THE SENATE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
NUMBER FIVE ON CORRECTIONS,
PUBLIC SAFETY, JUDICIARY, LABOR
AND TRANSPORTATION WILL NOW COME
TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING. FIRST OF
ALL, WE'RE GOING TO START OFF BY
SAYING A SPECIAL HAPPY BIRTHDAY
TO OUR COLLEAGUE, SENATOR
DURAZZO. MAY YOU HAVE MANY MORE
YEARS, MANY MORE, AND PROSPEROUS
AND HEALTHY AT THAT AS WELL.
YES. SO WE HAVE A SPECIAL DAY
HERE. AND WE, OF COURSE, HAVE
IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE US.
WE'RE HOLDING OUR COMMITTEE
HEARINGS HERE IN THE CAPITOL. I
ASK THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE BE PRESENT IN ROOM
112, SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM AND BEGIN OUR HEARING,
WHICH WE NOW ARE DOING TODAY. WE
ARE HEARING FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE STATE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
COVERING ISSUES RANGING FROM
FIREARM REGULATIONS TO INDIGENT
DEFENSE. COLLEAGUES, BEFORE WE
BEGIN, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING
THEY'D LIKE TO ADD? SEEING NONE,
LET'S ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM
CONSULTANT. WOULD YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL? SENATORS
RICHARDSON, PRESENT. DURAZZO.
HERE. SEYARTO HERE. WAHAB. THE
CONSULTANT. NOTES. ACORN HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED. LET'S START
WITH OUR FIRST ISSUE WITH THE
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
WE HAVE GALIT LIPA. WE ALSO HAVE
ANITA LEE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. THANK YOU FOR
ALL OF YOUR WORK. AND ANTHONY
FRANCIOSA AND MARK JIMINEZ FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, WHO
WILL ALSO BE JOINING US FOR ALL
THE ISSUES ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
MISS LIPA, YOU CAN GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. BIRTHDAY.
I'M DELYLAH I'M THE STATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER. AND GLAD TO BE WITH
YOU HERE THIS MORNING. AS
REQUESTED, I'M JUST GOING TO
GIVE A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
OUR WORK. THE OFFICE OF THE
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY. WE HAVE TWO
PRIMARY MANDATES. FIRST, OUR
LAWYERS REPRESENT PEOPLE ON
APPEALS, PRIMARILY THOSE
SENTENCED TO DEATH. AS YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA HAS A VERY BROAD
DEATH PENALTY STATUTE. AND WE
HAVE 575 PEOPLE SENTENCED TO
DEATH IN OUR STATE, WITH MORE
BEING ADDED EACH YEAR. WE KNOW
THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, OVER
200 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EXONERATED
FROM DEATH SENTENCES AND THAT
ACROSS CALIFORNIA THERE HAVE
BEEN SYSTEMIC ISSUES WITH THE
APPLICATION OF THE DEATH
PENALTY. SO THE LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS THAT TAKE PLACE
AFTER A CONVICTION ARE
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ENSURE
BOTH EXCUSE ME, THAT PEOPLE
AREN'T WRONGFULLY SENTENCED OR
INCARCERATED AND TO INCREASE
TRUST IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. THE
CASES THAT OSHPD WORKS ON ARE
INCREDIBLY COMPLEX AND
MULTIFACETED. OUR LAWYERS ARE
TRUE EXPERTS ON CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL LAW. WE OBVIOUSLY USE
THAT EXPERTISE TO ADVOCATE FOR
OUR CLIENTS, BUT WE ALSO SHARE
IT WITH ATTORNEYS ACROSS THE
STATE. WE FILE AMICUS BRIEFS TO
DEVELOP THE LAW, HOLD MOOT
COURTS FOR ATTORNEYS, AND
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO
POLICY MAKERS WHEN APPROPRIATE.
OUR SECOND SET OF
RESPONSIBILITIES IS A NEWER SET.
STARTING IN ABOUT 2021, WE WERE
TASKED WITH PROVIDING TRAINING
AND ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC
DEFENDERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDER
SYSTEMS ACROSS THE STATE. UNLIKE
IN MOST STATES IN CALIFORNIA,
EACH COUNTY BOTH DESIGNS AND
FUNDS THEIR OWN PUBLIC DEFENSE
SYSTEM WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT
MECHANISM. SO, AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, THERE IS TREMENDOUS
VARIATION IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
SYSTEMS AND THEIR FUNDING. AND
24 COUNTIES AND PUBLIC IN
CALIFORNIA DO NOT HAVE
INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
SYSTEMS. SO OSHPD WORKS WITH
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS AND LOCAL
POLICYMAKERS, PARTICULARLY IN
SMALL AND RURAL COUNTIES, TO
EDUCATE AND SUPPORT THEIR
PROVISION OF PUBLIC DEFENSE. WE
ALSO PROVIDE FREE AND HIGH
QUALITY TRAININGS TO LAWYERS AND
DO SOME ANALYSIS AND PUBLICATION
WORK AROUND PUBLIC DEFENSE
SYSTEMS. THE LAST THING I WILL
TOUCH ON IS OUR RACIAL JUSTICE
ACT WORK. THIS IS REALLY WORK AT
THE INTERSECTION OF BOTH OF OUR
MANDATES. WHEN AB 256 PASSED,
WHICH MADE THE RACIAL JUSTICE
ACT RETROACTIVE, IT HAD A
ROLLING IMPLEMENTATION AND IT
FIRST BECAME IT WAS FIRST
IMPLEMENTED FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD
CAPITAL SENTENCES. SO OSP
CLIENTS. AND SO OSP STARTED
DOING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
RETROACTIVE RJ WORK, INCLUDING
COLLECTING DATA AND DEVELOPING
EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA OF THE
LAW, WHICH MANY PEOPLE WEREN'T
INTERACTING WITH YET. AS RJ
IMPLEMENTATION HAS EXPANDED TO
MORE GROUPS, OUR AGENCY HAS
BECOME A RESOURCE AND TRAINING
HUB FOR ATTORNEYS, AND WE'VE
ALSO HELPED BUILD RESOURCES FOR
THE MANY PEOPLE WITHOUT COUNSEL
WHO HAVE EVIDENCE OF RACIAL BIAS
IN THEIR CASE AND ARE TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND HOW TO BRING
EFFECTIVE CLAIMS WHEN THERE'S NO
LAWYER TO DO IT ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY AS A RESULT OF
THAT WORK THAT WE'VE HAD,
FRANKLY, MORE THAN A TENFOLD A
REALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN
CPR REQUESTS. AND WE'RE GRATEFUL
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S SUPPORT
OF OUR WORKLOAD. ECP SO I'LL
LEAVE IT THERE. IF THERE'S
QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
THEM. IF NOT, WE'RE ALWAYS
AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.
LEGISLATIVE. THANK YOU.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY MEMBERS
WITH QUESTIONS, MR. RAZO? THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
WITH. COULD YOU ARE YOU
PROVIDING IS THE STATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE PROVIDING
GUIDANCE TO COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDERS AROUND PROP 36? SO WE
ARE WORKING TO ASSESS HOW AND
WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE OTHER THAN
TRAININGS ON LEGAL ISSUES, WHICH
IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO. JUST TO
THAT POINT. I WILL SAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE KNOW THAT WE OUR OFFICE
KNOWS THAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE
UNIQUELY SITUATED TO HELP THEIR
CLIENTS ACCESS DRUG TREATMENT
AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
THEY'RE IN RELATIONSHIPS OF
TRUST AND RELATIONSHIPS OF
CONFIDENTIALITY. BUT WHAT MOST
OF THEM NEED IS MORE HOURS IN
THE DAY. AS AS MORE PEOPLE ARE
INCARCERATED TO HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND TO DO THAT
WORK. SO WE'RE ASSESSING WHAT
SERVICES WE CAN PROVIDE SHORT OF
THAT, BUT ALSO GIVE US GUIDANCE
AS TO WHAT MORE IS NEEDED. YES,
YES. AND WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO
LIAISE AS TO WHAT IS ON THAT
FRONT AND WE WILL DO SO. GREAT.
THANK YOU. AND WITH REGARDS TO
ARE YOU PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON
THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION DEFENSE
AS THAT ISSUE COMES UP? DO YOU
HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO ADDRESS
THAT? SO FOR THAT, FOR THE FOR
THE COUNTY. YES. UNDERSTOOD. SO
FOR THE ACTUAL IMMIGRATION LAW,
WE PARTNER WITH EXPERTS IN
IMMIGRATION LAW TO PROVIDE
TRAININGS IN TERMS OF ENSURING
THAT THERE IS ACCESS TO
IMMIGRATION LAW AS REQUIRED
UNDER PADILLA AND VARIOUS OTHER
COURT RULINGS. WE WORK WITH
COUNTIES TO ENCOURAGE AND
EXPLAIN AND GIVE THEM THE
RESOURCES TO WHERE THEY CAN
ACCESS THOSE RESOURCES. OKAY,
AND I KNOW YOU HAVE A DIFFICULT
JOB ON THE ISSUE OF RESOURCES.
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY FUNDING THAT
PUBLIC DEFENDER GET COMPARED TO
OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OR
PROSECUTION IS QUITE
SIGNIFICANT. SO ANY COMMENTS ON
THAT OR ANYTHING THAT WE COULD
DO TO BE MORE HELPFUL TO YOUR
MISSION? SO CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF
THE ONLY STATES IN THE COUNTRY
WHERE THE STATE DOES NOT FUND
PUBLIC DEFENSE IN A REGULAR WAY.
WE ENCOURAGE CONSIDERATION OF
THAT IN EVERY BUDGET SEASON, OF
COURSE. AND WE DO, YOU KNOW, AND
WE DO WORK TO PROVIDE,
ESPECIALLY AGAIN, IN THE SMALLER
AND RURAL COUNTIES WHERE THAT
FUNDING IS OFTEN INCREDIBLY
IMBALANCED. WE DO WORK TO
PROVIDE TRAINING AND RESOURCES
AND SUPPORT TO TRY TO ENRICH THE
SERVICES THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO
PROVIDE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL FROM
OUR AGENCY. OKAY. WELL, THANK
YOU FOR ALL YOU DO. THANK YOU. I
HAVE JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
THE PROPOSAL NOTES THAT THERE
ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
REQUESTS AROUND DATA THAT MIGHT
BE RELEVANT FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
ACT CLAIMS. SENTENCING SHOULD BE
CONSISTENT STATEWIDE, REGARDLESS
TO A LOCATION WHERE SOMEONE IS
BEING, I GUESS, CONSIDERED.
ALSO, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE REGARDS
TO RACE OR OTHER FACTORS THAT
SHOULDN'T BE RELEVANT WHEN WE
TALK ABOUT JUSTICE. WHAT DATA
DOES YOUR OFFICE HAVE ON
SENTENCING AND IS ANY OF IT
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WITHOUT A PRA
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST? SO WE DO
COLLECT SENTENCING DATA FROM A
VARIETY OF SOURCES. CDCR,
VARIOUS COUNTIES. WE DO MAKE
SOME OF IT PUBLIC, BUT WE'RE
WORKING TO INCREASE THAT
AVAILABILITY. I WILL SAY MOST OF
THE REQUESTS WE GET ARE FROM
FOLKS WHO ARE INCARCERATED, WHO
HAVE LIMITED ACCESS TO ONLINE
RESOURCES, AND WHO ALSO HAVE
LIMITED ACCESS TO PRINTING OUT
THE RESOURCES, WHICH PRINTING
OUT THE INFORMATION WHICH THEY
USE FOR THEIR FOR THEIR FILINGS.
SO IT DOESN'T ENTIRELY SOLVE THE
PROBLEM. FROM THE REQUESTS WE
GET TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE ONLINE.
SO WHERE WOULD I FIND THE
INFORMATION ONLINE? WE HAVE I
CAN SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH
YOU. I'M HAPPY TO. I WILL SAY WE
GENERALLY MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO
THE DEFENSE COMMUNITIES AND TO
ATTORNEYS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO
SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH YOU.
OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALSO, CAN
YOU PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE
INDIGENT DEFENSE IMPROVEMENT
DIVISION AND THE ACTIVITIES YOUR
OFFICE IS UNDERTAKING IN THAT
AREA? YES. SO THE INDIGENT
DEFENSE IMPROVEMENT DIVISION HAS
TWO MAJOR PROGRAMS. ONE IS
TRAINING, ONE IS CAPACITY
BUILDING. OUR TRAINING PROGRAM
PROVIDES BOTH LIVE IN AND ONLINE
TRAININGS TO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
AND TEAM MEMBERS. SO SOCIAL
WORKERS AND INVESTIGATORS ACROSS
THE STATE. WE HAVE ALSO RECENTLY
BEGUN A PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY
AROUND CARE COURT AND AROUND
HELPING COUNTIES WORK WITH THEIR
CARE COURTS, AND WITH BUILDING
HEALTHY AND PRODUCTIVE CARE
COURTS. ON OUR CAPACITY BUILDING
SIDE, WE WORK WITH COUNTIES.
MOST RECENTLY WE'VE WORKED WE'VE
WORKED WITH SEVERAL COUNTIES
WITHOUT PUBLIC DEFENDERS, AGAIN,
MOSTLY SMALL AND RURAL, WITH
THEIR BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND
WITH THEIR POLICY MAKERS TO
INTERVIEW ALL OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS IN THEIR PUBLIC
DEFENSE, IN THEIR CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM, ASSESS HOW THEY CAN
IMPROVE THEIR SYSTEMS AND WORK
WITH THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHERE
THEY CAN SEEK FUNDING AND HOW
THEY COULD JUST MAKE SOME
CHANGES WITH THE FUNDING THEY
ALREADY HAVE TO CREATE MORE
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS
FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS. AND WHAT
TRAINING DO YOU FIND NEEDED IN
REGARD TO INDIGENT DEFENSE
IMPROVEMENT DIVISION? SO, YOU
KNOW, A THE CRIMINAL THE
CRIMINAL LAW IS AN EVER EVOLVING
MATTER. AS YOU ALL KNOW, LAWS
ARE CREATED. IT SEEMS LIKE
SOMETIMES EVERY DAY. AND FOR
LAWYERS TO USE THOSE LAWS, THEY
THEY JUST NEED CONSTANT
INFORMATION. THERE'S ALSO AN
INCREASE IN THE KINDS OF THINGS
THAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE
EXPECTED TO DO. THEY'RE EXPECTED
TO HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR CLIENTS
THAN EVEN I WAS EXPECTED TO HAVE
WHEN I WAS STARTING AS A LAWYER.
THEY'RE EXPECTED TO UNDERSTAND
SOCIAL WORK, TO UNDERSTAND
INVESTIGATIONS, TO UNDERSTAND
MENTAL HEALTH, TO WORK IN
COLLABORATIVE COURTS. THOSE ARE
NOT SKILLS THAT ARE NECESSARILY
TAUGHT IN LAW SCHOOL. AND THOSE
ARE ALSO THE TYPES OF SKILLS
THAT WE TRY TO DEVELOP,
EVERYTHING FROM WORKING WITH
YOUR CLIENT, INTERVIEWING YOUR
CLIENT TO OBVIOUSLY TRIALS, BUT
ALSO THE SORT OF COLLABORATIVE
COURTS AND, AND MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUES THAT COME UP. AND HAVE
YOU SEEN AN INCREASE WITHIN THIS
PARTICULAR DIVISION OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS? SO THIS IS A
BRAND NEW DIVISION. IT STARTED
UP IN 2021. WE REALLY DIDN'T
STAFF UP UNTIL 2022. WE HAVE
ADDED OUR CARE COURT. EXPERT IN
RECENT YEARS. IN THE LAST YEAR.
SO WE'RE REALLY JUST STARTING
WITH IT. BUT OUR ACTIVITIES HAVE
GROWN EXPONENTIALLY GIVEN THAT
WE ARE NOW STAFFED. SO IF YOU
COULD SHARE THAT DATA WITH US
AND WITH THE COMMITTEE, IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL. GLAD TO. OKAY. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. WE'LL
NOW GO TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO,
WHICH IS THE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
AND Ã AND EFFICIENCY
REDUCTIONS. WE'LL START WITH DOJ
WITH KRIS RYAN, CHIEF OF THE
DIVISION OF OPERATIONS, AND
ASHLEY HART, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF FISCAL OPERATIONS. MR. RYAN.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT OUR BUDGET TODAY AND
WANT TO THANK YOU. ASHLEY HARP
IS GOING TO COVER OUR
DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW, AND THEN
WE HAVE STAFF FROM DOJ HERE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE
AGENDA. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN
IT TO ASHLEY. THANKS. GREAT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS ASHLEY HARP,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISCAL
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS
COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY $1.3
BILLION, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY
40% GENERAL FUND AND 60% SPECIAL
FUNDS. THE DEPARTMENT'S SPECIAL
FUNDS ARE A BLEND OF FEES FOR
SERVICE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND
SETTLEMENT FUNDS. THE
DEPARTMENT'S 6000 PLUS EMPLOYEES
ARE WORKING ACROSS THE STATE TO
SAFEGUARD CALIFORNIANS FROM
HARM, PROMOTE COMMUNITY SAFETY,
PRESERVE CALIFORNIA'S NATURAL
RESOURCES, ENFORCE CIVIL RIGHTS
LAWS, AND HELP VICTIMS OF
IDENTITY THEFT, MORTGAGE RELATED
FRAUD, ILLEGAL BUSINESS
PRACTICES, AND OTHER CONSUMER
CRIMES. THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT
INCLUDES 31 BUDGET PROPOSALS
TOTALING 122 POSITIONS AND $35.6
MILLION, OF WHICH 21 PROPOSALS
TOTALING 24 POSITIONS AND 6.3
MILLION ARE RELATED TO RECENTLY
ENACTED LEGISLATION. WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN TODAY'S HEARING,
AND MYSELF AND CHRIS RYAN, CHIEF
OF OPERATIONS AS WELL AS PROGRAM
EXPERTS, ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS ON DOJ'S BUDGET.
THANK YOU. MEMBERS. ANY
QUESTIONS? OKAY. MR. RAZO? YEAH.
THIS IS ISSUE TWO. YES. YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANTED TO
ASK, SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
YOUR YOUR RESOURCES ARE FROM
SPECIAL FUNDS. THE MAJORITY OF
YOUR RESOURCES ARE FROM SPECIAL
FUNDS, SUCH AS THE TENANT
PROTECTION FUND. THE CALIFORNIA,
THE TENANT PROTECTION FUND. I
DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE AN
APPROPRIATION FROM THAT FUND
DIRECTLY. SENATOR ANTHONY, THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, IF YOU'RE
REFERRING TO THE APPROPRIATION,
I THINK IT WAS MAYBE IN THE 2023
BUDGET ACT FOR TENANT PROTECTION
WORK. THAT COMES FROM THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW FUND, I BELIEVE.
OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I
JUST, YOU KNOW, EITHER. HIGH
POINTS OR IN GENERAL GET BACK TO
ME. BUT IF YOU COULD GIVE ME AN
UPDATE ON THE EFFORTS TO KEEP
TENANTS SAFE FROM UNLAWFUL
EVICTIONS, WHAT EFFORT AND WHAT
RESOURCES HAVE GONE INTO THAT?
AND IT'S ESPECIALLY CRITICAL, I
RAISE IT BECAUSE IN THE
AFTERMATH OF THE LOS ANGELES
FIRES, THERE'S BEEN A AN IMPACT
ON PEOPLE EVEN BEYOND THE AREA
OF THE WILDFIRES. AND IT'S
HAVING AN IMPACT ON HOUSING AND
HOW HOW HOUSING IS MADE
AVAILABLE OR NOT MADE AVAILABLE.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I KNOW YOUR
ROLE IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR
TENANTS RIGHTS AND REALLY WANT
TO KNOW OVERALL, WRITE AN UPDATE
ON WHAT HOW IT'S GOING TO KEEP
TENANTS SAFE FROM THESE UNLAWFUL
EVICTIONS. YEAH, THAT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT AS WELL. AND WE'D
LOVE TO PUT TOGETHER A SUMMARY
FOR YOU, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IN
COLLABORATION WITH OUR LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, AND SEND YOU
OVER SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON THE STATUS OF THAT WORKLOAD.
YES. THANK YOU. AND THE SECOND
IS AN UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTING SB
731, A BILL THAT I AUTHORED
REGARDING A CLEARING RECORD
CLEARANCE. AGAIN, JUST AN UPDATE
ON WHERE WE STAND WITH THAT. ALL
RIGHT. SIMILARLY, WE'D BE HAPPY
TO PUT TOGETHER A SUMMARY FOR
YOU OF THE STATUS OF THAT
WORKLOAD. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND I WAS REMISS IN
REFERRING TO OUR LA OFFICE. DID
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO. IN
OUR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE. OKAY.
I HAD JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
WHICH SPECIAL FUNDS ARE PROPOSED
FOR REDUCTIONS PURSUANT TO THE
CONTROL SECTIONS? MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE IS GOING TO SPEAK TO
THOSE ISSUES AT THIS POINT IN
TIME. AND CHAIR RICHARDSON, AS
THE AGENDA NOTES. THERE ARE THE
ASSOCIATED DOLLARS AND POSITIONS
THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE
JANUARY 10TH LETTER THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PUT OUT
ARE STILL ACCURATE FOR BOTH
CONTROL SECTION 4.5 AND 4.12.
THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T
EXPECT LARGE CHANGES TO THESE
NUMBERS. OF COURSE, THERE MAY BE
CHANGES ON THE MARGINS AS THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE IS WORKING
WITH ALL STATE DEPARTMENTS TO
MAKE THE FINAL NUMBERS, WHICH WE
EXPECT TO RELEASE IN THE NEAR
FUTURE. SO AT THIS POINT, WE
DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC PROGRAMMATIC
INFORMATION TO SHARE ABOUT THE
REDUCTIONS, BUT WE'RE HOPING TO
RELEASE THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
OKAY. IF YOU COULD GET IT TO THE
COMMITTEE THOUGH, AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. SO AS ALL THAT
INFORMATION COMES OUT, WE'RE WE
CAN USE IT IN WITH OUR REVIEW OF
THE MAY REVISE. IS THERE A
REASON WHY THESE SPECIAL FUNDS
ARE BEING REDUCED RATHER THAN
THE GENERAL FUND? I WOULD SAY ON
ONE HAND, OF COURSE, WE'LL BE
PROVIDING MORE INFORMATION, BUT
I THINK IN DOJ CAN CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG. THIS IS WHAT WAS
FEASIBLE TO REDUCE WITHIN DOJ'S
BUDGET, WHILE ALSO AVOIDING
ADVERSE PROGRAMMATIC IMPACTS. SO
OF COURSE THE FOCUS WAS THE
GENERAL FUND. BUT IN GENERAL,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE WAS
ALSO LOOKING AND THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE WAS LOOKING FOR
EFFICIENCIES OVERALL IN
GOVERNMENT. SO THAT INCLUDES
SPECIAL FUNDS. OKAY. WELL, TO
THE BEST THAT WE COULD ALSO BE
LOOKING AT, THE GENERAL FUND IS
HELPFUL BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO,
AS WE ALL KNOW, GOING TO NEED
EVERY SINGLE DIME AND PENNY THAT
WE CAN ACCUMULATE. ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, THEN WE'VE COMPLETED
ISSUE NUMBER TWO. AND WE'LL GO
ON TO ISSUE NUMBER THREE, WHICH
IS FIREARMS WORKLOAD. WE'LL
START WITH MR. RYAN AND MISS
HARP AGAIN. AND WHO WOULD LIKE
TO GO FIRST THIS TIME. I WOULD
HAVE ASHLEY HARP TAKE THE LEAD
ON THIS ONE. WE HAVE A BRIEF
OVERVIEW OF THE FIRE. MAYBE
ASHLEY SHOULD BE THE DIRECTOR.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'M JUST
TEASING. UNDERSTOOD. I DON'T
WANT TO START A BUNCH OF
TROUBLE. I REALIZE SHE DOES
FINANCE IN YOUR OVERALL. I'M
JUST. JUST MESSING WITH YOU.
