE
RELEASING OUR MULTI YEAR
FORECAST OF THE GOVERNOR'S MAY
REVISION OAN, INITIALLY IN
TAKING A LOOK AT THE GOVERNOR'S
MAY REVISION, IT LOOKS LIKE DUE
TO RECENT REVENUE WEAKNESS, THE
ADMINISTRATION IS PROJECTING $10
BILLION A $10 BILLION REDUCTION
IN THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT
THEY PROJECT WILL BE COMING IN,
WELL, THIS IS STILL MORE REVENUE
THAN THE LÀ PROJECTS. WE THINK
THAT THIS NUMBER IS A REASONABLE
BASIS TO START BUILDING A BUDGET
AROUND. OVERALL, WE WOULD SAY
THAT THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION
DOES PUT THE STATE ON A BETTER
FISCAL FOOTING. THIS IS BECAUSE
IT PULLS MORE ONE TIME SPENDING.
IT REDUCES RELIANCE ON RESERVES,
AND IT ALSO STARTS TO ADDRESS
THE STATE'S MULTI YEAR BUDGET
PROBLEM BY CONVERTING SOME
PROPOSED DELAYED SPENDING INTO
OUTRIGHT REDUCTIONS. AND ALSO,
AS I SAID BEFORE, RELYING LESS
ON RESERVES. THIS MEANS THAT
IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THE STATE
WILL BE ABLE TO PRESERVE ITS
CORE PROGRAMS, THERE ARE SOME
KEY QUESTIONS FACING, THE
LEGISLATURE AS IT DEALS WITH THE
MAY REVISION. TO BEGIN WITH, IT
NEEDS TO WRESTLE WITH HOW IT
WILL ADDRESS PROPOSITION 98. IT
ALSO NEEDS TO IDENTIFY WHETHER
ANY OF THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS
IN THE MAY REVISION RAISE
CONCERNS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE'S A PROPOSED 7.95%
REDUCTION TO STATE OPERATIONS
SPENDING. OUR INITIAL TAKE ON
THIS IS THAT THIS WOULD BE
CHALLENGING FOR DEPARTMENTS TO
ACHIEVE AND POTENTIALLY DISRUPT
LIVE. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT, IN CASES WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE CHOOSES NOT TO ADOPT
A REDUCTION PROPOSED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION, IT WILL NEED TO
FIND A REDUCTION OF EQUAL SIZE
SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BUDGET,
THE LAST THING THE LEGISLATURE
WILL NEED TO WRESTLE WITH IS
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMFORTABLE
ACCEPTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE'S REVENUE PROJECTIONS,
WHICH COME WITH GREATER DOWNSIDE
RISK. IN OUR VIEW, THIS COULD BE
A REASONABLE STEP TO TAKE. WE
WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE, BUT IT COULD
ALSO MEAN THAT THE STATE
ULTIMATELY, HAS LESS REVENUE
THAN ITS PROJECTED. AND WE'LL
NEED TO SOLVE A LARGER BUDGET
PROBLEM IN FUTURE YEARS. HAPPY
TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THAT. DO WE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS FROM THE DAIS? I DO
WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE ARE
JOINED ON THE DAIS WITH SOME OF
THE MEMBER, BONTA AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER TING, MR. LACKEY, IS
THERE ANY COMMENTS? AS VICE
CHAIR, I HAVE PLENTY OF COMMENTS
, BUT NOT NOW. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. MOVING
ON TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ALYSSA CERVANTES
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE PROPOSALS
BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE DID WANT TO
TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT TO PROVIDE
SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE
OVERALL BUDGETARY ARCHITECTURE
OF THE MAY REVISION. SO THE MAY
REVISION IS THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSAL TO BRIDGE THE
ADDITIONAL SHORTFALL THAT HAS
DEVELOPED SINCE THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. AND LIKE THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, THE MAY REVISION IS A
PROPOSAL, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THE LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE
ALTERNATIVES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEGISLATURE
TO COME TO A FINAL BUDGET
AGREEMENT. THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSES A BALANCED BUDGET IN
THE BUDGET YEAR, AS WELL AS THE
FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR, AND THAT
YEAR HAS A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
DEFICIT. AND IF NOT ADDRESSED
NOW, IT MEANS WE ARE BACK IN A
MATTER OF MONTHS DEVELOPING
ANOTHER BUDGET THAT WILL THAT
MAY REQUIRE EVEN DEEPER CUTS,
WITHOUT AS MANY POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS FROM WHICH TO DRAW
FROM. AS THE GOVERNOR STATED IN
THE BUDGET RELEASE, NONE OF
THESE SOLUTIONS WERE MADE EASILY
OR LIGHTLY. THE OVERALL GOAL WAS
TO MAINTAIN CORE PROGRAMS AND
BENEFITS SUCH AS CALWORKS, SSI,
SSP, AND MEDI-CAL. ANOTHER GOAL
WAS TO PROPOSE A BALANCED AND
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET THAT PUTS US
ON STRONG FOOTING GOING FORWARD,
SO THAT WE MAY CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT FUNDING CORE PROGRAMS IN
THE FUTURE. SO, MOVING FORWARD
TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL PROPOSAL, WE HAVE BEFORE
YOU TODAY, THIS SOLUTION IS A
REDUCTION OF 1.9 MILLION IN THE
BUDGET YEAR. AND 3.9 MILLION IN
2025, 26 AND ONGOING. THIS
PROPOSAL WOULD RETURN STAFFING
LEVELS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S MEDICAL
INSPECTION UNIT, BACK TO LEVELS
THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE RECENT
AUGMENTATION THAT WAS INCLUDED
IN THE 2022 BUDGET ACT. THE
INTENT OF THE REDUCTION IS TO
SOLELY DECREASE THE FREQUENCY OF
MEDICAL INSPECTIONS FOR
DELEGATED INSTITUTIONS, WHILE
STILL MAINTAINING THE SHORTENED
PERIOD FOR NON DELEGATED
INSTITUTIONS. THIS SOLUTION WILL
ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATION TO
REALIZE SAVINGS WHILE ALSO
PROTECTING THE CORE MISSION THAT
INCLUDE EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE
MONITORING, CRITICAL INCIDENT
MONITORING AND STAFF COMPLAINT
AND INMATE GRIEVANCE MONITORING.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THE COMMITTEE HAS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL. YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS NEIL ROBERTSON. I'M THE
CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
I DO NOT HAVE ANY PREPARED
COMMENTS, BUT I'M PREPARED TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
HAVE, ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, ELIO. SO, THE
BOARD, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE, BEFORE ADOPTING THIS
REDUCTION, WE THINK THAT THE KEY
QUESTION THAT THE LEGISLATURE
NEEDS TO WRESTLE WITH IS WHETHER
OR NOT THIS REDUCTION COULD
INADVERTENTLY DELAY THE
TRANSITION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR MEDICAL CARE FROM THE
FEDERAL RECEIVER TO THE STATE,
THE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT BY
OIG ARE ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES
THAT THE RECEIVER LOOKS AT WHEN
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT, HE CAN
DELEGATE CARE FOR A SPECIFIC
INSTITUTION BACK TO THE STATE,
TO THE EXTENT THAT LESS FREQUENT
INSPECTIONS DELAYED THE ABILITY
OF THE STATE TO TAKE OVER CARE
AT INDIVIDUAL PRISONS, IT COULD
ULTIMATELY RESULT IN A DELAY OF
THE ABILITY OF THE STATE TO TAKE
OVER MEDICAL CARE. MORE BROADLY,
TO THE EXTENT THE LEGISLATURE IS
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, WE NOTE
THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE
REDUCTIONS THAT IT COULD
CONSIDER. SO IN 20 2324, THE
DEPARTMENT WAS PROVIDED WITH
THREE POINT CDCR, I SHOULD
SPECIFY, WAS PROVIDED WITH 3.2
MILLION GENERAL FUND, INCREASING
TO 6.1 MILLION ANNUALLY IN ORDER
TO SEEK ACCREDITATION FROM THE
JOINT COMMISSION, THE JOINT
COMMISSION ACCREDITATION WAS
SOUGHT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT OF THE
QUALITY OF CARE PROVIDED AT
CDCR. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY VERY
SIMILAR TO THE MISSION THAT THE
OIG UNDERTAKES WITH ITS MEDICAL
INSPECTIONS. GIVEN THAT WE FOUND
THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS
UNNECESSARY AND DUPLICATIVE. SO
IF THE LEGISLATURE WAS CONCERNED
, IT COULD INSTEAD REDUCE
FUNDING FOR THE JOINT COMMISSION
AND PRESERVE FUNDING FOR THE
OIG. WE DO NOTE THAT THIS WOULD
CREATE A LARGER, ONGOING LEVEL
OF GENERAL FUND SAVINGS. HAPPY
TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BACK TO
THE DAIS. ANY COMMENTS, MR. VICE
CHAIR, MR. LACKEY? YEAH RECENTLY
WE, WE HAD A REPORT THAT,
IDENTIFIED SOME VERY, VERY
CRITICAL PROBLEMS WITH, YOUR
OVERSIGHT, RESPONSIBILITIES AS
IT RELATES TO THE COMPLAINT
PROCESS, THE CDCR AND, AS WAS
JUST MENTIONED, ALSO, THE
MEDICAL INSPECTIONS, HOW WOULD
THESE, REDUCTIONS GOING TO,
COLLECTIVELY HAVE AN IMPACT ON
THOSE THOSE TWO ISSUES? BECAUSE
THOSE ARE PRETTY SERIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY ARE. YES,
THANK YOU, SENATOR LACKEY,
ASSEMBLYMAN LACKEY DEMOTED ME
FOR A MINUTE. I'VE BEEN A FEW
PLACES TODAY, SO. SO. YES. FIRST
OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO START BY
SAYING THE BUDGET, ADDITIONAL,
POSITIONS THAT WE GOT FOR THE
MEDICAL INSPECTION UNIT, WERE 18
POSITIONS, AND WE I'D LIKE TO
REPORT TODAY THAT WE HAVE FILLED
ALL OF THOSE POSITIONS. SO WE
HAVE THEM COMPLETELY FILLED, AND
THAT IS, THEY ARE APPLYING THEIR
TRADE AND WORK INTO THIS, OUR
RECENT CYCLE, IN ORDER TO PICK
UP THE PACE IN PRESENTING,
FINDINGS ON THE MEDICAL SIDE, AS
TO SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
SAY, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT ON
THAT. I'M NOT SURE. YOU KNOW
WHAT WHAT WE'D HAVE TO WORK WITH
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ON, YOU
KNOW, ON THAT TO DETERMINE THE
IMPACT AT ALL. WELL, I MEAN, THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT, WE OUR
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, I'VE HEARD
TODAY SOME THINGS ABOUT
DELEGATING AND NON DELEGATING
PRISONS, BUT OUR STATUTORY
AUTHORITY REALLY APPLIES TO THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND I DO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE RECEIVER,
DOES UTILIZE OUR REPORTS, BUT WE
ARE NOT IN THE POSITION THAT WE
ARE TO SERVE THE RECEIVER OR
IT'S ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF OUR
TRANSPARENCY. SO OUR MEDICAL
REPORTS GO TO THEY'RE
TRANSPARENT. THEY COME TO THIS
BODY. THEY COME TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY ARE USED BY THE RECEIVER'S
OFFICE AS MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT
AS FAR AS THE DETERMINATION OF
DELEGATED VERSUS, DELEGATED, AT
THIS POINT, WE'VE BEEN OPERATING
UNDER THE, UNDER OUR OPERATING
STATUTE, WHICH SAYS WE ARE TO
MONITOR ALL THOSE, THOSE
PRISONS. SO IF YOU TOOK IT FROM
A PERSPECTIVE OF MONITORING ALL
THE ALL THE PRISONS
SIMULTANEOUSLY IN OUR NORMAL
PROCESS OF CYCLE SIX, IT WOULD
LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT, YOU KNOW,
REDUCTION IN STAFF WOULD AFFECT
THAT. SO IS THAT A YES? YES.
THANK YOU, AS I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU HAD A SECOND QUESTION
REGARDING THE SOUNDS GOOD, NO
GOOD, NO. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, MR. TÍNH? I'M JUST
GOING TO FOLLOW UP FROM MY
COLLEAGUE'S QUESTION. SO IN
TERMS OF THE CUT, WHAT WOULD
THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF, CUTS TO
STAFFING OR WHAT RESOURCES WOULD
ACTUALLY BE CUT IN THIS PROPOSAL
, ARE WE REFERRING JUST TO THE
MCU OR TO THE, THE SWEEP OF
VACANT POSITIONS? THE. I DIDN'T
KNOW THAT. I ONLY SEE THE MCU,
BUT YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THE
SWEEP OF VACANT POSITIONS AS
WELL. OKAY, SO MY UNDERSTANDING
I REALLY HAVE TO DEFER TO
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ON THAT
ASPECT. THE SWEEP, WE ADDED A
NUMBER OF POSITIONS, TO MONITOR
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS STAFF MISCONDUCT.
OBLIGATIONS ISSUES. RIGHT. SO WE
Þ A NUMBER. WE HAVE, I DON'T
KNOW, THE TOTAL NUMBER 60. WE
CURRENTLY HAVE 62 VACANCIES, TO
FULFILL IN THAT POSITION. SO I
CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HOW MANY
VACANCIES WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY
EVENTUALLY BY THE 3.9 MILLION, I
CAN TELL YOU THAT AS OF TODAY,
WE'VE FILLED 185 POSITIONS, AND
THAT'S ACROSS THE BOARD. WE
CURRENTLY HAVE 62 VACANT
POSITIONS, AND, THEY ARE, BUT
THAT IS A BLEND. THERE ARE
PEOPLE, POSITIONS. WE HAVE TO
ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN. YEAH. SO
THERE'S A 3.9 MILLION PROPOSED
REDUCTION. HOW MANY POSITIONS
AND WHAT POSITIONS WOULD BE
IMPACTED? I THINK THAT PERTAINS
TO THE MCU. CORRECT. SO THAT
WOULD BE, I BELIEVE IT'S NINE
POSITIONS IN THIS YEAR AND NINE
IN THE NEXT. SO 18, 2418 TOTAL.
AND WHAT DO THOSE 18 POSITIONS
DO? THOSE POSITIONS ARE ALL
DEDICATED TO OUR MEDICAL
INSPECTION UNIT. SO THEY PREPARE
THE SO WOULD THAT MEAN THAT
THERE WOULD BE, PRISONS, FEWER
PRISONS WOULD BE INSPECTED EVERY
YEAR, OR WOULD IT BE THEY'D BE
INSPECTED LESS FREQUENTLY? WOULD
IT MEAN THAT IT WOULD TAKE
LONGER FOR THEIR REPORTS TO COME
OUT? WHAT WOULD IT MEAN? WELL,
IT WOULD REALLY BE DEPENDENT ON
HOW IT'S METERED OUT. SO OUR
CURRENT SYSTEM IS TO DO CYCLES
AND REVIEW EVERY SINGLE PRISON.
ONCE YOU GIVE ME YOUR BEST GUESS
OF HOW IT'D BE METERED OUT,
WELL, I'M HEARING TODAY THAT
THERE'S DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
DELEGATED AND UN DELEGATED
PRISONS. SO A DELEGATED PRISON
HAS BEEN SENT BACK TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND
DELEGATED IS STILL WITH THE
RECEIVER'S OFFICE, I DO NOT HAVE
ANY DIRECTION ON THAT OTHER THAN
I'VE BEEN HEARING THAT, SPOKEN
ABOUT. SO YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF
HOW THE CUT WOULD IMPACT THE
DEPARTMENT OUTSIDE OF THE 18
SPECIFIC POSITIONS? WELL, IT
WOULD IMPACT, RIGHT? IT WOULD
IMPACT THE DEPARTMENT IS WE
WOULD LOSE 18 POSITIONS. I
UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHAT WOULD
IT HOW WOULD IT IMPACT ME IN
TERMS OF ME AS A STATE CITIZEN,
IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT WOULD
BE MAYBE A DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
COULD CHIME IN. YEAH I'M SO JUST
VERY QUICKLY. SO THERE'S THE,
THE PROPOSAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF
YOU THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, AND
THEN THERE'S SOME STATE WIDE
REDUCTIONS THAT I'M HAPPY TO
GIVE SOME MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT. AND SO THIS PROPOSAL, IS
THE INTENT OF THIS PROPOSAL IS
TO, AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THE
ADMINISTRATION WIDE FOR ALL
DEPARTMENTS. WE LOOKED AT RECENT
AUGMENTATION OPTIONS, OF WHICH
INCREASING STAFFING FOR THE
MEDICAL INSPECTION UNIT WAS ONE.
ALSO, THE STAFF COMPLAINT UNIT,
WHICH REMAINED UNTOUCHED IN THIS
PROPOSAL, JUST TO BE CLEAR TO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LACKEY'S
QUESTION. SO THESE ARE 18
POSITIONS THAT WE ADDED WITH THE
IDEA THAT THE OIG WOULD BE ABLE
TO COMPLETE MEDICAL INSPECTIONS
OF ALL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN A TWO
YEAR PERIOD, AND WE DID NOT
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DELEGATED
AND NON DELEGATED. WHAT THIS
PROPOSAL, FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PERSPECTIVE
DOES IS IT ALLOWS IT WOULD EVEN
THOUGH IT'S A REDUCTION, IT
WOULD STILL ALLOW THE OIG TO
CREATE OR TO COMPLETE MORE RAPID
INSPECTION REPORTS FOR NON
DELEGATED INSTITUTIONS WHICH
HAVE NOT BEEN DELEGATED BACK TO
THE CONTROL OF THE STATE AND
MAYBE THE DELEGATED
INSTITUTIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE A
LONGER TIME FRAME. GOT IT. BUT
BUT BUT FINANCES ASSUMPTION IS
THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO
COMPLETE ALL THE INSPECTIONS
WITHIN THOSE TWO YEARS. IDEALLY
THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY WE BROUGHT
FORWARD AN AUGMENTATION IN 2022
BUDGET ACT TO INCREASE THE
FREQUENCY FOR ALL INSTITUTIONS
TO EVERY TWO YEARS, BECAUSE THEY
WERE AT 3.5 TO 4 YEARS. AND THAT
IS POTENTIALLY TOO LONG. AND
THERE IS. SO WE SEE THESE THE
MEDICAL INSPECTIONS HAVE A
BENEFIT. IT'S NOT TO SAY IT'S
NOT THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ABOUT
ELIMINATING MEDICAL INSPECTIONS.
IT'S ABOUT JUST TRYING TO BE
STRATEGIC IN TERMS OF WHERE,
MEDICAL INSPECTIONS MAY BE MOST
EFFECTIVE, GIVEN THAT THESE ARE
ONE THING THAT THE RECEIVER
CONSIDERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
DELEGATION. GOT IT. HOW MANY
POSITIONS WOULD REMAIN IN THIS
AREA IN THIS UNIT? OOF I DON'T
HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, DO YOU KNOW
THE, 56 THAT WE ADDED TO YOU CAN
GET THAT BACK TO YOU? YEAH, I
CAN GIVE THAT BACK TO YOU FOR
SURE. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH.
THANK YOU, MR. TING. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS WITH THIS PANEL? I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU. AND I
TOO AM CONCERNED WITH. WE HAD A
HEARING, ON THE DIFFERENT
COMPONENTS OF THE LOOKING AT THE
OVERSIGHTS, OF THOSE POSITIONS,
THE COLLECTIVE IMPACTS,
REDUCTIONS, OYJ'S AUDITING
FUNCTIONS THAT ARE THERE. WE'VE
SEEN THAT WHEN CDCR WAS MOVING
FORWARD WITH SOME INVESTIGATIONS
THAT DEEMED THEM OUT, THE OFFICE
OF THE INSPECTOR MOVED IN AND
ACTUALLY FOUND SOME MERIT IN
THOSE. SO THOSE ARE AREAS THAT
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE LOOKING A LITTLE BIT
MORE DEEPER TO, BECAUSE I THINK
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYTHING'S MOVING ACCORDINGLY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
DISCUSSION IN THIS PANEL, AS NOW
WE MOVE ON TO ISSUE NUMBER
THREE, WHICH WILL BE THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, CDCR AND
LEO
.
GOOD AFTERNOON. SO MY COLLEAGUE
AND I ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING
AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSALS FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND
OUR CDCR COLLEAGUES ARE ALSO
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU
MAY HAVE. SO TO ADDRESS THE
PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL, THE
MAY REVISION PROPOSES GENERAL
FUND SOLUTIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT, WHICH RESULT IN A
REDUCTION OF $169.2 MILLION IN
THE BUDGET WINDOW AND $117.1
MILLION ONGOING STARTING IN 20
2526. AS NOTED IN THE AGENDA,
THESE ONGOING SOLUTIONS INCLUDE
A REDUCTION OF 80.6 MILLION FOR
DEACTIVATING VARIOUS HOUSING
UNITS ACROSS 13 PRISONS, A
REDUCTION OF 8.5 MILLION IN 20
2324, 13.8 MILLION INCHES 2425
AND 22.6 MILLION ONGOING TO
REFLECT A REDUCTION IN ANNUAL
TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONAL
OFFICERS AND THE DISCONTINUATION
OF THE USE OF THE CALIFORNIA
REALITY BASED TRAINING CENTER, A
REDUCTION OF 4.1 MILLION TO
REDUCE NUMBER OF COVID TESTS AT
RECEPTION CENTERS, A REDUCTION
OF 4.1 MILLION TO REDUCE
VISITING FROM THREE DAYS TO TWO
DAYS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN LEVEL
FOUR HOUSING UNITS, AND A
REDUCTION OF 4.8 MILLION FOR THE
PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF THE
FIRE SUPPRESSION SERVICE
CONTRACT WITH LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. AS ADDITIONALLY, THE MAY
REVISION PROPOSES A REVERSION OF
$54.8 MILLION FROM PRIOR BUDGET
ACTS FOR EXPANDING THE MANAGED
ACCESS SYSTEM. THE PAROLEE DATA
OUTCOME PROJECT, AND ALSO
ESTIMATED CURRENT YEAR SAVINGS
FOR BOTH COVID 19 MITIGATION AND
THE TRANSMETRO BUS CONTRACT.
