Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes January 11, 2007

MINUTES
CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
THURSDAY, May 8, 2008

Meeting held at: Sacramento Police Training Facility, Ste. B., 570 Bercut Drive, Sacramento, CA 95811

Mr. James E. Tilton, Chairman of Corrections Standards Authority, welcomed everyone to the Meeting and began the meeting with the swearing in of Ms. Collene Campbell as a new Member of the Corrections Standards Authority Board, Public Member, representing interests of crime victims. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director, reminded the Board that the microphones are open and that public comments will be allowed after each agenda item.

Ms. Krysten Meyer, Executive Assistant, Corrections Standards Authority took roll call.
The following members were in attendance:
Mr. Tilton
Mr. Kernan
Mr. Warner
Mr. Prieto
Mr. Penrod
Mr. Powers
Ms. Penner
Ms. Arnold
Ms. Biondi
Mr. Adams
Ms. Eckhardt
Mr. Ingrassia
Mr. Bacigalupo
Mr. Hernandez
Ms. Campbell
Ms. Gilyard

ABSENCE OF BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Meyer announced the absences of Board members and reasons as to their absence.
Mr. Townsy and Mr. Scott had prior commitments. Ms. Silbert was ill.

A motion to excuse the absences was made by
Mr. Penrod and seconded by Mr. Prieto.
The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 20, 2008 CORRECTIONS STANDARDS AUTHORITY MEETING
(AGENDA ITEM A)
Ms. Biondi requested a correction to the March 20, 2008 Minutes on page 13, changing the wording from ‘as low as’ to ‘as young as’.

A motion to approve the March Minutes with corrections was made by Mr. Penrod and seconded by Ms. Biondi. The motion carried.

AB 900 – CONDITIONAL JAIL CONSTRUCTION AWARDS
(AGENDA ITEM B)
Field Representative Leslie Heller presented this agenda item which went before the Board for action on funding determinations related to the jail construction dollars that were made available through Phase I of AB 900 in the amount of $750 million. This agenda item was a result of counties responding to the Request for Proposals for funding for Construction or Expansion of County Jails.

Ms. Heller reported that Dr. Kohls and Dr. John Berner have worked with CSA staff and the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) throughout the entire process. Dr. Kohls and Dr. Berner are research and evaluation experts who have been a part of the documented Board of Corrections, and now Corrections Standards Authority evaluation processes for many years.

Dr. John Kohls discussed the Corrections Standards Authority evaluation process.

Ms. Biondi asked if a county would be at a disadvantage if they go through the process and then are not allowed to vote on their county’s proposal.

Mr. Tilton added that it would be inappropriate for a county to vote on their proposal.

Mr. Prieto stated that he agreed not to vote for his own county. Mr. Prieto added that in his opinion the RFP was very clear.

Mr. Tilton stated he was concerned with the issue of points that have not been validated. Mr. Tilton wanted to emphasize and make clear to counties that there are several steps that are necessary in the next 90 days to solidify the awarding of the re-entry points. Mr. Tilton stated that he expected the counties to secure the points in the next 90 days.

Mr. Kernan asked what will go on in the next 90 days and how will the Board validate whether or not counties are sincere about siting the re-entry facility?

Ms. Debra Hysen, Chief Deputy Secretary of Facilities, stated that they have 19 willing counties to enter into negotiations with the state for a re-entry facility. In the RFP submittal process there is a 90 day due diligence period. Title Reports, Conducting a Historical Review of all real estate records relating to the property, a visual inspection for site suitability for the construction of the secure re-entry facility and analyzing environmental issues that may have came up in the review of the property. The secondary due diligence is outlined in the siting agreement which would be taking all of those documents and formalizing them into a purchase agreement. That purchase agreement would need to meet the State Public Works Board requirements to be taken under state ownership.

Mr. Prieto stated that it was his understanding that if the counties did do the due diligence as indicated and submitted their RFP and had everything required in the RFP and CDCR went out to the location and decided that the site was not sufficient to establish a re-entry facility, that those counties would not be penalized points.

