Senate Standing Committee on Rules

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. We now have a quorum established. Ladies and gentlemen who are here in the hearing room and those watching online. What we'd like to be able to do, with respect, is to be able to take up some of our housekeeping items, if it's all right with each and every one of you. This should take a few minutes. And we're going to get to the appointees required to appear and really appreciate your patience. And again, we are grateful that you're here today.

If there are no objections, we'd like to be take up first item on today's agenda, and that's going to be the Governor. Appointees not required to appear. That's items 2g through I. We'd like to take two different flights up for votes. We'd like to take items two, G, I and J. G, I and J up first. We have a motion, and we'll take a separate motion after we vote on these three items on items two h. So we have a motion on the floor for two.

Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. That is a 40 vote on items G, I and J. Ladies and gentlemen, Committee, we're now going to be taking item two, h up separately. Is there a motion? We have a motion by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That is the 3-1 vote. Item two h passes. Thank you so much. Next, we'd like to be able to take up item three on today's agenda. This is reference of bills to committees. We'll entertain a motion. We have a motion by Senator Eggman. Madam Secretary, can you please call a roll?

[Roll Call]

Four to 4-0 vote. That measure passes with a 40 vote. Ladies and gentlemen, Committee, we're going to take one item up prior to getting to the appointees who are in the hearing room today. This is items four through 12, floor acknowledgments. Items four through 12 on floor acknowledgments, we have a motion by the Vice Chair. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Ladies and gentlemen of Committee, that's a 4-0 vote. That measure passes. Thank you so much to the Committee for that Work, and we appreciate the patience of those who are in attendance. We're going to now request each of the six appointments of Commissioner appointees, Commissioners of the Board of Parole, to please step forward. We're going to have folks step forward, and I'm going to name.

We have Mister Schneider to my right in the seat, Miss Purcell in the second, Miss O'Meara third, Mister Infante, fourth, Mister Chappelle, fifth, and Mister Barton, 6th. So we want to welcome each and every one of you to Committee. Thank you so much for taking the time. We also want to say thank you for your service to the State of California. As you see, we have a full house. We have six Members who are appearing today.

We'd like to be able to just do quick run of show. Typically, we have two to three folks in front of us. We'd like to talk about run of show and how this is going to work today. And again, we're really grateful that each of you are here. We're going to hear from each Member who was here for appointment. We'd like to go through the order in which we'll hear from each of the commissioners.

We'll first hear from Mister Barton, then Mister Chappelle, and then we're going to hear from Mister Infante, Miss O'Meara, Miss Purcell, and then to Mister Schneider. Now, each of the commissioners, you will have one to two minutes to be able to provide opening testimony to the Committee. We're then going to open it up to the Committee Members to ask questions in advance any comments that they may have in your opening.

We of course, welcome any welcoming comments that you may have to folks who are here in support of you or watching online, and especially if you have any family you'd like to be able to acknowledge. We welcome that at this time, with respect, we're going to be keeping time. When you get close to two minutes, I'll just give you a little nudge and that you know you're getting close to two minutes.

And please don't take it me being rude or pushy, but just want to make sure that we get to the questions and the conversation with each of the Committee Members. Now, each Senator will have questions for the panel here due to the number of appointees, and again, with respect, we ask each of the commissioners to be able to answer the question that is most relevant or important to you.

There may be a Senator that asks each of you to be able to answer, and of course, that is the prerogative of the Senator. Otherwise, if you can pick and choose which is the most important or relevant to you, unless directed by the individual Senator here on the Rules Committee. And again, we are so appreciative that you would take the time. Thank you so much. The Committee's permission. We're going to start here with our testimony and opening statement. We're going to start with. Mister Barton, you have two minutes, sir. Thank you. And the floor is yours.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members. I know you all have our resume. I'm not going to spend time going through my resume in particular, .

Mister Barton, I'm going to have you pause for a moment because I'm not sure your mic is on. We're going to have you pause for one moment. Let's try it again. Mister Barton. There we go. Okay, you're on. All right.

As I said, I'm not going to go through my resume necessarily, but I do thank the Governor for his continued confidence in my performance in this role and what I see as a very critical role for public safety, for public service, for the criminal justice system, and I look forward to being able to serve in that manner for another term. I also would thank my wife, who's extremely supportive.

This is oftentimes an arduous job, oftentimes many hours spent on evenings and weekends, and I really do appreciate her and the rest of my family's support in that regard. I also appreciate the support of my colleagues, the board, staff.

It is a group effort in terms of us being able to perform this job, and the, I would say, support that we get by way of, for example, comprehensive risk assessments ahead of time, all the documents that we need for the hearing, just the hard work that the staff goes into preparing us and giving us the stuff we need for each hearing.

Also would like to acknowledge that oftentimes, I think these decisions, just like any other judicial post, are not going to be popular with one side or the other. We're asked to make a decision every time. And my goal is to be as fair as I can, to be as prepared as I can, and to make those decisions with as much information as I can. And I do, again, appreciate the support and the training that were provided to do that. So thank you all for your time today.

Thank you so much. Commissioner. Commissioner Chappell.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Thank you to the chair and Committee Members. I'm truly honored to be before you today in hopes of being able to serve out another term with the board of parole hearings. I've served with the board since January of 2016, and since that time, I've been fully committed to carrying out the duties of my position to the best of my abilities. And if I am able to continue as a Commissioner with the board, I will continue with that full commitment. So, once again, I am honored to be before you today and welcome your questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you so much. We're now going to be turning it over to Commissioner Infante. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. It is an honor and a privilege to speak with you all today. I'd like to express my appreciation, first and foremost to Governor Newsom for this appointment. I would also like to extend and thank my wonderful wife, Angela, for all her support and extend warm wishes to her birthday today, for allowing me to be here on her birthday. And so I truly appreciate her support. As Commissioner Barton said, this is a arduous job that takes a lot of time to prepare for these hearings.

I have dedicated my career to promoting rehabilitation, reintegration, first with the juvenile justice and now with the board of Parole Hearings. And I sought this appointment to continue this work while protecting the public through fair and impartial decision making. I value this work as it is extremely challenging, yet rewarding. And I look forward to continuing to serve the people of California. And I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you so much. We're now going to be turning it over to Commissioner O'Meara. It's good to see you. Good afternoon.

