Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Well, good afternoon. Thank you all for your patience. I do want to apologize about keeping you waiting. We are on our March 19th edition of the Senate Rules Committee. Madam Secretary, can you please call the meeting to order?

[Roll Call]

Quorum has been established. Thank you so much. We have a few housekeeping items, administrative items that we're going to take care of in just a moment. Under a point of personal privilege, I'm going to turn it over to Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I would like to recognize my Taft Oil Academy students that are in the background. They are here all stand up. They're high school students, juniors and seniors applying to West Point Academy and other great colleges to get a higher education.

And they are here lobbying their legislators on the importance of oil or domestic produced energy. And they're all 16, 17, 18 I think. Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here. It's really exciting that you're here. Thank you so much, Madam Vice Chair, for introducing. Taft is my grandma's hometown, so always very personal. Hey, see? There we go.

That's right, Exactly. So. But I'm really excited that you're here today. Thank you so much. And thank you, Madam Vice Chair. What we'd like to be able to do is take several items up under administrative agenda. We're going to invite you, each of the appointees to please come forward while we do this.

So if Mr. Long, Mr. Minor Sharrieff, please, if you want to come on for it, please all come forward. Thank you so much. And while you are getting seated, we will get through our agenda items. We're going to first start under Governor. Appointees not required to appear. Is there a motion on item 2e?

That's what I'm saying exactly. Oh, look at that. Vice Chair is ready to go. That's right. Any discussion, Any discussion or debate hearing, Seeing none, Madam Secretary, if you want to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That is a 5-0 vote motion passes for closing the roll. See, there we go. That's right. Exactly. We're now going to be moving on to Bill referrals. That is item number three. Item number three under Bill referrals that we have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Any discussion or debate Hearing Seeing none.

Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5 to 0 vote. That motion passes. Thank you so much. And we're going to close the roll. We're now going to be moving forward to Committee appointments items 4 through 10. Any discussion or debate or motion? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Any discussion or debate from the Committee? Hearing Seeing none.

Madam Secretary, if you want to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

5 to 0 vote. That motion passes. We're going to close the roll. We're now moving on to floor. Acknowledgments, items 11 through 18, any discussion or debate or is there a motion? We have a motion by Senator Caballero. Discussion or debate from Committee. Motions on the floor by Senator Caballero. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5 to 0 vote. Motion passes. We're closing the roll. All right, we're now going to be going to each of you, thank you so much to the commissioners who are here today. We'll say you have one of the more difficult jobs in state service.

I want to say thank you to each of you for stepping up and serving on the Board of Parole. What we'd like to be able to do is talk about run a show here for the next several minutes. Each of you will be given three minutes, up to three minutes to be able to present.

During that time, we welcome you to say any acknowledgments of any family Members, friends who may be here in the chambers and or watching online. Once each of you have completed your welcoming remarks, your testimony, we're going to open it up for questions, comments, and voicing any concerns from the Committee. Then we'll go to the vote.

Again, to each of the commissioners, thank you so much. We're going to start from my left, work our way to the right. Commissioner Tyra, thank you so much. It's good to see you. The floor is yours. You have three minutes. And I'll give you a 30 second heads up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And we're gonna have you pull the microphone close to. There you go. A little closer. Let's try that again.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for the.

Hey, look at that.

For the opportunity to appear before you to consider me for another term serving on the Board of Parole Hearings. I would like to thank the Governor for the appointment and reappointment and the trust to do what I consider a very difficult job, but meaningful. The Board of Parole Hearings is a wonderful agency to work for.

And I'd like to thank them, the Executive staff, our legal advisors, the deputy commissioners that help us do the hearings here with us, the administrative staff and the psychologists that really put forth a team effort and that enable us to do these difficult proceedings.

I would like to thank my family for their support, without which I don't think I could do this, given the demands on time and the focus that it takes.

So I would like to continue serving as I've done throughout my career and especially with regard to public safety, which is a very important part of my contribution to the community. And I welcome any questions.

Thank you so much. Commissioner, we're grateful that you're here. We're now going to turn it over to Commissioner Sharrieff. It's good to see you. Thank you so much for your service. You have three minutes. I'll give you a 30 second prompt. When you get close, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the Members of the Committee. And thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. I would like to thank the Governor for the reappointment and the opportunity to continue to serve the State of California.

