Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Okay, let me go ahead and call the Senate Committee on Rules to order. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the public, in-person, and via teleconference service, which we will provide during the hearing. We're holding our committee hearing in the O Street building in Room 2200. For individuals who wish to provide public comment via the teleconference service, the participant toll free number and access code are posted on our committee website. It's on the screen as well. 877-226-8163. And the access code is 6948930.

On behalf of our court reporter, I will, again, ask all speakers, colleagues, witnesses alike, to speak slowly and clearly. Before we begin our agenda, we need to establish a quorum. So, colleagues, you'll need to turn on your microphone for the roll call and every time we vote. With that, Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll.

Laird. Here. Ochoa Bogh. Present. Smallwood-Cuevas. Here. Grove. Here. Atkins. Here.

We are all present. Let me dispense with some other items before we call up those for confirmation today. We will start with Governor's Appointees not required to appear. I have 2- E and F, are our colleagues okay taking those together? Thank you. That's a yes. Madam Vice Chair made a motion. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

Thank you. 5-0. Item 3, bill referrals. A motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

5-0. Thank you. Our last item would be Floor Acknowledgments, and that is Items 4-9.

So moved.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Call the roll.

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

Thank you. 5-0. So, we will go ahead and move to Governor's Appointees required to appear. These are Commissioners for the Board of Parole Hearings. We have four individuals that I will go ahead and call forward. You can see the name tags are up at the desk. Patricia Cassady, J.D. Lawrence D. Nwajei, Michael E. Ruff, and Mary E. Thornton, J.D., please come on up with my welcome.

What we will do -- in taking all four of you at the same time -- we will do the introductions, and I will ask you to introduce yourself, acknowledge or thank anyone you would like to, and make some opening comments. Then we'll go down the line. And we'll start with you, Ms. Cassady, and then follow along down the line. And then we'll go to members of our committee for questions and comments. So, welcome. Let's make sure the mic is on. It might just need to be directed more towards you. Okay, perfect.

Okay. I first want to thank-

-Somehow that's not -- Can we look at -- We want to hear you, so let's make -- It's on? Okay, maybe just move the mic closer to your-

-how's that? There we go.

Great. Thank you so much. Go ahead.

Thank you. I first want to thank Governor Newsom for this reappointment. I'm honored to be given the opportunity to continue in the position that I have been in since 2016, and I perceive that position to be in the interest of public safety, as well as fair and impartial hearings. I also want to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have and possibly continue in the position.

With that, just a brief bit about myself. I started practicing law in 1987 with a private practice. Shortly thereafter, in the beginning of 1988, actually, I got a recruitment letter from the Board of Prison Terms at the time, and began being a contracted attorney representing both life term inmates, as well as parole violators.

At the time, the Board of Prison Terms had violation hearings, so I represented both. I did that for about seven plus years. Ultimately, I was hired as a Deputy Commissioner with the Board of Parole Hearings and did that for a period of time. And since that time, I have served in various positions: Associate Chief, Chief Deputy Commissioner, and then in 2016, Governor Brown appointed me as a Commissioner, and subsequently Governor Newsom appointed me, and reappointed me in 2019, and again in 2022. Then, that puts me here today.

So, as far as my family, I don't have anybody here with me today, but I do have four sons that I'm very proud of. None of them are able to be with me today. One is actually in the Navy and in Japan at this time. Fortunately for me, I was able to finally go visit him after the COVID restrictions were lifted between the United States and Japan -- we seem to be going back and forth. But, I was able to finally visit him this March, and that was wonderful.

So, as far as my career, I covered coming to the board and being a deputy commissioner. So as a result of my time with the Board of Parole Hearings, as well as representing life term inmates and parole violators, I've spent about half my life with the board. And, during that time, I've seen many, many positive changes, far too many to try to go into today. But, there have been really positive changes.

The most important, I think, is that parole grants are being given, and that gives the incarcerated persons the opportunity and the hope. With the programming that we've added to the prisons, it gives them the opportunity to actually participate in rehabilitation rather than just being able to give lip service and hear about it.

The rehabilitation has been provided not only in our prisons, but has also been provided in the community with the transitional housing, the number of programs that have been made available, the number of previously incarcerated persons that have gotten together to help the recently released make that transition. And that's really important because in my opinion, there's nothing that I could ever -- I can say I understand -- but I've never lived through it.

So, with the previously incarcerated persons helping the presently released people, they know what they went through and they can actually relate to it better. So, I think programming both in and out is very important. It gives them the hope, it motivates them to be the best people they can be. Another important change that has occurred during the period of time is that the victims' next of kin and the victims are given an opportunity to speak. That's important. They weren't when I first started representing life term inmates. They are now.

It's a difficult balance for the hearing officer. I mean, our job is to stay fair and impartial -- to listen to all sides. It's sometimes difficult to hear them relive the pain, but satisfying on the other side to hear and listen to the rehabilitation. So, I strongly believe in second chances, and I'm proud to have served on the board for as long as I have, and I hope you give me the opportunity to continue to serve in this capacity.

Thank you very much. Go right ahead, Mr. Nwajei.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, president pro tem and honorable Senators. My name is Lawrence D. Nwajei. And I'm honored to, again, appear before you. Spanning almost 28 years now, I have been a member in good standing of the California State Bar. I joined the Board of Parole Hearings in 2020 as an administrative law judge and a deputy commissioner. In October of 2021, the Governor appointed me as a commissioner, and I was confirmed, by this August, body.

Before that I worked in the private sector, as an attorney, representing corporate and individual clients, including defendants, incarcerated persons and juveniles. I was privileged to have also served as a judge pro tem in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Serving as a Commissioner of the Board of Parole Hearings is a necessary, impactful, and rewarding job -- especially because of our mandate and mission statement, to protect and preserve public safety, while ensuring due process to all stakeholders.

I personally, through my life's journey and career, have come to believe in the power of restorative justice, redemption, hope, rehabilitation and a second chance for those who have made mistakes and are committed to positive change. Please permit me to use this opportunity to thank Governor Newsom for reappointing me to serve in this position, subject to your confirmation.

I will also crave your indulgence to allow me to acknowledge and thank my wife and partner of 26 years, Patricia, and our now adult children, Lauren, Chidi and Christina, who provide the impetus for my daring to be the best that I can and the humility that comes with falling short. I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have, and I thank you, honorable Senators, for your kind consideration.

Thank you very much. Mr. Ruff.

Good afternoon.

Make sure -- yeah.

Good afternoon, Chairman and the members of the Senate Committee. I'm honored to be here today, seeking your approval to continue my public service. This will be my second term as a commissioner with the Board of Parole. I'm very grateful and was honored to be appointed by Governor Brown in 2017. I was also grateful and honored to be reappointed by Governor Newsom. I don't think that the job description could accurately account for the significant amount of work it takes to conduct a parole suitability hearing.

