Senate Standing Committee on Rules

The Senate Committee on Rules will come to order. Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in Patterson and also via the Teleconference Service. We're holding our Committee here hearing here in the O Street Building in room 2200 for individuals wishing to provide public comment via the Teleconference Service at the appropriate time. The participant toll free number and access code is posted on our Committee website and it will be displayed on the screen. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 6948930.

For our court reporter, I would ask all speakers, colleagues and witnesses alike to speak slowly and clearly. And before we begin, we need to establish a quorum. So a reminder to my colleagues, you'll need to turn on your microphones for the roll call and every time we vote. And with that, Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird? Here. Laird, here. Ochoa Bogh? Here. Ochoa Bogh, here. Smallwood-Cuevas? Here. Smallwood-Cuevas, here. Grove? Here. Grove, here. Atkins? Here. Atkins, here.

Thank you so much. Okay, I'm going to walk us through some items that we can dispense with. And I will start with Governor's appointees not required to appear. And that is only one item, 2f. I would entertain a motion.

Would move Leddy Beelin for the Water Quality Control Board in San Francisco Bay region.

Thank you, Senator Laird.

Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye.

Five to zero. I would entertain a motion on item three, reference of bills to committees.

So move.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Call the roll.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye.

Five to zero. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Okay, we're going to take up items four and five, which are select committee appointments. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Call the roll.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Thank you. And our last item or items is items six through eight. And these are floor acknowledgments for upcoming sessions.

So moved.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Call the roll.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye.

Thank you. Five to zero. And now, first, I just want to thank our Vice Chair. I was in Washington last week, and you have now chaired the Committee twice for me. And I really want to say thank you. That is the purpose of the Vice Chair. I appreciate it, although I have been warned that there are issues between you and the good Senator to your left, which I will continue to monitor.

But thank you for carrying on to the Committee. We are now going to turn to governor's appointees who aye required to appear and start with item 1A and that is the appointment of Sheriff Shannon Dicus as Member of the Board of State and Community Corrections. So let me welcome you and ask you to come on up. Sitting in the back row? Come on up. And as you get settled I will offer you the opportunity to introduce yourself.

Anyone here that you would like to acknowledge or anyone you'd like to thank and then you can go ahead and go into your opening comments and statement and then we'll go right to Members of the committee to get started. Welcome.

Thank you Senator. I would like to thank a number of my colleagues who are in the back from the Board of State and Community Corrections in helping with my preparation for this meeting today. As we said earlier, my name is Shannon Dicus and that's D-i-c-u-s. I'm the Sheriff of San Bernardino County and I've been in the Sheriff's Department for 31 years. I have a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice and a Master's degree in Communication.

Part of my tenure in service to San Bernardino County has also been in charge of our corrections division as the jail chief, and it was at a critical time in the state when we were basically going through prison realignment. And during that period of time,1 as sheriffs made adjustments and experiencing that firsthand, we also went through a number of different litigation pieces during that period of time and we did something unique in our county and that was say hey, don't sue us, let's work together.

And at the same time we took it upon ourselves to go out and talk to other sheriffs about things that may be coming their way in terms of changes to our correctional systems and things that need to be done as a result of working on some of this litigation.

So it's my hope and it's my honor, I'm not dragging my bag behind me to say oh, this is one of those things you get as a sheriff. This is something I want to do and I want to do it because number one, I believe that the work and the staff at the BSCC are actually 100% exceptional people and do wonderful work. I've worked with them for a number of years.

But also I want to avail myself, not just based on experience, but what the experience the sheriff actually has to the entire Legislature. Because I know all of you are wrangling with a number of things, and I hope to be that advocate about how things actually work and to be able to take your views and your opinions and try to make them work together as we move through and go through all of the criminal justice changes that we're seeing in our state.

Thank you Sheriff.

And as I expressed yesterday, I hope things are going okay in San Bernardino. I know you've had a lot of challenges due to the weather, so we appreciate the fact that you could be here and are glad to hear that things are looking better and that it seems to be under control.

We're gaining access as we speak. The access is much better. Grocery stores and the citizens up there are getting as close to normal as they can, but there's still a tremendous amount of snow up on that mountain.

All right, well, a tribute to you and your officers, I'm sure. I'm going to do something a little bit unusual as chair, I'm actually going to start today. This is an issue that I have followed, so I have three questions, and my colleagues have been really good to limit to major questions, but I promise you I have less questions going forward in the hearing.

Sheriff, I do want to thank you for meeting with me yesterday and taking time to meet with me. I really appreciated your insight, not just related to your role as part of BSCC, but the role that you play as sheriff and what that means and what you lend to this appointment related to having that experience. So I really appreciate it that you took the time as sheriff, you're familiar with the investigatory process and we talked about some of these yesterday, so you're not going to hear anything new in my questioning, just comments for the record.

You're familiar with the investigatory process after an in-custody death and when the public asks for details, we often hear that critical pieces of information cannot be revealed due to attorney client privilege, which obviously is a hard balancing act, but it hurts public confidence.

So beyond making sure that local detention facilities are following existing law on reporting requirements, share with me what more BSCC, and I'm glad you have colleagues here, actually, what more can BSCC do to restore public confidence and advise local jails to separate critical investigatory facts from privileged information? And are you opposed to neutral parties reviewing whether this information is actually privileged, if you could.

Sure, well, I'm not opposed to that, and I think part of it is the communication piece that we do in terms of sheriffs and those in custody deaths. And for an example, one of the things we do on a regular basis to let the public know what's going on is when that incidence happens, we do the investigatory process, as you and I discussed yesterday, but we also do a press release to inform the public as to what's going on. So we raise everybody's level of attention.

There are a number of areas that I think we could do better to help restore that confidence. Number one, the BSCC is very good about their inspections and their reporting process. But as individual agencies, and I'm just going to give you an example, we know fentanyl is a trend that's going on, obviously out in the streets that we live in, but also in our custody situations.

One of the things that the public should know and as an inmate comes in, is going through the in processing system. We create videos that talk about the dangers of fentanyl and things like that, but frankly, we don't share that with the public. So we're not really exuding confidence when we are adjusting and we're certainly looking at these trends and we're taking care of them internally, but we're not sharing that. A lot of times you hear about what we're doing in our streets, but you don't hear about what we're doing in corrections.

Also, the investigatory process, while that may be attorney-client privileged in the case of litigation, and unfortunately, a lot of these cases are immediately litigated with families. The process, and this is something that I would certainly like to do and look into, is there's a final outcome--there's really several investigations that go on during this process.

One is by investigators and they're looking at is there any criminal culpability in these issues? Also, are we following policy, a number of those things. Then you have a medical investigation by your medical staff. Were they cared for properly? Did they receive the proper treatment? And then lastly, a coroner's investigation.

Then, all three of those investigations now go before me and my Executive staff, and that's how we trend these things. Is there something we're not doing? Is there an aspect of safety we should be looking at? And I believe those final outcomes out of those reports, why those reports individually may be attorney-client privilege.

I don't see why the outcomes and the fact that we're responding to the trending is not something that we can do publicly. And I think that's somewhere where we can also exude that confidence. But of course, we'll have to talk to attorneys and do a few things, but I think that would increase the level of transparency.

Thank you, Sheriff. Along those lines, sometimes the in custody death investigations will reveal general weaknesses in procedures and standards and a report may be or may recommend policy changes to prevent future deaths. Do you believe these policy recommendations should be made public?

Yes. There's nothing to hide. If we find a deficiency, I think we should let the public be able to know that. Obviously there's a number of those things. If you're in the pre-litigation phase, saying that you're doing something wrong could certainly affect the outcome of that. So a lot of this advice comes from attorneys. But after that phase is over, if you need to make corrections for the health and safety of the inmates that are in your charge, we should absolutely do that.

Sheriff, thank you. And the last question, obviously we talked about the state auditor recommendations that came out of the San Diego facilities that BSCC change its composition to include mental health and health providers on the board. You and I talked about this yesterday and of course, I understand we talked about the fact that you believe you're getting the expertise in other ways. Maybe you could take a minute and just comment on that. But I guess the last thing I would say is there really any harm in the composite position change to add those expertises further.

If the Legislature made the decision to put more seats on the BSCC as a group, we are very collaborative and we would certainly work with those folks. What I wanted to reassure all of you of is that a lot of times as a board member in the BSCC, you get different assignments and you're tasked with different things, and it may be looking at a trend, it may be looking at mental health in the correction system. You would potentially, as a Member, chair those events.

Then, you create what we call an executive steering committee. And that executive steering committee, if I needed a mental health professional and since we're talking about corrections mental health, it's just been my experience when you talk about corrections mental health, corrections medical health, that you get those experts that are really involved in that. And there are a number of NCCHC standards, national accreditation standards, and folks that are familiar with those standards and putting them on that executive steering committee.