Also would like to thank the Deputy commissioners who work alongside of us in these very tough decisions. I want to thank our team of psychologists who produce the comprehensive risk assessments that we use as a tool to assist us in our decisions.

I want to thank the Board of Parole Hearing staff attorneys who also assist us as well in decision reviews, whether it be a grant or denial, and also continued training throughout the year. I want to thank my family and friends for standing by me for these seven years. Very tough times. Very demanding, but very rewarding job as well. And I'm open to answer any and all questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you so much. It's good to see you. Madam Commissioner, good afternoon. It's good to see you. Thank you for being here. You have three minutes. I'll give you a 30 second prompt when you get close. The floor is yours. Good afternoon.

Thank you. I'd like to say I am honored to be here today. And I am honored and thankful to be reappointed to the Board of Parole hearings by Governor Newsom. For the past 39 years, I've dedicated my. My career to Public service.

I began my work at juvenile hall before transitioning to the state system with the Division of Juvenile justice, formerly known as the California Youth Authority. After spending 20 years working with youth, I moved to adult corrections. And since 2014, I've had the privilege to serve as a Commissioner with the Board of Parole hearings.

And we don't do this job, as my colleague said alone. We. We have a great team that supports us. And without that team, I don't think we could be as successful as we have been. This work requires long hours. They're very difficult decisions that we make.

But public safety remains at the forefront of our work and our decision making. I appreciate my family who has been on this journey with me for the last almost 11 years. And so I hope they're watching.

I'm not sure everybody had, you know, everything is so busy and everybody has things to do, but for the first time, maybe my 13 year old grandson is watching. He seemed a little interested, so I hope to see him and have a conversation with him about this process. Thank you for your time and your consideration and I welcome any questions that you may have.

Love that. 13 years old. I love it. What's your grandson's first name?

Braden.

Braden. I hope Braden's watching and I'm sure the family is so proud. Zero, he's gonna love that. See, there we go. Hey, thank you. Thank you so much. Mr. Commissioner, good afternoon. Thank you so much for being here. You have three minutes for your opening testimony. I'll give you a 30 second prompt. If you get close, the floor is yours. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Senators. I'm honored to be here today and grateful for the opportunity to be considered to serve another term as a BPH Commissioner. I would like to thank Governor Newsom for the opportunity to continue serving on the Board of Parole hearings.

I am a United States Marine Corps veteran and served in CDCR from 1989 to 2016, starting as a correctional officer and retiring as a warden. My wife Jane and I have six sons ranging from age 16 to 35, and we live in the beautiful mountain town of Tehachapi.

She is here today along with my sons, Matthew and Ryan. Very proud to have them here today. I have served as a Commissioner for a little over seven years and I found the role to be challenging and extremely rewarding. When I started with CDCR in 1989, rehabilitative opportunities for incarcerated persons were woefully inadequate.

Through the years, I had the opportunity to participate in development of many programs, including the Palo Verde College Program. At Ironwood State prison back in 2001. The first online college program in CDCR when I was a warden, and many other rehabilitative programs, including a rescue dog program, which was one of my personal favorites.

I have seen firsthand the benefits of rehabilitative programs and witnessed the remarkable ability for people to change again. I'm grateful to be here today, and I do look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Appreciate that. Six sons.

Oh, my gosh. I complained with 13 and a half year old. I'm gonna stop complaining because that is a lot of energy.

Six.

It is.

All right, there we go.

I love it. I think it's hard on my wife being the only. The only lady.

Hey, See, there we go. I understand. Hey, thank you so much, Commissioner. So let's do this. We're going to open up for comments, questions, and any concerns from the Committee. We're going to start out with Madam Vice Chair, and then we're going to turn it over to Senator Laird. Madam Vice Chair, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple of questions. One comment. You were probably somebody who saved my life. I was in juvenile hall for a while, and I was a troubled teen. And here I am, one of 40 only. God. So on a question I have.

Commissioner Sharif, we received several concerns regarding some comments that you had made. Quote, the comment is, victim impact statements are not considered as testimony. Did you say that? And if you did, why would you not think that? Victim impact statements that are affected. The families are affected by that, why would they not be considered as testimony?

Thank you. If that was said by me, it was a misstatement. And what I was probably trying to express was that it's not sworn testimony and that we do utilize it in our decision, but it's not sworn testimony as similar to the incarcerated individual.

