Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes - July 19, 2006

CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, July 19, 2006
600 BERCUT DRIVE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916) 445-5073

 

MINUTES

 Mr. James E. Tilton, Chairman of the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), welcomed everyone, explained that since there were new board members, including himself, they would have to be sworn in before commencing with the meeting. He proceeded with a brief history of the reorganization of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the expanded role and responsibility of CSA. Chairman Tilton stated that one of the goals is to identify prioritization issues to take on and then it will be his task to get some resources to implement those goals. He thanked the members for their willingness to serve on the board.

Mr. C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director of Corrections Standards Authority, introduced himself and informed the board of his 30 years back ground with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.

SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Executive Director Harris asked the new board members to raise their right hand and state the Oath of Office. He conducted the swearing in of: Mr. James E. Tilton

Mr. David Runnels
Mr. Robert Hernandez

Chairman Tilton of the Corrections Standards Authority, called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.

Chairman Tilton directed Ms. Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant, Corrections Standards Authority to take roll call. The following members were in attendance:

James E. Tilton
David Runnels
Bernard Warner
David Bacigalupo
Robert Hernandez
Michael Prizmich
Calvin Remington
Deborah Botts
Mimi Silbert
Carol Biondi
Pamala Gilyard
Cleotha Adams

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Chairperson Tilton announced that due to previously scheduled vacation, Mr. Gary Penrod would not be attending today’s meeting.

Chairperson Tilton asked for a motion to excuse the absence.

A motion to excuse the absences was made by
Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.
The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 16, 2006 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING (AGENDA ITEM A)
Mr. Harris, Executive Director reported on the decision by San Diego County Probation Department to withdraw its request for an Alternate Means of Compliance for the Department’s East Mesa Juvenile Hall. An approved motion in the last meeting minutes requested San Diego County to do a presentation at a future board meeting.

A motion to adopt the minutes of the March 16, 2006, Corrections Standards Authority meeting was made by
Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.
The motion carried.


EXECUTIVE STEERING COMMITTEE AND TIMELINE MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER CRIME REDUCTION GRANTS (AGENDA ITEM B)
Ms. Lynda Frost, Field Representative, presented this item that initiates the process for administering a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) for the new Mentally Ill Offender Crime Reduction (MIOCR) Grant Program. Ms. Frost spent nearly six years with the demonstration grant program that serves as the foundation for this new initiative. Based on that experience and her involvement with various juvenile justice grant programs administered by the board, she anticipates a great deal of interest among sheriffs and chief probation officers in this funding opportunity.

The first step in releasing the money is to establish an Executive Steering Committee (ESC) to guide development of the draft RFP, evaluate the grant applications, and make recommendations for grant awards. Sheriff Penrod and Chief Remington agreed to serve as ESC co-chairs and with the approval of the board, to bring together a representative group of subject matter experts to carry out tasks that are critical to ensuring a successful RFP process. The item outlines the activities that must be undertaken by the ESC, the board and its staff over the course of the next several months.

Ms. Frost was available to answer questions about the MIOCR program, the RFP process or staff recommendations, which were that the CSA appoint Sheriff Penrod and Chief Remington as co-chairs of the ESC for the MIOCR program established by the 2006-07 State Budget Act; authorize each co-chair to appoint five additional subject matter experts to the ESC; and approve the activities and timeline proposed by staff for the administration of the RFP.

Mr. Warner asked about the timeline of the process and was impressed by the promptness. Ms. Silbert applauded the CSA staff and counties that participated on their extordinary performance.

A motion to approve staff recommendations was made by
Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Mike Prizmich.
The motion carried.

TITLE II FORMULA GRANT 2006-2008 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (AGENDA ITEM C)

Ms. Magi Work, Field Representative, requested that the board approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Title II funds awarded to California under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. The RFP makes available up to seven million dollars for 12-month grants that would begin April 1, 2007. The criteria for rating the proposals and the timeline of activities are included in the RFP.

The Title II Formula grants program supports state and local delinquency prevention, intervention, and juvenile justice system improvements. At the March 2006 board meeting the board approved the three year state plan that identifies California’s prioritized juvenile justice needs. The existing State Advisory Group (SAG) members were sent a survey soliciting their input on California’s juvenile justice priorities for the development of the State plan. Based on the response of the SAG members and staff’s analysis of the juvenile delinquency data, the State plan identifies five priority areas for funding locally developed projects with Title II monies; which are Mental Health Services; Gender Specific Services; Gang Prevention/Intervention; Substance Abuse Treatment; Aftercare/Re-entry Services.

