GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU ALL
FOR JOINING US TODAY. THE SENATE
RULES. THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
RULES IS BEING CALLED THE ORDER
BEFORE WE BEGIN TODAY'S AGENDA.
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO
IS ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO WE ARE
GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MADAM
SECRETARY. MADAM SECRETARY. CAN
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL AND
THAT'S ESTABLISHED QUORUM.
MCGUIRE MCGUIRE HERE, GROVE HERE
, GROVE HERE, EGMOND EGM HERE,
JONES ABSENT, LAIRD, LAD HERE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE NOW HAVE A
QUORUM ESTABLISHED. LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, WHO ARE HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN THOSE WATCHING
ONLINE. WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BE DO
WITH RESPECT IS TO TAKE UP SOME
OF OUR HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. IF
IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF YOU, THIS SHOULD
TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND WE'RE
GONNA GET TO THE APPOINTEES
REQUIRED TO APPEAR AND REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. AND
AGAIN. WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT YOU
ARE HERE TODAY. IF THERE ARE NÓ
OBJECTIONS WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE
TO TAKE UP FIRST ITEM ON TODAY'S
AGENDA, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE
THE GOVERNOR APPOINTEES, NOT
REQUIRED TO APPEAR THAT ITEMS
TWO G THROUGH I WE WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE TWO DIFFERENT FLIGHTS UP
FOR VOTES. WE'D LIKE TO TAKE
ITEMS TWO G I AND JG I AND J UP
FIRST, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND
THEN WE'LL TAKE A SEPARATE
MOTION AFTER WE VOTE ON THESE
THREE ITEMS ON ITEMS TWO HÌ, SO
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR
FOR TWO G AND J. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? GROW I'M SORRY.
MAGUIRE MAGUIRE, I GROVE GROVE.
I EG EG, EYE LAYERED, LAYERED. I
4 TO 0. THANK YOU SO MUCH THAT
IS THE 40 VOTE ON ITEMS. G I AND
J, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE
NOW GOING TO BE TAKING ITEM TWO
HÌ UP SEPARATELY. IS THERE A
MOTION SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR LAIRD. MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
MAGUIRE I GROVE GROVE NÓ EGMOND.
GÒM I, LAIRD LAIRD. I THREE TO
ONE. THERE IS A 31 VOTE ITEM.
TWO HÌ PASSES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. NEXT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO TAKE UP ITEM THREE. ON
TODAY'S AGENDA. THIS IS
REFERENCE OF BILLS TO COMMITTEES
WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE HAVE
A MOTION BY SENATOR EDMAN. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? MCGUIRE GROVE GROVE? I
EDMUND? EDMUND, I LAIRD. I
LAIRD, I 404 TO 0 VOTE. THAT
MEASURE PASSES WITH THE 40 VOTE.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN COMMITTEE.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ONE ITEM UP
PRIOR TO GETTING TO THE
APPOINTEES WHO ARE IN THE
HEARING ROOM TODAY. UH, THIS
THIS THIS IS ITEMS FOUR THROUGH
12 FLOOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ITEMS.
FOUR THROUGH 12 ON FLOOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY THE VICE CHAIR. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? MCGUIRE MCGUIRE I,
GROVE GROVE. I EGMOND EG I, LAD
I 4 TO 0 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF
COMMITTEE THAT'S A 40 VOTE. THAT
MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THAT
WORK, AND WE APPRECIATE THE
PATIENCE OF THOSE WHO ARE IN
ATTENDANCE. WE ARE GOING TO NOW
REQUEST EACH OF THE SIX
APPOINTMENTS OF COMMISSIONER
APPOINTEES, COMMISSIONERS OF THE
BOARD OF PAROLE TO POLICE. STEP
FORWARD. WE HAVE FOLKS STEP
FORWARD, AND I'M GONNA NAME WE
HAVE MR SCHNEIDER. TO MY TO MY
RIGHT IN THE SEAT, MISS PURCELL
IN THE SECOND, MISS O'MEARA.
THIRD INFANTE. FOURTH MISTER
CHAPPELLE, FIFTH AND MR BARTON
SIX. SO WE WANT TO WELCOME EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
TAKING THE TIME. WE ALSO WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UM AS
YOU SEE, WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE.
WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS WHO ARE
APPEARING TODAY. WE'D LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO DO QUICK RUNNER SHOW.
TYPICALLY WE HAVE 2 TO 3 FOLKS
IN FRONT OF US. WE'D LIKE TO
TALK ABOUT RUN OF SHOW AND HOW
THIS IS GOING TO WORK TODAY AND
AGAIN. WE'RE REALLY GRATEFUL
THAT EACH OF YOU ARE HERE WE'RE
GONNA HEAR FROM, UH, EACH MEMBER
WHO WAS HERE FOR APPOINTMENT
WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE
ORDER IN WHICH WE'LL HEAR FROM
EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS. WE
WILL FIRST HEAR FROM MR BARTON.
THEN MR CHAPPELLE, AND THEN
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM MR
INFANTE. SO MEA MISS PURCELL AND
THEN TO MR SCHNEIDER NOW EACH OF
THE COMMISSIONERS. YOU WILL HAVE
1 TO 2 MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE OPENING TESTIMONY TO THE
COMMITTEE. WE ARE THEN OPEN IT
UP TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO
ASK QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE ANY
COMMENTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE IN
YOUR OPENING? WE OF COURSE,
WELCOME ANY WELCOMING COMMENTS
THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO FOLKS WHO
ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF YOU OR
WATCHING ONLINE IN, ESPECIALLY
IF YOU HAVE ANY FAMILY. YOU'D
LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
WE WELCOME THAT AT THIS TIME, UM
, WITH RESPECT, WE'RE GONNA BE
KEEPING TIME WHEN YOU GET CLOSE
TO TWO MINUTES. I'LL JUST GIVE
YOU A LITTLE NUDGE AND THAT YOU
KNOW YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO TWO
MINUTES AND PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT
ME BEING RUDE OR PUSHY. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET TO
THE QUESTIONS AND THE
CONVERSATION WITH EACH OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. EACH SENATOR
WILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE
PANEL HERE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF
APPOINTEES AND AGAIN WITH
RESPECT. WE ASK EACH OF THE
COMMISSIONERS TO BE ABLE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IS MOST
RELEVANT OR IMPORTANT TO YOU.
THERE MAY BE A SENATOR THAT ASKS
EACH OF YOU TO BE ABLE TO
ANSWER. AND OF COURSE, THAT IS
THE PREROGATIVE OF THE SENATOR.
OTHERWISE IF YOU CAN PICK AND
CHOOSE WHICH IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO YOU
UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL SENATOR HERE ON THE
RULES COMMITTEE AGAIN, WE ARE SO
APPRECIATIVE THAT HE WOULD TAKE
THE TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO
UH, WITH THE COMMITTEE'S
PERMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO START
HERE WITH OUR TESTIMONY AND
OPENING STATEMENT. WE'RE GOING
TO START WITH MR BARTON. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES, SIR. THANK
YOU. AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE OUR
RESUME. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND
TIME GOING THROUGH MY RESUME IN
PARTICULAR. HOWEVER MR BARTON,
I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU PAUSE FOR
A MOMENT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE
YOUR MIC IS ON. WE'RE GONNA HAVE
YOU PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT. LET'S
TRY IT AGAIN, MR SPIN. HELLO
THERE WE GO. OK YOU'RE ON ALL
RIGHT? UH, AS I SAID, I'M NOT
GOING TO GO THROUGH MY RESUME,
NECESSARILY. BUT I DO THINK THE
GOVERNOR FOR HIS CONTINUED
CONFIDENCE IN MY PERFORMANCE IN
THIS ROLE AND WHAT I SEE AS A
VERY CRITICAL ROLE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE FOR
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO
SERVE IN THAT MANNER FOR ANOTHER
TERM. I ALSO WOULD THANK MY WIFE
WHO'S EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE. THIS
IS OFTENTIMES AN ARDUOUS JOB
OFTEN TIMES MANY ARE SPENT ON
EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS, AND I
REALLY DO APPRECIATE HER AND THE
REST OF MY FAMILY'S SUPPORT IN
THAT REGARD. I ALSO APPRECIATE
THE SUPPORT OF MY COLLEAGUES. UH
THE BOARD STAFF. IT IS A GROUP
EFFORT IN TERMS OF US BEING ABLE
TO PERFORM THIS JOB AND THE I
WOULD SAY SUPPORT THAT WE GET BY
WAY OF, FOR EXAMPLE,
COMPREHENSIVE RISK ASSESSMENTS
AHEAD OF TIME, ALL THE DOCUMENTS
THAT WE NEED FOR THE HEARING
JUST THE HARD WORK THAT THE
STAFF GOES INTO PREPARING US AND
GIVING US THE STUFF WE NEED FOR
EACH HEARING. ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OFTENTIMES I
THINK THESE DECISIONS JUST LIKE
ANY OTHER JUDICIAL POST ARE NOT
GOING TO BE POPULAR WITH ONE
SIDE OR THE OTHER. WE'RE ASKED
TO MAKE A DECISION EVERY TIME
AND MY GOAL IS TO BE AS FAIR AS
I CAN TO BE AS PREPARED AS I CAN
AND TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS,
WHICH IS AS MUCH INFORMATION AS
I CAN. AND I DO AGAIN APPRECIATE
THE, UH, SUPPORT AND THE
TRAINING THAT WERE PROVIDED TO
DO THAT. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR
YOUR TIME TODAY. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM
THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M TRULY
HONORED TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY
AND HOPES OF BEING ABLE TO SERVE
OUT IN ANOTHER TERM WITH THE
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS. I'VE
SERVED WITH THE BOARD SINCE
JANUARY OF 2016. AND SINCE THAT
TIME I'VE BEEN FULLY COMMITTED
TO CARRYING OUT THE DUTIES OF MY
POSITION TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITIES. AND IF I AM ABLE TO
CONTINUE AS A COMMISSIONER WITH
THE BOARD, I WILL CONTINUE WITH
THAT FULL COMMITMENT. SO ONCE
AGAIN, I AM HONORED TO BE BEFORE
YOU TODAY AND WELCOME YOUR
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'RE NOW GONNA BE TURNING IT
OVER TO COMMISSIONER INFANTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
IT IS AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE
TO SPEAK WITH YOU ALL TODAY. I
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION FIRST AND FOREMOST
TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM FOR THIS
APPOINTMENT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO EXTEND AND THANK MY WONDERFUL
WIFE, ANGELA FOR ALL HER SUPPORT
AND EXTEND WARM WISHES TO HER
BIRTHDAY TODAY FOR ALLOWING ME
TO BE HERE ON HER BIRTHDAY, AND
SO, UH, I. I TRULY APPRECIATE
HER SUPPORT. AS COMMISSIONER,
BARTON SAID. THIS IS A ARDUOUS
JOB THAT TAKES A LOT OF TIME. TO
PREPARE FOR THESE HEARINGS. UM,
I'VE DEDICATED MY CAREER TO
PROMOTING REHABILITATION
REINTEGRATION. FIRST WITH THE
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND NOW WITH
THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,
AND I SOUGHT THIS APPOINTMENT TO
CONTINUE THIS WORK WHILE
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC THROUGH
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL DECISION
MAKING. I VALUE THIS WORK AS IT
IS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING, YET
REWARDING AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO SERVE THE PEOPLE
OF CALIFORNIA. AND I WELCOME ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. COMMISSIONER THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'RE NOW GOING TO BE
TURNING IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER
O'MARA. IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. HØI GOOD TO SEE
YOU, TOO. AND THANK YOU ALL SO
MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. AND
THANKS TO THE GOVERNOR, I'M JUST
IMMENSELY APPRECIATIVE. IT'S
BEEN AN INCREDIBLE RIDE ON THIS
JOB. UM I WILL SAY A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT MY BACKGROUND BECAUSE I'M
VERY PROUD TO BE ONE OF THE
FIRST PSYCHOLOGISTS ON THE BOARD
AND I KIND OF FEEL LIKE I WAS
DIVINELY PUT HERE. I, UM THEN MY
DISSERTATION RESEARCH AT
VACAVILLE IN THE LATE WELL IN
THE EARLY EIGHTIES, AND I THINK
I WAS THE LAST PERSON TO
ACTUALLY HAVE HUMAN SUBJECTS, SO
IT WAS A VERY ENRICHING
EXPERIENCE, AND IT LED ME ON TO
A PATH THAT HAS I'VE BEEN WITH
FOR MY WHOLE LIFE. I'VE HEARD
SOME STATISTICS LIKE PEOPLE
CHANGE JOBS, OR DO SOMETHING
MAYBE FIVE TIMES OUT OF THE TIME
THEY DO SOMETHING ELSE, AND I
FEEL KIND OF A LITTLE STRANGE
THAT I'VE STAYED IN THIS JOB AND
I'VE STAYED IMMENSELY.