Ms. Hysen added that she could not comment on the points, she feels that the points should be left up to the Board and that it would be her recommendation to keep going.

Mr. Tilton stated his personal view is that we should really reward those who deliver re-entry and that in his opinion that’s who should receive the first round funding.

Ms. Hysen stated that in her initial review there are some problematic sites and that they are going to step up very quickly to help those counties that may have those sites because it is such a complicated process.

Mr. Kernan made a motion to have the Board require that any county with a proposal that includes a secure re-entry facility or agreement to assist with reentry be required to work with the county Board of Supervisors while preparing their siting agreement and if the siting agreement locates the facility within the city limit they must include resolutions approving that site from both the county board of supervisors and the city counsel. I understand that the RFP applicants have 90 days to enter into siting agreement from the time notified by CSA and further that the board exercise it’s authority under the law and express terms of the request for proposal to independently accept and reject the findings and recommendations of the ESC and only approve final funding proposals that include a secure reentry facility.

Mr. Prieto added that if he’s not mistaken the RFP is something that addresses these important issues and the RFP was very clear on those issues.

Mr. Kernan added that it’s been his understanding that what we are trying to do is make sure that those counties that proposed a reentry facility have a viable site and that in the next 90 days conditionally we can do our due diligence and those that have a viable site will be awarded those points and those that don’t will not and will drop off the list.

Mr. Tilton stated that what we are doing based on this issue is assuring that we have a solid site agreement. Staff has been modifying a draft site agreement to make sure that there’s real accountability. To get the points counties would have to demonstrate during the 90 days that it’s a valid site and this is more than just good faith but there’s really a site that will work, too. Mr. Tilton added that he feels that the Board should really emphasize a vote of resolution with the intent of two things; the issue of the 90 days to do the due diligence and have a site to get the points, and that regardless of how the points run, if you don’t have reentry you fall down below the threshold. Those are the two policy changes that I think are important with staying in line with the intent of the bill.

Michael Walker, Undersheriff, Calaveras County, added that this Board policy decision tells counties that there’s no need to pre-partner with CDCR for a reentry facility if you can partner after you apply for funding. Then there’s really no incentive for a county to get involved with CDCR in a reentry facility if you can do this during the process that you apply for funding for a new facility for your county. If you are allowed to continue after the deadline date on the application process and continue to work on building your reentry facility and your partnerships that kind of defeats the purpose of the RFP. You should be in a position to partner with CDCR at the time the application is submitted.

Mike Kanalakis, Sheriff, Monterey County, it is my understanding that if the property is actually owned by the county and it is acceptable a resolution is needed by the county. What I heard in the motion is that if that property also falls in the city limits you also need a resolution from the city even though the county holds the property. Is that a change in the rule or interpretation?

Jim Sida, Crout / Sida Criminal Justice Consulting, stated that he is interested in what the rule of law is.

Mr. Tilton added that the direction we got through the jail bond process was for a reentry program. I felt that I acknowledged there is a possibility that someone would not be able to deliver a reentry site and still get these points and that’s the point that I’m asking the Board to reconsider in terms of whether that possibility is part of the factor.

Mark Mustybrook, CDCR Legal, stated that 6271b says reentry facilities shall only be established in a city, county or city and county that requests a reentry program facility and the proposed location of the facility shall be identified by the city, county or city and county.

Bob Livengood, Sheriff’s Department, San Mateo County, asked if the 90 day time frame is a hard and fast number. Secondarily if you do get to the point based on your due diligence the site is no longer viable in your mind is that the date when those points then are removed and that county falls back down to wherever they happen to land after that.

Marc Mustybrook added that the RFP doesn’t specifically state that there has to be a city counsel resolution, the law does. I don’t think you could say that the RFP would be inappropriate or invalid or to imply that if we are trying to maintain consistency.