It's just my belief that if you tasked me with an assignment as a Legislature, that I will bring those proper folks that have the proper expertise to the table so that I'm reassuring you you're still getting what you need. If a law is passed and we do add more folks to the BSCC, that certainly wouldn't be something that would hinder us in any means. I just want to reassure all of you that we are thorough and we will bring the proper experts to the table when we need to.

Thank you again. I appreciate your time yesterday. It was really something. I feel like I took away a different kind of understanding. So thank you. I'm going to turn now to my colleagues and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, I will start with you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for being here with us, Mr. Dicus. I am representing the 28th District, LA County, and our juvenile facilities and our adult facilities are in crisis. Recently, it was determined that our juvenile facilities were unsuitable with egregious violations about the lack of outside time for the youth, safety of the children, and just a shocking overuse of force recently against a 17 year old.

And several of these reports were just unconscionable in terms of how dangerous the situations were for the youth who were in the system. And certainly the strain that it's putting on the staff, where we have between ten and 20% of the probation staff that is in charge of these facilities showing up to work. So it's an 80% sort of absenteeism right now and it just makes things unsafe and it puts the youth in inhumane circumstances.

I wonder what options or teeth do you see the BSCC having or should have to address the necessary reforms that we need in this system? And we know that in LA County, if this is not addressed in the next month in terms of the violations because they are so out of compliance, it could be catastrophic for that system. So I'm curious, what authority, what power should the BSCC have to address these issues? And just I want to just share this timeline:

In September of 2021, BSCC found that the LA juvenile facilities were unsuitable. In March of '22, LA County Probation decided to move 141 kids out of the facility ahead of the BSCC inspection. By February, BSCC finds that the LA juvenile facilities are unsuitable with 39 categories of out of compliance. In February, the LA County Board of Supervisors calls for the resignation of the chief probation officer. So. What can the BSCC do? What teeth do you have to help get compliance in this situation?

So, Senator, first and foremost, I want to share with you that the BSCC is in lockstep with your concerns that you've just described. We're well aware of those, and the BSCC does have a tremendous amount of teeth in terms of juvenile facilities and that we can actually close them down and get their attention.

LA is in a very unique circumstance where you're talking about resources that are certainly provided by the Board of Supervisors that are needed in those facilities. You have union issues. You talk about maybe some of the things, working conditions that the unions are describing. And that's why we think that some of the 80% folks that aren't showing up to work is certainly there.

And then leadership issues in terms of getting people's attention, to be able to fix those things on behalf of the people we're really here to serve, I want to give you with great certainty the BSCC staff has done surprise inspections. They go in in there and they check on things regularly that's reported back to us as BSCC board Members, and we take that seriously. And if we need to close the facility to get somebody's attention, we are perfectly capable of doing so, and we will do so.

We're going to try to do everything we can possibly do to bring those folks in compliance. And we can also call, whether it's a sheriff in some cases, or in this case specifically the chief, and we've had the chief talk to the board before. We'll call them directly and ask them what they're doing about those specific issues that you brought up and make sure that it's happening at a pace that's acceptable to be able to protect those children. If it's not, we will take action and we will close it down. And I'm a firm proponent of that and doing the right thing for the people that we serve.

In terms of this, absenteeism that's happening, is it your opinion that only probation officers are the only people who can do this work?

Well, I have experts that are on the panel from BSCC, which are probation chiefs, and frankly, I try to stay in my lane as much as possible, but I do lean on them for their expertise. So that was a question that if it does come before the BSCC, I would certainly lean on their expertise.

And even our chair as a former probation chief, they have a tremendous amount of experience as it relates to that. And that's why I just want to leave you with you're in good hands and you have experienced people that are making good decisions on behalf of those kids.

And in this kind of emergency situation, and you're saying this is unprecedented in so many ways, how are your BSCC's actions? How will they look different than in past responses with so many violations and being out of compliance over such a long period of time?

Sure, well, first and foremost, it's always the collaborative approach to try to bring folks into compliance. The BSCC staff offers ways to do that, training and a number of things that are available to them that we will certainly avail as the board.

But, when you get to the point where you have entities that I've just described that really are, not collaborative with each other, sometimes it takes that more forceful position to be able to say, hey, this is unacceptable, and to close down a facility would certainly get their attention, and all of a sudden it's been my experience that those resources should come along with that and the proper attention is being made.

I never hope that we get to that point in these circumstances, but the board is certainly prepared to take those steps if, in fact, we have to do that and the correct experts are on that board.

Thank you for that response. And Madam Chair, may I ask one more question? And this has to do with the adult system: ACLU released a report looking at the conditions of our county jail, and again we talked about the conditions in the juvenile facility.

When we're looking at what's happening in our jails, we see people with serious mental illness chained to chairs for days at a time, dozens of people crammed together, sleeping head to toe on the concrete hardwood floor, people defecating in trash cans and urinating on the floor in empty food containers and spaces, failure to access adequate health care, showers and basic amenities, particularly for those who are detoxing from drugs in this general population area.

We know LA County has been under a court order, the Rutherford case, for about 45 years and most recently violated that court order last year and remains massively out of compliance based on the judge's court order.

What is the role of the BSCC, when a county is under a court order? In what ways are you tracking and flagging these out of compliance, these violations in a way so that there is an opportunity to be able to arrest the problems before they snowball in an avalanche into the conditions that were released in this report?

So the BSCC conducts a number of checks, both announced and unannounced checks as well. Those reports come back to the board and those noncompliance issues, as far as even bringing a sheriff to the table to address those that aren't being addressed, is some of the power that the board has, and we will certainly take that into consideration.

First and foremost, we try to take the staff to work with them. My suggestion to any sheriff that's going through that, and you mentioned the ACLU is noting a number of those things is really take that collaborative approach and work with them, because having the ACLU as a partner as you move forward in this would certainly leverage some of the resources, and a lot of these things are directly related to resources.

LA county is not unique to any county in terms of mental health and medical and what goes on in the jail. Ever since prison realignment, we've all been wrangling with trying to get those services. Many of those services are affected by our ability to hire, for instance, the psychiatrist and things like that, because we're all competing for these highly trained personnel. But by really partnering with those that are scrutinizing you, a lot of times you can get those resources. And that would be something that I suggest.

But as far as the enforcement aspects from the BSCC, the enforcement aspects are looking at those reports, looking at the compliance times, are they reasonable, are they not? And are things getting fixed? And if not, requiring that representative in that Department head to come explain why.

And in these instances, does BSCC ever do random on site visits? Do you hold your meetings ever in these locations where you can see this for yourself these conditions?

At this point, they do, we do random, the staff does random. We have a very professional staff that's very in tune to Title 15 and Title 24, looking for those types of violations and also suggesting how they can be fixed. And there have been times where board Members have gone out and looked at these things.

Going back to what you described at the Juvenile Hall, Scott Budnick is on the BSCC. He's from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Scott has first hand knowledge and he shares that with the board. And again, I just think we have the experts and eye on to be able to help with those decisions.

Well, I look forward to the steps and actions moving forward to deal with these crises. We are investing tremendous amount of resources that are so needed in our system. But these conditions and the lack of compliance is shocking and residents, and particularly taxpayers want to know why. And the families whose loved ones are in these facilities want to make sure that their family Members are safe. So thank you for answering the questions.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was debating on whether or not to ask questions or if I just wanted to make a comment, but if I may, as point of privilege, just make a couple of comments about the Sheriff Dicus from San Bernardino, which is from my district.

I have to tell you, this man is one of the most respectful, professional, both compassionate and understands what the purpose of law is, but one of the most compassionate people I've ever met in this position. And it's one of the reasons why I truly trust him. And I'm excited to see him in this capacity because of the insight that he has of being a very fair and balanced person with good judgment and being a very grounded man.

So I just wanted to take that opportunity that if there was any hesitation and the ability to do this job in a humane, most respectful and professional manner, I assure you, this man, in his actions, in our community and in my district, being within the communities, being incredibly active and engaged with both our educational system, our local educational districts, along with our nonprofits and social and service organizations, this man is on the ground with the people, interacting, speaking and encouraging.

So I just want to commend him. And I'm very grateful, and I don't speak on behalf of many people, but with this gentleman, I strongly am very excited to see you in this capacity moving forward. So I will just trying to think I'm just going to leave it at that for the moment and leave the time left for my colleagues to ask questions.

Senator, thank you. At the appropriate time, we will make sure you can make the motion. Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, have had a great relationship with Sheriff Dicus in the San Bernardino County area. And his comments about collaboration are just phenomenal. And I wish everybody understood that. We tend to go to our prospective corners and point fingers and do all those things, but you actually bring people that sometimes us in Legislature, we make assumptions and we won't even meet with them. And you bring people together and you find real solutions.