PATRICK PLANTE, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE MAY REVISION ALSO
INCLUDES VARIOUS WORKLOAD
PROPOSALS FOR CDCR, AND WE
HIGHLIGHT THE FOLLOWING 26
MILLION ONGOING TO ADDRESS THE
INCREASED COSTS OF RENEGOTIATED
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
TREATMENT CONTRACTS 7.5 MILLION
INCHES 24, 25 AND 14.4 MILLION
ONGOING TO SUPPORT CONTINUED
IMPLEMENTATION OF CDCR REVISED
STAFF MISCONDUCT PROCESSES, 1.5
MILLION GROWING TO 3.3 TO 3.3
MILLION TO SUPPORT PEACE OFFICER
DEATH BENEFITS CONSISTENT WITH
AB 621 OF 2023, $4 MILLION IN
2425, AND 2526 SHIFTED FROM
CAPITAL OUTLAY TO CONTINUE THE
HOPE AND REDEMPTION TEAM,
THROUGH WHICH FORMERLY
INCARCERATED STAFF LEAD WEEKLY
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING AND
SERVE AS MENTORS TO THOSE
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED. A
SAVINGS OF 49.8 MILLION ONE TIME
AND 2425 RELATED TO THE
ACCELERATED CLOSURE OF
CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY STATE PRISON
SAVINGS OF 8.5 MILLION AND 2526,
AND ONGOING TO REDUCE CDCR'S
DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO HEADQUARTERS
LEASE. A REDUCTION IS 6.3
MILLION. ONGOING TO BETTER
REFLECT ANTICIPATED ONGOING
NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH COVID 19
MITIGATION. MAY REVISION ALSO
REFLECTS A NET DECREASE OF 21.2
MILLION AND 24, 25 AND 13.5
MILLION ONGOING ASSOCIATED WITH
UPDATED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FOR THE ADULT, INCARCERATED AND
PAROLEE POPULATION. AND I'M
TURNING IT OVER TO AMANDA
GARCIA, OUR COLLEAGUE AMANDA
GARCIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
ON THE CAPITAL OUTLAY SIDE, WE
HAVE TWO PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE $20 MILLION THAT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE 2023 BUDGET ACT
FOR THE SAN QUENTIN
REHABILITATION CENTER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. WE PROPOSE
REVERTING 8 MILLION TO THE
CAPITAL OUTLAY, UP FROM THE
CAPITAL OUTLAY SIDE AND SHIFTING
THAT FOR USE ON THE SUPPORT
SIDE, AS DISCUSSED BY PATRICK.
IN ADDITION, WE PROPOSE
REAPPROPRIATING THE REMAINING
$12 MILLION TO BE USED FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE UPPER YARD,
CONSISTENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MODEL AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE
ADVISORY COUNCIL. ADDITIONAL
DETAILS WILL BE PRESENTED FOR
THIS PROJECT AS PART OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT PACKAGE AT THE
JUNE 14TH STATE PUBLIC WORKS
BOARD MEETING, AND WITH THAT,
WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE
DEPARTMENT FOR QUESTIONS. GO
AHEAD. CDCR Ã. NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS. I DO WANT TO BEGIN,
THOUGH, WITH THE AGENDA, WITH
OUR FIRST REDUCTION, WHICH IS
THE CLOSURE OF SEVERAL HOUSING
UNITS ACROSS 13 INSTITUTIONS,
WE'RE ANTICIPATING SCORING
APPROXIMATELY $80.6 MILLION IN
SAVINGS IN 24, 25 AND ONGOING
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CLOSURES,
AND MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ELIO DREW SODERBERG,
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS ON TWO OF
THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS
PRESENTED TODAY AND WILL PRESENT
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN THE
COMING DAYS. FIRST, I WANT TO
TURN TO HOUSING UNIT
DEACTIVATIONS. WE DO APPRECIATE
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PROPOSING TO ACHIEVE SOME
SAVINGS BY REDUCING PRISON
CAPACITY. HOWEVER WE DO
RECOMMEND REJECTING THIS
PROPOSAL IN FAVOR OF A PLAN TO
REDUCE PRISON CAPACITY THROUGH
FULL PRISON DEACTIVATIONS. SO
WHEN THE STATE DEACTIVATES A
PRISON ENTIRELY, IT SAVES ABOUT
50,000 TO $60,000 PER BED.
DEACTIVATE EACH PRISON IS MADE
UP OF ABOUT 4 TO 6 YARDS, AND
WHEN THE STATE DEACTIVATES A
YARD AS IT'S DONE IN THE PAST,
IT SAVES ON AVERAGE ABOUT
$29,000 PER BED. DEACTIVATED NOW
UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN, ABOUT
, 46 DIFFERENT HOUSING UNITS
WHICH MAKE UP THE YARDS I SPOKE
ABOUT EARLIER, WOULD BE
DEACTIVATED, COMPRISING ABOUT
4600 BEDS. UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S
PLAN, THIS WOULD RESULT IN
SAVINGS OF ONLY ABOUT $18,000
PER BED. WE NOTE THAT REDUCING A
SIMILAR AMOUNT OF CAPACITY BY
DEACTIVATING FULL PRISONS, AND
YARDS WOULD CREATE OVER $100
MILLION IN ADDITIONAL SAVINGS
FOR THE STATE. MOREOVER EVEN
AFTER THE GOVERNOR'S PLANNED
REDUCTIONS, THE STATE WOULD
STILL HAVE ABOUT 10,000 EMPTY
BEDS IN THE BUDGET YEAR, A
FIGURE THAT WOULD GROW IN FUTURE
YEARS IF THE STATE WERE TO
REDUCE THIS CAPACITY THROUGH
FULL PRISON CLOSURES, IT WOULD
SAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
THESE FORGONE SAVINGS ARE
NOTABLE GIVEN THE STATE'S BUDGET
CONDITION AND COULD RESULT IN
THE LEGISLATURE NEEDING TO MAKE
GREATER CUTS TO OTHER PROGRAMS
IN ORDER TO MAKE UP FOR IT. WE'D
ALSO NOTE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS RAISED
CONCERNS THAT CLOSING FULL
PRISONS COULD REDUCE ACCESS TO
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.
HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE
DEPARTMENT COULD MITIGATE THESE
CONCERNS, SUCH AS BY USING A
PORTION OF THE SAVINGS CREATED
FROM THE DEACTIVATIONS TO
INCREASE ACCESS TO
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS, SUCH AS
BY BUILDING ADDITIONAL
CLASSROOMS. ACCORDINGLY, WE'RE
CONTINUE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE
STATE CLOSE FULL PRISONS AND
THAT IT REQUIRE THE
ADMINISTRATION TO IDENTIFY WHICH
PRISONS IT WOULD PRIORITIZE FOR
CLOSING. WHAT ISSUES COULD BE
CREATED BY THOSE CLOSURES, AND
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE
ISSUES. BY JANUARY 1ST, 2025,
THE SECOND ISSUE THAT I WILL
SPEAK TO TODAY IS THE SAN
QUENTIN REHABILITATION CENTER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AS YOU
HEARD, THE, THE, DEPARTMENT IS
PLANNING TO REPURPOSE $20
MILLION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
BUDGETED TO IMPROVE THE SAN
QUENTIN REHABILITATION CENTER,
WITH 12 MILLION OF THIS AMOUNT
BEING REAPPROPRIATED FOR
UNIDENTIFIED PROJECTS AT SAN
QUENTIN REHABILITATION CENTER
AND $8 MILLION BEING EARMARKED
FOR THE HOPE AND RECONCILIATION
PROGRAM THAT WAS MENTIONED
BEFORE, BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT
HAS NOT IDENTIFIED HOW IT WILL
USE THE $12 MILLION, WE'D
RECOMMEND THAT THE LEGISLATURE
REJECT THIS FUNDING, AND THE
DEPARTMENT IS ALWAYS FREE TO
COME FORWARD ONCE IT'S
IDENTIFIED HOW THAT FUNDING
WOULD BE USED AND REQUEST THAT
FUNDING IN THE FUTURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, CDCR. DO
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE
BEDS AND THE PRISON CLOSURES
VERSUS THE HOUSING? SURE. JUSTIN
EDELMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF
BUDGET MANAGEMENT BRANCH FOR
CDCR, WE BELIEVE THAT CLOSING
HOUSING UNIT CONVERSION, CLOSING
THE HOUSING UNITS AS OPPOSED TO
FULL INSTITUTIONS IS A BETTER
PRIORITY RIGHT NOW. WE CAN
REALIZE THE SAVINGS QUICKER, WE
CAN REALIZE THEM IN THE BUDGET
YEAR. THERE'S LESSER IMPACT AS
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
NOTICED, THERE'S REDUCED IMPACT
TO PROGRAMING SPACE. SO ALTHOUGH
THESE 13 INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE
IMPACTED WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CROWDING ASSOCIATED WITH CLOSING
THESE UNITS, PEOPLE WILL BE
LIVING IN REDUCED HOUSING UNITS.
THEY'LL STILL BE ABLE TO
MAINTAIN THAT PROGRAMING SPACE,
WHICH WE BELIEVE IS ESSENTIAL
FOR REHABILITATION. OKAY. THANK
YOU. I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY
QUESTIONS FROM THE DAIS. SO
MEMBER LACKEY, YOU HAVE TO
EXCUSE ME. I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE
RANT HERE. IT HAS TO DO WITH
THIS WHOLE, PRISON CLOSURE
DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT,
THE WHOLE CLOSURE CIRCUMSTANCE
IS NOT ROOTED IN PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE'RE NOT HAVING THIS THIS HUGE
WAVE OF PEACEFUL, LAWFUL
COMPLIANCE. THAT'S WHAT IT'S
TRYING TO INFER. I THINK IT'S A
HURTFUL GIMMICK. BUT IF WE'RE
GOING TO DO CLOSURES, I MUCH
PREFER THAT WE DO IT IN THE WAY
THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO SOME
DEGREE, YARDS OR HOUSING UNITS
AS OPPOSED TO PRISONS. I THINK
THAT THAT IS A LOGICAL STEP, BUT
I'M STILL FRUSTRATED BECAUSE AS
I LOOK AT, THESE BUDGET
CONSIDERATIONS AND THE CUTS THAT
ARE BEING PROPOSED, I LOOK AT
ALSO SOME OF THE OTHER CUTS THAT
ARE BEING PROPOSED, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE, TO THE PROGRAMING OF THE
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED
FUNDING. THEIR PROPOSED CUTS ARE
1 BILLION, NOT WITH AN M WITH A
B PLUS 8. THESE PEOPLE RELY ON
THIS GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO
THEIR DAY TO DAY FUNCTION. BUT
YET WE HAVE A $14 BILLION BUDGET
HERE TO CDCR, AND THEIR CUTS ARE
NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT SAME
CONSIDERATION. THAT IS NOT ONLY
DEMORALIZING, IT'S DISGUSTING.
AND SO I DON'T EXPECT YOU GUYS
TO ANSWER TO THOSE TO THAT
LOGIC. BUT I AM GOING TO SAY IN
PUBLIC THAT I FIND THAT
DISGRACEFUL. AND SO I WILL DO
EVERYTHING I CAN TO TRY TO
BALANCE SOME OF THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THAT'S WHY I'M ELECTED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT. ASSEMBLYMEMBER BONTA,
THANK YOU, CHAIR, FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
HEARING, I JUST WANT TO GET A
RECAP FROM THE LAO FIRST ON ON
JUST A COUPLE OF BASIC FACTS.
HOW MANY, CURRENT BEDS DO WE
HAVE THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF THE
MANDATED, CUSHION THAT WE NEED
FOR, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AROUND 14
TO 15,000 BEDS BELOW THE,
MANDATED LEVEL. AND THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED, CLOSURE OR
A YARD CLOSURES, IS 4600 BEDS,
RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO IN
THEORY, THERE ARE STILL 10,000,
ROUGHLY 10,000 BEDS. THAT'S
CORRECT, ARE THERE ANY, ARE
THERE ANY PRISONS? RIGHT NOW
THAT ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF
10,000? SO MOST, MOST PRISONS,
TEND TO BE AROUND, HAVE A DESIGN
CAPACITY ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR
THE FEDERAL POPULATION LIMIT OF
AROUND 3500. SO 10,000 PRISONS
YOU'RE GETTING TOWARDS OR,
SORRY, 10,000 BEDS GETS TOWARDS
ABOUT 2 TO 3 PRISONS. CERTAINLY
MORE THAN TWO. SO IN ADDITION TO
THE 4600 BED, BUDGET SOLUTION
THAT WOULD CLOSE SOME YARDS, WE,
IN THEORY, STILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO CLOSE 2 TO 3 PRISONS.
THAT'S CORRECT. I SHOULD ALSO
NOTE THAT WE ARE STILL IN THE
PROCESS OF TRYING TO PROJECT THE
NUMBER OF EMPTY BEDS THAT WILL
BE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE, BUT
10,000 IS THE BUDGET YEAR
NUMBER, AND THAT AMOUNT COULD
ACTUALLY GROW. AND THE SAVINGS
ASSOCIATED WITH AN ALL OUT
PRISON CLOSURE. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE, THE SUBOPTIMIZED
SAVINGS ESSENTIALLY, WHEN YOU'RE
ONLY FOCUSED ON CLOSING OR
DEACTIVATING, A YARD OR HOUSING
UNITS VERSUS THE ENTIRE
DEACTIVATE OF A UNIT, IT'S, IT'S
ALMOST LIKE A ONE TO ITS 50.
IT'S 50 TO 60% ADDITIONAL
SAVINGS THAT YOU GET WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY CLOSE THE WHOLE WHOLE
INSTITUTION, RIGHT? THAT'S
CORRECT. YEAH. SO IT'S FROM
18,000 FOR HOUSING UNIT AND THAT
GOES UP TO 50 TO 60 FOR ENTIRE
PRISONS. SO WHILE WE'RE CUTTING
DISABILITY PROGRAMS, I JUST CAME
FROM FOUR HOURS OF RIVETING,
CONVERSATIONS AND BUDGET SUB ONE
TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE
HORRIBLE CUTS THAT WE ARE GOING
TO NEED TO MAKE TO FOR BASIC
CORE SERVICES FOR MEDI-CAL
RECIPIENTS, FOR SUICIDE, FOR,
FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, MENTAL
HEALTH NEEDS OF EVERYONE. WE
ESSENTIALLY HAVE OF THE ABILITY
TO CLOSE 2 TO 3 PRISONS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND WHAT
WOULD BE THE SAVINGS ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT BEEF? IT WOULD DEPEND
ON THE SPECIFIC PRISONS, BUT IT
WOULD BE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. TYPICALLY, THE AMOUNT
OF SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ONE
PRISON IS AROUND 130 MILLION
ANNUALLY. SO 2 TO 3, YOU'D BE
LOOKING AT 2 TO 300 MILLION OR
MORE. AND RECOGNIZING, AND
RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE, ONGOING OUTYEAR STRUCTURAL
DEFICITS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS
IF WE'RE ABLE TO DEACTIVATE
WHOLE INSTITUTIONS THAT, YOU
KNOW, IN THIS BUDGET YEAR
WOULDN'T HAVE AN IMPACT. BUT
CERTAINLY BUDGET YEAR PLUS TWO,
THREE, FOUR AND OUT YEARS, IT
WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IN TERMS OF OVERALL SAVINGS.
THAT'S CORRECT. FAIR TO SAY. SO,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO CDCR, AND,
AND I HEARD VERY CLEARLY THIS
CONCERN, PURPORTED CONCERN
AROUND OVERCROWDING AND ALSO THE
CONCERN AROUND, AROUND THE
MINIMIZING OF PROGRAMING THAT
WILL HAPPEN RIGHT NOW. HOW MUCH
DOES CDCR, HOW MUCH OF A CDCR'S
BUDGET GOES TOWARDS
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING? RIGHT
NOW? MY PERCENTAGE. I KNOW THAT
A LOT OF TIMES IT'S REFERENCED
IS ABOUT 5, AND THAT'S SPECIFIC
TO THE DIVISION OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM. I THINK
CDCR WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT
DOESN'T INCLUDE OTHER ABILITY OR
OTHER INITIATIVES. THINGS LIKE
CALPIA, VÚI, OCCASIONAL OTHER
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT
KIND OF PERVADE THE ENTIRETY OF
THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. SO, I
MEAN, AGAIN, THE DIVISION OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS,
SPECIFICALLY, THAT ONE DIVISION
IS ABOUT 5% OF CDCR'S BUDGET,
BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
REHABILITATIVE INITIATIVES AND
RESOURCES ACROSS THE BUDGET
ENTIRELY. OKAY, I WAS I SPENT A
WHOLE YEAR ASKING THAT QUESTION,
AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE
RESPONSE IS ESSENTIALLY 5. I'LL
I'LL GIVE YOU 2% JUST FOR GOOD
MEASURE. SO LET'S EVEN SAY IT'S
7% OF OUR OF OUR TOTAL BUDGET.
AND THAT'S A STRETCH FOR ME, WHY
ARE WE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT
IT MAKES SENSE TO SPREAD OUR
REHABILITATIVE, DOLLARS ACROSS
MORE INSTITUTIONS RUNS, IN A WAY
THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T PROVIDE
THE KIND OF SUPPORT AND
PROGRAMING THAT WE NEED FOR ANY
INDIVIDUAL. GIVEN THE FACT THAT
THE AN INCARCERATED PERSON CAN
WAIT UP TO EIGHT, NINE, TEN
YEARS TO BE IN THEIR FIRST
PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE KEY FOR
THEM TO ENGAGE IN PAROLE, A KEY
FOR THEM TO BE ON A PATHWAY
TOWARDS REHABILITATION. WHY IS
THE ASSESSMENT THAT IT MAKES
SENSE TO DE-PRIORITIZE
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING ACROSS
PRISON, ACROSS PRISONS THAT
DON'T NEED TO BE OPEN, THAT WILL
AND STILL WOULD PROVIDE US THE
KIND OF CUSHION THAT WE NEED?
WHY ARE WE PRIORITIZING
BUILDINGS OVER PEOPLE? WELL,
ULTIMATELY, MY QUESTION. I DON'T
THINK WE ARE PRIORITIZING
BUILDINGS OVER PEOPLE TO THE
POINT, AGAIN, THAT WE NEED THE
SPACES IN THOSE INSTITUTIONS FOR
THE REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING.
IT IS ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS FOR THINGS LIKE
WAITLISTS. AS FAR AS THAT IS
CONCERNED. AND WE'RE CONCERNED
THAT BY REDUCING THE OVERALL
CAPACITY, WOULD IMPACT THOSE
PROGRAMING SLOTS AVAILABLE,
THERE WOULD BE BASICALLY MORE
PEOPLE COMPETING FOR THE SAME
SLOTS. WOULDN'T THERE BE ABILITY
TO MOVE REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMING TO THE EXISTING
PRISONS? IT'S A IT'S A BASIC
CONCENTRATION ISSUE. IF YOU HAVE
A SET NUMBER OF PROGRAMING
DOLLARS THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO
SPEND, YOU'RE SPREADING THEM
ACROSS MORE NUMBER OF
INSTITUTIONS. IF YOU HAVE THE
ABILITY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
INSTITUTIONS AND YOU'RE STILL
FOCUSING ON THE SAME NUMBER OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING
DOLLARS, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TAKE AND REALLOCATE THOSE
PROGRAMING DOLLARS TO THE TO THE
SMALLER NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE
MAKING A VALUE STATEMENT IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT WE'RE
PRIORITIZING KEEPING AN
INSTITUTION OPEN AS OPPOSED TO
SAVING THE MONEY THAT WE NEED TO
IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS PER YEAR OVER MAKING
SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE
FUNDING FOR REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMING AND OVER ALL OF THE
OTHER THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE
DIRE CORE NEEDS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AGAIN, I DON'T
NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT. I
UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME
EFFICIENCIES WITH KIND OF
MINIMIZING AND KIND OF
CONSOLIDATING, AS YOU SAID, I
WOULD ARGUE, THOUGH, THAT THERE
ARE OTHER IMPACTS. YOU KNOW,
THERE ARE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE AFFECTED AND IMPACTED BY
PRISON CLOSURES. IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT JUST
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AN
INSTITUTION HAS PROGRAMING, THAT
IT WOULD BE ABLE TO TRANSFER TO
ANOTHER INSTITUTION. SO I THINK
THERE ARE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW,
COMPLICATED CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT
WHAT WE MAINTAIN AND WHAT WE ARE
ABLE TO CLOSE FOR EFFICIENCY
PURPOSES. I'LL STOP MY
QUESTIONING THERE. BUT THANK
YOU, SOME SOME MEMBER TING.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST
WANT TO AGAIN THANK YOU. AND
THANK OUR OUR FORMER CHAIR FOR
BEING HERE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE
A QUICK POINT. WHY THE 4 MILLION
REDUCTION IN, VISITING? I
BELIEVE IT'S PART OF IT WOULD BE
LEVEL FOUR VISITING FOR THE
THIRD DAY. SO WE WOULD STILL
MAINTAIN THE SATURDAY AND SUNDAY
VISITING THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT
ARE IMPACTED, WE BELIEVE THAT IT
WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE AS PART OF
THAT PROGRAMING, WHICH IS WHY
IT'S FOCUSED ON LEVEL FOUR
INSTITUTIONS AS PART OF A
GENERAL PROGRESSION, SO THAT AS
INDIVIDUALS COME INTO THE SYSTEM
THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW,
INCENTIVIZED TO PROGRAM IN AND
MOVE TO LOWER LEVEL YARDS SO
THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE THAT THIRD
EXTRA DAY OF VISITING. SO IT'S A
PENALTY, NOT A PENALTY, AN
INCENTIVE. I WILL ALSO NOTE IF
THEY DON'T HAVE PROGRAMING, HOLD
ON, HOLD SOME MEMBER. TING I WAS
I WAS HAPPY TO I'LL COME BACK.