Hi. Good to see you, too. And thank you all so much for this opportunity. And thanks to the Governor. I'm just immensely appreciative. It's been an incredible ride on this job. I will say a little bit about my background because I'm very proud to have been one of the first psychologists on the board, and I kind of feel like I was divinely put here.

Did my dissertation research at Vacaville in the late, well, in the early eighties, and I think I was the last person to actually have human subjects. So it was a very enriching experience, and it led me onto a path that I've been with for my whole life. I've heard some statistics, like, people change jobs or do something, maybe five times out of their lifetime, they do something else.

And I feel kind of a little strange that I've stayed in this job and I've stayed immensely interested in criminal justice and reform and working with people in therapy and so forth. And I worked in CDCR, private practice and forensics. And then when this opportunity came up, I just. I couldn't even believe it was an opportunity for me. I was so happy to do this. And everything that's been said about the workload, 100%, it is a tremendous workload. It's a tremendous amount of.

It is the most unboring job a person could ever have. I mean, it is constantly fascinating, and I'm constantly learning and getting better at it, I think. And I'm just very grateful to be here. And I thank all of you for this opportunity. I really do.

Thank you, madam Commissioner. I know none of you would describe this job as boring, and I know that Doctor Eggman, I'm sure, will have some questions for you as a mental health professional as well. So thank you so much. We're now going to turn it over to our Commissioner, Commissioner Purcell. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. I'd like to thank the Governor for the appointment, for the reappointment. I'm honored to receive it. You have my resume. I've had a terrific legal career. That next year marks 40 years in the legal profession, and most of it, the majority, has been dedicated to being a neutral, being either a judge, Commissioner, and that's been a great responsibility and something that I take very seriously. This job is a terrific job. It's challenging.

It is important work to be done, and it's meaningful work in many ways. I would like to acknowledge that, and I have said this many times. The board of parole hearings is a great organization. It's complex, it's large, it's volume based. It's a great organization, one I'm very proud to be a part of. And so I would like to thank you for your time today, and I welcome any of your questions.

Thank you so much. Commissioner greatful, you're here. Finally, we're going to hear from Commissioner Schneider. Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon. I think, like everybody else already said, I would like to thank the Governor and his staff for the appointment. Executive Officer Schaefer, and then, of course, folks here in the Rules Committee, I appreciate you very much and look forward to the questions you will have. I would like to introduce my wife. She is in the back there. So he insisted on coming and that's not good last minute pressure. So as if there wasn't enough.

Anyway, I like what all my fellow commissioners said and the only thing I would add to that, I would put the most. After a 34 year career in law enforcement, a five year career in doing this job, I find it the most, the most arduous, the most challenging, the most meaningful, the most impactful, the most spot where the rubber hits the road. That's what we do.

I mean this is a lot of work here, but that ultimately we are making the most important public safety decision that can be made. And so I just wanted to share that with you. So add the most to what they all said, but thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Commissioner and Mister Schneider. It's nice to have you here in attendance as well. Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee. We're going to start with Senator Laird and then we'll open it up for the remainder of the Committee. And we're grateful you're here. Senator Laird, please.

Thank you Mister chair. And thank you all for being here and your willingness to serve. Now that this is in my fourth year of the Committee and you have three year terms, I've actually seen a few of you already. And you're back again, which I think I'm still the newbie, so that is good. And I'm always happy when somebody from Vallejo gets appointed to anything. So congratulations for that.

I'd ask you where your address was but this is the parole board hearing and you might get into trouble so we could talk about that later. I noted the letter of concern or opposition that was in our packet and I thought I would just lead off by asking about that. And then I have a couple of questions and I think it would be deadly to go to all six.

And so I think I will ask Mister Barton the first question and that's that the letter really questioned policies of the board and questioned how they would are being implemented. And I know you've read the letter. How would you respond to that concern? And I think you might have to turn your mic on if it's. Hello?

Okay, I'll try to talk closer to it. The first thing I think I have to point out, and as legislators you understand this, semantics are important and it's not actually a policy. So for us, this is a procedure that was put out in a recent handbook designed to assist everyone involved in the process. So at this point it's sort of in a, I would say a beta testing phase. And first of all, it's not something that is necessarily going to remain permanent.

We will have to see how it affects, how it impacts our cases. But secondly, I thought the biggest contention in the letter was they felt it was robbing us of our judicial discretion, and that is not accurate. All of us still retain that discretion. Anyone, well, any of the prosecutors, or for that matter, either side that wants to introduce photographs, whether or not they've been submitted to the board previously, can ask to do so.

And we would then ask them for an offer of proof as to what's the necessity for the photographs. And once that's satisfied, we can certainly allow them to bring those photographs in, much like you would. And I know if you've seen my resume, I was a prosecutor for many years in Kern County. And so for me, as far as.

So you're clearly a survivor yourself. I'm sorry, I'm just.

Well, I would point out, my colleague here, I would point out that Commissioner Purcell was in Kern before she was in Vallejo. Just as an aside, but. But back to my point is that discretion remains. And so we would still have the ability to do that on a case by case basis.

But as a former prosecutor, and I will be quite honest in terms of my preparation for a case, if there is a question as to how someone was killed, how someone is testifying about the facts of the case, when it comes to what those photographs might show, an autopsy is actually a better source because photographs, and this is just common sense, but photographs often can show a picture that may not be the same as what the medical examiner finds when it comes to the mode of, you know, the wound that was caused, where the wounds are, what the various injuries are, you know, how someone actually died.

And so sometimes the photos themselves are not as good as all the other information we're already considering, which are police reports, autopsy reports and testimony. And certainly we look at the testimony of the person before us in contrast to anything that might be in those official records.

And let me understand, because in reading some of this, and somebody gave me some of the handbook of the process, it makes a statement about not relitigating certain parts of the crime. So if you're not supposed to relitigate crime, how does this all square?

So the bottom line is we're looking at whether somebody currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. So when you follow structured decision making, which is what we are trained to do, when we're looking at what has been evidence based, proven to be the factors that we should consider in these types of decisions, one of the things we do look at is offender change. So does the person take responsibility for their actions? Do they, when they're talking about things, can they display honesty? Can they?

Obviously, if someone's being dishonest with me in a hearing, that could be problematic. It could be ongoing evidence of criminal thinking, it could be ongoing evidence of personality flaws that they had when they came to prison. Credibility is always at issue for any one of our hearings. So the only, so the way that that crosses over with this is we're not relitigating the crime, whether or not they committed a particular crime. And let's say it is a murder.