And I think that your ability to meet with somebody who thinks totally opposite of the person that is standing on your left side and totally opposite the person standing on your right side, and you bring them together and they really find out with your I just want to say moderator expertise, right? And I know that's probably not even your forte, but your moderator expertise or mediator expertise, you bring them together and they find out usually that they have more in common than they have that are separating them, and they've just made assumptions.

So I would like to line my comments with my colleague from the San Bernardino area now and thank you for the opportunity that you've allowed me to work with you for the last four years, almost five years. And I do want to follow up on a question that my colleague from Los Angeles asked.

I met with a group of individuals last week and they showed me video after video and I just couldn't watch it. And it has to do with realignment of juvenile justice system, which I know is not the whole process that you're over, but they do go down to county situations where we have older individuals in these facilities.

Several videos that I watched had older individuals in these facilities. Three of them actually attacked brutally a younger individual in the facility and staff was not able, in my opinion, based on the video, and I don't have all the facts, but you had a female staff that was 2ft shorter than the older individuals on all accounts and she was doing her best to try to keep those individuals away from the younger individual.

And there were other staff that came in as well. But to me it seems like a very dangerous situation for our juveniles with older, I don't know what they call them, transitional age youth, I'm not sure what they call them, but the older individuals that are obviously more powerful and they were brutal attacks, some of the things that I saw.

So I have that question, I want to know if there's a way to help that or can we separate them even within the facility with the older group versus the younger group? Because I really feel bad for the younger ones, all of them, but the younger ones.

And then also the BSCC has used the authority to conduct unannounced visits, which I think my colleague from Los Angeles really had questions on, because to have people moved out of a facility right before you guys show up is not appropriate. So are you guys using the unannounced authority that you have for the unannounced visits in order to make sure that you catch what is really happening on the day to day situations?

So, the answer is yes, we have made unannounced visits, particularly to the LA county Juvenile hall as a result of that, staff has done that and Chen brought back to the reports as to what they're seeing there. So yes, we do use that power and as a sheriff, I actually appreciate the unannounced visits.

I think our jails are well run, they're cleanly, and what people conjure up in their minds is really not an accurate picture when you see what's going on and can we always do better in a number of circumstances, particularly in the mental health and medical area? Of course.

When we talk about juveniles, most of the probation offices, and we're obviously going through that piece right now where we're moving out of that model and moving into more of the local model classification systems and our probation chiefs are much more adept at this than I am. But they do have classification systems. They do look at the oppression ability, if you will, of a child and that influence that an older person in that facility would have. So keeping them separated is something I believe will actually happen.

Now, what I know from fact is that across every county you have different resources available, different size facilities, and so they may be limited. But I do believe that as these challenges come down and move from kind of a state responsibility to the local responsibility, that we'll be able to rise to those occasions and be able to certainly take into those issues into account.

I also believe in terms of the officers that are working in those facilities, training when you're talking about force being used, taking action and really understanding what the situation is going on. Many times if we act quickly, we prevent those things, discipline processes and a number of things that all work into that system, and at the same time being cognizant of even the youth that are committing crime, if you will, against other youth in there.

There's background problems and different issues that need to be addressed with them. And what I've seen from our probation departments and our probation chiefs really across the state is they're very good at those things. And there's a number of things that are transitioning right now with Children and Family Services as a result of this and we are working through that.

Children that have mental health issues, for instance, some of them can't go under certain conditions, can't go into the probation facility or the juvenile hall because the mental health condition has to be addressed. So I've seen instances as we're going through this process where you have offices where some of these kids are staying because that was just an unintended consequence of some of these things.

But now you see the capacity being built special jones for those folks working with the probation Department that if a crime does rise to a certain level when you're talking about some of the violence you described, that they can be moved into the appropriate place, the juvenile hall.

So we're very flexible and there are experts out there doing that and different counties that may not have those resources. I believe you're going to see some of them join together and kind of I'll call it like a JPA type of perspective so that they're sharing mental health resources, medical resources and things of that nature.

Thank you very much. All the videos that I watched, it appeared to happen very fast and very quickly. I mean, it was in a program setting and they were sitting, everybody was learning, the instructor was up front. All of them happened in a program setting and it did happen extremely fast. So thank you for that.

I love that you focus on mental health because I think that's a big issue that's facing not only our kids, but adults. And I drive in on 12th street and I see these people out on the street and there's obviously something wrong. So I love that you focus on mental health.

So the BSCC did get a grant for about $50 million in funds for city county law enforcement to agencies for programs for mental health. Can you talk to me about how that money might be used, a little bit of the wellness and mental health issues that you guys are overseeing?

Oh, absolutely. So you're talking specifically to your correctional or law enforcement staff. That is a big deal right now across the board with all law enforcement agencies. And just to give you an example of some of the things that we've employed, there's an app out there by a company called Cortico. And what it allows us to do is to take all of those resources that are available to a law enforcement officer, whether it's mental health, we talk about physical health, financial health, a number of things that really make our lives better, they're available anonymously on that app.

You push a button, you can make those appointments and you can talk to those people that can truly help affect change in that law enforcement officer's life. We've also in headquarters. We have a wellness center, I mean, all the way down to the pink calming colors and a number of these things that we've thought through, and then we also have a group where basically we're able to be a nonprofit and donate money to this.

We actually started with barbecues and a number of things to start this process out. But if it is a financial situation, maybe a death in the family or something that happens at work that's so significant, that affects the entire family, that we're able to immediately fund a number of those things and take care of our staff.

With the pressure that they're seeing on the streets and an increase in violence and a number of things that they're seeing, this is very key to me in my heart of hearts, we take good care of those people. In turn, they take good care of the public.

So you're seeing a number of those initiatives, and that grant program will help fund all of those things that I'm describing and make them available to an entire group of law enforcement officers that haven't had the ability to have that before. And I can tell you from comments from all 58 sheriffs, this is something that the Legislature has done for us that we are genuinely very appreciative of, and it's certainly money that will be well spent.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. I look forward to your confirmation.

Thank you, Senator.

It's very nice to see you.

Nice to see you.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Senator Laird.

Well, this time I'm the last one. And I'm very lucky because almost every single thing has been asked. And I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to meet and just playing off of something that was talked about by at least two other Members. I saw your responses to questions and the fact that you talked about mental health patients and hoping that they got serious focus on help before they came into custody was, I think, an important thing. And rather than ask you to talk about it, I'll just put that statement you wrote on the record and say, I look forward to voting for you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, now it is time to turn to Members of the public who may wish to speak in support or opposition. A reminder, we have a teleconference line and that toll free number is 877-226-8163. The access code is 6948930. But we're going to start right here in room 2200 and I'm going to ask if there is anyone that would like to speak in support. You are free to come up. Give me your name.

Okay. Quietly in support here. Anyone in opposition in room 2200? Okay, we are fong to welcome our moderator. We are fortunate to have a moderator that allows us to have people speak in support or opposition via teleconference. So let me welcome the moderator at this time and ask if you want to tee folks up to speak in support or opposition. But the individual will need to give their name, organization, if any, and their support or opposition. No further comments, just support or opposition. Welcome, Moderator.

Ladies and gentlemen, to queue up to voice your support or opposition, please press 1-0 at this time and we have no respondents in queue.

Thank you. I'm sure we'll put you to work a little bit later in the hearing, moderator. So thank you for standing by. Before I go to my good colleague, Senator Ochoa Bogh, I just wanted to comment again, I really appreciate the time you spent and we talked about a lot of issues and you enlightened me on a number of possibilities, some that you shared today.

And I would just say I know I was here when realignment occurred. And I remember talking to a number of my Board of Supervisors Members who said we can do this, but we need support, we need flexibility, and we see today the challenges of our jails basically playing the role of providing health care, mental health services to those you talked about this yesterday, but I'm not unaware of it.

But you gave voice, just as you did a little while ago, to the issues around what our communities are facing--fentanyl, unaddressed mental health issues, and unaddressed medical concerns--that put all of these situations together with an already hard job that I think those that manage facilities, be they our jails or our juvenile facilities, but the circumstances that we're in is these are our challenges. And you offered real solutions yesterday and given that you are here, and we and I had this conversation, but other colleagues are here.

I hear the comments of my colleague from Los Angeles. I have different issues, but they're critical to our communities and any of those wonderful pieces of advice as part of best practices or what we now need to move towards. You mentioned a lot about technology, min, the example you gave a minute ago to the vice chair about technology being used in different ways to further best practices to help those running these facilities.

I encourage BSCC. It's clear you do talk to sheriffs and other counties to really look at adjusting how they do things, to add those resources and use us as a resource to talk with our county boards of supervisors to do things here to make sure you have those resources. Because all I really want is to work with you.