Mr. Kernan restated the motion, any county with a proposal that includes a secure reentry facility will be required to work with the cities and county board of supervisors in preparing their siting agreement and that if the siting agreement locates the reentry facility within the city limits they must include resolutions approving that site from both the county board of supervisors and the city counsel. I understand that the RFP applicants have 90 days to enter into a siting agreement from the time notified by CSA and further that the Board exercise it’s authority under the law and express terms of the request for proposal to independently accept or reject the findings and recommendation of the ESC and only approve final funding proposals that include a secure reentry facility.

Ms. Campbell stated that as having experience being a Mayor a couple of times, the city would need to be included in approving the reentry site.

A motion was made by Mr. Kernan and seconded by Ms. Biondi. The motion carried.

Mr. Tilton stated that Mr. Penrod would walk everyone through the recommendations of the subcommittee with the understanding that the reentry and points will be evaluated in the next 90 days.

Mr. Penrod provided the Board with the AB 900 Phase I Jail construction Project funding recommendations by the ESC.

Mr. Tilton stated that the next 90 days would determine the final funding and asked for a motion to accept the report from the ESC.

Ms. Biondi raised the question, if a county fell off how would the money be allocated.

Mr. Tilton stated that there is a ranking of the proposals and that the counties would move up on the list. Counties that do not have a reentry facility would come off the list and the remaining counties would compete during that 90 day period to validate their points.

A motion to approve the ESC funding recommendations for AB 900 Phase I Jail Construction Projects was made by Mr. Kernan and seconded by Ms. Biondi.

Mr. Robert Takeshta presented staff’s recommendation. Staff recommends: 1) that the Board conditionally award counties jail construction funding based on recommendations from the jail construction ESC; 2) Staff recommends that the Board be updated at the September 18, 2008 Board Meeting regarding the status of signed siting agreements which conditional awards were predicated on and 3) Staff recommends that the Board approve to supplement any project being partially funded through the process due to being on the cut or on the cusp for available funding and may be allowed any funds that revert back.

Dennis Downum, Sheriff, Calaveras County, stated that Calaveras County was rated as having the highest need the last time the state had funding but that small counties are not able to compete on a cost per bed issue.

Mr. Tilton asked if there is an opportunity to raise questions about the ranking of the projects and how it is validated.

Mr. Takeshta stated that appeal procedures are in the regulations which are posted on CSA’s website in Article V.

Mr. Tilton stated that the motion from staff is for the Board to authorize that people who complete the site agreements that they uphold. The question being raised by the sheriff is the loss of time for that process to take place.

Ms. Gilyard added that providing the funding now defeats the purpose of the milestone and given the 90 days it allows counties to appeal.

Mr. Prieto stated that he shares the frustration of the smaller counties but that the ESC did try to take into consideration the smaller counties to allow them to be competitive.

Mr. Penrod requested clarification that the ESC list is approved, yet monies not awarded for 90 days. Mr. Tilton and Ms. Penner agreed.

A motion to not accept Staff recommendations and table the grant awards for 90 days was made by Ms. Penner and seconded by Ms. Gilyard. The motion carried.

Mr. Penrod added that his thoughts were that the Board approve the conditional awards but not award the money for 90 days to make sure that all approved counties meet the requirements.

Mr. Tilton replied that’s what the Board has done is accepted the subcommittee ranking and in his view the ranking and scoring has been approved and now all that is left to do is validate the reentry.

Ms. Penner added that the Board had previously accepted the ESC’s recommendations pending the site issue.

Mr. Tilton stated that the Board has accepted the subcommittee’s recommendations.

AB 900 – UPDATE ON LOCAL JAIL CONSTRUCTION TITLE 15 REGULATIONS
(AGENDA ITEM C)
Field Representative Charlene Aboytes presented this action item which provided an update of the AB 900 Draft Jail Construction funding regulations and public comment process and requests the Board to approve staff to proceed with a 90 day re-adoption process.