This position requires exceptional degree of judgment, fairness, and a commitment to public safety. I take this job very serious, as do my colleagues. Every week, we make important decisions that impact the lives of so many people: the victims, the incarcerated person, and the families of both. In my tenure as a board member, which has been approximately six and a half years, I've conducted almost 2000 parole suitability hearings. All of our decisions are difficult. All of our decisions adhere to the rule of law.

It has been an honor serving the public and my country for 39 years, and I humbly ask for your support to allow me to continue serving the great state of California as a commissioner. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ms. Thornton.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I want to thank the Governor for this reappointment and for the opportunity to serve the people of this state. And thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I do want to introduce and thank my husband, Peter Wall, for being with me here today. Prior to serving as a commissioner for the Board of Parole Hearings, my career has given me unique experiences that now enhance my serving the state of California in this way.

My career began with approximately a decade as a prosecutor, first as an intern in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Fresno for the Eastern District of California during my final year of law school, then, as a deputy district attorney for both Madeira and Kings counties, prosecuting a variety of crimes ranging from DUI to murder, and working with hundreds of victims during that time. In 2018, I became a deputy commissioner for the Board of Parole Hearings prior to my initial appointment in 2019.

And that first position allowed me to be involved in hearings and to be familiarized with the hearing process, as well as to witness -- firsthand -- people who have rehabilitated themselves even after lengthy histories of criminal behavior. I completed my first term as a commissioner last year in 2022. The transition from prosecutor to commissioner has been one where, instead of seeing only the harm and destruction caused in people's lives by criminal conduct, to one where I get to witness change, rehabilitation and restoration, and where that change is still an ongoing process.

I'm able to give hope by providing direction and a path forward. This background has given me an interest in justice, as well as rehabilitation, and I'm honored to be doing this work, and doing so as a proud representative of our state's Central Valley. My goals as a commissioner include to continue doing my best to determine where incarcerated individuals continue to pose unreasonable risk to public safety, and which have sufficiently rehabilitated and no longer present such risk, and by doing so, provide justice and protection for our community.

In addition, I always aim to be fair, respectful, and as prepared as possible. I look forward to answering your questions today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, if you would like to begin.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you, all, for being here today. This is one of the toughest jobs that we have in the state and glad to see such a diverse group of leaders stepping in into this important role. I wanted to start -- and maybe I'll hold for Ms. Thornton because I have a separate question for you -- but maybe the other board members could help to answer this question.

The LAO had a report that talked about how the Board of Parole Hearings provided data to the committee that found all ethnicities were given grants somewhere between -- around the mid-30 percentile. What I found interesting about that information was sort of how the recent rule violations, the 115s, were affecting that grant percentage. The percentage dropped significantly to the mid-teens.

For people seeking parole who have had recent rules violations, there appears to be a heavy reliance on these recent rules violations within the parole process. And I wondered if you all could answer -- the first three board members -- How do you look at the administrative rules violation? How does it factor into your decision making? And what do you consider recent? It seems that there are probably a lot of questions that you have to weigh.

But I'm curious, would you ask an individual who's had a recent 115 leading up to their hearing to sort of rethink them coming before the parole board? I guess what I'm getting at is, does the 115 prevent folks? Do they stipulate? Do they decide not to appear before you? How does that affect -- and how do you weigh these 115 violations?

So, do you want to start with Cassady?

I'll start with Ms. Cassady and work our way down.

Can you identify what a 115 is just for the public who-

Okay, sorry about that.

You can. If you would, since you're kicking it off.

115s come in the -- Can you hear me?

115s come in the form of administrative or serious. Then, the 128-As are also disciplinary actions that are referred to as counseling chronos and are less severe. So are you asking me -- I wasn't clear because you did use the term administrative -- so are you referring to just the administrative or also the serious 115s?

Yes, we can.

Okay, just the administrative. So that's going to be more along the lines of: disobeying an order and those types of things rather than fighting or rioting and various things like that. Well, for me personally, the administrative -- it depends what it is. I mean, first of all, it depends on how many times they've received the same type of 115, how many times they have disobeyed, because they're usually given warnings before they receive an administrative 115. An administrative 115 is usually after quite a few 128-As and verbal warnings.

Administrative.

So, if -- I'm going to talk to them about it -- it's not going to have the same weight, in all likelihood, as a serious 115 by any means, but it's going to have some weight because they've repeated the behavior enough for it to be a 115, administrative or otherwise. But it's certainly not going to have the same weight. I'm going to discuss it with them. It does have a hearing attached to it, unlike the 128-A, which does not get a hearing and has much less weight because they didn't get an opportunity to speak in those.

But I'm going to talk about it. I'm going to see if it has any impact on prior behavior or any impact on -- let's say they were in the community and they built up to whatever, whether they're a third strike robbery or something that's along the theft lines -- well, if the administrative 115 is continuing to be theft, in some manner, from the prison, the food, it's usually with food out of the kitchen, I'm going to talk to them about whether they see the connection between their past behavior. And a lot of the weight that I give it is going to be their responses to my questions. Does that answer your question?

Thank you, Senator, for that question. Along the lines of -- first of all, let me echo the same sentiments as expressed by Commissioner Cassidy. But I did also hear you, when you mentioned in your questioning, whether recent violations would cause someone to stipulate. And that's an important question because it really shouldn't. But again, without -- this is generally speaking -- there are different kinds of violations, some are more serious than others.

If someone is about to go to the board for a date to be considered for parole suitability, and they commit a violent crime, they engage in an assault, it behues them with the kinds of lawyers that they have -- very well trained lawyers -- to make that decision. But we don't compel them to stipulate or waive the rules of the processes that we have in place. Clearly, it is very clear to most people that appear before the board what the board expects for them to be found suitable.

It's a rule that is clear. The advocates that they have prepare them -- lawyers are appointed, for each person who cannot afford one, to come to the hearing. And so, the bottom line here is if someone engages in recent rule violations that are serious and violent, then they make that decision. On the other hand, if the rule violation is, as such described by Commissioner Cassidy, administrative in nature, and the council and..., it shouldn't preclude them, bearing other factors that are considered, from being found suitable.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I don't have very much to add. I concur with both Commissioner Cassidy and Commissioner Nwajei in regards to administrative RVRs. As regards to whether or not they should come to the hearing, that's a legal decision that they'll have to discuss with their attorney.

Each -- or most of the incarcerated persons will receive a consultation four to five years before their initial hearing, and in that consultation, you go through different areas vocations, education -- and then there's a box where you go through institution behavior. And in that discussion, that subject of violations is discussed. And we all have different ways that we conduct our consultation, but we have a format, and the message is usually the same: remain disciplinary-free.

It demonstrates that, in a controlled environment, you can follow the rules. Because when you're on parole, you're not in a controlled environment, you're not being supervised. So, you have to demonstrate in this environment, that you're going to function. Because your parole agent will say, "I need you to come in," and if you're not following those rules, and you're not doing those little things in a controlled environment, it's a concern for our panel.

I have granted, as I think all my colleagues have granted, individuals with administrative violations, but it really does depend on what type of violation and how many times they've been violating that particular area.