GOTTA HAVE A LITTLE FUN HERE.
ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT, MISS
HARP. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I'M ASHLEY HARP, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET
PROPOSES 19.2 MILLION IN 2526,
WHICH INCLUDES 18.6 MILLION
GENERAL FUND AND 640,000 FROM
VARIOUS SPECIAL FUNDS, DECLINING
TO 6.4 MILLION ONGOING, WHICH IS
5.8 MILLION GENERAL FUND AND
519,000 FROM THE FINGERPRINT
FEES ACCOUNT. IN 20 2728.
ONGOING TO SUPPORT 11 BUDGET
PROPOSALS RELATED TO DOJ'S
FIREARMS WORKLOAD. INCLUDED IN
THESE FIREARMS PROPOSALS ARE
REQUESTED RESOURCES WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE
DEPARTMENT'S CRITICAL MANDATED
WORKLOADS, SUCH AS OUR FIREARMS
CLEARANCE SECTION, WHICH
CONDUCTS A PERSONS FROM
OBTAINING FIREARMS. OUR
CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON PROGRAM,
WHICH WAS RECENTLY IMPACTED BY
DECISIONS AT THE SUPREME COURT,
AND AGAIN IN JANUARY 2025 BY THE
US DISTRICT COURT. ADDITIONALLY,
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS
REQUESTING NECESSARY FUNDING AND
RESOURCES NEEDED TO CONTINUE THE
ONGOING EFFORT TO MODERNIZE THE
DEPARTMENT'S FIREARMS IT
SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH VARIOUS
PROPOSALS TO ADDRESS NEW OR
EXPANDED WORKLOADS RESULTING
FROM RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS THESE PROPOSALS WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND MYSELF. CHIEF RYAN
FROM THE DIVISION OF OPERATIONS,
ALONG WITH TERRENCE BELL FROM
OUR BUREAU OF FIREARMS, ARE
AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS
AS NEEDED. THANK YOU. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM LEÓN?
YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
ANITA LEE WITH THE LA Þ. WE
ULTIMATELY RAISE NO CONCERNS
WITH THE PROPOSALS BECAUSE THEY
ARE TO ENACT RECENTLY
IMPLEMENTED LEGISLATION OR TO
DEAL WITH INCREASED WORKLOAD.
HOWEVER, AS YOU HEARD FROM DOJ
AND ALSO REFLECTED IN YOUR
AGENDA, THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IS
PROPOSING PREDOMINANTLY GENERAL
FUND TO SUPPORT THESE PROPOSALS.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE WANTED TO MENTION WAS,
YOU KNOW, MOST OF THESE GENERAL
FUND COSTS COULD STATUTORILY BE
SUPPORTED BY REGULATORY FEES IN
THE STATE'S SPECIAL FUNDS.
HOWEVER, THE SPECIAL FUNDS
FISCALLY CAN'T SUPPORT THEM FOR
VARIOUS REASONS, INCLUDING, AS
YOU CAN IMAGINE, POTENTIAL
INSOLVENCY. SO AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT IS THE DROS SPECIAL
ACCOUNT, WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE
SPECIAL FUNDS, WHICH IS PROBABLY
ONE OF THE MORE VERSATILE FUNDS
THAT ALREADY PROVIDES TENS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SUPPORT
THIS WORKLOAD AND THAT FUND
ABSENT ANY CHANGES. SO KIND OF
WHERE WE STAND TODAY. LOOKS LIKE
IT COULD FACE INSOLVENCY AS
EARLY AS 2728. AND SO THIS
REALLY ACTUALLY RAISES BROADER
CONCERNS FOR HOW WE FUND THIS
WORKLOAD MOVING INTO THE FUTURE,
PARTICULARLY WHAT PORTION OF THE
WORKLOAD IS SUPPORTED BY THESE
SPECIAL FUND REGULATORY FEES
VERSUS THE GENERAL FUND. AND IN
LOOKING AT THIS, IT'S YOU HAVE
INCREASED COSTS COMING DOWN THE
LINE AND SOME ADDITIONAL COST
PRESSURES. A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE
OF THAT IS THAT IT PROJECT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT MENTIONED, FITSUM,
THAT WOULD REPLACE 17 EXISTING
FIREARM AND AMMUNITION DATABASES
AND SYSTEMS. THAT IS EXPECTED TO
REQUIRE SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS IN THE COMING YEARS TO
COMPLETE. AND SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL WANT TO
KEEP IN MIND, PARTICULARLY
RELATED TO THE STATE'S MULTIYEAR
DEFICITS, WHERE OUR CAPACITY FOR
NEW GENERAL FUND COMMITMENTS ARE
CONSTRAINED WITHOUT REDUCING
OTHER EXISTING PROGRAMS. AND SO,
TO ADDRESS THESE BROADER
CONCERNS, WE DO RECOMMEND THE
LEGISLATURE DIRECT DOJ TO SUBMIT
A POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK BY JANUARY
OF 2020, BY JANUARY 2025, FOR
DETERMINING WHAT WORKLOAD SHOULD
BE SUPPORTED BY FEE REVENUE, AND
THAT WOULD OCCUR AFTER THEY
EXAMINE THEIR EXISTING AND
FUTURE WORKLOAD NEEDS. EXISTING
PROCESSES, ITS STATUTE AND CASE
LAW AND THAT FRAMEWORK SHOULD
INCLUDE KEY INFORMATION SUCH AS
CLEAR EXPLANATIONS FOR HOW
SPECIFIC WORKLOADS SHOULD BE
FUNDED, APPROPRIATE FEE LEVELS
AND HOW THEY WERE CALCULATED, AS
WELL AS ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
CLARIFYING STATUTORY CHANGES.
THE LEGISLATURE COULD THEN USE
THAT FRAMEWORK TO INFORM ITS
FUTURE ACTIONS, WHICH COULD
INCLUDE ALIGNING WORKLOAD WITH
APPROPRIATE FUND SOURCE. THAT
INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE,
DETERMINING WHAT FEE LEVELS THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE
WITH, WHICH COULD BE HIGHER OR
LOWER THAN WHAT IS RECOMMENDED
BY DOJ. TO THE EXTENT THAT
REVENUES ARE LESS THAN THE
COSTS, THE LEGISLATURE WOULD
STILL BE BETTER EQUIPPED TO
DETERMINE HOW WHAT PORTION
SHOULD BE SHIFTED TO THE GENERAL
FUND AT THE EXPENSE OF ITS, YOU
KNOW, OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES,
OR WHETHER YOU CAN REDUCE THE
COST OF THE WORKLOAD TO AVOID
THOSE BUDGETARY TRADE OFFS, SUCH
AS THROUGH STATUTORY OR OTHER
CHANGES. AND SO REALLY, WE'RE
RECOMMENDING THIS FRAMEWORK TO
YOU, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE
SEEING QUITE A BIT OF
INCONSISTENCY AND KIND OF
UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS OF HOW WE
FUND THIS WORKLOAD MOVING
FORWARD. SO REALLY BRIEFLY
THROUGH 20 1819, THE BUREAU OF
FIREARMS WORKLOAD WAS FUNDED BY
SPECIAL FUND REGULATORY FEES
ENTIRELY. SINCE THAT POINT,
DESPITE A SIZABLE INCREASE OF
FEE INCREASE IN 2019, SOLVENCY
ISSUES HAVE LED TO AN INCREASING
AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND BEING
REQUESTED AND PROVIDED TO
SUPPORT THIS WORKLOAD, AND FOR
2526, TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, ABOUT
HALF OF THE BUREAU OF FIREARMS
WORKLOAD WILL BE PROJECTED TO BE
SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND.
AND SO THAT'S LED TO
INCONSISTENCIES IN TERMS OF HOW
WE PAY FOR SIMILAR OR EVEN THE
SAME TYPE OF PROJECTS. SO AN
EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THAT FITSUM
IT PROJECT IN 20 23, 24, WE USED
THE DROS SPECIAL ACCOUNT TO PAY
FOR COSTS. IN 2425, WE USED THE
GENERAL FUND FOR 2526. WE'RE
AGAIN LOOKING AT THE GENERAL
FUND. AND SO THAT'S
INCONSISTENCY RIGHT THERE. ON
TOP OF THAT, WE WOULD BE REMISS
IF WE DID NOT MENTION THAT THE
LEGAL LANDSCAPE RELATED TO WHAT
LEVEL OF REGULATORY FEE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWABLE IS
ALSO IN FLUX. AND SO THIS
RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK WOULD
IDEALLY HELP CUT THROUGH AND
HELP THE LEGISLATURE NAVIGATE
THIS INCONSISTENCY AND
UNCERTAINTY SO THAT YOU'RE MORE
WHEN IN MOVING FORWARD, YOU'RE
MOVING FORWARD IN A MORE
DELIBERATIVE MANNER IN TERMS OF
HOW YOU PAY FOR THIS WORKLOAD.
THANK YOU. HAPPY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS
FROM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE?
ANTHONY FRIENDSWOOD, DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THE LEO'S
RECOMMENDATIONS. WE DON'T HAVE
ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'RE
REVIEWING INTERNALLY HERE AT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THEN
ALSO WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. BUT I THINK WE WOULD
ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT
THE FUNDING THAT'S RELATED TO
DROS HAS BEEN QUITE COMPLICATED
IN RECENT YEARS, AS LEO
MENTIONED. THANK YOU. ANY
MEMBERS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
MR. ALSO, MISS LEE. YOU WERE
MENTIONING THAT BETWEEN 2018 AND
19, IT WAS THE IT WAS ALL DONE.
IT WAS FINANCED BY FEES THROUGH
THROUGH 20 1819. CORRECT. AND SO
SINCE 2019, THE AMOUNT OF
GENERAL FUND HAS INCREASED. YES.
AND WHAT WOULD YOU ATTRIBUTE
THAT TO. IT THERE WAS A POLICY
CHOICE. SO ONE THING SO ONE IS A
POLICY CHOICE. SO APS
ENFORCEMENT TEAMS WHICH THIS
COMMITTEE HAS HEARD ABOUT, THERE
WAS A DECISION TO SHIFT THAT TO
THE GENERAL FUND. BUT A BIG
PORTION AS WELL IS SOLVENCY
ISSUES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
CONDITION OF THE SPECIAL FUND
AND YOU LOOK AT THE COSTS THAT
ARE COMING IN, THERE ARE
CONCERNS RELATED TO THE AMOUNT
OF REVENUE, AND THE LEGISLATURE
HAS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE
FEE LEVELS. THERE ARE THOSE
LEGAL ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THE
LEGAL CONCERNS TO KEEP IN MIND,
BUT IT'S ALSO YOUR POLICY CHOICE
IN TERMS OF WHAT FEE LEVELS YOU
ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. SO IT'S A
COMBINATION OF BOTH THOSE ISSUES
IN TERMS OF POLICY CHANGE AND
JUST FISCAL, THE FISCAL
CONDITION OF THE FUND, IN TERMS
OF HOW MUCH REVENUES ARE COMING
IN AND WHAT YOUR COSTS ARE. SO
WAS OUR LEGISLATIVE POLICIES
THAT CHANGE THE DIRECTION? I
THINK REALLY, APS IS SAYING TO
MAKE UP, I MEAN, WE SHOULD BE
HAVING WE SHOULD BE GETTING
ENOUGH THROUGH FEES TO PAY FOR
ITSELF, RIGHT? SO IT NOT NOT
FROM OUR GENERAL FUND. SURE. SO
LET ME BREAK THAT INTO KIND OF
TWO PIECES. SO ONE IS I THINK
THERE WAS CLEAR DIRECTION IN
BUDGET COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS AND
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT APS WOULD
MOVE TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR
VARIOUS REASONS. THAT WAS KIND
OF A CLEAR, DISTINCT CHOICE.