Thank you for correcting that. I really do appreciate that for all of you. And I guess we can start here. Mr. Taira, am I saying that right?

Tyra. Ma'am.

Tyra. Sorry. I do apologize. March 10, the LA Times had an article. Newsom, meaning Governor Newsom, cites some. Linda's brother's case, is seeking changes to the parole board process. Are you aware of what those changes are and how will it affect the parole process? And how about I start. Start on this side and just go that way? Is that okay? .

Thank you, Senator. Other than what's been reported in the media, and we did. We. The Board of Parole Hearings did publish, or CDCR did publish some. Some A paper. I mean, it's publicly available. That gives a concept. A conceptual idea of what it would entail. I don't know of any details on how that would be.

I think it's still very early in the development of some kind of process to do what the Governor has asked us to do, but.

So it's not being considered by you guys or all of you? Not guys, but you. All of the commissioners. It's not being considered just yet.

I haven't seen anything.

Okay. Anyone else seen anything?

Just the frequently asked questions on the. On the board's website, which, like Commissioner Taira said, it's basically conceptual. There'll be like, an initial review, a comprehensive risk assessment will be conducted, and then a hearing may be held and a recommendation will go to the Governor. Okay, that's just kind of conceptually what. I.

Yeah, I just didn't know. I mean, I knew what was public and what was on the website. I just didn't know if you guys knew anything more than what was out there. Okay. Thank you very much for answering those questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Madam Vice Chair. We're going to turn over to Senator Laird.

Let me just ask a follow up on. On what Senator Grove asked about, because the L A Times report was fairly clear that it was doing an early risk assessment so that you could have the risk assessment before a hearing rather than have it later in the process when it got closer to the Governor. And let me ask it this way.

Based on your knowledge of being there a bit, do you think that has benefit? I stated what. What it is having the risk assessment done at the outset that rather than later in the process. So you'd have a risk assessment done before you had a hearing?

Well, if the process would entail some, as I understand the document, the FAQ document, if the process entailed making some kind of unreasonable risk of danger finding, then having a risk assessment done would help with that, because that is part of our review. That's incorporated into the parole suitability, which this will not be.

But the parole suitability process does have that as part of the. One of the domains that we use in our structured decision making. So I think it is important to be able to have that done earlier.

Okay, he's answered the question. Is there anything else anybody would like to add?

So my understanding is, I believe that there will be a risk assessment completed and then, which is different. When we have regular hearings, there's a risk assessment. But at this time, I believe the Melendez brothers, there has not been a determination on whether or not their sentence will be commuted. So this is different.

And so at this point, it sounds like from kind of what I read on the FAQs, that there'll be a risk assessment and then there will be a hearing with a recommendation from a panel Member.

And so, yes, the answer would be absolutely, if we're going to do a hearing or something that looks like a hearing with the use of structured decision making, that document that is provided by our forensic doctors would be crucial.

And I'm sort of sorry the Melendez brothers got wrapped into this, because it is really a proposal that's across the board. Sure it is. Some people reviewing it view that, but it's across the board.

Then my other question, and I forgot at the outset to apologize to each of you because I had two simultaneous hearings that were running two hours over, and I got to say hi to you for a minute in my lobby as I was running to vote at one of them.

And so I am sorry that we didn't get the chance to have the conversation. And I think when I reviewed your paperwork the weekend, each of the four of you was originally appointed by Governor Brown.

So each of the four of you has been there at least six years in, and for some of you, there's multiple reappointments involved. And I was just going to ask, because it might, might help us learn something about each of you that we don't already know, is what surprised you by getting appointed.

Many of you were somewhere else in the system and then you got moved to this. What was that like? What did you learn that you might not have thought you were going to learn when you got appointed? And maybe we should start with Mr. Long and go the other way so that Mr. Taira could relax for a moment.

I think for me, having worked 28 years on the CDCR side, I didn't really understand the connection between what we did over there and the Board of Parole hearings and how all the programming that's offered and everything that we did on that side really impacts what we do now as commissioners.

And so for me, it was interesting to note that because I sat in classification committees, I assign people to programs, and, you know, then to see the fruits of that later on in a parole suitability hearing, I think was very interesting to me. Thank you.