GO AHEAD. IF THEY DON'T HAVE
PROGRAMING AT A FACILITY. AND
QUITE FRANKLY, THE ONLY THING
THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE IS, IS
ONE ADDITIONAL DAY FOR
VISITATION. WE HAVE A LEGISLATOR
HERE WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO VISIT HIS HIS SIBLING BECAUSE
THE VISITATION DAY THAT'S GOING
TO BE TAKEN AWAY IS THE ONE DAY
THAT HE'S AVAILABLE TO GO VISIT.
IF PEOPLE ARE ONLY HANGING ON TO
THAT ONE DAY TO BE ABLE TO VISIT
AS ESSENTIALLY THEIR ONLY
OPPORTUNITY TO BE CONNECTED AND
REHABILITATE, WHY IS THAT A
REASONABLE THING FOR US TO DO IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA? WELL,
AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, TOO,
THAT WE'VE RECENTLY ROLLED OUT
TABLETS AT ALL INSTITUTIONS. SO
THERE IS FREE PHONE CALLING
AVAILABLE, AND THERE IS VIDEO
CALLING AVAILABLE. AND AGAIN, I
UNDERSTAND IT IS A HARD CUT AND
IT IS A DIFFICULT DECISION IN
REDUCING THAT. THAT FOURTH DAY,
THE THIRD DAY. BUT AGAIN, WE
BELIEVE THAT IT IS A REASONABLE
INITIATIVE. THE THIRD EXTRA DAY
OF VISITING WAS ONLY SOMEWHAT
RECENTLY ADDED, A FEW YEARS AGO.
AND AGAIN, WE THINK IT WOULD BE
A GOOD INCENTIVE TO PROGRAMING
AND PROMOTING FOR INDIVIDUALS TO
REDUCE THEIR LEVEL. ANY FOLLOW
UP ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA. I
THINK MYSELF, MR. TING, ARE IN
THE SAME PLACE. I THINK THIS IS
SORT OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT. I MEAN, THIS IS,
RIDICULOUS IN A $15 BILLION
BUDGET THAT THIS IS $4 MILLION A
YEAR CUTTING, WHEN THERE'S SO
MANY OTHER AREAS TO CUT, I WANT
TO ASK LÀ, HOW MANY PRISONS DO
WE HAVE, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, 32
PRISONS, 32 PRISONS. RIGHT. AND
WHAT'S OUR WHAT'S OUR CDCR
BUDGET? $14.5 BILLION, 13.5
BILLION. SO HOW COME YOU'RE ONLY
SAVING, 130 MILLION PER PRISON?
IF I DIVIDE THE 14.5 BY 32, I'M
JUST. I KNOW THAT MATH IS PRETTY
SIMPLISTIC. IT COMES OUT A MUCH
HIGHER NUMBER THAN 130 MILLION.
THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF
FIXED COSTS THAT OCCUR OUTSIDE
OF THE PRISON, FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE'S HEADQUARTERS COSTS. THE
OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO
TAKE ACCOUNT OF IS THAT BUDGET
ALSO INCLUDES THE PAROLE BUDGET,
WHICH WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY,
PRISON CLOSURES. HOW BIG IS THE
PAROLE BUDGET, OFFHAND, I WANT
TO SAY IT IS APPROXIMATELY 4 OR
$500 MILLION, SO NOT EVEN A
BILLION, RIGHT? YEAH. SO. SO YOU
KNOW, IF I, IF I DO YOUR MATH,
IF I TIMES 32 TIMES 130, RIGHT,
I GET $4 BILLION. YOU'RE TELLING
ME THERE'S 10 BILLION IN
OVERHEAD. YEAH. WE'D BE HAPPY TO
LOOK INTO THE NUMBERS. BUT THAT
THAT IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS BEEN SCORING ON AVERAGE WITH
PRISON CLOSURES MADE TO DATE.
YEAH. BUT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE
TO YOU? DOES IT MAKE SENSE? I
MEAN, YOU GOT 32 PRISONS. THE
BUDGETS 14.5 BILLION. I'M TRYING
TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE OTHER 10
BILLION IS GOING, YEAH. WE'D BE
HAPPY TO LOOK INTO IT AND
IDENTIFY WHERE THE DELTA IS
THERE. AND WORK WITH YOU TO
BECAUSE TO ME, THE 130 SEEMS
LIKE A PRETTY, PRETTY LOW SCORE.
YEAH. HOW DID YOU GET TO 130
MILLION? I AGREE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
THAT THAT'S ROUGHLY 130,000,100,
130. HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT
NUMBER? IT'S ROUGHLY THE
EQUIVALENT COST OF THE
INSTITUTIONS WE'VE CLOSED SO
FAR. I WILL ADD, THOUGH, IN
ADDITION TO THE LÀ, N
IDENTIFIES FIXED COSTS THAT ONE
OF THE SIGNIFICANT COSTS IS
HEALTH CARE, WHICH IS NOT
NECESSARILY REDUCED WHEN YOU
CLOSE A PRISON. WE STILL HAVE
THOSE POPULATIONS AND THEY STILL
REQUIRE HEALTH CARE. AND IT IS A
PRETTY BIG BUDGET DRIVER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE? DON'T
HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S
I WANT TO SAY MAYBE 6 OR 7
BILLION. BUT THAT'S AGAIN
SPECULATION. WE CAN GET BACK TO
YOU ON THE EXACT NUMBER. SO YOU
THINK THE HEALTH CARE IS ROUGHLY
REPLENISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE? 5 BILLION, 5 BILLION. 5
BILLION. GOT IT. THANK YOU. SO 5
BILLION. THERE'S 5 BILLION. I'M
STILL LOOKING FOR FIVE MORE
BILLION. IF SOMEONE CAN HELP ME
FIND IT. I'M SORRY 4.1. SORRY
4.1. OKAY, SO I'M STILL LOOKING
FOR 6 BILLION BECAUSE. YEAH,
JUST CAUTION. IF NUMBERS ARE
GOING TO START TO BE, YOU KNOW,
SHOT OUT THERE, LET'S MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE CORRECT NUMBERS
BECAUSE THERE'S CALCULATIONS
THAT ARE GOING ON FIVE. IT'S
JUST SIMPLE VERSUS 4.1 IS A BIG
GAP. SO IF I IF I DO 32 TIMES
130, I GET 4.1 BILLION. CORRECT
YOU GET 500 MILLION FOR PAROLE.
WE GET FOUR POINT I FEEL LIKE AN
AUCTIONEER. YOU GOT 4.1 BILLION
FOR HEALTH CARE, I'M STILL
LOOKING FOR A FEW BILLION. MOST
OF THE BILLION THAT YOU DO
IDENTIFY IN THOSE PRISON
CLOSURES SPECIFIC THAT 130
MILLION, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE
COSTS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.
BECAUSE AGAIN, THE POPULATION
DOESN'T NECESSARILY DECLINE. SO
IT'S THINGS LIKE STAFFING
OVERALL FOR THE DEPARTMENT, AND
JUST KIND OF OTHER COSTS, YOU
KNOW, FEEDING COSTS WITH THOSE
DECLINE, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY
BECAUSE THE POPULATION
TECHNICALLY WOULD STAY THE SAME,
EVEN WITH A REDUCTION, WE WOULD
JUST AGAIN, CROWD IN THE SAME
POPULATION OF INDIVIDUALS INTO
FEWER INSTITUTIONS. SO THOSE
COSTS NECESSARILY DON'T
DECREASE, BUT THEY'RE STILL
CAPITAL COSTS. THERE'S STILL
MAINTENANCE COSTS. THOSE WOULD
DECREASE. AND THAT IS WHERE YOU
GET ROUGHLY THAT 130 MILLION PER
INSTITUTION. I SEE OKAY. SO I
GUESS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT
YOU KNOW WE'RE CLOSING YARDS
BECAUSE WE CAN GET IMMEDIATE
SAVINGS. WHY WOULDN'T YOU CLOSE
YARDS AND THEN CLOSE PRISONS
TOO. SO YOU CAN GET THE OUTYEAR
SAVINGS. AGAIN IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT WITH THE POPULATION. I
THINK IT'S HARD TO KIND OF GAUGE
EXACT TRENDS. I THINK, AS
SENATOR LACKEY NOTED, THAT THERE
ARE, YOU KNOW, UNCERTAINTIES
WITH SENTENCING ISSUES, AND
THINGS LIKE THE COVID PANDEMIC,
YOU KNOW. RIGHT. BUT BUT, BUT WE
CAN'T NECESSARILY PREDICT BUT WE
HEARD FROM LÀ I MEAN, EVEN EVEN
BY YOUR NUMBERS, YOU GOT 15,000
EMPTY BEDS. IT'S YOU KNOW,
ROUGHLY 5 TO 6 EMPTY PRISONS.
AGAIN, I THINK ONE OF THE
DISTINCTIONS WORTH NOTING, TOO,
IS WHEN THEY SAY EMPTY BEDS,
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN
LIKE EMPTY SPACE THAT WE DON'T
USE. A LOT OF TIMES THOSE EMPTY
BEDS ARE DOUBLE BUNKS. SO IT'S,
YOU KNOW, SINGLE SINGLE CELL
OCCUPANCY KIND OF ISSUES, AS FAR
AS THE UTILIZATION OR WHAT WE
CAN OPERATIONALLY WISE, IT'S
MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO KIND OF
SAY WHAT ISN'T ISN'T AN EMPTY
BED TO THE ALEJO'S POINT TO AS
WELL AS FAR AS THAT. YEAH. BUT
THESE ARE VERY LIKE YOU KNOW,
YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE CUTTING
SOMEBODY THIRD DAY OF
VISITATION, BUT YOU DON'T WANT
TO, DO BUILDING CONSOLIDATION.
IT'D BE LIKE HAVING YOU'RE NOT
YOUR, YOUR HOUSING UNIT
CONVERSION. THOSE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS YOU'RE HAVING EMPTY
YARDS. RIGHT WE'RE TAKING THOSE
YARDS AND MOVING THAT POPULATION
INTO EXISTING HOUSING UNITS. BUT
BUT AGAIN, THE SAVINGS IS SO
MINUSCULE BECAUSE ROUGHLY THE
COST PER, PER INMATE IS, YOU
KNOW, 100 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS.
AND THEN YOUR SAVINGS IS ONLY
ABOUT 17,000 PER BED. THAT'S
CORRECT. ROUGHLY WITH THE LOSSES
. I'M SORRY. WE AGREE WITH THE
LÀ ASSESSMENT. RIGHT. IT IS A
LESSER SAVINGS. BUT AGAIN BUT
WHY WOULDN'T YOU IN TOUGH BUDGET
TIMES, WHY WOULDN'T YOU GO TO
TRY TO GET GREATER SAVINGS? WE
BELIEVE THAT THE SAVINGS RIGHT
NOW THAT WE ARE OPERATIONALIZING
WILL MAINTAIN THAT PROGRAMING.
SO AGAIN WE'RE TRYING TO WHAT
PROGRAMING IS THERE. DO YOU HAVE
A PLAN THAT YOU HAVEN'T THAT YOU
RELEASED THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN.
NO. IT'S JUST TO MAINTAIN THE
CURRENT LEVEL OF PROGRAMING THAT
INDIVIDUALS AGAIN WE'RE TRYING
TO REDUCE THE IMPACT. BUT IF
YOU'RE DOING THE CURRENT ARE YOU
USING YOU SAID YOU SAID OKAY SO
YOU'RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.
YOU BASICALLY SAID OKAY, SOME OF
THESE ROOMS ARE DOUBLE BUNKS.
ARE WE DOING PROGRAMING IN
SOMEONE'S BUNK? NO THE
PROGRAMING SPACE IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE HOUSING UNITS IT'S IN
USUALLY FACILITIES. SO WHY DO
YOU NEED THE 10,000 EXTRA BEDS
THEN AGAIN I DON'T NECESSARILY
KNOW THAT WE WOULD SAY THAT
THEY'RE EXTRA. THERE ARE HOUSING
10,000 EMPTY BEDS. WHY DO YOU
NEED THE 10,000 EXTRA BEDS AND
EMPTY BEDS FOR, REHABILITATION?
BECAUSE I THINK TO CLOSE
FACILITIES OR INSTITUTIONS
ENTIRELY LIKE THE LÀ SAID, TO
REDUCE SOME OF THOSE BED LEVELS,
WE WOULD AGAIN HAVE TO IMPACT
PROGRAMING. RIGHT. SO WHAT
PROGRAM ARE YOU DOING IN THOSE
EMPTY BEDS? ALL SORTS. IT'S
EDUCATIONAL. SO LIKE YOU HAVE.
OKAY. I'M PICTURING YOU GOT A
DOUBLE BUNK CELL. ARE YOU DOING
PROGRAMING IN THE CELL? NO, I
MEAN THERE ARE EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS. WHAT PROGRAMING ARE
YOU DOING IN THESE EMPTY BEDS?
WE'RE NOT DOING PROGRAMING.
EMPTY BEDS. THERE ARE. THAT'S
WHAT I THOUGHT. SO WHY DO YOU
NEED THE EMPTY BEDS, THEN AGAIN,
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A
FUNGIBLE RESOURCE IN THE SENSE
THAT ONE EMPTY BED DOESN'T KNOW
IT'S AN EMPTY BED. AND WE GOT
PEOPLE WHO ARE DISABLED, WHO
CAN'T GET FOOD, CAN'T GET
SERVICE. BUT WE GOT EMPTY BEDS.
WE GOT A IS IT BECAUSE I NEED TO
WATCH THE EMPTY BED? BUT TO THAT
POINT, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES
IS THAT WE DO HAVE DISABLED
INMATES. AND SO ONE OF THE
ISSUES WITH THE INCARCERATED
POPULATION IS THAT ALTHOUGH
THERE MAY BE TWO, THAT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EMPTY
BEDS. SO YOU GOT YOU GOT EMPTY
BEDS, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
PROGRAMING. THERE'S NO
CORRELATION. THAT'S YOUR EXCUSE,
BUT THERE'S NO CORRELATION TO
THE PROGRAMING. SO WHY CAN'T WE
SWEEP. YOU'RE SWEEPING THESE.
IT'S LIKE VACANT POSITIONS.
WE'RE SWEEPING ALL THESE VACANT
POSITIONS. WHY ARE WE SWEEPING
THE VACANT BEDS AGAIN? IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY THAT YOU CAN SWEEP
THAT VACANT BED IF A CELL HAS
DESIGNATED FOR THE COURT ORDERED
CAPACITY THAT IT CAN HOUSE TWO
INDIVIDUALS. BUT SAY THAT
INDIVIDUAL HAS A WHEELCHAIR,
THEY HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS. THAT
BED NECESSARILY IN THAT SAME
ROOM COULD BE SCORED AS AN EMPTY
BED. HOWEVER, THAT TELLING ME
YOU HAVE 10,000 INMATES IN
WHEELCHAIRS WHO NEED SINGLE
BUNKS. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT
POPULATION, BUT THERE ARE
INDIVIDUALS THAT DO NEED SINGLE
CELLS. I'M SURE THERE ARE
INDIVIDUALS. THERE ARE 10,000.
YOU THINK I CAN'T SPECULATE?
SORRY. MY GUESS IS PROBABLY NOT.
RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT SEEMS PRETTY
HIGH. AGAIN, I CAN'T SPECULATE
ON THE EXACT NEEDS OF THE
POPULATION, BUT BUT AGAIN, WHAT
PROGRAMING DO YOU NEED TO DO
WITH THE EMPTY BED SPACE? AGAIN,
I DON'T THINK IT'S QUITE THE
SAME. AN EMPTY BED IS
NECESSARILY EQUATED TO
PROGRAMING. IT'S MORE AGAIN THE
FACILITIES. NO, NO, BUT YOU
EQUATED IT TO PROGRAMING BECAUSE
AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU SAID, HEY, WE
NEED THE EMPTY BED SPACE TO DO
PROGRAMING. THAT'S THAT'S HOW
YOU STARTED OFF WITH THOSE BEDS
ARE IN FACILITIES AND THOSE
FACILITIES HAVE FIXED PROGRAMING
SPACE. AND SO TO REDUCE THOSE
EMPTY BEDS AS YOU SUGGEST, WOULD
REQUIRE CLOSING THAT SPACE TO
CLOSE THE FACILITY. OKAY. SO
IT'S BECAUSE IF YOU CLOSE THE
YARD AND THE YARD HAD CLASSES,
THE CLASSES WERE THE YARD. SO
THE ENTIRE YARD COULD BE EMPTY.
BUT THE CLASSROOMS WOULD STAY
OPEN. NO, THOSE CLASSROOMS WOULD
BE REDUCED WITH THAT FACILITY.
IF WE CLOSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE
FACILITY. SO WE WOULD LOSE THE
PROGRAMING SPACE. BUT YOU DON'T
HAVE ANYBODY IN THAT YARD TO
TEACH OR TO PROVIDE PROGRAMING
TO. WELL, NO, THEY WOULD BE
MOVED INTO OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR
FACILITIES THAT WOULD HAVE THE
SAME NUMBER OF POPULATION. AND
AS THIS NEW GROUP COMES IN, THEY
WOULD HAVE THAT REDUCED SPACE.
SO THEY WOULD BE COMPETING FOR
THE SAME SPACE AND THEY'D HAVE
PROGRAMING THERE. YES. BUT IT
WOULD AGAIN BE LIMITED BY THE
SPACE CAPACITY. SO THERE WOULD
BE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL PEOPLE
INVOLVED, BUT YOU HAVE FEWER
PEOPLE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME. YES. BUT CURRENTLY, YOU
KNOW, THE POPULATION IS ABOUT, I
GUESS, YOUR LOGIC HAS MAKES
ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO ME. SO
I'M JUST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, IT
MAKES AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE THAT YOU WANT TO DO ONLY,
THE SHORT TERM GAINS FOR THIS
YEAR AND NOT, NOT TAKE THE LONG
TERM GAINS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE
10,000 EMPTY BEDS THAT HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH PROGRAMING
OPEN. SO IT DOES. I MEAN, WHY
WHY WOULD YOU BE CUTTING $1
BILLION IN NOT DOING THE DEED
RATE INCREASE? BUT YOU ONLY CUT
$80 MILLION HERE. I CAN'T SPEAK
TO THE HOLISTIC STATE BUDGET
PICTURE. SO THE ACROSS THE BOARD
CUT, DOES THAT APPLY TO CDCR?
7.5. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BUT
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION ON REALIZING
THOSE CUTS. I CAN'T REALLY HEAR
YOU ANYMORE. OH, I'M SORRY. WE
ARE WORKING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, TO INCORPORATE THOSE
PROPOSED CUTS, AND WE WILL BE
WORKING WITH THEM ON GOING
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. CDCR IS
NOT EXEMPT FROM IT. AND THERE
COULD BE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE
BUDGET. AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE,
IT'S A 24 OVER SEVEN OPERATION,
SO THERE COULD BE CERTAIN
PORTIONS THAT COULD BE EXEMPT
FROM THAT. WHAT WOULD A 7.5%
BUDGET IF CDCR, CDCR WERE TO GET
CUT? 7.5, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK
LIKE FOR THE OVERALL BUDGET? I
DON'T HAVE THAT. I HAVE TO DO
QUICK MATH FOR THAT. YEAH AND
I'M JUST GOING TO GO CRAZY HERE
AND USE A CALCULATOR. BUT, YOU
KNOW, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT,
COULD WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO ASK A
QUESTION? YEAH YEAH. WE HAD A
HEARING LAST YEAR ABOUT THE
LEGAL FEES THAT CDCR EXPENDS
ANNUALLY, AND I CAN EASILY FIND
YOU $4.1 MILLION TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE NOT ACTING IN A WAY
THAT IS INHUMANE, WE SPEND, WE
KIND OF, DURING THAT HEARING,
REALIZE THAT WE SPEND ANYWHERE
BETWEEN 100 AND 20 6 MILLION TO
$134 MILLION ANNUALLY ON LEGAL
FEES. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE WITHIN CDCR, WITHIN OUR
OTHER AGENCIES. AND THE
OUTSOURCING THAT WE DO TO, IN
ONE, JUDGES, OPINION ESSENTIALLY
SAID TO HAVE A SCORCHED EARTH
APPROACH TO ACTUALLY PROVIDING
DEFENSE, AGAINST ON BEHALF OF
CDCR SO THAT CCR CAN, CAN
CONTINUE TO ACT INHUMANELY. IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
HAS HAD IN IN THE BUDGET
PROPOSAL, RECOMMENDATIONS HAS
CDCR LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDING IT SPENDS ON LEGAL FEES
FOR ESSENTIALLY SUPPORTING A WAY
FOR IT TO ACT INHUMANELY AS,
PROBABLY MORE REASONABLE BUDGET
SOLUTION THAN CUTTING A DAY OF
VISITATION. I WILL NOTE THAT ONE
OF THE PROPOSALS THAT IS BEFORE
YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR OUR
STAFF MISCONDUCT PROCESS, AND WE
ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO KIND
OF MITIGATE AND REDUCE
ALLEGATIONS OF STAFF MISCONDUCT
THAT WOULD LEAD TO THOSE LEGAL
ISSUES. OKAY. SO THAT'S TO
MITIGATE ADDITIONAL STAFF
MISCONDUCT. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE,
THOUGH, TO GO LINE ITEM BY LINE
ITEM AND LOOK THROUGH THE LEGAL
FEES ALONE AND PROBABLY COME UP
WITH SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 4.1
MILLION OF ANNUALLY OF WASTE
THAT WE SPEND TO DEFEND
OURSELVES FOR BAD ACTIONS THAT
WE TAKE. IT IS, IS IT POSSIBLE
TO LOOK THROUGH AND COMB THROUGH
THE LEGAL BUDGET? I DON'T KNOW
WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO BECAUSE I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE COURT
REQUIREMENTS ARE. SO I'M NOT
SURE THAT I'M IN A POSITION TO
SAY IT'S NOT THE COURT
REQUIREMENTS, IT'S JUST THE IT'S
THE MONEY THAT WE SPEND
DEFENDING WHAT IS INDEFENSIBLE.