SEPARATE FROM THAT. THEN GOING
TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, THE
OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION,
SENATOR DURAZO, THERE ARE
DEPARTMENTS JUST GENERALLY IN
STATE GOVERNMENT THAT WE WHOLLY
FUND VIA LICENSING REGULATORY
REVENUES. A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF
THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSUMER AFFAIRS. PRETTY MUCH
THEIR ENTIRE BUDGET IS SUPPORTED
BY THE, YOU KNOW, FEE REVENUE
RELATED TO FIREARM WORK. YOU CAN
SUPPORT THEM THROUGH REGULATORY
FEES. YOU DO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS
KIND OF THE ADDITIONAL FACTOR
THAT THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO
CONSIDER. AS YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT POLICIES, WHAT FEE LEVEL
IS COMFORTABLE YOU'RE
COMFORTABLE WITH, ETC. AND THEN
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COST SIDE
IN TERMS OF WHAT ARE THE
SPECIFIC TASKS THAT ARE BEING
TASKED WITH. SO LIKE FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE ARE BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT ARE HAPPENING, BUT
YOU ALSO HAVE IT PROJECTS THAT
ARE BEING MAINTAINED. AND SO
THEN IT BECOMES A QUESTION FOR
THE LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF
WHICH CHUNK OF COSTS YOU THINK
SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY
REGULATORY FEES VERSUS THE
GENERAL FUND. ONCE YOU MAKE THAT
DECISION, YOU CAN ALSO MAKE
FURTHER DECISIONS ABOUT HOW YOU
TEMPORARILY, ON A ONE TIME BASIS
DEAL WITH CERTAIN INFLUXES AND
COSTS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH
THAT BIG IT PROJECT, IF YOU
DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO PAY FOR
THAT, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG COST
KIND OF COMING IN ALL IN A
COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT WE HAVE
DIFFERENT TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US
IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEAL WITH
THAT. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE
COULD DO A LOAN WITH REPAYMENT,
ETC. YOU DO HAVE TOOLS ONCE YOU
MAKE THAT DECISION, HOPEFULLY
THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
OKAY. SO IS THAT I GUESS MY
QUESTION TO YOU ALL IS, IS THAT
PROCESS THAT MISS LEE JUST
DESCRIBED? ARE YOU GOING THROUGH
THAT TO FIGURE OUT THE FEES AND
THE GENERAL FUND AND WHAT WE
COULD DO? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
TO KEEP DOING THIS YEAR AFTER
YEAR IF THE FEES AREN'T PAYING
FOR THE SERVICES. YEAH. THANK
YOU, SENATOR CHRIS RYAN WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND I
THINK THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION
THAT HAS JUST COME OUT IN THIS
BUDGET CYCLE. THERE HAS BEEN
QUITE A FEW CONVERSATIONS OVER
THE YEARS. YOU KNOW, EACH TIME
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE BUDGET
PROCESS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE FEE
INCREASES, IT INCREASES THE
POTENTIAL RISK OR LITIGATION
ACTIVITIES FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO
WOULD BE PAYING THOSE FEES. SO
EVERYTHING THAT THE LA HAS
DESCRIBED HAS BEEN OUR
EXPERIENCE AS WELL. YOU KNOW,
THE DIFFERENT POINTS IN TIME
WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN DECISIONS
ABOUT GENERAL FUND OR MORE FEES
HAS HAPPENED IN THROUGH THE
BUDGET PROCESS. WE GENERALLY
SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THIS
FRAMEWORK. BUT I THINK AS WE
UNPACK THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF
COMPLICATED ISSUES AND A LOT OF
THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE OR
VETTED BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY
OF 26. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
RECOMMENDATION IS TO COME BACK
TO THE LEGISLATURE NEXT YEAR,
JANUARY OF 2026, APPROXIMATELY
JAN TEN, I THINK, IS THE DATE
I'VE SEEN. SO IT WOULD BE PART
OF NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS. AND WE JUST WANTED
TO FLAG THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF
DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE THAT HAVE
TO BE UNPACKED AND ADDRESSED. IF
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN DONE IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WE
DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT.
BUT IT'S BEEN A VERY
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS, AND I WOULD
POINT OUT TO THE CHART IN IN THE
AGENDA HERE, 20 1112, YOU KNOW,
YOU CAN SEE THE REVENUE AND THE
EXPENDITURES. THIS HAS BEEN AN
ISSUE THAT'S EBBED AND FLOW AS
TO WHETHER THE FUNDS CAN PAY FOR
THESE SERVICES OR AFFORD THESE
EXPENDITURES. AND OVER THE YEARS
THERE HAVE BEEN INCREASES OR
THERE'S BEEN ADJUSTMENTS TO DO
MORE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THE
FUNDS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING THE LEVEL OF WORK
THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE
EXPECTATIONS THAT COME THROUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE OR STATUTORY
PROCESS. SO, GENERALLY SPEAKING,
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE
WANT TO DO THAT. AND WE WANT TO
WORK WITH THE LAW AND THE
ADMINISTRATION TO HAVE MORE
CLEAR DIRECTION IN THE FUTURE SO
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THESE
SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE, YOU
KNOW, INSOLVENT IN A COUPLE OF
YEARS. AND THAT'S STARTING TO
CHANGE OUR ABILITY TO FOLLOW
THROUGH ON THE LEGISLATION
THAT'S BEEN PASSED. SO HOPEFULLY
THAT PROVIDES YOU SOME INSIGHT
AS TO WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH.
YES. THANK YOU. I JUST SINCE YOU
POINTED THAT OUT. SO SINCE NINE,
2019, WE'VE NOTICED A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUNDS AND
FEES. SO THAT'S SIX YEARS NOW
THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH
THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP
GOING THROUGH THAT WITHOUT A
VERY SERIOUS CONVERSATION AND
DECISION MAKING BECAUSE WE'RE
WE'RE BATTLING ON ON GENERAL
FUND NEEDS NOW. WE DON'T NEED
MORE MONEY TO BE TAKEN OUT WHEN
FEES COULD BE RAISED. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU,
SENATOR BARRASSO. I HAVE A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION OF MR. ROSO.
I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE LA OES
RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST THE
INFORMATION FROM YOU. MY ONLY
REQUEST, THOUGH, IS GOING TO BE
THAT WE'LL PROBABLY REQUEST IT
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
UNFORTUNATELY, I WHEN I CAME
HERE IN JANUARY, I WAS TOLD WE
WERE GOING TO HAVE A LIGHT
JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, AND THAT
SUDDENLY WENT COMPLETELY OUT OF
THE WINDOW WITH THE FIRES AND
MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE NOW
FACING. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT
BETWEEN THE LA OES OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
YOURSELVES, TO BEGIN TO THINK
ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
LEVEL. I CERTAINLY GET AND MR.
COLLADO MIGHT BE A LITTLE
SURPRISED TO HEAR ME SAY THIS,
BUT WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT I
GET IT. WE DON'T WANT THE FEES
SO HIGH THAT PEOPLE DECIDE TO DO
OFF MARKET PURCHASES. AND THAT
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IS
SOMETHING WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.
SO WE DON'T WANT IT TOO HIGH,
BUT WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT IT
WHERE WE'RE BURYING THE COSTS
THAT CERTAINLY WE CAN'T AFFORD.
SO IF YOU COULD REALLY WORK WITH
US TO GIVE US A RANGE THAT YOU
THINK WOULD NOT BE DETERRENT TO
THE PUBLIC, TO ACTUALLY FOLLOW
THE LEGAL PROCESS, BUT WOULD
STILL GIVE US RELIEF IN THE COST
OF THESE PROGRAMS, BECAUSE, AS
MR. RAZZO SAID, YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN GROUPS
AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE PULLING
AND ARE GOING TO NEED HELP. AND,
YOU KNOW, I GET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN. WE DON'T
WANT IT SO EXPENSIVE THAT PEOPLE
CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE WHAT'S
THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE. AND
SO WE GET THAT. SO IF YOU COULD
HELP US GET TO THAT REASONABLE
NUMBER THAT YOU THINK COULD BE
HELPFUL, WE'D REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. YES. MR. COLLADO, IT'S A
LITTLE BIT ON YOUR CONVERSATION.
IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS,
WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT KIND OF EAT
INTO OR JUST WHAT SHE'S SAYING
IS, IS IT DRIVES PEOPLE THAT
WOULD NORMALLY BUY BUY THEIR
STUFF HERE, INCLUDING SALES TAX,
REVENUE STUFF, AND IT DRIVES
THEM OUT. DO YOU GUYS HAVE
TRACKING TO FIGURE OUT? BECAUSE
A LOT OF THESE PROGRAMS YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN
BASED ON THE SAME FEE THAT WE
WERE HOPING TO COLLECT. BUT IF
THAT FEE GOES DOWN AND WE ADD
PROGRAMS, WE WIND UP WITH THE
DEFICIT THAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. SO ARE YOU GUYS FOLLOWING
THAT TO SEE IF THERE IS A TREND
WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING DRIVEN TO
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF OBTAINING
THEIR FIREARMS, EITHER OUT OF
STATE OR, OR ON THE UNDER
MARKET. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, CHRIS RYAN DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE. I THERE'S
POTENTIALLY SOME FOLKS IN THE
AUDIENCE WHO MIGHT BE ABLE TO
ASSIST WITH THIS FROM THE
FIREARMS DIVISION, BUT I THINK
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS GET BACK
TO YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION.
WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ASKING
IS, HAS THERE BEEN AN INCREASE
IN GHOST GUNS OR AN INCREASE IN
PEOPLE GOING OUT OF STATE, OR
ARE THEY PURCHASING FIREARMS
THAT AREN'T TRACKED IN THE
SYSTEM SOMEHOW, OR ARE WE SEEING
AN INCREASE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO OUR LEGISLATION?
RIGHT. SOMETIMES THERE'S EBB AND
FLOW OF NORMAL MARKET. RIGHT.
AND WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT AND
WE'LL WORK WITH THE STAFF. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
EVERYONE. THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR
ISSUE NUMBER THREE. AND WE'LL
NOW MOVE TO ISSUE NUMBER FOUR,
WHICH IS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
LEGISLATION. WE WILL CONTINUE
WITH MR. RYAN AND MISS HARP.
SHOULD I DEFER TO MISS HARP
FIRST? I'LL GO WITH THIS ONE
CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR, AND MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE AS
IT RELATES TO AN OVERVIEW FROM
THE LAO, UNLESS YOU WOULD
SPECIFICALLY LIKE US TO WALK
THROUGH EACH PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE FRAMEWORK WAS TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THE BILLS THAT WE
HAD NOT NECESSARILY REPORTED ON,
BUT I DEFER TO YOU ON HOW YOU
WANT US TO PROCEED. MISS LEE,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO FIRST?