At the January 2008 CSA meeting, this Board approved the draft AB 900 2007 Local Jail Construction Funding Program regulations, directed staff to commence with the public comment period for the draft regulations and adopted the proposed public hearing dates.

These draft regulations were submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as an operational necessity emergency under Penal Code Section 5058.3. The OAL approved the regulations on February 4, 2008. The emergency regulatory action is effective for 160 days, expiring on July 15, 2008.

As required by statute and regulations, a 45-day public comment period was held from February 16 through April 14, 2008. Two public hearings were held, one in Sacramento on March 12 and one in San Bernardino on April 10. Comments regarding the draft regulations were submitted by Ellison Wilson Advocacy, LLC. If changes to the draft regulations are necessary, an additional 15-day public comment period will be required.

As indicated previously, the AB 900 2007 Local Jail Construction Funding Program regulations are effective until July 15, 2008. In order to assure that staff has adequate time to complete all the requirements of the OAL, staff requested the Board’s approval in proceeding with a 90-day re-adoption process as outlined in Title 2, Section 11346.1 of the Government Code. The additional 90 days would begin on July 15, 2008.

CSA staff will present the Board with any recommended modifications to the regulations at the July 2008 CSA meeting. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with a 90-day re-adoption process.

A motion to adopt staff recommendations was made by Mr. Prieto and seconded by Mr. Ingrassia. The motion carried.

SB 81 – UPDATE ON THE DRAFT RFP FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER REHABILITATIVE FACILITES
(AGENDA ITEM D)

Field Representative Charlene Aboytes presented this information item which provided an update of the SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction funding process.

In August 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed the 2007 Budget Act that included funding to implement the Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Construction Grants authorized by Senate Bill 81.

The Executive Steering Committee (ESC) convened on February 19, 2008. The purpose of this public session was to develop the components of the draft SB 81 Local Youthful Offender Rehabilitative Facility Request for Proposals and the proposal rating factors that will be used to ultimately rank order counties based upon their submitted proposals.

At the March 20 Board meeting, the CSA Board approved the timeline and the release of the draft RFP to the field.

On March 25, prior to its release to the field, CSA staff sent the draft RFP to the ESC, Governor’s Office, Attorney General’s Office, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Legal Division (CDCR – Legal) and the State Public Works Board for review and comment.

During the review period, comments were received that necessitated obtaining a legal opinion from CDCR – Legal and the Attorney General’s Office. As a result, the draft RFP was not released to the field on April 11 and the subsequent ESC meeting did not take place on April 28 as indicated by the approved timeline.

CSA staff will provide the revised timeline and the final RFP for your consideration at your July 10 CSA meeting.

SB 81 – FINAL JJDP PLAN APPROVALS
(AGENDA ITEM E)
Field Representative Kim Bushard, presented this action item which complemented an action that was taken by the Board at the March 20, 2008 meeting relative to the county Juvenile Justice Development Plans. At the March 20, 2008 meeting, the Board approved 56 of the 58 county Plans based on staff’s recommendation.

Current law does not require any updates, reapplications or reporting of outcomes on the Juvenile Justice Development Plans. On April 17, 2008 the Senate took action to adopt trailer bill language requiring counties to submit Plans annually to CSA. The proposed language would also require counties to report on the six outcome measures required by JJCPA.

Final plans from Sacramento and San Mateo County have been received and reviewed by staff and were found to be in compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 81. Accordingly, it is recommended that the CSA Board approve the Juvenile Justice Development Plans for Sacramento and San Mateo Counties. Adoption of this recommendation will result in all 58 counties having approved Plans.

Ms. Penner asked a question in regards to the funding attached to SB 81 and any affects that may diminish that as a result of the budget process.

Ms. Bushard replied that at this point there is no information suggesting that the funding of the program would change.

A motion to approve the Juvenile Justice Development Plans for Sacramento and San Mateo counties was made by Mr. Prieto and seconded by Ms. Arnold. The motion carried.