And the vice chair talked a lot about your collaborative style and solving problems and solutions. And if that is the approach of BSCC in total--did I get those initials right? I always get it confused-- if, in fact, the board is able to communicate that, I will just say I'm still concerned about my community.

Certainly, I want to see solutions. I don't necessarily want to make laws to make your job harder or their job harder, but when we don't have the solutions. We do what we do as lawmakers. We think we're making the situation better by passing a piece of legislation. And I know that that doesn't always work.

So this is the front end of a request for help. And so I just appreciate your incredible willingness to step forward and do this. And I've got two colleagues here who obviously know you well and have a lot of wonderful things to say about you. And so with that, I'm going to turn it to Senator Ochoa Bogh to make a motion.

I will be happy to make the motion, but let me just say that this man does come with solutions. As a matter of fact, he's the inspiration behind much of my public safety bills that I've put forward. And with that, I happily move the motion.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, will you please call the roll?

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Atkins? Aye. Atkins, aye. Five to zero.

Thank you. Five to zero. Congratulations. We will move this confirmation onto the full Senate or this recommendation onto the full Senate for full confirmation. And congratulations. And thank you.

Thank you. It's an honor. And I'm more than willing to do the work. I hope all of you realize that. And we will be collaborative. I do have one thing to ask, though, and this issue of in custody deaths is significant. And if you can help all of us, and I'm talking all of the sheriffs, it really is really more of what I call a shared liability perspective.

Unfortunately, these folks end up in their last stop being the jail. But we need to look at also where were they not off ramped. When we talk about mental health and capacities and also public health and if we were able to collect data and really give you that viewpoint, then I do believe we're working together and we can find some of the solutions center that you alluded to and really figure this out.

And then I do think we'll drop that number significantly because they're being off ramped at the appropriate times. And I can tell you as much as I'm collaborative, I'm going to push very hard in my county about mental health services. And if I have to figure out a way to forward these folks that truly are gravely disabled to the court, I'm going to figure out a way to do that.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're going to take a five minute break and we will return promptly to go to the next set with my thanks for your patience. We'll be right back.

For the delay addressing some issues, technical issues. We are going to grove now to governor's appointees required to appear, and this would be for appointments of commissioners to the Board of Parole Hearings. And before we start, I want to let you know that one of our four appointees, Mr. Jack Weiss, will be held over. It's just occasionally things come up and that will be held over, but we're going to move forward and I will ask you to come up.

Ms. Teal Kozel, Doctor, please forgive me. The title is worthy of acknowledging for sure, William Muniz, David Ndumin. And we will have the three of you come up. I want to say welcome. I want to thank you for your incredible patience and sitting through the first hearing, we're going to take up by introduction in order of as I announced your names, each of you will get the opportunity to give opening comments, acknowledge anyone you would like to.

And then we'll go down the row. And then we'll go to Members of the committee for questions and comments. Also, to my colleagues, I would say, as we do, that, given that we have three appointments in front of us, I would like it if you could direct your question to a specific individual, unless you want each of the three to answer. It's not necessary that everybody has to answer every question.

And certainly if you ask a question you want all three, someone can say they answered that thoroughly. I have nothing to add or feel compelled to answer if you do. It's always a little more interesting when we have multiple appointees at the same time. But I just want to welcome each of you. And so, Dr. Kozel, why don't you start first, introduce yourself, and then we will go down the line and go from there. And the mic.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Yes. My name is Dr. Teal Kozel and I'm a psychologist that started with the Department at Napa State Hospital. That's where I did my internship. And then I moved on to San Quentin State Prison and California Medical Facility after that as a staff psychologist and supervisor. And then I went to the Board of Parole Hearings in 2009, where I supervised all the comprehensive risk assessments that were being done in my region.

I did that and I really want to thank, he's not here today, but I want to thank Dr. Kusage for being a mentor to me and being my supervisor for such a long time and guiding me and also to Ms.. Schaefer and my colleagues at the Board. And lastly, my husband Henry is here and I am very grateful for that.

We always welcome family Members.

Go ahead, Mr. Muniz.

Good morning. I guess it's still morning. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. First, I want to say thank you to Governor Gavin Newsom for his appointment. Tremendous honor and trust bestowed for this really, really high responsibility position. I also want to say thank you to all of you. Great opportunity.

I've been in state service since 1994, and being before Senate Rules Committee is a tremendous honor and a little bit nerve wracking. But I'm also grateful. My wife, when I started my career--my wife is right there waiting--36 years married. She began with me 36 years ago. We have two kids. And when I got into the Department, I can honestly say that I began worried about what might happen to me because it's dangerous. It's prison, right? I walked up the steps at CTF in 1994, and I was worried about what might happen to me.

But I was guided by a greater principle, and that was I'm willing to go into a dangerous environment if it's going to make my family safe. There's some correlation to my career. I promoted to sergeant at Salinas Valley in 1994. All of my promotions were at Salinas Valley, a level four institution. Over 1000 reportable incidents of violence every single year there. It is extremely violent place.

What I bring to the board, certainly with that experience is I have seen when the incarcerated population is in a dangerous place when they're danger to themselves, when they're danger to others, when they're danger to staff. And at times I was grateful that some of the most violent people I encountered on a daily basis were not around my family.

But I promoted all the way up to Warden, and I was warden at Salinas Valley on paper for five years. And I spent four of those at the prison before I went to the prison to Employment Initiative in Sacramento. And that was a proposal to connect our population with livable wage jobs. As you can imagine, that's one of the factors we look at in suitability was a very rewarding opportunity to work in that regard.

But towards the end of my career, I think I was guided most by not what might happen, but chen by what might not happen. And what I mean by that is, over two decades of work, I was fearful that we hadn't done enough, that it wasn't sufficient to make the institution safe, to make staff safe, to make the public safe. And part of the tenets of running a safe prison is that it's for the purpose of public safety.

But it wasn't until we changed in the Department in 2004 when we went from CDC to CDCR that we put rehabilitation back into our efforts, not that they weren't there before. And I was extremely espoused to the notion of rehabilitation. And I only want to tell you one quick story, and that is I had an individual that I worked with who was extremely difficult antisocial, anti-authority, an insider of others, and just difficult.

And when I saw him change his life, I didn't need to see a thousand others. The fact that he was so difficult, so embedded in antisocial behavior, and so recalcitrant in terms of inmate behavior, incarcerated behavior. What I saw was that anybody can change.

And so when I took this position for the ward, my hopes is still out of love for the people I care about, out of love for justice, and out of love for the safety of California. I believe that all of that expertise kind of aligns with my values. And my hope is to make California safer and make sure that the people who've changed their lives get an opportunity and a second chance.

Thank you. Mr. Ndudim? And tell me if I said your name right.

Yes, you did, Senator.

You're very kind.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. I want to thank all the senators for the opportunity to be here today. I also like to thank the Governor for the opportunity to serve in this role and its capacity. I also want to thank my parents, the late Helen Chibuza and Abraham Ndudim, for the sacrifices that they have made on my behalf. I also want to thank my wife, Dr. Kiru Ndudim, my children, Khaleichi, Alamachi, and Allachi, who are here today.

Senators, prior to my appointment by the Governor, I've been with the board for over three years, and I established in the capacity of a deputy commissioner. I participated in over 300 suitability hearings. And prior to that, I also volunteered as a temporary Superior Court judge for Sacramento County. And before that, I also had my own private law practice that I managed for over 18 years.

This is truly a wonderful opportunity. My work with the board has been not only meaningful, but impactful for me. And I look forward to answering your questions this afternoon. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, ech of you and I will interject with my colleagues if we need to kind of direct questions and because I also want to make sure our court reporter, we don't talk over her or get jumbled because it makes it hard for her to do her job for us. So I'm going to start with you, Senator Laird, this end of the table this time, and go ahead.

Thank you very much. And thanks to the three of you for meeting with me yesterday as quick as it was. And I asked each of you one question that was unique to you, and I was impressed with the answers to all three. So I thought I'd do it again and just sort of do it in public for the record. I'll do it in the order in which you were introduced.

Dr. Kozel, you mentioned that the decision to release someone into the community is very different from a decision to recommend that a prisoner sentence be commuted from life without the possibility of parole to a sense of life with the possibility of parole. Could you elaborate on that difference and sort of what it means to you in this role?

Yes. I think we were talking about. The original question was extrapolating the board's process or BPH overseeing or helping in the commutation process. And the reason I think it's not directly translatable is because when you're looking at someone for suitability for parole, you're looking at the different factors that make them suitable, one of which is being future oriented variables such as relapse prevention plans, parole plans, and you're looking at their level of programming.

And a lot of times a person that has a sentence of life without parole doesn't have the same access to programming in the institutions, and they oftentimes have not begun that process of thinking about what am I going to do on parole? What would my relapse prevention plans be? So I feel like while the board could be really beneficial in potentially helping with the process of figuring out commutations, it would be a process that would need to be individualized to what we would call life without parole or LBOP population and their changing needs.