MADAM CHAIR, HAPPY TO DO SO. SO
BEFORE YOU ON THIS ISSUE ITEM,
THERE ARE BUDGET CHANGE
PROPOSALS FOR 13 BC TO IMPLEMENT
LEGISLATION THAT TOTALS
3,000,025, 26 AND 2.7, DECLINING
TO $2.7 MILLION ONGOING. IN OUR
VIEW, IN OUR REVIEW, WE
GENERALLY DIDN'T HAVE CONCERNS
ULTIMATELY WITH THE PROPOSALS WE
DID WANT TO FLAG FOR THE
COMMITTEE, THOUGH, THAT FIVE OUT
OF THE 13 BUDGET CHANGE
PROPOSALS WERE FOR BILLS THAT
WHEN THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE
POLICY PROCESS, DID NOT INCLUDE
A SPECIFIC FISCAL IMPACT FOR DOJ
OR WERE KEYED AS NON-FISCAL. SO
AS PART OF YOUR DISCUSSION ON
THIS ITEM, YOU COULD CONSIDER
HAVING DOJ TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THEIR EXISTING PROCESSES
AND TIME FRAMES FOR PROVIDING
INFORMATION TO THE LEGISLATURE
TO INFORM THE POLICY AND
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS, AS WELL
AS HOW THAT THEN ALIGNS WITH THE
BUDGET REQUESTS THAT YOU GET AND
THE INFORMATION THAT COMES IN
THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. AND
BASED ON THAT, YOU CAN DETERMINE
WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S
SUFFICIENT FOR THE LEGISLATURE
TO BE GETTING TIMELY, ACCURATE
AND CONSISTENT INFORMATION TO
INFORM YOUR DECISION MAKING AS
PART OF THE POLICY AND BUDGET
MAKING PROCESS. THANK YOU. AFTER
THIS MORNING'S FLOOR SESSION,
I'D LIKE TO DESCRIBE THAT MAYBE
A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY AND SAY
TRANSPARENCY IS IN ORDER. AND I
THINK MISS LEE AND THE LAO BRING
UP A VERY IMPORTANT POINT THAT
WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS,
WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON IF WE
SUPPORT SOMETHING, WHAT IS GOING
TO BE THE IMPACT POTENTIALLY TO
SOMETHING ELSE. SO HAVING TIMELY
AND ACCURATE INFORMATION IS
REALLY NOT FAIR TO US TO HAVE US
VOTING ON THINGS THAT SAY NO
FISCAL IMPACT, WHEN IN FACT IT
IS GOING TO COST US MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OR MANY MORE MILLIONS
THAN WHAT WE PROJECTED. SO WITH
THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND
AND THEN WE CAN GO TO DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE AS WELL. YEAH. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. CHRIS RYAN,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WE
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT INFORMATION
AS YOU'RE MAKING THOSE
DECISIONS, WHETHER IT'S
APPROPRIATIONS OR BUDGETS. THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROCESSES
OVER 500 BILLS ANNUALLY, AND WE
HAVE FIVE THAT ARE BEFORE YOU
TODAY. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES, TWO OF
THOSE BILLS WE UNDERSTAND WERE
KEYED NON FISCAL. AND AS WE
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT
KEYED NON-FISCAL IS SOMETHING
THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN APPROPS AND
THE FLOOR PROCESS. WE DO HAVE
FISCAL ESTIMATES THAT WERE
PROVIDED AS PART OF THE END OF
SESSION PROCESS OR THAT WERE
COMMUNICATED. WE DO HAVE THREE
BILLS WHERE WE DID NOT REPORT.
AND SO THOSE THREE BILLS ARE THE
ONES. I THINK THAT YOU'RE
EXPRESSING THAT CONCERN ABOUT.
THOSE THREE BILLS ARE RELATED TO
THE SPECIAL FUND, THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW, AND THE BILL
ANALYZES COST FOR THE TOTAL. THE
THREE TOTAL WAS ALMOST $1
MILLION. AND SO WE ARE WORKING
ON OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES TO
REPORT MORE TIMELY AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE MEET THE
EXPECTATIONS OF THE
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE. WHEN WE
DO HAVE SOME OF THESE BILLS THAT
MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE
PROCESS. AND IF WE FIND
OURSELVES LOOKING AT AN
ENACTMENT OF A BILL ONCE IT'S
BEEN SIGNED AND WE GET TO THE
BUDGET PROCESS, WE ARE RAISING
OUR HAND AND ASKING FOR
RESOURCES SO THAT WE CAN
IMPLEMENT THE BILL THAT PASSED
THROUGH THE PROCESS. PART OF THE
PRESSURE THAT WE'RE FEELING AT
THE DEPARTMENT IS WITH THE
REDUCTIONS THAT HAVE GONE
THROUGH, THAT WE DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ABSORB SOME OF THESE. THE TWO
BILLS THAT I TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER THAT ARE NON OR Kò
NON-FISCAL, THEY WERE MINOR IN
THAT THEY WERE ONE POSITION,
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BILLS. AND
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE
RAISED OUR HANDS SO THAT WE HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
BILL AS IT WAS, AS IT WAS
CHAPTERED AND SIGNED AND
ENACTED. SO AGAIN, WE APOLOGIZE
FOR THAT. AND WE UNDERSTAND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE INFORMATION
THAT'S NEEDED. SO I'LL LEAVE IT
AT THAT. THANK YOU. YES. I CAN'T
STRESS ENOUGH, ALTHOUGH I CAN
SYMPATHIZE, YOU KNOW, WITH 500
BILLS TO PROCESS SINCE I SIT ON
BOTH BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS,
TRY PROCESSING THOUSANDS OF
BILLS. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN,
THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT
OUR CONCERN IS AND ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT. BUT REALLY, IT DOES HAVE
TO CHANGE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS
IS IF YOU WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE
LEGISLATION IS ENACTED, THEN
WE'RE STUCK WITH THESE CHANGES
NOW THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE
BUDGET THAT WE CAN'T FULFILL.
AND SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, NOW
YOU'RE A PART OF, YOU KNOW, OF
US CREATING A PROBLEM. SO WITH
THAT, WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
NØ ANY COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS?
YES. MR. SIANO, YOU KNEW I
WOULD. NO. I SITTING ON BUDGET
AND APPROPRIATIONS THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS. THIS IS SOME OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT HAS COME
UP TIME AND AGAIN WHERE WE ASK,
HOW CAN THERE BE NO FISCAL
IMPACT TO A BILL THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT? AND YET WE'RE TOLD
THERE ISN'T. AND IT'S NOT JUST
YOUR ANALYSIS, IT'S COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AND ALL OF THAT
TOGETHER. AND SO GOING FORWARD,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO US. YOU KNOW, A LOT
OF US DO UNDERSTAND THE BUDGET
PROCESS AND WE UNDERSTAND FISCAL
FINANCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. SO
WE KNOW THERE'S COSTS. AND WHEN
WE'RE TOLD THEY'RE NOT OR A
BUDGET COMES IN SO LATE AND, YOU
KNOW, YOU GET A GUT AND AMEND
BILL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR A
BILL, IT COMES IN SO LATE THAT
WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME, AND YOU
DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO PROPERLY
GIVE US THE AMOUNT THAT IT'S
GOING TO COST US, BECAUSE A LOT
OF TIMES THE COST BENEFIT CAN'T
BE DONE IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE
COST. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL I
ASK. THANK YOU. YOU'RE GETTING
IT FROM EVERYBODY. MR. RUSSELL.
YEAH I JUST. I'D LIKE TO SEE,
YOU KNOW, Kò AS NØ FISCAL MORE
OFTEN ON MY BILLS. BUT NOT ON
EVERYBODY ELSE'S. AND THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE
OF ALL OF THIS. SO I THINK YOU
HEARD HEARD THE CONCERNS. WE
KIND OF ALMOST WE ALL WE ALSO
SEE THE OTHER END, WHICH IS THIS
IS GOING TO COST $39 MILLION.
AND YOU'RE GOING, WHAT? THAT'S
LIKE ONLY TWO MORE PEOPLE. HOW
COULD THAT COST $39 MILLION? SO
ANYWAY, IT'S THE SORT OF THING
THAT WE APPRECIATE AND WE'RE
REQUIRED. I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU
KNOW, YOU'RE REQUIRED OR WE'RE
REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THAT FOR,
FOR OUR BILL. SO THANK YOU.
DIDN'T WANT TO I APPRECIATE IT I
APPRECIATE THE ADD TO THE PILE
ON. YEAH. NO NOT AT ALL. AND WE
APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. THANK
YOU. AND THEN I HAVE ONE
REMAINING QUESTION. SOME OF THE
PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU
HAVE RESOURCES FOR WORKLOADS
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TIED TO
A SPECIFIC BILL. FOR EXAMPLE, AN
EXTRA POSITION FOR A BILL THAT
HAS NO SPECIFIC DOJ DUTIES OR
OVERTIME FOR FINGERPRINTING
WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION. IT
SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT THESE
RESOURCES ARE NEEDED IN GENERAL,
BUT WHY ARE THEY BEING TIED TO
SPECIFIC BILLS? MEANING, ARE YOU
JUST TYING IT TO A BILL BECAUSE
YOU WANT MONEY TO BE ADDED TO
THE BUDGET? OR IF IN FACT, YOU
KNOW, THESE ARE LEGITIMATE
REQUESTS? YEAH, I CAN SPEAK TO
THE OVERTIME ESTIMATES. IN
WORKING WITH STAFF OVER THE LAST
COUPLE OF DAYS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED
WHAT WE THINK COULD BE AN ERROR
IN AN ASSUMPTION ON TWO BILLS,
AND IT'S LESS THAN $5,000 ON
EACH ONE. WE'RE GOING TO WORK
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS, BUT
WE DID THROUGH OUR PROCESS OF
GETTING READY FOR THE HEARING
AND THROUGH THE QUESTIONS FROM
THE STAFF, WE DID IDENTIFY TWO
ERRORS IN OUR ASSUMPTIONS. SO
WE'LL DO THAT. AND WE APPRECIATE
THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU'RE THAT
YOU'RE SHARING WITH US FOR EACH
BILL. JUST TO SPEAK TO YOUR
OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION. FOR
EACH BILL, WE DO GO THROUGH AND
IDENTIFY WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE
WORKLOAD THAT'S GOING TO SHOW UP
AS A RESULT OF THESE CHANGES IN
LAW. AND WE DO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
SOMETIMES THE WORKLOAD DOES SHOW
UP AS WE'VE PLANNED OR WE
EXPECTED, AND SOMETIMES IT
DOESN'T. SO WHAT WE'RE
ATTEMPTING TO DO IS IDENTIFY THE
RESOURCES NEEDED TO MEET THE
WORKLOAD. AND IN SOME CASES, IF
IT DOESN'T SHOW UP, THERE'S THE
POSSIBILITY IT DOESN'T. AND
THAT'S PART OF THE BACK AND
FORTH AND THE FEEDBACK AND THE
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO
WE APPRECIATE AGAIN THE
QUESTIONS. I FEEL LIKE, YOU
KNOW, OUR TEAM IS OPEN TO THOSE
QUESTIONS. AND WHEN WE FIND THAT
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT OUR
ASSUMPTIONS, WE ADDRESS THOSE
AND WE WORK WITH THE STAFF. SO
HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION. AND WE DO APPRECIATE
THE CONCERNS AND THE FEEDBACK.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT. THAT
CONCLUDES ISSUE NUMBER FOUR. AND
NOW WE'LL GO TO ISSUE NUMBER
FIVE WHICH IS DNA IDENTIFICATION
FUND BACKFILL. WE'LL START WITH
MR. RYAN AND MISS HARP AGAIN. DO
YOU HAVE AN ORDER MADAM CHAIR,
WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING OUR GOOD
FRIEND BARRY MILLER TO THIS
CONVERSATION. HE'S OUR FORENSIC
SCIENTIST AND RUNS OUR LABS FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND I
WILL STEP TO THE BACK ROW. YOU
CAN STAND. HE CAN. OKAY. BARRY.
YEAH. AND THIS IS CALLING FOR A
LIFELINE, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU. AND WE'LL PUT HIM UP
FRONT, IF THAT'S OKAY. SURE.
OKAY. YES, SIR. HELLO, SIR.
HELLO. WELCOME. THIS IS ON.
RIGHT? YES. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.
BARRY MILLER WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF FORENSIC
SERVICES, AND I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IN FRONT
OF YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. RIGHT NOW,
I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER SOME
QUESTIONS ON THIS IS MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LAO
HAD PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION
RELATED TO OUR ISSUE. SO I WAS
GOING TO ASK IF MISS LEE WANTED
TO TESTIFY FOR HER ISSUES. YEAH.
MISS LEE. OKAY. THANK YOU SO, SO
MUCH. SO BRIEFLY, THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET IS PROPOSING AN ONGOING
GENERAL FUND BACKFILL BEGINNING
IN 2627 FOR THE DNA
IDENTIFICATION FUND, WHICH IS
USED TO SUPPORT THE OPERATIONS
OF THE BUREAU OF FORENSIC
SERVICES. THE BACKFILL THAT IS
CURRENTLY IN PLACE FOR 2526
WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED. SO
YOU'RE REALLY THINKING ABOUT
ONGOING AS OF 26, 27. AND SO.