ULTIMATELY, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT
WE COULD SPEND LESS ON
OUTSOURCING AND WORKING WITH
OTHER AGENCIES TO DEFEND AND THE
CDCR'S ACTIONS? I DON'T KNOW IF
I CAN NECESSARILY CONFIRM THAT
AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THOSE LABOR NEGOTIATIONS OR
UNION AGREEMENTS STATE AS FAR AS
WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR LEGAL
REPRESENTATION, I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF SAVINGS POTENTIALLY IN JUST
LOOKING AT ONE ITEM RELATED TO
THE LEGAL FEES AND SPENDING THAT
CDCR DOES AS A BUDGET LINE ITEM,
THAT MIGHT MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
US TO NOT REDUCE THE VERY
LIMITED VISITATION SCHEDULE THAT
, WOULD BE HAPPENING WITH LEVEL
FOUR PRISONS IF WE ACCEPT THIS
PROPOSAL, PUT FORWARD BY THE
ADMINISTRATION. I JUST WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT YOUR
ARGUMENTATION THAT SOMEBODY
WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED TO
PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAMING IF WE
REDUCE A DAY OF PRISON
VISITATION IS FOR ME. I IT IS
INCOMPREHENSIBLE, PARTICULARLY
WHEN WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT
ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PROGRAMING.
SO WHAT WE ARE INCENTIVIZING
ESSENTIALLY SUPPOSEDLY WITH THIS
ADDITIONAL DAY THAT WAS RECENTLY
PROVIDED BACK IS THE LONGING AND
THE DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN A
PROGRAM THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
THEM. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE
TAKE AWAY THE ONE THING THAT
ENSURES THAT PEOPLE HAVE
CONTACT, FAMILIAL CONTACT WITH
THEIR FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO
ENSURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE PRIORITIZE AS A STATE.
FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
INCARCERATED AND THE RESPONSE
THAT, VIDEO AND TELEPHONE
VISITATION IS A IS A IS AN
ADEQUATE SUPPLEMENT FOR THAT IS
JUST IT'S INCREDIBLY
UNREASONABLE TIME AND TIME
AGAIN, DATA SHOWS US AND
RESEARCH SHOWS US THAT WHEN WE
ALLOW FOR IN-PERSON CONTACTS, IT
ACTUALLY REDUCES RECIDIVISM, NOT
PHONE AND VIDEO, BUT BEING ABLE
TO HAVE FAMILIAL CONTACT AND
THAT WE'RE TAKING THAT AWAY SO
THAT PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE ONLY
THING THAT THEY CAN HOLD ON TO
WHILE THEY'RE NOT RECEIVING
PROGRAMING IN LEVEL FOUR PRISONS
IS UNCONSCIONABLE IN MY
ESTIMATION. WELL THANK YOU. IS
THAT IT? SOMETHING ABOUT THAT
ANY QUICK FOLLOW UP BEFORE WE GO
TO THE VICE CHAIR. AND IF YOU
CAN PLEASE SPEAK CLEARER INTO
THE MIC FOR US. THANK YOU. I'LL
BE QUICK. SO I HAVE TO GET TO
UTILITIES COMMITTEE. SO I DID
ROUGH MATH. IT'S ABOUT $1
BILLION FOR 7.5. DOES THAT SEEM
ABOUT APPROXIMATELY CORRECT?
7.5% OR 14.5 BILLION? IS ONE
ABOUT 1.8 1.8 BILLION. SOUNDS
ABOUT RIGHT. APPROXIMATELY. SO,
YOU KNOW, I DO I DO THINK AGAIN,
THAT $80 BILLION TO $80 MILLION
FOR THOUSAND 600 BED, REDUCTION
IS A START. I THINK THERE'S A
LOT MORE, I THINK THAT, DURING
THIS VERY TOUGH BUDGET. TIME TO
LEAVE 10,000 EMPTY BEDS WHERE WE
COULD BE DOING IMMEDIATE COST
SAVINGS. ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
MAKES NO SENSE WHEN WE ARE, YOU
KNOW, CUTTING PEOPLE'S FOODS,
CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEALTH CARE,
REALLY CUTTING PEOPLE'S CARE, I
WOULD ALSO SAY THAT I THINK THAT
THE WAY THE NUMBERS ARE
CALCULATED SEEM EXTREMELY
CONSERVATIVE AND VERY, VERY LOW
BASED ON THE OVERALL BUDGET THAT
THE DEPARTMENT HAS. THAT DOESN'T
REALLY ADD UP QUITE, SO I DON'T
I DON'T THINK THAT THE COST
SAVINGS ONLY 130 MILLION, PER
PRISON. AND IT SEEMS LIKE, YOU
KNOW, HAVING A SAVINGS OF 17,000
PER BED IS SEEMS LOW TO ME, AND
SO FOR, FOR ME, ALL I WOULD SAY
IS, THIS IS THE PERFECT TIME TO.
AND AGAIN, ALL WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT IS RIGHT SIZING THE
SYSTEM. IT'S USING BEING MORE
STRATEGIC WITH OUR BUILDINGS AND
BEING MORE STRATEGIC WITH OUR
SERVICES. SO IT DOESN'T IMPACT
WHO'S GETTING OUT, WHO'S GETTING
PAROLED. WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING
INSIDE EACH OF THOSE STRUCTURES?
WHAT IT IS SAYING IS THAT WE'RE
USING A MAXIMUM HUSING EACH OF
THOSE FACILITIES SIGNIFICANTLY
BETTER AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE
ASKING PEOPLE TO GIVE UP
EDUCATION, GIVE UP FOOD, GIVE UP
HEALTH CARE. IT MAKES COMPLETE
SENSE TO BE DOING A LOT MORE,
REDUCTIONS OF EMPTY BEDS. AGAIN,
EMPTY BEDS, THAN WHAT YOU
PROPOSE. I REALLY WOULD HOPE
THAT YOU WOULD, REVISIT THAT.
TAKE A HARD, HARD LOOK AS WELL
AS, REALLY, SHARPEN YOUR PENCILS
ON THE ESTIMATES BECAUSE I THINK
THE ESTIMATES SEEM FAIRLY LOW.
WELL, THANK YOU, MR. TING. MR.
VICE CHAIR. MR. LACKEY. YEAH,
WELL, I'M SORRY IF YOU FEEL LIKE
A BOXING SPEED BAG, BUT THAT'S
KIND OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE
HAVE THESE BUDGET CUT
DISCUSSIONS. TRUST ME,
LEGISLATORS GET THAT TREATMENT
ON OCCASION AS WELL. SO SORRY
ABOUT THAT. BUT IN THE SAME
RIGHT, I FEEL COMPELLED TO ASK
YOU A QUESTION AS, MY COLLEAGUE
WAS ADDRESSING MISCONDUCT
ISSUES, MISCONDUCT ISSUES NOT
ONLY HAVE A DOLLAR IMPACT, BUT
ALSO AN EMOTIONAL IMPACT THAT'S
PRETTY HARD TO ASCRIBE A, A
VALUE TO. BUT I SEE HERE THAT
ONE OF THE COST SAVING ATTEMPTS
IS TO CLOSE A TRAINING FACILITY.
AND I CAN JUST TELL YOU, AS A
RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, THERE'S
NOTHING MORE IMPACTFUL TO A
PEACE OFFICER THAN MEANINGFUL
TRAINING, MEANINGFUL TRAINING,
BECAUSE IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
REQUIRE REACTIONS, YOU DON'T
HAVE TIME TO THINK. AS AN
OFFICER, YOU YOU RESORT TO YOUR
TRAINING. AND IF YOU YOU HAVE
NOT HAD THAT TRAINING, THEN
YOU'RE LEFT TO SOMETIMES
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES THAT ARE A
BIT INAPPROPRIATE AND SO I FIND
THIS AS A PENNY RICH AND NICKEL
POOR PERSPECTIVE THAT THE LONG,
LONG TERM IMPACTS OF CUTTING
TRAINING ARE WELL BEYOND THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT. AND SO I WOULD
HOPE THAT, THAT PARTICULAR,
MATTER WOULD BE RECONSIDERED,
BECAUSE I COULD TELL YOU CUTTING
TRAINING IS REALLY, REALLY,
REALLY A BAD PATH, ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT COMES TO PEACE. OFFICER
OBLIGATIONS AND THE WAY THAT
THEY, THEY MANAGE DIFFICULT
CIRCUMSTANCES AND, FEW PEOPLE,
UNLESS YOU'RE ACTUALLY IN THAT
ARENA, UNDERSTAND? AND WHAT THAT
MEANS. I DO, AND IT'S VERY, VERY
IMPACTFUL. AND SO I WOULD HOPE
THAT THEY WOULD, THE SMALL
AMOUNT OF, WELL, RELATIVELY
SMALL AMOUNT OF SAVINGS, I MEAN,
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO MOST OF
US IS AN UNFATHOMABLE AMOUNT.
BUT, BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN
OUR PRISON SYSTEM AND THE AMOUNT
OF OFFICERS THAT NEED NEED THIS
TRAINING, THEY NEED IT, AND WHEN
YOU'RE STARVING THEM OF THAT
TRAINING, THERE'S GOING TO BE
NEGATIVE OUTCOMES. AND THOSE
OUTCOMES CAN BE MORE COSTLY AS
WE ASCRIBE TO, SOME OF THESE
SETTLEMENT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
VERY, VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. AND
YEAH, I THINK I MADE MY POINT,
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD
RECONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO MUCH.
ANY FURTHER, COMMENTS FROM
MEMBERS, I HAVE A FEW HERE FOR
YOU AGAIN, AND THIS IS A TOPIC
THAT'S BEEN GARNERING A LOT OF
ATTENTION. CERTAINLY LOOKING AT
THE DIFFERENT CLOSURES THAT HAVE
BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT ALSO SOME OF
THE HEARINGS THAT WE HAD PRIOR,
THAT CENTERED AROUND SOME OF
THESE AREAS, AND WITH REGARDS TO
THE 7.95% ACROSS THE BOARD,
LOOKING AT THOSE REDUCTIONS, WE
KNOW THAT WE'RE STILL STILL ARE
IN DIALOG, FINDING OUT HOW THAT
TRULY DOES IMPACT CDCR. KNOWING
THAT THERE'S 24 HOUR PROGRAMS
THERE. BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT
DOES IMPACT SOME COMPONENTS, AND
WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH SOME
OF THOSE CALCULATIONS, TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME
PAGE FOR THAT. NOW, TALKING
ABOUT THE HOUSING UNITS.
DEACTIVATIONS, LOOKING AT THOSE
AND IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT HOW
THE SAVINGS FOR THOSE BEDS AND
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THOSE
SAVINGS, THERE EQUALS THOSE THAT
$18,000 A BED THAT WAS THROWN
OUT HERE? I HAVEN'T DONE THE
EXACT SPECIFIC MATH, BUT AGAIN,
THE TOTAL REDUCTION FOR THOSE
HOUSING UNITS IS 80.6 MILLION
ONGOING. OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT
4600 BEDS? OKAY, 4600 BEDS. AND
LEO PUT BEDS AT 50 TO 60,000 FOR
TOTAL PRISON CLOSURES. RIGHT.
AND WHAT YOU'RE WHAT'S HERE
BEING PROPOSED IS THE
DEACTIVATION, BUT BUT THE BED
COST THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WITH
PRISON CLOSURES TO THIS, WHY IS
THERE SUCH A BIG DISPARITY, IN
THAT AGAIN, I THINK IT LARGELY
HAS TO DO WITH KIND OF FACILITY
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. SO
ALTHOUGH WE DO CLOSE THAT
HOUSING UNIT, IT STILL EXISTS IN
A LARGER FACILITY THAT HAS TO
HAVE MAINTENANCE ONGOING,
MAINTAINED, WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO
CLOSE A FACILITY, YOU ONLY HAVE
A RELATIVELY SMALL FOOTPRINT IN
WARM SHUTDOWN MODE TO MAINTAIN
THAT FACILITY. BUT AGAIN, WITH A
LIVED IN HOUSING UNIT OR
FACILITY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COSTS FOR
THINGS LIKE UTILITIES,
ELECTRICITY, THINGS THAT AREN'T
REQUIRED WHEN YOU CLOSE AN
ENTIRE INSTITUTION. SO AND PART
OF YOUR COMMENT WAS BY MOVING IN
THIS FASHION, YOU SEE THE
SAVINGS QUICKER THAN CLOSING A
PRISON STRAIGHT. CAN YOU
ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON
THAT? YEAH SO ONE OF THE MAJOR
COMPONENTS OF THE COSTS OF
MAINTAINING A HOUSING UNIT IS
STAFFING. SO WHEN YOU CLOSE THAT
SPECIFIC HOUSING UNIT, YOU CAN
REALLOCATE STAFFING INTO OTHER
VACANCIES OR MOVE THE
POPULATION. SO IT'S A MUCH MORE
NIMBLE MOVE, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE
THE TIMELINES THAT ARE REQUIRED
FOR A FULL INSTITUTION CLOSURE,
BUT THE $18,000 BED VERSUS 50 TO
60 FOR, STRAIGHT UP PRISON
CLOSURES IS A DISPARITY BETWEEN
SOME OF THE IDEOLOGY, AND
CALCULATIONS. I'M NOT SURE IF
ALEO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK A
LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. YEAH. I
THINK THE MAIN REASON THAT
THERE'S SUCH A SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE IS THAT THERE'S A LOT
OF FIXED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
RUNNING FACILITIES. FOR EXAMPLE,
WHEN YOU, HAVE, YOU'LL HAVE A
PRISON YARD, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT'S
COMPOSED OF MULTIPLE PRISON
UNITS, IF YOU JUST CLOSE THE
HOUSING UNITS WITHOUT CLOSING
THE YARD, THERE'S GOING TO BE
SOME BASE LEVEL OF SECURITY AND
STAFFING THAT STILL NEEDS TO
REMAIN FOR THE YARD. LIKEWISE,
IF YOU JUST CLOSE YARDS RATHER
THAN ENTIRE PRISONS, THERE'S
GOING TO BE BASE LEVELS OF
STAFFING LIKE THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE PERIMETER
SECURITY, THAT SORT OF THING.
THAT'S GOING TO REMAIN. AND SO
THAT'S WHY BY, DEACTIVE HATING
ENTIRE PRISONS, YOU'RE ABLE TO
ELIMINATE THOSE COSTS LIKE THE
PERIMETER SECURITY, THE
ADMINISTRATION, THE PLANT OPS
AND THOSE SORTS OF EXPENDITURES
AS WELL. IT'S ALSO A STATEMENT
THAT WAS MADE THAT IF YOU CLOSE
STRAIGHT OUT, CLOSED A PRISON,
THAT IT'S ABOUT $100 MILLION
SAVINGS, ABOUT 130 MILLION HAS
BEEN THE AVERAGE FOR RECENT
PRISON CLOSURES. I WOULD NOTE
THAT, THE LEVEL OF SAVINGS PER
PRISON IS GOING TO DEPEND ON
WHICH PRISONS AND THE PRISONS
THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED RECENTLY
TEND TO BE, SOME OF THE LESS
EXPENSIVE PRISONS. SO IF YOU
WERE TO IDENTIFY OTHER PRISONS,
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE SAVINGS
COULD GROW FROM. AND WHAT IS THE
CURRENT DEFICIT OF THE BUDGET,
RIGHT NOW, OUR OFFICE IS STILL
IN THE PROCESS OF HONING IN ON
WHAT THE EXACT, BUDGET DEFICIT
IS UNDER THE MAY REVISE THAT
WILL BE COMING. NEXT WEEK. BUT
IT'S IN THE TENS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, TENS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND $100 MILLION FOR A
PRISON CLOSURE. SO I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
TRANSPARENCY IS THERE AS FAR AS
WE'RE PUTTING THINGS FORWARD.
RIGHT, AND EVERY ACROSS THE
BOARD, EVERYONE'S TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE ADDING TO THE
DEFICIT THAT'S THERE. BUT WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS
REALITY AND WHAT IS BEING
DISCUSSED. CERTAINLY, I THINK
THERE'S QUESTIONS DISPARITY THAT
THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE
REACHING OUT ON. ON THE $18,000
BED VERSUS THE 50 TO $60,000 A
BED TO FIND OUT WHERE THAT TRULY
IS THERE. BUT THEN YOU ALSO,
MOVE FORWARD IN ACCELERATING THE
CLOSURE OF CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY
STATE PRISON FOR A SAVINGS OF
$44.4 MILLION. SO DOES THAT GO
AGAINST THE ARGUMENT OF CLOSING
PRISONS? WE SEE THINGS QUICKER
AS FAR AS A SAVINGS AND
REDUCTION VERSUS CLOSING HOUSING
UNITS, AND NOT A TOTAL CLOSURE
OF PRISONS. WELL, I THINK IT'S
NOT JUST A MATTER OF BEING ABLE
TO DO IT QUICKLY. IT'S ALSO A
MATTER OF FLEXIBILITY. SO ONCE
KVSP IS CLOSED, IT DOESN'T HAVE
THE SAME FLEXIBILITY OF COMING
BACK ONLINE AGAIN BECAUSE THERE
ARE FIXED COSTS THERE,
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES. IT'S A
LOT HARDER TO BRING BACK UP, TO
USE THE TERMINOLOGY AS OPPOSED
TO SOMETHING LIKE A HOUSING
UNIT, WHICH CAN BE RELATIVELY
QUICKLY ADJUSTED BACK IF THERE'S
POPULATION NEEDS. THANK YOU. AND
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR,
FOLLOW UP INFORMATION ON TO FIND
OUT THE GREAT DISPARITIES THERE
AND HOW THAT THE ACCELERATION OF
THE CLOSURE OF CHUCKAWALLA DOES
ADD. AND THAT'S A TOTAL CLOSURE
OF A PRISON. IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE WANT
TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT
QUANTIFICATIONS OF THOSE AREAS
TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL, THAT
WE HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION
THERE. AND ANOTHER AREA WE DID
HAVE A HEARING, IN THIS BODY,
WITH, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL AND CDCR ON SOME OF THE
DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS THAT
WERE GOING ON INSIDE PRISONS,
CDCR INVESTIGATED AN OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
INVESTIGATED AND FOUND THAT
THERE WAS DISPARITIES, IN SOME
OF THOSE COMPLAINTS. RIGHT. AND
SOME WERE REVEALED, I GUESS,
WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S
OFFICE TO FIND MERIT AND SOME OF
THOSE CASES VERSUS OTHERS,
WITHIN CDCR S INVESTIGATION OF
THERE. AND PART OF THIS IS
INCREASING SOME MONEY FOR THOSE,
ONGOING, INVESTIGATIONS THERE.
BUT WE FOUND IN THAT HEARING,
WE, WE SEEN IN THAT HEARING THAT
THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY,
ACTUALLY BROUGHT SOME RESOLVE TO
THAT. SO THE QUESTION IS,
WITHOUT HAVING THE OVERHAUL OF
MAKING SURE THAT YOU WERE
PROFICIENT IN THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE THERE
WOULD THIS MONEY THAT'S BEING
PROPOSED NOW IN CDCR BE BETTER
SPENT IN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL, I THINK? I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION
NECESSARILY, BUT THE RESOURCES
THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IN OUR
PROPOSAL TO INCREASE RESOURCES
FOR MISCONDUCT ARE, AGAIN, TO
KIND OF REFLECT THE HIGHER
LEVELS OF INTAKE AND THE NUMBER
OF ALLEGATIONS THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED, IT'S LARGELY A REQUEST
TO MAINTAIN EXISTING STAFF THAT
WE HAD THAT WE WERE AWARDED
LIMITED TERM BECAUSE OVER RECENT
YEARS, WE'VE BEEN KIND OF
IMPLEMENTING AND DEVELOPING THE
STAFF MISCONDUCT PROCESS. SO
INITIALLY THOSE POSITIONS HAD
BEEN PROVIDED LIMITED TERM. AND
A LARGE PART OF THIS REQUEST IS
TO MAINTAIN THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN,
WE HAVE SEEN HIGHER LEVELS OF
MISCONDUCT INQUIRIES COMING IN.
AND HAS THERE BEEN AN OVERHAUL
OR IMPLEMENTATION OF AREAS THAT
NEED TO BE IMPROVED UPON FOR THE
ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS OF THOSE
COMPLAINTS? I CAN'T SPEAK
DIRECTLY TO THAT, BUT I DO HAVE
DIRECTOR CHAMBERS WHO SPOKE
RECENTLY TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND
HE CAN KIND OF AGAIN, ADDRESS
ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED.
CERTAINLY. SO YOU WERE HERE FOR
THAT HEARING. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR RAMOS. CHRIS CHAMBERS
DIRECTOR, CYPRIOT DIVISION,
CDCR, WE HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY NOW TO MEET WITH THE
COURT EXPERT AND ARMSTRONG
PLAINTIFFS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
RELATED TO, NECESSARY CHANGES
WITHIN THE STAFF MISCONDUCT
PROCESS WHILE WE ARE MAKING
PROGRESS IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS,
WE ARE STILL UNDER COURT ORDER
AND REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE US
TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN LEVEL OF,
ACTIVITY WITHIN WITHIN OUR
INVESTIGATIONS AS, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR ADELMAN HAD MENTIONED,
THE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING
REQUESTED ARE TURNING LIMITED
TERM POSITIONS INTO FULL TERM
POSITIONS. AND I BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS AN ADDITION OF FIVE NEW
POSITIONS. THIS WILL KEEP US
BALANCE THAT, ENSURE THAT WE ARE
NOT FALLING FURTHER BEHIND WHILE
THESE NEGOTIATIONS TAKE PLACE.
ONCE THESE NEGOTIATIONS ARE
RESOLVED AND IF THERE ARE ANY
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, RELATED TO
THE STAFF MISCONDUCT PROCESS, WE
WOULD WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS TO READJUST, THE
AMOUNT OF RESOURCES AND FUNDING
THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE FOR THE
PROJECT. WELL, THANK YOU. WE'LL
BE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT
INFORMATION AS IT BECOMES
AVAILABLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT. AND ALSO, IF YOU COULD
EXPLAIN TO ME NOW, I KNOW WE
WENT THROUGH A WHOLE DIALOG ON
THAT. THE VISITATION AND
ELIMINATION OF THE THIRD DAY,
IT'S FOR LEVEL FOUR, INMATES.
CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT
MORE ON THE POPULATION THERE AND
HOW THAT WILL IMPACT ACT, THE
PRISONS AND THE MORALE ON BOTH
SIDES. GOOD AFTERNOON, RON
BROOMFIELD, DIRECTOR OF ADULT
INSTITUTIONS, SO THE SCOPE OF
THIS REDUCTION, IT'S ABOUT IT'S
APPROXIMATELY 23% OF ALL FRIDAY
VISITS. SO THIS, THIS REDUCTION
WOULD REDUCE 23% OF ALL FRIDAY
VISITS, 6% OF ALL VISITS
STATEWIDE. SO THIS REDUCTION
IMPACTS 6, THIS THIS PROPOSAL
IMPACTS THIS 19% OF THE TOTAL
POPULATION IN CDCR. OKAY. AND
HOW DID WE, COME TO THIS
CONCLUSION OF ELIMINATING THIS
THIRD DAY? I WASN'T PRIVILEGED
TO THE TO THE, THE DECISION ON
HOW WE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION,
BUT I THINK, MR. ADELMAN DID
ARTICULATE, WHY WE MADE THAT
DECISION. SO. AND SO IS THERE
VISITATION? STILL ONGOING ON THE
ON THE WEEKENDS? YES WITH OR
WITHOUT THE THIRD DAY. YEAH.
VISITING TYPICALLY IS FRIDAY,
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. SO WE
PROPOSE ELIMINATING FRIDAY
VISITING FOR LEVEL FOUR INMATES,
THEY WILL STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY
TO VISIT ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY,
AND AS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE
HAVE, TO MISS, TO ASSEMBLYWOMAN
BONTA'S POINT, WE HAVE, VIDEO
VISITING THROUGH THE TABLETS AND
PHONE CALLS, NOT THAT THAT'S A
SUBSTITUTE FOR IN-PERSON
VISITING, BUT THEY'RE THERE ARE
THERE ARE OPTIONS TO MAINTAIN
FAMILY TIES. PRETTY CONSISTENTLY
THROUGHOUT THE WEEK. WELL, THANK
YOU FOR THAT. AND BEFORE WE MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE, IS THERE
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
DÍAS? I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL
FOR THIS ROBUST DISCUSSION. AS
NOW WE MOVE ON TO ISSUE FOUR,
BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS. WHO IS IT? WHO'S ON
THIS ONE? SAME. SOUNDS LIKE
IT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'LL START WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. HELLO, CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, MY
NAME IS SKYLER COBB. I AM
REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, AND TODAY I WILL
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAY
REVISION PROPOSALS FOR THE BOARD
OF STATE AND COMMUNITY
CORRECTIONS, SO TO ADDRESS THE
PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL, THE
MAY REVISION PROPOSES GENERAL
FUND SOLUTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF
STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
TO ACHIEVE THE BALANCED BUDGET.
THESE SOLUTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF
STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,
OR BSC, RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF
$81.7 MILLION IN THE BUDGET
WINDOW, AND THESE PROPOSALS,
THESE SOLUTIONS INCLUDE AN
ADDITIONAL BUDGETARY LOAN OF $75
MILLION IN BUDGET YEAR 20 2425
FROM UNOBLIGATED FUNDS FROM THE
CANNABIS TAX FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND. THESE RESOURCES ARE NOT
CURRENTLY PROJECTED TO BE USED
FOR OPERATIONAL OR PROGRAMMATIC
PURPOSES IN THE COMING YEAR. IN
THIS LOAN IS PROPOSED TO BE
REPAID IN 2025, 2026. IS THIS
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY, I
DON'T KNOW. SPEAK A LITTLE
LOUDER. OKAY? YEAH. WE CAN HEAR
YOU. OKAY, GOOD. SO,
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THE ADULT
REENTRY GRANT. AND THAT'S GOING
TO SEE A REVERSION OF $54.2
MILLION GENERAL FUND IN 20 2324
AND A REDUCTION OF $57 MILLION
THAT WAS PROPOSED TO BE DELAYED
IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, THEN
WE HAVE A REDUCTION OF $9
MILLION GENERAL FUND IN 2024, 25
FOR THE CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION
GRANT PROGRAM. SO THAT'S ALSO
COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS CAL WHIP,
THIS WILL BE I DON'T OKAY. THIS
WILL BE REPLACED BY FUNDING FROM
THE NEWLY CREATED GUN VIOLENCE
PREVENTION AND SCHOOL SAFETY
FUND. STARTING IN 2024, 25 PER
ASSEMBLY BILL, 28 STATUTES OF
2023, THIS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING
TO ALSO HAVE AN ELIMINATION OF
$4.4 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND
THAT WAS PROPOSED AT GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS
TO COUNTIES THAT MAY BE STILL
EXPERIENCING IMPACTS RESULTING
FROM ANY ADDITIONAL INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS, RELEASED TO
POST-RELEASE COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION AS A RESULT OF
PROPOSITION 57, WHICH WAS
APPROVED BY VOTERS IN 2016, AND
THEN WE HAVE A ONE TIME
REDUCTION OF $3.6 MILLION IN THE
GENERAL FUND, IN 20 2425 FROM
THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT
VERTICAL PROSECUTION GRANTS,
WHICH REPRESENTS THE REMAINDER
OF UNALLOCATED GRANT FUNDS FROM
A TOTAL OF $30 MILLION THAT WAS
APPROPRIATED IN 2022, 23. AND
THEN WE HAVE A REVERSION OF
$10.5 MILLION IN THE GENERAL
FUND, THAT WAS APPROPRIATED IN
2022, 23 FOR THE MEDICATION
ASSISTED TREATMENT GRANT
PROGRAM. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE
BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS COMING
DOWN THE PIPELINE, THE MAY
REVISION ALSO INCLUDES A
WORKLOAD PROPOSAL FOR THE BSC,
WHICH INCLUDES FUNDING FOR
CHAPTER LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH
A NEW IN-CUSTODY DEATH REVIEW
PROGRAM FOR SB 519, OR SENATE
BILL 519, FROM STATUTES OF 2023,
WE ARE PROPOSING TO PHASE IN
$3.3 MILLION GENERAL FUND AND 15
POSITIONS IN 20 2425, THEN IN
THE NEXT YEAR, WE WILL GO TO
$7.7 MILLION. AND THEN THAT
POSITION COUNT WILL GO UP BY 20,
SO THEN WE'LL HAVE 35 POSITIONS
TOTAL FOR THIS NEW DIVISION, IN
2025, 26, AND THAT WILL BE TO
IMPLEMENT THE IN-CUSTODY DEATH
REVIEW PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM
WILL INVESTIGATE DEATHS THAT
OCCUR IN LOCAL CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE
THE TRANSFER OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
TO THE OFFICE OF YOUTH AND
COMMUNITY RESTORATION, THE MAY
REVISION INCLUDES TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO SHIFT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF 2011, REALIGN
GRANTS FROM THE BOARD OF STATE
AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS TO THE
OFFICE OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY
RESTORATION, I, I AM HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS NOW, BUT
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ELIO DREW
SODERBERG LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OFFICE WE'RE STILL PUTTING
TOGETHER OUR SPECIFIC COMMENTS
ON THE BOARD OF STATE AND
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, AND WE'LL
RELEASE THOSE IN THE COMING
DAYS, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, BROCK, HAPPY
TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE DÍAS? YES
MR. VICE CHAIR. YEAH. MY
FRUSTRATION HAS TO DO WITH THE
MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT
PROGRAM. AND, THAT WAS ACTUALLY,
AS YOU RECALL, PART OF THE 2223
BUDGET CYCLE. AND, WHEN ASKED
WHEN WE ASKED ABOUT IT, YOU
INDICATED THAT, YOU WERE
SOMEWHAT OVERBURDENED AND HAD
TOO MANY GRANTS. AND SO, THIS
GOT PUT OFF AND I DON'T KNOW HOW
MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT IN THE
BIDDING PROCESS, BUT I KNOW
THAT'S AN EXPENSE. I DON'T KNOW
HOW MUCH. MAYBE YOU CAN. IT
REALLY DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE
NOW, THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO
SLICE THE WHOLE THING. $10.5
BILLION. NOW, I FIND THAT TO BE
HARD TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S
A IT'S A PROGRAM THAT HAS PROVEN
TO BE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL IN
REDUCING RECIDIVISM, WHICH IS
ONE OF THE MAIN GOALS OF OUR
PROCESS. SO WHY WOULD IT BE THE
TARGET OF SLASH WHEN FIRST OFF,
IT WAS PUT OFF, WHICH WAS
UNFORTUNATE, BUT SOMETIMES
THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE
CRUMBLES. SO THEN WE PUT IT OUT
TO BID AND EVERYTHING LOOKED
GOOD AND ALL THESE AWARDS WERE
ANNOUNCED AND, NOT SO MUCH. NOW
WE'RE GOING TO CLAW IT RIGHT
BACK AND SAY SO SORRY, CHARLIE,
HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT'S
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT?
COULD SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT?
CYNTHIA MENDOZA, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. IT TRULY IS A DIFFICULT
DECISION. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT.
AND THESE WERE FUNDS THAT HAD
NOT YET BEEN DISPERSED. SO AND
NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. CORRECT
BECAUSE OF MISMANAGEMENT. YEAH I
DON'T I WOULDN'T AGREE TO THAT
AT ALL. WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT?
I THINK THERE ARE DELAYS WITH,
WITH MANY DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN AN
ORGANIZATION GETS UNJUSTIFIED.
MA'AM I'M SO SORRY. UNDERSTOOD.
I JUST DO AND I THINK THE PUBLIC
WOULD ALSO THINK THAT. AND I
THINK THAT THIS IS AN
UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE
IT'S PENALIZING SOMETHING THAT'S
SUCCESSFUL MULTIPLE TIMES. I
DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT
BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT'S WORKING. WHY WHY DO WE
SLASH SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY
WORKING, WORKING TO THE FACT
THAT IT'S ONE OF THE PRIORITIES
OF THIS PROCESS? I HAVE A HARD
TIME UNDERSTANDING IT. AND I
GUESS THERE'S REALLY NO ANSWER
FOR YOU TO GIVE ME. I'M NOT
SOLICITING AN ANSWER. I'M JUST
TRYING TO MAKE MY POINT THAT I
THINK IT DESERVES AN ANSWER AND
A CORRECTION. AND LOOKING
ELSEWHERE, THAT'S MY COMMENT.
AND THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL, AND
WE'RE OPEN TO THESE NEGOTIATIONS
AND DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT?
CORRECT. SO I'M JUST VERY, I
DON'T KNOW, EMOTIONALLY TRYING
TO TELL YOU THAT I, I THINK THAT
THIS IS MISPLACED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
QUESTION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA.
ALL RIGHT. I FIRST WANT TO ALIGN
MY COMMENTS 150% WITH MY
COLLEAGUE, MR. LACKEY ON ON THE
REDUCTION OR THE ELIMINATION OF
THE MEDICAL THE MEDICATION
ASSISTANT TREATMENT GRANT
PROGRAM. AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE
TO KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT THE
BOTTOM LINE IS. WHEN WE'RE DOING
THESE KINDS OF BUDGET
REDUCTIONS, THEY'RE PAINFUL, BUT
THERE ARE SOME THAT WE'RE MAKING
THAT ARE ACTUALLY INCREDIBLY
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THEY DO THE
EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY OF
WHAT WE WANT. AND INTEND TO
HAPPEN. THE POINT OF GOING INTO
EITHER A JAIL OR PRISON IS THAT
YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE
CRIME THAT YOU'VE COMMITTED, THE
COMMUNITY HARM THAT YOU'VE
COMMITTED, AND THAT YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REHABILITATE.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE
POPULATION IS KNOWN TO
EXPERIENCE SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR
USE ISSUES, THERE ARE A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT DATA SOURCES ON
THAT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA, AS
YOU KNOW, I THINK IN IN VERY
GENERAL TERMS, THE, THE, THE
FREQUENCY OF PEOPLE COMING INTO
THE COUNTY JAIL WHO DO HAVE
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER ISSUES IS
VERY HIGH. I MEAN, I'VE HEARD
NUMBERS IN THE RANGE OF 40 TO
60. I'M NOT PREPARED TO GIVE YOU
A SPECIFIC SITE RIGHT NOW, BUT I
KNOW IT'S VERY SIGNIFICANT. AND
THAT IS KIND OF IN THE REALM OF
WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE AS
WELL. 40 TO 60. AND WHAT WHAT,
FROM A KIND OF A RESEARCH
PERSPECTIVE, DO WE KNOW HELPS TO
REDUCE RECIDIVISM WHEN THERE IS
A DRUG ABUSE OR USE INVOLVED.
THE STUDY THAT COMES TO MIND
IMMEDIATELY IS THE ONE THAT WE,
THE BSC, RELEASED EARLIER THIS
YEAR, LOOKING AT THE RESULTS FOR
FROM PEOPLE WHO HAD PARTICIPATED
IN PROP 47 TREATMENT PROGRAMS.
SO THEY WERE FORMERLY SYSTEM
INVOLVED PEOPLE WITH ISSUES
INVOLVING EITHER THE NEED FOR
MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT OR
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER
TREATMENT, AND THE RESULTS WERE
VERY, VERY POSITIVE, RECIDIVISM.
RECIDIVISM RATES DROPPED
CONSIDERABLY, HOUSING, THERE
WERE VERY POSITIVE HOUSING AND
EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES AS WELL. AND
BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU MORE
ABOUT THAT AFTER IF YOU'D LIKE.
GREAT. SO AGAIN WE'RE GOING TO
BE CUTTING $10.5 MILLION FROM AN
INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM, IT IS IT
IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROGRAM
THAT IS DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE
OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE INTENDING
TO DO. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS
ESSENTIALLY EFFECTIVELY KIND OF
INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF
RECIDIVISM, INCREASING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF PEOPLE COMING BACK
INTO THE JAIL SYSTEM WHEN THEY
GET RELEASED BECAUSE THEY'RE
RELEASED WITHOUT THIS
PROGRAMING. AND WE'RE SAYING
THAT'S OKAY FROM A THAT'S
REASONABLE FROM A BUDGET
PERSPECTIVE. IT'S A VERY
DIFFICULT DECISION. I DON'T WANT
TO DESCRIBE IT AS REASONABLE.
IT'S VERY TOUGH FOR ALL OF US. I
MEAN, I WILL MOVE ON TO THE
OTHER KIND OF VERY SIMILAR
PROGRAMS IN 324 AND 325 HERE.
THE ADULT REENTRY PROGRAM, Ó,
CAN YOU GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
TEXTURE TO THE $54.1 MILLION
SUGGESTED CUT FOR THE ADULT
REENTRY GRANT PROGRAMING? WHAT
THAT IS? AND SURE, YES, I'LL
START WITH THAT. IN MY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE THOUGHTS TO
ADD, THIS IS ALSO A DIFFICULT
REDUCTION, BUT BUT THERE'S A
BLEND OF NEWS HERE BECAUSE THERE
ARE, SOME VERY EFFECTIVE, ADULT
REENTRY GRANT COHORTS OUT IN THE
FIELD OPERATING RIGHT NOW, THIS
HAS BEEN A RELATIVELY WELL
FUNDED GRANT PROGRAM, AND WE HAD
NOT YET PUT THAT CURRENT YEAR
ALLOCATION OUT INTO AN RFP. SO
THERE IS NO IMPACT IN TERMS OF
GRANT REDUCTIONS, IT'S YES, IT'S
FUNDING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE TO GO OUT SOONER IN AN
RFP. BUT GIVEN THE DIFFICULT
BUDGET TIMES AND THE FUNDING
THAT WAS AVAILABLE AND NOT YET
OBLIGATED, THE ADULT REENTRY
GRANT WAS A SOURCE THAT WAS
IDENTIFIED. AND WHAT WE'RE
PLANNING TO DO IS RELEASE AN RFP
, NEXT YEAR SO THAT THE TIMING
OF THE BEGINNING OF A NEW COHORT
WILL COINCIDE WITH THE END OF
THE CURRENT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING
TO HAVE A GAP IN SERVICES WITH
ADULT REENTRY GRANT PROGRAMS
ACROSS THE STATE. WHAT IS THE
TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR THE. IS IT
ESSENTIALLY A DEFERRAL? IT,
THERE HAD BEEN THE ADULT REENTRY
GRANT FUNDING HAS A PRETTY
INTERESTING HISTORY BECAUSE THE
BASELINE WAS 37 MILLION
ANNUALLY, BUT OVER THE RECENT
YEARS, ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED
LARGER AMOUNTS OF FUNDING. AN
ADDITIONAL ONE TIME TEN,
10,000,000 IN 1 YEAR. AND I
THINK MAYBE 30 OR 40 MILLION IN
A DIFFERENT YEAR. SO IT HAS BEEN
A REALLY WELL FUNDED GRANT
PROGRAM. THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS
THAT THE ONGOING ANNUAL FUNDING
IS 37 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT WE
WOULD EXPECT TO HAVE NEXT YEAR.
I SEE MY COLLEAGUE NODDING. SO I
THINK THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S
CORRECT. THANK YOU. SO
EFFECTIVELY YOUR THIS THIS
REDUCTION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ONE TIME FUNDING, WHAT IS
THE, WHAT IS THE WAIT LIST
ASSOCIATED WITH REENTRY
PROGRAMING? LIKE I'M TRYING TO
GET A SENSE OF KIND OF, DEMAND
VERSUS SUPPLY. YEAH, I CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION. I
DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, A CLEAR
SENSE OF THE UNMET NEED OUT
THERE IN THE FIELD. IT IS A
GREAT QUESTION, I'D BE HAPPY TO
ASK OUR TEAM IF THERE'S A SENSE
OF THAT THAT WE CAN GET FROM OUR
CURRENT GRANTEES THAT ARE
OPERATING, THERE ARE, OF COURSE,
REENTRY NEEDS ACROSS THE STATE,
AND I JUST DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE
THE INFORMATION RIGHT HERE ABOUT
WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF SORT OF
WAIT TIMES TO GET INTO THOSE
PROGRAMS OUT IN THE FIELD. I
THINK IT THROUGH THE CHAIR. I
THINK IT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY
HELPFUL IF AROUND ONE OF THESE
WOULD FEEL LIKE I KNOW VERY
DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT YOU'RE
MAKING, BUT AT LEAST FOR THESE
THAT ARE REALLY AROUND, VERY
PRODUCTIVE, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
OPPORTUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO
PREVENT RECIDIVISM, WHICH IS
COSTING HUMAN LIFE AND COSTING
CAPITAL, AROUND THESE THAT WE DO
A LITTLE BIT MORE ANALYSIS THAT
REALLY FOCUSES IN ON THE SCOPE
OF NEED, SO THAT IF WE HAVE TO
BE IN A POSITION OF MAKING THESE
CUTS, AT LEAST WE'RE DOING SO
WITH A SENSE ABILITY AROUND THE
CONSEQUENCE OF THAT. SURE. SO IT
MIGHT BE THAT THIS PROPOSAL HAS
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE
MORE, INTELLIGENT DECISIONS
AROUND, AROUND THESE KINDS OF
CUTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. AND THANK YOU FOR THE
DELIBERATION HERE AROUND SOME OF
THESE TOPICS. CERTAINLY, SOME OF
THOSE WERE QUESTIONS WE HAD.
ONE, THOUGH, THAT WE STILL HAVE
IS THE TRANSFER OF THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE PROGRAMS TO THE OFFICE
OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY
RESTORATION. THÀNH. WE HAD A
HEARING ON THIS TOPIC DURING
THIS YEAR. YES, AND PART OF THE
QUESTION IS WITH THE
IMPLEMENTATION THAT'S BEING
OFFERED ON PAGE 12, ITEM TWO,
WOULD THAT BE A TOTAL,
CONVERSION OF ALL THOSE THAT ARE
OUT THERE? AND IF NOT, WHICH
ONES ARE STILL LEFT TO BE
TRANSFERRED OVER THE CHANGE THAT
IS REFLECTED IN MAY REVISE
ENCOMPASSES THE YOUTHFUL
OFFENDER BLOCK GRANT THE JJC
JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME
PREVENTION ACT, AND THE JUVENILE
REENTRY GRANT. THOSE WERE THE
THREE MAIN ONES THAT HAD BEEN IN
CONSIDERATION EARLIER IN THIS
YEAR FOR TRANSFER, AND THE
DISCUSSIONS HAVE CARRIED ON
THERE. THERE'S SOME TRAILER BILL
LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS THE
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS. SO THIS
DOES, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW,
REFLECT THE TRANSFER OF THE
REMAINING JJ GRANTS FROM OUR
OFFICE OVER TO OIC R SO THAT
WOULD BE 100% GRANTS TRANSFERRED
OVER AFTER THIS OF THE JUVENILE
GRANTS. YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? NO WELL THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AS NOW WE TRANSITION TO
ISSUE FIVE. WE HAVE THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
LEO. THANK YOU
.
WELL THANK YOU. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. GOOD AFTERNOON. HENRY.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, I WILL BE
GOING OVER A FEW OF THE NOTABLE
ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED IN THE MAY
REVISION FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
BUDGET. THE MAY REVISION
INCLUDES EARLIER VERSIONS OF
CURRENT YEAR SAVINGS IDENTIFIED
BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH FOR THE
FOLLOWING. THESE INCLUDE 20
MILLION AND FROM ONE TIME,
FUNDING THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR
COURT INTERPRETER GRANTS. THANK
YOU, AND A REVERSION OF 5
MILLION IN OPERATIONAL SAVINGS.
THE MAY REVISION ALSO INCLUDES A
ONE TIME, 25 MILLION
UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE
TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND IN
20 2425, THIS BRINGS THE TOTAL
UP TO 105 MILLION, 80 MILLION OF
IT, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN EARLY
ACTION. THE MAY REVISION DOES
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS
TO SUPPORT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH,
AND THIS INCLUDES 21 MILLION AND
GENERAL FUND ONGOING, FOR TRIAL
COURT, EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND
RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND ALSO
ONGOING RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT
THE CHAPTER LEDGE SB 331. THOSE
RESOURCES WILL ALLOW THE COURTS
TO EXPAND ON EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS AND MATERIALS RELATED
TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND,
POST-CONVICTION PROBATION
SUPERVISION. I HAVE BEEN ASKED
TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE FOLLOWING
ISSUES, THE FIRST IS THE
REDUCTION TO CORE OPERATIONS.