I really appreciate those answers. We had, from our office, a number of advocates and family members who talk about how the rules violations can be very arbitrary. And we have had members of -- the prison directors and staff come before us. And certainly, there are some pretty abominable things that are happening at the hands of guards and staff within the prisons. And there's been some indication that these rules can be arbitrary.

Sometimes it creates a barrier for folks to be able to go through their parole process. And these are minor infractions that might hold folks to stipulate or to waive their hearing because some arbitrary rule was thrown at them at the last minute. And we want to make sure that there is fairness in the process, to be able to really evaluate those, and that it really does not keep folks from exercising their opportunity to parole.

So I appreciate you clarifying that in the objectivity and structured way that you come to that decision making. My question for you, Commissioner Thornton -- another thing that the LAO has pointed out to us is just how there is a significant amount of discretion that the Board of Parole Hearings has and commissioners have. And we did learn a lot about the structured decision making framework, which was really helpful to understand, but there is some level, still, of discretion in determining that process.

In looking at just the grant rates across many of the commissioners, your grant rate was at about 20 percent, and that was half as much as several of your peers. And I was just curious, how are you approaching structured decision making, since your grant rate is well below the board average? Just wanted to get a sense of what your thinking is. And is there a sense of discretion playing a role in that?

Well, first of all, I know my grant rate has varied over time, and so I think it has been higher at other times. And I have had assignments where I have gone to or had hearings at higher level institutions, which has generally some people who have maybe higher CRA ratings, or they have more recent write ups, more recent violent behaviors. I think that may have played somewhat of a role.

But I view structured decision making -- it's an evidence-based tool that we use to evaluate what are the real risk factors for a person. And so when I'm prepping for a case, I'm reading the file, I'm reading the CRA, the Comprehensive Risk Assessment, I'm reading all of this about the person, and I'm making notes on what I see this person's risk factors are.

What are the main risk factors? Is it violence? Is it gang mentality? Is it anger? Is it drugs? What are the main issues? And so what I'm focused on during the hearing are what that person's risk factors are. And so, the things that help us, I think, kind of counteract a discretion. First of all, is we use this evidence-based tool. Second of all, we're on a two-person panel. And so, I'm not making any decision on my own.

It's a very deliberative process with my colleague, a deputy commissioner, during the hearing and during our deliberations, on where we see this person at in the process of rehabilitation -- where are they now? And so, that's a give and take there, where it's a joint decision. And I know that all of our decisions are reviewed, as well, by the Governor, but before that, by our own legal team. And then there's the whole en banc process, too.

And so, there's a number of steps, I think, really. I know we're the ones hearing the case, but we have all these tools to really help reduce it. Because our decisions aren't made on feelings, they're made on facts, they're made from the case, and they are focused on what risk factors are. And these are evidence-based programs that we're using.

I appreciate that. I didn't know exactly how the grant process is evaluated and reviewed, and if there were discrepancies that showed someone who was given 80 percent grant rates, right. There would be a question about how one comes to that. And so, yeah, I just wanted to get a better sense of how your grant rate is so much lower than others. And that was helpful to understand, given what prisons you might be assigned to, and the populations that you're reviewing. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Good afternoon and welcome. Pleasure to have you here today and have an opportunity to ask some questions and get to know a little bit more about your thought process. But I just want to follow up on my colleague's question, which is not part of my question -- so, a little grace here. You don't get to choose the inmates that you evaluate?

No, we're given an assignment and our hearings are generally at the same institution for a whole week. Not always, but generally, now. And the people who have the hearings, they're on the calendar, so we're just assigned that. So, we don't have any say in whose hearings we are assigned.

You could also have a little tougher inmates to evaluate at some point, than others.

So I've seen that sometimes, where I go to a lower level institution or other hearings, and I have a week where I have a bunch of high CRA individuals, and it's kind of surprising because at certain times, I get a lower level institution, then to have a number of high CRAs. It's not the norm for that, but it's just kind of how it plays.

I'm glad that she asked those questions because it really does give me a little more perspective and context in looking at those parole grant percentages that are being given.

There's a lot of variance there.

There are, there are. So, my questions have to do with your thought process and evaluation processes when it comes to sexual offense inmates. And so, it's our understanding -- my understanding -- I say our because it's our team, but it's my understanding that given the lack of sexual offense treatment programs in our prisons -- and I don't know exactly, I don't have the data in front of me, as to how many of those do we have actively -- or how the capacity and how active they are within the state prisons --

But how do you evaluate those inmates who have a history of violent criminal sexual offenses, and whether they have been able to address those crimes and become suitable for parole? Have you had that happen in your experiences?

Are you directing that to me, or-

To all of you. I'm sorry. And I apologize, because I was following up on my colleagues questions, but this question is for each and every one of you.

Why don't you go ahead and ask -- Let's break it up, so you don't always answer first. Mr. Nwajei, why don't you start, followed by Mr. Ruff, and we'll do it that way. Is that okay?

Oh, perfect.

Thank you. And thank you, Senator, for that question. I think it's safe to assume that all of us here have had the occasion to appear to have someone who has -- who is a sex offender -- appear before us for a suitability hearing. It is also a known fact that a violent sexual offender is a danger to the public. And so, typically in those hearings that are uniquely set apart by the controlling case, that is a sex offense.

For me personally, I expect the incarcerated person, to at least have a fundamental training as to why he committed those sex offenses and, if possible, to understand what his triggers, warning signs and coping tools are, so that in the event of him being granted parole, that he does not go back into the community and reoffend and cause another victim.

With that being said, I know, Senator, that you also know that there is limited opportunities for formal programming for sex offenders in the prison. I am also aware that the CDCR and the board are working towards expanding that access to such a program to help these incarcerated persons. But we've also in the-

In many years now, even prior to my coming to the board, it's been emphasized, especially during the consultation, that all incarcerated persons have, that they should do the best they can to inform themselves about their conditions, their diagnosis.

And we encourage them to do courses by correspondence, by self help, going to the library, reading up on the topic, writing book reports about the subject, and generally do a deep reflection on how they came to be that person. If they do these things, as many of them do, then it is not a bar that because they didn't have a formal programming for sex offending, therefore they wouldn't be found suitable.

But it is a requirement, and I think it is based on the need for public safety that they do some deep reflection and do some work in at least understanding that diagnosis as a sex offender.

Thank you for the question. So, yes, we do have sex offenders. We have quite a few, and we have them in our hearings on a regular basis. And no, there's not any formalized rehabilitative programming. We actually rely on the incarcerated person to do independent work. We make recommendations. Lighthouse Nine is one; Road to Freedom. We rely heavily on the comprehensive risk assessment.

The doctor has that discussion with the individual about the crime, and in that discussion, whether or not he--and it's usually males--have self awareness of the offense, as Commissioner stated, understanding if they're diagnosed with a pedophilia disorder, what does that mean? That's usually a question in the hearing, do you know what that diagnosis is? And if their response demonstrates they have not or don't, and that it's not a one time thing, because sometimes I can't speak for all of the commissioners, but we all do consultations.