FROM OUR REVIEW, WE ARE
RECOMMENDING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE REJECT THE
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL FOR THE
ONGOING BACKFILL BEGINNING IN
2627, AND INSTEAD IMPLEMENT A
NEW COST SHARING FUNDING
STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE
BUREAU'S OPERATIONS. BECAUSE, AS
I MENTIONED, THE EXISTING
BACKFILL FOR 2526 WOULD REMAIN
UNCHANGED. THE DEPARTMENT WOULD
HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO
MAINTAIN ITS OPERATIONS. WHILE
THIS NEW FUNDING STRUCTURE WAS
IMPLEMENTED, AND SIMILARLY,
USERS WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ADAPT ACCORDINGLY. SO TO
ACHIEVE THIS NEW FUNDING
STRUCTURE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND
THE LEGISLATURE TAKE TWO
PARTICULAR ACTIONS. THE FIRST
RECOMMENDED ACTION WOULD BE FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO REQUIRE ALL
USERS OF THE BUREAU'S SERVICES
TO BE REQUIRED TO PARTIALLY
SUPPORT ITS OPERATIONS,
BEGINNING IN 2627. THIS WOULD
PERMANENTLY ADDRESS THE
INSOLVENCY IN THE DNA
IDENTIFICATION FUND, WHICH IS
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IS
UNDERLYING THIS PROPOSAL. IT
WOULD ENSURE THAT THERE WERE
SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN
LEGISLATIVELY DESIRED SERVICE
LEVELS, AND THEN FINALLY, IT
WOULD MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE
GENERAL FUND. AND AS WE
DISCUSSED ON KIND OF THE OTHER
ISSUES, BECAUSE OF THE STATE'S
MULTIYEAR DEFICITS, IT YOUR
CAPACITY FOR ONGOING GENERAL
FUND COMMITMENTS WILL LIKELY
COME AT THE EXPENSE OF
REDUCTIONS IN OTHER EXISTING
STATE PROGRAMS. AND SO WE REALLY
THINK THAT SHARING SUPPORT FOR
THESE SERVICES, RATHER THAN
HAVING THE STATE PAY FOR ALL OF
IT AS IT CURRENTLY DOES, IS A
MORE APPROPRIATE REFLECTION OF
THE SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND
THE IMPORTANCE AT BOTH THE STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL OF THESE TYPES
OF SERVICES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT,
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTORIAL
RESPONSIBILITIES. HAVING ALSO
THAT COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW,
PARTIAL CONTRIBUTION, WE ALSO
BELIEVE, WOULD PROVIDE A LITTLE
BIT OF MORE INCENTIVE FOR USERS
TO THINK ABOUT WHAT KINDS OF
WORKLOAD IS BEING PRIORITIZED
AND SUBMITTED FOR PROCESSING,
AND THAT WOULD HELP ENSURE THAT
ANY MONIES THAT THE STATE
PROVIDES TO SUPPORT THE BUREAU'S
OPERATIONS ARE USED IN A COST
EFFECTIVE MANNER. SO TO FLUSH
OUT THE DETAILS OF THIS COST
SHARING STRUCTURE, OUR FINAL
RECOMMENDED ACTION IS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO DIRECT DOJ TO
SUBMIT A PLAN FOR CALCULATING
HOW MUCH USERS WOULD BE PAYING
BY OCTOBER OF 2025, TO THEN
ALLOW FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
IT AS PART OF THE 2627 BUDGET.
AS PART OF THAT DIRECTION, THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD PROVIDE
GUIDANCE ON HOW MUCH OF THE
BUREAU'S OPERATIONAL COSTS ONE
HALF, ONE THIRD, FOR EXAMPLE,
SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THESE
USER PAYMENTS. DOJ WOULD STILL
HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY IN
DEVELOPING THIS PLAN TO
DETERMINE EXACTLY HOW TO
STRUCTURE THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT
THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS ARE. THEY
CAN DO THAT AFTER GETTING
FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND
USERS, AS WELL AS CONSIDERING
OTHER FACTORS. SO AS AN EXAMPLE
OF THAT, USERS COULD BE REQUIRED
TO PAY MORE OR LESS DEPENDING ON
THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF SERVICE
BEING REQUESTED, MAYBE THE SPEED
OF SERVICE OR EVEN THE SIZE OF
AGENCY, KIND OF RECOGNIZING THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE SOME MUCH
LARGER AGENCIES VERSUS MUCH
SMALLER AGENCIES. AND SO WITH
THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS
FROM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE?
ANTHONY FRANZOI DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE? I THINK IN GENERAL, THE
ADMINISTRATION IS OPPOSED TO THE
LEO'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK
IT'S OUR OPINION THAT CHARGING
COUNTIES FOR THE USE OF SERVICES
FROM THE BUREAU OF FORENSIC
SERVICES MAY CAUSE COUNTIES TO
PRIORITIZE SENDING CERTAIN
EVIDENCE IN A WAY THAT COULD
IMPACT, COULD HAVE A NEGATIVE
IMPACT TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE AT
THAT LOCAL LEVEL. I THINK WE
JUST SEE IT AS, OF COURSE, IT IS
SENDING A PRICE SIGNAL. WE JUST,
I THINK, SEE IT FROM A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE AND THEN CHARGING
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AS
STATE ENTITIES FOR THE USE OF
BFS SERVICES COULD LESSEN THE
NEED FOR THE GENERAL FUND. BUT
THEN IT'S A TRADE OFF. IT'S
SHIFTING THOSE COSTS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. AND I THINK WE ARE
ALSO CONCERNED THAT THAT COULD
HAVE AN IMPACT ON SMALLER
COUNTIES. OF COURSE, YOUR BIGGER
COUNTIES MAY HAVE A LITTLE MORE
SLACK IN THEIR BUDGETS TO PAY
FOR THESE SERVICES, BUT IT COULD
BE THE POTENTIAL THAT SMALLER
RURAL COUNTIES DON'T. AND AGAIN,
THAT CAUSES IMPACTS TO THEIR
BUDGETS AT THAT LOCAL LEVEL. I
JUST THINK TWO, IF YOU'RE
CHARGING A FLAT FEE, AGAIN,
THAT'S REGRESSIVE FOR SMALLER
COUNTIES, IF IT'S SOME SORT OF
VARIABLE FEE, EITHER FOR THE
TYPE OF SERVICE OR MAYBE IT'S
GROUPED BY SMALL, MEDIUM LARGE
COUNTIES, I THINK IT IT'S THE
ADMINISTRATION'S PERSPECTIVE
THAT IT GETS INTO THIS TERRITORY
WHERE. NOT ONLY IS IT NOT
NECESSARILY EQUITABLE, BUT
AGAIN, IT'S THE INTENT THAT
COUNTIES DON'T HAVE TO WITHHOLD
OR PRIORITIZE EVIDENCE THAT GETS
SENT TO BFS. I THINK THE STATE
WOULD PREFER THAT ALL OF THAT
GETS SENT, AND THAT THERE'S KIND
OF NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS IN THAT
SENSE. I COULD GO ON, BUT I
THINK THAT GIVES THE MAIN POINT
ACROSS. AND OF COURSE, YOU ALSO
HAVE MR. MILLER HERE WHO CAN
TALK MAYBE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE
DETAIL ABOUT THE EXPERIENCE WITH
WITH COUNTIES AND SENDING
EVIDENCE. WOULD THE DEPARTMENT
BE OPEN TO ANY EVEN A MODEST.
WAS THERE EVER A DISCUSSION
ABOUT MAYBE NOT RECOUPING THE
FULL EXPENSE EXPENSE, BUT AT
LEAST A PORTION THEREOF? WE
HAVEN'T HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE LEO'S
CURRENT PROPOSAL. I DON'T KNOW
IF THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, BECAUSE
THE THIS ISN'T A NEW INSOLVENCY
THAT THE DNA ID FUND IS FACING,
SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. BUT AT
LEAST BASED ON THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED
ANY TYPE OF FEE AT THIS POINT IN
TIME. OKAY. MR. MILLER, DID YOU
HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO CHIME IN?
I DO, MADAM CHAIR. AND SO FIRST
OF ALL, AGAIN, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR ALLOWING
ME TO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE
GREAT WORK THAT THE BUREAU OF
FORENSIC SERVICES DOES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. I'M VERY I
TELL THE STORY AND EVERY TIME I
TELL IT, IT DOESN'T GET OLD
BECAUSE I'M VERY PROUD OF
EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO. AND AS
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
BROUGHT UP, WE DO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO ALMOST ALL OF THE
LESS OR MORE RURAL AREAS THAT
DON'T GENERALLY HAVE ACCESS TO
FORENSIC SERVICES LIKE THE
LARGER AREAS DO, AND THAT'S BY
INTENT. WHEN THE BUREAU WAS
REGIONALIZED AND FORMED IN 1972,
THE STATE HAD RECOGNIZED THAT
THERE WAS AN INEQUITY IN ACCESS
TO THE SERVICES THAT ARE
PROVIDED THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF
EVIDENCE IN INFORMING THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THAT. THIS
THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT
UP SEVERAL TIMES, AND IT'S BEEN
LOOKED AT AND VETTED OVER THE
PAST THREE DECADES. WE HAVE DONE
ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE
TO CHARGE LOCAL AGENCIES,
SHOWING EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT
WOULD COST EACH ONE OF THOSE
AGENCIES FOR THE SERVICES THAT
WE DO PROVIDE. WE'VE SENT A
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
REGARDING OUR ANALYSIS OF FEE
FOR SERVICE MODELS THROUGHOUT
THE WORLD THAT OUR RESEARCH
CENTER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE PERFORMED THE ANALYSIS
ON, AND SHOWED THAT IT IS
LARGELY A REJECTED MODEL ACROSS
THE INTERNATIONALLY. AND THERE
WAS A REPORT FROM THE GRAND JURY
IN SAN DIEGO WHEN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY WAS LOOKING AT CHARGING
AGENCIES, WHERE THEY SAID THAT
IT WOULD RESULT IN INEQUITIES
AND THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS
SHOULD BE THE SAME. TAXPAYERS
PAY THOSE TAXES FROM THOSE SMALL
AREAS AND THE LARGER AREAS, THE
LARGER AREAS CHOSE TO KEEP THEIR
LABORATORIES. WHEN THE STATE
REGIONALIZED IN THE EARLY 70S,
THEY WERE OFFERED TO JOIN THE
STATE SYSTEM, AND THEY CHOSE NOT
TO. AND THAT'S FINE THAT THEY
DIDN'T, BUT THEY KNEW THEY WERE
GOING TO BE MAINTAINING THE COST
OF THOSE SERVICES FOR
THEMSELVES. BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S
BUREAU OF FORENSIC SERVICES
DOESN'T PROVIDE SERVICE TO THOSE
COUNTIES. WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA
DNA DATA BANK THAT IS REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO ALL 58
COUNTIES AND MAINTAIN ACCESS TO
THE COMBINED DNA INDEX SYSTEM,
AS WELL AS THE MISSING PERSONS
DNA PROGRAM, WHERE WE HELP WORK
THROUGH IDENTIFYING MISSING AND
UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA AND IN THE NATION IN
SOME CASES. A COUPLE OF THINGS I
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IS I HAVE
HEARD OVER THE YEARS THAT THIS
WOULD INCENTIVIZE LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO CHOOSE THE
EVIDENCE THAT THEY TURN IN, AND
I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. AND
THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE AT THE
BUREAU, AS THE SCIENTIFIC
EXPERTS, ARE THE ONES THAT
DETERMINE WHAT THE BEST EVIDENCE
IS IN ANY CASE. AND WE MANY
TIMES WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE IN
THE FIELD WITH THESE
INVESTIGATORS CHOOSING WHAT TO
COLLECT AT THOSE SCENES OR IN
THOSE INVESTIGATIONS. AND WE
DON'T JUST ANALYZE EVERYTHING
THAT COMES IN TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE BUREAU FORENSIC
SERVICES. WE SIT DOWN AND WE
TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE THE
RESOURCES FOR AND WHAT WOULD
HAVE THE MOST IMPACT WITH MANY
OF OUR CLIENT AGENCIES IN THOSE
REGIONAL AREAS. I WOULD PREFER
THAT THEY WEREN'T INCENTIVIZED
TO PICK WHAT EVIDENCE THEY
WANTED TO SEND IN, BECAUSE WE
MIGHT MISS CRITICAL EVIDENCE IN
SOLVING A CRIME, AND WE ARE THE
ONES THAT LOOK THROUGH THESE
EVIDENCE SHEETS. WE SIT DOWN IN
MEETINGS WITH THE INVESTIGATORS
AND DECIDE WHAT WE CAN DO FOR
THEM. THAT IS, NOT ANALYZING 700
ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. IT MIGHT JUST
BE THAT WE PICK THREE, THAT NOW
WE FIND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE SITUATION, WE FIND THAT
THAT'S THE BEST EVIDENCE. SO
WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
CONCLUDE THAT THAT THE MISSION,
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BUREAU IN
PROVIDING THOSE SERVICES TO THE
LOCALS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
CITIES AND COUNTIES, EVEN ON A
SLIDING SCALE THAT DON'T HAVE
THE ABILITY TO PAY THESE THESE
FEES THAT WOULD BE CHARGED FOR
THEM TO GET THAT ACCESS TO THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND IF WE DO
START CHARGING THEM, IT ALSO IS
GOING TO INTERRUPT VERY GOOD
WORKING RELATIONSHIPS THAT WE
HAVE WITH THESE LOCAL AGENCIES.