THE MAY REVISION DOES INCLUDE A
97 MILLION ONGOING REDUCTION TO
TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS, THIS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEWIDE
APPROACH TO REDUCE STATE
OPERATIONS BY 7.95, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO WORK
WITH THE DEPARTMENTS IN THE FALL
TO BETTER FIGURE OUT HOW THESE
REDUCTIONS WILL BE MADE AND
OPERATIONALIZED, THEY MAY
REVISION ALSO INCLUDES A
REVERSION OF 16,000,000 IN 2023,
24, AND THEN ONGOING REDUCTIONS
OF 10 MILLION, TO THE FUNDING
PROVIDED FOR COURT REPORTERS.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAD
ANTICIPATED SAVINGS OF 16
MILLION, OVER THE PREVIOUS TWO
FISCAL YEARS, AND THEN THE 10
MILLION ONGOING REDUCTIONS TO
THIS PROGRAM IS TO REALLY ALIGN
WITH THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES OF
THE TRIAL COURTS, HOWEVER, WE
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
COURT REPORTERS, AND THE BUDGET
STILL MAINTAINS, 20 MILLION, FOR
THIS PROGRAM. FINALLY, THE MAY
REVISION INCLUDES A REVERSION OF
, 17.6 MILLION FROM THE TRIAL
COURT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
CARE COURT. THIS IS REALLY TO
ALIGN WITH THE, THE UPDATED
CASELOAD FIGURES, THEY CAME IN
LOWER THAN EXPECTED. SO REALLY,
THIS IS JUST AN ADJUSTMENT TO
ALIGN WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES
MY OVERVIEW. I'M JOINED BY MY
COLLEAGUES AT THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH AND FINANCE. HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, JUDICIAL COUNCIL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MARIA HERNANDEZ
PRESIDING JUDGE AND I SIT HERE
AS A JUDICIAL COUNCIL MEMBER, AS
CHAIR OF THE TRIAL COURT,
PRESIDING JUDGES ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, FIRST OF ALL, THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE
TO SHARE WITH YOU THIS
AFTERNOON. WE ARE VERY COMMITTED
TO MAINTAIN OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE LEGISLATURE, AS WELL AS THE
GOVERNOR'S ADMINISTRATION, TO
SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS. WE
UNDERSTAND THE CRISIS THAT WE'RE
IN, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO SHARE
THE IMPORTANCE AND THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HAVE OF THESE REDUCTIONS
TO TRIAL COURT OPERATIONS. THE
IMPACT THAT THAT HAS ON WHAT
YOU'VE ALL BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT
THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
THAT NEED TO ACCESS, PROVIDE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO
NEED TO COME THROUGH OUR DOORS.
THAT MEANS REDUCTIONS OF HOURS.
THAT MEANS SHUTTING CLOSED DOORS
. THOSE ARE ALL CONCERNS THAT WE
HAVE AS A BRANCH, AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
MAINTAINING OUR ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU. ELIO. ANITA LEE WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
, WE HAVE SOME HIGH LEVEL
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON TWO OF
THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEFORE
YOU, THE FIRST ONE IS THE
PROPOSED REDUCTION TO TRIAL
COURT OPERATIONS, THE 97 MILLION
REDUCTION. SO ABSENT ANY
SPECIFIC, DIRECTION FROM THE
LEGISLATURE, JUDICIAL COUNCIL
WILL GENERALLY HAVE FLEXIBILITY
IN HOW THOSE REDUCTIONS ARE
DISTRIBUTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL
TRIAL COURTS, ONE POSSIBLE WAY
IS THROUGH THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES
WORKLOAD FORMULA, WHICH IS
GENERALLY BASED ON WORKLOAD. SO
THAT COULD BE REASONABLE. BUT IT
COULD GO OUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS
AS WELL. SO TO THE EXTENT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS CLEAR PRIORITIES
FOR HOW YOU WANT THE REDUCTIONS
TO GO OUT, WE DO RECOMMEND THAT
THE LEGISLATURE ADOPT LANGUAGE
SPECIFYING THOSE PRIORITIES,
BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
THOSE PRIORITIES, EACH OF THE
INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURTS WILL BE
IMPLEMENTING THE REDUCTION IN
DIFFERENT WAYS. AND THAT COULD
HAVE THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT
SERVICE IMPACTS, WORKLOAD
REDUCTIONS, BACKLOGS, ETC, BY
INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURTS. THE
SECOND PIECE THAT WE WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU IS THE ACTION
RELATED TO COURT REPORTER
FUNDING. SO AS PART IN 20 2122,
THE BUDGET INCLUDED $30 MILLION
IN ONGOING GENERAL FUND SUPPORT,
WITH THE GOAL TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF COURT REPORTERS AND
FAMILY AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.
THE INDIVIDUAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE
USED THAT MONEY IN A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT WAYS, FOR EXAMPLE,
USING THE FUNDS TO SUPPLEMENT OR
INCREASE EXISTING COURT REPORTER
SALARIES. BUT ALSO OFFERING,
RETENTION AND HIRING BONUSES.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN
SOME OF THOSE CASES, THE COURTS
HAVE ENTERED INTO LABOR
AGREEMENTS THAT KIND OF DICTATE
HOW THE MONEY WOULD BE USED. AND
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
WANTED TO FLAG FOR THE
LEGISLATURE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE OF THOSE AGREEMENTS, THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE DESIRED
SAVINGS ARE ACHIEVABLE IS
UNCLEAR. AND SO IT IS AN EXAMPLE
OF THAT. THE MAY REVISION BUDGET
PROPOSES REDUCING THE AMOUNT BY
$10 MILLION IN 2024 AND ON AN
ONGOING BASIS. IN A SURVEY THAT
THE TRIAL COURTS CONDUCTED, THE
TRIAL COURTS REPORTED THAT ONLY
6.4 MILLION WAS ESTIMATED TO BE
UNSPENT AT THE END OF 20 2324.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S
ALREADY A DIFFERENCE THERE. SO
IF YOU WERE GOING TO INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF SAVINGS THAT YOU
WANTED TO ACHIEVE, WE JUST NOTE
THAT THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT
CHALLENGING, PENDING ANY LABOR
RENEGOTIATION MAKING THESE CUTS, I
WOULD HOPE THAT CASELOAD WOULD
BE A CORPORATION. AND THE DEGREE
TO WHICH THESE CUTS ARE, ARE
DISTRIBUTED BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE
, PART OF THE AREA THAT I
REPRESENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
, HAS, IN MY OPINION, AND I
THINK IT'S EASY TO JUSTIFY AND
EXPLAIN, BEEN UNDER PRIORITIZED
DURING SURPLUS YEARS. SO YOU
COULD JUST IMAGINE THE FEAR
THAT, THAT IS IN THE HEARTS OF
THOSE IN THOSE, JUDICIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.
. A NUMBER OF REASONS,
NONETHELESS. BUT, I JUST HOPE
THAT YOU
. HENRY. AND DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE, SO, AGAIN, 16
MILLION, WAS, SAVINGS CAPTURED
IN THE PREVIOUS TWO FISCAL
YEARS, AND THE 10 MILLION IS
REALLY STILL ALIGNED WITH THE
TRIAL COURT. EXPONENTIAL. SO WE
LOOKED AT THE PAST EXPENDITURES
OF THOSE FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE
COURT REPORTERS AND BELIEVED
THAT THIS WAS IT WAS REASONABLE,
AND IS THAT DISCUSSION BEING
DONE WITH THE VOICE OF THE
COURTS THEMSELVES AT THE TABLE
ATTESTING TO THE NEED FOR MORE,
COURT REPORTERS OR THE ABILITY
TO GO WITHOUT IT? YEAH. AGAIN,
HENRY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SO
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
NEED FOR COURT REPORTERS, AND
THE REASON WHY THIS IS BEING
PROPOSED IS REALLY JUST TO
ADDRESS THIS BUDGET DEFICIT THAT
WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS IS
JUST A PROPOSAL AND SOMETHING
THAT WE STILL CAN WORK THROUGH
AND DO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS AS
WELL. THANK YOU. YEAH, WE DID
HAVE A HEARING, PRIOR WE DID
IDENTIFY THAT THERE WAS A
GREATER NEED, IN THIS AREA. SO
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE DEEPLY
GOING TO BE LOOKING INTO. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL
MOVE TO ISSUE SIX. MR. CHAIR, IF
I MAY GO AHEAD. DID YOU WANT TO
CAN YOU STATE YOUR SORRY NUFOC
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. DID YOU
WANT A PRESENTATION ON THE
JURORS RETIREMENT SYSTEM
CONTRIBUTIONS? NO. NOT TODAY.
OKAY UNLESS SOMEBODY MOORLACH
YOU WANT IT. YEAH. I DIDN'T.
THANK YOU. WE MOVE, WE'RE MOVING
ON TO ISSUE SIX VICTIMS
COMPENSATION BOARD, MILITARY
DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. AND LEO.
GO AHEAD. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE?
YEP WILLIAM FLORES JONES,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. TODAY,
I'LL BE PROVIDING A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSALS INCLUDED
IN THE MAY REVISION FOR THE
VICTIMS COMPENSATION BOARD AND
THE MILITARY DEPARTMENT. SO
WE'RE GOING TO START OFF WITH
THE CALIFORNIA VICTIMS
COMPENSATION BOARD. THE FIRST
ITEM IS A WORKLOAD BQP FOR
350,000. ONGOING GENERAL FUND
FOR CALVCB TO PAY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR LEGAL
SERVICES PROVIDED DURING Ã
ERRONEOUS CONVICTIONS. CASES.
THE SECOND ITEM IS A CHAPTERED
LEGISLATION BQP FOR 1.46 MILLION
GENERAL FUND AND TWO POSITIONS
IN 24, 25 AND 1.1.4 2,000,000 IN
2526 AND ONGOING TO IMPLEMENT
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 702
STATUTES OF 2023, SB 76, NOW
TRANSITIONING OVER TO THE
CALIFORNIA MILITARY DEPARTMENT,
THE MAY REVISION INCLUDES FOUR
WORKLOAD BC TO PROVIDE CONTINUED
SUPPORT FOR THE MILITARY
DEPARTMENT'S OPERATIONS. THIS
INCLUDES. THE FIRST ITEM
INCLUDES A 554,000 GENERAL FUND
AND SEVEN POSITIONS IN 24, 25
AND 539,000. GENERAL FUND
ONGOING TO MEET THE SECURITY AND
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND COVER
UNANTICIPATED COSTS FOR
UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE AT THE
DEPARTMENT'S NEW CONSOLIDATED
HEADQUARTERS FACILITY. THE
SECOND ITEM INCLUDES 3.4 MILLION
GENERAL FUND AND 2 MILLION IN
REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORITY ONGOING
TO PROVIDE THE OPERATIONS TO
PROVIDE THE OPERATIONS OF
FIREFIGHTING HAND CREWS WITHIN
TASK FORCE RATTLESNAKE BY
PROVIDING REQUIRED PAY AND
BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS FOR ALL
EMERGENCY STATE ACTIVE DUTY CREW
MEMBERS AND RESOURCES FOR
INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY LEAVE, AS
IS REQUIRED FOR ALL HANDCREWS
THIRD ITEM INCLUDES 264,000
GENERAL FUND, 637,000. FEDERAL
TRUST FUND, 14,000 MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES FUND AND 4000 AND
REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORITY ONGOING
FOR AN ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO
ALIGN THE PAY OF THE MILITARY
DEPARTMENT'S STATE ACTIVE DUTY
EMPLOYEES TO THE PAY OF SERVICE
MEMBERS OF A SIMILAR GRADE IN
THE FEDERAL ARMED FORCES. THIS
ADJUSTS THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT IN JANUARY.
THE FOURTH AND FINAL PROPOSAL
INCLUDES 2.9 MILLION GENERAL
FUND, 4.6 MILLION FEDERAL TRUST
FUND, AND 285,000 REIMBURSEMENT
AUTHORITY AND 105,000 MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES FUND ONGOING TO
PROVIDE RESOURCES TO COVER COSTS
FOR BENEFIT ADJUSTMENTS FOR
STATE ACTIVE DUTY EMPLOYEES THAT
WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN RECENT
YEARS. WE'RE OPEN FOR ANY
QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ELIO
DREW SODERBERG, LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST OFFICE HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ANY OTHERS? MICHELLE
MICHELLE LOPER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MILITARY DEPARTMENT.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
REGARDING PROGRAMS OR ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM
THE DÍAS? I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND
KNOWING THAT THE BUDGET
CONSTRAINTS ARE TOUGH ACROSS THE
BOARD. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION. AS NOW WE MOVE ON
TO ISSUE SEVEN. VICTIMS
COMPENSATION ARE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE LEO AND DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR RAMOS AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER LACKEY. MY NAME
IS ANTHONY FRANZOIA FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AND I
WILL BE HIGHLIGHTING A HANDFUL
OF THE ADJUSTMENTS INCLUDED IN
THE MAYOR'S VISION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FIRST AND
FOREMOST, AS YOU MAY RECALL,
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, WE PROPOSED A
$100 MILLION BUDGETARY LOAN FROM
DOJ'S LITIGATION DEPOSITS FUND
TO THE GENERAL FUND. HOWEVER
GIVEN SOME STATUTORY CHANGES,
WE'RE NOW PROPOSING TO SWITCH
THE FUND SOURCE TO THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW FUND AND THEN
THE MAYOR REVISION ALSO PROPOSES
AN ADDITIONAL $30 MILLION LOAN.
ON TOP OF THAT, IN 2425, FOR A
TOTAL LOAN OF $130 MILLION, IN
TERMS OF WORKLOAD, BC THE MAYOR
REVISION INCLUDES ONGOING
RESOURCES FOR SIX WORKLOAD BC IN
2425. THESE BC AMOUNT TO $30.7
MILLION AND 93 POSITIONS. THE
GENERAL FUND COMPONENT IS $12.8
MILLION AND EIGHT POSITIONS, AND
THE SPECIAL FUND COMPONENT IS
$17.9 MILLION AND 85 POSITIONS,
FOR CHAPTER LEGISLATION, THE
ONGOING RESOURCES INCLUDED IN
THE MAYOR REVISION FOR 13
CHAPTER LEGISLATION BC AMOUNT TO
$17.45 MILLION AND 47 POSITIONS,
AND AGAIN SPLITTING IT BETWEEN
GENERAL FUND AND SPECIAL FUND.
THE GENERAL FUND COMPONENT IS
JUST UNDER 16,000,041 POSITIONS,
AND THE SPECIAL FUND COMPONENT
IS ABOUT 1.5 MILLION. AND SIX
POSITIONS, MOVING ON TO GENERAL
FUND SOLUTION, THERE ARE TWO
SOLUTIONS IN THE MAYOR REVISION
FOR DOJ. I'LL COVER THE LARGER
ONE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS ON THE SECOND SMALLER
ONE, SO THE LARGER ONE IS A $15
MILLION ONGOING REDUCTION FOR
THE DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND THE DIVISION OF LEGAL
SERVICES AND THAT WILL BE A $10
MILLION REDUCTION FOR THE
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
A $5 MILLION REDUCTION FOR THE
DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. DOJ
HAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE
HOW IT IMPLEMENTS THIS
REDUCTION. WE'RE NOT BEING
PRESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF TELLING
DOJ WHICH PROGRAMS OR OPERATIONS
, TO CUT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT
THE MAYOR DIVISION HAS ONLY JUST
BEEN RELEASED, I DON'T THINK DOJ
HAS SPECIFICS ON WHAT THEY WILL
REDUCE TO MEET THIS TARGET, BUT
DOJ IS WORKING WITH DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE AND HAVING THEIR OWN
INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS TO COME
UP WITH SPECIFICS FOR THIS. AND
WE'RE COMMITTED TO STAYING
ENGAGED WITH THE LEGISLATURE
OVER THESE NEXT WEEKS. AND THEN
LASTLY, JUST TOUCHING ON THE
VACANCY SWEEP AND THE 7.95,
STATE OPERATIONS REDUCTION,
AGAIN, WE DON'T SIMILAR TO THE
$15 MILLION SOLUTION, WE DON'T
HAVE A SPECIFIC ON WHAT EXACTLY
THIS WILL LOOK LIKE FOR DOJ AT
THIS POINT IN TIME. AGAIN, THE
MAYOR VISION IS ONLY JUST BEEN
RELEASED, BUT DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS OVER THE SUMMER
AND INTO THE FALL TO
OPERATIONALIZE, BOTH OF THOSE,
THE VACANCY SWEEP AND THE
REDUCTION, IN A WAY THAT IS
MINIMALLY IMPACTFUL TO DOJ'S
OPERATIONS. SO I'LL CLOSE THERE
AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
CHRIS RYAN WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE DIVISION, DIVISION OF
OPERATIONS, WE WOULD APPRECIATE
AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE GRAVITY
OF THE CURRENT BUDGET
ENVIRONMENT, AND WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THE CUTS ARE NEEDED ACROSS
THE BOARD. WE WILL DO ALL WE CAN
TO MAINTAIN OUR MISSION CRITICAL
PROGRAMS IN LIGHT OF THE
PROPOSED CUTS. AND AT THIS TIME,
WE DO NOT HAVE THE DETAILS, AS
FINANCE EXPLAINED ABOUT THE
SPECIFICS ABOUT THE DIVISION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OR THE DIVISION
OF LEGAL SERVICES THAT WERE
MENTIONED, WE NOTE THAT OVER THE
PAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE OFTEN
TALKED ABOUT HARD TO FILL
POSITIONS IN OUR MISSION
CRITICAL PROGRAMS. AND THESE
PROPOSED REDUCTIONS MAY MAKE IT
EVEN MORE MORE CHALLENGING TO
ADDRESS OUR LEGAL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. WE WILL,
OF COURSE, DO ALL WE CAN TO
CARRY OUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND
MANDATED DUTIES, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING.
AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH, ELIO.
ANITA LEE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE WILL HAVE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS COMING TO THE
COMMITTEE IN THE COMING DAYS.
BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S
HEARING, WE HAVE TWO KIND OF BIG
PICTURE PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
THAT WE WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR
ATTENTION. THE FIRST IS RELATED
TO THE PROPOSED 10 MILLION
ONGOING REDUCTION TO THE
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR
DLA. DLA GENERALLY SUPPORTS
DOJ'S TASK FORCES AND
INVESTIGATION TEAMS, AS WELL AS
THE BUREAU OF FIREARMS, THE
BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES, AND
THE BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL.
ALL OF THESE, WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL,
RECEIVE GENERAL FUND SUPPORT,
AND SO THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
WANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY
WANT TO PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR
HOW THE REDUCTION SHOULD BE
IMPLEMENTED. SO AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT IS THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
THINK THAT CERTAIN INVESTIGATION
TEAMS OR TASK FORCES SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZED TO BE MAINTAINED
OVER OTHERS. AND SO THAT'S, THE
FIRST COMMENT RELATED TO THAT
WITHIN DLA, AS I MENTIONED,
THERE IS THE BUREAU OF FORENSIC
SERVICES, AS PART OF YOUR
DELIBERATION, WE WANTED TO
REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT THE
STATE HAS PROVIDED GENERAL FUND
SUPPORT TO SUPPORT THE BUREAU OF
FORENSIC SERVICES, OR BFS, SINCE
20 1617, TO BACKFILL A DECLINE
IN CRIMINAL FINE AND FEE REVENUE
THAT SUPPORTS THE BUREAU'S
OPERATIONS, SPECIFICALLY, IN THE
MOST RECENT ACTION, THE 2324
BUDGET INCLUDED A 46.1 MILLION
GENERAL FUND BACKFILL ANNUALLY
FOR THREE YEARS, AND ALSO
AUTHORIZED THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE TO INCREASE THAT AMOUNT
IF MORE WAS NEEDED THROUGH THE
SECTION LETTER PROCESS, AND SO
WE WOULD NOTE, GIVEN KIND OF THE
STATE'S BUDGET SITUATION, THAT
OUR OFFICE HAS MADE PRIOR
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS AREA TO,
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL
FUND THAT IS POTENTIALLY NEEDED
TO SUPPORT BFS. AND
SPECIFICALLY, WE RECOMMENDED
REQUIRING THAT USERS OF BFS
SERVICES BE DIRECTED TO
PARTIALLY SUPPORT ITS
OPERATIONS. THIS WOULD HAVE THE
IMPACT OF MINIMIZING THE GENERAL
FUND NEEDED, BUT ALSO
ENCOURAGING USERS TO PRIORITIZE
THE WORKLOAD THAT THEY WERE
SENDING TO THE DEPARTMENT TO GET
DONE. AND SO, GIVEN THE STATE'S
BUDGET SITUATION, THE
LEGISLATURE COULD CONSIDER
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INTERESTED
IN DOING THIS IN LIEU OR IN
ADDITION TO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE
YOU, THE SECOND SERIES OF
COMMENTS THAT WE PROVIDE IS
RELATED TO SIX FIREARM RELATED
PROPOSALS. THESE SIX PROPOSALS
TOTAL 15.5 MILLION. GENERAL FUND
AND 2425. AND THEN THAT DECLINES
TO A TOTAL OF 8.1 MILLION
ANNUALLY BEGINNING IN 2728.
WHILE WE GENERALLY DON'T HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE DOLLAR
AMOUNTS, WE DO QUESTION WHETHER
THE GENERAL FUND IS THE
APPROPRIATE FUND TO FUND SOURCE
TO SUPPORT THOSE COSTS.