INTERESTED IN, UM CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND REFORM AND WORKING
WITH PEOPLE IN THERAPY AND SO
FORTH. AND UM, I WORKED IN èC
Dð èC R PRIVATE PRACTICE IN
FORENSICS. AND THEN WHEN THIS
OPPORTUNITY CAME UP, I JUST I
COULDN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR ME. I WAS SO
HAPPY TO DO THIS AND EVERYTHING
THAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT THE
WORKLOAD 100% IT IS A TREMENDOUS
WORKLOAD. IT'S A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT, BUT IT IS. YEAH IT IS
THE MOST UN BORING JOB A PERSON
COULD EVER HAVE. I MEAN, IT IS
CONSTANTLY FASCINATING, AND I'M
CONSTANTLY LEARNING AND, UM,
GETTING BETTER AT IT, I THINK
AND I'M JUST VERY GRATEFUL TO BE
HERE. AND I AND I THANK ALL OF
YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I
REALLY DO. THANK YOU, MADAM.
COMMISSIONER I'M I KNOW. NONE OF
YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THIS JOB AS
BORING. I KNOW THAT DOCTOR MON,
UH, WHO I'M SURE WILL HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS FOR YOU AS A MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AS WELL. SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE NOW
GONNA TURN IT OVER TO
COMMISSIONER PURCELL. GOOD
AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYONE. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE GOVERNOR FOR THE
APPOINTMENT FOR THE
REAPPOINTMENT. I'M HONORED TO
RECEIVE IT. I YOU HAVE MY RESUME
. I'VE HAD A TERRIFIC LEGAL
CAREER THAT NEXT YEAR MARKS 40
YEARS IN THE LEGAL AND MOST OF
IT, THE MAJORITY HAS BEEN
DEDICATED TO BEING A NEUTRAL
BEING EITHER A JUDGE
COMMISSIONER, AND THAT'S BEEN A
GREAT RESPONSIBILITY AND
SOMETHING THAT I TAKE VERY
SERIOUSLY. AH IT THIS JOB IS A
TERRIFIC JOB. IT'S CHALLENGING.
IT IS IMPORTANT WORK TO BE DONE
AND ITS MEANINGFUL WORK. IN MANY
WAYS, I WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE SAID
THIS MANY TIMES THE BORDER
PAROLE HEARINGS IS A GREAT
ORGANIZATION. IT'S COMPLEX. IT'S
LARGE. IT'S VOLUME BASED, BUT
IT'S A GREAT ORGANIZATION ONE.
I'M VERY PROUD TO BE A PART OF,
AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. AND I
WELCOME ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MUCH, COMMISSIONER
GRATEFUL YOU'RE HERE. FINALLY.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.
UH I THINK LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE,
ALREADY SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE GOVERNOR AND HIS STAFF
FOR THE APPOINTMENT. UH,
EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHAFER. AND
THEN OF COURSE, THE FOLKS HERE
IN THE RULES COMMITTEE. I
APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH AND
LOOK FORWARD TO THE QUESTIONS
YOU WILL HAVE. I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WIFE. SHE IS, UH,
IN THE BACK BACK THERE. SO UH,
HE INSISTED ON COMING AND THAT'S
MY GOOD LITTLE LAST MINUTE
PRESSURE. UM SO AS IF THERE
WASN'T ENOUGH ANYWAY. UM I. I
LIKE WHAT ALL MY FELLOW
COMMISSIONERS SAID, AND I ONLY
THING I WOULD ADD TO THAT I
WOULD PUT THE MOST AFTER A 34
YEAR CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT,
A FIVE YEAR CAREER IN DOING THIS
JOB, I FIND IT THE MOST, THE
MOST ARDUOUS, THE MOST
CHALLENGING THE MOST MEANINGFUL,
THE MOST IMPACTFUL, THE MOST
SPOT WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE
ROAD. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. I MEAN,
THIS IS A LOT OF WORK HERE, BUT
THAT ULTIMATELY WE ARE MAKING
THE MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC SAFETY
DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE. AND
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT
WITH YOU. SO JUST ADD, ADD THE
MOST TO THEY ALL SAID, BUT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, UH, COMMISSIONER AND
SCHNEIDER. IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU
HERE IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A
COMMITTEE. WE'RE GOING TO START
WITH SENATOR LAIRD, AND THEN
WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE COMMITTEE AND
WE'RE GRATEFUL YOU'RE HERE.
SENATOR LAIRD, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. AND THANK YOU ALL
FOR BEING HERE AND YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO SERVE NOW THAT
THIS IS IN MY FOURTH YEAR OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND YOU HAVE THREE
YEAR TERMS, I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A
FEW OF YOU ALREADY AND BACK
AGAIN, WHICH I THINK STILL THE
NEWBIE, SO THAT IS GOOD, AND I
AM ALWAYS HAPPY WHEN SOMEBODY
FROM VALLEJO GETS APPOINTED TO
ANYTHING. SO CONGRATULATIONS FOR
THAT, YOU KNOW, UH UM I'D ASK
YOU WHERE YOUR ADDRESS WAS. BUT
THIS IS THE PAROLE BOARD HEARING
AND YOU MIGHT GET INTO TROUBLE
SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT
LATER. UM I, UH NOTED THE LETTER
OF CONCERN OR OPPOSITION THAT
WAS IN OUR PACKET, AND I THOUGHT
I WOULD JUST LEAD OFF BY ASKING
ABOUT THAT. AND THEN COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS, AND I THINK IT WOULD
BE DEADLY TO GO TO ALL SIX. AND
SO, II. I THINK I WILL ASK MR
BARTON THE FIRST QUESTION AND
THAT'S THE, UM THE LETTER REALLY
QUESTIONED POLICIES OF THE BOARD
AND QUESTIONED HOW THEY WOULD,
UH, ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED. AND I
KNOW YOU'VE READ THE LETTER. HOW
WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT
CONCERN? WELL, THE FIRST THING
IS I. I AND I THINK YOU MIGHT
HAVE TO TURN YOUR MIC ON. IF
IT'S HELLO. OK I'LL TRY TO TALK
CLOSER TO IT. THE FIRST THING I
THINK I HAVE TO POINT OUT AND AS
LEGISLATORS, YOU UNDERSTAND THE
SEMANTICS ARE IMPORTANT, AND
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A POLICY. SO
FOR US. THIS IS A PROCEDURE THAT
WAS PUT OUT IN A RECENT HANDBOOK
DESIGNED TO ASSIST EVERYONE
INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. SO AT
THIS POINT, IT'S SORT OF IN A I
WOULD SAY A BETA TESTING PHASE
AND FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT IS NECESSARILY
GOING TO REMAIN PERMANENT. WE
WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW IT AFFECTS
HOW IT IMPACTS OUR CASES. BUT
SECONDLY, I THOUGHT THE BIGGEST
CONTENTION IN THE LETTER WAS
THEY FELT IT WAS ROBBING US OF
OUR JUDICIAL DISCRETION. AND
THAT IS NOT ACCURATE. ALL OF US
STILL RETAIN THAT DISCRETION.
ANYONE WELL ANY OF THE
PROSECUTORS OR FOR THAT MATTER,
EITHER SIDE THAT WANTS TO
INTRODUCE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHETHER
OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY. ASKED
TO DO SO. AND WE WOULD THEN ASK
THEM FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AS TO
WHAT'S THE NECESSITY FOR THE
PHOTOGRAPHS? UM AND ONCE THAT
SATISFIED WE CAN CERTAINLY ALLOW
THEM TO BRING THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS
IN MUCH LIKE YOU WOULD. AND I
KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN MY RESUME. I
WAS A PROSECUTOR FOR MANY YEARS
IN KERN COUNTY, AND SO FOR ME,
AS FAR AS CLEARLY A SURVIVOR
YOURSELF I'M SORRY. I'M JUST
WELL, I WOULD POINT OUT MY
COLLEAGUE HERE. I WOULD POINT
OUT THAT COMMISSIONER PURCELL
WAS IN KERN BEFORE SHE WAS IN
VALLEJO, JUST AS A UM BUT BUT
BACK TO MY POINT IS THAT
DISCRETION REMAINS. AND SO WE
WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO
DO THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS,
BUT AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, AND
I WILL BE, UH QUITE HONEST IN
TERMS OF MY PREPARATION FOR A
CASE IF THERE IS A QUESTION AS
TO HOW SOMEONE WAS KILLED, HOW
SOMEONE IS TESTIFYING ABOUT THE
FACTS OF THE CASE WHEN IT COMES
TO WHAT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS MIGHT
SHOW, AN AUTOPSY IS ACTUALLY A
BETTER SOURCE BECAUSE
PHOTOGRAPHS AND THIS IS JUST
COMMON SENSE, BUT PHOTOGRAPHS
OFTEN CAN SHOW A PICTURE THAT
MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS WHAT THE
MEDICAL EXAMINER FINDS WHEN IT
COMES TO THE MODE OF YOU KNOW
THE WOUND THAT WAS CAUSED WHERE
THE WOUNDS ARE WHAT THE VARIOUS
INJURIES ARE. YOU KNOW HOW
SOMEONE ACTUALLY DIED, AND SO
SOMETIMES THE PHOTOS THEMSELVES
ARE NOT AS GOOD AS ALL THE OTHER
INFORMATION. WE ARE ALREADY
CONSIDERING WHICH OUR POLICE
REPORTS, AUTOPSY REPORTS AND
TESTIMONY. CERTAINLY WE LOOK AT
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERSON
BEFORE US, IN CONTRAST TO
ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE IN THOSE
OFFICIAL RECORDS. AND LET ME
UNDERSTAND BECAUSE II I IN
READING SOME OF THIS, AND
SOMEBODY GAVE ME SOME OF THE
HANDBOOK OF THE PROCESS. IT
MAKES A STATEMENT ABOUT NOT
RELITIGATING. UH, CERTAIN PARTS
OF THE CRIME, SO IF YOU'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO RELITIGATE CRIME HOW
DOES THIS ALL SQUARE SO THE
BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE LOOKING AT
WHETHER SOMEBODY CURRENTLY POSES
AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO PUBLIC
SAFETY. SO WHEN YOU FOLLOW
STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING,
WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRAINED TO
DO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT
HAS BEEN EVIDENCE BASED PROVEN
TO BE THE FACTORS THAT WE SHOULD
CONSIDER IN THESE TYPES OF
DECISIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE
DO LOOK AT IS OFFENDER CHANGE.
SO DOES THE PERSON TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR
ACTIONS, DO THEY? WHEN THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT THINGS. CAN THEY
DISPLAY HONESTY? CAN THEY?
OBVIOUSLY IF SOMEONE IS BEING
DISHONEST WITH ME IN A HEARING
THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. IT
COULD BE ONGOING EVIDENCE OF
CRIMINAL THINKING IT COULD BE
ONGOING EVIDENCE OF PERSONALITY
FLAWS THAT THEY HAD WHEN THEY
CAME TO PRISON. SO CREDIBILITY
IS ALWAYS AT ISSUE FOR ANY ONE
OF OUR HEARINGS. SO THE ONLY SO
THE WAY THAT THAT CROSSES OVER
WITH THIS IS WE ARE NOT
RELITIGATING THE CRIME WHETHER
OR NOT THEY COMMITTED A
PARTICULAR CRIME, AND LET'S SAY
IT IS A MURDER. YOU HAVE PLENTY
OF EVIDENCE PLENTY OF
INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU AS
TO HOW THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED,
BUT WE'RE NOT DECIDING WHETHER
THEY WERE GUILTY OR INNOCENT.
WE'RE DECIDING WHETHER TODAY
THEY CURRENTLY POSE AN
UNREASONABLE RISK OF PUBLIC
SAFETY BECAUSE WE TAKE THE
RECORD AT ITS FACE. SO THAT'S
HOW WE DON'T RELITIGATE THE
MATTER BUT WE STILL CRED. HE
STILL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE AND SO I
COULD SEE THE VERY RARE CASE I
WILL SAY IN MY 56 YEARS OF DOING
THIS, I CAN'T THINK OF ONE CASE
WHERE MY DECISION CAME DOWN TO
HAVING TO LOOK AT A PHOTOGRAPH
TO MAKE MY DECISION. THANK YOU.
I FIND THAT TO BE REALLY HELPFUL
. AND THEN, UH, LET ME GO TO MR
SCHNEIDER BECAUSE YOU WERE ALSO
REFERENCED IN THE THAT LETTER.