You have plenty of evidence, plenty of information in front of you as to how the crime was committed. But we're not deciding whether they were guilty or innocent. We're deciding whether today they currently pose an unreasonable risk of public safety because we take the record at its face. So that's how we don't relitigate the matter. But we still, credibility still might be an issue.

And so I could see the very rare case, I will say in my 56 years of doing this, I can't think of one case where my decision came down to having to look at a photograph to make my decision.

Thank you. I find that to be really helpful. Let me go to Mister Schneider, because you were also referenced in that letter. I can see how enthusiastic you are looking, but it made some references to you and I wanted to give you a chance to address that.

Yeah, you guys turn my mic on automatically. Okay. Yeah, I got that information yesterday afternoon, and I did get my very own paragraph in that letter. And I looked at that and it shocked me. And then I don't remember the case specifically. And I've tried to, and I've thought about it. I don't know the case, so I can't look it up. But I said, you know, that's something I would say, quite frankly, I'm going to own that. And when you hear Bob talk about responsibility, I want ownership. That's what we need to have so somebody understands the full gravity of what they've done, whether it's myself up here, or whether it's a parole candidate in front of us.

And in that case, there it is. Something I likely would have said. I did not want it to come across that way. I'm very upset that I caused harm to the victims, that the last thing I ever want to do is re traumatize or further harm the victims. So I'm pretty upset about that. I need that kind of feedback. I've got it in this case here, and I will move on and do a better job, and that will not happen again. But thank you for the question, though.

Thank you. And then the next question I wanted to ask, ironically, starts with you. And that is that. And I did this when some of the last of you were in front of us, because it was interesting to me. We have a chart in our packet that says the period of denial before an inmate becomes eligible for the next parole hearing date. And it is, you know, one year, two year, three years, four years, five years, 710, and 15.

And 3 and 5 are clearly the most frequent categories that come from the proceedings. But there's only two people that had anything that was over 10 years, and Mister Barton had one that was 10 years and you had five that were 10 years and one that was 15 years.

And so, which is kind of ironic, given the previous question, is, it seems that even though that's in maybe 125 cases, what convinces you that somebody is in a status that they shouldn't even be looked at for a very long time without relitigating a case? What factors exist in a case like that that lead you to that conclusion?

Yeah, I do remember many of them. Marcy's law, which is denial. Lengths of 3, 5, 7, 10, 15. If I'm going to. We as a Committee, parole commissioners, are charged with following the law, and so if someone is not an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, then they should be granted parole. If they are, and if they are on the rehabilitative path, if you will, then perhaps a three year denial is reasonable and give them directions of what to do. The cases where I've given 15 or even 10, they are very, very, very far from it. And it actually is rather shocking.

And I make sure in each of those cases, I know it's going to be looked at as it should be, even by our legal staff. And I make sure I enumerate those reasons why that length of denial is needed. These people have lots of rule violations. They have not taken any self help. They've not done the R of the CDCR, if you will, and they are just not interested. Many of them are really hardcore gang Members or what we look as we look at that. So I hope that answers your question. I would love to answer it. If I haven't, I could answer it more, but.

Well, I think you've answered it completely on the process. I think we are laypeople, and it is trying to understand when you look at a wide range of people, even though you do it completely on the merit and the facts. What gets you to the fact that they're, whatever the word is, incorrigible? What leads you to make that decision that that's really over and above other cases?

Yeah, it really is. I know Commissioner Barton talked about, we want to see people, we're not relating in the crime, but they have to acknowledge they committed this crime and the impact of that crime. I mean, and actually own it or take responsibility for it. So these guys that I'm talking about have not done that.

They have, they probably have acquired, and they also usually have a lengthy criminal history prior to their prison history. So we're looking at what was their criminal history prior to this crime. Do they understand why they committed this crime? Or, you know, in this case, these cases, they generally don't. Or they don't care. The next level is, have they been taking rehabilitative classes? Right. I mean, and the classes can be from gangs to anger management to all kinds of cognitive behavioral skills.

If you want to get them thinking about why did they do this, what was wrong with their criminal thinking they had at that time? And then it also goes to their institutional conduct. CDCR uses a point system, if you will. And when incarcerated people are brought into the institution, they generally are given about 70 points, 80 points. We can look that up and see the guys we see when they come to us. In theory, they should have less points.

These guys have like 300 points because they've gotten so many rules violations and serious rules violations, criminal rules violations, picked up new terms. And so you look at all that and there's just no evidence of change. Now, what I always do tell them is that your conduct merits a 10 year or a 15 year or a seven or even a five. Right.

However, you can always petition to advance, which means you can actually fill out a complete a form and that will be reviewed by a deputy Commissioner at the board of parole hearings and can bring them back for an earlier hearing. The interesting part of that is that's the easiest thing they can do because I've established they have not changed at all. I've established they've not taken any courses, any rehabilitation whatsoever. All they have is a history of rules violations.

So if they can stop all that and they could easily complete that petition to advance, there would be change. Right? I've got no more rules violations. I've taken these classes. Can I come back sooner? And so we see a lot of those petitions to advance, but,

Yes, that is really helpful. I appreciate that. And I have one last question for another board Member, and I can see everybody chafing, hasn't spoken yet. You keep leaning toward the mic.

I gather there's not a proceeding where you usually feel disempowered. So I apologize for that. I was going to ask Commissioner Infante, you had prior experience on the board of juvenile hearings, which seems unique in some ways. I was going to ask how that's influenced you. I'm tempted to ask if you've seen any repeat people that grew up and went into the other part of the system. But I think, how did that prior service inform you as you do your job now?

Thank you, Senator. To answer your question, you wanted to. I have not. I have not had a person come before me who I previously saw in the division of juvenile justice thus far. I think that my experience with not only the board of juvenile hearings, but being direct care staff with the division of juvenile justice for 10 years in various roles, just really gave me a unique lens. Unique lens as it relates to youth offenders, as it relates to juveniles in General.

Really having a unique perspective on the issues and risk factors that we would typically see with the incarcerated population. And so being able to understand that, hear those experiences as an example. Right. Adverse childhood experiences past all those issues that contribute to criminality.

Again, now with the board of parole hearings, it allows me to look at it, first off, from that perspective, and it has contributed to my ability to conduct every hearing with, again, fair and partiality, and, you know, allowing me the experience and familiarity with the decision making process.