For me, it's the complexity of the work. This work is very complex. It's just not. I mean, on the surface, it looks like we read some files and we do some stuff and then we make a decision. But there's a lot to each decision that we make, there's laws that we have to make sure that we apply.

We have to. So, again, I came from CDCR, and I had a thought about the parole board, and I really didn't understand the complexity of the work. And what I found is that it takes a lot of dedication. It takes a lot of reading. You have to pay a lot of. You have to pay attention.

You have to pay attention to detail. And I. And it's interesting, and there's never a dull moment, and there's a lot going on all the time, and we're extremely busy. And then at the end of the day, we really are instruments in public service, and we make a difference. And I think that's what if. I want to say that was what I was surprised about, but that certainly is what I'm proud of.

Thank you. I began my career in the late 90s as a trial attorney and also as an attorney representing the incarcerated as well. And then I transitioned over into a deputy Commissioner a year prior to being appointed by the Governor, Governor Brown.

And what I found was, as Commissioner Minor indicated the complexity of the job. It's one thing to look at the Commissioner's job on the outside looking in, but actually doing the work day in and day out. And it's a very vigorous job.

I oftentimes, when I speak to family and friends, I use the analogy it's like running a marathon every day. Every day. And whether or not you're tired, whether or not you have personal problems, you have to run that marathon.

And there's so many landmines that you could make a mistake, you could misstate something, and it'll come back to haunt you one day. And so you really have to be vigilant, and you have to be prepared every single day and also be willing to listen and be open to change.

Because in the last seven years, we went from being inside the institution to working remote. And that took some change, and that took some relearning, so to speak. But you have to be adaptable. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. And I would echo and concur with what my colleagues say. The level of complexity is something that I was not aware of. You know, having done administrative hearings for in different areas during my career, this job requires incredible amount of focus. And that's, you know, very tiring.

You know, when you're doing multiple hearings per day and you're doing hearings week after week. And that has always been something that I was unaware of. But when you start Doing these. And as Commissioner Sharif indicated, you have to be on, you have to be prepared, you know, every day. And there's no, there's no respite from that.

The other, the other area I wanted to comment on is learning that it isn't a matter of just, you know, opening a file and making a decision. Our decisions are not arbitrary. You know, there is a very detailed analysis that we do.

And that's another thing that I have learned and we've evolved in the past six years, as you indicated, although it seems longer than that. But thank you.

Well, I'm sure this hearing seems long to you right now. Very long, yes. Well, thank you. I, I really appreciate those answers from each of you. I think they were very thoughtful. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Very quick, Mr. Chair, are you still doing this on Zoom? I'm sorry? Are you, are you still doing all these hearings on Zoom?

Zoom In. In person. Both.

Oh, in person, too. Okay. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We're going to turn over Sen. Caballero.

Thank you very much. And following up on, on that, first of all, let me thank you all very much for your service.

There's no question that you're tasked with almost an impossible obligation to try to figure out what's the possibility of recidivism and how much of a danger to society are the individuals that you're talking to who, because their lifer did heinous crimes. I understand completely.

I had as background, I had the, I did criminal defense work for many years, but I also, as part of my community service, did lifer hearings because at that time, which will date me, I got $23 an hour and Max eight Hours for defending or for going in and giving legal advice to lifers.

And so it was, it really was a community service, but I learned a lot. And so I'd like to start with the issue of doing it over the electronic devices. Do you find that you get better participation from victims by doing it electronically?

Given that we found here when we during COVID went to electronic testimony, that we had a lot more public comment.

It took hours longer, but it was, it was really a great example of democracy at work because people could be home and they could still tell us what they thought about the bills we were listening to or about us or we all about us too. Although I didn't really get that much about us.

It was mostly about what we were doing, the kind of bills we were working on. Mr. Long, I'll start with you.

So it's. You're exactly right. There's Been an increase, at least anecdotally from my perspective, in the number of victims. But what I noticed, which I think is really great, I've had victims attend from Europe and Mexico in my hearings, so they can be anywhere.

And you know, I know from my past experience many of the victims and victims family Members are uncomfortable going into a prison, Understandably so. And so it's much. I think they're. They're a lot less nervous to be able to sit in the hearing.

It's already a very difficult process for them, obviously, so to be able to do it by video. And they can have the video off. They don't have to be, you know, show their faces, which I think is also a benefit because many are still afraid. So I think there's a huge. A huge benefit there.