And with the sex offenders, I tell them, I says, I'm going to tell you guys, with a sex offender, in my experience, you've had a hard time in the hearings because you're ashamed of your crime and you're going to have to talk about your crime because we are tasked with public safety. So, we want you to be able to talk about the crime in the hearing, what triggered that behavior and what have you done to address that behavior.

So, if you're released and let's say you have a disorder for prepubescent girls or boys and you're in the area, what are your triggers? And when you're triggered, what are you going to do about it? Often the issues that I've experienced in sex offender hearings is that the individuals that do not do very well are ashamed and they don't want to talk about it. And it's not sometimes, not always, it's not until that second, or maybe even third, hearing where they're past that point of being ashamed to talk about it. And they've addressed the issues, they know what the disorder is, and they're able to address it.

I had a hearing not too long ago where I asked a question, when was the last time you felt triggered? And the response was last week. And I said, what triggered you? He said, It was a commercial. There was a little kid in a commercial and I was triggered. I said, what did you do about it? And he said, consequential thinking. I talked to a friend of mine who was a sponsor. I did those type of things.

So those are the type of things that we see on a weekly basis and hopefully in the future it will be available that they will have programming that is successful because it is a process that we go through. But I do personally rely heavily on the comprehensive risk assessment, and that's the first interaction with the psychologist about the crime.

Thank you. And so I would agree with my colleagues what they've said. I think asking a person do they understand why they committed this crime or this type of crime? And then also do they understand their triggers to possibly committing a similar crime in the future and what have they learned? So, when they experience those triggers in the future, they can respond differently. What coping skills, what tools, and give us some examples of those. I think those are all really important discussions to have with people.

I think another thing is kind of see if they understand the impact that their actions, their crime had on others. And so if they can come min and show an understanding, well, this is likely what my victim went through; this is likely the impacts that person is still going through. When you can tell they have a sense of empathy, that also increases the chance that person is not going to continue to do that because they have that understanding, if they express some remorse. And so I'm looking for that as well so that they really understand what they did.

I also echo the comment about having them talk about it. And so I had a consultation recently with someone who was a sex offender and he clearly had a lot of shame about it. And I told him we're going to be talking with you about the crime. And I suggested find a safe person that you can discuss your crime with because it's going to be very difficult for you to come in and talk to us about this crime if you've never talked about it.

And he was visibly emotional. He's like, well, do I have to talk about everything, why I did this? And I said, well, I was sensing he probably had experienced trauma and that may have been tied to his committing the crime. I'm saying. I'm not asking you about that now. And I don't want to cause you harm, but I'm suggesting that you deal with that.

Because if you still have that connection of some kind of trauma in your past that was connected to commit this crime, I think you need to talk about it in a safe space with someone that can help you process that. And so that's something too, is making sure that people are aware of that they're triggered, why they committed it, their tools, and then be able to recognize the empathy and the impact on others.

Thank you. I don't have much to add. I agree with everything that's been said, but I think the culture is changing now. There are a few prisons that have programs. There are a few inmates that are brave enough to meet on the yard and go through the Road to Freedom with one another because it is a workbook. They do it by themselves, by correspondence, but it's a lot more beneficial, apparently, from what they've told me, to work with others on the workbook.

I also think that the mentality is starting to change, that the public and the board, we've had training in this, so, it's not incurable. I mean, for a long time, people would say sex offenders can't be cured. We have now the perception that, but ,it can be managed. It can't be cured, but it can be managed.

And so what have they done to develop the ability to manage what the sex offender urges? And that's kind of the coping skills that Commissioner Ruff was talking about. And they develop those through, and the Lighthouse Nine consultation--they're very beneficial correspondence groups.

And the inmates, or incarcerated persons, excuse me, are becoming much braver about getting together and going to the mental health therapists to be able to have one-on-one conversations to maybe help them get started in understanding their own personal--because each one of them is different, but some of them can't talk about it at all--and they find that the therapist with CCCMS can help them come out of that and start beginning to understand their diagnosis.

And I agree with what everybody said regarding they need to understand what their diagnosis is and what that means. They need to acknowledge it. A lot of them that we have in consultations are still in denial and believe that it's all gone. It was just for that moment. And so the therapist can help them understand that. No, it's not just for that moment, but what we make sure that when you get the urge, it doesn't turn into action. And so they have that. That's really all I have to add.

Just have to say I'm so grateful that. You folks have a heart flora this type of work, because I couldn't do it. It's such a tough, tough space. So thank you for wanting to serve in this capacity.

So, I have one more question, and then I'll hear from, I guess we'll start with Ms. Cassady first, and then Mr. Nwajei and Ms. Thornton. And then I have one specific question for you, because I know want to keep it down to just two questions, I just want to make sure--

For you, you mean Mr. Ruff?

Mr. Ruff, yes.

Okay, just for the record.

Yes, Mr. Ruff. I apologize.

No, you're good. Go ahead.

So my first question, or my second question would be, can you please tell me, based on your training, what right does a victim or victim's next-of-kin have at a hearing? And are they limited in what they can talk about?Specifically, are they allowed to speak only on how the crime impacted them and are you allowed to interrupt them?

Well, I should have written those down in order.

I can repeat them.

No. Originally it was called an impact statement, and then with the Victims' Bill of Rights, it became a victim statement. They be able to speak about anything they want to speak about, for as long as they want to speak, uninterrupted. Was there another part to the question?

Well, I'm not sure, that, the part where . . . are you allowed to interrupt them at all?

No.

Okay.

Well, I mean, if there's something urgent, if there's some medical urgency or something in the room, but no, I don't interrupt them.

Perfect, so it's a standard process. Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Nwajei, would you like to have an opportunity?

Yes, Senator, and Commissioner Cassady just stated the law, the black letter law. We were reminded at my confirmation last year by by a Senator in this committee about that law. And I never forgot about it because the question was at that time directed to me. But the law is a law. We do not interrupt them. We have been trained sufficiently in this regard. Of course, barring an emergency. So that's what we do.

Thank you. Ms. Thornton?

I would add--there we go--I agree with my colleagues. The only time I have interrupted was when the person is talking to the incarcerated individual directly, and that's been more of a problem by video conference hearings because it feels more easily for them to direct their comments. And, so their comments are supposed to be directed to the panel, so I'll just redirect them. Please direct your comments to us.

Or if they've used foul language. And again, that's something that's unfortunately been increasing through video conference hearings. I think people feel a little bit more casual about their language use.

Perfect. Thank you. And then I have one special question for Mr. Ruff.

Don't want me to say anything about the--

Oh, would you like to have? Well, I had, we try to keep it to about two general questions.

I'll keep my response short. I agree with everything that everyone said in initial hearings. I always do a pre-briefing, and I talk about the hearing process, and what's going to happen, and that there's no time limit. They can talk about anything.

But I do say in my hearings, you have rights and they're protected, and you have a right to make a statement before we make a decision. And the Victims' Bill of Rights gives you that, and more participants now because this video, as where we were in person, we didn't have as many because of that process of going through and getting approved.