Great. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. Please, Miss Eggman. Then we're going to go to Senator Eggman.

Thank you. And thank you all for doing this and being here. Just because he's just asked the main question so far. We know that women in prison are oftentimes abused. And I know you're not here as representatives of the prison system or the CDCR, but we know that the one CEO was assaulting women sometimes right before their parole hearing. And so when people come before the.

The parole hearing board, I'm assuming, right, their presentation to you matters, and you're going to be kind of assessing based on how people present to you. How are you able to kind of distinguish between the everyday life in prison or somebody who's actually traumatized sitting in front of you right there trying to present their case for a parole hearing? I was asking Doctor O'Meara.

Well, believe it or not, I've only done one hearing at the women's institution the whole time. But I think that's always something, whether male or female, that's always something that we're looking out for. And I think it happens more frequently with the women, sexual trauma in particular.

So I think in order of things that I would do in those cases, and, again, whether with men or women, is try to do what I can to relax them, let them know I want them to be their best self. And I think that just the process of a gentle approach, just the process of. I want to see you. That it does help, that it does help to do that and to recognize something I think we all know is that trauma begets trauma.

And one of the main things I'm looking for in a hearing is, do they make the connection to the traumatic experiences that they had, the aces and then the acting out that they eventually did? And do they see that that was this running parallel along the way? So it's really a critical thing to be addressed, and I also want to know what they have done to address it. As it has been said, we have so much programming. What have they done? Has it been relevant to it, and what are their current insights? I feel like I kind of answered your question, but there was something I'm missing.

I probably forgot to ask, but. Miss Purcell, so. And I'm losing my train of thought. You made me lose my train of thought. But the other issue we're talking about really comes down to minimization, right? Can somebody accept what they did? And this whole idea of pictures is you want to make sure somebody's not minimizing what they did and takes ownership of it. And again, we go back to a lot of abuse, to prison pipeline, especially for women.

But for a lot of folks, how then do you do that assessment of them accepting responsibility for their crime and them also then coming with a higher acknowledgement of the victimization they may have had prior that was involved in some of their criminal behavior. That make sense?

Yes. So when we go into the hearing, we are looking for an assessment of their level of responsibility that they take in any particular crime, and a lot of questions are asked. But before we begin the process, we review thousands, perhaps at least hundreds of pages. And so we have a lot of their programming. We know what they have taken. Perhaps they've taken victim awareness, maybe many times they've taken it. They've taken perhaps denial management, another responsibility accepting kind of course.

And then they've generally written out some, which can be very good, parole plans and relapse prevention plans. So we've evaluated all that before we go into the hearing and when we get into the hearing, we are always looking to understand in a real time basis, not on writing, but in real time, person to person, what is the acceptance of your responsibility? So I will, and I know my other colleagues do engage in a discussion of amends. What does amends mean to you?

What kinds of amends are there? Direct indirect living. What are some examples? Are you doing them now? Do you have plans to do them in the future? And people that are able to discuss that or have already demonstrated it through mentorship programs in the prison or something like that, it is good evidence to us that they have taken responsibility. On the other hand, sometimes you can tell people haven't taken full responsibility.

They're not knowledgeable, they haven't taken the courses, they haven't done writings, and they haven't really demonstrated or in the hearing in the best way that they can, because they're very nervous. We do know that in the best way they can, they haven't demonstrated that. And that's the call for the neutral to decide what is going on in this hearing. And so we use our best skills, all of us, to do that. And I know we care very much about coming to the right conclusion on that.

How much time, and this is for any of you, how much time do you spend preparing for a case? And then how many cases do you do a week or a month? So I'm asking volume just to get a sense of.

Yes, Owen? Yes, it really depends on the case. The more complex cases, obviously take more time. Personally, my preparation time will average anywhere from 2 hours on up. Like I said, it really depends on the type of case. And there was another question in there.

How many?

Like, on average? Yes, on average, it's around 10, 10 cases a week. Yes.

Well, most, I agree. The average is probably about 10, I think the most. We have preparation days on Monday where we're trying to, you know, review files, review documents, and then we typically don't schedule more than three a day. There was a time when we were trying to get to our backlog, and we did four, I think. I don't want to speak for everyone but myself sometimes. That fourth hearing, you really got to gear up to be mentally there.

As you all know, sitting in hearings like this all day long, it's tough at the end of the day. So I think three is a good number. But so, relatively speaking, we could have up to 12 per week, although generally Fridays. Again, understanding that we're going to start our prep for the following week is usually two or no more than two. So 12 would be the most, 10 would be an average.

Some weeks are less, which are nice, because then we can have even more prep time for the following week. But I would agree with Commissioner Chappelle, it really depends on the case itself, you know, how long the person has been in a subsequent hearing. For those of you that don't know, person may be coming back from a hearing, you know, just a couple years, three years ago. And so we're really taking off from where they left off.

Those are a little easier because I can read that prior transcript, I can go through all the documents, and I can see what have you done since then? Have you addressed those concerns? So initial hearings are going to take more time because you're learning everything you can about that person before you go into their first hearing. So it depends, and we know.

We know that recidivism is down through the process. So does that tell you, then, the process is working, or do we need to do anything different as far as protecting public safety?

I'll speak if nobody else wants to. I mean, I think our recidivism rate is amazing. When you look at the General recidivism rate for determinately sentenced inmates, which is, you know, hovers in the mid 40% right now. For us, it's, you know, 2%, I've granted, somewhere in the neighborhood of 540. And just anecdotally, I only know of two that have come back, and they've been for, you know, not new offenses, but violations. So I think that that speaks to the structured decision making we've been following.

I think it speaks to the training, I think it speaks to the qualifications of my fellow commissioners and the fact that every one of us has public safety paramount when we make these decisions and we also have. We wouldn't be in this job, however, if we didn't believe that, you know, redemption was possible, that people can change. So you're weighing those two things and making the best decision you possibly can in each and every case. So I think that I would put that recidivism rate up against any state in the United States and say that it's amazing, given the number of people we've paroled.

I could add onto that to loop it back around to preparation and say that I think some of it is in our preparation, too. We are all very well prepared for these cases. We do know them. We really know them inside out by the time we go to the hearing. So we're aware of where the pitfalls might be, and we don't waste time. We know that already.

And so when you're well prepared for something, you can generally do a good job, a better job, than if you're not prepared. So I think that might pull the loop around, too.