I. I CAN SEE HOW ENTHUSIASTIC UH
UH, YOU ARE LOOKING. UM BUT IT
MADE SOME REFERENCES TO YOU, AND
I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO
ADDRESS THAT. YEAH I GUESS YOU
GUYS TURN MY MIC ON
AUTOMATICALLY. OK UM YEAH, I GOT
THAT INFORMATION YESTERDAY
AFTERNOON. UH AND I DID GET MY
VERY OWN PARAGRAPH IN THAT
LETTER. AND I LOOKED AT THAT AND
IT IT IT SHOCKED ME, UM AND THEN
I I'M NOT. I DON'T REMEMBER THE
CASE. SPECIFICALLY, UM AND I
HAVE TRIED TO AND I'VE I'VE
THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW
THE CASE, SO I CAN'T LOOK IT UP,
BUT I BUT I LIKE I SAID, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD
SAY. QUITE FRANKLY, I'M GONNA
OWN THAT. AND WHEN YOU HEAR BOB,
TALK ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY I WANT
OWNERSHIP. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED
TO HAVE. SO WHEN SOMEBODY
UNDERSTANDS THE FULL GRAVITY OF
WHAT THEY'VE DONE, WHETHER IT'S
MYSELF UP HERE OR WHETHER IT'S
A, UH, A PAROLE CANDIDATE IN
FRONT OF US, AND IN THAT CASE
THERE IT IS SOMETHING I LIKELY
WOULD HAVE SAID I DID NOT WANT
IT TO COME ACROSS THAT WAY. I'M
VERY UPSET THAT I CAUSED HARM TO
THE VICTIMS AT THE LAST THING I
EVER WANT TO DO IS RE TRAUMATIZE
OR FURTHER HARM THE VICTIMS, SO
I'M PRETTY UPSET ABOUT THAT. I
NEED THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK. UH,
I I'VE GOT IT. IN THIS CASE HERE
AND I WILL. I WILL MOVE ON AND
DO A BETTER JOB. AND THAT WILL
NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. BUT THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, THOUGH. THANK
YOU. AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION
I WANTED TO ASK, IRONICALLY
STARTS WITH YOU. AND THAT IS
THAT AND I DID THIS WHEN SOME OF
THE LAST OF YOU WERE IN FRONT OF
US BECAUSE IT WAS INTERESTING TO
ME. WE HAVE A CHART IN OUR
PACKET THAT SAYS THE PERIOD OF
DENIAL BEFORE AN INMATE BECOMES
ELIGIBLE FOR THE NEXT PAROLE
HEARING DATE. AND IT IS, YOU
KNOW, ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, THREE
YEARS, FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS
710 AND 15 AND THREE IN FIVE ARE
CLEARLY THE MOST FREQUENT
CATEGORIES THAT THAT COME FROM
THE PROCEEDINGS. BUT THERE IS
ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT HAD
ANYTHING THAT WAS OVER 10 YEARS
AND MR BARTON HAD ONE THAT WAS
10 YEARS AND YOU HAD FIVE THAT
WERE 10 YEARS AND ONE THAT WAS
15 YEARS AND SO WHICH IS KIND OF
IRONIC, GIVEN THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION IS, IT SEEMS THAT EVEN
THOUGH THAT'S IN MAYBE 100 AND
25 CASES, WHAT CONVINCES YOU
THAT SOMEBODY IS IN A STATUS
THAT THEY SHOULDN'T EVEN BE
LOOKED AT FOR A VERY LONG TIME
WITHOUT RELITIGATING, A CASE
WHAT FACTORS EXIST IN A CASE
LIKE THAT, THAT LEAD YOU TO THAT
CONCLUSION. YEAH, I. I DO
REMEMBER MANY OF THEM. UM YEAH.
MARCY'S LAW, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
DENIAL LENGTHS OF THREE 57 1015.
IF I'M GOING TO WE AS A AS A COM
A COMMITTEE AS PALE
COMMISSIONERS ARE ARE CHARGED
WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW, AND SO
IF SOMEONE IS NOT AN
UNREASONABLE RISK OF DANGER TO
THE PUBLIC THAN THEY SHOULD BE
GRANTED PAROLE IF THEY ARE AND
IF THEY ARE ON THE
REHABILITATIVE PATH, IF YOU
WILL, THEN PERHAPS A THREE YEAR
DENIAL IS REASONABLE AND GIVE
THEM DIRECTIONS OF WHAT TO DO
THE CASES WHERE I'VE GIVEN 15 OR
EVEN 10, THEY ARE VERY, VERY,
VERY FAR FROM IT, AND IT
ACTUALLY IS RATHER SHOCKING, AND
I MAKE SURE THAT EACH OF THOSE
CASES I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE
LOOKED AT, AS IT SHOULD BE BY
OUR LEGAL STAFF, AND I MAKE SURE
I ENUMERATE THOSE REASONS WHY
THAT LENGTH OF DENIAL IS NEEDED.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE LOTS OF RULE
VIOLATIONS. UH, THEY HAVE. THEY
HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY SELF HELP.
THEY'VE NOT THE R OF THE èC Dð
èC R IF YOU WILL, AND THEY ARE
JUST NOT INTERESTED. MANY OF
THEM ARE REALLY HARDCORE GANG
MEMBERS OR WHAT WE LOOK AS WE
LOOK AT THAT. SO I HOPE THAT
ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. I WOULD
LOVE TO ANSWER IT. IF I HAVEN'T
I COULD ANSWER IT MORE, BUT I
THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED IT
COMPLETELY ON THE PROCESS. I
THINK IF WE ARE LAYPEOPLE, AND
IT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT A WIDE RANGE OF
PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH YOU DO IT
COMPLETELY ON THE MERIT AND THE
FACTS. WHAT GETS YOU TO THE FACT
THAT THEY WELL, WHATEVER THE
WORD IS INCORRIGIBLE. UH UH UH,
YOU KNOW WHAT LEADS YOU TO MAKE
THAT DECISION THAT THAT'S REALLY
OVER AND ABOVE. UH UH. OTHER
CASES. IT REALLY IS. I KNOW
COMMISSIONER BARTON TALKED ABOUT
. WE WANT TO SEE PEOPLE. WE'RE
NOT RIG IN THE CRIME, BUT THEY
HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEY CAME
INTO THIS CRIME AND THE IMPACT
OF THAT CRIME. I MEAN, IT
ACTUALLY OWN IT OR TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. SO THESE
GUYS AND I'M TALKING ABOUT HAVE
NOT DONE THAT, UM THEY HAVE.
THEY PROBABLY HAVE A QUIET AND
THEY ALSO USUALLY HAVE A LENGTHY
CRIMINAL HISTORY PRIOR TO THE
PRISON HISTORY, SO WE'RE LOOKING
AT WHAT WAS THEIR CRIMINAL
HISTORY PRIOR TO THIS CRIME, DO
THEY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY
COMMITTED THIS CRIME? OR YOU
KNOW, IN THIS CASE, THESE CASES
THEY GENERALLY DON'T OR THEY
DON'T CARE. UH THE NEXT LEVEL IS
HAVE THEY BEEN TAKING
REHABILITATIVE CLASSES, RIGHT? I
MEAN IN THE CLASSES CAN BE FROM
GANGS TO ANGER MANAGEMENT TO ALL
KINDS OF COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL
SKILLS. IF YOU WERE TO GET THEM
THINKING ABOUT WHY DO THIS? WHAT
WAS WRONG WITH THEIR CRIMINAL
THINKING THEY HAD AT THAT TIME
AND THEN IT ALSO GOES TO THEIR
INSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT. èC Dð
èC R USES A POINT SYSTEM IF YOU
WILL, AND AS WHEN, UH
INCARCERATED PEOPLE ARE BROUGHT
INTO THE INSTITUTION. THEY
GENERALLY THEY'RE GIVEN ABOUT 70
POINTS. 80 POINTS. WE CAN LOOK
THAT UP AND SEE THE GUYS WE SEE
WHEN THEY COME TO US. IN THEORY,
THEY SHOULD HAVE LESS POINTS.
THESE GUYS HAVE, LIKE THREE 100
POINTS BECAUSE THEY'VE GOTTEN SO
MANY RULES VIOLATIONS AND
SERIOUS RULES VIOLATIONS. RULES
VIOLATIONS PICKED UP NEW TERMS.
AND SO YOU LOOK AT ALL THAT, AND
THERE'S JUST NÓ EVIDENCE OF
CHANGE. NOW WHAT I ALWAYS DO.
TELL THEM IS THAT YOUR CONDUCT
MERITS A TENURE OR A 15 YEAR OR
A SEVEN OR EVEN A FIVE. RIGHT
HOWEVER, YOU CAN ALWAYS PETITION
TO ADVANCE AND WHICH MEANS YOU
CAN ACTUALLY THOUGHT COMPLETE A
FORM. UH AND THAT WILL BE
REVIEWED BY A DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AT THE BOARD OF
PAROLE HEARINGS AND CAN BRING
THEM BACK FOR AN EARLIER
HEARING. THE INTERESTING PART OF
THAT IS THAT'S THE EASIEST THING
THEY CAN DO BECAUSE I'VE
ESTABLISHED THEY HAVE NOT
CHANGED AT ALL I HAVE
ESTABLISHED THEY'VE NOT TAKEN
ANY COURSES ANY REHABILITATION
WHATSOEVER. ALL THEY HAVE IS A
HISTORY OF RULES VIOLATIONS, SO
IF THEY CAN STOP ALL THAT, AND
THEY COULD EASILY COMPLETE THAT
PETITION TO ADVANCE, THERE WOULD
BE CHANGE. RIGHT. I'VE GOT NÓ
MORE RULES VIOLATIONS. I'VE
TAKEN THESE CLASSES. CAN I COME
BACK SOONER? AND SO WE SEE A LOT
OF THOSE PETITIONS TO ADVANCE.
UM, BUT YES, THAT THAT IS REALLY
HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE THAT, AND
I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION FOR
ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER, AND I CAN
SEE EVERYBODY CHAFING. AS IT
SPOKEN YET YOU KEEP LEANING
TOWARD THE MIC I. I GATHER
THERE'S NOT A PROCEEDING WHERE
USUALLY FEEL DISEMPOWERED. SO I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. UH UM I WAS
GONNA ASK COMMISSIONER INFANTE
YOU HAD PRIOR EXPERIENCE ON THE
BOARD OF JUVENILE HEARINGS,
WHICH SEEMS UNIQUE. IN SOME WAYS
I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW THAT'S
INFLUENCED YOU. I'M TEMPTED TO
ASK IF YOU'VE SEEN ANY REPEAT
PEOPLE THAT GREW UP AND WENT
INTO THE OTHER PART OF THE
SYSTEM. BUT I THINK HOW DID THAT
SERVICE INFORM YOU AS YOU DO
YOUR JOB NOW. THANK YOU, SENATOR
. UH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
YOU YOU WANTED TO, BUT I, I HAVE
NOT. I HAVE NOT HAD A PERSON
COME BEFORE ME WHO I PREVIOUSLY
SAW IN THE DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE THUS FAR. UH, TO I THINK
THAT MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE NOT
ONLY THE BOARD OF JUVENILE
HEARINGS, BUT BEING DIRECT CARE
STAFF WITH THE DIVISION OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR 10 YEARS, I
IN VARIOUS ROLES JUST YOU KNOW,
REALLY GAVE ME A UNIQUE LENS.
UNIQUE LENS, UH, AS IT RELATES
TO A YOUTH OFFENDERS AS IT
RELATES TO, UH, JUVENILES IN
GENERAL, REALLY HAVING A. UNIQUE
PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUES AND
RISK FACTORS THAT WE WOULD
TYPICALLY SEE, UH WITH THE
INCARCERATED POPULATION. UM AND
SO BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
UM, HEAR THOSE EXPERIENCES. UH,
AS AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT, UH,
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
THE PAST. UM ALL THOSE ISSUES
THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CRIMINALITY
AGAIN. NOW WITH THE BORDER
PAROLE HEARINGS. UM, IT'S ALLOWS
ME TO LOOK AT IT. FIRST OFF FROM
THAT PERSPECTIVE. AND IT, UH,
HAS CONTRIBUTED TO MY YOU KNOW,
ABILITY TO, UH CONDUCT EVERY
HEARING WITH AGAIN, UM, FAIR AND
IMPARTIALITY. AND YOU KNOW,
ALLOWING ME THE EXPERIENCE AND
FAMILIARITY WITH THE WITH THE
DECISION MAKING PROCESS. I
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU. PLEASE, MISS EGM. THEN
WE'RE GONNA GO TO, UH, CENTER.