Following the boards approval of the State plan, staff developed a draft RFP to address the five priority areas and copies were provided to the existing SAG members for review and to provide feedback.

The RFP components consist of a total of up to seven million dollars is available through the RFP process. Each project submitted may request up to $500,000. There is no match requirement.

It is planned to award grants for a one-year period, beginning April 1, 2007, with the possibility of funding for two additional years if the project has demonstrated effectiveness and Congress appropriates funds.

Subsequently funding is also contingent upon California achieving compliance with federal requirements related to the composition of the SAG.

Specifically, the federal fiscal year 2006 award for California is currently under a “special condition” from OJJDP because California is not in compliance with federal SAG requirements. This condition suspends California’s ability to draw down funds from the 2006 allocation until compliance is achieved.

To further enhance California’s efforts to comply with DMC requirements, applicants must budget for DMC education and awareness activities in their proposals.

Currently assembling rating teams that will be comprised of SAG members and other juvenile justice experts. These panels will rate proposals on individual merit and then rank accordingly. In the event we do not have a SAG, the panels will forward grant award recommendations directly to the CSA board, which will make the final decision on the grant awards.

Staff developed a timeline of activities for the RFP process that includes regional workshops for perspective applicants in early August, with the final date proposal of October 17, 2006. The CSA board would act on the recommendations of the review panels at the January 2007 meeting.

Staff recommends that CSA approve the release of the 2006-2008 Title II formula grants program request for proposals, which include rating criteria and a timeline of activities.

Mr. Remington asked if in order to receive the money was it required to have a SAG. Ms. Works stated that we would have one year of funding before getting into the 2006 funding and that will give us about a year’s time to get things straight.

Mr. Warner questioned if there was a SAG, what the process of the board would be and if SAG makes the final decision. Ms. Works explained that the SAG would do the recommendations and forward them to CSA for approval.

Ms. Biondi wanted to know the total funding of the three grants. Title II was seven million, 4.3 million for the JABG program and 1.3 for Title V.

Mr. Harris informed the board that there are currently 8 SAG members and 15 are required. Mr. Harris and Mr. Tilton will be working on submitting names to the Governor’s office.

Ms. Silbert commented on the history of SAG and how there was serious mishandling of money prior to the Board of Corrections taking over and that it is difficult to begin a new. Ms. Works and Ms. Silbert agreed that although the SAG is not a complete committee, CSA staff has been showing good faith on the handling of the funds. Mr. Tilton is very concern as well about making sure the board is comfortable on the criteria for these proposals. The analysis that are done to evaluate these proposals are clear of what the expectations of the funds are and make sure the funds are used appropriate and that any decision made about authorization of the contracts have plenty of light on them because this Board has creditability and is determined to live up to its reputation.

A motion to approve the release of the 2006 -2008 Title II Formula Grants Program Request for Proposals, which includes the rating criteria and the timeline of activities, was m ade by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Calvin Remington. The motion carried.

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(AGENDA ITEM D)

Ms. Shalinee Hunter, Field Representative, presented the request of approval for the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to award up to $750,000 in Title II funds for year one of the Enhanced Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Technical Assistant Project.

In July 2005, California complied with the fourth core requirement of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, to address DMC by implementing the DMC Technical Assistance Project. Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) contracted with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency to deliver DMC technical assistance to three counties; Alameda, Contra Costa, and Ventura. The end of the 14-month collaborative is near and CSA has optimized the “lessons learned” through an ongoing assessment by incorporating recommendations from the three involved Chiefs and local DMC Coordinators in the RFP. As a DMC Coordinator, Ms. Hunter has had the opportunity to both provide DMC technical assistance to various County Probation Departments as well as discuss DMC with Juvenile Justice Stakeholders Statewide. Both the assessment of the current DMC Technical Assistant project and the thoughtful daily dialogue with juvenile justice stakeholders has resulted in the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project which will maintain compliance with the core requirement and bring California up to the level of other leadership states.

The incremental approach embodied in this effort is designed to assist probation departments in understanding and identifying DMC and to equip these agencies with the resources needed and to provide leadership in DMC reduction activities. The RFP is reflective of the provisions of the Title II plan approved at the March 2006 board meeting and primarily encompasses the first phase which is competitive and allocates up to $150,000 for five county probation departments to establish the foundation for a DMC reduction effort. The second and third phase will be non-competitive and support the education of stakeholders and the implementation of a DMC reduction plan.