SPECIFICALLY, IT DOES SEEM AS IF
THESE COSTS COULD BE SUPPORTED
BY THE FIREARM SPECIAL FUNDS,
MOST NOTABLY THE DEALER DEALERS
RECORD OF SALE SPECIAL ACCOUNT
OR DRAWS ACCOUNT, WHICH IS
AUTHORIZED TO SUPPORT A VARIETY
OF DOJ FIREARM RELATED PROGRAMS
AND ACTIVITIES, AS AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT, ONE OF THE SIX PROPOSALS
IS FUNDING FOR THE NEXT STEP OF
AN IT PROJECT. THE FIREARMS IT
SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROJECT, OR
FITSUM. THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSES TO FUND THAT FROM THE
GENERAL FUND, BUT ALL PRIOR
ITERATIONS OF FUNDING FOR THIS
PROJECT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FROM
DRAWS AND SO THAT KIND OF GIVES
YOU AN EXAMPLE, AND SO IF WE'RE
FUNDING THEM FROM FIREARM
RELATED FEE REVENUES, THAT
POTENTIALLY MERITS CONSIDERATION
GIVEN THE STATE'S BUDGET
SITUATION, WE DO NOTE THAT DRAWS
SOLVENCY MAY BE OF CONCERN. AND
SO THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT WANT TO
CONSIDER WHETHER TO INCREASE THE
FEE OR TO OFFER A GENERAL FUND
LOAN THAT WOULD THEN BE REPAID
BY DRAWS, REVENUES, WE'D FINALLY
LIKE TO CONCLUDE THAT
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO FITSUM,
YOU DO NOT HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR
THE NEXT STAGE, THE NEXT FEW
STAGES, WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE
BUILD OUT, BUT TO BUILD OUT THE
SYSTEM, THE UPCOMING FORTHCOMING
COST IS POTENTIALLY IN THE
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
AND BECAUSE OF THAT POTENTIAL
ONGOING COST, THE LEGISLATURE
MIGHT ALSO EXCUSE ME. THE
LEGISLATURE MIGHT ALSO WANT TO
CONSIDER DIRECTING DOJ TO DO AN
ASSESSMENT OF HOW MUCH THE DRAWS
FEE REVENUE MIGHT NEED TO BE
INCREASED TO BASICALLY FULLY PAY
FOR THAT COST. THE LEGISLATURE
COULD TAKE THAT INFORMATION TO
THEN DECIDE HOW MUCH OF A FEE
INCREASE IT WOULD WANT WHILE
BALANCING ITS PRIORITIES. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, ENSURING THAT THERE'S
SUFFICIENT MONEY AVAILABLE FOR
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES WHILE NOT
PUTTING A HUGE BURDEN ON FIREARM
PURCHASERS. AND SO THAT'S JUST
AN EXAMPLE OF BALANCING THE
PRIORITIES. AND SO THAT LOOKS A
LITTLE BIT TO THE FUTURE IN
TERMS OF A COST THAT IS COMING
DOWN THE LINE. HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU
MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THAT. ANY QUESTIONS
FROM THE DAIS, MR. VICE CHAIR
LACKEY? NO, I EXCUSE ME. ALL I
HAVE IS A CONGRATULATIONS
BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU GOT A
SLIGHT INCREASE AS OPPOSED TO
CUTS. SO. WELL DONE. YOU AND OAS
. THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. WELL
DONE. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
BRIGHTENING ENLIGHTENMENT HERE
TODAY. I HAVE NO FURTHER
COMMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AS WE MOVE NOW TO
ISSUE EIGHT, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES LEÓN DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
.
THANK YOU. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
. HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. TESS
SCHRECKENBACH WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. I'M JUST
GOING TO PROVIDE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THE GENERAL FUND
SOLUTIONS IN CAL OES BUDGET,
THERE ARE FIVE TOTAL. AND THE
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS IN THE MAY
REVISION RESULT IN A TOTAL OF
142.8 MILLION. IN GENERAL, FUND
SAVINGS FROM 20 2324 THROUGH 20
2728, AND THAT INCLUDES 7.3
MILLION IN 20 2324, 22,000,000
IN 2024, 25, 69.5 MILLION AND
2025 2622 MILLION. IN 20 2627,
AND IN ANOTHER 22,000,000 IN 20
2728. NOW I'LL GO INDIVIDUALLY
THROUGH THESE. THE FIRST
SOLUTION IS FOR THE STATE
DISASTER WAREHOUSING OPERATIONS
20 2223 UNENCUMBERED BALANCE.
THE MAY REVISION PROPOSES
REVERTING 640,000 GENERAL FUND
MAINTAIN 99.5% OF THE TOTAL
ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION FOR THIS
PROGRAM. NEXT IS THE FIRE FLEET
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT, AND THIS
PROPOSAL IS REVERTING THE
REMAINDER OF CURRENT YEAR
FUNDING FOR FLEET VEHICLE
REPLACEMENT, WHICH RESULTS IN
6.6 2,000,000IN GENERAL FUND
SAVINGS. NEXT IS THE LEAST DOSE
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS CAMPAIGN, AND THIS
PROPOSAL RESULTS IN A REDUCTION
OF 12.5 MILLION. GENERAL FUND
ONGOING, MAINTAINING 50% OF THE
TOTAL ORIGINAL APPROPRIATION FOR
THIS PROGRAM. NEXT IS THE
WAREHOUSING OPERATIONS SOLUTION,
WHICH PROPOSES A REDUCTION OF
9.5 MILLION GENERAL FUND IN 20
2425, 2025, 26, 26, 27 AND THEN
ALSO 2728, AND THIS MAINTAINS
82% OF THE TOTAL ORIGINAL
APPROPRIATION FOR THIS PROGRAM.
LASTLY IS THE FLEXIBLE CASH
ASSISTANCE FOR SURVIVORS OF
CRIME PROGRAM AND THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. PROPOSED REVERTING THE
REMAINING 47.5 MILLION FOR THIS
PROGRAM IN 20 2324 AND DELAYING
OR DELAYING THIS FUNDING TO 20
2526. BUT HOWEVER, GIVEN THE
MAGNITUDE OF THE BUDGET PROBLEM
THAT WE'RE FACING AND THE MAY
REVISION, THE MAY REVISION
PROPOSES TO, REMOVE THE DELAY
AND INSTEAD RESULT IN A STRAIGHT
REVERSION OF PROGRAM FUNDING.
THAT'S IT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON
SOLUTIONS. THANK YOU KELLY. YES,
ERIC SWANSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF, FINANCE ADMINISTRATION AT
CALLAWAY, IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ELIO DREW
SODERBERG, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
DAIS? SÐNG MOORLACH. EXCUSE ME.
HOW HOW OFTEN DOES CAL OS
REPLACE VEHICLES? AND, WHAT DO
YOU DO WITH THE USED ONES, WE
HAVE AN ANNUAL BUDGET FOR
REPLACING FIRE ENGINES AND WATER
TENDERS, WE FOLLOW THE
GUIDELINES ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT
THE USABLE LIFE OF THESE
VEHICLES ARE, WE DID THIS, WE
GOT THIS, SORT OF SHORED UP IN A
BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL A FEW
YEARS AGO, AS FAR AS WHAT WE DO
WITH THEM AFTERWARDS, I'LL HAVE
TO GET BACK TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW
THAT THAT THAT ANSWER. OKAY.
THANK YOU. I'M VERY FAMILIAR
WITH THE HIGHWAY PATROL AND WHAT
THEY DO WITH THEIRS. SO I
WONDERED IF IT WOULD BE SIMILAR
TO WHAT THEY DO WITH THEIR WITH
THEIR VEHICLES. I'M HAPPY TO
FOLLOW UP A LITTLE POINT OF
CLARIFICATION ON THAT, SO THESE
VEHICLES ARE PART OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID SYSTEM.
SO THEY ARE RELIED UPON BY LOCAL
LAW, LOCAL ENTITIES WHO DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE VEHICLES AT
THEIR DISPOSAL. AND SO IT'S PART
OF THE LARGER MUTUAL AID SYSTEM.
SO LOCAL ENTITIES RELY ON THESE
VEHICLES. I JUST WONDERED IF
THERE WAS, AN AUCTION PROCESS TO
WHERE THE AUCTION OFF THE
VEHICLES, LIKE, LIKE THE HIGH
PATROL WHEEL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THIS. QUESTIONS, JUST ONE
QUESTION OR CLARITY, THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION FOR THE
LISTOS CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM. CAN YOU
ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON
THAT? AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR
RESPONSE? SURE. I'M HAPPY TO
SPEAK TO KIND OF THE FRAMEWORK
THAT WAS USED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION IN, IN LOOKING AT
THE LEAST DOSE PROPOSAL, SO THE
ADMINISTRATION USED A FRAMEWORK
THAT WAS ASSESSING ONGOING
GENERAL FUND PROGRAM EXPANSION
ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST
CAL OES. AND WE'RE SPECIFICALLY
LOOKING FOR INVESTMENTS THAT
WERE SCALABLE. YOU KNOW, GIVEN
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE BUDGET
PROBLEM THAT WE'RE FACING AS
PART OF MAYOR VISION. AND SO
LEAST DOSE WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE
OF THOSE PROGRAMS. AS YOU'LL
SEE, IT'S A 50% REDUCTION. AND,
YOU KNOW, PRESERVING AS MUCH OF,
YOU KNOW, THE INTEGRITY OF THE
PROGRAM AS WE CAN WHILE ALSO
MAKING IT SCALABLE GIVEN THE
BUDGET CONDITION THAT WE ARE IN.
BUT THANK YOU. AND LISTOS,
PROGRAM HELPING TO LET LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BE READY, AS WELL AS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO BE
READY, UNDER THIS LEASE DOSE
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, PROGRAM. SO I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE DAIS?
THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO ISSUE NUMBER NINE,
SAME PANEL, I BELIEVE. AND WE'LL
START WITH DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. ACTUALLY, WITH THIS
ONE, WE'LL START WITH, START
WITH ME AND IF IT'S OKAY. THANK
YOU. YES. WE'LL START WITH YOU
THEN. YEAH I GET YES, I GET TO
TALK ABOUT THE WHO'S NEXT. YEAH.
JUST KIDDING, I'D LIKE TO IF WE
COULD. I TALKED TO YOUR
CONSULTANT ABOUT THIS COMBINED
ISSUES NINE AND TEN, BECAUSE
THEY'RE BOTH, BCP PROPOSALS ONE
ARE SORT OF, AUGMENTATION, THE
OTHER TECHNICAL FIXES. OKAY.
THERE ARE TWO, TWO PROPOSALS
RELATED TO CHAPTER LEGISLATION,
AND THEY ADD UP TO ABOUT 900,003
POSITIONS. THE FIRST IS 666,002
POSITIONS RELATED TO THE
CALIFORNIA FIREFIGHTER CANCER
PREVENTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.
THE SECOND IS ONE POSITION AND
234,000 RELATED TO CHAPTER
LEGISLATION THAT CHANGED HOW WE
DID THE CALIFORNIA STATE
NONPROFIT SECURITY GRANT
PROGRAM. WE HAVE A CAPITAL
OUTLAY PROPOSAL THAT IS A NET
INCREASE OF 3.2 MILLION. GENERAL
FUND. AND THIS IS RELATED TO,
MOVING SOME, RADIO TOWERS THAT
ARE IN DEL NORTE COUNTY THAT
SERVE BOTH, DEL NORTE AND
HUMBOLDT COUNTY, THERE ARE
INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
PHASE OF THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE A
REQUEST FOR 15.8 MILLION.
RELATED. THIS IS ALL FEDERAL
FUNDS RELATED TO ANOTHER ROUND
OF CYBERSECURITY GRANTS. THESE
GO BOTH TO THE STATE AND TO
LOCALS. FOR THESE GRANTS. AND
THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE A 23.7
MILLION IN STATE EMERGENCY
TELEPHONE NETWORK ACCOUNT FUNDS
THAT WE'RE REQUESTING FOR FOUR
YEARS. THIS WAS A INADVERTENT,
INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF OF A
JANUARY PROPOSAL. THIS IS FOR
EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH,
REPLACING BOTH LOCAL AND STATE
911 PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY
EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS
IMPLEMENTING OUR CALIFORNIA
RADIO INTEROPERABILITY SYSTEM,
AND WITH THAT, I'LL WAIT. ANY
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. WE'RE
AVAILABLE FOR ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU
ELIO. ALSO AVAILABLE FOR
QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS BOTH
ISSUES NINE AND TEN. YEAH ANY
COMMENTS FROM THE DAIS ON ISSUES
NINE AND TEN. NO WELL THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AS NOW WE
MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AS WE MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT, WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH PERSON WILL HAVE UP TO ONE
MINUTE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME
IN THE ISSUE THAT WE COVERED
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS JANICE
O'MALLEY WITH AFSCME CALIFORNIA,
JUST IN REGARDS TO THE CDCR
PROPOSALS, REALLY THANKFUL FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA'S REMARKS
ON, CONTRACT MEDICAL SERVICES.
AGAIN THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
AFSCME CALIFORNIA HAS RAISED
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE MULTIPLE
TIMES OVER THE YEARS. WE REALLY
THINK THAT THERE ARE TRUE COST
SAVINGS AVAILABLE DURING THESE
DOWN BUDGET YEARS TO SAVE MONEY
AND INSOURCE, WORK THAT THE
MEDICAL STAFF CAN PROVIDE WITHIN
THE AGENCY. SO REALLY HOPING
THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THIS
COMMITTEE REVIEWS THAT IN
EARNEST AND RETURNS THE WORK TO
THE APPROPRIATE, STATE
EMPLOYEES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. Dð COONEY, ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
RELATED TO THE CDCR, PROPOSAL WE
HEARD TODAY, BUT ALSO A PROPOSAL
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE MAY
REVISE, WE SPECIFICALLY
REFERRING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
PILOT PROGRAM, AS I MENTIONED,
CURRENTLY NOT IN THE REVISED,
BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT IT WILL BE
INCLUDED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, PILOT
PROGRAM IS A MODERATE SHORT TERM
INVESTMENT THAT'S ALREADY SAVED,
OVER $94 MILLION, RETAINING THIS
LAST YEAR OF FUNDING WILL YIELD
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS FOR THE STATE
, THE SECOND ITEM THAT WE'RE
REQUESTING TODAY IS THE CLOSURE
OF FIVE ADDITIONAL PRISONS, AS
WE HEARD TODAY, THERE'S A LOT OF
FUNDING RELATED TO OPERATING
THESE. AND WE FEEL THAT CLOSING
FIVE ADDITIONAL PRISONS WILL
HELP CLOSE THE GAP IN OUR BUDGET
AND ALSO YIELD AN ANNUAL COST
SAVINGS OF NEARLY $1 BILLION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ED
LITTLE. I'M WITH CALIFORNIANS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND I'M
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MAY REVISION PROPOSAL TO
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THE FUNDING
FOR CRIME SURVIVORS FLEXIBLE
ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM,
PROVIDING URGENT HELP WITHOUT
RED TAPE TO SURVIVORS IS A
CRITICAL PART OF THE STATE'S
SAFETY STRATEGY. SURVIVORS HAVE
WAITED LONG ENOUGH FOR A PROGRAM
THAT MEETS THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS
AND CAL OES IS READY TO BEGIN
DISTRIBUTING THE FAST GRANT
AWARDS. WE ARE ALSO IN SUPPORT
OF CLOSING FIVE ADDITIONAL
PRISONS. WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD
BE A MORE PRUDENT WAY TO BALANCE
THE BUDGET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
COMMITTEE AND STAFF RYAN MOONEY
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES HERE TO
PROVIDE A BRIEF REMARKS ON A
COUPLE OF ISSUES, FIRST, I KNOW
WE APPEARED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE BEFORE ON THE PUBLIC
DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM, BUT WE
URGE THAT YOU FULLY FUND THE
THIRD AND FINAL YEAR TO ENSURE
THAT COUNTIES CAN SUCCESSFULLY
IMPLEMENT RECENTLY PASSED
LEGISLATION AND PROVIDE THOSE
CRITICAL POST-CONVICTION
SERVICES. SECOND, AS IT RELATES
TO VOCA, THE VICTIMS OF CRIME
ACT, I KNOW IT WASN'T
SPECIFICALLY TOUCHED ON, BUT WE
ARE DEFINITELY CONCERNED WITH
THE HISTORIC SHORTFALL AND WOULD
ALSO RESPECTFULLY URGE THAT THE
LEGISLATURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CONSIDER SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
GIVEN THE SHORTFALL. AND THEN
LASTLY, TWO QUICK ITEMS THE
ELIMINATION OF THE FUNDING FOR
POST-RELEASE COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION IS SOMETHING THAT WE
OPPOSE. AND AS WELL AS THE
REDUCTIONS TO THE MEDICAID
MEDICATION ASSISTANT TREATMENT
GRANTS. SO THANK YOU FOR THE
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. NATASHA MINSKER
SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA. WE
URGE YOU TO CLOSE FIVE
ADDITIONAL PRISONS AND USE THOSE
SAVINGS TO REJECT THE PROPOSED
CUTS TO MEDICALLY ASSISTED
TREATMENT, REJECT THE LIMITATION
OF VISITATION FOR INDIVIDUALS IN
LEVEL FOUR PRISONS. WE URGE YOU
TO REJECT THE PROPOSED CUT TO
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER PILOT
PROGRAM. WE URGE YOU TO REJECT
THE PROPOSED CUT TO THE VICTIMS
FLEXIBLE CASH ASSISTANCE. WE
URGE YOU TO REJECT THE PROPOSED
CUT TO ADULT REENTRY, AND WE
URGE YOU TO ADDRESS THE
SHORTFALL IN THE VICTIMS OF
CRIME ASSISTANCE FUND. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS
. KRISTA COLEMAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SPEAKING TO
THE CAL OES BUDGET AND THE NEED
FOR THE STATE TO PROVIDE
AUGMENTED FUNDING TO ADDRESS THE
SHORTFALL IN VICTIMS OF CRIME
ACT FUNDING TO PREVENT REALLY
DEVASTATING CUTS TO DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SHELTER PROGRAMS, RAPE
CRISIS CENTERS, CHILD ABUSE
PROGRAMS, AND SO MUCH MORE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS,
CORY SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, JUST VERY BRIEFLY,
WOULD ECHO THE COMMENTS ABOUT
THE VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT FUNDING
, THE NEED FOR A STATE BACKFILL
FOR THAT FEDERAL CUT. AND THEN I
WOULD NOTE TWO THINGS REFERENCED
IN THE HEARING TODAY,
SPECIFICALLY ONE, IN REFERENCE
TO THE LIU'S COMMENTS ON THE
BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES AND
THE NOTION OF USER PAY. THAT
MEANS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES WOULD PAY FOR THE
FORENSIC SERVICES LIKE DNA
TESTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO
JUST MAKING VERY CLEAR WHAT THAT
ENTAILS. AND THEN WITHOUT A
POSITION, SPECIFICALLY ON
CLOSURES, WE WOULD OBJECT TO THE
FULL CLOSURES OF FIVE ADDITIONAL
PRISONS. WE'RE STILL CONSIDERING
, THE PROPOSAL AND THE REVISED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR COMMENTS, KENNETH HARTMAN.
TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMING WORKS,
THREE THINGS. ONE, REGARDING THE
CDCR, IT FEELS LIKE WHAT CAN BE
CUT, WHAT CAN'T BE CUT, WHAT
MIGHT BE CUT DOWN THE ROAD SEEMS
VERY UNCLEAR. AND MAYBE THE
LEGISLATURE NEEDS MORE
INFORMATION, ALSO REALLY
STRONGLY OPPOSE, CONTRACTING ON
VISITING AND JEOPARDIZING FAMILY
CONNECTIONS. AND FINALLY, REALLY
ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
CONTINUING THE PROGRESS THAT THE
ASSEMBLY AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS
MADE ON REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMING AVAILABILITY IN CDCR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. HI. MY NAME IS
MISTY HASSAN. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF CREATIVE ACTS, A COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATION. THÀNH,
ECHOING ON THE COMMENTS MADE
BEFORE ME, I'M OPPOSED TO THE
PROPOSAL TO CUT FRIDAY
VISITATION AND THE SUPPORT TO
COMMUNITY BASED PROGRAMS. WE DO
NOT WANT TO SACRIFICE OUR THE
FAMILY CONNECTIONS AND
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING WITHIN
PRISONS THAT ARE CULTIVATING
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
GENERATIONAL HEALING. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. HI, MY NAME IS MAJOR
BUNTON. I'M WITH MADE NEW
FOUNDATION A CO-FOUNDER AND
OPPOSITION OF THE PROPOSAL TO
CUT THE THIRD DAY OF VISITING IN
LEVEL FOUR YARDS, URGING YOU
GUYS TO SHIFT THE FUNDING JUST
DESIGNATED TO THE PROJECTS TO
SAN QUENTIN TO SUPPORT THE
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
STATEWIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HELLO, TANA
OPPLIGER WITH CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET OR
CURB, SPEAKING TO CDCR BUDGET
CUTS, IF THE PROPOSED 7.95%
BUDGET REDUCTION IS APPLIED TO
CDCR AS A FLAT CUT, WE KNOW IT
WOULD AMOUNT TO A SIGNIFICANT $1
BILLION IN SAVINGS. HOWEVER THE
DOF STATES THAT PORTIONS OF
PRISON OPERATIONS COULD BE
EXEMPT FROM THESE CUTS AND THAT
THESE EXEMPTIONS WON'T BE
DETERMINED UNTIL FALL. SO WE
WANT TO ASK, HOW IS THIS
COMMITTEE SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY
SAVINGS AND BALANCE THE BUDGET
IN JUNE, WHEN WE DON'T RECEIVE
THIS DATA UNTIL THE FALL? WE
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE URGENT
NEED FOR IMPROVED TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION, AND
WE ALSO CALL FOR THE CLOSURE OF
AT LEAST FIVE PRISONS, WHICH
WOULD SAVE $1 BILLION. ONGOING
AS WELL AS THE PROTECTION OF
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON, EMILY,
WITH THE ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS. I WANT TO
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION,
THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS HAVING
ABOUT THE CONSOLIDATION AND
CLOSURE OF THE PRISON BEDS AND
THE ELLA BAKER CENTER WOULD URGE
YOU TO CLOSE FIVE PRISONS
INSTEAD OF DEACTIVATING
INDIVIDUAL BEDS, TO SEE THE MOST
AMOUNT OF SAVINGS SO THAT WE CAN
REDUCE CUTS THAT ARE HAPPENING
ACROSS THE STATE, PARTICULARLY
TO SERVICES THAT ARE VITAL TO
PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING TO
PRISON. WE'RE ALSO STRONGLY
CONCERNED ABOUT REDUCING
VISITING ON LEVEL 4 TO 2 DAYS,
AND I URGE YOU TO REJECT THAT
ITEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. HELLO. MY NAME IS
ALICIA MONTEIRO. I'M THE WIFE OF
A LIFER WHO'S BEEN INSIDE FOR 24
YEARS FOR A CRIME COMMITTED WHEN
HE WAS A YOUTH WHERE NOBODY WAS
HURT, DESPITE THE REDUCTIONS IN
PRISON POPULATIONS AND OCCUPIED
PRISON BEDS, SPENDING ON
CORRECTIONS HAS CONTINUED TO
INCREASE OVER THE LAST DECADE,
REACHING AN OVERALL 19 BILLION.