Senator. Any other items? Thank you so much, Senator. Vice Chair, please. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister pro tem. Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. Like the rest of my colleagues, I'm sure it's not the most. I don't. Want to say rewarding job. I know you guys find some type of reward in it by balancing public safety and giving someone their freedom if they have deserved it. I was very disturbed about the photographic information specifically because on page 28 of the handbook, it says on your guys handbook. For these reasons, the board will no longer accept photographs, including crime pictures. The board continues to welcome the prosecutor's submission of written documentation.

And when I first read that, I thought, wow, a picture is worth a thousand words. Especially when a case I read for Commissioner Chappelle in the Frederick walkie case, where the inmate murdered his girlfriend's two year old son by beating him to death and biting him during the hearing. It was the photographs accompanied with the. With the autopsy report. After you read all the documentation with there.

And I do believe, and I don't know, but I do believe that somehow those photographs had to attach you to the point where, accompanied by the other information, you understood that the inmate wishing, the incarcerated person wishing to be paroled was not being truthful with you. And therefore there was a. You denied a parole hearing, and this is on a transcript for 120. I only bring up that particular case because it was one of three that we were given.

But then I read something else that disturbed me. Number one, I didn't like the fact that you guys weren't taking photographic evidence, because that is something that is, like I said, a picture worth a thousand words. And then a couple of page over on your other piece, document that was provided to us, I found out that those documents are uploaded to the inmates central file, which gives the inmate accessibility to those photos. And. And you all deal with these people.

Commissioner Schneider, you said it best when you said if they've warranted or granted, or made the proper steps to be granted their freedom or parole. But there are people out there that need to go 10515 years, whatever the number was. I would hate for those pictures to be in the possession of those incarcerated people that would just love to see those pictures in a sick way.

So is there a balance or that you're not going to accept any pictures versus what you do accept, and taking into consideration that it does end up in the incarcerated inmates file where they have the opportunity to view those pictures? Or is it your stance you're not ever taking pictures according to the board handbook? Mister Barton? Commissioner Barton. Sorry.

That's fine. As I said, we will take pictures. If the prosecutor feels, as you said in that particular case, maybe there was an issue with that credibility. And if they're offered, we're certainly going to consider them. And if they say, hey, we really think this is necessary to prove up this point or that point, then certainly we would consider those. We always welcome any feedback from any victim group in our jobs. I think that they're a vital, obviously, participant.

We welcome them in our hearings, we hear from them last in our hearings. I try to do what I can to explain the process so that they understand what's going on throughout, especially if there's not a good understanding on their part. But as far as the photographs of the homicide and, you know, where they go afterwards, there is a process within CDCR where things can be put in a confidential file so they don't have access to it.

When they look at their files, there's an entire confidential section that we have access to that inmates do not have access to.

That's good to know. Thank you.

And then the other thing I would say is that in terms of our, and I can't speak to Kevin's case, he can certainly opine on that. But for me, like I said, it's not never, it's. We all signed on to this job and we all have experienced where we understand secondary trauma. We've developed our own self care practices to deal with that.

But when those photos come in, they get processed sometimes by staff Members that, you know, are brand new to state service because it's the person that's bringing the mail, the person that's creating our files. They're, you know, being exposed to that. And I'm not saying that that's the reason for this policy, but what I'm saying is this is in no way this. I shouldn't even call it a policy, as I said, right at this point.

It's a procedure, but it's not in any way to protect us from seeing photographs. We've all had experience viewing gruesome photographs. The bottom line is, if it's being done simply for an emotional impact, to move us to get a visceral reaction, that's not how we make our decisions anyway. So we're making our decisions informed, based on evidence based training that we've received. And so I understand how horrific and how hard this is for victims. I've sat alongside victims while they've had to go through this process.

I always did my best to shield them from being exposed to those photographs at trial if they're, you know, in the courtroom when I'm having to, if I had to use those photographs. And so we're very attuned to how it harms victims. What I will say and what I do find helpful from the victim's perspective is they often will show us pictures of their loved one of the victim in the case at the end of the hearing, when they're giving the closing statements.

None of us prohibit them from doing that. And it's typically a photograph that they cherish of that person because it does humanize that person. It does give them a place at that hearing. And so I welcome that. But if they think that this somehow prohibits them from doing that, it doesn't.

I thank you for your response. And I think there are victims families that are out there that needed to hear that response, because some of the things that we have gotten is that you are just disregarding what happened to their, their loved one. And so that's why I needed to ask that question. And I appreciate your answer and response, Commissioner Chappelle. I don't have questions for you. The documents that I have here, you are very good. One of the best. Well prepared.

So there's a lot of nice things. They're not thrilled with your grant rate, but they think that you do have a fair conduct, a fair and expedient hearing, that you're fair to both sides. I do want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, Mister chair.

Madam Senator. Just because you referenced Mister Chappell on that case, would you like to ... ?

I'm sorry? Well, that people think you are really a good Commissioner.

And one thing, one other thing.

Confirm or deny. Do you think you're a good.

One thing I did want to add to what Commissioner Barton just said is that we do understand that this is a sensitive issue with the pictures and handbooks, and we do take these issues to heart. BPH is really good. Well, we've received a lot of feedback, as you know, about the subject, and BPH is really good at taking that feedback. And if there's adjustments that need to be made, we will make those adjustments. So I don't want anyone to think that we're just totally disregarding.

We have this procedure in place and no one can come in and change that procedure. We do listen to stakeholders and as I just indicated, if there's adjustments that need to be made, then we'll make those adjustments.

I appreciate that. Again, on behalf of the victims, you read those letters and you're like, why are these people not accepting photographs? And then you read the other side of it. Like I said, that the incarcerated person gets it. The mail Clerk opens it, who's been on the job three days and sees those horrific pictures. That's not equipped to make those trauma informed decisions where you guys are prepared.

So I just want people on both sides to understand with that question and your responses that there is balance that has to take place. It's not a denial of victims rights. It's a very sensitive situation. But there are reasons for certain policies or recommendations to be in place, but that you're not adamantly opposed to having something submitted if the case is made necessary for that. That's, I was trying to go there. There was no attack or, you know, I just was trying to create balance.

Here is what I was trying to do. I do have not have a balance. Well, I have a kind of a balanced situation for Commissioner Schneider. You are. I'm just going to read these comments and it's kind of, you just need to know because I think in the last, before Senate pro tem McGuire came on, we had Senate pro Tim Atkins and we had someone from Los Angeles in kind of the same situation after we brought these accusations and these comments forward.