One challenge in addressing DMC is identifying best practices and ensure program efficacy. The RFP indicates CSA is dedicating Formula Grant funds for an independent evaluation planned for implementation subsequent to the infrastructure phase. The process evaluation will be determined through a competitive RFP process. CSA staff will develop and present the RFP to the board for consideration and action.

The DMC RFP includes criteria that would be used by a review panel made up of juvenile justice experts from around the state. Increase in interest has been allowed for in the proposed timeline for this RFP which will include a workshop for prospective applicants. The 12-month grant period is slated to begin January 1, 2007. Staff recommended approving the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance RFP that includes the process evaluation, rating criteria and timeline.

Ms. Biondi asked if CSA would need to recommend or formalize this in anyway that we are using one State Advisory Group (SAG) for all contracts. Ms. Frost explained that the composition and membership of the SAG has been established and its role would be to serve consentingly as an executive steering committee to this board. An Executive Order was issued by the Governor establishing the SAG. Ms. Biondi had some concerns that money would be held if there was not a SAG. Mr. Tilton requested that the CSA Executive Director do a follow up with the legal department to confirm that the process we’ve used to identify this group as the advisory committee meets the conditions of the federal government.

A motion to approve issuance of the RFP for the Enhanced DMC Technical Assistance Project, the specified approach for a process evaluation, the rating criteria for evaluating the merits of proposals, and the timeline of activities for the RFP process was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

CORRECTIONS PLANNING PROGRAMS LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM E)

Ms. Lynda Frost, Field Representative, updated the board on the federal and state local assistance programs administered by the Corrections Planning and Programs (CPP) Division.

Ms. Frost informed the board that Tom Murphy, the state liaison in the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), was scheduled to be at the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) all next week for his annual monitoring trip. Mr. Murphy will be updated on the efforts CSA has undertaken in administering federal juvenile justice programs and visit projects that have been implemented with federal grant funds.

In terms of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, CSA staff has met the June 30 th deadline for submitting federally required performance data to the OJJDP. Two of CSA’s JABG programs recently received honors.

San Diego’s Community Response Officer Program ($236,000) received a Distinguished Program Award from the California State Juvenile Officers Association. This program places deputy probation officers in law enforcement stations throughout the county to work as liaisons between police, probation, schools and CBOs.

The Juvenile Offender Intervention Network, or JOIN, Program ($242,620) operated by the L.A. DA’s Office received the American Bar Association’s 2006 Hodson Award for Public Service. JOIN is a restorative justice diversion program for serious, non-violent offenders in Inglewood, Pasadena, Long Beach, and Los Padrinos.

CSA received approval on the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) 2006 report submitted in January. JJCPA programs continue to have a positive impact on juvenile crime and delinquency in terms of arrests, incarceration rates, and successful completion of probation and court-ordered community service. We expect that’s one reason the Legislature and Governor saw fit to provide an additional $19 million for this initiative in the 2006-2007 Budget. Staff contacted the State Controller’s Office, which has fiduciary responsibility for the JJPCA funds, to find out when the counties might receive their allocations. CSA was advised that the SCO cannot take action until it receives direction from the Department of Finance, which typically occurs 30 to 60 days following enactment of the budget.

Ms. Frost stated that this week CSA learned that one of our Proud Parenting Program grantees, California Youth Outreach in Fresno, will receive the Thrasher Award at the National Gang Crime Research Center’s Annual Conference next month. This award recognizes outstanding contributions in research scholarship, service and accomplishments in dealing with the gang problem.

Ms. Frost was available to answer any questions. Ms. Biondi requested reading information, articles on how these award winning programs actually operate.

Mr. Tilton excused himself from the meeting due to the required Special Session he was called to attend. Before leaving he briefed the board on what was being proposed in the department. It is a major reform to address recidivism in the department and make sure the department gets back to providing programs and deals with the public’s safety of reducing the overcrowding of our prisons. Mr. Tilton offered to schedule a time for California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff to come and brief the board in order for the board to stay current on the important activities occurring. Mr. Tilton then turned the meeting over to Mr. Remington, Vice-Chair to continue leading the meeting.