And even though it's going to come up in my question of the next person, I think, and what he said, you also used the word hope when you responded.

Yes. I think that one of the things that is lacking right now in the life without parole population is that they don't have any hope. And that lends toward more misbehavior in the prison setting because there's no hope they're ever going to get out. It lends toward them not planning pro-social goals for themselves, and they don't see any reason to engage in programming. They don't see any reason to rehabilitate themselves because there is no hope of them ever getting out.

So that's another thing that differentiates that population sometimes. And I think it would be beneficial to sort of introduce the idea of programming early on when someone comes into the institution, regardless of what their sentence is, in terms of mental health and public safety and prison safety.

Thank you very much. And then I'll move on to Mr. Muniz, who, as an aside, even though it doesn't prejudice me in any way, is a constituent. And we talked about the fact that as you ascended in the system, programs changed. And yet when you were providing opportunities and resources to the individuals in custody while you were at Salinas Valley, what did you think gave them the best opportunity to be granted parole when the hearings took place?

Thank you, Senator. I came into the Department during a period of time where everything was growing, and growing really quickly, and we had population pressures. My exposure was at a level two CTF in Soledad, and when the new prison opened at Salinas Valley, I waited to go when I promoted, but we had triple high bunks and gyms. We had beds on dayroom floors, and the notion of providing program was just almost inconceivable.

We were just trying to get through the day and house buses. When population pressures got to the point where we were mandated by the three judge panel to reduce population, things got increasingly better. Not only to address medical issues, mental health issues, dental issues, but we were also able to address educational issues. And the beginning of change really is about rehabilitative programming.

And rehabilitative programming is the positive in the ear of every individual who's incarcerated that's not toxic, as in negative peers and gangs. Watching people change almost, I would say I don't want to sound too sappy, but it nourishes the soul to believe that a person can change. And there were times where it was so bad in my beginnings at Salinas Valley that I doubted for a minute, I doubted that maybe people can just be really bad when they do really terrible things. No remorse, no empathy, no regard for human life.

But in many ways, they just didn't have the type of training that's necessary to start to realign their thinking and their thinking patterns. Watching that happen changed my life. Even as a correctional professional, I referred to that story. I felt like it was just as important to him as it was to me, and I never looked back.

And while we say that prisons should be run safely as a function of public safety, if we don't espouse ourselves to the notion of rehabilitation and the fact that all these individuals that release are going to come into the community where you and I live and our family and our friends, then we have not embraced in its entirety public safety.

And when we started receiving grants at the prison around 2014, it took from 1996 to 2014 to receive our first level four grant. And we used it as a megaphone to speak to the population and tell them what's possible. And Randy Grounds, who was formerly a commissioner and our warden, took several of us to San Quentin, and we found someone who was there who had been at Salinas Valley.

And I asked him what changed and what was different at Salinas Valley? And he thought for a second, and he pointed right at me, and it almost like it was like a laser to my soul. He said, you didn't offer me hope. And I went back to the institution, and I plastered the word hope over my office where I sat, so that every day I walked in and remembered that people with no hope do desperate things. And the beginning of change is a different voice in the realization of hope. So that's kind of what has influenced my relationship with population and hope and public safety.

Thank you. That's a really meaningful response. And it occurs to me that because we were so quick, I didn't mention to you that the first prison I ever went into was Soledad before it was Salinas Valley. And it was five or six years before you started there, and I was mayor, and I went in and spoke to a class because there were classes there.

And the one takeaway I remember--besides one person asking me if a certain judge was still on the bench in Santa Cruz, so I knew who sent him down--but how smart they were. They were so smart. I speak to college classes and the level, and it was a wonderful eye opening to the humanity and who they were. So I'm really glad you tried to figure out a way to connect to that as you move through there. So thank you for that response.

And then, Mr. Ndudim and it's very funny, because when we interviewed yesterday, I asked you how to pronounce your last name, and you said, Just call me David. So I'm very glad the chair clarified that. Thank you. And I asked you how your experience as a deputy commissioner has influenced your position as a commissioner and what the differences were.

Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I indicated, I was a deputy commissioner for almost two and a half years before my appointment. And when I was appointed, you automatically see the difference between a deputy commissioner and a commissioner. Your responsibility as a commissioner increases exponentially.

Because now, for me, individually, I am particularly interested in the fairness of how is conducted. And as a commissioner, you have a responsibility to do that. Not only that, you talk more as a commissioner than a deputy commissioner, and you intuitively are required to pay closer attention to what's going on within the hearing process.

So as a commissioner, you read more, study more, pay attention more. So that's the essence of the difference between a commissioner and a deputy commissioner. Given this role, it was a little bit more advantageous to me because, again, I've sat through hearings. I know how the process works. Again, my particular interest in fairness and how every stakeholder is treated during the hearing.

Thank you very much. We met for such a brief time yesterday, and you were all amazingly thoughtful in that time. So I look forward to being able to support you. Thanks for being responsive to the questions.

Thank you. Madam Vice Chair?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome. I have one question for all of you, and I just like your opinion on it. What is one of the main reasons or what's your thought process? And when you're either denying or granting a parole, do you have subjectivity and how much do you allow that subjectivity to influence the decision that you make based on the information that's going on in the hearing? And we can start with Ms. Kozel or Dr. Kozel, I'm sorry.

Totally fine Senator. I think that every hearing has to be individual, because even though you're looking at the structure, we use a structured decision making framework to help guide our decisions. And we look at historical variables, which are static. We look at clinical variables, which is in the present and then the future oriented. We do that for everyone.

But depending on the original crime, if it is a sex crime or not, for instance, we might be asking different questions to determine suitability, to determine whether they've had the requisite programming and rehabilitation necessary to be safe before being released. But when subjectivity comes into it, I think that's where the structured decision making framework and also having a colleague in the form of a deputy commissioner to me has been invaluable since I have begun. Being able to go through the framework and really basing my decisions in the evidence, not in how I feel, not in what I think I'm getting. But in the evidence and then also having that deputy commissioner to talk to in deliberation.

My process anyway, is to always go over the structured decision making framework with the deputy commissioner as well and see what they're thinking to try to ferret out whether there is any subjective things going on there that could be influencing a decision that maybe shouldn't be.

Thank you. Do either of you have something different to add to that, Mr. Ndu--

Ndudim. Senator, I don't. I do echo Dr. Kozel's statement. The structured decision making framework is an evidence based tool that helps to mitigate subjectivity in terms of decision making process because it addresses, as Dr. Kozel said, what is static. We look at the crime itself, the prior criminal history, and we look at what the incarcerated person is doing currently. We look at programming, we look at institutional behavior, and then we incorporate comprehensive risk assessment in order to come towards, again, an evidence based decision. So again, that's what we aye looking at when we make a decision.

Thank you. Mr. Muniz, anything different?

No, I completely concur with the answers already provided. I just wanted to addis that it is a tremendous responsibility to make a decision about someone's liberty. And on top of that, we're making decisions about public safety. And so utilizing a tool that has enabled us to apply the same lens to every single person who sits before us is critically important.

And I never, ever in deliberations after a hearing, say, what did you think? Because I believe that opens the door to subjectivity. And I always say, let's go to the structured decision making domains: criminal and parole history and offender self control are the two static, perhaps static, depending on the length of when that crime occurred, and then we have four dynamic and then one special scenario.

So we evaluate programming. We also evaluate their institutional behavior as it pertains to rules violations and or laudatory, meritorious behavior. We also take a look at offender change. Are they the same person who committed this crime or are they different? And then we also look at their release plan. And the release plan is all that thoughtfulness about their blueprint for going into the ward as a different person.

But then we also weigh special considerations. Youth offender, elderly inmate partner, battery syndrome, if it happened before 1996, if there's some sort of learning disability if somebody comes in and they don't have the wherewithal to comprehend much of what's going on or do they have mental health issues. So we have to be really mindful are we expecting somebody who doesn't read or write to do the same things that someone else did? So there's a lot of special consideration that goes into all that.

And when we rely on the structured decision making, it allows us not to make decisions that are based on how we feel or some sort of feeling we may have one way or another and we can really just go to. The tool that has helped us is so helpful as me coming on and never being part of the board as my two partners are here. It was very valuable to really put all my faith in structured decision making and follow my training and follow the law.

Thank you very much. I'm not going to ask you the second question because I feel like you followed up on that and I appreciate that. Mr. Muniz, I'm going to tell you that sitting on this Committee for governors appointees, we research every one of you. We do we do our best to research every one of you because I think that even though in the minority we have in the minority party, I guess you would say that the cherished incredible Madam Pro Tem is incredible.