That's great. That's good insight. Yes. Anybody else have different ideas on that?

I think what I also, I agree that we do see more victim participation. And what I've noticed is that when, when they would come into the facility, there may be one or two, because that's what they could afford to get there. You know, just the cost of getting to a prison if they were far away.

And now you see multiple victims with their families supporting each other. And so the participation, you know, you can. You'll see maybe a mom with a son over her shoulder, you know, really helping her through that statement that mom may not have been able to even participate in a hearing in person.

So we do see on that video, we do see a lot of family participation and that camaraderie and that support that they need when they're going through something that is so very difficult.

That's great. That's great. Thank you for that. So one of the findings from an LAO report, the Legislative Analyst report, was concerned about the ineffective assistance of counsel. In terms of counsel representing the lifer. What has your experience been and have you ever seen a situation where someone, an attorney, is not doing a very good job?

And then what's the solution? What's the alternative? And I don't mean bring. I'm just trying to figure out what do you do at that point? Because you spend a lot of time and energy getting to that point. So do you continue it? Do you. I mean, what do you do?

Because I know what a judge does in court. But I'm just wondering if it's. It's. It's a different process. So I'm just wondering.

I've never experienced a hearing wherein the attorney was so ineffective that you had to postpone or cancel a hearing, so to speak. But you, you can report them. And we also have periodic evaluations for attorneys and they are held accountable and they, they ask for our input.

And a lot of times the attorneys will actually stick around and ask for our advice and what they can do better. And as a private attorney who used to represent these individuals as well, I'm always open to give some advice.

That's great. That's good. So is the LAO report in your mind wrong in terms of identifying that as a potential? I mean, I think part of the possibility is that the people that are paying for their attorneys are viewed that they may be viewed differently than people who are not that are the court appointed or the state appointed attorneys. But they may take the case because it's easier than one where the person hasn't programmed. For example. I don't know, I'm just speculating.

This question was posed to me a while back and my response is I actually see better performance by the attorneys who are assigned and not private attorneys because they understand the process more, they are familiar with the commissioners, they understand our issues and what we're looking for and they're able to address those issues as well.

That's great. Any other opinions?

I think things have changed. So we've had some change in our state appointed attorneys. They have a lot more training. They also are required to see the individual twice when it used to be once.

I think their pay has increased and with the now, I think some of the issue was that private attorneys got a chance to see their, their, their clients quite a bit. They could go in and, you know, they had all that time and that really wasn't feasible for the attorneys that were state appointed.

But now we have the tablet and what I hear is that there's a lot of communication between the incarcerated persons and their state appointed attorney because they can now email them, they can, you know, call them. So I think things are changing. So if that was an issue raised in the LAO report, I know we've started.

You know, we really have been addressing those specific issues that had been brought up and one of them just has been the additional communication that's been allowed with these tablets.

That's definitely new. The ability to actually communicate in a way that's other than having to go in and wait for them to be brought into an interview room. And it just used to take forever. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Well, what is impressive about the work that you do is that the recidivism rate is so Low and so it's clear to me that the process is working and that the job that you're doing is really well done. So I want to congratulate you on that.

It's difficult to predict what people are going to do in the future, and to look at their incarceration as an example of whether they're going to do well or not is. Is difficult. Right. So I thank you for your service, and I don't have any more questions. Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Senator.

Mr. Leader, I wanted to follow up on the. I've got three issues. The first one is following up on the zoom question, and I appreciate. And I'm actually positive about having more victim participation. I think that's important. When you're. When you're doing these hearings electronically, are you face to face with the incarcerated?

Are you face to face with any of the attorneys, or are you also on electronic devices, separated from the entire hearing? How does that work? And I'd like to have each one of you, because I know you all specialize in different areas, answer that, please. Mr. Long, if you would like to go first, it would be great.

Certainly. So we use Microsoft Teams, just similar to Zoom. Right. And depending on how many participants you have, you have different boxes on the screen, typically four or five boxes. You have the DA, the incarcerated person's attorney, the incarcerated person themselves, and then whoever's speaking comes up on the big screen.

So when I'm talking to the incarcerated person, it's like we're eye to eye. And so it. Actually, I had a lot of skepticism that the video process would work initially, and I think it works as well as being in person.

Where are you physically when you're doing these hearings?

Well, I do in person hearings a few times a month, but primarily in my home office. Okay.