This individual was actually pulled from the hearing, I believe, and then brought back at another hearing, correct? Is that right? Yes. Yes. So he was pulled from the hearing, not allowed to participate with his other Members, and then actually brought back after he made considerable adjustments in his conduct at these hearings. So you have an acceptable, according to the victims rights individuals, you have an acceptable grant rate. You're pretty tough on those things.

You might even get some opposition from individuals who expect you to be a little bit more lenient. But your demeanor is something that really offends victims. And I appreciate the statement that you made earlier. I wasn't even going to ask you this, but you said you own it. You own it. If you made that statement, and it's something that you would have said that you own it. And so I would.

I would just challenge you to address your demeanor from all the documents that I've been able to read from the victims rights individuals. Apparently there was one case where a deputy District Attorney, a mother of three kids, was asked if her kids were still in preschool when the inmate was present.

There was another situation where an individual, that was the letter that was discussed by Senator Laird, where it was the inmates birthday, and this individual who was burned by the inmate, caught on fire with her little boy or child in the bed next to her or something. You were very sensitive to the fact that it was the inmates birthday on his parole hearing, which was kind of offensive. So I'm not telling you how to do your job.

I'm just saying that you have great qualities in this area, but if there is a little bit more sensitivity you could provide in an area where victims are present, take it or leave it. But otherwise people think you're doing a halfway decent job. Yes. Your wife, she's nodding her head, so be careful. Would you like to respond to that? Or is that too vague?

No, no, I appreciate the feedback. I mean, I'll respond that. I don't see myself as a halfway job kind of guy, so I take that as a slam.

And I'm not sure what the source of that is. I speak with the district attorneys. I do my best to communicate with the victims. Many of them are not happy, quite frankly, and I understand it. I mean, we're at that space, and I think Commissioner Barton talked about it. You know, it's, you know, are you an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, to public safety? Very rarely do we see victims, and when that happens, we all break down crying. I'm sure we do.

I know I do. When a victim forgives somebody or understands it, I will endeavor to do a better job. I'm really beside myself as I look at this, so I'll do my best and I will take the feedback, but I don't. But if it is opinion of this board that I'm what? A halfway decent Commissioner? Then I would vote against myself. You guys don't. The state does not deserve halfway decent commissioners. I will tell you that.

You deserve nothing but the best, and I think you have the best in front of you with my cohorts here, my coworkers. And if I'm not, I mean, cut me from the herd, I guess, as the saying goes. I understand it, but I think I am a very qualified and a very good Commissioner, so I don't want to settle for being called, you know, halfway or moderate or whatever it is. But thank you. Thank you for letting me respond.

No, thank you. And thank you for being open to that feedback from individuals that have been in your. Your hearing. So thank you for that, sir. The only other question that I have is, we addressed the photographic issue. Let me just turn this page. I apologize.

I wanted to know if there was a. I listened to your opening remarks, and each of you have a different level of or a different expertise that brought you to this, you know, illegal expertise, you know, mental health therapist, previous juvenile justice. A lot of you guys have law degrees or law background. Is there a standard operating procedure like they meet this criteria, a, b, c, and D or 1, 2,3, 4, so that your personal sphere of influence and how you see the world isn't bias towards.

And I'm not saying anybody's bias. I'm just saying that based on your sphere of influence, your background, your upbringing, is there. You might have, oh, this one would. This would be okay to be released, but this one wouldn't. Is there a standard operating procedure, something that you all follow, that says they have to meet this particular criteria? Steps 12. You have to write the letter. They have to admit they've done something wrong.

They have to accept their responsibility, and then if they do these classes, they get out in three years. Is there. Is there something in writing that you follow, or is this all perception based with your own personal experiences? Objective.

It's very objective when you follow the structured decision making. Each of us follows those. We call them domains or categories, risk categories. So when you're doing all that preparation upfront, you're identifying the risk categories for this particular individual. Then you're looking at everything that you read about them, everything they've submitted, to see if they've mitigated the risk in those areas. So that's all very objective. And you are either aggravating that or mitigating that, depending on what your preparation dictates.

And then the hearing is really an opportunity to sort of test that, because anybody can copy something out of a book and submit it to us. So we ask questions that delve into their personal insight, that delve into their level of change. And I would agree with Commissioner Schneider when he talked about the 15 year, because that was referenced in one of mine. And we follow something that we've all been trained on as a model of change. Someone's pre contemplation. I don't like who I am.

Someone's contemplation. I want to change. I want to be a different person. Their preparation. What do I need to do to get there? Their behavior. All of a sudden, we see that they are changing, and then maintenance, because I always tell folks, it's not sufficient that you want to change. We want to see that that change is sufficient that it will remain permanent. Right. So when we go through those five things, we can identify milestones within their transformation. Sometimes it takes them 10 years.

If I gave someone a 15 year, it's because they weren't even interested in pre contemplation. And I'm. As Commissioner Schneider, I'm fully aware they can file a form 1045, a petition to advance if that changes in their near future. But when they come in and basically say, forget the world; words to that effect, they're indicating they have no interest in going anywhere else. Plus, then you look at their behavior. They're running, you know, drugs, they're gang involved. They're doing all these other things.

So, to answer your question, the underlying basis for our decisions is extremely objective, I believe. Now, is there a subjective component? Of course. And so we get a lot of training, and you've seen it probably in the packets that we submitted, even on cultural bias, on implicit bias, on gender bias, all of those things are factored into what we collectively then have in our toolkit, if you will, to make that informed decision.

We also have a calibration that you may not be aware of, and that is, every month we meet as a board and we look at cases that have been referred in Banc, and we look at our. We read our fellow commissioners transcripts, and we don't. We don't put our judgment gee they granted, I would have denied. That's not how it's done. We look at what the concerns are about that case.

We look at whether they were covered well, in that case, we look at whether the answers match the decision in that case. And I have to say that I don't know the exact percentage. You'd have to get that from staff, but I know from my own cases it's high. It's like 90% plus, where we all look at that case and say, that was the right decision.

So that tells us, too, that it's not subjective, that we're all seeing cases alike, and we have a discussion in closed session about those, so that we can say, how do you see this? How do you see it when, you know, in this particular case, he had a write up two years ago for x, y, or z? How do you see how he handled this question?