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CORRECTIONS PROGRAM, TITLE 15, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (AGENDA ITEM F)

Ms. Debbie Rives, Acting Deputy Director provided an update of activities associated with the 2005-2006 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15 draft revisions. These revisions had previously been approved by the Board to advance to the public comment period.

Corrections Standards Authority is very pleased to report that the Governor proposed in his May Budget Revision approximately $19.5 million to be restored to support local corrections agencies for their training costs. This proposal was subsequently passed by the legislature on June 30 th.

As a result, the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Division has been actively involved in updating our manuals and automated system to return the funding components that had been removed with the suspension of these funds.

Staff is in the process of developing an informational letter that will be released next week to participating agencies and training providers. This letter will notify agencies and providers of the restoration of the funding and inform them that the administration of these funds will be in accordance with the criteria established in the STC policies and procedures.

Agency specific letters will be released in mid-August identifying the individual allocations and inform agencies that disbursements will be made as previously conducted on a quarterly basis.

CSA staff will also be designing briefings to the field to assist local agencies with the reporting requirements, budget categories, and disbursement process.

Staff recommends that the Board suspends the public comment period until revisions can be modified. The Board directs CSA staff to make the necessary revisions to the regulations created by the restoration of funding and provides a copy to the Board for approval. An addendum to this agenda item has been provided to you recommending that the Board direct CSA staff to administer these funds to participating local agencies pursuant to the Standards and Training for Corrections policies and procedures.

Mr. Prizmich complimented the CSA STC staff and all the probation and sheriff’s departments who despite the lack of funding over the last several years, continued to move forward and receive training out of their own budgets. He commended everyone for their efforts in this difficult time. Mr. Remington and Ms. Silbert concurred with Mr. Prizmich and congratulated Ms. Rives on her promotion as Deputy Director.

A motion to suspend the proposed scheduling of the public comment period and direct staff to make necessary revisions to the regulation and provide a copy to the board for approval of those changes was made by Mr. Mike Prizmich and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

JOB COMPONENTS ANALYSIS PROJECT (FORMALLY THE JOB FAMILIES PROJECT)
(AGENDA ITEM G)

Ms. Amy Kohls, Field Representative provided an update on the Job Components Analysis Project (JCAP) currently being conducted by Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) Division.

The Job Components Analysis Project was previously named the Job Families Project. During the March 2006 CSA board meeting feedback was given in regards to this name. It was stated that the word “families” in Job Families Project indicated actual work with families, parents and children, rather than work with group of jobs clustered together because of their similarities. After much brainstorming with the project staff the alternate name was decided.

The goal of the JCAP is to develop and monitor standards for selection and training for state correctional peace officer classifications. This includes a total of 47 entry level, advanced rank and file, and first and second line supervisory positions.

Much work as been done in gathering extensive information about each of the 47 different classifications and develop structures with which to catalog, organize, and maintain job information for ongoing use. Staff has spoken with numerous individuals in the various positions to hear detailed information about specific job tasks and have received positive feedback. One of the reasons people are interested in what we’re doing is that the methods being used take less time, cost less, and will make it easier to update standards and job analyses as jobs change over time.

Workload analysis have met with JCAP staff and developed an extensive plan including short and long-term goals for the project that will take us out several years. After collecting past job analyses, on as many of the 47 jobs as we could, we pulled out the task and KSAOs statements, put them into lists, and have been working on consolidating them those statements into unduplicated lists that will ultimately be evaluated by subject matter experts for accuracy and quality. Staff is also working with a database professional on the development of an electronic library of the statements whereby we can preserve all of the historical information about a job while making changes to tasks or KSAOs as the job changes. This will be the first dynamic corrections database of its kind. We are currently working with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) on the development of a basic skills test as a possible replacement for the written test portion of the selection process for the correctional officer, youth correctional officer, and youth correctional counselor positions. This is based on an effort by CDCR to speed up the selection process and “widen the pipeline”, to get more people in, through the selection process, and into their jobs more quickly.

In terms of the job analysis portion of the JCAP, the next steps include gathering information about the various adult and juvenile institutions as a precursor to visits for tours, job observations, and subject matter expert groups to determine job content.