But what I have said in my hearings is the expectation is that you can talk about what you want, but do not make any statements that would be considered threats to the incarcerated person should they be released. We wouldn't allow him to do it. And the expectation is that you wouldn't do it.

I've had it one time where there was somebody who was part of the victim group who kept making comments during the hearing. Very disrespectful. And I warned him a couple of times. The victims--it was her husband--she removed him. She basically said, can we take a break? And he didn't come back.

So, I occasionally will say in the discussion, because a lot of times it's the first time they've seen the offender, the incarcerated person, and they're nervous and they're afraid, and they were remembering that person from 20 years or 30 years ago. And so there's a lot of fear.

And so I have that discussion with the victims, and the incarcerated person's attorney is there and the district attorney is usually there, so it's no secrets. It's something to discuss.

And most of us know and understand that the root of all anger is fear. So, it's something that we should always keep in mind. So I believe we heard a little bit of--oh, Madam Chair, would you mind if I asked for--

I think you had a second question for Mr. Ruff.

Yes, I did. Is that okay? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ruff, how important is it for you, in deciding whether or not to grant parole, to hear an inmate address why they committed the crimes for which they are incarcerated? Not so much the contributing factors as to why, but why they pulled the trigger and inflicted the harm on another human being and caused the pain for their families.

And I'm not only concerned with just getting to the why for the victims and their families, but also for that inmate and for, without truly identifying the why, the true healing doesn't come out. And I've been informed quite a bit about the AA treatment. You have to understand deeper as to why in order to begin that process in healing.

Well, I think the why is important, but there are so many different variables that come into that. And depending on who you have in front of you, when we're looking at the youth offender, they may never have a real understanding of why they did it.

A 16 year old pulling the trigger when it's a common thing that we see too often. Unfortunately, it was gang related that my gang member, someone I was associated, was murdered. So it was retaliation that was part of the why for them when they were 16 years old.

So, to answer that, it really depends on the case. Somebody who's been incarcerated now, let's say for 35 years, and they committed the crime, where they're under the influence of methamphetamine and different type of drugs. And I'm asking them why. And they're telling me, I really don't remember; I blacked out. I'm not denying that I committed the crime. Why did it? Well, I did it because I was angry. I don't know.

There are so many different variables that come into responding to that. I think why really becomes important depending on the type of crime that was committed, because the bottom line is we want the person to be able to address what the cause of factors were that contributed to that behavior.

There's times where I'll ask a person in a hearing, I'll go, so what was about your character that allowed you to take another human life? And why didn't you care? Because we expect them to be honest in the hearing. We tell them to take an oath. Raise your right hand. You saw me swear to tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth.

We expect them to tell the truth. And then when we ask that question, Why did you do it? And their response is more along the lines, well, I don't really know why I did it; I'm still trying to figure that out. And I go, well, you've been incarcerated for 25 years. You've taken all these classes. You've talked to other people. You still don't have a general idea?

No, I don't. And then that's a question I'll ask: Why do you think you don't know? But most of them do know. There's usually a root reason to why they did something.

Like I mentioned, the gang thing is common. It's usually because of so many other factors that came into it. Abandonment issues is why they joined the gang, and the sense of belonging is why they're part of the gang. And I've had people say, the gang was my family, and I would do anything for my family.

And so then that becomes the issue. So are you still part of that gang, and do you still feel that way? No, I don't. So that's the way they've already identified some of the factors, and they've mitigated that through their associations, which they're no longer either part of the gang, or they now have more of a respect for the sanctity of human life.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Vice Chair?

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Thank you, all of you. I echo my colleagues comments about you willing to take on this position. I appreciate each one of you for the comments that you've already made in the written statements you've already submitted. Some of the comments you made, is that your job every day depends on judgment, good judgment to protect the victims, public safety, and those that are incarcerated who are not entitled but have earned a position back into society, I think that takes a well balanced person.

Mr. Nwajei, I was here at your last confirmation hearing. I have no doubt all the incidents in your entire life that has shaped the person that you are with that kind, humble, genuine, balanced heart. I have no questions for you, sir, and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you, Senator.

You're welcome, sir. I just remember all those statements. One of the things that Mr. Nwajei brought up, I'd like to bring up again with the other three. Because my question was, and I think it's following up on my colleague from Los Angeles' comments, where there is a fear of maybe personal viewpoints or personal interpretation or personal feelings or anything that would get in the way of either making a decision and granting parole or not granting parole.

But my understanding is there's some type of merited process that limits that from happening. Can each of you describe what you think that process is? And I can start with Ms. Thornton on the right.

Sure. What's the process to make sure that our personal feelings don't affect if we're giving a grant of parole?

Yeah. So each person is shaped by their environment and their upbringing or their sphere of influence that surround them. So how do you make sure that your personal feelings, or the personal attributes that you have, don't interfere with either granting or not granting someone parole? Is there a structured process that says this person meets A, B, C, and D or whatever it is, or is there not, or do you perceive there be a process?

So, my process when I prepare is I read the file first, and I do that before I look at the comprehensive risk assessment. This is my process. And when I'm doing that, I'm writing down the issues I see for this person. This is the person's major risk factors.

And then I read the comprehensive risk assessment, and that's kind of like a check on myself on what I'm seeing. Like, okay, was I missing anything? Or does that kind of confirm that this clinician interviewed this person and they saw the same issues? Or maybe it's adding to or giving depth to what I've already seen. So that's my personal, like, how I prep.

And then when I go into the hearing, I'm asking the person questions in each of those areas. If it's substance abuse, it's like, okay, were you addicted in the community? What were your drugs of choice? When's the last time you used? When's the last time you were triggered? What did you do about that? And I'm evaluating, now okay, this was this risk factor that I found.

I'm looking to see, have they sufficiently addressed it? So it's not going to be an issue for them getting a grant. And then I'm going to go into maybe if it's a gang issue. And so I'm going to do that. And to me, it's systematic in my mind where I'm prepping ahead of time.

I'm noting what the risk factors are, and then I'm questioning them during the hearing to see how they've addressed that, to see if they really have an understanding, if they know their triggers in those areas, if they've learned the tools, and then going, the structured decision making really helps focus on what those risk factors are.

And so I'm not considering oh, well, their social history. I mean, that's generally proven not to be a risk factor. And so I'm not considering that. And then I'm using my partner, my colleague, to balance, to make sure that we're bouncing things off each other and we're understanding. So to me, it's all of that, and it takes the feeling out of it.

And oftentimes you look at some crimes. We deal with a lot of horrendous crimes, and personally, I have a lot of feelings about that, but that doesn't affect the decision I make. And even no matter what the crime is, if the person has earned that and they've done the work where, yes, they've addressed those risk factors and it's satisfactory, it doesn't affect my decision.

Thank you. Mr. Ruff?

I would echo--thank you for the question--I would echo Commissioner Thornton's response. My process is similar. We have a number of evidence based tools. We've talked about the structure, decision making, and that eliminates my personal beliefs.

