HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171039Present:
WELD COUNTY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Centennial Center, 3rd Floor, Conference Rooms A & B
915 10th Street, Greeley
Judge Thomas Quammen, Robb Miller, Michael Rourke, Roger
Ainsworth, Mike McCormick, Jerry Green, Dianna Campbell, Hugo
Sanchez, Daniel Darnell, Commissioner Julie Cozad, Jim Merson, Jeff
French, Dionne Sund, Keith Coleman, Alex Walker, Karen Salaz, Doug
Erler, Kamie Cooley
In Judge Hartmann's absence, he named Judge Quammen the Chair for this meeting. Judge
Quammen called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m.
1. Introduction of attendees
a. Judge Quammen also welcomed Commissioner, Julie Cozad and presenter,
Alexandra Walker, with the Colorado State Parole Board to today's meeting.
2. Approval of Agenda
a. The agenda was accepted with no changes. Robb Miller moved to approve, Jerry
Green seconded, the motion passed.
3. Meeting Minutes
a. Robb Miller motioned to accept the October 11, 2016 meeting minutes with no
changes, Roger Ainsworth seconded and the motion carried.
4. Brief Update -Court Date Notification Program
a. Karen Salaz gave a brief overview of the new Court Date Notification Program,
approved by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. Efforts to create the Court
Date Notification Program were borne out of this committee. Karen reported that
Pretrial Services Supervisor, Kamie Cooley, and Justice Services Director, Doug
Erler and herself conducted interviews to fill the new position and Ms. Ruby Jaime -
Soto was hired. She is set to start on January 16, 2017. The objective of the program
is to improve the appearance of persons summoned into Division A and then
hopefully expanded into other divisions. The Commissioners approved and
budgeted the position in its Justice Services Department. (Ruby's office will be
located on the 3rd floor of the Centennial Center.) Doug thanked Karen, as she has
been helpful to provide certain Division A docket reports, guidance and input.
Judge Quammen noted two key elements of this new program: decrease failure to
appear rates and cost avoidance/savings to Weld County through better jail
utilization. Judge Quammen supports the program and is excited to see its future
outcomes. Karen reported that Judge Hartmann contacted all Weld County Chiefs
GrYICY1Oc) S
2017-1039
of Police asking them to communicate within their agencies the importance of
denoting legible phone numbers on tickets issued. Commissioner Julie Cozad
commented by stating it was an easy decision to approve funding for the program
by the board, based on the expected return on investment. She also supports the
choice made by hiring Ruby and appreciates the group's hard work to get the
program off the ground.
5. Colorado State Board of Parole Presentation
a. Doug Erler introduced Ms. Alexandra Walker, Colorado State Parole Board
member. In her presentation, Alex reported that she was appointed by the Governor
to serve on the board last year. Seven (7) members serve on the board. Joe Morales,
Chair, Rebecca Oakes, Vice Chair, John O'Dell, Denise Balazic, Alfredo Pena,
Brandon Mathews and herself. She reported their mission is to make fair, good
decisions regarding parole offenders and release. She explained the different types
of Parole, Mandatory Parole Dates (MRD) and Discretionary Parole. Mandatory
Parole is the release of an inmate required by statute. The MRD is the date set in
statute in which an inmate must be released and to a specified period of
parole. Parole Eligibility Date (PED), is the first date an inmate is eligible for
parole. Discretionary Parole is the release of an inmate prior to their MRD. The
Parole Board must decide who is released between the PED and MRD. Alex said
the board typically conducts three (3) types of hearings. Application Hearings for
offenders are typically held annually. Revocation Hearings are sought if the
parolee receives a new conviction or has a significant violation of their Parole
Agreement. Rescission Hearings are those that are held when parole, or re -parole,
is granted and prior to going into effect an individual receives a disciplinary action
or experiences challenges in their presented parole plan. Hearings are held by
video, phone, in person or as a file review. The Parole Board Member's daily tasks
include a maximum of 24 Application Hearings, with additional Revocation or
Recession Hearings and file reviews as scheduled. The members prep for hearings,
review assessments, treatment participation, historical and current offender
behaviors and parole plans, and then once decisions are made, the hearings must be
second signed, or signed off by a second board member. The Board Members also
sign off on warrants for parolees. In 2016, the board held 16,188 Application