The project is consistent with CSA mandates, CDCR’s mission and goals, and professional and best practices in the field, and it is applicable statewide. The project will provide a common language for setting selection and training standards across California, something that has not been available in the past. The establishment of the first dynamic task/Knowledge/Skills/Abilities and Other Characteristics (KSAO) library will allow for the valid creation of new jobs that share many of the same job elements, and provide a basis for monitoring and timely updating of the entire components of jobs on an ongoing basis. The JCAP will provide economics of scale with regard to time, effort, and financial commitment, a legally defensible product available to those complying with the standards, and the opportunity to ensure the continued competence of State correctional peace officer personnel.

Ms. Kohls and Ms. Rives were available to answer questions. Mr. Runnels asked by whom this project was funded. Ms. Rives explained that currently the funding received came from the elimination of CPOST, a budget proposal was submitted to CDCR for approval. Mr. Harris clarified that CSA received directions from Secretary Tilton that in order to implement programs, there would be some type of funding to help in speeding up the process of ‘widening the pipelines’.

Mr. Runnels was unclear on how the job analysis would speed up the process. Ms. Rives and Ms. Kohls explained that such in the training classification, by cultivating the requirements and qualifications of three positions, such as the correctional officer position, this would accelerate the process because applicants would only have to take one test. Mr. Warner asked if there would be a differential between juvenile correctional officer and adult correctional officers. Ms. Kohls replied with a yes. Ms. Biondi asked if CSA has grant writers or access to grant writers. Mr. Harris replied that we do have people with grant writing.

A ten minute break was taken.

FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS INFORMATION ITEMS
(AGENDA ITEM H)

Ms. Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative presented the ministerial staff decisions on state and federally funded construction grants listing any timeline changes, budget changes, or minor scope changes.

At the September 1998 meeting, pursuant to the Penal Code Section, the Board of Corrections approved a delegation policy for staff to exercise ministerial authority to make decisions on approving minor or non-substantive project changes that do not have a significant impact on construction projects or make significant policy implications. It required that staff action be documented and identified as information items at future CSA meetings. The intent of this policy was to expedite project implementation timelines and avoid individual non-substantive requests on the regular meeting agenda.

There have been 97 local adult and juvenile facilities that have been funded by state and federal dollars. Only nine projects remain. Fresno and Napa counties are very close to completion. Riverside, Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties are under construction and are currently on track to be completed before the end of this year. Alameda County is scheduled to complete their project in October 2007. Two state funded projects also are under construction and are not yet completed. Orange County will be completed in the next couple of months and Santa Clara County will be completed in 2007.

There were two timeline changes since the March CSA meeting. Fresno and Napa counties requested and received time extensions. Both of these projects are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.

Mr. Remington asked for the completion dates for Fresno and Napa. Ms. Aboytes assured him that all projects will be completed on time to meet state and federal requirements.

Ms. Biondi asked if construction projects are required to be reviewed by the CSA? Ms. Aboytes responded that statute requires CSA’s review if the project cost exceeds $15,000.

Mr. Harris stated that the Governor is trying to build some other state prisons.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM I)

Ms. Leslie Heller, Field Representative provided a brief legislative update. Ms. Heller touched on a couple of bills that specifically reference the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA).

Senate Bill (SB) 1128 would enact the Sex Offender Punishment, Control, and Containment Act of 2006. This rather lengthy bill was introduced by Senator Alquist (D-Santa Clara) in January 2006, and addresses a number of issues relating to sex offenders. This bill is pending passage from the Assembly. The purpose of this bill is to provide a comprehensive, proactive approach to preventing the victimization of Californians by sex offenders.

Issues addressed in the bill include such things as sex crime penalty changes, some definition changes and other statutory changes; there is mention of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) including its institutions and parole unit, as well as county probation departments, with responsibility for assessing registered offenders utilizing a specified risk assessment tool (State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders); and of note where the CSA is specifically mentioned, is with regards to responsibility for establishing standards by which grants are awarded on a competitive basis to counties for SAFE Teams – SAFE being an acronym for Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement; essentially giving CSA the responsibility for administering this grant program.

This bill contains a $6 million appropriation from the General Fund to the CSA for this purpose. There is existing law allowing for the establishment of SAFE Teams in counties. The mission of this program is to reduce violent sexual assault offenses in the county through proactive surveillance and arrest of habitual sexual offenders, and strict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders. Just an interesting note, with the sex offender population getting much attention in this 2005-2006 legislative session, there have been a total of six bills addressing SAFE Teams. This bill, SB 1128, is the only active bill remaining on this issue. Again, this bill is pending passage out of the Assembly.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1806, budget trailer bill has passed and addresses many things among them is the Juvenile Justice Community Reentry Challenge Grant Program which shall be administered by the Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with the CSA.