And there's a part in my consultations, and even when I was talking about that discussion with the victims, I'll say I'll go through the whole process of what's going to happen in the hearing. At the end of it, I'll say at the conclusion, after you make your impact statement, the panel will deliberate and will return, and we'll make a decision.

The decision will be either to find the incarcerated person suitable or not suitable. If we find them suitable, then there is still a review process where our legal team reviews it, and the governor's office may weigh in on our decision. If we find them not suitable, then the denial periods, utilizing Marsy's Law Proposition Nine, will be 15 years, ten, seven, five, or three.

The denial periods are never based on the crime: they're based on how long the panel thinks it'll take for the individual to be found suitable. That response in itself says that we're not here--because we all have to be fair. We took an oath to be fair and impartial, and it was our personal reasons.

There are a number of people I've granted I didn't particularly care for, just the way that they were carrying themselves in the hearing. I told them, I said, you're quite cantankerous, and disrespectful to a certain point, but I see no reason to find you not suitable, and do it all the time. It's not about how I feel about you. It's about what the law says.

Thank you, sir. I just want to go back to Ms.. Thornton for just 1 second, please. Beg your forgiveness. You made a comment about that you counter and rely on your colleague. You're referring to your deputy?

Yes, my deputy commissioner.

Deputy commissioner. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Yes, ma'am.

I echo what my colleagues have said. I think it's important that I recognize my biases, and that there are some crimes, as Commissioner Ruff said, that are more difficult to deal with and are much less likable. And the person isn't very likable, but that has nothing to do with suitability of parole.

And so I think the structured decision making tool is very helpful in keeping us on point and pointing out any biases we may have. Why do I not want to grant him? Yet, he has done well in this, this, and this area, so I have to be mindful of my own biases.

And over the years, I think I've been able to point them out and have coping skills now to address those so that I don't let them get in the way. And as Mr., Commissioner Ruff said, I've granted a lot of people that I didn't particularly care for their behavior, their demeanor, whatever it may be.

But they did the work. They put the work in; they are suitable for parole, and they deserve, in that case, to be paroled. They were sentenced to life with possibility, and the possibility may be now for them, even though I may not like it.

And I've told incarcerated people, you're not my favorite. I've had more favorite than you. But all they hear is grant. They didn't hear what I said after that anyway. Yeah, I agree with everybody. We just have to be aware of ourselves, as well as them.

Thank you, ma'am. And I'll just ask two of you. Any two can answer. If the others want to add in, you can, because I think based on your previous comments, a lot of your comments will be the same.

You touched on this with my other colleagues, but do you think there is a fairness or an adequacy for victims' rights? Mr. Ruff, you talked about meeting a pre-meeting with victims and describing how the hearing would go and what would be expected out of the hearing and meeting victims of families.

Do you think that CDCR prepares victims for the hearing or has information that they give them that prepares them for the hearing? Do you think they receive the same amount of information that BPH would provide to an inmate or different things like, do you think that they get adequate information? And what's your--I'll ask that question last. Go ahead with that.

Are you directing it?

Mr. Ruff will start with you, sir. And, thank you for your service--I failed to say that--to our country. We shared the same rank, by the way.

Thank you. In response to the question, I think that CDC has funding and there's a lot out there for the victims. I would say for me personally, this was probably the most difficult part of the job was the victims. There's no training that prepares you for the emotions that come into those hearings when you have mothers whose only child was murdered and they're still moaning in the hearing.

Part of why I started doing the, especially at initial hearings, is because some of them don't know. And then we've had law changes if a person initially was sentenced to life without a possibly a parole, and they were told that person would never get out of prison, and now they're in that hearing, a lot of their questions are, why are we here? So, I think that I can, and I think a couple of the other programs that CDC does a great job because Los Angeles does not have a district attorney.

They're still an advocate. If there's not an advocate there, then I'll take that extra time as a commissioner. And I think most of us do that, and we'll go through the process and tell them, hey, this is the potential outcome.

And then in the event that there is going to be a grant of parole, then there's usually something I'll say to them in the hearing, and that there's other services available to them should they need further assistance regarding the decisions that made today, but they we're required to follow the law.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Thornton?

I would say there are I know there are a number of services available to victims of victims families. However, we don't necessarily know when people appear before us if they have availed themselves of any of those services. So, while there's some that you can kind of tell, maybe they've had contact, others maybe haven't taken that opportunity.

So generally, when we're doing video conference hearings now, before we start and everyone's in the lobby, I try to let the victims' family members in first to kind of give them a heads up because of the people we interact with--usually they haven't done video conference--I just try to introduce myself the panel to kind of familiarize them with what to expect to let them kind of know, and I try to do that first.

Another thing I've seen also in the video conference hearings is sometimes they'll bring a photograph, like a framed photo of the victim, and when they make their statement, they'll often hold it up. And one of the things I make a point to do is I look, and I'll tell them, hold that picture up, move it up. I want to see the person that they're talking about.

Very cool. Ms. Cassady?

Yeah, I'm not sure low much assistance they get from victim services, but I know they've increased it a lot. We've had Ms. James come during some of our training sessions and talk to about what the expansion for the victim services are going to be in the future. And it's been continuously expanding.

And again, as my colleagues said, there are other outside services. Like I-CAN, and they'll send somebody with them if they're local and able to get to them and not calling from out of state or something. But also, a lot of the prisons have victims advocates that are on the call with them if the district attorneys are not present, like Los Angeles presently is not present.

Then, I think that if the prison has a victim's advocate, they always send them or put them on the call so that they can talk to them. How much they speak to them before the hearing and give them a heads up. I try to do that. As Commissioner Ruff said, I try to give them a heads up, especially if it's an initial.

And if it's not an initial hearing, I'll ask if everybody's been to prior hearings so that I know who's never been through this before and who has, and if they need deeper explanation of what's going to go on during the hearing.

But there's a huge difference in someone that has been talked to and been prepared and someone that no one's talked to. And that's really kind of difficult because we expect them to be respectful. We expect everybody in the room to be respectful to one another. But if nobody's talked to them, they don't know what their behavior should be. They don't know what is expected of them.

So I think we all try to help them out so that everybody can go as smooth. It's a really emotionally charged environment when you have the inmates and the victims, and it's difficult for both sides.

Thank you. Mr. Nwajei, I don't want to deny you a response, if you would like to make a response, but again, sir, I can't think of anybody better to be on this board than you.

Thank you, Senator. That gladdens my heart beyond words. But I think it's worth mentioning that it's not every victim or victims' representative or family members that appear before the board to argue for the continued incarceration of the incarcerated person.

I have had the pleasure and those moments of great, just a great feeling when a victim or a victim's family come together and appear before the board to advocate for the release of the person that has caused so much pain to their family.

Those moments are heartwarming, they are sober, and they're very, very deep. It brings the humanity in us when somebody can look in the face of the person that killed their only child and say those words, I forgive you. So, I have found those moments--rare they are--but very meaningful, and that's my only addition to that.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Reference my comments to your heart earlier. I wasn't going to ask this question, and this is my third question, so I beg the chair's indulgence. Mr. Ruff, or Commissioner Ruff and Commissioner Cassady, you both referenced district attorneys who are not sending an advocate on behalf of the victims, specifically mentioned is Los Angeles, which we all know and have seen in the news.