SB 81 – 5% UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION
(AGENDA ITEM F)
Field Representative Kim Bushard presented this Action item which requested the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) Boards approval to send 12 funding requests forward to the Department of Finance for consideration / approval. These requests were for funding under the provisions of Senate Bill 81 (Chapter 175, Statutes of 2007) which set aside 5% of the total Youthful Offender Block Grant amount for counties that experienced unforeseen circumstances.

SB 81 added Sections 1951, et seq. to the Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) establishing the Youthful Offender Block Grant Fund. WIC Section 1952(a)(3) provides for a set aside equaling 5% of the total Block Grant amount. These funds are available to counties for unforeseen circumstances associated with implementation of local rehabilitative programs and services. Given that almost $23 million was distributed as Block Grants, $1.1 million is available under the 5% set aside.

While the language in WIC Section 1952(a)(3) is quite general, there are two things that a county is required to demonstrate should they wish to seek funds from the 5% reserve. A county must outline the unusual circumstances that exists in the county and why the county’s YOBG is inadequate to meet the county financial needs to accommodate and supervise youthful offenders. Counties are directed to submit a request outlining the above information to the CSA. In turn, CSA is directed to collaborate with the Division of Juvenile Facilities in developing recommendations. Recommendations are required to be submitted to the Department of Finance for approval.

According to statute, the 5% reserve funds are only available on a one-time basis during the current fiscal year. Since the funds must be spent by June 30, 2008, CSA staff felt it was imperative that the process be opened up quickly to allow counties the chance to assess local resources and then request and receive funds before they expire.

On December 3, 2007, the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) Executive Director emailed a notice to all Chief Probation Officers and Probation Business Managers informing them of the availability of these funds. In that notification, instructions were provided regarding the process to request funds.

CSA received two requests for funding based on unforeseen circumstances in advance of the January 10, 2008 CSA Board meeting. These requests were from Monterey ($185,617), and Tulare ($135,000) counties. Both requests were evaluated based on the broad criteria spelled out in SB 81: demonstration of unusual circumstances; and explanation of why the Youthful Offender Block Grant is inadequate to meet county financial needs to accommodate youthful offenders as prescribed by SB 81. At its January 10, 2008 meeting, the CSA Board took action to adopt staff’s recommendation to approve additional funding for Monterey and Tulare counties.

Since SB 81 gives funding approval authority to the Department of Finance (DOF), the Board recommendation to provide additional funding to Monterey and Tulare counties was forwarded to DOF.

At its March 20, 2008 meeting, the Board took action to direct CSA staff to work with DOF, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the California State Association of Counties, and the Division of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of developing criteria by which to evaluate the funding requests. On April 7, 2008, CSA staff met with the above parties and the group determined that the most appropriate approach at this point is to have CSA continue to the use the broad criteria established in law, in order to maintain consistency in the CSA process. Furthermore, the group agreed that the DOF, as the approving authority in this instance, should take responsibility for developing and applying more specific criteria to these funding requests. It was agreed that if CSA sends all of the requests forward for consideration, DOF will work with CSA to develop criteria and then they will make a final decision about the level of funding that is appropriate for approval on each request.

CSA has now received requests from 12 additional counties. If the Board approves the staff recommendation, these 12 requests will be forwarded to the DOF for their consideration and approval. DOF has requested CSA staff assistance in developing criteria by which to evaluate the requests. DOF would be responsible for determining the appropriate method by which to reduce proposals in order to stay within the overall amount of funds available. Staff recommends the Board approve submission of all 12 new funding requests to the DOF for their consideration and approval.

Ms. Penner stated her concern with having the funds allocated by the June 30, 2008 deadline.

Ms. Bushard added that by sticking with the criteria for Tulare and Monterey County, it allows all 14 requests to be sent forward for consideration by DOF.

Manuel Real, Chief Executive Officer, Monterey County Probation, stated the allocation was not fairly funded and urged staff to see significance for Tulare and Monterey.