The same. I do in person hearings also, but I also do the zoom hearings at home. Okay. Well, not zoom. Microsoft.

Microsoft, yeah. We're not advocating for one company over another.

Yes. I'm also in person and also Microsoft Teams. When we were in person, 100% in person, the problem that I had was we used monitors. We use dual monitors. And these monitors are so huge.

Sometimes you cannot see the individual you're speaking to, and then sometimes they're so far away, and if the person has a problem hearing, they can't hear you. And so when we move over to Microsoft Teams now, you can turn the volume up. We have instruments that they can use to actually amplify their hearing.

They can actually hear you better. And as the Commissioner Long indicated, you can actually pin them now and actually just see them only so it works perfect.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And I echo their statements. The pinning feature allows you to magnify the image of the person that you are speaking to so that it takes up the screen size and so it does feel like you're face to face.

And I also do in person hearings and where we're actually sitting across the table from the incarcerated person with their camera on any of the victims who choose to attend those as well.

So I find that having the video conferencing feature when you're doing the in person hearing benefits, victim participation, you know, some choose to attend and can't attend, some can't. And they can log in and participate via the video conferencing. And we will have that set up.

Even though the panel Members are sitting in the hearing room at the prison.

And you take your electronic ones from a home office also, or where do you do your electronic ones? A home office? Yes. Mr. Shrif. Also the same?

Yes, sir. Okay, great.

There's two. I'd like to get your opinion on two programs that is not any secret that I've been very critical of. One is the sexually violent predator program. Sexually violent predators being released from state hospitals into neighborhoods. And I understand that your role in that is limited, but I would like to hear your opinion on that.

And then the other one that I'm very concerned about and fortunately has become a bipartisan concern lately is the elderly parole program that was passed late at night the last week of session in 2020 in a budget Bill.

Many of my Democrat colleagues did not know that they were voting for the elderly parole program to be lowered from 60 to 50. I'm 56. I'm somewhat offended that 50 is considered elderly. And I know that for many of these incarcerated that have been in prison for a long period of time, you know, they're not elderly either.

And so if you can just each in your own words kind of address, and I'm sure you're watching and paying attention to what's happening in our neighborhoods with both of these programs. Sexually violent predator program and the elderly parole program. If you guys could talk to those, I'd appreciate it. And Mr. Taira, why don't we start with you this time?

The sexually violent predator program, as you mentioned, we don't have much contact with. So I don't have an opinion on that. It is an important part of public safety. We recognize that. But as far as the details on how it works, I don't think I can Speak intelligently on that matter, because we don't do those proceedings.

The elderly, parole. It's important for me to recognize that every hearing is different and you look at every person individually. We follow the law, and I follow the law as best I can when I do these hearings. And whatever the law would indicate, as far as the consideration we give to a particular age, that's.

That's what I do. And I think my colleagues do the same. So whatever the law is, that's what we follow. We do know through our training that as you know, people mature, there is this decline in the impulse control problems related to violence and recidivism.

And I think from what I remember, starts around the age of 40 and continues on. But you have to look at every person individually because it's not always the same.

You can have somebody older in age that hasn't been able to control their impulses, and you can see that in their prison record and also the age they were when they committed their crime that got them into prison.

So it is something that we look at on a case by case basis, taking into consideration those elderly parole factors. Diminishment, physical capacity, the cognitive decline, and, you know, how they've progressed in the rehabilitation in their time in prison.

Yes, I'd like each person to respond to those two.

Thank you, Senator Jones. As Commissioner Tyre indicated, we had very little interaction with the sexual violent predator program and how that process works. However, with the elderly process, it's similar to any hearing. We look at all of the risk factors.

We go through all of the domains, whether it be their static domains or their more dynamic domains, meaning their prior criminal history, the commitment offense, of course, and also some of the personal factors that they were unable to control, so, such as substance abuse, such as negative peer influence, gangs, and their inability to regulate their emotions, such as anger and rage.

And then we transition and look at more the dynamic factors, what they're doing today with regards to programming, how they're behaving inside the institution, and whether or not they have parole plans in place to make sure they do not incur additional victims.

And so although we have have these elderly offenders who come before us, it's not a guaranteed grant, it's just that they're going to be heard, but doesn't mean they're going to be granted parole.