We might have differences of opinion but the position that I feel like you guys are in are about fairness--hearing, conducting hearings, I want to say the appearance of fairness on both sides or all sides. I can tell you that in reaching out to several individuals that have been in your past courtrooms or whatever you call them, hearing rooms, reaching out, all types of participants that you guys deal with I just want to share some of the comments with you. Not all of them, but some of them.

Dr Kozel: Although I don't agree with Dr Kozel, Commissioner Kozel all the time, she is a reasonable and very kind person to work with. So I just picked that out of the, I don't know some odd comments that we got.

Mr. Muniz: You are competent, there are no issues and you are very fair and your heart shows on all sides, whether it's the inmate, the victims, what is it next of kin, victims' families, that group, and you are a solid choice that the Governor is making. And not that all of these comments weren't great, I was just sharing with this.

Mr. Ndudim: you are an individual that you are committed to making sure that fairness always arises in your hearings. Your hearings are always you are always competent in your hearing notices. You are one of the best commissioners on that even though you are fairly new and I didn't know you were fairly new.

Yes, I'm fairly new as a commissioner.

So they said you are just a competent and then one other person said that your heart really shows through on all sides as too. So I just want you to know that that makes me feel good about voting aye on all three of you.

And I want you to know that I really appreciate the way you treat your colleagues, the way you treat everybody that's involved in this, because I can't even imagine the weight. Mr. Muniz, that you said you're making a decision to allow somebody their liberty and freedom because they've truly changed their life, right? They've truly changed their life and they had an opportunity to be successful outside of those walls. But you're also making the decision that you may pick up a newspaper and find out that that may not have been the best decision possible. So the weight of those decisions I think that all three of you take to heart.

And I appreciate that you use the evidence based program that is available to you so that when those individuals that have that change of heart and are able to be successful on the outside, we have people here in the building that we work with every day that have been just extremely successful on the outside. I do appreciate that very much.

You said something, I believe. Ms. Kozel regarding and in the other nominee that we had before us earlier, Sheriff Dicushas said something similar and I could be wrong if I mixed it up, but he said he wished that there was off ramps for like mental health before they get to the sheriff's office and they're on their last breath and then they have a fatality in the sheriff's office.

And I think I heard it from one of you and I apologize. I don't recall. I think it was Ms. Kozel, yes, that you made a comment about that, like the mental health stuff. You said mental health or a learning disability, Mr. Muniz, and Ms. Kozel, you said mental health. Do you notice that same thing, that there should be some type of off ramp before they get to you or before they get to the system, I guess you say?

Yeah, before they get to the system. I was going to say there is actually a process before they get to us, which is the consultation hearing, which I think is so beneficial, where we're meeting with them about five years out. I don't know if everyone on the panel knows about the consultation hearing.

So that is a major step forward, because five years before their hearing, they get to speak to a commissioner and find out what we might be expecting. And that gives them the requisite time and also hope, because we get to tell them, hey, you know what? You're doing good in these places, and these places you might want to work on. It's a great thing.

But I think when it comes to coming into the system, I used to work at San Quentin, which is a reception center. And so that's everybody right coming in and being filtered into the different institutions. And I noticed that we already do certain things when they first come in, like, they do already meet with a mental health person that does a quick suicide checklist, essentially.

But we could be doing so much more. And since we already have them meeting with mental health professionals, I guess that would be my dream wish, would be that we could work something in to help them plot out a roadmap to getting suitable right when they get in. What do you need to work on? What do you need to think about? They may not be open to it at that time, but just to start the process as soon as they get off the bus, so to speak.

Is that a funding issue or is that a legislative issue? What is the reason they don't do that?

You know what? Am I allowed to I think--absolutely--because Mr Muniz you can speak to this.

Sorry. Mr. Muniz

Certainly, any fix in the Department is actually any fix in any government entity municipality comes with complications, right? If we had a magic wand, I suppose. But we don't. So one of the things that I think would be important is allowing anybody who's onboarding to have into prison. I say onboarding, we use reception center as terminology.

I do feel like one of the things that would be really good is to allow them to be exposed to the programming before they get into the population. And realistically, that's not possible, especially during population pressures. That was not even a consideration. But to give everybody who comes into prison an opportunity to be exposed to something that's not toxic sometimes just hearing somebody speak differently from who you've been hanging out with, that was criminally minded is really--

I had a consultation the other day, and at the end, the incarcerated person I was speaking to reached up to the camera and gave me a video fist bump. When he left, I was like, wow, that's really cool. But oftentimes in prison, we're not making assessments of, gee, you don't look like you're feeling that well today while you're moving mass movement into the yard and off the yard.

So probably touch points before folks are put into a mainline yard to help them address some of their issues and have an ear about programming before they have to step onto a yard and solely be consumed with survival. The human chemistry of the human body and survival is associated with cortisol.

And cortisol kills the brain cells and it stops all growth and there's a different place in the brain when there's serotonin, oxytocin, and that's when we look happy and we're ready to be married or we're going to have children, a place where we can remove the negative and install some of the positive.

If we had a way to do that. By the time they get to us. Speaking about how to do that in the community may be different. But to be able to fill their ears with positive before they get to the voices that will tell them how to be and how they should act who don't have their best interest in mind is not helpful to anybody, especially a younger population.

Thank you very much for that.

Did you have anything else to add, Mr. Ndudim?

The only thing I have to add is to echo what Dr. Kozel says about the issue with regards to consultation where we get the opportunity to discuss with incarcerated person the roadmap to being found suitable. I find that to be incredibly important.

And you address both their recent institutional behavior. I like to let them know that those are static if you want to get found suitable. Yes, you've had this prior issues with misconduct, but going forward you can look at it as something that you need to desist from. So the consultation process is incredibly important in our work.

Thank you to all three of you. Thank you very much. Thank you, madam. Pro Tem.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I've been listening very carefully and there's so many things that you all have said that have resonated with my understanding of human behavior and psychology. Especially the comments that you just made. Mr. Muniz, with regards to the chemicals and how our brain reacts and what's expected and how we react as human beings.

It's one of the reasons why I take great responsibility in the way that I speak as an elected in my district and here with the Members, with my colleagues. And I have to say I also appreciate the comments that you made with regards to considering the hope that's necessary for human engagement in rehabilitation as well as understanding the importance of keeping our families safe.

It's a very fine balance in preserving people's liberties as well as making sure that we have a community that is safe for all of us to be a part of and the importance of having our communities safe and having resources and support systems within our communities to make sure that we don't have our broken spirits entering the criminal justice system from the get go. So I appreciate the balance that you folks have on that.

With that in mind, I also appreciated the question that my colleague from Bakersfield made with regards to the model that you use to assess whether someone is ready to reenter the society and whether it's not, and how much of it is a formula that you use and how much of it is your personal instinct. Is the mask okay?

My question to you has to do with regards to people who have been affiliated with gangs. I had the, and I say a blessing because it was an eye opening experience for me, to visit my first prison ever. I was able to visit Lancaster and it was interesting to note and learn of the different yards and the importance of having different yards to accommodate people in their growth of where they are in that process because not everybody's in the same.

And it was interesting to note of what one of the inmates mentioned in which he said we could not be doing the work on self help that we're doing in this yard if we were in that yard. And he made a note to mention not everybody's in the same space and they have to have certain spaces, once you within yourself are ready to start making those decisions to make sure that you have the right space to be able to pursue that self help, because it was implied that if they were in the other yard, they would either be threatened or killed.

And that was so eye opening for me that these gentlemen weber stating and I say gentlemen because there were absolute gentlemen in the meetings that we had in differentiating the different types of mindsets of where people are and not that everyone is in that same space and mindset.

So having that in mind, I have to ask if a person, so talking about prison gang activity still being a major factor in the state, there's been a lack of emphasis on an inmate's participation or membership in a gang as long as they follow the rules and do not misbehave.

So the question is, if a person identifies as a gang member and refuses to participate in a rehabilitative programming with individuals they deem undesirable, such as sex offenders or gang dropouts, are they truly rehabilitated, in your opinion? And as a follow up to that, would you consider them ready for parole if they refuse to participate in these rehabilitative programs, who do you want to start with? They can get each have the same question.

Okay, Mr. Ndudim, why don't you start and we'll just go down.

Thank you, Senator, for that question. During the hearing process, we go through a tremendous amount of information and if an incarcerated person has a risk area related to gangs, we thoroughly question that individual as to not only their history of gang membership, their efforts to address that particular risk, and what specifically they've done to do that.

You do see some individual that will during the hearing process admit to those issues. And then the tricky issue is those that are hiding or haven't fully come forward to admit those that they are prison gang association. So we have to do a lot of work in trying to ferret out that truth and to see whether those risk areas has been thoroughly addressed by that incarcerated person before finding them suitable.

Okay.