A motion to forward all 12 new funding requests to the department of Finance was made by Mr. Warner and seconded by Mr. Kernan. The motion carried.

CLOSED SESSION – REPORT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE WATERS CASE
(AGENDA ITEM G)
Field Representative Gary Wion, presented this information only item. The settlement agreement reached in the Waters V Tilton lawsuit on March 12, 2008 requires the Corrections Standards Authority (CSA) adhere to the requirements specified with Section 209, Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC). Section 209 requires counties submit to the CSA a corrective action plan that address each issue of non-compliance identified in the CSA biennial inspection within 60 days of notification. If the identified issues are not brought into compliance within 90 days after the submission of the corrective action plan, the county is required to come before the CSA Board at its nest scheduled meeting for a determination of suitability for the continued housing of minors.

This code section has been in place since 1998. Since that time, the CSA has not required counties to submit corrective action plans or correct areas of non-compliance identified during the biennial CSA inspection of the 62 locally operated juvenile halls. Investigation into the reasoning behind the decision to not adhere to the specified requirements indicates a lack of recourses as the primary cause.

The Facilities Operation Division of the CSA is comprised of 10 funded Field Representative positions and among their other duties; these ten positions are responsible for inspecting approximately 754 local adult and juvenile facilities for compliance with Title 15, California Code of Regulations.

In anticipation of the outcome of the Waters Case, the CSA began adhering to the requirements of Section 209, WIC on July 2, 2007. In addition, the majority of the remaining juvenile hall inspections were delayed to the end of the inspection cycle pending the outcome of the case. The CSA is mandated to inspect local detention facilities on a biennial cycle. The cycle begins and ends with the fiscal calendar and the CSA is in the end of the June 2008 cycle. To date, the CSA has only had two counties come before the CSA Board for a determination of suitability as required in Section 209. Due to the bulk of the inspections of the juvenile halls occurring late in the inspection cycle, it is anticipated that a high number of juvenile halls will be before the CSA Board beginning at the July CSA Board meeting.

REQUEST FROM THE COUNCIL ON MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
(AGENDA ITEM H)
Field Representative Gary Wion, presented this information only item. During the March 19, 2008 Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (COMIO) meeting, a discussion occurred between council members regarding the lack of regulation addressing mentally ill offenders incarcerated within local detention facilities. Secretary Tilton chairs this council and suggested to the membership that they contact CSA. Subsequent discussions with COMIO members have occurred. CSA staff has agreed to address the concerns brought forth by the COMIO during the next adult and juvenile Title 15 regulation revision process. In addition, CSA staff, in cooperation with the California State Sheriffs Association (CSSA) and Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), will develop two workgroups to examine current issues regarding incarcerated mentally ill offenders. One workgroup will examine juvenile issues and one will examine adult. The products of these workgroups will be disseminated to the field via CSSA and CPOC.

On October 12, 2001, former Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill No. 1059 (Chapter 860, Statutes of 2001) (Perata) creating the Council on Mentally Ill Offenders (Council). The bill is codified as Penal Code (PC) Section 6044 which set forth a sunset date of December 31, 2006. Senate Bill 1422 signed in 2006 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger eliminated the sunset date.

The Council is comprised of eleven members. The legislation designates as permanent members the Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (now the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) and the Director of the California Department of Mental Health, with the Secretary serving as the chair. The other members are appointed as follows: three by the Governor, at least one of whom shall represent mental health, two each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly, each appointing one representative of law enforcement and one representative of mental health, one by the Attorney General, and one superior court judge appointed by the Chief Justice.

The Legislature identified several related purposes of the Council. Its primary purpose is to "investigate and promote cost-effective approaches to meeting the long-term needs of adults and juveniles with mental disorders who are likely to become offenders or who have a history of offending." In pursuit of that goal the Council is to: Identify strategies for preventing adults and juveniles with mental health needs from becoming offenders, Identify strategies for improving the cost effectiveness of services for adults and juveniles with mental health needs who have a history of offending, Identify incentives to encourage state and local criminal justice, juvenile justice, and mental health programs to adopt cost effective approaches for serving adults and juveniles who are likely to offend or who have a history of offending.