SIR. THANK YOU. UH, AND THANK
YOU ALL FOR DOING THIS AND BEING
HERE, UM, JUST BECAUSE HE'S JUST
ASKED THE MAIN QUESTION, SO, SO
FAR WE KNOW THAT WOMEN IN PRISON
ARE OFTENTIMES ABUSED, AND I
KNOW YOU ARE NOT HERE REPRESENT
HIM TO THE PRISON SYSTEM OR THE
èC Dð èC R. UM BUT WE KNOW
THAT THE ONE THE ONE èC E Ó
WAS ASSAULTING WOMEN, SOMETIMES
RIGHT BEFORE THEIR PAROLE
HEARING. UM AND SO WHEN PEOPLE
COME BEFORE THE PAROLE HEARING
BOARD, I'M ASSUMING RIGHT THEIR
PRESENTATION TO YOU MATTERS AND
YOU'RE GOING TO BE KIND OF
ASSESSING BASED ON HOW PEOPLE
PRESENT TO YOU. HOW ARE YOU ABLE
TO, UM KIND OF DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE EVERYDAY LIFE IN
PRISON OR SOMEBODY WHO'S WHO'S
ACTUALLY TRAUMATIZED SITTING IN
FRONT OF YOU RIGHT THERE TRYING
TO PRESENT THEIR CASE FOR A
PAROLE HEARING. WAS ASKING DR
O'MEARA WELL, BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
I'VE ONLY DONE ONE HEARING AT
THE WOMEN'S INSTITUTION THE
WHOLE TIME. UM, BUT I THINK I
THINK THAT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING
WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE. THAT'S
ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
LOOKING OUT FOR, AND I THINK IT
HAPPENS MORE FREQUENTLY WITH THE
WOMEN SEXUAL TRAUMA IN
PARTICULAR. SO UM, I THINK IN IN
ORDER OF THINGS WOULD DO
IN THOSE CASES AND AGAIN WITH
WEATHER WITH MEN OR WOMEN. UM IS
TRY TO DO WHAT I CAN TO RELAX
THEM. SO YEAH, LET HIM KNOW. I
WANT THEM TO BE THEIR BEST SELF,
AND I THINK THAT JUST THE
PROCESS OF THE GENTLE APPROACH
JUST THE PROCESS OF I'M I. I
WANT TO SEE YOU THAT THAT THAT
IT DOES HELP THAT IT DOES HELP
TO DO THAT. AND TO RECOGNIZE,
YOU KNOW SOMETHING I THINK WE
ALL KNOW IS THAT TRAUMA BEGETS
TRAUMA. AND WHAT ONE OF THE MAIN
THINGS I'M LOOKING FOR IN A
HEARING IS DO THEY MAKE THE
CONNECTION TO THE TRAUMATIC
EXPERIENCES THAT THEY HAD THE A
èC E S¼, AND THEN THE ACTING
OUT THAT THEY EVENTUALLY DID?
AND DO THEY SEE THAT? THAT WAS
THIS RUNNING PARALLEL ALONG THE
WAY, SO IT'S REALLY A CRITICAL
THING TO BE ADDRESSED, AND I
ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE
DONE TO ADDRESS IT IS, IT HAS
BEEN SAID WE HAVE SO MANY SO
MUCH PROGRAMMING. WHAT HAVE THEY
DONE? HAS IT BEEN RELEVANT TO
IT? AND WHAT CURRENT INSIGHTS. I
FEEL LIKE I KIND OF ANSWERED
YOUR QUESTION, BUT THERE WAS
SOMETHING I'M MISSING. PROBABLY
FORGOT TO ASK. UH BUT, UH M
PURCELL, UM SO AND I'M LOSING MY
TRAIN OF THOUGHT YOU MADE ME
LOSE MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT, BUT
BUT THE OTHER ISSUE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT REALLY COMES DOWN
TO MINIMIZATION, RIGHT? CAN
SOMEBODY ACCEPT WHAT THEY DID?
AND THIS WHOLE IDEA OF PICTURES
IS DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE
SOMEBODY'S NOT MINIMIZING WHAT
THEY DID AND TAKES OWNERSHIP OF
IT AND WELL AGAIN WHEN WE GO
BACK TO A LOT OF, UM THE ABUSE
TO PRISON PIPELINE, ESPECIALLY
FOR WOMEN, BUT A LOT A LOT FOR A
LOT OF FOLKS. HOW HOW THEN, DO
YOU DO YOU DO THAT ASSESSMENT OF
THEM ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THEIR CRIME AND THEN ALSO
THEN COMING WITH A
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE
VICTIMIZATION THAT MAY HAVE HAD
PRIOR THAT WAS INVOLVED IN SOME
OF THEIR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. THAT
MAKES SENSE. YES SO WHEN WE GO
INTO THE HEARING, WE ARE LOOKING
FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR LEVEL
OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT THEY TAKE
IN ANY PARTICULAR CRIME, AND A
LOT OF QUESTIONS ARE ASKED. BUT
BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PROCESS WE
REVIEW UH, THOUSANDS, PERHAPS AT
LEAST HUNDREDS OF PAGES AND SO
WE HAVE A LOT OF THEIR
PROGRAMMING. WE KNOW WHAT THEY
HAVE TAKEN. PERHAPS THEY'VE
TAKEN VICTIM AWARENESS. MAYBE
MANY TIMES. THEY'VE TAKEN IT.
THEY'VE TAKEN PERHAPS DENIAL
MANAGEMENT. ANOTHER
RESPONSIBILITY ACCEPTING KIND,
OF COURSE, AND THEN THEY
GENERALLY WRITTEN OUT SOME,
WHICH CAN BE VERY GOOD PAROLE
PLANS AND RELAPSE PREVENTION
PLANS. SO WE'VE EVALUATED ALL
THAT BEFORE WE GO INTO THE
HEARING, AND WHEN WE GET INTO
THE HEARING, WE ARE ALWAYS
LOOKING TO UNDERSTAND IN A REAL
TIME BASIS, NOT ON WRITING, BUT
IN REAL TIME PERSON TO PERSON.
WHAT IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY? SO I WILL AND I
KNOW MY OTHER COLLEAGUES DO
ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION OF
AMENDS. WHAT IS AMENDS? MEAN TO
YOU? WHAT KINDS OF AMENDS? ARE
THERE? DIRECT INDIRECT LIVING?
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES? ARE YOU
DOING THEM NOW? DO YOU HAVE
PLANS TO DO THEM IN THE FUTURE
AND PEOPLE THAT ARE ABLE TO
DISCUSS THAT OR HAVE ALREADY
DEMONSTRATED IT THROUGH
MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS IN THE
PRISON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
IT IS IT IS GOOD EVIDENCE TO US
THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN
RESPONSIBILITY. ON THE OTHER
HAND. SOMETIMES YOU CAN TELL
PEOPLE HAVEN'T TAKEN FULL
RESPONSIBILITY. THEY'RE NOT
KNOWLEDGEABLE. THEY HAVEN'T
TAKEN THE COURSES. THEY HAVEN'T
DONE WRITINGS AND THEY HAVEN'T
REALLY DE OR IN THE HEARING. IN
THE BEST WAY THAT THEY CAN
BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY NERVOUS. WE
DO KNOW THAT IN THE BEST WAY
THEY CAN. THEY HAVEN'T
DEMONSTRATED THAT AND THAT'S THE
CALL FOR THE NEUTRAL TO DECIDE
WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS HEARING
, AND SO WE USE OUR BEST SKILLS.
ALL OF US TO DO THAT, AND I KNOW
WE CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT COMING
TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION ON THAT.
HOW MUCH TIME AND THIS IS FOR
ANY OF YOU. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU
SPEND PREPARING FOR A CASE AND
THEN HOW MANY CASES DO YOU DO A
WEEK OR A MONTH? SO I'M ASKING
VOLUME JUST TO GET A SENSE OF
OH, IT'S OH, YES, OWEN? YES UM,
IT IT REALLY DEPENDS ON ON THE
CASE. UM THE MORE COMPLEX CASES.
UH, OBVIOUSLY TAKE MORE TIME.
UM, I PERSONALLY MY PREPARATION
TIME OR OR AVERAGE. ANYWHERE
FROM TWO HOURS ON A, UM LIKE I
SAID, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON ON ON
THE TYPE OF CASE UM, AND THERE
WAS THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION
IN THERE. HOW HOW MANY IS LIKE
SO, UM, ON AVERAGE 10? YES ON
AVERAGE. IT'S AROUND 1010 CASES
A WEEK. YES. WELL I'M I'M ALMOST
I. I AGREE. THE AVERAGE IS
PROBABLY ABOUT 10. I THINK THE
MOST WE HAVE PREPARATION DAYS ON
MONDAY WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO
REVIEW FILES REVIEW DOCUMENTS
AND THEN WE TYPICALLY DON'T
SCHEDULE MORE THAN THREE A DAY.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE
TRYING TO GET TO OUR BACKLOG,
AND WE DID. FOUR I THINK I DON'T
WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE BUT
MYSELF. SOMETIMES THAT FOURTH
HEARING YOU REALLY GOT TO GEAR
UP TO BE MENTALLY THERE, AS YOU
ALL KNOW, SITTING AND HEARINGS
LIKE THIS ALL DAY LONG. IT'S
TOUGH AT THE END OF THE DAY. UM
SO I THINK THREE IS A GOOD
NUMBER. BUT SO RELATIVELY
SPEAKING, WE COULD HAVE UP TO
12. PER WEEK, ALTHOUGH GENERALLY
FRIDAYS AGAIN UNDERSTANDING THAT
WE'RE GOING TO START OUR PREP
FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK IS
USUALLY TWO OR NÓ MORE THAN TWO.
SO 12 WOULD BE THE MOST 10 WOULD
BE AN AVERAGE SOME WEEKS OR
LESS, WHICH ARE NICE BECAUSE
THEN WE CAN HAVE EVEN MORE PREP
TIME FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK, SO,
BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH
COMMISSIONER CHAPPELLE. IT
REALLY DEPENDS ON THE CASE
ITSELF. UM, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG
THE PERSON HAS BEEN IN A
SUBSEQUENT HEARING. FOR THOSE OF
YOU THAT DON'T KNOW PERSON MAY
BE COMING BACK FROM A HEARING.
YOU KNOW, JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS
THREE YEARS AGO, AND SO WE'RE
REALLY TAKING OFF FROM WHERE
THEY LEFT OFF. THOSE ARE A
LITTLE EASIER BECAUSE I CAN READ
THAT PRIOR TRANSCRIPT. I CAN GO
THROUGH ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND I
CAN SEE WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SINCE
THEN. HAVE YOU ADDRESSED THOSE
CONCERNS, SO INITIAL HEARINGS
ARE GONNA TAKE MORE TIME BECAUSE
YOU'RE LEARNING EVERYTHING YOU
CAN ABOUT THAT PERSON BEFORE YOU
GO INTO THEIR FIRST HEARING, SO
IT IT DEPENDS. OK AND WE KNOW
WHEN WE'RE, UM WE KNOW THAT
RECIDIVISM IS DOWN THROUGH THE
PROCESS. SO DOES THAT. DOES THAT
TELL YOU THEN THE PROCESS IS
WORKING OR DO WE NEED TO DO
ANYTHING DIFFERENT? FAR AS
PROTECTING PUBLIC SAFETY. I'LL
SPEAK AND NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO.
I MEAN, I THINK OUR RECIDIVISM
RATE IS AMAZING WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE GENERAL RECIDIVISM RATE FOR
DETERMINING SENTENCED INMATES,
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, HOVERS IN
THE MID 40% RIGHT NOW, UM, FOR
US, IT'S YOU KNOW, 2% I I'VE
GRANTED SOMEWHERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF 540. JUST
ANECDOTALLY. I ONLY KNOW OF TWO
THAT HAVE COME BACK AND THEY'VE
BEEN FOR YOU KNOW, NOT NEW
OFFENSES BUT VIOLATIONS, SO I
THINK THAT THAT SPEAKS TO THE
STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING WE'VE
BEEN FOLLOWING. I THINK IT
SPEAKS TO THE TRAINING. I THINK
IT SPEAKS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS
OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND
THE FACT THAT EVERY ONE OF US
HAS PUBLIC SAFETY PARAMOUNT WHEN
WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS, AND WE
ALSO HAVE WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS
JOB, HOWEVER, IF WE DIDN'T
BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW
REDEMPTION WAS POSSIBLE THAT
PEOPLE CAN CHANGE. SO YOU'RE
WEIGHING THOSE TWO THINGS AND
MAKING THE BEST DECISION YOU
POSSIBLY CAN IN EACH AND EVERY
CASE, SO I THINK THAT I WOULD
PUT THAT RECIDIVISM RATE UP
AGAINST ANY STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES AND SAY THAT IT'S
AMAZING. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WE'VE PAROLED. YES,
PLEASE. I COULD ADD ON TO THAT
TO LOOP IT BACK AROUND TO
PREPARATION AND SAY THAT I THINK
SOME OF IT IS IN OUR
PREPARATION, TOO. WE ARE ALL
VERY WELL PREPARED. FOR THESE
CASES. WE DO KNOW THEM. WE
REALLY KNOW THEM INSIDE OUT. BY
THE TIME WE GO TO THE HEARING,
SO WE'RE AWARE OF WHERE THE
PITFALLS MIGHT BE, AND WE DON'T
WASTE TIME. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY
. AND SO WE'RE WHEN YOU'RE WELL
PREPARED FOR SOMETHING YOU CAN
GENERALLY DO A GOOD JOB A BETTER
JOB THAN IF YOU'RE NOT PREPARED,
SO I THINK THAT MIGHT PULL THE
LOOP AROUND TO, UH, THE
PREPARATION. YEAH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OR ANY OTHER ITEMS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR AND
VICE CHAIR, PLEASE. FLOOR
RESOURCE. THANK YOU, MR PRO TEM.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. I
APPRECIATE IT, UM, LIKE THE REST
OF MY COLLEAGUES. I'M SURE IT'S
NOT THE MOST. I DON'T WANT TO
SAY, REWARDING JOB. I KNOW YOU
GUYS FIND SOME TYPE OF, UH,
REWARD IN IT BY BALANCING PUBLIC
SAFETY AND GIVING SOMEONE THEIR
FREEDOM. IF THEY HAVE DESERVED
IT. I WAS VERY DISTURBED ABOUT
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE ON PAGE 28
OF THE HANDBOOK, IT SAYS, UM, ON
YOUR GUYS' HANDBOOK. FOR THESE
REASONS, THE BOARD WILL NÓ
LONGER ACCEPT PHOTOGRAPHS,
INCLUDING CRIME PICTURES, THE
BOARD CONTINUES TO WELCOME THE
PROSECUTOR'S SUBMISSION OF
WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION. AND WHEN
I FIRST READ THAT, I THOUGHT,
WOW. IS WORTH 1000 WORDS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN A CASE I READ
FOR COMMISSIONER CHAPPELLE IN
THE FREDERICK W CASE WHERE THE
INMATE MURDERED HIS GIRLFRIEND'S
TWO YEAR OLD SON BY BEATING HIM
TO DEATH AND BITING HIM DURING
THE HEARING. IT WAS THE
PHOTOGRAPHS ACCOMPANIED WITH
THE, UM WITH THE AUTOPSY REPORT
AFTER HE READ ALL THE
DOCUMENTATION WITH THERE, AND I
DO BELIEVE AND I DON'T KNOW, BUT
I DO BELIEVE THAT SOMEHOW THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS HAD TO ATTACH YOU TO
THE POINT WHERE ACCOMPANIED BY
THE OTHER INFORMATION. YOU
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INMATE
WISHING THE INCARCERATED PERSON
WISHING TO BE PAROLED WAS NOT
BEING TRUTHFUL WITH YOU. AND
THEREFORE THERE WAS A YOU DENIED
A PAROLE HEARING. AND THIS IS ON
A TRANSCRIPT FOR 120. I ONLY
BRING UP THAT PARTICULAR CASE
BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THREE THAT
WE WERE GIVEN. AND, UM I, BUT
THEN I READ SOMETHING ELSE THAT
DISTURBED ME. NUMBER ONE. I
DIDN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU
GUYS WEREN'T TAKING PHOTOGRAPHIC
EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE I SAID, A
PICTURE WORTH 1000 WORDS AND
THEN A COUPLE OF PAGE OVER ON
YOUR OTHER PIECE DOCUMENT THAT
WAS PROVIDED TO US. I FOUND OUT
THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE
UPLOADED TO THE INMATES CENTRAL
FILE, WHICH GIVES THE INMATE
ACCESSIBILITY TO THOSE PHOTOS.