This is a deep subject here for sure when it comes to negative peers, gangs and security threat groups, if a person believes that they can't participate in a self help group because of the makeup of other participants in the group, that would certainly be of concern.

But it sort of depends as well. And the reason why I say that is we have the entirety of the file. As Commissioner Dudeem said, we have the entirety of the file. And if they're participating min two on one batteries, three on one batteries. From my experience, this is gang behavior. If someone were to get into a fight one on one, then perhaps they just have an issue with another person. But gangs typically handle their disciplinary issues by ordering somebody to be assaulted.

And the Becker way to do that is two on one or three on one, just in case the person that's getting assaulted is better at fighting, I suppose, than in self defense than the person who's doing the targeted hit from the gang. So when you look at a file and someone's participating in multiple two on one, three on ones, and then says, I can't go in there because I'm not going to be in there with a child molester as an example, or someone who went into SNY sensitive knee ward in the past, that becomes a problem.

Now, if somebody doesn't have any of that, we don't see that in their record, but they're in fear that their visibility in that self help group is going to make them the target.

Then we have to start to weigh, are you a person who's under the influence and fear and terror of the gang? Or Aye, you someone who's pushing the gang issues? Are you an active participant in harming people that the gangs don't think are acceptable? And a lot of times in the past, and I know from Salinas Valley perspective, the population didn't want child molesters on the ward if it was a level four maximum security General population, because on the weekends we had visits and then a child molester would be in the visiting room with them and their children.

The way the Department kind of designates General population and sensitive knee ward, one of our echoing mantras was when you get into the community, target doesn't have an SNY and a GP, you are either a citizen or you are not. You either have the ability to be pro social or you ascribe to antisocial thought processes and behaviors.

So it's not enough to just say, take a look at whether they participated in program. If they themselves choose not to participate in problem, that is going to be a concern. But that's only one domain. So there's many other factors. So that singularly as a factor isn't going to necessarily keep somebody out of programming. Maybe they did incel programming, maybe they're acting completely out of fear. So there's just so many variables.

There that I would say when someone's actively involved in gangs, it can be fairly evident. And if they're just someone who's scared, then we try to look at wahab else they have done it as a singular factor. I wouldn't say is prescriptive of denial, but it is absolutely a concern.

I would just echo what my colleagues have already said. But I wanted to sort of extrapolate a little bit on what Mr. Muniz was saying, is that there are so many ways towards self help, there are so many paths. So while you're looking at programming, like, maybe they're afraid to go to a program.

And I've certainly talked to individuals that they in a similar situation that you were describing, Senator, where they don't want to go to a certain yard, they don't want to do this, but they are actively engaged in cell study where they're getting self help books, they're writing book reports and sending them to the board. They're telling us what they learned from each chapter and how it applies to my life and how they have stepped away from that antisocial way of thinking.

So I think that looking at programming in too narrow a scope of that they just won't go to groups. I always like to encourage people, especially in consultations and even during hearings, too; if it looks like they're ready, they're on the cusp of wanting to dissociate from that gang, to say that there are lots of ways that you can program, and some of those, if you're afraid, can be getting in books that you can look at on your own, meeting in smaller groups.

So just echo everything that they said, but to also look at the programming variable, not just in a narrow scope of meeting with groups, but that there is a low that they can do and there are some individuals that are able to make that change and turn that corner largely on their own. It's very impressive when you see it, but it does happen. It's amazing.

Last question for you, all three. When we have incidents of violence that occur by people who have been paroled, citizen or whatever it may be, especially if it's pretty severe, do you folks ever go back and reassess whether or not there was something within that formula, that assessment that could have been avoided or could be improved, so that we don't have that happening quite a bit? Because that's one of the biggest concerns that we have as a society right now in California. And the fear that many community Members have and why paints a very judgmental picture of what your board does in that respect, in that aspect.

Thank you, Senator. Fortunately, I haven't been with the board long enough to have that happen to me. But for us, all us commissioners, that always stays with you. If that ever happens, you are prompted to go back, read the transcript, see whether you missed anything when you are making that determination. And this is something, again, that stays with you, although you still have to follow the law. That's what we are tasked to do. So it hasn't happened to me and hope it doesn't happen to me.

I also have been with the board for ten months and I have not yet had that happen. It is something that's a weighty matter. It's a weighty matter for sure. However, when the law and the evidence dictates that someone needs to get that opportunity their suitability and they get out into the community, the law says that they have to be an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

And I always tell anybody I talk to during a consultation, the reality is we all pose a risk. We can all get drunk and get behind a wheel of a car and then that vehicle becomes a deadly weapon and we endanger everybody who's on the road. Everybody's a risk. Anybody can be mad, anybody can be intoxicated. Crimes of passion don't necessarily mean that somebody was thought of to be a very angry person before they did something in the heat of the moment. And it can be business related, it can be relationally pointed.

So when we follow the law and we follow structured decision making and they're not an unreasonable risk and they go out there and offend, it's sort of the opportunity everybody has to go out and do something that's a felony. And I suppose when that day comes, I'm going to look at the hearing, I'm going to see how I evaluated the domains and see if we did everything correctly.

But the reality is when it comes to recidivism and parolees, I just want to sort of draw a little bit of a delineation between some individuals who get out without discretion, meaning they have a determinate sentence, so they get out of prison because they're sort of on a timer, if you will. And the people that we see, there's discretion as to whether or not they come out of prison.

So that population right now in terms of recidivism for crimes against other people, like violence, is about 1%. So in terms of understanding, do people who come out of prison recidivate and commit other crimes? Yes.

And then you have to sort of take a splitting of the evidence and say, does the data suggest this was someone who was let out on a determinate sentence, or is this someone who was let out on the discretion of the board? And if they're 1%, I believe that BPH, obviously before we actually all started together, by the way, as commissioners, before our time sitting in these seats has been done really well by BPH. They've done a great job of really focusing on the areas, especially the domains that might point towards unreasonable amount of risk to public safety.

And so when we get there, I suppose that's what I would do, I'm going to look at the file and have to do some serious contemplation and see did I miss something or is this just somebody who had an opportunity and didn't use it wisely?

I have been on the board the same amount of time and so I have not had that happen. But I can give you sort of a corollary story. I had a decision come back on En Bac, so that's when an individual that I and the Deputy Commissioner have given a grant to is being it wasn't sent back by the Governor, it was sent back by our legal department because it turns out that this individual was actually involved in some cell phone usage and other contraband, and that information was not available. This was after we had given the grant.

But you better bet I went back and read that transcript to find out is there somewhere that I went wrong? How did I not see that there was still some of that antisocial mindset going on and I read it and reread it and went through the standard, the structured decision making framework to see where did I go wrong, did I go wrong? But that's where the help of my colleagues is so invaluable to me and where the En Bac process is such a blessing because you do get to review those transcripts and I really value that process. It's the only corollary experience I would have, but I thought I would share it.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful conversations. And just to note as someone who is coming in and learning about the processes and so forth, it's interesting to note, and I'm not sure that the General public knows this, but that there's actually a structured decision making framework that is being used. Whereas I think the majority of people may be under the impression that is arbitrary depending on people's thought process and analysis and interpretation. So I thought that was very enlightening. Thank you for sharing that.

Thank you. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for this conversation and glad to be with you all and learning more from your lived experience min this space. I want to follow up, I think, on some questions that my colleague just lifted up. And for me, you all are the front lines of what this incarceral system is supposed to be doing, which is rehabilitation and creating a system around that, a structure around that that really brings folks into the contributing population of our cities and our communities versus an extracting part of it.

And I appreciate what you talked about in terms of recidivism because that is really what folks in my district, when they talk about public safety, when they talk about our need for jails and prisons, it is that people have an opportunity and access to resources, access to tools in a way that they can come back stronger. And the fact that the analysis that we saw stated that you all within the parole board's purview have only a 2-4% of people who go through the parole hearing process are then convicted of any new crime, which is remarkable.

And within three years of being released that's less than 1% are convicted of a new felony involving harm to another. So my questions are really about not so much, and I heard the way in which you do the work, but if you could share a little bit about what you believe is the most contributing factor that you see to these hearings that are contributing to the lower recidivism? And is there a way to really highlight that aspect of and I don't know if it's the structured decision making what do you think and see as a contributing factor to that recidivism rate that I think the rest of the system could learn from?

Who would you like to start?

I will ask that question to Ms. Kozel and Mr. Ndudim.

It is a very difficult question because it is so individual. And I think that that's where the strength of the structured decision making framework comes in is because we're reviewing all of the records of this individual and for one person, there might be a particular causative factor. There might be trauma in their history that was dealt with in a maladaptive way, like through substance abuse, and maybe that substance abuse then contributed to their violence, and so that substance abuse is a direct nexus to potential violence in the future.