AND THERE'S NO THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO PAY
THESE FEES IN THAT ANALYSIS THAT
THE RESEARCH CENTER DID IN 1920,
WE LOOKED AT MISSISSIPPI.
MISSISSIPPI WAS TRYING TO CHARGE
LOCAL AGENCIES, AND THEY WERE
STILL RUNNING A DEFICIT IN
COLLECTIONS. THE ALTERNATIVE
BEING THAT WE JUST KEEP ASKING
FOR THEM TO PAY IT, BUT THEN
HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO ASK FOR MONEY TO
FILL WHATEVER DEFICIT WE HAVE
BECAUSE OF THAT INABILITY TO
PAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF
WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM IN
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THESE
CRITICAL SERVICES TO THE LOCALS.
AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I
KNOW I TALKED A LONG TIME, BUT
I'M VERY PROUD OF THIS WORK. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LARA.
ANY MEMBERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS
FOR MR. SIANO? SO NOT SO MANY
QUESTIONS IS MORE OF A COMMENT.
OR IT COULD TURN INTO A QUESTION
FOR LEO. I HAVE A I AGREE WITH
WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM FINANCE
AND ALSO OUR EXPERT HERE. THIS
IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES. AND WHEN
YOU'RE DOING YOUR BUDGET THAT
IT'S A CALIFORNIA WIDE BENEFIT
AND ISSUE. AND THEREFORE OUR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS, WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HOW WE PRIORITIZE
OUR DOLLARS. YEAH. THIS IS ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO
LOOK AT AND DECIDE WHETHER THIS
IS WORTHWHILE, BECAUSE EXACTLY
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU
CAN'T WIND UP HAVING AREAS IN
THE STATE OR COMMUNITIES OR
COUNTIES IN THE STATE WHERE IT'S
MORE LUCRATIVE TO DO YOUR CRIME
BUSINESS BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS
OF A CHANCE OF GETTING PROCESSED
AND CAUGHT THAN OTHERS. AND SO
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE BALANCED.
THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO DO THAT
IS USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT WE
COLLECT FROM EVERYBODY AND USE
THAT TO, TO MAKE IT, MAKE IT
EVEN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT
REALLY AN ADVOCATE OF TRYING TO
RAISE FEES ON SOME OR HAVE USER
FEES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BASED
ON USE, BECAUSE THEN SOME PEOPLE
MIGHT BE FORCED TO MAKE THE
DECISION OF NOT USING IT WHEN
THEY REALLY SHOULD BE. AND THAT
HAS IMPLICATIONS ACROSS COUNTY
LINES, BECAUSE WHEN WE HAVE DNA
EVIDENCE ON SOMEBODY THAT
COMMITS A CRIME IN ONE COUNTY
AND THEN GOES OFF INTO ANOTHER
COUNTY, AND THEN WE CAN WE CAN
TRACK THAT. AND SO I'M KIND OF
I'M PRETTY MUCH OKAY WITH US
HAVING TO AUGMENT THE SYSTEM TO
THE EXTENT THAT WE NEED TO, TO
HAVE A ROBUST PROGRAM TO ENSURE
THAT WE CATCH OUR CRIMINALS AND
MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR FOR THEIR
ACTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. SIANO.
MISS DURAZO. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. RIGHT NOW, IF I
UNDERSTAND RIGHT, RIGHT NOW,
IT'S NOT EVEN IN THE SENSE OF
EVERYBODY GETS ALL THE SERVICES
THAT THEY NEED, RIGHT? I MEAN,
SO DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE
RIGHT NOW. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THERE ARE
CERTAIN COUNTIES YOU PROVIDE
SERVICES TO AND CERTAIN COUNTIES
YOU DON'T. AND THEN YOU PROVIDE
SOME SERVICES WHICH AREN'T
EXACTLY THE SAME. SO I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND RIGHT NOW WHAT THE
DECISIONS ARE THAT YOU HAVE TO
MAKE WITH THE RESOURCES THAT YOU
HAVE. WHAT ARE THOSE FACTORS
THAT LEAD YOU TO. IT'S BECAUSE
IT'S NOT EVEN NOT EVERY SINGLE
COUNTY, NOT EVERY GETS EXACTLY
THE SAME SERVICE. IS THAT RIGHT,
OR AM I GOT THAT? IF YOU'RE
SPEAKING TO THE STATE SYSTEM
SPECIFICALLY, EVERY COUNTY GETS
ACCESS TO EVERY SERVICE THAT WE
HAVE, EVEN IF WE HAVE TO MOVE
EVIDENCE FROM ONE LABORATORY TO
ANOTHER BASED ON OUR
ACCREDITATION MODEL. IF THERE'S
A NEED, WE FILL THAT NEED FOR
THOSE SERVICES THAT WE CAN
PROVIDE. OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, IF I
MIGHT, TO CLARIFY, JUST TO
ASSIST YOU ASSIST 12 COUNTIES
THAT OPERATE THEIR OWN
LABORATORIES, OTHER SERVICES,
THEIR LABORATORIES LACK. ANYWAY,
IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE IT'S
DIFFERENT, NOT NECESSARILY THE
SAME. IF YOU COULD. YES, YES.
SENATOR DURAZO, I DON'T MEAN TO
INTERRUPT THE LEO. I THOUGHT I
HEARD THAT SHE WAS ASKING TO
SPEAK. NO, THAT WAS I WAS
CHIMING IN JUST TO HELP WITH
SENATOR DURAZO TO CLARIFY THE
QUESTION WHERE YOU ACCURATELY
READ AND YOU WERE PICKING UP. I
WAS JUST GOING TO FILL IN THAT
THAT WAS WHERE YOU WERE GOING.
SO I APOLOGIZE. WELL, NO APOLOGY
NECESSARY. DO YOU WANT TO ADD IN
SO THAT THAT WAY WHEN MR. MILLER
ANSWERS THE QUESTION, HE CAN
ANSWER IT ACCURATELY? SURE. YOU
KNOW, I THINK AS YOU'RE
CONSIDERING THIS ITEM, I'M GOING
TO SENATOR DEROSA'S QUESTION,
YOU DO HAVE 12 COUNTIES AND
EIGHT CITIES THAT ARE OPERATING
THEIR OWN LABS. THEY ARE PAYING
FOR THAT USING THEIR OWN
DOLLARS. THEY CERTAINLY CAN SEND
THINGS TO STATE DOJ TO PROCESS.
BUT I THINK WHEN WE LOOKED AT
THE UNDERLYING DATA, THEY DON'T
SEND VERY MUCH. AND I THINK IN
CONTRAST, WHAT YOU HAVE IS YOU
HAVE THESE OTHER 46 COUNTIES
WHERE THEY ARE RELYING ON DOJ.
AND I WANT TO MAKE, FROM THE LAO
PERSPECTIVE, WANT TO KIND OF
MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. IT'S WE DO
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DOJ
IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THESE
SERVICES. I THINK OUR CONCERN IS
BASICALLY CURRENTLY THE THEY'RE
NOT PAYING ANYTHING. RIGHT. AND
SO FOR US, IT'S A SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY. AND SO THERE IS
A ROLE TO FOR THE STATE TO BE,
YOU KNOW, PUTTING UP SOME MONEY
IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. IT'S ALSO
KIND OF THAT OTHER PIECE IN
TERMS OF, HEY, PLEASE HELP US
SUPPORT THESE. AND I THINK ONE
OF THE KEY THINGS AS YOU'RE
THINKING ABOUT IT IS IF YOU LOOK
IN YOUR AGENDA ON PAGE 16,
RIGHT, THIS IS A CHART THAT
SHOWS THE REVENUE THAT'S COMING
IN. IT'S ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE
REVENUES THAT SUPPORT THIS FUND,
THEY'RE COMING FROM CRIMINAL
FINE AND FEE REVENUES. WE'VE HAD
THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW
CRIMINAL FINE AND FEE REVENUE
FOR VARIOUS SUPPORTING VARIOUS
STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS ARE
DECLINING. AND SO YOU DO HAVE
THAT TREND. AND SO IT'S AN ISSUE
AND A QUESTION FOR HOW YOU DEAL
WITH THAT SORT OF MOVING
FORWARD. AND I THINK ON THIS
ONE, I THINK FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE AND OUR ANALYSIS IS
THAT ISSUE WHERE THERE IS A
LITTLE BIT OF A SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY. YOU HAVE LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT, LOCAL
PROSECUTORS MAKING DECISIONS,
AND THEY'RE SENDING THINGS TO
THE STATE ESSENTIALLY TO TEST.
AND I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT. TESTING, I
THINK, FOR US IS JUST, WELL,
HEY, WE ARE PROVIDING A SERVICE.
WE MIGHT HAVE ECONOMIES OF
SCALE, RIGHT, TO DO, DO THIS
WORK, AND IT MIGHT BE CHEAPER
AND MORE EFFECTIVE, BUT HELP US
PAY FOR SOME OF THESE. SO
HOPEFULLY THAT ADDS CONTEXT TO
THE QUESTION AS WELL. I JUST I
WAS ASKING BECAUSE IT MIGHT GIVE
US A CLUE AS TO WHAT WE COULD,
YOU KNOW, DO CONSIDERING THE,
THE DEFICIT, YOU KNOW, THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS OVERALL.
SO I DON'T WANT OBVIOUSLY NONE
OF US DO WANT TO IMPACT THE
JUSTICE THAT EVERY BUT HE
DESERVES. AND SO I APPRECIATE
ALL THAT WORK THAT YOU DO. JUST
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THERE A
PLACE TO GO? IT MIGHT BE JUST
TEMPORARILY OR IT MIGHT BE
ONGOING, BUT SOMEWHERE WE'VE GOT
TO WE'VE GOT TO GIVE. AND THEN
JUST FINAL QUESTION IS THE
SERVICES THAT YOU PROVIDE, ARE
THEY DIFFERENT OR INCLUDE
PROSECUTORS AND PUBLIC
DEFENDERS, OR IS THAT A
DIFFERENT SERVICE? YOU KNOW, DO
THEY GET THE SAME SERVICES, I
GUESS IS THE QUESTION. SO TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THE
SCENARIO THAT I WOULD PROVIDE IS
MOST IF NOT ALL EVIDENCE THAT WE
RECEIVE COMES FROM SOME SORT OF
AN INVESTIGATION. AND THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE DOESN'T
USUALLY ENGAGE A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION. IT'S USUALLY OUR
LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS THAT GO
OUT AND ENGAGE IN THAT. BUT THE
SERVICE WE PROVIDE IS INTENDED
TO BE COMPLETELY UNBIASED FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE OF PROSECUTION
OR DEFENSE. AND SO WE'RE
SPEAKING TO THE EVIDENCE AND THE
SCIENCE. AND SO WE SEE THE
SERVICE WE PROVIDE AS SUPPORTING
THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION.