Hearings, 2,205 Full Board reviews, 7,055 Revocation Hearings, 673 Rescission
Hearings, and signed 603 waivers (averaging about 2,200 decisions each
month). The board wrote 2,222 arrest warrants, 692 parole early release reviews
(by statute, after 50% to sentence offenders are eligible to be reviewed), 42 special
needs parole hearings (mental health and medical conditions that make it difficult
for inmates to remain in prison), 48 interstate probable cause hearings, and 62 sex
offender supervision level reduction requests. The Parole Board uses a decision -
making tool called the PBRGI (risk and readiness tool). She said the board has
found the tool lacks some key information, as it does not always take into
consideration misdemeanor cases, quality of parole plan(s) or offender
criminogenic needs. However, she said the tool is a good start and the board is
trying to work with the DCJ to enhance and validate it. The board is enhancing new
board member training, trying to automate the revocation process/system
(paperless), often makes site visits and presents at stakeholder meetings like the
CJAC. Judge Quammen asked how sex offenders up for parole are considered for
release. Alex said these inmates must meet criteria, and complete SOMB treatment,
if not these offenders do not typically get parole. She said treatment and
programming in the DOC is difficult to receive (waiting list). Jim Merson with the
Public Defender's office asked how the Parole Board screens determinant sentences
vs. indeterminate sentences. Alex reported indeterminate offender sentences are
getting priority for treatment; determinant offender sentences typically do not
receive treatment because of a lack of resources. Jim asked if the waitlist was
improving at the DOC. From Alex's personal experience, the waitlist has not
improved and is typically set out 5-20 years. She stated and made clear that the
Parole Board is not under the DOC, a common misperception. Judge Quammen
asked what the revocation process is in relation to and between Parole Officers and
the Parole Board, while making reference to a current article published in the
Denver Post. Alex reported the process and expectations have changed over the
years by the Parole Division in how they consider revoking parolees for technical
violations, and for new alleged offenses. Alex pointed out that the board is only
able to revoke/modify parole based on the information submitted by Parole Officers
and those officers answer to the DOC. Some discussion arose regarding if all new
law violations are being brought to the board and the concern for public safety.
Local Parole Supervisor, Jeff French said Parole Officers are limited when it comes
to reporting parolee non-compliance to the board. Judge Quammen asked if
Administrative Hearing Officers are part of the board. Alex reported there are two
(2) Administrative Hearing Officers, both attorneys, whom assist the board. Court
Administrator, Karen Salaz asked if the board reviewed juveniles. Alex said
Youthful Offender System (YOS) hearings are rare and that most juveniles fall
under the Juvenile Parole Board who are also appointed. Judge Quammen asked if
dual supervision (parole and probation) was common. Chief Probation Officer,
Jerry Green said that typically one of the agencies assumes primary supervision of
the offender, with coordination between both parties. Dionne Sund from
Intervention Community Corrections Services (ICCS) asked if the Parole Board
had a general philosophy regarding Transition offenders (inmates in DOC coming
to local community corrections programs before parole) and the accepting and
denying of these cases by programs or Community Corrections Boards. She said
personally, she believes transitioning offenders into these programs is beneficial
and it helps the board make decisions that are more informed on offender
applications to parole supervision. Keith Coleman, Private Attorney, asked why
offenders are not able to self -revoke on parole. Alex said if the offender has a
pending case, they could not self -revoke but can for technical violations. Jeff
French commented on homeless parolees, and mentioned that the majority of those
cases are paroled because of the MRD. The board is hopeful that Condition of
Parole beds may be better utilized in the future. Alex made it clear that if parole
plans are changed, the board can hold a Rescission Hearing to stop the release of
an inmate. Jim Merson expressed interest to know what a parole plan entails. Alex
said about a month before the offenders anticipated parole hearing date, residence,
employment, and support groups are denoted in a report made by the inmate with
his/her assigned case manager in prison or at the community corrections program.