And the structured decision making process helps us go through and find out have they done the necessary rehabilitation around that particular causative factor for them that would make them dangerous on the outside. So every time we do the structured decision making framework it's different for every individual, but that's just an example that I'm giving off the top of my head where I would want to know that that person that has this problem with substance use, has engaged in programming, has been sober.

There's no write ups, recent write ups for that, and that they have a relapse prevention plan that they know in here and Min here. I always tell them they're not going to be able to get the piece of paper out and look at it when they're out on the street and that they have a support network that they have lined up. So that if that particular factor becomes a slippery slope or a dangerous situation for them, that they will know right away how to handle it. I don't know if that answers your question.

Thank you Senator, for that question. The key takeaway with structured decision making framework is that it's evidence based in a way that you're looking at the different domains and the different domains you're looking at the evidence that's attached to that domain. We look at programming, what amount and what is the dosage of programming that that individual has made or has undertaken? When you look at institutional behavior, how long has that incarcerated person desisted from committing any acts of violence.

That gives you an intro into the suitability of that individual. So that's why structured decision making has been such a good tool. And again, underlying that is evidence based.

No, I appreciate that. And I appreciated what you said, Dr. Kozel. The whole history, that whole history and what you mentioned, Mr. Ndudim, about the individual really looking at the individual, and that structured decision making on the individual basis. And that to me, is just, I want to say remarkable, because within all of the processes, how many individuals get a whole history in their time? How many get the whole looking individually at their case? And I think that is important.

And this is a question I wanted to raise to Mr. Muniz in that sense. So since you look at these factors and you're deciding on the release and you're doing the whole history in the individual process, Mr. Muniz, because of your work history and corrections as an officer and some of the things you shared, I wanted to ask you this question. Where is there a possibility for BPH to provide guidance to the overall system, to let them know what programs should be invested in? Because you all know the programs that are making a difference. But we also know it's not across the board.

Some individuals may have access, and it might not because they aren't able to be in this yard or that yard. It might be just that the facility doesn't provide that. So I'm curious, Mr. Muniz, your thoughts about this in terms of if we could wave that magic wand. So I'm asking you to step out a little bit of your day to day role. But is there an opportunity for BPH to set guidance around ways, particularly because determinants will never get this, right.

We don't know whether they aye going to be in the one or 4%. Right. We don't know. Right. So what is the way in which there could be some guidance set by BPH that basically institutionalizes and learns from some of your lessons learned?

Well there's a number of ways. As a warden, we would have our quarterly wardens meeting, and the Executive officer, Jennifer Schaefer, would come and inform us as warden about all things BPH. Unfortunately, it was always jampacked with a lot of other voices that had the opportunity to come and talk to all the wardens.

But I also believe that the consultation is us directly talking to an incarcerated person and instilling hope in them and telling them, I tell them every time I do a consultation, you can do this. I guess what I want to say about that too, is that I worked in a prison for 26 years, and rehabilitation begins by first making prisons safe. And that matters if you have a loved one incarcerated, and it matters if you work there or your family member works there. But to the degree we can begin to establish safety within the walls, then it bleeds out into the community.

So it's a great place to start. So we as BPH, we get to talk to someone who's going to come to board in five years and they might walk out of that consultation. going, "I never thought I had a chance." No one's ever talked to you? I literally had someone yesterday tell me, no one has ever talked to me like this before.

And I don't know, it hit a certain spot in my soul that I thought was really I don't even know how to really evaluate the impact. It was positive for certain. And so I think BPH makes its impact by communicating individually. And of course, as our leadership talks to other entities within the Department, I suppose I could say that I wished that I had known as a warden what I know now as a commissioner.

This is very specific work and we were tasked with getting everybody into their hearings and on time, and we made sure we had programming so that they had a chance. But to understand it on this level, you have to do it. And this is a tough thing to learn. Talk about a steep learning curve. I don't think I've had a true weekend off since I started this job. And if it's only by the grace that my wife is busy too on the weekends we both work, we have not had problems relationally.

So it's a massive undertaking to learn. And I do believe that I don't think I could have learned this without doing it in this kind of all the subtleties and the nuances. But I think the way that we engage the population so that they have a chance and the way that the Executive officer tries to share that and impart that information to the wardens is really key. And I think the counseling staff have learned a lot more.

And I will tell you this, I worked at a level four maximum security prison for 21 years and laudatory chronos by staff were minimal. We can all attest to the fact that the correctional staff now, when they see something good, they write about it. They don't just write somebody up if they have a weapon or if they're battering somebody. They actually write that this person is engaging min a pro-social way and their help and they work with others and they do their jobs well. This informs us, so obviously the word is getting out there.

I think doing what has been going on I think is a good way, meaning the Executive officers are talking at a high level with wardens. The training that goes to the counselors and our interaction with individuals prior to them coming to board, I think is what we're looking forward to help and continue that process.

Thank you so much for those rich responses and for the work that you're doing and the influence that you are having and need to have on this system for it to work in the ways that we need it to work.

So I appreciate that and I'm also appreciating that wish list of ways to increase that communication so that we all have sort of a North Star in what we're trying to do in the system that it's not different definitions for everyone but this is proven from looking at data evidence driven, this is the way that it does work. So then how do we create a system that holds this North Star and uses this very, looks like, proven system. So thank you so much.

Well, thank you to my colleagues. I appreciate the dialogue and all the questions. I really don't have any questions to ask. I have been on the rules committee for over six years. As a freshman I was here and so I've had a number of folks in your position come forward to be appointed or confirmed. Not appointed, confirmed. And I have to say I really feel good about what I'm hearing.

Oftentimes when we think of CDCR and I know this is you come out of starting as a correctional officer and working your way up, it doesn't always feel so good to us when we see things coming out of one of the largest prison systems in the world and how do you do really restorative justice, how do you give people a second chance? But the answers today, what did you say, Senator? The rich, thoughtful dialogue. And, of course, I got a message from a very important person, as you were all speaking.

That would be the secretary of our Senate, who is an incredible leader, who recalled as she was sitting here making sure we follow all the rules and stuff that she had been to when you were warden to the prison and how you received them. And they were speaking with a group of younger folks about opportunities. When they realized they had hope that they were either 116 years to life, I can't even imagine, to realize that they actually had an opportunity.

And how thankful you were and expressed to them, this group of legislative staff Members who came for you, to acknowledge them and thank them for coming. I think that says a lot about character. I think it says a lot about well, I'm overwhelmed with what I've heard today and I feel incredibly good about the position that we're in.

Having said all that, we're going to go to the public to see if they want to weigh in and hopefully none of your family members come up and say, we've changed our mind, they work too hard, we don't support them. And I'm sure that won't happen. But it speaks that family members are here and so proud of you. Obviously, I saw your spouse smiling the whole time you were speaking.

Your family has masks on. Good for them. So I couldn't tell if they were smiling or yawning, but I know I'm kidding. It's great that you're all here. I'm going to go to the public, and we're going to start in room 2200 to see if someone would like to come forward and speak in support.

Okay, here's your opportunity to come and speak in opposition, noting that all your family Members are staying in their seats. I wilk put back up or have staff put back up on the screen. A reminder for witnesses who wish to speak via telephone or toll free number, that number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 694-8930.

And with that, I'm going to welcome back our moderator to tee up those who wish to speak in support or opposition. And as you do that, we would ask for your name, your organization, if any, that you represent and who you would like to support or oppose. And no further comments, just support or opposition.

Welcome back, Mr. Moderator.

Thank you. If you would like to provide comments today, either of support or opposition, please press one then zero. That command again, one, then zero.

And we have no comment at this time.

Well, thank you for monitoring us today, Mr. Moderator. We appreciate your help. Fortunately, your spouse didn't call in to weigh in in opposition either. Oh, he's here. Okay. I stand very much corrected. With that, I have a feeling I can accept a motion for all three.

Madam Chair, I would so move.

I appreciate it, Senator Laird noting for the court reporter that multiple senators tried to get to their mic first. But the good Senator Laird, the former secretary, beat you to it, Madam Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, will you please call the role?

Laird aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Grove aye. Atkins aye. Five to zero.

Five to zero. Congratulations. We will forward your confirmations to the full Senate, and we thank you for your time, your responses, and your service.

May I say one thing, Madam Chair?

Madam Vice Chair.

Yes. I just want to say that I am thoroughly impressed with your heart and low to change the system from within and address the issues that you face every day. And then also for your responsibility that you carry for the public safety piece of it as well. So thank you all for being here.

Thank you. So this concludes today's public portion of the agenda. I want to thank all of the individuals who participated today. If you were not able to testify and still would like to, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Rules Committee or visit our website for instructions. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records.

So thank you, everyone, for the patience, the cooperation. The Senate Committee on Rules will now move to Executive session. And I'm going to step away for just a moment. We'll be back and set up and ready to go for Executive session momentarily.