(Calaveras) Grand jury blasts handling of AB109
Calaveras Enterprise
Posted on March 15, 2013
The Calaveras County Grand Jury is a group of private citizens empaneled by the courts to review government operations. Visit calaverasenterprise.com to read the full grand jury interim report.
The grand jury found that members of the Community Corrections Partnership, tasked with handling AB109’s realignment of prisoners, did not adhere to the Brown Act, failed to take adequate meeting minutes, were disorganized and disrespectful of each other and county departments.
AB109 is the cornerstone of California’s Supreme Court-mandated solution to reduce overcrowding, costs and recidivism in the state prison system.
Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervision of some felons – described as non-violent, non-serious, non-sexoffenders – from the state to the local level, and many offenders who previously would have gone to prison will now serve their time in the county jail.
The state provided funding to counties to handle the new responsibilities – to the tune of about $475,000 in Calaveras.
During the implementation of AB109, each county in the state was instructed to form a community corrections partnership with an executive committee – each member having an equal vote – comprised of the chiefprobation officer , chief of police, sheriff, district attorney, public defender, presiding judge and representative from a county social services department.
In Calaveras, the partnership was led by Chief Probation Officer Teri Hall, who was joined by Angels Camp Chief of Police Todd Fordahl, Calaveras County Sheriff Gary Kuntz, Calaveras County District Attorney Barbara Yook, Chief Public Defender Scott Gross, Superior Court Judge Douglas Mewhinney and Calaveras County Behavioral Health Director Rita Downs.
After attending numerous meetings, requesting countless documents from various departments and interviewing county employees, the grand jury reached five findings.
Finding 1 – Community Corrections Partnership and minutes: Meeting agendas have not been detailed enough to preview what will be covered. Introductions, old business, new business and adjournment has been enough to satisfy the Brown Act but “is not terribly useful” to a productive meeting, the report read. It also said meeting minutes had not been recorded properly, presented in a timely manner, and, at times, were not even written down. The jury also found biweekly meetings the partnership decided would take place have not been taking place. The grand jury recommends minute-taking be vastly improved in several areas and the partnership should hold meetings at predetermined times. It asked for the Community Corrections Partnership and Hall to respond.
Finding 2 – CCP parliamentary procedures and mediation: “CCP meetings have been disorganized, unfocused, repetitious, and hostile at times. No formal structure such as ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’ has been followed. Consequently, no process for mediating disagreements between members exists. Misunderstandings, disagreements (sometimes loud), lack of compromise, unresolved differences in philosophy, insults, eye rolling and derisive laughter have rendered meetings inefficient and frequently unproductive,” the report read. The jury recommended the CCP should adopt a formal system of parliamentary procedures to keep meetings organized and avoid “discord.” It also suggested partnership members use “common courtesy.” The CCP and Hall were asked to respond to the jury.
Finding 3 – Respecting other county departments: “Each county department has its own policies and procedures. Departments are frequently required to work together towards a common goal. It is necessary to respect each other’s policies and procedures for public and staff safety,” the report read. The grand jury recommends departments respectfully follow proper procedures when seeking information from another department. Response from the Probation Department and Sheriff’s Office was requested.
Finding 4 – Working together as equal partners: The grand jury found there was no clear specification of “rank” within the CCP other than Hall being named chair. It also noted the plan calls for “continuous program improvement” and the implementation of data tracking methods. The jury recommends all departments involved share information openly. Response was requested from the CCP and Hall.
Finding 5 – Meetings and statistics: The grand jury found the CCP’s plan states the partnership will meet monthly (or as needed) with appropriate treatment providers to discuss problematic offenders and what strategies “will best address the offender’s anti-social behaviors.” “This meeting was held only once and never repeated. However, the need for this kind of meeting is crucial to public safety as well as the success of reducing new offenses.” The grand jury found this type of meeting was only held once and was never repeated. It also believes this kind of meeting is crucial to public safety as well as the success of reducing new offense by the AB109 population. The jury recommended resuming these meetings immediately to be held at regular intervals, which would be determined by a CCP vote. It also recommended information should be freely shared among voting members of the partnership “without partners being expected to answer the question, ‘Please explain your need for this information.’”
Yook said that quote was from an email Hall sent after Yook requested information about the level of supervision given to a PRCS offender.
Sheriff Kuntz was the only CCP voting member who responded to calls from the Enterprise by Thursday’s deadline.
Calls to former Chief Probation Officer Teri Hall, who is retiring at the end of this month, were not returned.
Kuntz said the report was “very accurate” and it could have been much worse.
“They pretty much hit the heart of it,” he said. “They requested a lot of information they never received. It’s an ongoing problem for the Sheriff’s Office, Angels Camp PD and the DA’s office. Hopefully this situation will rectify itself and people will work better with each other.”
When asked if he would have acted any differently in meetings if he could go back and do it all over again, Kuntz said, “No, I don’t think I did anything wrong.”
Kuntz said he had to hold his ground despite a philosophical difference between the Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department. When asked what led to the “hostility” he pointed to former Probation Chief Hall.
“We don’t control meetings, it was up to the probation chief to do that,” Kuntz said. “She ran the thing. There was a lot of repetition – the same thing over and over. It was just one thing after another. Hopefully in the future things will change.”
“My job is to protect the public,” he said. “And I will not allow people to run amuck in this county with no accountability.”
The grand jury found that members of the Community Corrections Partnership, tasked with handling AB109’s realignment of prisoners, did not adhere to the Brown Act, failed to take adequate meeting minutes, were disorganized and disrespectful of each other and county departments.
AB109 is the cornerstone of California’s Supreme Court-mandated solution to reduce overcrowding, costs and recidivism in the state prison system.
Realignment shifts the responsibility of supervision of some felons – described as non-violent, non-serious, non-sex
The state provided funding to counties to handle the new responsibilities – to the tune of about $475,000 in Calaveras.
During the implementation of AB109, each county in the state was instructed to form a community corrections partnership with an executive committee – each member having an equal vote – comprised of the chief
In Calaveras, the partnership was led by Chief Probation Officer Teri Hall, who was joined by Angels Camp Chief of Police Todd Fordahl, Calaveras County Sheriff Gary Kuntz, Calaveras County District Attorney Barbara Yook, Chief Public Defender Scott Gross, Superior Court Judge Douglas Mewhinney and Calaveras County Behavioral Health Director Rita Downs.
After attending numerous meetings, requesting countless documents from various departments and interviewing county employees, the grand jury reached five findings.
Finding 1 – Community Corrections Partnership and minutes: Meeting agendas have not been detailed enough to preview what will be covered. Introductions, old business, new business and adjournment has been enough to satisfy the Brown Act but “is not terribly useful” to a productive meeting, the report read. It also said meeting minutes had not been recorded properly, presented in a timely manner, and, at times, were not even written down. The jury also found biweekly meetings the partnership decided would take place have not been taking place. The grand jury recommends minute-taking be vastly improved in several areas and the partnership should hold meetings at predetermined times. It asked for the Community Corrections Partnership and Hall to respond.
Finding 2 – CCP parliamentary procedures and mediation: “CCP meetings have been disorganized, unfocused, repetitious, and hostile at times. No formal structure such as ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’ has been followed. Consequently, no process for mediating disagreements between members exists. Misunderstandings, disagreements (sometimes loud), lack of compromise, unresolved differences in philosophy, insults, eye rolling and derisive laughter have rendered meetings inefficient and frequently unproductive,” the report read. The jury recommended the CCP should adopt a formal system of parliamentary procedures to keep meetings organized and avoid “discord.” It also suggested partnership members use “common courtesy.” The CCP and Hall were asked to respond to the jury.
Finding 3 – Respecting other county departments: “Each county department has its own policies and procedures. Departments are frequently required to work together towards a common goal. It is necessary to respect each other’s policies and procedures for public and staff safety,” the report read. The grand jury recommends departments respectfully follow proper procedures when seeking information from another department. Response from the Probation Department and Sheriff’s Office was requested.
Finding 4 – Working together as equal partners: The grand jury found there was no clear specification of “rank” within the CCP other than Hall being named chair. It also noted the plan calls for “continuous program improvement” and the implementation of data tracking methods. The jury recommends all departments involved share information openly. Response was requested from the CCP and Hall.
Finding 5 – Meetings and statistics: The grand jury found the CCP’s plan states the partnership will meet monthly (or as needed) with appropriate treatment providers to discuss problematic offenders and what strategies “will best address the offender’s anti-social behaviors.” “This meeting was held only once and never repeated. However, the need for this kind of meeting is crucial to public safety as well as the success of reducing new offenses.” The grand jury found this type of meeting was only held once and was never repeated. It also believes this kind of meeting is crucial to public safety as well as the success of reducing new offense by the AB109 population. The jury recommended resuming these meetings immediately to be held at regular intervals, which would be determined by a CCP vote. It also recommended information should be freely shared among voting members of the partnership “without partners being expected to answer the question, ‘Please explain your need for this information.’”
Yook said that quote was from an email Hall sent after Yook requested information about the level of supervision given to a PRCS offender.
Sheriff Kuntz was the only CCP voting member who responded to calls from the Enterprise by Thursday’s deadline.
Calls to former Chief Probation Officer Teri Hall, who is retiring at the end of this month, were not returned.
Kuntz said the report was “very accurate” and it could have been much worse.
“They pretty much hit the heart of it,” he said. “They requested a lot of information they never received. It’s an ongoing problem for the Sheriff’s Office, Angels Camp PD and the DA’s office. Hopefully this situation will rectify itself and people will work better with each other.”
When asked if he would have acted any differently in meetings if he could go back and do it all over again, Kuntz said, “No, I don’t think I did anything wrong.”
Kuntz said he had to hold his ground despite a philosophical difference between the Sheriff’s Office and the Probation Department. When asked what led to the “hostility” he pointed to former Probation Chief Hall.
“We don’t control meetings, it was up to the probation chief to do that,” Kuntz said. “She ran the thing. There was a lot of repetition – the same thing over and over. It was just one thing after another. Hopefully in the future things will change.”
“My job is to protect the public,” he said. “And I will not allow people to run amuck in this county with no accountability.”
Contact Joel Metzger at joel@calaverasenterprise.com
No comments:
Post a Comment