Is there any weight given or not given because the district attorney is not providing an advocate for the victims that are in this process? I guess my question is that this is a district attorney who prosecuted the case; now, they're before you on a parole board hearing, and the person, it's kind of like the police officer who gave you the ticket doesn't show up in court.

Is there more weight granted if a district attorney is there to say, this is the issue of the case from a legal standpoint, or does the victim's weighted testimony outweigh or equal to that professional being in the courtroom? Is there a disservice to victims because that individual is not there or allowed to be there?

Who first?

Miss Cassady, and then Mr. Ruff, if that's okay.

Not for me.

Okay.

The victim statement is what's important to me as far as how it affected them, how it impacted them. I know it's a statement now, but listening to what they have to say is really important. The district attorney being there, I'm interested in what they have to say, but the impact really comes from the victims speaking on their own behalf and from their heart.

Thank you, Mr. Ruff? Only because you both brought it up.

I don't think it impact--it doesn't impact me in regards to the decision. Our decisions are not based on the district attorney, and as Commissioner Cassady said, they do bring something; they may add something or ask a particular question.

I do want to hear the impact from the victim, what they have to say. It's important. And I tell them that we want to hear what you have to say. Your words need to be, because they've been waiting. But the district attorney not being there is not going to impact the way I make a decision.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, all. I look forward to your confirmation. I think you are very, very well qualified and you balance your decisions every day based on, I believe, when Mr. Nwajei was here. If you make the wrong decision and public safety is affected, it's a difficult decision to live with. Not live with, as in, like advocating anything else, but just a difficult decision to sleep, get some rest at night, I guess.

And then if you keep somebody incarcerated who has earned that ability and denied them the opportunity for a second chance, that's also a very weighted decision. So, I applaud you all for even wanting this job, so thank you for being here today.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have been through past confirmation hearings. I read all your statements. I met with you. I heard your opening statements. I've listened to the regular, the real detailed questioning. I am generally satisfied.

And I think a comment and one question, and the comment is that yesterday in the meeting, if that was yesterday, it all runs together. I said that before the previous hearing, I had had a statement of the number of suitability hearings and the denial links and waivers, and I didn't have it this time. And it magically showed up about 2 hours after our meeting.

And so, if Senator Smallwood-Cuevas had not asked Commissioner Thornton that question, I would have asked that, because that was the one sort of anomalous set of statistics that were here, and you answered it in a good way. But I would just note that we look at those and the anomalies are a concern. So just bear that in mind for how we look at those things.

And then the question, and I'll ask Commissioner Ruff, and a version of what I asked you yesterday in the meeting: Now we're at this period where we really have long term prisoners that have cognitive issues or dementia. And then you have people in the hearings that either cannot represent themselves rather clearly or are impaired. How do you deal with that and how do you respond to that when that happens?

Alright, thank you for the question, Senator Laird. Actually, we met on Monday.

Thank you. I'm glad somebody remembers.

So, when we're dealing with somebody who's suffering from cognitive issues, then we're not asking questions that we would about self awareness or insight, especially if they can't remember something that they did just a few minutes earlier in the hearing. Our focus is more on their institution behavior and compliance.

Are they violent towards others? Are they doing things that are showing they're not compliant? And even that it really depends because the department categorizes incarcerated persons as DD1s, DD2s, DD3s, and a DD3 is a person that needs daily assistance getting dressed, daily assistance telling them to eat.

So me asking them about a crime that they committed 20, 30 years ago that they don't remember and trying to determine whether or not they're self aware, is not a concern. It's a concern more about their current behavior. And if depending on the level of their cognitive issues, then the requirement would be totally different.

I think it's CMF and CHCF. We have a lot of our medical long term individuals who are incarcerated who have, a lot of them have cognitive issues. The board does a really great job at preparing us for those hearings and telling us these certain expectations in those hearings.

And so a lot of times what I'm asking is questions that have to do with their day to day functions and just simple questions. Do you think it's okay to use violence against someone if you don't get what you want? And the response is, no, no, I would never do that, or something. So for me, I don't look at those type of hearings, especially for somebody who's suffering from cognitive issues, dementia or some type of learning disability, the same way I would at the ordinary hearing.

Thank you. And I know it's sort of troubling for us on a policy level because you have to ask, if somebody completely advanced into dementia, what purpose is served at that point? And it didn't even occur to me until you were talking at that point when, my father advanced into dementia.

He was a genial person his whole life, and then the only time I ever saw flashes of anger was with the frustration and the stuff that was going on there and with his physical ability to move around. And that was nothing you would have seen in the previous 70 or however many years.

Well, I appreciate that, and I join all my colleagues in saying, I just appreciate your willingness to do this, because it's got to be difficult at times. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. I only have one question, and then Senator Smallwood-Cuevas may have one more. She had to leave for 30 minutes and come back, but she did check to make sure the question had not been asked, and I don't believe your question has been, but my question has to do with the governor's clemency power.

I guess I would ask, and I will ask you, Ms. Cassady: You've been there the longest, and then if anyone else wants to add on, you can, but you don't need to. How do you approach your decision making in these cases? Are there additional considerations that you weigh or factor in? Should there be additional considerations? How do you approach a clemency case where it comes to you for the process? Do I need to clarify?

No. Maybe. But I think I understand. When it comes to us, it's really coming to us as, what do you think about recommending this for clemency? So we're making a recommendation for the Governor to exercise his power to move it to the courts.

So there's a lot of different information than what we're doing for life parole consideration hearings. The whole format is completely different. He or she--excuse me--would have suffered two felonies. So we're looking at a different set of facts, and that's really, are we going to acknowledge that this person has done something to warrant the clemency recommendation.

Okay. Anything? Anyone?

I would like to add that when it comes to the Members of the board for us to consider to recommend, there has been an underlying investigation done by our investigative services. It's a very thorough investigation, and the report will be considered, amongst other things. So by the time it gets to us to make to vote on whether to recommend to the Governor, it will be pretty clear to us that that individual has met the conditions that are outlined by the law.

So it's a totally different process.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Smallwood--I'm sorry, I didn't want to stop any, but okay. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas?

Thank you, Madam Chai, and thank you for indulging this final question. I'm concerned about, or want clarification on, the denial process. I understand that the hearing panels determine the length of denial between three and 15 years. So if a person is denied, you can determine when they come back up, and it can be between three and 15 years.

And when I saw that, I was thinking about the head of CDCR who talked about how the one thing that keeps prisons safe is hope. And this hope for parole is a safety measure in some ways in the prison system. And when you're looking at 15 years, there's not often a whole low of hope in there.

And so I'm curious to understand how you think about your denial length, particularly if you hart from 15 years and work back. Is what we hear sort of the rule of thumb on ways to approach it? I'm just curious about that.