AND YOU ALL DEAL WITH THESE
PEOPLE. MISTER COMMISSIONER
SCHNEIDER. YOU SAID IT BEST WHEN
YOU SAID IF THEY'VE WARRANTED OR
GRANTED. MADE THE, UH THE PROPER
STEPS TO BE GRANTED THEIR
FREEDOM OR PAROLE. UM, BUT THERE
ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT NEED
TO GO 10, 5 15 YEARS WHATEVER
THE NUMBER WAS. I WOULD HATE FOR
THOSE PICTURES TO BE IN THE
POSSESSION OF THOSE INCARCERATED
PEOPLE THAT WOULD JUST LOVE TO
SEE THOSE PICTURES IN A SICK WAY
. SO IS THERE A BALANCE? UM OR
THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA ACCEPT ANY
PICTURES VERSUS WHAT YOU DO,
ACCEPT AND TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THAT IT DOES END
UP IN THE INCARCERATED INMATES
FILE WHERE THEY HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THOSE PITS,
OR IS IT YOUR STANCE? YOU'RE NOT
EVER TAKING PICTURES, ACCORDING
TO THE BOARD HANDBOOK, MR BARTON
COMMISSIONER BARTON. SORRY
THAT'S FINE. SO WE, AS I SAID,
WE WILL TAKE PICTURES IF THE
PROSECUTOR FEELS AS YOU SAID IN
THAT PARTICULAR CASE, MAYBE
THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT
CREDIBILITY AND IF THEY'RE
OFFERED, WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING
TO CONSIDER THEM AND IF THEY SAY
, HEY, WE REALLY THINK THIS IS
NECESSARY TO PROVE UP THIS POINT
OR THAT POINT THEN CERTAINLY WE
WOULD CONSIDER THOSE WE ALWAYS
WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY
VICTIM GROUP IN OUR JOBS. I
THINK THAT THEY ARE A VITAL
OBVIOUSLY. PARTICIPANT WE
WELCOME THEM IN OUR HEARINGS WE
HEAR FROM THEM LAST IN OUR
HEARINGS. I TRY TO DO WHAT I CAN
TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS SO THAT
THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON
THROUGHOUT, ESPECIALLY IF THERE
IS NOT A GOOD UNDERSTANDING ON
THEIR PART, BUT AS FAR AS THE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOMICIDE AND
YOU KNOW WHERE THEY GO
AFTERWARDS. THERE IS A PROCESS
WITHIN èC Dð èC R, WHERE
THINGS CAN BE PUT IN A
CONFIDENTIAL FILE, SO THEY DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO IT. WHEN THEY
LOOK AT THEIR FILES. THERE'S AN
ENTIRE CONFIDENTIAL SECTION THAT
WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT INMATES
DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO GOOD TO
KNOW. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I
WOULD SAY IS THAT IN TERMS OF
OUR UM AND I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO
KEVIN'S CASE. HE CAN CERTAINLY
PINE ON THAT, BUT FOR ME, LIKE I
SAID, IT'S NOT NEVER IT'S WE ALL
SIGNED ON TO THIS JOB, AND WE
ALL HAVE EXPERIENCE WHERE WE
UNDERSTAND SECONDARY TRAUMA.
WE'VE DEVELOPED OUR OWN SELF
CARE PRACTICES TO DEAL WITH THAT
. BUT WHEN THOSE PHOTOS COME IN,
THEY GET PROCESSED, SOMETIMES BY
STAFF MEMBERS THAT YOU KNOW ARE
BRAND NEW TO STATE SERVICE
BECAUSE IT'S THE PERSON THAT'S
BRINGING THE MAIL. THE PERSON
THAT'S CREATING OUR FILES.
THEY'RE YOU KNOW BEING EXPOSED
TO THAT. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT
THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS
POLICY. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THIS IS IN NÓ WAY THIS I
SHOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT A POLICY
AS I SAID IT RIGHT AT THIS
POINT. IT'S A PROCEDURE, BUT
IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY TO PROTECT
US FROM SEEING PHOTOGRAPHS.
WE'VE ALL HAD EXPERIENCE VIEWING
GRUESOME PHOTOGRAPHS. THE BOTTOM
LINE IS IF IT'S BEING DONE
SIMPLY FOR YOU KNOW AN EMOTIONAL
IMPACT TO MOVE US TO GET A
VISCERAL REACTION. THAT'S NOT
HOW WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS ANYWAY
. SO WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISIONS
INFORM BASED ON EVIDENCE BASED,
UM, TRAINING THAT WE'VE
RECEIVED, YOU KNOW, AND SO I
UNDERSTAND HOW HORRIFIC AND HOW
HARD THIS IS FOR VICTIMS. I'VE
SAT ALONGSIDE VICTIMS WHILE
THEY'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS
PROCESS. I ALWAYS DID MY BEST TO
SHIELD THEM FROM BEING EXPOSED
TO THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS AT TRIAL.
IF THEY'RE YOU KNOW, IN THE
COURTROOM WHEN I'M HAVING TO IF
I HAD TO USE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS,
UM AND SO WE'RE VERY ATTUNED TO
HOW IT HARMS VICTIMS. WHAT I
WILL SAY AND WHAT I DO FIND
HELPFUL, UM, FROM THE VICTIM'S
PERSPECTIVE IS THEY OFTEN WILL
SHOW US PICTURES OF THEIR LOVED
ONE OF THE VICTIM. THE CASE AT
THE END OF THE HEARING, WHEN
THEY'RE GIVING A CLOSED
STATEMENT. NONE OF US PROHIBIT
THEM FROM DOING THAT, AND IT'S
TYPICALLY A PHOTOGRAPH THAT THEY
CHERISH OF THAT PERSON BECAUSE
IT DOES HUMANIZE THAT PERSON. IT
DOES GIVE THEM A PLACE AT THAT
HEARING. AND SO I WELCOME THAT.
UM, BUT IF THEY THINK THAT THIS
SOMEHOW PROHIBITS THEM FROM
DOING THAT IT DOESN'T I THANK
YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE AND THERE
ARE VICTIMS FAMILIES THAT ARE
OUT THERE THAT THAT NEEDED TO
HEAR THAT RESPONSE BECAUSE SOME
OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
GOTTEN IS THAT YOU ARE JUST
DISREGARDING WHAT HAPPENED TO
THEIR LOVED ONE. AND SO THAT'S
WHY I NEEDED TO ASK THAT
QUESTION. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
ANSWER AND RESPONSE. UM, UH, I,
I, UH COMMISSIONER, SCHAPELLE I
DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE HERE
YOU ARE VERY GOOD. ONE OF THE
BEST WELL PREPARED, UM, YOU KNOW
, SO THERE'S A LOT OF NICE
THINGS. THEY'RE NOT THRILLED
WITH YOUR GRANT RATE, BUT THEY
THINK THAT YOU DO CUT CUT, YOU
KNOW, HAVE A FAIR CONDUCT A FAIR
AND EXPEDIA EXPEDIENT HEARING.
UM THAT YOU'RE FAIR TO BOTH
SIDES. UM I. I DO WANT TO ASK A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IF I MAY, MR
CHAIR. MADAM SENATOR JUST
BECAUSE YOU REFERENCED MR
CHAPPELLE ON THAT THE ONE CASE
IT COULD BE. YEAH. I'M SORRY TO
THIS QUESTION THAT PEOPLE THINK
YOU ARE REALLY A GOOD
COMMISSIONER AND ONE THING ONE
OTHER THING. WHAT'S UP? THAT'S
YOUR CONFIRM OR DENY. DO YOU
THINK YOU'RE A GOOD ONE THING I.
I DID WANNA ADD TO WHAT
COMMISSIONER BARTON HAD JUST
SAID, IS THAT, UM WE DO
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A
SENSITIVE ISSUE WITH WITH THE
PICTURES AND THE HANDBOOK AND,
UM, WE DO. TAKE THIS. THESE
ISSUES TO HEART. UM BP HÌ IS
REALLY GOOD. WELL WE'VE RECEIVED
A LOT OF FEEDBACK, AS YOU KNOW
ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND BP HÌ IS
REALLY GOOD AT TAKING THAT
FEEDBACK. AND IF THERE'S
ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE
MADE, UM, WE WILL MAKE THOSE
ADJUSTMENTS. SO UM, I DON'T WANT
ANYONE TO THINK THAT WE'RE JUST
TOTALLY DISREGARDING. WE HAVE
THIS PROCEDURE IN PLACE AND NÓ.
ONE CAN COME IN AND CHANGE THAT
PROCEDURE. UM WE DO LISTEN TO
STAKEHOLDERS. AND AS I JUST
INDICATED, IF THERE IS
ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE
, THEN WE WILL MAKE THOSE
ADJUSTMENTS. I APPRECIATE THAT
AGAIN. AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE
VICTIMS. I LIKE YOU READ THOSE
LETTERS. AND YOU'RE LIKE, WHY
ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT ACCEPTING
PHOTOGRAPHS AND THEN YOU READ
THE OTHER SIDE OF IT? YOU KNOW,
LIKE I SAID, THAT THE
INCARCERATED PERSON GETS IT THAT
I DIDN'T KNOW. THE MAIL CLERK
OPENS IT WHO'S BEEN ON THE JOB
THREE DAYS AND SEES THOSE
HORRIFIC PICTURES THAT'S NOT
EQUIPPED TO MAKE THOSE, UH,
TRAUMA INFORMED DECISIONS WHERE
YOU GUYS ARE PREPARED, SO I JUST
WANT PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES TO
UNDERSTAND WITH THAT QUESTION
AND YOUR RESPONSES THAT THERE IS
BALANCE THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE.
IT'S NOT A DENIAL OF VICTIMS
RIGHTS. IT'S A VERY SENSITIVE
SITUATION. UM BUT THERE ARE
REASONS FOR CERTAIN POLICIES OR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IN PLACE,
BUT THAT YOU'RE NOT ADAMANTLY
OPPOSED TO HAVING SOMETHING
SUBMITTED. IF IT IT'S MADE. THE
CASE IS MADE NECESSARY FOR THAT.
OK SO THAT'S I WAS TRYING TO GO
THERE IF THERE WAS NÓ ATTACK, OR
, YOU KNOW, I JUST WAS TRYING TO
CREATE BALANCE HERE IS WHAT I
WAS TRYING TO DO. I DO HAVE HER
NOT HAVE A BALANCE. WELL, I HAVE
A KIND OF A BALANCED SITUATION
FOR A COMMISSIONER SNYDER. YOU
ARE, UM I'M JUST GONNA READ
THESE COMMENTS AND IT'S KIND OF
IT JUST YOU JUST NEED TO KNOW
BECAUSE I THINK IN THE LAST, UM
BEFORE A SENATE PRO TEM MCGUIRE
CAME ON. WE HAD SENT A PRO TO
TIM ATKINS AND WE HAD SOMEONE
FROM LOS ANGELES IN KIND OF THE
SAME SITUATION AFTER WE BROUGHT
THESE, UM, ACCUSATIONS IN THESE
COMMENTS FORWARD, THIS
INDIVIDUAL WAS ACTUALLY PULLED
FROM THE HEARING. I BELIEVE AND
THEN BROUGHT BACK AT ANOTHER
HEARING, CORRECT. IS THAT RIGHT?