The appropriation of $10,000,000 for this program is included in the Governor’s budget. The purpose of this program is to improve the performance and cost-effectiveness of post-custodial reentry supervision of juvenile parolees; reducing the recidivism rates of juvenile offenders; and piloting innovative reentry programs consistent with the division’s focus on a rehabilitative treatment model. This program shall award three-year grants on a competitive basis to counties and non-profit organizations. With a target population of primarily offenders on parole, and may include youthful offenders under the jurisdiction of the county who are transitioning from out-of-home placements back into the community. Collaboration is emphasized between the Division of Juvenile Justice and juvenile courts and probation departments in the grant service areas to identify effective state and local case supervision responsibilities. The Division of Juvenile Justice, in consultation with CSA, the Chief Probation Officers, and experts in the field of juvenile justice programs shall: establish the minimum standards, funding schedules, and procedures for awarding grants, and also create an evaluation design that will assess the effectiveness of the program. Again, this is contained in a budget trailer bill and has passed.

Ms. Biondi asked for clarification on SB 1128. Mr. Remington asked if ten million was attached to AB 1806. Ms. Heller replied with a yes. Ms. Silbert expressed that she hopes that money will not be wasted hiring someone else to devise an entirely new evaluation model. Mr. Warner stated that CDCR will certainly be consulting CSA on a regular basis.

CONTENT OF FUTURE BOARD MEETING (AGENDA ITEM J)
Executive Director Harris presented to the board the opportunity for discussion and possible action concerning the content of future Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) board meetings, to include presentations, updates of activities or other information from divisions of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) outside the authority of the CSA.

Mr. Harris stated that several board members had expressed concerns about being more informed. He spoke with Chairman and Secretary Tilton and they were in agreement that there should be some type of reporting. Mr. Harris opened this item to the members for discussion on how they want to direct staff to share information at CSA board meetings.

Ms. Biondi suggested that a listserv of e-mails be sent when there were articles of interest. Another suggestion was to have CSA staff present updates of what was happening at the board meetings. She would like to have CSA staff inform the board members of interests; of thinks they think they would be interested in reading or hearing of, such as programs in DJJ.

Mr. Warner suggested that CDCR staff in consultation with CSA put together a program proposal for the next board meeting that would outline a regular schedule of either innovated programs or even outlining some operational issues. Mr. Prizmich stated that one way that might be worth exploring is to utilize a committee system on the board itself, where there are major categories that board members could break-off into 2-member committees and have some oversight or at least input into those items.

Mr. Warner stated that another consideration might be to have board meetings at a specific juvenile justice facility at a local or state level or an adult prison and perhaps feature some of their programs. Although this may have some budgetary implications.

A motion to provide information highlighting programs to the board members was made by Ms. Carol Biondi and seconded by Mr. Robert Hernandez. Vote was taken all voted yes, except for Ms. Mimi Silbert, who abstained. The motion carried.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Remington opened the meeting for public comments. Mr. Harris informed the audience that any members of the public could make comments but reminded them of the ten minute limitation.

Mr. John Dietler of Prison Industry Authority (PIA) asked that the board consider have someone from PIA make a presentation at a future board meeting in regards to what PIA is accomplishing with the department of corrections. He expressed the exciting things that are currently occurring with the San Diego County Sheriff and Police Department in regards to a parolee program. They are building 300 plus apartments on the grounds of Soledad State Prison as a training program for the inmates under union supervision, they’ll train them to being productive citizens.

Mr. Mike Jimenez of the California Correctional Peace Officer Association (CCPOA) stated that he appeared before the board in April of this year with a series of questions that Ms. Woodford, Chairperson at the time, responded to with a letter that he felt was unresponsive to any of the questions brought forward and is still in need of the answers to the same questions.