And for Ms. Thornton, again, I want to just speak to something that Senator Laird spoke of, and that is just that in your tenure, I think you've given the highest number of length of time, sort of the ten year denial framework, higher than your other peers. So, I would like you to speak to that in your answer in particular. But if others could just share what is your thought process for the denials and how do you work backwards?

So it's actually Marsy's Laws, what dictates us to use that. So start at 15, and is there evidence that shows us that they don't need that? Then we can move down to the ten, and then is there more that bumps it down to either seven, five, or three? And so we're really, as one of my colleagues, I think it was Commissioner Ruff said it's looking to see how long do we think it's going to take them to really do the work that they need to do? And so, in giving lengthy denials, sometimes when we do that, my colleague and I are discussing and maybe there's something that bumps it down from the 15 to the ten.

And they have a lot of recent violence, and there's really nothing else, there's no other evidence that we can really use to justify it coming down any further than that. But I would say as far as giving hope, even when someone gets a lengthy denial, part of the decision is going to include recommendations: Look, here's what we see, here's what we want you to do.

You need to be disciplinary free. We're wanting you to do programs. Here's the areas that we see as relevant for you. Maybe it's substance abuse, maybe it's gang programming, maybe it's criminal thinking, maybe it's domestic violence. We're telling them this is what you need to do.

And then also you can do that in person. You can do that by correspondence. You can read books, write book reports, focus on what you're going to take away and how you're going to implement that. We want you to do relapse prevention plans. We want you to understand your triggers for all of your risk areas. We want you to know the internal ones, the external ones. We want you to learn coping skills and be able to come in and tell us how, when those triggers are coming up, you're using those in your daily basis. So, even if someone gets a long denial, that's still part of that, that I want to instill hope and give someone a path to go forward.

Just give your process, the working back process.

Yeah. For me, the 10 and 15 year denial would be highly unusual -- although, in the event -- I have given ten year denials, and in some ways that motivates them because they can file what's called a petition to advance, and that's saying, okay, I got this ten year denial. These were the things that the board said that I needed to do, these are the things they said that I was lacking, I've done -- and they give us what they've done -- and a deputy commissioner, it's a paper review, will review their submission and possibly move their hearing up so they get a hearing sooner than that time.

So sometimes that lengthier denial will kind of motivate them when they come in to the hearing and they're giving us the, "I don't care what you guys do," attitude. You got to try to think of something to jumpstart them sometimes. They've just gotten comfortable, and I personally don't want them comfortable in prison. I want them to want to be different people. But as far as my 5-3, that's going to depend solely on how long I think it would take them -- and not take them because they have to wait to get into programs, because the waiting lists get kind of long.

So I don't count, okay, it's going to take them this long to get in, because there are a lot of correspondence courses that they've -- PREP has a whole lot of modules -- and they all are getting onto the correspondence courses, which, of course, we have to go over so we know what to ask them to see if they really did them. It really is based on how long I think it'll take them to be a really good candidate for parole.

Senator, I echo the words of my colleagues on the length of denial and how we arrived at those numbers. I haven't had a reason or opportunity to give anyone 15 or 10, perhaps not even 7, because I believe in hope. Not to say that anyone else doesn't. Some people deserve more than others, but the primary consideration for me will always be: how much time do you need to begin to make the positive change or the change that we require of you? You have to demonstrate that, and we can see that from the record.

So in reviewing any particular case, we can see how far away they are from being at a point when they should be considered suitable. But, I echo your words and your concern that hope means a lot to these incarcerated people. When somebody is sentenced to a life without parole, we know they are less amenable to attending these programs because their thinking will be, "Why would I have to do that? I'm never going to get out of prison." So when we inject a little bit of hope, we see that it makes a lot of difference. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. I would also echo everyone's words and as I was saying earlier -- I think you had stepped out -- is that the briefing I give at the hearing with victims, with the incarcerated persons, on their consultation and even in the hearing, is, our denial periods are never based on the crime. They're based on how long we think it'll take for you to be found suitable. Now, the word hope is used, and you'll see it a lot in some people who've been incarcerated for a significant amount of time -- you're doing a consultation, and I'll go, "Hey, getting a lot of RVRs here, what's going on?" [they say] "Hey, I didn't think I was ever getting out of prison."

"Okay, well, now you know you have an opportunity to get out of prison. What are you going to do about it?" I saw a show and I echo it now in the consultations. It was in the show, and I go, "I like that. I'm going to write that down." And I say to them in the consultation, "Every day, you have to make a decision about whether you want prison to be a part of your past, or a part of your future." So, whenever you're getting a rules violation, you're saying you want it to be a part of your future. And that's the decision you have to make. I think it's really about what we do when we're doing the consultation and the hearing is: their decisions impact everything.

Thank you all so much for answering that question. It's very enlightening, and I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you, Senator. I have to say, this particular appointment is always enlightening. I think a number of us have been here for the confirmations, and I learn a great deal. There's the rules, there's the framework for how you approach these, but then there are the individual people who give you the responses and the benefit of what you've learned from your time doing these cases. I find it always amazingly enlightening. But, before we can get to the confirmations, we need to go to members of the public who have the ability to tell us what they think.

I am going to start with people in room 2200 who may be here in support. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and see if there are any folks here in opposition. Okay, we're going to go ahead and go to the teleconference line again. We have a toll free number: 877-226-8163. There's an access code: 694-8930. And, for those who are queuing up, I'm going to welcome our moderator. You should give your name, your organization, if any, that you belong to, and your support or opposition to any of the conferees that are here, and we'll limit it to that. Moderator, welcome.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment, please press one, then zero. There's currently no one queuing up, Madam Chair.

Well, thank you very much. We appreciate your hanging out there waiting on us to get to this point. Always appreciate the support you give us, thank you. Okay, I think what I'm going to do, just for ease sake, is take each person individually. So given that there are four, let me ask for a motion on Patricia Cassady.

So moved.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, will you please call the role?

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

5-0. Congratulations. We will take Lawrence Nwajei next.

So moved.

Madam Vice Chair, thank you. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

5-0. Congratulations. Michael Ruff.

So moved.

Madam Vice Chair, thank you. Call the roll.

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

5-0. Congratulations. Mary Thornton.

So moved.

Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Laird. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Grove. Aye. Atkins. Aye. 5-0.

5-0. Congratulations. I guess I could have taken all four together, but you've each individually gotten 5-0 votes, which is unanimous. With our thanks, our congratulations, we will forward these to the full Senate, for confirmation. Thank you for your time today, thank you for your service. Have a good rest of the day.

I'd like to say thank you, and I believe we are all honored to continue to serve.

Thank you, thank you. Okay. Let me say that this will conclude our agenda today. Thank you to all the individuals who participated today. If you weren't able to testify today, but you still wish to submit your comments or suggestions, in writing, to the Rules Committee, you may visit our website for instructions.

I would remind everybody in the public: your comments really are important to us, and we want to include them in the testimony of our official hearing record. With our continued thanks to our court reporter, to my colleagues, for their thoughtful questions and comments. Thank you, everyone, for your patience, your cooperation. Our Senate Committee on Rules is now adjourned.