YES YES. SO HE WAS PULLED FROM
THE HEARING, NOT ALL TO
PARTICIPATE WITH HIS OTHER
MEMBERS. AND THEN ACTUALLY
BROUGHT BACK AFTER HE MADE, UM
CONSIDERABLE ADJUSTMENTS IN HIS,
UM CONDUCT AT THESE HEARINGS. SO
YOU HAVE, UM, AN ACCEPTABLE
ACCORDING TO THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS
, INDIVIDUALS. YOU HAVE AN
ACCEPTABLE GRANT RATE. UM YOU'RE
PRETTY TOUGH ON THOSE THINGS.
UM, YOU MIGHT EVEN GET SOME
OPPOSITION FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO
EXPECT YOU TO BE A LITTLE BIT
MORE LENIENT. BUT UM, YOUR
DEMEANOR IS SOMETHING THAT
REALLY OFFENDS VICTIMS. AND I
APPRECIATE THE STATEMENT THAT
YOU MADE EARLIER. I WASN'T EVEN
GOING TO ASK YOU THIS, BUT YOU
SAID YOU OWN IT. YOU OWN IT. IF
YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT, AND
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
HAVE SAID, UM, THAT YOU OWN IT.
AND SO I WOULD, UM, I, I WOULD
JUST CHALLENGE YOU TO ADDRESS
YOUR DEMEANOR FROM ALL THE
DOCUMENTS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO
READ FROM THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS,
INDIVIDUALS. UM APPARENTLY,
THERE WAS ONE CASE WHERE A
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, A
MOTHER OF THREE KIDS WAS ASKED
IF HER KIDS WERE STILL IN
PRESCHOOL. UM WHEN THE INMATE
WAS AT PRESENT, UM THERE WAS
ANOTHER, UH, SITUATION WHERE?
UM, AN INDIVID. OH, THAT WAS THE
LETTER THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY
SENATOR LAIRD. IT WAS THE
INMATE'S BIRTHDAY AND THIS
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS BURNED BY THE
INMATE CAUGHT ON FIRE WITH HER
LITTLE BOY OR NEPHEW, UH, CHILD
IN THE BED NEXT TO HER OR
SOMETHING. YOU WERE VERY
SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT IT
WAS THE INMATE'S BIRTHDAY ON HIS
PAROLE HEARING, WHICH WAS KIND
OF OFFENSIVE, SO I'M NOT TELLING
YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB. I'M JUST
SAYING THAT, UM YOU HAVE GREAT
QUALITIES IN THIS AREA. BUT IF
THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE
SENSITIVITY YOU COULD PROVIDE IN
THE AREA WHERE, UM, VICTIMS ARE
PRESENT. UM YOU KNOW, TAKE IT OR
LEAVE IT. BUT OTHERWISE, UH,
PEOPLE THINK YOU'RE DOING A
HALFWAY DECENT JOB. YES YOU'RE
RIGHT. YEAH SHE'S NODDING HER
HEAD. SO BE CAREFUL. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT? OR IS
THAT TOO VAGUE. I THINK NÓ NÓ
II. I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. I
MEAN, I'LL RESPOND THAT, UM I
DON'T SEE MYSELF AS A HALFWAY
JOB KIND OF GUY. SO I TAKE THAT
AS A SLAM AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT
THE SOURCE OF THAT IS I. I HAVE,
UM, I. I SPEAK WITH THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS I. I DO MY BEST TO
COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIMS.
MANY OF THEM ARE NOT HAPPY. UH
QUITE FRANKLY, AND I UNDERSTAND
IT. I MEAN, UH, WE'RE AT THAT
SPACE, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER
BARTON TALKED ABOUT IT. YOU
KNOW, IT'S YOU KNOW, ARE YOU AN
UNREASONABLE RISK OF DANGER TO
THE PUBLIC? THE PUBLIC SAFETY
VERY RARELY DO WE SEE VICTIMS
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE ALL
BREAK DOWN, CRYING. I'M SURE WE
DO. I KNOW I DO WHEN A VICTIM
FORGIVES SOMEBODY OR UNDERSTANDS
IT, I I'LL DO I WILL ENDEAVOR TO
DO A BETTER JOB. I AM I'M REALLY
BESIDE MYSELF AS I LOOK AT THIS,
SO I'LL DO MY BEST. AND I WILL
TAKE THE FEEDBACK BUT I DON'T
BUT IF IT IS OPINION OF THIS
BOARD THAT I'M WHAT A HALFWAY
DECENT COMMISSIONER, THEN I
WOULD VOTE AGAINST MYSELF. YOU
GUYS DON'T THE STATE DOES NOT
DESERVE HALFWAY DECENT
COMMISSIONERS. I WILL TELL YOU
THAT YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT THE
BEST. AND I THINK YOU HAVE THE
BEST IN FRONT OF YOU WITH MY
COHORTS HERE, MY COWORKERS. AND
IF I'M NOT, I MEAN, CUT ME FROM
THE HERD. I GUESS. AS THE SAYING
GOES AND II I UNDERSTAND IT. BUT
I, I THINK YOU I THINK I AM A
VERY, UH, QUALIFIED AND A VERY
GOOD COMMISSIONER. SO I DON'T
WANT TO SETTLE FOR BEING CALLED,
YOU KNOW? OR MODERATE OR
WHATEVER IT IS, BUT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
RESPOND. NÓ THANK YOU. AND FOR
THANK YOU FOR BEING OPEN TO THAT
FEEDBACK FROM INDIVIDUALS THAT
HAVE BEEN IN YOUR YOUR HEARING,
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, SIR. UM,
THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I
HAVE IS, UM, UH, WE ADDRESS THE
PHOTOGRAPHIC ISSUE. LET ME JUST
TURN THIS PAGE. I APOLOGIZE. UM.
I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE WAS A
I LISTEN TO YOUR OPENING REMARKS
, AND EACH OF YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT, UM, LEVEL OF OR A
DIFFERENT EXPERTISE THAT BROUGHT
YOU TO THIS, YOU KNOW, ILLEGAL
EXPERTISE. UM YOU KNOW, UH,
MENTAL HEALTH THERAPIST. UH,
PREVIOUS JUVENILE JUSTICE. UM A
LOT OF YOU GUYS HAVE A LAW
DEGREES OR, UH, LAW BACKGROUND.
UM, IS THERE A STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURE LIKE THEY
MEET THIS CRITERIA? A B, èC AND
Dð ARE 1234. SO THAT YOUR
PERSONAL, UM SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
AND YOU SEE, THE WORLD ISN'T A
BIAS TOWARDS IT. AND I'M NOT
SAYING ANYBODY'S BIAS. I'M JUST
SAYING THAT BASED ON YOUR SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE YOUR BACKGROUND
YOUR UPBRINGING IS THERE YOU
MIGHT HAVE. OH, THIS ONE WOULD
THIS WOULD BE OK TO BE RELEASED,
BUT THIS ONE WOULDN'T UM IS
THERE A STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE OR SOMETHING THAT YOU
ALL FOLLOW THAT SAYS THEY HAVE
TO MEET THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA
? STEPS 12. YOU HAVE TO WRITE
THE LETTER. THEY HAVE TO ADMIT
THEY'VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY. AND THEN IF THEY
DO THESE CLASSES THEY GET OUT IN
THREE YEARS. IS THERE IS THERE
SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT YOU
FOLLOW OR IS THIS ALL PERCEPTION
BASED WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES? OBJECTIVE WHEN YOU
FOLLOW YOU FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE
DECISION MAKING EACH OF US
FOLLOWS THOSE WE CALL THEM
DOMAINS OR CATEGORIES RISK
CATEGORIES. SO WHEN YOU'RE DOING
ALL THAT PREPARATION UP FRONT,
YOU'RE IDENTIFYING THE RISK
CATEGORIES FOR THIS PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL. THEN YOU'RE LOOKING
AT EVERYTHING THAT YOU READ
ABOUT THEM EVERYTHING THEY'VE
SUBMITTED TO SEE IF THEY'VE
MITIGATED THE RISK IN THOSE
AREAS, SO THAT'S ALL VERY
OBJECTIVE, AND YOU ARE EITHER
AGGRAVATING THAT OR MITIGATING
THAT, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU
OPERATION DICTATES AND THEN THE
HEARING IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SORT OF TEST THAT BECAUSE
ANYBODY CAN COPY SOMETHING OUT
OF A BOOK AND SUBMIT IT TO US.
SO WE ASK QUESTIONS THAT DELVE
INTO THEIR PERSONAL INSIGHT, THE
DELVE INTO THEIR LEVEL OF CHANGE
, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER WHEN HE
TALKED ABOUT YOU KNOW THE 15
YEAR, BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW THAT
WAS REFERENCED IN ONE OF MINE
AND WE FOLLOW SOMETHING THAT
WE'VE ALL BEEN TRAINED ON AS A
MODEL OF CHANGE. SOMEONE'S PRE
CONTEMPLATION. I DON'T LIKE WHO
I AM SOMEONE'S CONTEMPLATION. I.
I CHANGE. I WANT TO BE A
DIFFERENT PERSON. THEY
PREPARATION. WHAT DO I NEED TO
DO TO GET THERE THEIR BEHAVIOR?
ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE SEE THAT
THEY ARE CHANGING AND THEN
MAINTENANCE BECAUSE I ALWAYS
TELL FOLKS, IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT
THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE. WE WANT
TO SEE THAT THAT CHANGE IS
SUFFICIENT THAT IT WILL REMAIN
PERMANENT. RIGHT SO WHEN WE GO
THROUGH THOSE FIVE THINGS WE CAN
IDENTIFY MILESTONES WITHIN THEIR
TRANSFORMATION. SOMETIMES IT
TAKES THEM 10 YEARS IF I GAVE
SOMEONE A 15 YEAR BECAUSE THEY
WEREN'T EVEN INTERESTED IN PRE
CONTEMPLATION, AND I'M AS
COMMISSIONER SNYDER. I'M FULLY
AWARE THEY CAN FILE A FORM 1045
A PETITION TO ADVANCE IF THAT
CHANGES IN NEAR NEAR FUTURE, BUT
WHEN THEY COME IN AND BASICALLY
SAY, UH FORGET THE WORLD. WORDS
TO THAT EFFECT THEY ARE
INDICATING THEY HAVE NÓ INTEREST
IN GOING ANYWHERE ELSE. PLUS
THEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR BEHAVIOR.
THEY'RE RUNNING. YOU KNOW, DRUGS
, THEY THEY'RE GANG INVOLVED.
THEY'RE DOING ALL THESE OTHER
THINGS SO TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION. THE UNDERLYING BASIS
FOR OUR DECISIONS IS EXTREMELY
OBJECTIVE. I BELIEVE NOW. IS
THERE A SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT? OF
COURSE, AND SO WE GET A LOT OF
TRAINING. UH AND YOU'VE SEEN IT,
PROBABLY IN THE PACKETS THAT WE
SUBMITTED EVEN ON CULTURAL BIAS
ON IMPLICIT BIAS ON GENDER BIAS.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE FACTORED
INTO WHAT WE COLLECTIVELY THEN
HAVE IN OUR TOOLKIT IF YOU WILL
TO MAKE THAT INFORMED DECISION.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE A THAT YOU MAY
NOT BE AWARE OF, AND THAT IS
EVERY MONTH WE MEET AS A BOARD
AND WE LOOK AT CASES THAT HAVE
BEEN REFERRED IN BANC. AND WE
LOOK AT OUR WE READ OUR FELLOW
COMMISSIONERS TRANSCRIPTS AND WE
DON'T S¼ WE DON'T PUT OUR
JUDGMENT G. THEY GRANTED, I
WOULD HAVE DENIED. THAT'S NOT
HOW IT'S DONE. WE LOOK AT WHAT
THE CONCERNS ARE ABOUT THAT
CASE. WE LOOK AT WHETHER THEY
WERE COVERED IT WELL. IN THAT
CASE, WE LOOK AT WHETHER THE
ANSWERS MATCH THE DECISION IN
THAT CASE, AND I HAVE TO SAY
THAT WE I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT
PERCENTAGE. YOU'D HAVE TO GET
THAT FROM STAFF. BUT I KNOW FROM
MY OWN CASES, IT'S HIGH. IT'S
LIKE 90% PLUS WHERE WE ALL LOOK
AT THAT CASE AND SAY THAT WAS
THE RIGHT DECISION. SO THAT
TELLS US, TOO, THAT IT'S NOT
SUBJECTIVE. WE'RE ALL SEEING
CASES ALIKE, AND WE HAVE A
DISCUSSION IN CLOSED SESSION
ABOUT THOSE SO THAT WE CAN SAY,
HOW DO YOU SEE THIS? HOW DO YOU
SEE IT? WHEN YOU KNOW IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, HE HAD A WRITE
UP TWO YEARS AGO FOR XY OR Z.