And we have that discussion on a monthly basis, which I think helps us calibrate our decision making and make it not totally uniform. But I think to your question, it does. It's not disparate amongst us. What's disparate in our results has nothing to do with that. Has to do with the cases we're assigned. I could be assigned a level two prison for a whole week where everybody's programming like crazy and there's lots of support for them to change.

And then someone else could be assigned a week at a level four where they've barely done any programming and haven't even thought about it and the gangs are influencing them. It tends to be more a result of the cases that you are signed as opposed to your overall decision to grant or not grant.

Thank you very much. Commissioner Chappell, did you have something to add? You look like you did.

Sorry, Commissioner Barton. Right towards the end of that, I mean, he just took exactly what I was going to say about our grant rates. It really depends on the individual setup for us and their level and also their commitment, their commitment to rehabilitation.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mister Pro Tem.

Thank you so much, madam Vice Chair. Let's go to Senator Eggman.

I just want to come back to you for a minute, if you don't mind, just because. I mean, you use an objective criteria, use structures, but we all are the tool, the tool of delivery sometimes. Right? And it sounds like that's some of the feedback that you got that your interaction, your delivery, your use of your person ruffled some feathers. Have you heard that before in your career? I'm asking because I've heard. I know my faults. I know my predispositions.

I concur.

And I've heard I tend to be a little. It's true. It's true and I know it. And so I try to, like.

We. Must be kindred spirits, then. Yeah, I'm not going to. Yeah, absolutely. I am a very emotional, a very passionate person. That likely flows through. I'm trying to connect with the parole candidates. And again, I'd never want to harm a victim. That's, that is very difficult. I mean, understand that we're coming in. You know, you, if you picture yourself a victim of a crime and you're told that somebody gets 144 years to life, and then in 20 years, because they're age 50, they get noticed.

They're coming in for a hearing. Okay. It doesn't matter to us per se, because our job is, are they on a reasonable risk to public safety using the existing laws and our structured decision making. But for a victim, they aren't happy. They were told the guy got 144 years and likely he's going to die in prison. So thats some of the tension thats going on. But im also trying to contact, communicate with that parole candidate. And because we also believe, which is hard, they is a person, the result of the worst thing theyve ever done in their life.

And the answer is no, because as Commissioner Barton, we all believe we get to see change. Thats why this job is amazing. We get to see that kind of, it doesnt happen overnight. And so, yeah, I'm really, this is great feedback. Again, I didn't know. I've spoken to many victims and I've never heard them say that. I do my best to explain. I try to hold myself accountable for the decision. I'm the presiding Commissioner. I am responsible for this finding of suitability.

And some of this actually shocks me that I haven't heard this before until today. So I'm going to have to relook at that and rethink this. But, yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right about who I am and what I try to do at a hearing.

And it sounds like, at least in some occurrences, it gets you in your way.

Meaning myself, my foot in my mouth kind of thing.

Yes.

I live with it, though. I mean, I understand it. Right? I understand it. I really do. But it's also, part of it is, you know, I mean, quite frankly, to thine own self be true. And so I want to be who I am. And I've gotten several transcript analysis reviews from our legal staff. I just got one like two weeks ago, and he thought, and he was there from 08:30 a.m. Till 6:30 at night. I couldn't get rid of the guy. It was a long day.

And he had no negative comments at all. We had victims. We had the whole thing. So that's why I've never heard this before. Other times I've had tap reviews. In the beginning, they said, Neil you should just do your best to be yourself, because the delivery is not coming out right. And so, yeah, it's something that I try to balance. I mean, Senator Groves talked about balance. You know, I need the balance, but I appreciate that.

When I talk to you guys, I'm glad you see me. I want to be warts and all I want. That's who Commissioner Schneider is. I have some flaws, but I don't want to be a moderate. I'm really upset about that. I think you can tell that when somebody said, I'm a half good Commissioner, half moderate, the citizens of California, the people don't deserve that. You don't deserve that at all. These people with me are not at all that way. They are superb. I can only hope to be a little higher up in the viewpoint of the ... hears day.

So let me ask you, and then you just answer. Who's the client?

State of California? The client, you mean public safety is the client.

Okay.

Public safety is the client. That's my client is public safety.

I would agree with that. I would agree with that answer. But there are many stakeholders. Incarcerated person. It's been waiting 20 years for hearing victims. The public. There are a lot of stakeholders.

Ditto on that. You know, obviously, when we're doing the hearing, the interchange is mostly with the incarcerated person. So it feels like the spotlight is on that person. But the whole context of it is we're looking at things that tentacle out in so many other areas, tentacling out to remorse and compassion for the victim, safety for the future, the amends. What's going to be happening when they get out into the community? Have they resolved all the aces and all of these things?

So it's very far reaching. And like I said, it tentacles out, but it seems like the spotlight is really on that individual with all of that other stuff in mind.

I agree with everything my colleague said, especially Commissioner O'Meara.

Thank you.

As already stated, there are many stakeholders in our process, but ultimately, our client is the State of California and public safety.

Yeah, I don't know that I can add much to what's already been shared. I think that we owe a duty as judicial officers to everybody that has a part in the hearing, whether that be the person who's seeking parole, whether that be the victims. And I think, as I said before, you know, our biggest nightmare would be to release someone that reoffends.

So to that extent, if you want to put a name on what we keep calling the state, it's any one future that could potentially be harmed. And we're very cognizant of that when we make our decisions.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much. Madam Senator. I want to check in with the Committee to see if there's any comments, any additional comments or any additional questions. I'd like to be able to touch on recidivism rate because I know that is an issue that we hear a lot about. And I think California really prides itself on diving deep and understanding who's in front of you. And I'll start with the Doctor first.

So again, I think where we see in the most recent data, one person had a new felony conviction for a crime against a person, that's 0.1%. And then we have 15 folks, 2% were convicted of any new felony or misdemeanor. Incredibly low. Talk about that. And the deep dive that goes into the evaluation prior to making a decision, please.

Okay. And I think some of this has been said directly, and if I can add to it, you know, we have. There are many eyes on these people. There's many eyes when we come. When they come to us. So we have the comprehensive risk assessments that we look at first. That's one of the first things that we review. And they're exactly that. They're comprehensive. They look at risk, and it's a good assessment. We start.