Mr. Jimenez would like to know who is in charge of the training selection and standards of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. His understanding is that it lies with the CSA board. If this is correct, he would like to know what the vote was when the expansion of the academy from Galt to Susanville occurred; when the change of the standards for selection happen; and when the academy was expanded to community colleges. Mr. Jimenez expressed his concerns about the people without background checks, attending these classes and learning the tactics and training of peace officers and their jobs. He stated that he works for the only department in the state of California that has the ability to write, develop, implement and approve their own training. In reviewing the standards for the counties verses the standards for CDCR, he noticed that the counties are very stringent and he agrees that that’s a valid issue but CDCR has no standards. He recently met a person attending one of the extended academies that had failed his psychological test three times but currently passed. This person stated that the same psychologist had given him all four tests. Mr. Jimenez’ point was that we are lowering our standards in the interest of speed. This issue will be detrimental to the people of the state of California, because when you have 7000 inmates, 500 staff at any given time, all it takes is one little issue to blow up an entire prison.

Mr. Jimenez would like an answer to the following questions:
Who is responsible for the selection?
Who is responsible for training?
Who is responsible for its development?

He informed the board that there was no apprenticeship program because it cannot exist without a joint labor management committee. He requested to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting to present these questions and he would submit them in written format. Mr. Jimenez informed the board that the training and quality of training that we’re giving the officers is absolutely an issue.

Ms. Silbert agreed with Mr. Jimenez with the importance of training which is very different from education. Mr. Harris made some general comments to help clarify things and also made a few suggestions. He informed Mr. Jimenez that in the letter that Ms. Woodford sent it stated that Mr. Jerry Read, Acting Executive Director of CSA could be contacted if he had any questions. Mr. Read was never contacted. Mr. Harris suggested that Mr. Jimenez meet with him and possibly other CDCR staff to discuss the issues. Mr. Harris clarified that CSA does not have the authority for training; CSA sets the selection standards and training. Mr. Harris has had discussion with Secretary Tilton to clarify exactly what the Legislature’s intent was for the board to do in that regards. A legal opinion is being sought for exactly what the CSA board is suppose to be able to do as regards to training and all the other issues that the board is involved in.

Mr. Runnels understood Mr. Jimenez’s frustration with the process and offered himself, possibly Mr. Warner and Mr. Harris to set-up a meeting to resolve these issues if it would be appropriate.

Mr. Remington agreed that this would be appropriate and having these concerns in a written format would help with the communication problem that seemed to have occurred from the last time. He liked the idea of having Mr. Harris take the lead with these discussions.

Mr. Jimenez went on to say that the SB 737 clearly states that all duties and responsibilities that existed under CPOST were transferred to the CSA. He informed the board that the veterans coming home from the war thought they were coming back to CDCR and were going to receive additional monies from the federal government for the time they served for participating in the apprenticeship program but when SB 737 closed down CPOST the monies were no longer available. Mr. Jimenez also stated that the recruiting problem will not be fixed while things like this happen.

Mr. Harris reiterated that we will get some clarification and move forward and looks forward to meeting with Mr. Jimenez to address these important issues.

Meeting adjourned at 11:22 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Originally signed by

YOLANDA CAMPOS
Executive Assistant
Corrections Standards Authority

 

ROSTER OF PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE
CSA Board Members

James E. Tilton, Chair, CDCR Secretary
David Runnels, CDCR, Adult Offenders
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer
Robert Hernandez, Subordinate Officer
Michael Prizmich, Sheriff, Amador County
Calvin Remington, Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County
Deborah Botts, Chief Probation Officer, San Benito
Mimi Silbert, Ph.D., Local Community-Based Correctional Program
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Jerry Read, Deputy Director (A), CPP
Bob Takeshta, Deputy Director (A), FSO
Debbie Rives, Deputy Director (A), STC
Lynda Frost, Field Representative
Magi Work, Field Representative
Shalinee Hunter, Field Representative
Amy Kohls, Field Representative
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative
Leslie Heller, Field Representative
Marlon Yarber, Field Representative
Yolanda Campos, Executive Assistant

Guests
John Dietler, Retired CDCR
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA
Keith Lunney, Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Department
Todd Kline, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Keith Nelson, Kern County Sheriff’s Department
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
Lynn Nehring, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Kevin Lacy, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Crystal Esberg, Lake County Sheriff’s Department
Gracy Steele, Sacramento County Probation
Don VanBuskin, Shasta County Sheriff’s Department
Chuck Alexander, CCPOA
Stephen Ruehmann, Stern, Van Vleck & Ruehmann, LLP
Mike Jimenez, CCPOA
Doug Papagni, Madera Department of Corrections
Bill Burke, Marin County Probation
Suzie Cohen, Suzie Cohen & Associates
Joe Stephenshaw, Department of Finance, CDCR