The Council shall consider strategies that: Improve service coordination among state and local mental health, criminal justice, and juvenile justice programs, Improve the ability of adult and juvenile offenders with mental health needs to transition successfully between corrections-based, juvenile-based, and community-based treatment programs.

The Council is authorized to apply for funds from the "federal government or other sources to further the purpose of this article." In addition, in signing the legislation the Governor directed "the affected state agencies to identify existing funds that can be used to support this program." Originally the Council was required to "file with the Legislature, not later than December 31 of each year, a report that shall provide details of the Council's activities during the preceding year. The report shall include recommendations for improving the cost-effectiveness of mental health and criminal justice programs." Subsequent legislation changed this requirement to a submission of an annual report to the CDCR Secretary.

INMATE VOTING
(AGENDA ITEM I)
Field Representative, Gary Wion presented this information only item. During the March 20, 2008 CSA Board meeting, Mr. Dorsey Nunn addressed the Board members during public comment. Mr. Nunn is the Co-Director for the Legal Services for Inmates with Children organization located in San Francisco. Mr. Nunn expressed concerns regarding inmate voting rights and requested the CSA Board assist his organization in the education of incarcerated person as to their voting rights and responsibilities. The Board requested that staff place this issue on the May 8, 2008 agenda as an information item.

Current Title 15 regulations address inmate voting. Section 1071 reads as follows;

The facility administrator of a Type I (holding sentenced inmate workers) II, III or IV facility shall develop written policies and procedures whereby the county registrar of voters allows qualified voters to vote in local, state, and federal elections, pursuant to election codes.

During the current Adult Title 15 and 24 regulation revision process, this regulation was reviewed by a workgroup comprised of subject mater experts in September 2007. This workgroup recommended no changes to the regulation language and found no conflict with a 2005 opinion issued by the Attorney General (Attachment A) regarding inmate voting. The Executive Steering Committee further reviewed the workgroups product as part of the revision process and recommended no changes. At this time, staff is preparing final documents for submittal to the Office of Administrative Law to begin the public comment period.

Subsequent discussions with Mr. Nunn and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC) staff attorney, Cassie Pierson conclude that the CSA could best assist the LSPC organization by including their concerns in the next adult regulation revision process.

UNILATERAL APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE
(AGENDA ITEM J)
Field Representative Evonne Garner presented this action item. The purpose of this agenda item is to request the establishment of a standing committee to the CSA to oversee the administration of the State Correctional Peace Officer Apprenticeship program. The purpose of the apprenticeship program is to provide structured training opportunities to entry level correctional peace officer employed in California’s youth and adult facilities and Parole Regions.

The apprenticeship program is certified by the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards. The responsibility for overseeing and administering the apprenticeship program was transferred to CSA as part of the corrections reorganization plan.

The program came to CSA with several areas of non-compliance with criteria set by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. Since then, CDCR has been working with the Division of Apprenticeship Standards to correct those areas of non-compliance.

The last remaining issue to bring the program back into full compliance is the establishment of an apprenticeship committee to oversee and administer the program. The committee will be comprised of members representing the variety of CDCR programs and the Department of Mental Health which employs a small number of state correctional peace officers. CSA’s Executive Director will serve as the Chair of this committee.

This board will be kept informed of the activities of the apprenticeship committee through regular status reports.

A motion to approve the establishment of a Unilateral Apprenticeship Committee as a standing committee to the CSA was made by Mr. Hernandez and was seconded by Ms. Penner. The motion carried.