The Parole Board member then seeks to understand things, like why is this a good
place for you? Why were you unsuccessful previously at this address? She said
reference letters are strongly encouraged. Doug Erler also explained to say
community corrections programs are able to verify local locations for Parolees and
for good community reentry. Alex said when the offender is in community
corrections program the Parole Board has much higher confidence when reviewing
the offenders listed residence and employment, because it is verified and
current. Robb Miller from the DA's Office asked if victim input affects board
decisions. Alex said the board takes victim input seriously and into consideration
before rendering release decisions. She said victim input is frequent. She asked the
CJAC for their feedback on what the board could do to improve processes. Robb
Miller said calculation of sentences and in how to express better to the public is
needed, Keith Coleman commented that each case is different and that information
is usually an educated estimate, when working with his clients. DA, Michael
Rourke, expressed his general frustration that parolees are not always being held
accountable. Alex said she understands his frustration and said the board will
continue to be diligent to review offender risk, readiness, good and bad behaviors
and parole plans before releasing offenders and that Parole offices throughout the
state are working hard to meet stakeholder expectations. Attendees generally
agreed that legislation may be need to improve frustrations currently being felt with
Parole services. Alex reiterated again that the board is independent from the DOC
but understands some of these frustrations.
Overall, the CJAC had a good question and answer session, and they thanked Ms.
Walker for her attendance and presentation.
6. Subcommittee Reports
a. Sheriffs Office Jail Reports
i. Roger Ainsworth reported that for 2017, the Weld County Jail Admission
Information and reports would no longer include Alternative Programs
(Work Release & Electronic Home Monitoring sentences) data as it is now
under Justice Services Department. The statistical information he reported
on for the CJAC included Work Release and EHM offender information.
b. Alternative Programs -Work Release/EHM
i. Dianna Campbell, Alternative Programs Director, reported the program has
been overseen by the Justice Services Department for a year. She reported
that for 2016 YTD there were 1,413 scheduled orientations at Work Release
and 1,333 were completed for 2016. Of those, 467 were
transported/transfers from the jail and 866 were self -report, walk-ins.
Forty-four percent of the charge types at Work Release were for alcohol -
related traffic offenses. Sixty seven percent of the Work Release discharges
were for successful completions. Twenty one percent of the regression
types were for clients submitting positive BA's and 21% for positive UA's.
The Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) program completed 580
scheduled orientations; with 88% of those, being walk-ins and 1% required
additional TAD monitoring. Of that population, 61% were for non -alcohol
traffic offenses. Ninety percent of EHM discharges were successful
completions. Of the regressions, 21% were regressed for alleged new crimes
and 79% for technical violations.
c. Pretrial Services
i. Kamie Cooley, Pretrial Services Supervisor, reported on 2016 YTD
statistics for the Pretrial Services (PTS) program. She reported on the
average year-to-date Public Safety rate of 85%, which means 15% of the
defendants supervised cases had new law enforcement contact whereas
either a Summons or arrest occurred. The technical compliance rate was
91%, which means 9% of the defendant supervised bond or summons
cases were revoked, most notably for positive urinalyses, missed
urinalyses and/or lost contact. The Court Appearance rate was 85%,
which means 15% of the closed supervision cases these defendants did not
appear for a court hearing and a warrant was issued. She noted that 2016
compared favorably with 2015 data. Pretrial Services personnel
completed 3,052 Bail Reports for judicial officials (average of 254 each
month). On the supervision side of Pretrial Services, the program
maintained an average daily population of 871 defendants under pretrial
supervision with an average of 191 new monthly intakes and an average of
212 monthly case closures. Our program completed 2,289 intakes by
defendant and 2,446 intakes by case.
7. Roundtable
a. At the request of Judge Hartmann he had asked Doug to communicate with the
CJAC that due to a scheduling conflict with another committee he sits on that
meets on the same days as the CJAC, he regretfully can no longer serve as the
Chair of the CJAC. At the next meeting, the CJAC will have the opportunity to
elect a new Chair. Doug also asked the group to forward him agenda items for
future meetings.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. The next CJAC meeting will
be Tuesday April 11, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
Kamie Cooley
Pretrial Services Supervisor
Reviewed by,
Doug Erler
Director, Weld County Justice Services
Department
Hello