BECAUSE IF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF
EXONERATING FEATURE TO IT, WE
BRING THAT UP IN OUR REPORT TO
TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT, NO,
THAT WAS NOT FOUND, AND WE WILL
TESTIFY TO THAT FACT. WE HAVE
BEEN CALLED BY THE DEFENSE IN
SOME CASES TO TESTIFY WHEN THE
PROSECUTION DIDN'T CALL US AS A
WITNESS. AND WE HAVE HAD
EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE HAVE HAD
EVIDENCE THAT WE ANALYZED FROM
THE INNOCENCE PROJECT, YOU KNOW,
20 YEARS LATER, WHERE IT LED TO
AN EXONERATION THROUGH THE
ADVANCES IN DNA. SO THE SERVICES
WE PROVIDE ARE INTENDED TO BE
AGNOSTIC FROM THOSE THOSE
DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM AND PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION. BUT WE ALSO WILL
WORK WITH ANY DEFENSE EXPERT
THAT WANTS TO COME IN AND VIEW
EVIDENCE THAT NEEDS THAT RELEASE
TO THEM. AND SO WE UNDERSTAND
THE NATURE OF OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM. BUT OUR OUR JOB IS TO
NOT BE A PARTY OF ONE OR THE
OTHER, BUT IT MOSTLY COMES IN
THROUGH THEM. SENATOR. YEAH. I
JUST JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S EQUAL ACCESS HERE FOR
PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE CHARGED WITH
THE CRIME, THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE
EQUAL ACCESS. SO WE CAN CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION. BUT THAT'S MY
CONCERN IS THAT BECAUSE OVERALL
PROSECUTION HAS FAR MORE
RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO IT
COMPARED TO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S.
THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST FACT
RIGHT NOW. AND SO I'M TRYING TO
SEE WHERE IS IT THAT THOSE THAT
INEQUITY EXISTS SO THAT WE COULD
FIX IT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. WELL,
THANK YOU ALL OF YOU. AND THAT
NOW CONCLUDES ISSUE NUMBER FIVE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ISSUE
NUMBER SIX WHICH IS THE
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS UNIT
WORKLOAD. AND WE WILL START WITH
MR. RYAN AND MR. HARP AGAIN DO
YOU HAVE ANOTHER LIFELINE? I DO,
MADAM CHAIR I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO I'M GOING TO HAVE ASHLEY
REVIEW THE REQUEST. AND THEN WE
HAVE CHIEF WOOLERY FROM OUR
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO
CAN SPEAK TO ANY OF THE
QUESTIONS AND THE OPERATIONAL
ITEMS AROUND THE BACKGROUND
UNIT. SO, ASHLEY, CHIEF, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD?
THANK YOU SIR. OKAY, MISS HARP,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ASHLEY
HARP, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE
PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES $1
MILLION, WHICH IS COMPRISED OF
213,000 GENERAL FUND AND 790,000
SPECIAL FUND. IN 20 2526,
DECREASING TO 931,000, WHICH IS
197,000 GENERAL FUND AND 734,000
SPECIAL FUND ONGOING TO SUPPORT
SIX ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
INVESTIGATOR POSITIONS TO
MAINTAIN THE ONGOING WORKLOAD
FOR THE DIVISION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S BUREAU, THE
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS UNIT.
THE REQUESTED RESOURCES ARE
NECESSARY TO CONDUCT STATUTORILY
MANDATED PRE-EMPLOYMENT
INVESTIGATIONS AS REQUIRED BY
THE COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER
STANDARDS AND TRAINING,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS POST, FOR
SWORN POSITIONS, THE POST
REQUIREMENTS AND HIRING
GUIDELINES HAVE EXPANDED OVER
THE YEARS FOR THESE
INVESTIGATIONS, SUCH AS
REQUIRING A BIAS ASSESSMENT AND
SOCIAL MEDIA CHECKS FOR ALL
CANDIDATES, AND THIS, COUPLED
WITH A LACK OF SUFFICIENT
STAFFING, HAS RESULTED IN AN
UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF LENGTHY
BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESSES THAT
HAVE HINDERED HIRING EFFORTS AND
THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO
FULFILL ITS MISSION TIMELY AND
EFFECTIVELY. MYSELF, ALONG WITH
CHIEF WOOLERY OF THE DIVISION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT, ARE AVAILABLE
TO ASSIST ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS
ITEM. THANK YOU, MISS LEE. ANY
COMMENTS? DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE?
NO. MR. RAZO, DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? WELL, I CERTAINLY
SUPPORT DOING ANYTHING WE CAN TO
EXPEDITE THIS. SO ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES I THINK WOULD BE.
IMPORTANT. MISS HARP, BASED UPON
THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT ARE
BEING REQUESTED, WHAT WOULD BE
THE DECREASE IN DELAYS THAT WE
COULD ANTICIPATE WITH IT? AND
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
BACKGROUNDS INVESTIGATIONS MAY
TAKE UP TO 12 WEEKS. AND WITH
THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES
PEOPLE MOVE ON TO OTHER
POSITIONS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE
OTHERWISE BEEN INTERESTED IN
DOING PUBLIC SERVICE. SO DO WE
HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THE TURNAROUND
MIGHT BE IMPROVED? I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO STEVEN WOOLERY ON
THIS ITEM. YES, CHIEF. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR.
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS ON THIS
PANEL. SO WE THINK THAT WE CAN
CUT THE TIME IN HALF. WE THINK
THAT ONCE THESE SPECIAL
INVESTIGATORS ARE ON BOARD AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY'VE THEIR THEIR
WORK IS NORMALIZED. THEY
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY STEADY STATE. WE THINK THAT
THAT TIME FRAME CAN BE CUT IN
HALF. AND DO YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT
AMOUNT OF OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO
DO THAT WORK? WILL MORE
RECRUITMENT BE REQUIRED OR IT'S
JUST TAKING THE FOLKS THAT YOU
HAVE AND PROVIDING MORE OF THAT
NORMALCY? NO, IT'S GOING TO BE
IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME
RECRUITMENT AND ADVERTISEMENT,
BUT THE FOCUS WILL BE THAT THESE
ARE DEDICATED, FULL TIME
INVESTIGATORS. OKAY. SO THAT
THAT'S REALLY THE VALUE ADD,
WHICH WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE
RIGHT NOW. AND IF I WERE TO DO
SIMPLE MATH, IF WE WERE TRYING
TO GET THAT NUMBER CLOSER TO
MAYBE, YOU KNOW, 2 TO 4 WEEKS
VERSUS SIX WEEKS WITH THE BASIC
MATH APPLY, OR IS THERE ANOTHER
NUMBER? WHEN YOU SAY I DON'T?
WELL, MISS HARP PRESENTED A
NUMBER. MAYBE I SHOULD ASK HER,
MISS HARP, IF, BASED UPON WHAT
THE CHIEF HAS TESTIFIED, THAT
WITH THIS ALLOCATION, WE COULD
GET TO SIX WEEKS, BECAUSE MY
UNDERSTANDING IS CURRENTLY IT'S
ABOUT 12 WEEKS. SO IF WE WERE
TRYING TO GET TO BETWEEN 2 AND 4
WEEKS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT
THAT COST MIGHT BE? I'M I WOULD
HAVE TO HAVE STEVEN SPEAK TO THE
SPECIFICS OF THE BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE
OCCURRING. THERE MAY BE SOME
LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES WHICH,
DESPITE ADDING ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES, COULD NOT GET IT DOWN
TO A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD OF TWO
WEEKS. BUT I WILL HAND IT OVER
TO CHIEF WOOLERY. YEP. SO TWO
WEEKS. IT'S THAT'S, YOU KNOW,
TIGHT. THAT'S NOT REALISTIC JUST
BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY MOVING
PARTS. SOMETIMES IT TAKES US TWO
WEEKS TO ASSIGN THE BACKGROUND
INVESTIGATION. SOMETIMES WE ARE
WAITING FOR RESPONSES FROM, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE THAT WE'VE
CONTACTED FOR CHARACTER WITNESS
INFORMATION OR WE'RE TRYING TO
REACH SOMEONE THAT MAYBE, MAYBE
THEY'RE ON VACATION AND WE CAN'T
REACH THEM. THERE'S JUST NUANCES
THERE THAT I THINK TO BE ON THE
SAFE SIDE, WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW,
NOT CONSIDER TWO, TWO WEEKS, BUT
MAYBE LOOK INTO THE MAYBE FOUR
TO 4 TO 6 WEEK TIME FRAME. OKAY.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. WE
CERTAINLY AS I SAID, I'VE HEARD
FROM MULTIPLE AGENCIES THAT THE
TIME IT TAKES TO GET THE
BACKGROUND CHECKS CERTAINLY DOES
IMPACT IN MANY CASES. SOMETIMES
WHEN A PERSON CHOOSES TO GO TO
ONE DEPARTMENT VERSUS ANOTHER.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS,
HELP AND SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU
CAN DO WITHIN YOUR DEPARTMENT TO
GET US WITHIN 30 DAYS OR CLOSE
THEREOF WOULD BE REALLY, REALLY
HELPFUL BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE MAINTAIN ALL OF THE BEST
AND TALENTED AND, YOU KNOW, BEST
AND BRIGHTEST THAT ARE LOOKING
TO JOIN PUBLIC SERVICE. AND THAT
CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM CHILD CARE
WORKERS TO EVEN COACHES,
TEACHERS. NOW, THERE ARE SO MANY
POSITIONS AND I CAN UNDERSTAND
I'M SURE THE WORKLOAD IS QUITE
INTENSE. SO WE APPRECIATE ALL OF
YOUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO
HELPING YOU TO COMPLETE IT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ALL
RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, FOLKS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THAT WOULD CONCLUDE ISSUE
NUMBER SIX. AND NOW WE'LL OPEN
IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THE
PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ANY OF THE
ISSUES ON THE AGENDA TO ENSURE
THAT EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO BE
HEARD. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO ONE MINUTE. THANK
YOU. AND IF THERE ARE ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK. SEEING NONE
BEFORE WE ADJOURN, YOU KNOW, WE
DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS TODAY ON
THE FLOOR SESSION, AND STAFF HAS
BEEN WORKING SO HARD TO GIVE US
ALL THE BACKGROUND THAT WE NEED.
SO WHEN THESE IMPORTANT
DECISIONS COME UP, I WILL SAY,
THOUGH, THAT CERTAINLY WE'RE
GOING TO AND I DID SPEAK TO MISS
NORA ABOUT THIS. WE'RE CERTAINLY
GOING TO NEED TO, I THINK, HAVE
A PROPOSITION 36 PRESENTATION AT
SOME POINT PRIOR TO FINAL BUDGET
DECISIONS, BECAUSE THERE IS
GREAT INTEREST AMONGST THE
MEMBERS OF WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS
THAT WE'RE SEEING THAT ARE
HAPPENING, WHAT ARE THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT? SO ANY
PREPARATION THAT YOU CAN BEGIN,
I'M SURE OUR STAFF WILL BE
CONTACTING YOU. BUT JUST TO GIVE
YOU A HEADS UP, WE CERTAINLY I
THINK, ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE
A VERY PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE SEEING THAT'S HAPPENING
THUS FAR. WITH THAT BEING SAID,
THANK YOU TO THE SERGEANTS AND
EVERYONE WHO ASSISTED US TODAY.
THANK YOU TO ALL THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY. IF YOU WERE NOT ABLE
TO TESTIFY TODAY, PLEASE SUBMIT
YOUR COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS IN
WRITING TO THE BUDGET AND FISCAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE OR VISIT OUR
WEBSITE. YOUR COMMENTS AND
SUGGESTIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO US,
AND WE WANT TO INCLUDE YOUR
TESTIMONY IN THE OFFICIAL
HEARING RECORDS. THANK YOU FOR
EVERYONE WHO FOR YOUR
PARTICIPATION. WE HAVE NOW
CONCLUDED THE AGENDA FOR TODAY'S
HEARING AND THE SENATE BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE NUMBER FIVE ON
CORRECTIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY,
JUDICIARY, LABOR AND
TRANSPORTATION IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. MADAM.