CSA Board Members
James Tilton, CDCR, Secretary
Scott Kernan, CDCR, Adult Operations
Ed Prieto, Sheriff, Yolo County
Bernard Warner, CDCR, Juvenile Offenders
Adele Arnold, Chief Probation Officer
William Powers, County Supervisor
John Ingrassia, Local Detention Facility
Carol Biondi, Public Member
Cleo Adams, Rank & File Representative, Deputy Sheriff
Linda Penner, Chief Probation Officer
Gary Penrod, San Bernardino County Sheriff
Karrie Eckhardt, Rank & File Representative, State Parole Officer
David Bacigalupo, Subordinate Officer, CDCR
Collene Campbell, Public Member, Interests of Crime Victims
Robert Hernandez, Subordinate Officer, CDCR
Pamala Gilyard, Rank & File Representative, Juvenile Probation Officer

CSA Staff
C. Scott Harris Jr., Executive Director
Krysten Meyer, Executive Assistant
Marlon Yarber, Deputy Director, CPP
Robert Takeshta, Deputy Director, CFC
Gary Wion, Deputy Director, FSO
Don Allen, Field Representative, FSO
Kimberly Bushard, Field Representative, CPP
Rebecca Craig, Field Representative, FSO
Chris Martin, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Leslie Heller, Field Representative, CFC
Charlene Aboytes, Field Representative, CFC
Evonne Garner, SSM I, STC
John Kohls, Correctional Consultant
Shalinee Hunter, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Connie Lucero, Correctional Consultant, CPP
Toni Gardner, Field Representative, FSO
Oscar Villegas, Field Representative, CFC
Patricia Sanchez, Information System Technician
Reizo Shibamoto, Secretary
Maria Rodriguez, Secretary
Natasha Nomura, Secretary
Betty Zierke, Office Technician

Guests
Mike Kanalakis, Sheriff, Monterey County
Manuel Real, Chief Probation Officer, Monterey County
Brian Cooley, Chief Probation Officer, Merced County
William Di Yorio, Riverside County Sheriff
Dan Ybarra, Riverside County Sheriff
Bob Livengood, Sheriff, San Mateo
Martin Ryan, Sheriff, Amador County
Michael Walker, Undersheriff, Calaveras County
Jim Mele, Sheriff, Tuolumne County
Carla Kennedy, Administrative Captain, Alameda County
Lisa Rosales, Commanding Officer, Alameda County
Oscar Hidalgo, Assistant Secretary of Communications, CDCR
Carole D’Elia, Project Manager, Little Hoover Commission
David Deluz, Executive Branch, CDCR
Natonya Forbes, SSA, CDCR
Cheryl Cereghino, CJPA Representative, Tulare County
JP Jones, Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Office
Manuel Real, Monterey County Probation
Doug Rieffel, Monterey County Probation
John Dietler, Retired CDC
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Suzie Cohen, Suzie Cohen and Associates
Doug Papagni, Madera County Department of Corrections
Michelle Cole, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Tracy Matich, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department
Dennis Downum, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Dennis Huberty, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Ed Ballard, Calaveras Sheriff’s Office
Kathy Goto, Orange County Probation
Marty Iceta, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department
Brian Lee, Sacramento County Probation
Michael Bays, Sacramento County Probation
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation
Jerry Scribner, Ellison-Wilson Advocacy
Todd Silva, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office
Delores Nnam, Santa Clara County Probation
Letha Martin, Lassen County Probation
Traci Witry, Lassen County, County Counsel
Bill Akiyama, HDR Architecture
Cheryl Summers-Lane, Tulare County Probation
Corey R Cummings, Tindall Corporation
Donna Thierbach, Riverside Probation
John Quinlan, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Sheila Mitchell, Santa Clara County Probation
W. Harry Munton, TRE Consulting
Ladonna Harris, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office
Lewis McElfresh, Sutter County Sheriff’s Office
Don Van Buskirk, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office
Tom Boserko, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office
Ann Sasaki-Madigan, San Diego County Probation
Renee Best, TRG Consulting
Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting

Corrections Standards Authority

Related Links

Corrections Standards Authority Meeting Minutes May 8, 2008