HOW DO YOU SEE HOW HE HANDLED
THIS QUESTION, AND WE HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION ON A MONTHLY BASIS,
WHICH I THINK HELPS US CALIBRATE
OUR DECISION MAKING AND MAKE IT
NOT TOTALLY UNIFORM, BUT I THINK
TO YOUR QUESTION, UM IT DOES.
IT'S NOT DISPARATE AMONGST US.
WHAT'S IN OUR RESULTS HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT HAS TO
DO WITH THE CASES WERE ASSIGNED.
I COULD BE ASSIGNED A LEVEL TWO
PRISON FOR A WHOLE WEEK WHERE
EVERYBODY'S PROGRAMMING LIKE
CRAZY, AND THERE'S LOTS OF
SUPPORT FOR THEM TO CHANGE. AND
THEN SOMEONE ELSE COULD BE
ASSIGNED A WEEK AT A LEVEL FOUR,
WHERE THEY'VE BARELY DONE ANY
PROGRAMMING AND HAVEN'T EVEN
THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND THE GANGS
ARE INFLUENCING THEM, SO IT
TENDS TO BE MORE A RESULT OF THE
CASES THAT YOU ARE ASSIGNED AS
OPPOSED TO YOUR OVERALL. UM
DECISION TO GRANT OR NOT, GRANT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
COMMISSIONER CHAPPELLE. DID YOU
HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? I YOU
LOOK LIKE YOU DID SORRY,
COMMISSIONER BARTON RIGHT
TOWARDS THE END OF THAT. I MEAN,
HE JUST TOOK EXACTLY WHAT WHAT I
WAS GONNA SAY ABOUT, UM, OUR
GRANT RATES. UM IT IT REALLY
DEPENDS ON UM, THE INDIVIDUAL
THERE FOR US, AND, UM THEY'RE
THEY'RE LEVEL AND ALSO, UM,
THEIR COMMITMENT, THEIR
COMMITMENT TO REHABILITATION.
THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR
PRO. YOU MUCH OF THE SDA CENTER
EGM. I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU
FOR A MINUTE. IF YOU DON'T MIND
YOU, UM JUST BECAUSE I MEAN, WE
YOU USE AN OBJECTIVE CRITERIA
USED, UM, STRUCTURES, BUT WE'RE
ALL ARE THE TOOL, THE TOOL OF
DELIVERY SOMETIMES RIGHT, AND IT
SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S SOME OF THE
FEEDBACK THAT YOU GOT THAT YOUR
YOUR INTERACTION, YOUR DELIVERY.
YOUR UM YOUR USE OF YOUR YOUR
YOUR PERSON? UH, RUFFLED SOME
FEATHERS. HAVE YOU HEARD THAT
BEFORE IN YOUR CAREER? I'M I'M
THINK I'M ASKING BECAUSE I'VE
HEARD I. I KNOW MY FAULTS. I
KNOW MY DISPOSITIONS. I CONCUR.
I I'VE HEARD. I TEND TO BE A
LITTLE. IT'S TRUE. IT'S TRUE,
AND I KNOW IT AND SO I TRY TO
LIKE MHM. UH, WE MUST BE KINDRED
SPIRITS, THEN. YEAH, I'M I'M NOT
GONNA. YEAH ABSOLUTELY. I AM A
VERY EMOTIONAL, A VERY
PASSIONATE PERSON THAT LIKELY
FLOWS THROUGH. I'M TRYING TO
CONNECT WITH THE PARO
CANDIDATES. AND I AGAIN III. I
NEVER WANT TO HARM A VICTIM.
THAT'S THAT. IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT. I MEAN, UNDERSTAND
THAT WE'RE COMING IN. YOU KNOW
YOU YOU IF YOU PICTURE YOURSELF
A VICTIM OF A CRIME, AND YOU'RE
TOLD THAT SOMEBODY GETS YOU
KNOW, 100 AND 44 YEARS TO LIFE.
AND THEN IN 20 YEARS BECAUSE
THEY'RE AGE 50. THEY'RE THEY GET
NOTICED. THEY'RE COMING IN FOR A
HEARING. OK IT DOESN'T MATTER TO
US PER S¼ E BECAUSE OUR JOB IS,
ARE THEY IN A REASONABLE RISK TO
PUBLIC SAFETY, USING THE
EXISTING LAWS AND OUR STRUCTURED
DECISION MAKING, BUT FOR A
VICTIM? THEY AREN'T HAPPY. THEY
WERE TOLD THE GUY GOT 144 YEARS
AND LIKE HE WAS GOING TO DIE IN
PRISON, SO THAT'S SOME OF THE
TENSION THAT'S GOING ON. BUT I'M
ALSO TRYING TO COMMUTE CONTACT
COMMUNICATE WITH THAT PAROLE
CANDIDATE AND BECAUSE WE ALSO
BELIEVE, WHICH IS HARD. THEY IS
A PERSON THE RESULT OF THE WORST
THING THEY'VE EVER DONE IN THEIR
LIFE. RIGHT AND THE ANSWER IS
NÓ. BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONER
BARTON WE ALL BELIEVE WE GET TO
SEE CHANGE. THAT'S WHY THIS JOB
IS AMAZING. WE GET TO SEE THAT
KIND OF DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT
. UM AND SO, YEAH, I, I I'M
REALLY THIS IS GREAT FEEDBACK
AGAIN. UM IIII? I DIDN'T KNOW
I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY VICTIMS AND
I'VE NEVER HEARD THEM SAY THAT I
DO MY BEST TO EXPLAIN. I TRY TO
HOLD MYSELF ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT
DECISION. I'M THE PRESIDING
COMMISSIONER. I AM RESPONSIBLE
FOR THIS FINDING OF SUITABILITY.
AND SOME OF THIS ACTUALLY SHOCKS
ME THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS
BEFORE. UNTIL TODAY, SO I'M
GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND
RETHINK THIS, BUT, YEAH. I MEAN,
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT
WHO I AM AND WHAT I TRY TO DO.
AT A HEARING. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
AT LEAST IN SOME OCCURRENCES. IT
GETS YOU IN YOUR WAY. MEANING MY
MYSELF MY FOOT AND MY MOUTH KIND
OF THING. UM YEAH, I LIVE WITH
IT, THOUGH. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND
IT. RIGHT I. I UNDERSTAND IT. UH
II. I REALLY DO. UH BUT IT'S
ALSO PART OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, I
MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, TO THINE
OWN SELF BE TRUE. UM AND SO I
WANT TO BE WHO I AM. AND I'VE
GOTTEN SEVERAL, UH, TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS REVIEWS FROM OUR LEGAL
STAFF, AND I JUST GOT ONE LIKE
LIKE, TWO WEEKS AGO. AND UH, HE
HE THOUGHT, AND HE WAS THERE
FROM 830. AM UNTIL 630 AT NIGHT.
I COULDN'T GET RID OF THE GUY.
IT WAS A LONG DAY. UM AND, UH HE
HAD NÓ. HE HAD NÓ NEGATIVE
COMMENTS AT ALL. WE HAD VICTIMS.
WE HAD THE WHOLE THE WHOLE THING
. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS. I'VE
NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE. UM AT
OTHER TIMES, I'VE HAD TAP
REVIEWS. IN THE BEGINNING. THEY
SAID, YOU KNOW, NEIL, YOU SHOULD
JUST DO YOUR BEST TO BE YOURSELF
BECAUSE IT'S NOT. THE DELIVERY
IS NOT COMING OUT. RIGHT UM AND
SO, YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I
TRY TO BALANCE. I MEAN, SENATOR
GROVES TALKED ABOUT BALANCE. YOU
KNOW, I NEED I NEED THE BALANCE.
BUT I APPRECIATE THAT WHEN I YOU
GUYS. I'M GLAD YOU SEE ME. I
WANT TO BE WARTS AND ALL I WANT
YOU TO. THAT'S WHO COMMISSIONER
SCHNEIDER IS. I HAVE SOME FLAWS.
UM, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE A
MODERATE I. I I'M REALLY UPSET
ABOUT THAT. I. I THINK YOU CAN
TELL THAT WHEN SOMEBODY SAID I'M
A HALF HALF GOOD COMMISSIONER,
HALF MODERATE THE CITIZENS OF
CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE DON'T
DESERVE THAT. YOU DON'T DESERVE
THAT AT ALL. UM THESE PEOPLE
WITH ME ARE NOT AT ALL THAT WAY.
THEY ARE SUPERB. I CAN ONLY HOPE
TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER UP IN THE
IN THE IN THE VIEWPOINT OF THE
KENNEDY HERE DAY. SO LET ME ASK
YOU AND THEN I AND THEN I YOU
JUST ANSWER WHO'S THE CLIENT?
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE CLIENT
YOU IN PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE
CLIENT. PUBLIC SAFETY IS THAT'S
MY CLIENT IS PUBLIC SAFETY, OK?
FOR SURE. I WOULD AGREE WITH
THAT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT
ANSWER, BUT THERE ARE MANY
STAKEHOLDERS INCARCERATED
PERSONS WHEN WAITING. 20 YEARS
FOR A HEARING VICTIMS. THE
PUBLIC THERE ARE A LOT OF
STAKEHOLDERS. I COME HERE. YOU
DID IT ON THAT. YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN WE'RE DOING THE
HEARING, THE INTERCHANGE IS
MOSTLY WITH THE INCARCERATED
PERSON, SO IT FEELS LIKE IT
FEELS LIKE THE SPOTLIGHT IS ON
THAT PERSON. BUT THE WHOLE
CONTEXT OF IT IS WE'RE LOOKING
AT THINGS THAT TENTACLE OUT IN
SO MANY OTHER AREAS TENTACLE OUT
TO REMORSE AND COMPASSION FOR
THE VICTIM. SAFETY FOR THE
FUTURE. UM THE MANS. WHAT'S
WHAT'S GONNA BE HAPPENING WHEN
THEY GET OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY.
HAVE THEY RESOLVED ALL THE A èC
E, S¼ AND ALL OF THESE SO IT'S
VERY FAR REACHING AND LIKE I
SAID, IT TENTACLES OUT, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE THE SPOTLIGHT IS
REALLY ON THAT INDIVIDUAL. WITH
ALL OF THAT OTHER STUFF IN MIND.
THANK YOU. AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
MY COLLEAGUE SAID. ESPECIALLY,
COMMISSIONER. I MAY THANK YOU.
YES, A AS ALREADY STATED, UM,
THERE. THERE ARE MANY
STAKEHOLDERS IN IN OUR PROCESS.
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY, UM, OUR
CLIENT IS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
YEAH, I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW THAT
I CAN ADD MUCH TO WHAT'S ALREADY
BEEN SHARED. I THINK THAT, UM,
WE OWE A DUTY AS JUDICIAL
OFFICERS TO EVERYBODY THAT HAS A
PART IN THE HEARING WHETHER THAT
BE THE PERSON WHO IS SEEKING
PAROLE, WHETHER THAT BE THE
VICTIMS, AND I THINK, AS I SAID,
BEFORE, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR
BIGGEST NIGHTMARE WOULD BE TO
RELEASE SOMEONE THAT RE OFFENDS.
SO TO THAT EXTENT, IF YOU WANT
TO PUT A NAME ON WHAT WE KEEP
CALLING THE STATE, IT'S ANYONE
FUTURE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE
HARMED. AND WE ARE VERY
COGNIZANT OF THAT WHEN WE MAKE
OUR DECISIONS. THANK YOU ALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I TH I
WANNA CHECK IN WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY
COMMENTS ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
OR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. I
LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TOUCH ON
RECIDIVISM RATE. UM BECAUSE THEY
KNOW THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE
HEAR A LOT ABOUT AND I THINK UM
CALIFORNIA REALLY PRIDES ITSELF
ON DIVING DEEP UM, AND
UNDERSTANDING WHO WAS IN FRONT
OF YOU AND I'LL START WITH THE
DOCTOR FIRST. SO AGAIN, I THINK
WHERE WE SEE IN THE MOST RECENT
DATA ONE PERSON. ADD A NEW
FELONY CONVICTION FOR A CRIME
AGAINST A PERSON AND THAT'S 0.1%
AND THEN WE HAVE 15 FOLKS, 2.
WERE CONVICTED OF ANY NEW FELONY
OR MISDEMEANOR. INCREDIBLY LOW.
RIGHT, UM, TALK ABOUT THAT. IN
THE DEEP DIVE THAT GOES INTO THE
EVALUATION PRIOR TO MAKING A
DECISION, PLEASE OK, AND I THINK
SOME OF THIS IS HAS BEEN, UM
SAID DIRECTLY AND IF I CAN ADD
TO IT, YOU KNOW WE HAVE THERE
ARE MANY EYES. ON THESE PEOPLE.