Again, the same as my colleagues. But the sexually violent offenders, we don't have a lot to do with that. I have no position. I don't know enough about the program to comment. And elderly parole, the same. We look at their age, their long term confinement and their diminished physical condition.

And many times, you know, our 56 year old in the community that has been in the community forever is different than that person that has been in prison for, you know, a long time.

You see someone who's been in prison since they were 16 or 17 years old, by the time they're 56, their body has gone through some things. And so to look at them, just to have the opportunity to look at them, to see if there has been a change, I think is just that, an opportunity.

We look at them individually and if they're ready, we make that recommendation. If they're not, we make the recommendation that they're not. And I think all of us take it.

It is very important for us to do that analysis, to do that analysis well and to make sure that we're making a recommendation that is always public safety being at the forefront. So whether they're 80 and they're still dangerous, they're 80 and still dangerous. And unfortunately we see 80 year olds that are, that are still dangerous.

And so I did have some familiarity with the SBB SBP process as a counselor many years back. And we would, prior to paroling sex offenders, review the case if they met the criteria, we refer them to dsh. But as far as a parole Commissioner, it's not something that we deal with.

As far as the elderly parole factors, it's just one factor we consider. And I've seen 50 year olds that were in a lot better shape than I am that can run 10 miles and could still be very dangerous.

And I've seen other that are in a wheelchair and with cognitive decline or severe medical issues that really do mitigate their risk. So it's just one factor we consider, but it has to be taken individually, case by case.

All right, thank you all.

Thank you all very much. I am very concerned about the elderly parole program and I'll keep working on that through other means. The one thing I do want to share, I'm kind of mixed on the approvals today. And so I'm leaning no towards no on a couple. Yes on a couple.

But the bottom line that I want you all to hear and understand for me is I appreciate the job that you had to do. Commissioner Minor, you mentioned the stack of paperwork.

I had the opportunity once I fly up from San Diego every week, and on Monday morning I had a gentleman sitting next to me literally with a stack of papers like this, and I could see that there was a state logo on them. And I said, he may have even started the conversation. I'm not.

No, I started the conversation because he was busy working. I said, what do you do? He goes, I'm a Parole Commissioner and at the time my brother in law was in prison. And so I was interested in his job and, you know, what he had to do.

And as he was walking me through the requirements of his job is definitely not a job I would want to do. So regardless of my votes today, I want you all to know that I respect what you do. And after the votes, if you have some concerns or you know, I have an open office so willing to have dialogue continuing after today.

Thank you so much. Leader Jones. Before we go to folks who are here, the public, we'd like to be able to see if there's any additional questions, comments that would like to be advanced by the Committee hearing scene. None. We'd like to be able to open up the public comment portion of today's hearing.

We welcome any individual who may be in support of either of the commissioners. All four of the commissioners. If you could please step forward at this time. Right now we're taking support comment.

We assume the families in support.

Exactly. I don't know. I think it may be mixed out as much time as exactly. Logs get nervous all of a sudden. God damn. We're going to do last call for support. All right. We're now going to look for those who may be in opposition. If you could please step forward at this time.

We're going to do a last call for opposition. We're going to bring it back to Committee. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, my understanding is that we're going to have a vote split. I'd like to talk about the first motion. The vote split would be we would first move items A, C and D move first.

I so move. We have a motion by Senator Laird on items A, C and D under Governor appointees. Any additional discussion or debate hearing? C. None. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Three to two as a 32 vote, the motion passes. We're now going to move on to item B. Item B, we have a motion by Senator Caballero. Any discussion or debate hearing? C. None. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Five to zero vote. That motion passes. We're closing the roll. We're closing the roll on both. We want to say to each of the commissioners thank you so much for your service to the people of California. We're grateful for your time today.

Next stop will be the Senate Floor and congratulations on today's hearing and formal confirmation vote will be on the Senate Floor here in the weeks to come. Thank you so much ladies and gentlemen. Committee we're going to take a brief recession and then we're going to be going into Executive closed session.

We're going to take a brief recess. Thank you. As folks are leaving the hearing room we want to say thank you all for taking time being here today and again congratulations to the commissioners. We're grateful that we have family and friends who are also in the audience today.

We're going to be concluding a public portion of today's hearing. We're going to be adjourning the public statement segment of Senate Rules Committee and we'll be reconvening an Executive closed session. Thank you all.