That's one of the first things I think all of us do before we, as part of our preparation, we read that comprehensive risk assessment. From that risk assessment, we can identify the critical areas where we can focus. Is it going to be impulse control? Is it going to be following the rules? Is it going going to, to be related to self awareness and insight? Is it going to be related to, you know, admission of the crime? What's the probability of the crime happening?

Again, a lot of questions in there. Then we have the entire file that we look at. And, you know, with lifers, you're looking at documentation that goes back sometimes decades. So sometimes we're going back and looking at the microfiche level of documentation, documentation. So it goes back a long time, and I think I'm losing the question. But lower recidivism, lower recidivism rate. So that's what goes into it is really making a well considered, well thought out, well researched research job.

And I don't know about the rest of everybody else, but every month when our data comes in, the first thing I do is look and see if anybody that I've released has, has come back. You know, we, I think we all take it very, very seriously. I certainly don't ever want to be flip. I don't want to be caught up in somebody who just presents well, but there's no substance behind it. So it's. It's.

First and foremost, I'm familiar with the Stanford studies, and I know that there's, you know, it's. It's. Well, there's other parts of it, too, is people do age out of crime. I mean, there's some demographics that we have in our favor. And a lot of times, one of the reasons I did my dissertation on sudden homicide, it was after the mayor of Moscone murders, and I was just, you know, how did this Dan White, squeaky clean guy, commit this crime?

So I was always very interested in what are the dynamics of society of sudden homicide. But homicide in and of itself tends to be a situational crime that has a very Low rate of repetition.

Yeah. And I was just going to say, I can only imagine, and I don't want to speak for any of you, but in the back of your head, the decision weighs heavy.

Very heavy. Very heavy. And for me personally, I will err in the direction of caution. Something's just not sitting right. You know, I make very, very thoughtful decisions, and we don't have to do it alone. We have a deputy Commissioner with us. And sometimes, if we get into a sticky spot and we need even another check and balance, we'll call our legal. Our legal team.

Appreciate that. Infante, please, being the newest Commissioner, if you don't mind giving us your thought as well.

I think really what it comes down to is preparation, preparation, preparation, preparation. The voluminous. And that was one of the biggest transitions and understanding that I had from my previous role as a Commissioner with the board of juvenile hearings was just the voluminous amount of information and making sure that I'm prepared, because, again.

Personally feel like I owe that to everybody and to all parties and especially to public safety. So just to go back to that, to your question about Low recidivism rate, I think it ultimately boils down to the preparation, the work that we all put in and understanding how these decisions impact a number of different people.

Yeah. And getting to where I think all of us were thinking is that obviously victim families and then obviously the communities in which they would reside in. Right. I mean, absolutely weighs very heavy. I know we need to get to public comment, but I wanted to see if any other view would like to be able to comment on this specific issue. Please Madam Commissioner,

When you asked about what goes into the decision, essentially all of what has been said here and the structured decision making, but there's a constant learning that's going on, which is a good thing with us. We are a highly collaborative group. Again, we meet every month for the NBNC review transcripts all the time, every day, any subsequent hearing that comes back and for all the n bunks, and that's a learning process. And in the en banc, there's a sharing process.

Our individual backgrounds, perhaps some of our expertise. Doctor O'Meara, I was a nurse before. Other people have a little different expertise. They bring to the table in really in a teaching moment as an advantageous thing. So this idea of constant learning also goes into the decision, too. You become more knowledgeable about things as you go through. And this process, the way it's set up, is a very good one for the learning environment, I think.

I appreciate that. Thank you for adding that. Thank you. Anyone else before we go to public comment? All right, yeah, please, Commissioner.

Well, and I know we've talked a lot about our processes today and they're excellent, but there's another piece, this puzzle as well, and it lies with the incarcerated individual. There's got to be a willingness to change, and we do see that in them quite often when I hold my consultations, I'll ask them the question, do you want to change because you want to just get out of prison or do you want to change because you don't want any more victims? And there's a difference there.

And a lot of the individuals that we see that we grant parole to are those latter individuals, the ones that change because they want to be a better person. They just don't want to get out of prison. So they play a part in our low recidivism rate as well.

Thank you, Commissioner, for adding that. Really important. All right, any last minute from the Committee at this time before we go to public comment? Great seeing none. What we'd like to be able to do now is open it up for public comment. We'll start with individuals who would like to be able to speak in support. We're looking for those who would like to be able to speak in support.

If you could please come up to the podium at this time, we're going to do a last call. Alright. Hearing, seeing no one rise, we're now going to go to opposition. Anyone wishing to testify in opposition here in the Committee room, if you can please rise and come forward to the podium at this time, we're going to do a last call in opposition. All right, we're going to bring it back to Committee. Thank you so much.

Before we go to votes, and we're going to take three separate votes. If it's alright with Committee, we'd like to be able to see if there's any closing comments from any of the Committee Members. All right, Members, what we'd like to be able to do is take up three separate votes. We'll first start with A and B. One A and B. That will be Commissioner Barton and then Chappell.

We're then going to take up our second vote, which will be item one C and D. That will be Commissioner Infante and Commissioner O'Meara. We're then going to take up a third vote, items E and f. That's Commissioner Purcell and Commissioner Schneider. All right. If it's the will of the Committee, we'd like to be able to go to our first formal vote on

Mister chair. Do you actually need a motion?

Yes, we're gonna need a motion. We're gonna ask for separate motions on each, if it's all right.

oh, no, that's fine. I just was prepared to. If you may, if I could make one motion and bifurcate it three times, I'd do it. If not, I'll just move items one a and one b.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. Items one a and one b on the floor. Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Four to zero as a 40 vote. That motion is approved. We're now going to be moving on to item one C and D. Commissioner Infante and Commissioner O'Meara, is there a motion?

So moved

We have a motion by Senator Laird. Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, if you can, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Three to one as a 3-1 vote and that motion passes. Thank you so much. We're now going to move on to our final vote on items one E and F. Commissioner Purcell and Commissioner Schneider, motion, please.

We have a motion by Senator Laird. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

So move.

[Roll Call]

That is a 3-0 vote. That motion passes. Commissioners, we thank you, each of you, for being here today. Thank you so much. We're going to take a 62nd recess as the commissioners gather their belongings. Again, we're grateful for your time today, and congratulations. Thank you who are with us. This concludes today's public portion of the agenda. We thank you. We thank you so much for your cooperation and participation.

What we're going to do now is that we're going to adjourn our open session and then open up our Executive session in two minutes. Thank you so much.