THERE'S MANY EYES WHEN WE COME
IN WHEN THEY COME TO US, SO WE
HAVE, UH THE COMPREHENSIVE RISK
ASSESSMENTS THAT WE LOOK AT
FIRST. THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST
THINGS THAT WE REVIEW AND THEY
ARE EXACTLY THAT THEY'RE
COMPREHENSIVE. THEY LOOK AT RISK
AND IT'S A GOOD ASSESSMENT. WE
START. THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST
THINGS. I THINK ALL OF US DO
BEFORE WE AS PART OF OUR
PREPARATION. WE READ THAT
COMPREHENSIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
FROM THAT RISK ASSESSMENT. WE
CAN IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL AREAS
WHERE WE CAN FOCUS. IS IT GOING
TO BE IMPULSE CONTROL? IT'S
GOING TO BE FOLLOWING THE RULES.
IS IT GOING TO BE RELATED TO
SELF AWARENESS AND INSIGHT. IS
IT GOING TO BE RELATED TO YOU
KNOW, UM ADMISSION OF THE CRIME.
WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY OF THE
CRIME HAPPENING AGAIN? A LOT. A
LOT OF QUESTIONS IN THERE THEN
WE HAVE THE ENTIRE FILE THAT WE
LOOK AT. AND YOU KNOW, WITH
LIFERS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT
DOCUMENTATION THAT GOES BACK,
SOMETIMES DECADES. SO SOMETIMES
WE'RE GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT
THE MICROFICHE LEVEL OF
DOCUMENTATION. SO IT GOES BACK A
LONG TIME. AND I THINK I'M
LOSING THE QUESTION, BUT, UM,
LOWER èC LOWER RECIDIVISM. SO
SO THAT'S WHAT GOES INTO IT IS
REALLY MAKING A WELL CONSIDERED
WELL THOUGHT OUT. WELL
RESEARCHED, UM, RESEARCH JOB,
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE
REST OF EVERYBODY ELSE. BUT
EVERY MONTH WHEN OUR DATA COMES
IN AT THE FIRST THING I DO AND
LOOK AND SEE IF ANYBODY THAT
I'VE RELEASED HAS HAS COME BACK.
UM YOU KNOW, WE I THINK WE ALL
TAKE IT VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. I
CERTAINLY DON'T EVER WANNA FLIP.
I DON'T WANNA BE, UM, CAUGHT UP
IN SOMEBODY WHO JUST PRESENTS
WELL, BUT THERE'S NÓ SUBSTANCE
BEHIND IT. SO IT'S FIRST AND
FOREMOST, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE
STANFORD STUDIES, AND I KNOW
THAT THERE'S YOU KNOW, IT'S WELL
THERE. THERE'S OTHER PARTS OF
IT, TOO. IS PEOPLE DO AGE OUT OF
CRIME? I MEAN, THERE'S SOME SOME
DEMOGRAPHICS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR
FAVOR. UM AND A LOT OF TIMES ONE
OF THE REASONS I DID MY
DISSERTATION ON SOUTH HOMICIDE.
IT WAS AFTER THE MAYOR MOSCONE
MURDERS AND I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW
, HOW DID THIS DÂN WHITE,
SQUEAKY CLEAN GUY COMMIT THIS
CRIME? SO I WAS ALWAYS VERY
INTERESTED IN WHAT ARE THE
DYNAMICS OF SUDDEN HOMICIDE. BUT
HOMICIDE IN AND OF ITSELF TENDS
TO BE A SITUATIONAL CRIME THAT
HAS A VERY LOW RATE OF
REPETITION. YEAH AND I WAS JUST
GONNA SAY I. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE
AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR
ANY OF YOU, BUT IN THE BACK OF
YOUR HEAD THE DECISION WEIGHS
HEAVY. VERY HEAVY, VERY HEAVY.
AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, I, I WILL
ERR IN THE DIRECTION OF CAUTION
IF SOMETHING'S JUST NOT SITTING,
RIGHT, YOU KNOW, I MAKE VERY,
VERY THOUGHTFUL DECISIONS AND WE
DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ALONE. WE
HAVE A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WITH
US AND SOMETIMES IF WE GET INTO
A STICKY SPOT, AND WE NEED EVEN
AN ANOTHER CHECK AND BALANCE,
WE'LL CALL OUR LEGAL OUR LEGAL
TEAM. APPRECIATE THAT. YOU
SHOULDN'T FIND IT. PLEASE BEING
THE NEWEST COMMISSIONER, UH, IF
YOU DON'T MIND GIVING US YOUR
THOUGHT, AS WELL, I THINK REALLY
WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS
PREPARATION PREPARATION
PREPARATION PREPARATION, THE
VOLUMINOUS AND THAT WAS ONE OF
THE BIGGEST TRANSITIONS AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAD FROM MY
PREVIOUS, UH, ROLE AS A
COMMISSIONER AT THE BOARD OF
JUVENILE HEARINGS WAS JUST THE
YOU KNOW THE VOLUMINOUS AMOUNT
OF INFORMATION AND MAKING SURE
THAT I'M PREPARED BECAUSE AGAIN,
UH I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE I OWE
THAT TO EVERYBODY AND TO ALL
PARTIES IN THE ESPECIALLY, UH TO
PUBLIC SAFETY, AND, UM SO JUST
TO GO BACK TO THAT. YOUR
QUESTION ABOUT LOWER CITIZEN,
RIGHT? I THINK IT ULTIMATELY
BOILS DOWN TO THE PREPARATION.
THE WORK THAT WE ALL PUT IN AND
UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE, UH,
THESE DECISIONS IMPACT A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. YEAH. I
MEAN, IT'S IN GETTING TO WHERE I
THINK AND ALL OF US WE'RE
THINKING IS THAT OBVIOUSLY
VICTIM FAMILIES AND THEN
OBVIOUSLY THE COMMUNITIES IN
WHICH THEY WOULD RESIDE IN
RIGHT? I MEAN, I ABSOLUTELY
WEIGHS VERY HEAVY. YES, YES. UH
I KNOW WE NEED TO GET TO PUBLIC
COMMENT, BUT I WANTED TO SEE IF
ANY OTHER HE WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC
ISSUE, PLEASE AND A COMMISSIONER
WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT WHAT GOES
INTO THE DECISION, ESSENTIALLY
ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE
AND THE STRUCTURED DECISION
MAKING, BUT THERE IS A CONSTANT
LEARNING THAT'S GOING ON. WHICH
IS A GOOD THING WITH US. WE ARE
HIGHLY COLLABORATIVE GROUP AGAIN
. WE MEET EVERY MONTH FOR THE EN
BANC REVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ALL THE
TIME EVERY DAY. ANY SUBSEQUENT
HEARING THAT COMES BACK AND FOR
ALL THE EN BANC AND THAT'S A
LEARNING OUR INDIVIDUAL
BACKGROUNDS. PERHAPS SOME OF OUR
EXPERTISE, DOCTOR OMERA. YOU
KNOW, I WAS A NURSE BEFORE OTHER
PEOPLE OR HAVE A LITTLE
DIFFERENT EXPERTISE THEY BRING
TO THE TABLE IN A IN REALLY IN A
TEACHING MOMENT AS AN A AN
ADVANTAGEOUS THING. SO THIS IDEA
OF CONSTANT LEARNING ALSO GOES
INTO THE DECISION, TOO. YOU
BECOME MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT
THINGS AS YOU GO THROUGH AND
THIS PROCESS THE WAY IT'S SET UP
IS A VERY GOOD ONE FOR THE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. I THINK I
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU MUCH
FOR ADDING THAT THANK YOU ANYONE
ELSE BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC
COMMENT? ALL RIGHT? YEAH, PLEASE
, COMMISSIONER. WELL AND I KNOW
WE WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT OUR
OUR PROCESSES TODAY, AND, UM AND
THEY ARE. THEY'RE THEY'RE
EXCELLENT. UM BUT THERE'S
ANOTHER PIECE TO THIS PUZZLE AS
WELL. UM, AND IT LIES WITH THE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUAL. UM
THERE IS TO BE A WILLINGNESS TO
CHANGE AND WE DO SEE THAT IN
QUITE OFTEN WHEN I HOLD MY
CONSULTATIONS OH, ASK HIM THE
QUESTION. UM DO YOU WANT TO
CHANGE BECAUSE YOU WANNA JUST
GET OUT OF PRISON? OR DO YOU
WANNA CHANGE BECAUSE YOU DON'T
WANT ANY MORE VICTIMS, UM AND
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE AND A
LOT OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE
SEE THAT WE GRANT PAROLE TO ARE
THOSE LATTER INDIVIDUALS, THE
ONES THAT CHANGE BECAUSE THEY
WANT TO BE A BETTER PERSON. THEY
JUST DON'T WANT TO GET OUT OF
PRISON. SO THEY PLAY A PART IN,
UM OUR LOW RECIDIVISM RATE AS
WELL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER
FOR ADDING THAT REALLY
IMPORTANT, ALL RIGHT. ANY LAST
MINUTE FROM THE COMMITTEE AT
THIS TIME BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC
COMMENT, SCREEN, SEE NONE. WHAT
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO NOW
IS OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. WE'LL START WITH
INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT,
LOOKING FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
IF HE COULD COME UP TO THE
PODIUM AT THIS TIME. WE'RE GOING
TO DO A LAST CALL. ALL RIGHT.
HEARING SEE NÓ AND RISE. WE'RE
NOW GOING TO GO TO OPPOSITION.
ANYONE WISHING TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM
IF YOU CAN PLEASE RISE AND COME
FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AT THIS
TIME. WE'RE GOING TO DO A LAST
CALL IN OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM
BEFORE WE GO TO VOTES, AND WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE THREE SEPARATE
VOTES. IF IT'S ALRIGHT WITH
COMMITTEE, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY
CLOSING COMMENTS FROM ANY OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT
MEMBERS. WHAT WE'D LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO DO IS TAKE UP THREE
SEPARATE VOTES. WILL FIRST START
WITH A AND B ONE A AND B THAT
WILL BE COMMISSIONER BARTON AND
CHAPPELLE. WE THEN GOING TO TAKE
UP OUR SECOND VOTE, WHICH WILL
BE ITEM ONE èC AND Dð THAT WILL
BE COMMISSIONER INFANTE IN
COMMISSIONER O'MEARA WERE THEN
GOING TO TAKE UP A THIRD VOTE
ITEMS E AND F. THAT'S
COMMISSIONER PURCELL AND
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER. ALL
RIGHT. BUT IF IT'S THE WILL OF
COMMITTEE WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE
TO GO TO OUR FIRST FORMAL VOTE
ON MR CHAIR ACTUALLY NEED A
MOTION AND YES, WE'RE GOING TO
NEED A MOTION. WE'RE GOING TO
ASK FOR SEPARATE MOTIONS ON EACH
IF IT'S ALL RIGHT. OH NÓ. THAT'S
FINE. I JUST WAS PREPARED TO I
IF YOU MAY. IF I COULD MAKE ONE
MOTION AND BIFURCATE IT THREE
TIMES, I'D DO IT. IF NOT, I'LL
JUST MOVE ITEMS. ONE A AND ONE
B. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE HAVE A
MOTION ITEMS. ONE A AND ONE B ON
THE FLOOR. MADAM SECRETARY. IF
YOU CAN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAGUIRE. OK? GROWTH GROVE. I EG
EG. I LAIRD LAYERED. I 4 TO 0 AS
A 40 VOTE. THAT MOTION IS
APPROVED. WE ARE NOW GOING TO BE
MOVING ON TO ITEM ONE. èC AND
Dð COMMISSIONER INFANTE AND
COMMISSIONER O'MARA. IS THERE A
MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR BLAIR. THANK YOU SO MUCH
. MADAM SECRETARY. IF YOU CAN
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL, MCGUIRE
MCGUIRE I GROVE NÓ GROVE NÓ
EDMUND EDMUND! I LAYERED. I
LAYERED I 3 TO 1 AS A 31 VOTE IN
THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'RE NOW GONNA MOVE ON TO
OUR FINAL VOTE ON ITEMS ONE E
AND F COMMISSIONER PURCELL AND
COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER MOTION,
PLEASE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR MADAM SECRETARY, CAN YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MAGUIRE
MAGUIRE? I GROVE NOT VOTING
GROVE, NOT VOTING EGM. EGM, I,
LAIRD I LAIRD I THREE TO ZERO.
THAT IS A THREE ZERO VOTE. THAT
MOTION PASSES COMMISSION. WE
THANK YOU, EACH OF YOU FOR BEING
HERE TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 62ND
RECESS AS THE COMMISSIONERS
GATHER THEIR BELONGINGS AGAIN.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR TIME
TODAY AND CONGRATULATIONS. THANK
YOU.
WHO ARE WITH US. THIS CONCLUDES
TODAY'S PUBLIC PORTION OF THE
AGENDA. WE THANK YOU. WE THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COOPER
OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION.
WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO NOW IS
THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN OUR
OPEN SESSION AND THEN OPEN UP
OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION IN TWO
MINUTES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.