WHILE THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED
MASSIVE REDUCTIONS TO EDUCATION,
HEALTH AND OTHER SERVICES. IN
THE MAY REVISION. THE PROPOSED
BUDGET FOR CORRECTIONS HAS
ACTUALLY GROWN SINCE THE JANUARY
BUDGET, WITH AN INCREASE OF $58
BILLION SINCE THEN. FINALLY, I
WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE
REPEATED FACT THAT THE LOSS OF
ONE VISITING DAY WILL ONLY
AFFECT 19% OF THE POPULATION,
DOING THIS TO EVEN ONE FAMILY IS
CRUEL AND SHOWS ZERO CARE FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S NOT JUST ONE
FAMILY THOUGH, IS IT? 19% OR
17,000 PLUS INCARCERATED PEOPLE?
AND THAT NUMBER DOESN'T INCLUDE
THE LARGER NUMBER THAT IT
AFFECTS, INCLUDING FAMILY
MEMBERS AND CHILDREN. WHEN I
VISIT MY HUSBAND, SOMETIMES JADA
CAN'T GO ON FRIDAY, JORDAN CAN'T
GO ON SUNDAY. MAYBE KLAY HAS
BASKETBALL ON ON ON ON FRIDAY.
SO PULLING ONE OF THESE DAYS
AWAY IS CRUEL. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD DO THIS
TO CHILDREN OR FAMILIES. EXCUSE
ME, WE URGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
SAVE PRISON VISITS, CUT PAROLE
FUNDING, AND CLOSE AT LEAST FIVE
PRISONS AS A RESPONSIBLE
APPROACH TO OFFSETTING CUTS TO
OTHER VITAL SERVICES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. AND, I'M IMPACTED DIRECTLY
FOR A LEVEL FOR MY HUSBAND HAS
BEEN IN PRISON FOR 30 YEARS.
HE'S GOT LIFE WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY. MANY PEOPLE WITH
LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY ON
LEVEL FOURS, WHAT I WANT TO SAY
IS, ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES,
FRIDAYS ARE VITAL TO US BECAUSE
SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS, THOSE
LEVEL FOURS ARE OVERCROWDED. WE
ONLY. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET SIX
HOURS OF VISITING. AND ON
SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS WE'RE
LUCKY IF WE GET TWO. SO THOSE
FRIDAY VISITS ARE VITAL TO US.
SO I. I ALSO ASK YOU TO OPPOSE
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FUNDING THAT
YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM
THEM. WE NEED THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS. THEY NEED MORE
FUNDING, IF WE CAN TAKE SOME
FROM THE DA'S, THAT WOULD BE
NICE. ALSO, A SUGGESTION WOULD
BE TO FIND CDCR WHEN THEY COME
TO THESE HEARINGS, WHEN THEY
DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION
REQUESTED. I'M TIRED OF COMING
FOR YEARS AS AS WELL AS YOU GUYS
ARE TIRED OF BEING HERE FOR
YEARS AND NOT GETTING THE
ANSWERS THAT WE NEED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
HELLO. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FOR THIS TIME IN THE SPACE AND
ALLOWING US ALL TO JOIN AND BE
PART OF CALIFORNIA'S, BUDGET
HEARING. MY NAME IS KERRY
ARZATE, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL TO
REMOVE THE THIRD DAY IN VISITING
IN LEVEL FOUR PRISONS. MY
HUSBAND HAS BEEN IMPACTED, AS
WELL AS OUR FAMILY AND ALL THE
CHILDREN THAT ARE IMPACTED. HE'S
BEEN ON A LEVEL FOUR PRISON, AND
WE DID FRIDAY VISITING FOR 15
FRIDAYS IN A ROW. MY HUSBAND IS
NOW ON A LEVEL THREE PRISON WITH
NO WRITE UPS, SO THAT'S
IMPORTANT AND IT'S VITAL. ALSO,
PRIORITIZING EMPTY BUILDINGS IS,
AND EMPTY BEDS OVER PEOPLE. AND
REHABILITATION DOES NOT HELP
SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY, SO
ENJOINING ALL THESE
ORGANIZATIONS AND FAMILY MEMBERS
AND OUR YOUTH THAT ARE IMPACTED,
PLEASE REMEMBER, I'M 1 IN 4
WOMEN WITH A LOVED ONE IN PRISON
AND MY SON NICO IS ONE IN EVERY
28 CHILDREN WITH A PARENT IN
PRISON THAT'S IMPACTED AND
VISITS MEAN EVERYTHING. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO OUR
FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, HELLO, MY
NAME IS EUGENE DAY. I'M WITH THE
CROP ORGANIZATION AND I WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THIS COMMITTEE FOR
THE ROBUST AND VIGOROUS DEBATE
AROUND THE CDC AND OUR BUDGET. I
HAD THREE COMMENTS, I'M I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF
CLARITY ABOUT WHERE THE BUDGET
CUTS ORIGINATE, ANOTHER CONCERN
IN OPPOSITION WOULD BE ANY
SEVERANCE OF CLOSE FAMILY TIES
THROUGH VISITING. AND LASTLY,
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY CUTS IN
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. MY NAME IS LAWRENCE.
I'M HERE WITH ALL OF US OR NONE.
LSPC AND ALSO THE COALITION FOR
FAMILY UNITY, OF COURSE WE WANT
TO OPPOSE AND OBJECT THE,
REMOVING OF THE THIRD DAY OF
VISITING FOR LEVEL FOUR YARDS. I
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE ALL
KNOW LEVEL FOUR YARDS ARE SOME
OF THE YARDS THAT HAVE SOME OF
THE MOST VIOLENT AND SOME OF THE
MOST, DEPRESSED INMATES AND SOME
INMATES THAT, EXCUSE ME,
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS THAT
DEAL WITH THE MOST, MENTAL
ISSUES AND TAKING A
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAM OR A
REHABILITATIVE MECHANISM FROM
THEM, FOR PUNISHMENT IS NOT
FAIR. IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO
RECIDIVISM RATES WOULD ACTUALLY,
IN THE LONG RATE, CAUSES OUR
SOCIETY MORE WHEN WE FAIL TO
REHABILITATE INDIVIDUALS. I DO
ALSO WANT TO UPLIFT THAT, WE
SHOULD CLOSE FIVE PRISONS LIKE
LA LA SUGGESTED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
NICOLE WATERMAN, ON BEHALF OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AND ORANGE
COUNTY, ALSO DISAPPOINTED ABOUT
THE LACK OF RESTORATION FOR THE
PUBLIC DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAM AND
URGING SUPPORT FOR THAT, FOR SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, IT'S 2.6
MILLION, AND IT IS DELAYING
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR A NUMBER
OF PEOPLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
DAX PROCTOR AND I AM A
CONSTITUENT OF ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
51 AND A MEMBER OF SEIU 2015.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT FOR FOUR
YEARS, MY ELDERLY MOTHER WAS AN
IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
RECIPIENT, AND I WAS HER IHSS
PROVIDER FOR THOSE FOUR YEARS. I
AM DISMAYED AND ANGERED,
FRANKLY, THAT THE MAY REVISION
SEEKS TO DISMANTLE THIS CRUCIAL
PROGRAM. IT IS HEARTBREAKING TO
THINK THAT MY FRIENDS AND
NEIGHBORS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
ACCESS THIS LIFE SUSTAINING
PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE. THE
BUDGET CUTS TO SOCIAL SAFETY NET
PROGRAMS AND THE MAY REVISION
WILL JEOPARDIZE OUR CHILDREN,
SENIORS, OUR WORKFORCE. THEY
WILL ALSO EXCLUDE IMMIGRANTS
FROM CRITICAL CARE AND SUPPORT
NEEDS. IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION
TO SAY THAT THESE CUTS, IF
APPROVED, WILL PLUNGE OUR
COMMUNITIES INTO OVERLAPPING
LABOR, PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC
SAFETY CRISES. IF WE ENACT A
BUDGET THAT PRIORITIZE
INCARCERATION OVER THE CORE
NEEDS OF PEOPLE, THEN WE OWE OUR
VULNERABLE COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THOSE WHO WILL NOT, WHO WILL
BEAR THE BRUNT OF THESE BUDGET
CUTS AND WHO DO NOT HAVE THE
LUXURY OF ATTENDING HEARINGS
LIKE THESE TODAY. AND
EXPLANATION AS TO HOW OUR
OPERATING PRISONS, WITH A 15,000
BED SURPLUS FOR BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, CONTRIBUTES TO THEIR
PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW DO EMPTY
PRISONS CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR
PUBLIC HEALTH? TO THEIR ECONOMIC
STABILITY? OPERATING ON LEANER
CORRECTIONS BUDGET TO PROTECT
OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET IS
SOMETHING BOTH LAWMAKERS AND
EVERYDAY PEOPLE LIKE ME CAN GET
BEHIND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HI
ALYSSA MOORE, LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN. ALL OF
US ARE NONE AND WE SUPPORT THE
CLOSURE OF FIVE ADDITIONAL
PRISONS, SOFT CLOSURE IS A LIE
AND A BAND-AID CDCR IS USING IN
THE HOPES OF REOPENING THOSE
OUTDATED AND, AFOREMENTIONED
PRISONS. ESSENTIALLY SOFT
CLOSURES ARE A BAD JOKE THAT
ISN'T GOING OVER WELL WITH OUR
CURRENTLY AND FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE SOME LEVEL FOURS, FOR
VARIOUS REASONS, CANNOT LOWER
THEIR SCORE DUE TO A POINT THAT
WOULD MAKE THEM A LEVEL THREE
AND ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE VISITS.
IN ADDITION, OF THOSE OF US
HERE, I'VE BEEN IN THE MIDST OF
A SOFT CLOSURE IN THE CALIFORNIA
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
AND IT IS A JOKE, THE ONLY WAY
TO SAVE MONEY WITH THAT IS TO
CLOSE ALL THE PRISONS, THAT WERE
MENTIONED. AND WE ALSO OPPOSE
REMOVING THE THIRD DAY OF
VISITING FOR LEVEL FOURS, AS
THEY ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE
DEMOGRAPHIC IN AN ALREADY, VERY
VULNERABLE POPULATION, IF I WANT
ANYBODY TO HAVE THOSE ACCESS TO
FAMILY AND REBUILD THOSE BONDS
AND HAVE A BUY IN FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY, IT'S THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
I WAS THERE, I WAS HOUSED WITH
THEM. AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU,
IT DOESN'T MAKE PUBLIC, ANY
SAFER TO ELIMINATE THOSE VISITS.
IT ACTUALLY DOES MORE HARM THAN
GOOD, AND THEN ALSO, WE
ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY OPPOSE
THE CUTS TO IN PRISON PROGRAMING
AS CDCR HAS BEEN GIVEN MILLIONS
IN THE NAME OF REHABILITATION.
SO WHAT SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO
REMOVE THAT REHABILITATION?
CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY PAID FOR
IT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. HI GOOD AFTERNOON. MY
NAME IS GRACE GLASER. I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF VALOR CALIFORNIA
SEXUAL ASSAULT COALITION, AND
I'M SPEAKING OUT OF DEEP CONCERN
FOR THE LACK OF UP TO 200
MILLION IN THE MAY REVISION FOR
CRIME VICTIM SERVICES, RAPE
CRISIS CENTERS, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SHELTERS, CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTERS ARE PREPARING
FOR A DEVASTATING 44.7% FUNDING
CUT BEGINNING IN JULY. OUR
PROGRAMS ARE LOOKING AT CLOSING
THEIR DOORS, LAYING OFF THEIR
STAFF AND AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT'S A SURVIVOR. THAT'S AT THE
END OF THAT LINE. SO I REALLY
WANT TO STRONGLY URGE THIS
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INCLUDE UP TO
200 MILLION IN THEIR FINAL
BUDGET DEALS, AND APPRECIATE YOU
ALL TAKING THIS TIME. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. HI, I'M HOLLY
FLEMMING, I'M WITH CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTERS OF CALIFORNIA.
WE SUPPORT THE FOLKS WHO ARE THE
FIRST RESPONSE IN ALLEGATIONS OF
CHILD ABUSE IN THE STATE. I'D
LIKE TO ECHO THE CALL FOR UP TO
200 MILLION IN BACKFILL FOR THAT
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR MANY OF OUR
CENTERS, IT'S 100% OF THEIR
BUDGET, WHICH MEANS THAT WITHOUT
IT, THEY'LL HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR
DOORS. AND CHILDREN AND THEIR
FAMILIES IN THE WORST MOMENTS OF
THEIR LIVES, WILL NOT GET ACCESS
TO THOSE LIFE SAVING SERVICES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
KELLY WALTERS. I'M A STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN.
ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT HERE, I DO
WANT TO SPECIFICALLY THANK,
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS BONTA AND TING
FOR THEIR ROBUST COMMENTS
CONCERNING THE THIRD DAY OF
VISITATION AND THE THREAT OF
TAKING THAT AWAY. AT THE RISK OF
REITERATING WHAT THEY SAID,
REDUCING VISITING DAYS FOR LEVEL
FOR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS
CONTRADICTS REHABILITATIVE
PRINCIPLES THAT EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING
CONNECTIONS WITH FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY SUPPORT NETWORKS.
RESEARCH CONSISTENTLY
DEMONSTRATES THAT REGULAR
CONTACT WITH LOVED ONES NOT ONLY
IMPROVES AN INMATE'S MENTAL
WELL-BEING, BUT ALSO CONTRIBUTES
SIGNIFICANTLY TO THEIR
SUCCESSFUL REINTEGRATION INTO
SOCIETY. POST RELEASE. BY
LIMITING VISITING OPPORTUNITIES,
THE PROPOSAL EFFECTIVELY HAMPERS
THESE ESSENTIAL AVENUES FOR
REHABILITATION. FURTHER LEVEL
FOR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS FOR
SO LONG HAVE STRUGGLED TO OBTAIN
AND ACCESS EFFECTIVE
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS,
CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASE IN
HOPELESSNESS, IDLE TIME, AND
VIOLENCE. NOW THAT THESE
FACILITIES HAVE RECENTLY BEGUN
TO OFFER AND FACILITATE
ESSENTIAL REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMS, OUR ADMINISTRATIVE
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO CURTAIL
ACCESS TO ONE OF ITS MOST
POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE
REHABILITATIVE TOOLS, WHICH IS
VISITING. WE CAN'T IGNORE THE
ECONOMIC COSTS THIS WILL ENTAIL
FOR YEARS TO COME. WE URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO FOLLOW THE LIU'S
RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE AT LEAST
FIVE PRISONS, WHICH WOULD SAVE
$1 BILLION. ONGOING AND COULD
PREVENT MANY OF THE PROPOSED
CUTS TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT
KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES HEALTHY AND
SAFE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. SANDRA BARREIRO,
ON BEHALF OF SEIU CALIFORNIA,
COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSED
REDUCTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURTS.
A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
STAFFING AND BACKLOGS OCCURRED
DURING THE GREAT RECESSION, DUE
TO STAFFING CUTS. SO WE DON'T
WANT TO UNDO THE PROGRESS THAT
WE'VE MADE, AND IN REGARDS TO
THE COURT REPORTER, RECRUITMENT
AND RETENTION FUNDS, THOSE
FUNDS, THE EXPENDITURE OF THOSE
FUNDS, IT WAS HARD FOUGHT BY MY
MEMBERS AT THE TABLE TO GET
THOSE FUNDS INTO MAS, AND WE
SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZING THE
COURTS THAT DID THE RIGHT THING
AND USE THEM ON COMPENSATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
YOUR COMMENTS. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. NICK
BROKAW FROM SACRAMENTO ADVOCATES
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION,
WISHING TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS
WITH THOSE MADE BY THE ACLU AND
COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
CALLING ON THE RESTORATION OF
THE THIRD YEAR OF FUNDING FOR
THE PUBLIC DEFENSE PILOT
PROGRAM. AND WE GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE BIPARTISAN
COMMENTS AND SUPPORT PREVIOUS
HEARINGS RECOGNIZING THE GREAT
RETURN ON THE STATE'S INVESTMENT
HERE, TWO OUT OF THE FOUR PILOT
PROGRAMS IN PLACE, DURING
ACCORDING TO OUR CALCULATIONS,
HAVE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 94 TO OVER
$700 MILLION IN SAVINGS. SO IT'S
QUITE SIGNIFICANT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS SUE
KIM AND I'M THE SENIOR POLICY
MANAGER AT UNCOMMON LAW. WE'RE
HERE TO URGE YOU TO CLOSE FIVE
ADDITIONAL PRISONS AND TO REJECT
CUTS TO PUBLIC DEFENSE PROGRAMS,
CRITICAL REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMING, AND ACCESS TO FAMILY
VISITS. AT UNCOMMON LAW, WE
PROVIDE LEGAL AND POLICY
ADVOCACY FOR CALIFORNIANS
SERVING LIFE SENTENCES, AND WE
ALSO RUN IN PRISON PAROLE
SUCCESS PROGRAMS THAT FOSTER
THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITIES ON LEVEL
FOUR YARDS, ALMOST EVERY SINGLE
CLIENT AND PARTICIPANT OF OUR
PROGRAMS SAY THAT THEIR NORTH
STAR MOTIVATION, MOTIVATING
THEIR DESIRE TO CHANGE, TO WALK
AWAY FROM VIOLENCE AND TO BE
FOUND SUITABLE FOR PAROLE IS
THEIR FAMILY. THIS NORTH STAR IS
PARTICULARLY CRITICAL ON LEVEL
FOUR YARDS, WHICH ARE RIFE WITH
VIOLENCE WHILE LOCKING, LACKING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR POSITIVE
PROGRAMING AND ACCESS TO OUTSIDE
RESOURCES. IN-PERSON VISITS HELP
GROUND OUR PARTICIPANTS AND
CLIENTS IN THEIR VALUES AND
THEIR DREAMS OF A FUTURE OUTSIDE
OF PRISON. BEYOND EMOTIONAL
SUPPORT, THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS
HELP OUR PARTICIPANTS PREPARE
FOR PAROLE HEARINGS AND FOR A
SAFE REENTRY HOME. THEY'RE
PROVIDING ACCESS TO RESOURCES,
SUPPORT, LETTERS, EMPLOYMENT,
LOVE, FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND
MORE. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT
HARDER ON THESE FAMILIES,
PRIMARILY MOTHERS, WIVES AND
CHILDREN WHO OFTEN TRAVEL SO FAR
AWAY TO MAINTAIN THAT BOND AND
SUPPORT. CUTTING VISITATION DAYS
IS CONTRARY TO THE GOALS OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND
REHABILITATION, AND WE STRONGLY
URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS
PROPOSAL. THE MAY REVISE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS
. GOOD AFTERNOON. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COURT REPORTER
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO CUT THE
ANNUAL $30 MILLION DOWN TO 20
MILLION LOCAL COURTS HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH COURT REPORTERS TO
IMPROVE HOW THEY ARE SPENDING
THE MONEY AND BECOMING MORE AND
MORE EFFECTIVE AT THAT. IF YOU
LOOK AT THE TREND, IT STARTED
OFF WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY
WAS BEING SPENT AND NOW IT'S
GROWING, EACH YEAR. SO WE THINK
THAT THAT WE SHOULD MAINTAIN IT
AT THE 30 MILLION, THE OTHER
THING IS THAT IF THERE IS ANY
MONEY LEFT OVER, WE DO RECOMMEND
REPURPOSING THAT MONEY FOR COURT
REPORTERS, IN PARTICULAR FOR
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH
COURT INTERPRETERS JUST TWO
YEARS AGO OR JUST LAST YEAR,
WHERE WE TOOK A PORTION OF THE
LEFTOVER MONEY TO CREATE A PILOT
PROGRAM. THE NEED IS THERE.
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FOLKS
HAVE BENEFITED FROM HAVING A
COURT REPORTER IN THEIR
PROCEEDING. LAST THING, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF INTERPRETERS,
WHICH IS A STATEWIDE ASSOCIATION
OF COURT INTERPRETERS,
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PILOT PROGRAM
NOT, YOU KNOW, VERY ONLY A
PORTION OF THAT MONEY WAS SPENT.
SO THERE IS ABOUT 16 TO $20
MILLION LEFT OVER. BUT THE NEED
FOR COURT INTERPRETERS REMAINS,
WE BELIEVE, IF WE JUST RESTATE
HOW THAT MONEY CAN BE SPENT,
ACTUALLY VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT
WE'VE DONE WITH THE COURT
REPORTERS, WE THINK COURTS WILL
SPEND THAT MONEY, GET MORE
INTERPRETERS INTO COURTS AND
HELP OUT A LOT OF FOLKS. SO WE
THINK WE JUST NEED TO REPURPOSE
BOTH OF THOSE FUNDS AS OPPOSED
TO CUTTING THE FUNDS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBER
LACKEY KATHY SONDERLING
MCDONALD, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HERE, TO ALSO URGE
YOU TO PLEASE MAINTAIN THE THIRD
YEAR OF THE PUBLIC DEFENSE PILOT
PROJECT. IT'S A COST EFFECTIVE
PROGRAM. IT'S BEEN DEPLOYED VERY
EFFECTIVELY IN ALAMEDA AND
ACROSS THE STATE, AND WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THAT WHEN THE
TIME COMES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NONE.
THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED