Senate Standing Committee on Rules

The Senate Committee on Rules will come to order. Before we begin today's agenda, can we please establish quorum? Can we please call the roll?

Limon.

[Roll Call]

Here. Sorry.

Quorum.

Alright. Thank you. A quorum has been established. If there's no objections, I'd like to take up first on today's agenda. Governor's appointments not required to appear starting with 2E, the appointment of Heather Lane Gonzalez as a member of the court to as a member to the court reporters board. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Laird, for that motion. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Three to one.

That is three to one, and we'll leave that open for add ons. The last item for governor's appointments not required to appear is item 2F, Allison Saltonstall for the court reporter's board. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Thank you. Vice Chair Grove. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Four to zero.

Alright. That is four to zero. We'll leave that open, for folks to add on. Next, I'd like to take up item three, reference to bills to committees. I'll entertain a motion.

Thank you, Vice Chair Grove. Can we please call the roll?

So moved.

[Roll Call]

Four to zero.

Alright. That's four to zero. And our final item before we turn to the governor's appointees are items four through 14, floor acknowledgments. I'll entertain a motion.

Sure.

There was a request by Senator Alvarado-Gil to.

Can ask a question, Madam Chair?

Oh, no introductions on the floor. I apologize. Thank you. Sorry. So moved. Thank you.

With, so we have a motion for that. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Four to zero.

Alright. That is four to zero. Alright. We will now turn to the governor's appointees required to appear. We have items 1A and 1B, the appointments of Kathleen Ratliff, associate director, region two division of adult institutions, and Joseph Tuggle, associate director, region one division of adult institutions, both to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We will invite the both of you to please come forward and sit here. You each have a name tag ready for you or name plate, not a tag. We'll give you one to two minutes for your opening testimony, and then we will if in your opening testimony, you can introduce any of your guests you may have here with you today, and then we'll go ahead and ask some questions. And if it's okay, we'll begin with Miss Ratliff.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. I'd like to thank you for being able to appear before you today. I'd also like to thank Governor Gavin Newsom for the appointment and his trust in me to take on this leadership role within CCR. I'd also like to acknowledge my family, friends, colleagues, and many of my mentors who are either here today or online for their unwavering support throughout my career with public service.

Also, my husband, he's here today. He is also serves in public service. He's been with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 25 plus years. And so he truly understands the demand that this career can have on an individual, and he's been a constant source of support. Also, my I wanna acknowledge my two adult children who are not able to be here today.

My daughter, who currently studies at UC Santa Barbara, she's currently studying abroad in Singapore. And my son, who just is in the hospital because I had a grandson last night, but nonetheless for both their support and their sacrifice over the years. I come from a large family raised in Southern California. I'm one of 11 children. And so, as you can imagine, being raised in that kind of environment, there was many values that were instilled in me.

The main one is gonna be my sense of responsibility. Also, my commitment to family, friends, and others. And with that is my resilience and teamwork. I'm deeply dedicated to CDCR. I've been in the department for just under 20 years, where I was able to take on many different roles, both leadership, administrative roles, working in the institution, and also at our headquarters.

A significant portion of my career has been spent working with our female offenders at both CCWF and CIW, where I spent approximately fourteen years. And so I truly understand what it is to look at things from a trauma-informed and gender responsive lens. With that, again, I thank you for being able to appear for you before you today, and I look forward to any of your questions. Thank you.

Thank you, and congratulations. We will begin. Any members, any questions, comments? We're doing the Oh, sorry. We will no.

Before we do questions, sorry. We will go ahead and start with you. Sorry, Mr. Tuggle.

Alright. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I'd like to begin by expressing my seer gratitude to Governor Newsom for the confidence he has placed in me through this nomination to serve as a region one associate director for the Department of Corrections. I would also like to recognize then the support of my family who are here with me today.

My wife, Toni, and I have been married for 27 years, and her support throughout my career has been unwavering. Corrections work often requires long hours and time away from home, and Toni has always been always been there to ensure the family was supported while I focus on the responsibilities of the job. I'm deeply grateful for our strength, patience, and support. I'd also like to acknowledge my two children who have supported me throughout this journey.

I am sure they have heard a lot more about corrections than they ever expected, but their encouragement and support means the world to me.

I'd like to take a moment to recognize my parents and grandparents who have instilled in me the value of hard work, responsibility, and service. I want to thank the many mentors, leaders who have guided me throughout my career, as well as the current leadership of the department. Over the past twenty seven years, I've had the privilege of working alongside outstanding professionals who mentorship, leadership, and commitment to the mission have helped shape my approach to this profession.

I've also seen firsthand the dedication of our department's leaders demonstrated every day in the support of our staff and improving our institutions. It has been a privilege to serve for the state of California for more than 27 years, and I'm honored to be considered for this role, and I look forward to answering any of your questions.

Thank you. And now is the time for questions or comments. And do we have any questions or comments? Senator Laird, would you like to speak in?

Thank you very much. And, thank you both for your service. And I just know that in the last period of years, and I can see somebody in the back that I served in the cabinet with when he was head of CDRC, and I have been aware of sort of change that has been worked on for a period of time and it's hard but has been palpable.

And so I thought maybe it would be good to get both of you to talk a little, and maybe we'll go in reverse order and let her savor the idea of her grandson for a moment before she gets to speak. Alright.

But just on the whole notion of the California model, you know, rooted in some ways in the Norway model and, and how you think it's going, and how you think you'll have a role in that, and what you see as the issues, and sort of moving ahead?

Alright. So the California model has I would say the department didn't do a great job of rolling it out. I think we struggled where we showed events that made staff believe that it was more about the incarcerated persons having events than it was really about the staff safety and security, and overall a better workplace. I think that when I hear these negative things, and I and how I approach it is, it's really about teaching and, and educating the staff of what the California model really is.

And it's really about having that mentorship, that guidance, providing opportunities to rehabilitation.

Our job is public safety. And it is our job to prepare these guys and individuals could to go back to the street. It's also our job to hold these accountable. But as we encourage and mentor these individuals to take advantage of the opportunities that we offer and prepare them to go back to the street and to society and be a productive member of society, we know as a department that when these individuals take that opportunity, they're less violent. They're more willing to take it, those roles.

Those leadership roles amongst the other individuals incarceration. So it's really about education. It's really about letting staff know that those relationships and mentoring and, and public safety doesn't just stop when they come into the incarceration. It's preparing them to go back.

And just before we move on to MISS Ratliff, one interesting thing I'd follow-up in because you were talking about the implementation of it with regard to people that are incarcerated and whether or not there'd have been a serious enough focus on actually employees and their safety in that process. Do you feel like you said that was sort of a problem with the rollout. Do you feel like you're catching up with that issue and sort of what you're doing?

I truly do. WE as a department traveled to state over the last couple years as a leadership explaining that to staff, promoting that with the, the institutions. And I truly believe that in explaining that to staff and they've seen the positive outcomes, there is still more work to be done. But yes, I do.

Well, you know, it's interesting just as an aside. I was in one of these hearings maybe three or four years ago, and we were doing top people from your agency. And then at the end of the week I went to one of the prisons in my district, the San Luis Obispo men's colony, and said "Jeez we were just talking about that in the hearing," and there were about 30 people in the room, and they said yes we were all watching.

And so that's also significant because I suspect a lot of people are watching right now.

Right.

And it's really good for you to have those statements so that people are getting the culture change and getting that they're a piece of it in this. Miss Ratliff?

I would agree with Tuggle. I think, you know, as an agency, we didn't do a really good job with the communication at the front end. The California model is a fundamental shift from how we've done business for a significant portion of time within our agency. So, of course, with any change like that, you're gonna have individuals who don't necessarily buy into what we're trying to do. That's both on the staff side and the population.

And so to combat that, as Tuggle said, we've been going out to the institutions. We've been pushing a pretty progressive role with explaining the why to the staff. Why to the population? Why California model, is important? And a part of that is, you know, research shows that many of our correctional officers, or correctional staff for that matter, do not live long past retirement.

So what we're trying to do is to show staff and the population how if we create an environment where there's less stress, then we have employees that are healthier, which goes into our employee wellness. On the population side of it, a lot of the pillars of the California model are not too much fundamentally different than how we did business. We just put a name to it. So when we talk about normalization, we're talking about normalizing our interactions with the population.

When we talk about becoming a trauma informed agency, I've been working with as I mentioned in the beginning, I work with the female population for around 14 years.

And so it's embedded when we talk about trauma-informed, and it's getting the staff and the population to truly understand what's in it for them. And I think we're doing a better job with it. Of course, we don't have everyone on board, and that's to be expected with having a fundamental change such as the California model. But I see us getting there in the future. I do think that it's better for the staff and the population.

But as Tuggle said, there's a lot of work to still be done.

And unfortunately, that leads to the next question in, you know, that that I would direct to you because there was the news article on February 2nd of 2026 in the San Francisco Chronicle about a pepper spray incident that happened at the at the healthcare facility. And I have to tell you, the visual of it was just shocking.

Maybe it didn't reflect what actually was going on, but really seeing men standing there pepper spraying and women diving for the floor and not looking like there was a threat going on at the time, with the backdrop of complaints that had been filed, was very, very troubling. And you were deputy director at the time.

Could you speak to sort of your view of that incident, and maybe as a follow-up if there have been disciplinary actions taken, and if there are to the extent you can speak about it and, and just whether that has led to a change in, in policy or operational policy, at that facility.

Of course. I, I first want to acknowledge the gravity of that incident. It was a horrific incident. It did not look good. And many of the uses of force within that incident does not represent CDCR's policies and procedures.

At the time when the incident happened at California Central California Women's Facility back in August 2024, I was the acting chief deputy warden at the health care facility in Stockton, California health care facility. Nonetheless, the incident was horrible. What we had was the staff at the institution were conducting a search of the housing unit, and the population were re, temporarily redirected into the facility's chow hall or dining hall, if you will, while the search was being conducted.

Within the chow hall, there was an incident that led to a significant use of force. And to answer your question, yes.

There were staff that were disciplined as a part of that incident. Many of the staff followed policy. But it, it didn't look good. And so as a part of that, we, of course, did a thorough investigation. We referred it. We.

And when you say referred it, what does that mean?

Right. So, a part of well, before we got to the referring, we for transparency purposes, we took the incident, the handling of that incident outside of the facility, and we had another institution handle that incident. And so the referring, what I mean is any allegations of excessive or unnecessary force are forwarded to be investigated by the OIA or the Office of Inspector General, or Office of Internal Affairs. Excuse me. So when I say referred, we referred it for investigation.

In addition to referring it for an investigation, took a look. When I say we, I mean the agency. We took a look at that incident. We reviewed the video footage. There were some staff who we found that it appeared that the use of force just added a, a high level, and that their force was inconsistent in the with our use of force policy, and those staff members were redirected temporarily to other institutions while we reviewed that incident thoroughly, and they went through the investigation process.

The other part of that is we, of course, provided health care, medical services to the population involved in the incident, and we deployed a number of individuals out to the facility to offer services to the population. That's both through our internal and external. We, of course, provided mental health services to the population via our mental health staff at the institution. We deployed the inmate advisory council to go out and talk to the population. We held a day of healing.

So there was a number of different actions that we took to address the issue. And to answer your question with regards to changes in policy, we conducted a root cause analysis to get to determine how the incident happened and how we could prevent it, and some of the best practices to prevent it in the future.

With that, we partnered with the Office of Correctional Safety, which is our internal security within CDCR, to come out and provide training to the stat to the staff at the institution, and it captured a huge percentage of the staff. And in that training, we went over things like communication, de-escalation, our use of force policy, report writing. And again, that was all a part of our approach to prevent this from happening in the past in the future.

Excuse me. And the other thing I'll, I'll note is that at our female institutions, you typically don't see large-scale incidents of that matter. And so those are other things that we touched on during the training. And we did that training on the front end, and we've subsequently conducted that training a second time. And we, we've conducted that training at our other female facility as well.

This is another preventative method.

And I think sometimes taking strong and public action is, is designed to serve as a message going forward. Do you feel like, within the agency, that message was received after all, miss?

I do. We do have a pretty robust process as it relates to staff misconduct. And again, there were staff who were redirected. There were some staff who were subsequently terminated from the department.

And I think that, that absolutely serves as a preventative measure for other staff.

Okay. I appreciate you saying how troubling it was. And I think it the the the only concern that I would have that really remains is so many times you go through the formal process of we're gonna do training, we're gonna do this, but you wanna know that it's really having the effect. You wanna know that this is just not going to happen again, and that you get the message of how unacceptable this was. And it sounds to me like you believe that message got across.

I do. I believe it truly got across, but it doesn't stop there. I think it's a continual conversation. It's continual training. It's continually holding individuals accountable.

It's boots on the ground. It's having conversations with the population and the staff. It's hearing from those individuals that are at the ground level. So I don't think it ends with the one training or individuals being removed. I think it's constant.

We need to constantly evaluation.

Oh, excuse me.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Do you feel like you get the appropriate feedback or that you are on this in a way that you are really understanding what's happening on the ground? Is there even incidents that get close to this?

I do. As a regional associate director, I have regular contact with the facilities under my purview. So, in addition to touring the facilities at least once every quarter, I increase that contact with the warden and the institutional staff. And when I'm out there, I'm talking to the population, I'm talking to the staff. The other thing is I spent a significant amount of time working in these facilities, so I've built a strong relationship with the staff and the population.

And so beyond the normal reporting measures through tracking data, I review the incident trends, grievances. So, beyond that is hearing directly from the individuals. So I, I believe I have a true grasp of what's happening in the facility, and not only the leadership but the experience to help staff and the population to prevent incidents such as this from happening in the future.

And I was sort of hanging back on asking the first question because I was sure that this was gonna come up with other members, and I didn't necessarily know if I wanted to be the one to, to lead on it.

But I think it goes without saying that this is a matter of great concern to us and that we really want to make sure that that ethic is out there in a clear way that we just do not see something of this, this impact again, even though I know that's a strong statement because of the life of institutions and things. But that was just of such great concern, and we heard from lots of stakeholders about it at the time. So, appreciate your response.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Gomez Reyes?

Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciated that, that you took the time to to spend with me so that we could chat a little bit about, about this appointment and about who you are and where you came from and, and the job that, that you intend to do there. I, I appreciate that. I, I thank, the Senator for asking those questions.

And I, I appreciate your response. There's no question. I think that if people were to look at different jobs working with, in the prison system is a very difficult job. And having to balance so many things whether you you are, you are there as staff or if you're living there. I think the job of the leader is probably the most important in any in any of our, our prisons.

I, I want to talk a little bit more, specifically on sexual assault within the prisons. We talked a little bit about this yesterday. Back in 2016, prison law office report stated, and I'm going to quote, staff sexually and physically abuse or harass prisoners, and that's and staff did not protect prisoners from violence by other prisoners and failed to report and prevent violence from occurring again. We're now seven years since that report, and many say that it's still happening.

In September of 24, the US Department of Justice announced a civil rights investigation into correctional staff sexual abuse at two CDCR women's facilities and whether CDCR appropriately protected incarcerated people.

And we spoke briefly about correctional officer Gregory Rodriguez and the, the harm he inflicted on them. We also have the OBGYN who sterilized a 150 women over, over a decade ago against their will and without their knowledge. Who simply said that it was welfare savings. Also, when we talk about safety of visitors, two women were strangled to death in separate incidents during conjugal visits with her husband partner at Mill Creek State Prison. That was in 2024.

The other that we are also concerned with is the safety of correctional officers.

In, in Tulomi County, the DA announced in January 2025 that they had filed charges against Robert Lawrence Ransom who was incarcerated and inflicted harm on correctional officers. These are things that have happened within, within the walls of the prisons. I'd like to hear from both of you about your response to that first, your, your reaction to that, and what it is within your purview, within your your, your leadership that what you can do to make that different.

What are the lessons learned and how do we make sure that does not happen again?

Since you, Miss Ratliff, if you we had you speak a whole lot.

Let's have Mister Tuggle speak. And then I'd like to hear your reaction to it too.

I mean, my reaction to that is those are horrible and terrible events. Our condolences go out to the family. They're it should not happen. They're they're, it's completely tragic and it's traumatic for the staff. It's traumatic for the incarcerated persons.

It is a, just a horrible and I cannot say that enough. However, we do have robust processes as Kathleen, has stated. We do have an investigation process and every allegation, every incident of that magnitude is investigated and part of that investigation is reviewing all the audio, the video, the any information, interviews. And those investigations are done through our OIA, Office of Internal Affairs. And we review those.

And when the investigation is completed, whether it's criminal, it could go to the criminal route and go through the District Attorney. Or administratively, it goes back to the hiring authority and they review these cases.

And when they review these cases, they're looking out all the policies and the procedures that are done, and they are done with my oversight in my areas and we review and we meet and we discuss and we make sure that we have followed policy or procedures and we also look is there a best practice. Is there something that we can do and what can we do better? And we constantly reflect on every event that takes place inside these institutional walls.

And our leadership as well as all the way down take all these incidents very seriously. They truly affect us and as we go through these processes to make sure that it doesn't or to minimize these from happening again, we go through these processes. And if there's administrative action, disciplinary, those are taking place. And like I said, if it's criminal, it goes to the District Attorney for that.

And when we talk about holding staff members accountable, and Kathleen briefly spoke about that before, you know, administratively can lead up to dismissal based on those determination.

We also hold incarcerated responsible criminally. And when we talk about these events towards staff and the assaults on staff. And we constantly are reviewing the stuff even at my level with the wardens and the institutions and going over. And identifying areas of additional training, areas of maybe where we can correct and prevent this from happening again. And then how do we continue to spread this training and information to the other institutions? So, this is doesn't happen to any of our institutions.

So we constantly have statewide calls discussing these concerns and then we also all of the Associate Directors are out in our institutions.

And and talking to the incarcerated persons, talking to the staff discussing these kind of things with our staff and the security of 101 is for their staff safety and also the incarcerated safety. And that is paramount. It's paramount as part of California model as part of what we do every single day and holding our staff and the incarcerated person accountable for their action. So this doesn't happen.

Thank you. Miss Ratliff, is there something you would like to add?

I do. And we spoke a little bit about it yesterday. We have an obligation to keep those in our care safe, and we take that obligation, that responsibility seriously. Acknowledging again that was a tragic incident, especially with regards to Gregory Rodriguez. And I shared with you that I take that personal, because I've worked at CCWF.

I've worked at CIW, and I have relationships with the staff and the population there. And so, again, it's deeply troubling. I wanted to mention that, and I mentioned it to you yesterday that it starts with first identifying the issues early so that we can correct the issues.

But in order to identify issues and correct the issues, we have to make sure that we have put in place a procedure or policy and that the staff and incarcerated feel safe in reporting, and they feel safe against retaliation. And so a part of that is making sure that we have our training, which we do.

Our staff are required to take training annually with regards to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA. We also provide training to the population. And in those trainings, we we're training the staff to identify what to look for. We've have an aggressive campaign of See Something, Say Something. The other part of that is with the training is making sure that individuals are aware of the different reporting mechanisms.

So whether that be a confidential reporting, whether it goes straight to the office of inspector general. If the incarcerated are using their tablets to report, we have the 800 numbers, the direct dial for individuals to report. So those reporting mechanisms are also important. And then on the other side of reporting, it's again, the accountability piece. It's making sure that individuals know that we have our zero tolerance policy, and that means that it won't be tolerated at any level.

And so when we we talk about my responsibility, not only am I the Associate Director over Region 2 overseeing the female institutions, but I also oversee the Prison Rape Elimination Act Statewide. And so I take prison rape seriously. And a lot of it is, yes, applying our policies and procedures, but making sure folks are aware of it and what happens when they violate.

You know, it thank you for that. And I wanna go back to the article that, Senator Laird talked about that February, second report. In the very last page, it said and it was talking about women who report things and and what that means to them and why they don't always report. It says being accused of filing false claims can make it harder to get released on parole. And this they had interviewed Lisa Nomura who had served seven years at Chowchilla.

If they don't believe you and they say that you are filing false claims, that's a terrible offense. And so you're being told that nobody will believe you. And in the article, it talks about the fact that now this is a fear that's instilled in I'm sure not just the women, but it happened to be there. That that is instilled in them so they don't report.

What efforts are being made to make sure that a prisoner feels that they are being heard and that they're not going to be prejudged, and then to make it more difficult for them to then get out.

So we follow the federal PREA standards with regards to PREA and reporting. Every allegation of sexual assault, sexual misconduct, sexual harassment is investigated. As a part of that process, we do have a protection against retaliation. So individuals who are in fear of being retaliated against for one reason or another, We have a policy.

And essentially, anytime an individual makes a report of rape or sexual harassment, sexual assault. Those individuals, we monitor them for a minimum of ninety days, which is in line with the federal PREA standards.

And through that process, when we're monitoring, we're looking at things like their housing, we're looking at their job assignments, we're looking at anything that can be considered retaliatory in nature. We take it a step further within CDCR, which is not a requirement of the federal standards, But what we do is we, in fifteen day increments over that ninety day period, we interview these individuals by way of our PREA Compliance Managers at the institutions, and we hear directly from them.

Because there may be things that we don't necessarily see as retaliate retaliation, but they do. And so, when that comes up and we look at the evidence and if there does appear to be some kind of retaliation, then those individuals are held accountable because that is not in line with our our policies and procedures and is considered serious misconduct.

So we do have a procedure in place to investigate every allegation which is outside of the institution where those investigations are happening, and we do encourage individuals to report.

It was a part of what I mentioned, the See Something, Say Something Campaign. It's a part of the training, but there is a perception out there. But if I'm being a 100% transparent, the staff and our institutions and the population are provided the information and the resources to report and it does not necessarily have to be in the institution.

They can report it to a staff member, any staff member, and the staff members are trained on what they need to do with that information and the consequences of what happens if they fail to do so.

I'd like to ask a question now on prison visitation. Thank you for that answer. Last year, over 20 prisons suspended visitations following some awful incidents. The importance of familial visitation cannot be understated.

And I know that as part of the California model, the normalization pillar aims to bring life in prison as close as possible to life outside of prison. And I'm assuming family reunification is a strong part of that. When visitation is shut down or restricted, that can impede rehabilitation. I understand the need to balance the safety of people who work and live in prisons, but how will you prioritize family visitation within your region prisons?

And as part of your answer, can you talk about what you will do to make visiting easier for families, especially those with children or limited resources?

We've heard from advocates that visiting is governed by inconsistent rules and broad staff discretion with visitors sometimes being turned away after traveling long distances? Mister Tuggle.

So absolutely. Family unification, that support is paramount for individuals to rehabilitate and get back, be successful in the society. With that said, the safety and security of our institutions is also paramount and ensuring that the incarcerated persons within our institutions, as well as our staff are safe as much as possible that we can do so.

So as we hold events to encourage those family ties and to make it feel as normal as possible. So in those moments, they can have those real relationships with their loved ones and share those times.

And I have examples of on Father's Day special events that that we celebrate, these holidays within inside of our institutions. During Christmas time, we decorate to try to make it as normal as possible for those individuals. Now, we have the kids and we have kid games at different institutions. It's it's really trying to bring that family atmosphere to our visiting room.

But we also have to make sure that we know that we have a drug problem and we have to monitor that and we have to make sure that's safe.

So it's balancing that and investigating those through our investigation processes. But it's also providing that so both the staff feel confident on what they're doing and being safe with what they do. And it's also the incarcerated feel safe and their family members feel safe to visit.

And so it's balancing all those things is difficult. We also do and this is a for the statewide visiting, we hold visiting meetings with all the institutions.

We talk about issues. I don't wanna take too much of misread this area, but so they can discuss this and the institutions can discuss concerns. To be as consistent as we can with policy across the board is very difficult. You know, across the board, it's staff enforcing rules, but it's also being consistent with those rules. But it's perception and trying to be consistent as possible, so everybody understands the rules and there's less negative interaction.

And so the statewide visiting calls are one that we do. Also, we have training once a year, we were shutting down in the visiting to provide training to all our visiting staff and the managers. So there's a lot that we do and it's trying to keep that normalization and keep our institution safe.

Before I have Miss Ratliff speak, I did want to ask how the San Quentin Transition Program is progressing?

The Learning Center? Oh, it's a beautiful building. We received the keys on March 23. I like to say we received the keys, but we got permission just to occupy. The incarcerated individuals are enjoying it.

It's like a college campus. It is a great atmosphere and the staff seem to be excited about it. Obviously, we have a little bit resistance here and there. But I think overall, it's a new challenge. But it's not a resistance of not accepting the building.

Trying to understand exactly how this works. And it's really just trying to figure that out and work together. And the Warden has done a great job there at that institution to bring the staff to make them feel confident with the way it works and with the incarcerated people. He's done town halls. He's toured with the incarcerated person showing them and touring with the staff.

So they were already and prepared for when this when that area opened up. And it's a great event. It's very exciting. And if any of your individuals would love to tour there, we would be happy to accommodate that.

Wonderful. Thank you. Miss Ratliff, on the prison visitation and the restrictions that I mentioned earlier, how would you respond?

I'd echo many of the statements made by Tuggle. Visiting is another one of the areas that as a Region II Associate Director that I'm over. And so, yes, visiting is paramount. It feeds directly into the incarcerated persons being prepared to go home. And so we wanna continue to increase the family reunification.

Tuggle touched on a little bit of the meetings that we have and the trainings that we have. But just going a little bit deeper, in those trainings, oftentimes, in the meetings, we're speaking to the staff about, you know, oftentimes, our visiting staff is the only interaction that the public has with CDCR staff.

And so they have an opportunity to really show the good work that we're doing out there. Tuggle mentioned that we are challenging the visiting staff to create more of a family environment in our visiting rooms. We're challenging the staff to work with their inmate family councils at the facility to bring them into different ideas on how we can approve that visitor experience.

The other thing is we frequently meet with the Inmate Advisory Councils just to hear issues because we have heard, you know, many things about the inconsistencies in our visiting rooms and that's something that we're currently working on in Region 2. Is coming up with a policy or procedure and are visiting that all institutions will follow so that it does not matter which institution you show up to, you have a similar experience.

And so I don't wanna repeat a lot of what Tuggle said, but we are. Visiting is very important, statewide, but specifically in Region 2. That's one of our huge pushes. And when we work with the statewide MA Family Council, those are the things that we're looking at is making some changes to visiting so we make it a more family environment. And that's both in the visiting rooms and in the family visiting.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. I I asked a whole lot of questions. We because we were missing two of our members, but one is back. But thank you, Madam chair. Miss PT.

Yes. Vice chair group. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate you guys and I apologize. I had to step out. I balance speak or balance between two committees. So I apologize.

I had to be in health, which is just below us. But Miss Ratliff, Central California Women's Facility in California's Institution for Women, face serious scrutiny over allegations of sexual abuse from staff and inmate on inmate, or incarcerated person on peer, accusations of rape.

And so, is there something that you have in place and I may have missed questions and I apologize if you've already answered it and on the record, then I'm okay with that if you just tell me.

But is there something in place that you're doing specifically for women's prisons to make sure that our women are protected? I mean, every person that's in there deserves to be protected and serve with dignity.

And it I was really bothered by some of the stuff that I heard about Chowchilla last year as and this year.

I agree. I did touch on it a bit while you're out, but I share, your concerns. It's deeply troubling for me as well. And we are. We not just at the Women's Institution, but all of our institutions, we have an aggressive push against Prison Rape Elimination Act.

With regards to our women, what I mentioned while you were out was a lot of it is about making sure we create a space where the population feels safe in reporting. We have the reporting mechanisms in place already. We provide the training to the staff and the population. But if individuals don't feel safe enough to make those reports, then we miss we're missing a piece.

So the specific parts are female institutions is communicating at the front end, holding town hallmarks, and just creating that space for the population to feel comfortable in reporting.

I can go over a lot of the methods that we're taking. I have done it on record. I'm not sure if you'd like for me to do it again.

No. It's not as long as it's on record. It's totally fine. Thank you very much. And to both of you, the second question that I, were you finished?

I apologize, ma'am.

I was. Thank you.

So the second question I am, is to both of you, both, Mister Tuggle and Miss Ratliff. How are you guys gonna ensure the incarcerated person in, when we implement the California model, doesn't weaken that individual's, safety, number one, safety, discipline, staff authority, consequences, and misconduct, and the specific metrics that you're gonna use to track the assaults, I guess. That makes sense.

No? Ask it a different way.

Could you please?

Yes. Go ahead.

Ask it a different way, Sir.

I can attend?

Okay. Sorry. I apologize.

So from I'm just

The California model's being implemented.

Right.

How are we gonna make sure that we follow the law and implement the California model without jeopardizing the safety of the incarcerated persons and making sure they still have an avenue for reporting.

And also, if there is discipline or staff authority issues or consequences or misconduct, what kind of metrics do you have to make sure that's fair and equitable and that our incarcerated persons aren't having, a retaliation situation. And that we are also protecting the individual who is part of the CCPOA that is making sure that inmate security is safe.

So I think it was a misconception when the California model rolled out that. It was just a and I could kind of cover this a little bit earlier where it was incarcerated person events and holding just for them. And it really was a a push on staff safety, staff wellness.

And I think that it's really through education. Educating our staff that this is not to go against the Custody Security 101.

We have policies and procedures in place that include the safety and security and rules to follow. And we have to make sure that those are followed. Now anytime, there's an allegation of misconduct from an incarcerated person, from a third party, from an anonymous line is completely investigated. It has an outside entity that goes through and does the investigation. It goes to the Office of Internal Affairs or it goes to the allegations inquiry unit.

And those are investigated. And those investigations are detailed with all available information. And those investigations, once completed, go back to the institution. And like I said earlier, the hiring authority will review those cases to ensure that all our policies and procedures were followed, and any administrative action regarding those are taken.

And I think that just that misconception of the rollout of the California model is the miss where it's just about events for the individuals and I just take it back to the education.

Really letting staff know that providing rehabilitation programs or being personable and mentoring and encouraging education is not over familiar. It's not reducing safety. It's actually increasing safety because the more individuals that are participating in these programs are less likely to assault staff, that are less likely to be involved in negative behavior while they're within the incarcerated.

I totally agree with you and I'm glad that you brought up rehabilitation. So the reason why I say that is I had the opportunity to visit Kern Valley Prison. And when I went in, there was an English learning class. There or not English. There was an educational reading class that was going on.

And you know, based on the numbers that I've seen, 70% of the incarcerated population has low levels of reading and comprehension. And when I went in there, it broke my heart because there was like a I would not cry, but there was like a 60 year old guy that was sitting there. And I go so I just sat down next to him. I'm like, hey, what are you doing today?

And he, like, covered up his book and he looked at me. And I said, well, let me see. And I took his book, which is probably inappropriate anyways. But I took his book, and I said, what do you got going on here? And he just looked at me.

And I said, well, tell me what you got. And he goes, well, if I pass this test, I get to go to the next grade. And I looked at the words on the paper and they were like, they, them, you know, they were words that, you know, my grandkids learn in first grade. And so I do really think that if we don't focus on rehabilitation, there's no way that we're gonna be successful, that people are gonna be successful outside of the system.

I couldn't agree more. I think when you see the light goes on for the individual who's in the classroom or in that program learning, from the institutions I've been at with the welding programs or the the the basic education. When the light goes on, it goes on and they're excited.

And then when you bring your staff in and they see those things, we held a poetry reading at Folsom and we brought our staff there to and listen to these incarcerated persons speak about their pathways and how they ended up there and how they maybe regretted not being a good father and all those things.

No, I get it.

I think it turns a light on for everybody and it's more than just putting them and throwing away the key. It's getting them prepared to go back out there.

And encouraging that.

I support family visitation. I support the dog program, you know because the dogs pick their owner, their person, I guess. They can't keep them. But, you know, I love that dog program that actually started in my district. And so I love that dog program.

And Miss Ratliff, I apologize. Did you wanna add into any of that? I apologize.

Folks will cover most of it. The only other thing that I would add is the California model and safety and security are not competing. They're both interconnected, so they go together. And that's what Tuggle was mentioning when we talk about educating and training the staff. Security never went out the window.

It was a misconception. They're interconnected. Outside of that, I echo the comments that Tuggle made.

Great. Thank you. I look forward to your confirmation. I have no other questions, Madam chair.

Thank you. Well, thank you. I think my colleagues have asked a lot of what was on my mind. In particular, the San Francisco Chronicle article, which I appreciate the engagement.

We flagged it early we had a back and forth, and I appreciate some of the information that was given because certainly not just the article itself that described the incident. And I think as, you know, Senator Laird mentioned, the visuals of seeing women, you know on the ground with pepper spray in the air. And it was a hard visual to understand. And I appreciate that there was information given to me, not just on what led to the incident but also the correctional, the way that we correct it.

Because I think that you can look at all bodies of government, and there's imperfection in moments where you look at it and we can always do better.

I think what I look for though at times is the themes. Like is this a repeated thing that happens? And so for me, that does tend to be an issue of concern. And I think that over the last four years in particular, whether it's through visits, whether it's through articles, whether it's through conversation, there is a growing number of legislators who have learned about alarming situations that I think you all want corrected, we all want corrected.

And so we ask ourselves this piece about how do we better correct.

And I guess I'm gonna ask you a broader because my colleagues asked you some specific questions about that particular incident. You've also outlined for me, what some of the remedies or corrections were, so that that wouldn't happen again. But what do you see as the themes where we have to do better? Like, what are the things you're looking at?

Like, these are the incident not that particular incident, but these are the matters that we can do better as an institution, to make sure that everyone is safe.

The individuals who work there, but also the individuals that are there, for, you know, for other reasons. So help me understand on what your process is to correct things that happen repeatedly.

For me, the way to correct things that are happening repeatedly is to get ahead of all. A lot of it comes down to the training and the communication from the top. It's communicating with the staff what will and won't be tolerated, which I mentioned before. But it's being engaged enough that the staff and the population feel comfortable in reporting it to you.

So, you know, while that not to go into that specific incident, but at that institution or female institutions in general, we don't typically have large scale incidents of that magnitude.

So for that prevention method, a lot of that is preparing the staff. We could have done a better job at preparing in the beginning for the potential of something like that happening, which is what goes into the training.

So for me, I think a lot of it is identifying the issues, looking toward the future of things that can happen, looking through all institutions, not just those in our region, and having those conversations. Those real conversations with the staff and the wardens at the institution to prevent.

Fortunately, we haven't had another incident, similar to the incident at CCWF, and my goal is to keep it that way. But a lot of it is conducting those root cause analysis, applying best practices, working with the both internal and external resources, working with the IFCs at the, in the MA Family Council, working with the incarcerated individuals at the institution to get them involved.

Because often times they have the answers for you, but a lot of it is having the right folks at the table to be able to address issues before they become issues.

So the only thing I'd like to add to that, and she really did a great job covering it, is making and our leadership does a great job with this is when an incident does happen, those terrible incidents happen. We make sure it's not siloed. We make sure that we are addressing these across the state so we learn from each other. We learn from every incident. We take we do after actions report and we share that amongst the institutions making sure they're not siloed.

So we can learn from that and we try to do our best to ensure that those things do not happen again. So I think that is really important that whether it's on a middle of the night or a Saturday morning, we are on we will be sharing that information trying to figure that out and trying to take immediate and appropriate action to ensure it doesn't happen.

Thank you. With that, I think I am going to open it up now to members of the public. If there are members of the public who are here in support, I ask that this, at this time to please come forward, and state your name and position.

So we'll start with those in support.

Just name, posit- yeah. Name, affiliation, and position.

Hello. Hi. My name is Bryson Cole. I'm a former ward of Ratliff, and I'm here in support of her confirmation. I wanna thank the members of the Senate, members in the audience, staff of CDCR.

I appreciate you all. I'll keep it quick. I have a photo that shows Warden Ratliff surrounded by staff and the population of CHCF Stockton, after she allowed him to spearhead and organize, sorry, I'm nervous. A successful and impactful crime victims awareness week.

Despite obstacles that would have been easier to just shut down the program, she allowed it to continue while maintaining safety and security of the institution. This allowed participation in healing events and insightful workshops that we created with collaboration between staff, inmates, and outside guests.

This is where the lasting healing happens, and this is where the change takes place. I know because I was there. I spent over twenty years in prison, and having the support of administration and administrators like Miss Ratliff is a major part of this what, is what has helped me grow from an inmate pictured here, a life inmate pictured here, to the man you see standing before you here today. So thank you. I support you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Well, that's a difficult act to follow. Matt Kate.

Yeah. That is.

Former Secretary of Corrections under Governor Brown. These were both young bright stars when I was the secretary. I'm here today especially representing a coalition of nonprofit rehabilitation and reentry providers that I work with now, and they come in full support of these two candidates. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee. My name's Emily Wonder. I'm the Advocacy Director with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. We're the co-leads alongside CDCR of the sexual abuse response and prevention working group, which was created by the legislature in the budget act of 2023. In that capacity, we've been working with the Region II team for several years to make recommendations for much needed changes.

Sister Warriors looks forward to continuing to work with Associate Director Ratliff to improve communication between CDCR and community stakeholders. We hope under her leadership these relationships can be more productive moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Terrence Harris. I work for Anti Recidivism Coalition. I'm a Life Coach assigned to CSP Sacramento, and I am in complete support of both confirmation, specifically Joseph Tuggle who was the Chief Deputy Warden at CMF when I was in prison. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Jacob Brevard, and I am the Chief of Programs for the Anti Recidivism Coalition, also known as ARC. And I am here in strong support of both the candidates, and thank you for doing such a wonderful job.

Thank you.

How you doing today? My name is Denzel Nunsuch, and I'm a life coach with the Anti Recivivism Coalition. And I'm here today in full support of both candidates, and thank you all for the work that you do.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Tyson Nguyen. I am the Program Manager for Sacramento Housing for the Anti Recidivism Coalition, and I'm in strong support in both candidates. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no and additional folks here in support, are there any in opposition? This is the time to come forward.

Alright. I wasn't sure.

So there you go. Thank if we see none in opposition. So we're gonna bring it back to members, if members either have, a vote or closing comments.

I'd just like to make a motion to take both, conferees to the Senate floor for a full vote.

Okay thank you. We have a motion. So we're gonna go ahead and, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. And let me just double check that I didn't have to do it individually.

You don't we can.

Perfect. Okay. Great. That's great. Congratulations.

We'll leave it open for somebody to add up. I saw my comments. That's the victim. Together for the floor, it's 1 final item. Okay.

Alrighty. So next, folks, we will, return to the governor's appointees required to appear. We have item 1 C, Jason Johnson, undersecretary of operations to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Mister Johnson, welcome. You'll have 1 to 2 minutes for your opening testimony to committee.

You're welcome to introduce any of your guests in the opening testimony, and, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam protem. Good afternoon, Madam and distinguished Senate, rules committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today. First, I would like to start off by saying that I'm extremely blessed to be in this position, in this capacity as a God fearing man and would not be here today without his unconditional protection over me.

I would like to thank Governor Gavin Newsom for pointing me to this influential position and his, staff for continuing to have confidence in my ability to carry out my duties I swore to upheld.

I would like to thank the CDCR staff, both active and retired, who continue to believe in meaningful impact I endeavor to impart to enhance public safety through continuous improvement to rehabilitative programs for the individuals in our custody and under our supervision. I would like to thank my family for their unconditional love, support, and understanding, and patience with me as I continue to carry out my duties.

I would like to thank my friends, prayer warriors, and supporters that have traveled from other states to be here in person, and many online viewing this hearing for your steadfast confidence in me. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart. Finally, I would like to thank every internal and external stakeholder for the numerous years of collaboration and partnerships established to CDCR with CDCR to improve the lives of those who are impacted by this system.

Your partnership and commitment are fundamental to fully achieving our mission, ensuring individuals who need a helping hand and guidance to become productive citizens in our communities. We still have a lot of work to do and I look forward to it. I would like to uplift parole agent Joshua Berg who lost his life in the line of duty on 07/17/2025. Parole agent Berg, I told you, you will never be forgotten.

Before I conclude, I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to Tulare County Sheriff's Department and the family and friends of detective Brandy Hopper, who tragically lost his life in the line of duty last week.

We stand in solidarity with all of you during this difficult time. Again, thank you for your consideration, of my appointment and I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mister Johnson. Members, we'll start with Vice Chair Grove.

Thank you, Madam Protem, and thank you for your comments specifically about our County Sheriff that lost his life for serving an eviction notice. And he has a 3 year old little girl or 3 year old little child and a baby on the way that will never meet, its father. So thank you for that. I appreciate it. I do have some, pretty tough questions because of what you do.

Obviously, I'm gonna start out with David Funkston in adult parole or elderly parole. And I guess, is there processes in place that identify that manage the highest risk individuals? And do you oversee that, number 1?

No. I don't oversee that area. That's under the purview of board of parole hearings.

And they're like an independent division than CDC.

Okay.

So I know they're separate. I know they're separate but you have a office that oversees both prison operations and adult parole operations.

Yes?

Adult parole operations. Yes.

So you have adult parole operations. Let's focus on that. So is there something within the prison operation or the system itself that can help us identify individuals like mister Funkston that should have never been released? And I realize that's the parole board that released him. But do you have a recommendation point?

Do you have, the parole board consult with you or is that just totally independent?

I don't know. It's totally independent. Okay. The division of adult parole operations just receives the individuals when they're granted.

When they're granted permission?

Yes. From the board.

Okay. Thank you. I thank you for clarifying that. Is there anything that you're doing with what you have now with receive when we receive these individuals? Do you have a category like, you know,1, 2, 3, or levels like moderate risk, lower risk, where you can assess the individuals to see if they would be repeat offenders.

I know you can't determine or see into the future you're a person of faith. We know God works all things out together for good for those of us who love him are called according to his purpose. But do you is there anything how you rank them? If they're on parole and they just get out of the system, do you have additional classes, additional reporting things?

Yes. So there's a process where they're assessed based on their risk and, a certain level of a risk determines whether or not they're gonna be supervised at the highest level which is considered high risk sex offenders.

Okay.

And that is about a 4 a static score of a 4 or higher.

Okay.

And with that, if all of the sex offenders that are released and required to register as sex offenders per penal code section 290, they have to go on global positioning system which is the GPS devices. And that's so that's part of the piece regardless of what level of supervision you're on. And if you're on the highest level of supervision, what occurs is there's more frequent face to face contacts with the parole agents.

There's also, mandates around sex offender treatment that occurs, while they're on this parole supervision in the community.

Okay. Thank you for that very much. The committee's received some opposition to your reappointment. I don't know if you were aware of that.

I am.

Raising concerns about decisions made under your leadership including impacts to public safety, incidents involving escapes, deaths, and custody. The workplace culture including handling whistleblower issues. And I guess I'd just like you to respond to those concerns that came in on the letters of opposition.

So first off, I appreciate the concerns that were raised. I mean, I'm, you know, really respectful for the fact that we do have a, you know, a process in place for individuals who feel that they were wronged in any way, to be able to, go through the legal ramifications process to deal with that. But in regards to, the opposition letter, I will say that a lot of the information in there, around the escapes. I was appointed to this position in May 2025.

I was acting in as far as 2024, 2 hours and 48 minutes into my acting assignment, that's when the escape occurred.

So there was some, you know It was

not mentioned in the letter.

Yes. I know. Okay.

I'll stop you there and I understand where that's going. That was not mentioned there and that's not a fair assessment of what happened. And that's not a fair assessment of what the presentation in the letter and the conversations that I've had are not a fair assessment of your 2 hours and 48 minutes on the job and escapes took place. That's that should have been something that was immediately brought. It's there shouldn't ever been a complaint filed.

Everybody's entitled to do what they choose to do, but 2 hours and 48 minutes, you have 0 responsibility on that as far as I'm concerned. Now, 2 years and several months, it would I would question you a little bit differently. But Aye, apologize for not knowing that.

No. I appreciate that. No.

Thank you. And I don't have any other questions. I look forward to your confirmation. Again, I'm not being rude. I'm the Vice Chair of rules.

I'm on health. I have a meeting upstairs. I am bouncing back and forth, but I will be back to vote on you. Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Grove. Any other? We'll go with, Senator Reyes.

Thank you. And under secretary, thank you for taking the time yesterday to to, spend time with me on that, call so that we could get to know each other. I like to know who's coming before us. 1 of the questions I will ask you at the end will be why you want this job.

But before I get to that question, I do wanna follow-up because we had a lot of conversation about safety, about staff complaints, sexual assault, safety of your staff.

But shortly after you and I spoke, I then received all of the complaints that had been filed against you. And I will tell you that since being appointed to to the rules committee, this is the first time I had received letters of opposition. And I want to appreciate the people who took the time. Normally, they don't have most people don't aren't. It's not like we send a notice and say, we're gonna be, taking this up, for an appointment.

It's just something that gets put onto the calendar. There's very little time and perhaps that's why the complaints came in late. But personally, I want to give value to them. In addition to the letter that my colleague spoke about, there was also a lawsuit that was filed and within it, it talked the word retaliation was used over and over and over again. Whistleblower retaliation.

In our meeting, I asked you about staff complaints not having I wasn't privy to these complaints. But I asked in general about staff complaints and the process and you indicated that that was on the administration side, not the operation side. But now having had this, although clearly we understand that it would be handled on the administration side, but you were the one who manages the people that have complained here. And there in my opinion, there clearly is an issue.

You've been made aware of these complaints.

I did have my staff make sure I didn't want to blindside you because I hadn't talked to you about this when we spoke yesterday. But as you mentioned, you were already aware of these.

And I want again to offer you an opportunity to respond and to talk to the committee about why you think the complaints were made and how you'll ensure that you are following the proper protocols CDCR has set up and that your team has faith that these protocols work to protect all employees?

Thank you. So first, when I look at the claim, I because it's pending litigation, I would love to speak to it but I can't, you know, based on the nature of it. What I will say is that when I was appointed, I was before the the Senate, almost 2 years ago to the day, it was April 17, 2024. I was appointed, from a chief deputy, regional administrator down from Southern California headquarters, brought up, to the director of the division of adult parole operations.

There was a significant, culture within the organization that was labeled as toxic.

There were a lot of, broken relationships with community partners, and there were just a lot of turmoil within the organization. So I was brought up, you know, to delete that organization and change the trajectory around what was going on there. And what I did from there is obviously when you talk about culture change and you're trying to drive change, which is that something I'm about, is driving change in a positive manner, following the fundamental principles of our organization and the values that we have.

It irritates some individuals. I mean, it's just the reality.

Not everyone's gonna conform. But everything I did, you know, along those lines, I made sure that, you know, it was on the professional level. I always reiterated that. And when you start, you know, coming from that level, you know, as you can see in some of the complaints, they talked about, you know, skipping so many positions to get to where I, you know, was at the time as a DAPL Director.

And, you know, when I think about it and think of it from that, you know, being a DAPL director, you know, I'm not going to be, unapologetic because of the values that I'm trying to instill and uphold within the department.

It's the department's values when you're talking about being a public servant and you're serving the public. When you talk about the leadership and, you know, instilling, doing succession development, professional development with your staff to make sure that when my time is over within CDCR, those that are gonna be successors are able to carry the church and be meaningful to prevent like the dark days that were mentioned earlier. You know, having that sense and a strong sense of integrity.

You know, when, you know, when no one's watching that you're still making sure that you're out there and you're, you know, holding in yourself on or off duty to the the highest standard and not bringing discredit to the badge. Then we talk about accountability when you look at from the stance of holding ourselves accountable.

As a leader, for me, I hold the leadership team very, very accountable. I'm very self critical of myself, probably 10 times more than I am with the leadership. And I'm talking about up the chain, you know, having, you know, really strong, you know, conversations with the secretary. Those that are direct reports to me. And that's what I talk about, holding ourselves accountable and not bringing discredit to our department.

We have enough of that. And I, you know, I've sit here for the last year and would, you know, and witnessed a lot of hearings around CDCR. They're not, you know I mean, being candid, they're not as pleasant. I wanna change that. And I'm doing it with the staff that we have by driving change and and being Democratic in my approach, soliciting their input from all levels.

You know, I mean, we have a lot of leadership from CDCR here in the audience and and I really appreciate that.

But the heart is on the front line with the staff that are out there doing the day to day jobs, meeting with the front line, whether it's the public, the incarcerated population, to ensure that, you know, we're as leaders providing that information, providing that guidance, providing that leadership for these individuals to carry out our mission, which is to facilitate, you know, a successful reintegration of individuals under our care back into the community equipped with tools to be drug free, healthy, and employable members of society by providing them, you know, education, treatment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice program, all in a humane manner.

And that's what it's about for me, you know. And to further elaborate, you know, we talk about trust. There's a lot and a lot of individuals and organizations have does not have full trust in CDCR.

I'm driving to bring that back. I have strong collaboration with community partners. That's another piece. That's a really strong suit that we spoke about in regards of rehabilitation. What people don't understand and and I'm very private about my life, but I grew up in inner cities.

I have siblings that have gone through this system. I have other relatives that have gone through this system, childhood friends as well. I've also seen them. They've been perpetrators of crime. I have family members that have been victims of crime.

I've had law enforcement partners that have been shot in the face at the hands of an individual under parole supervision. So in this role, this is very personal for me because I want to make sure that the citizens of the state of California, myself as a taxpaying, loyal California citizen, wanna make sure that CDCR when you look at CDCR, you're getting the best in all out of all of the leadership in regards to rehabilitation of of the population and our staff.

Well, I thank you for that and I know that in our conversation, most of our conversation had to do with rehabilitation and I appreciate your that conversation regarding rehabilitation and the importance of it. One's that I don't remember what the statistic was reminding us that the majority of the population is going to reenter society.

Yes.

And it behooves us to do everything that we can so that when they do reenter society, they stay in society and they don't return to be part of the population. And I think the number was something like 85%.

About 95%.

95%. In turn back to the community.

And when I heard that the first time it surprised me and I have always been a proponent of rehabilitation, but I realized how right I was that rehabilitation really is it. It is the punishment must be meet the crime was matched the crime. But when the time has been served, if it wasn't a life sentence, it should not be a life sentence. And rehabilitation then becomes a very very important part of that.

And I do wanna give you the opportunity to say a few words about that.

You and I shared about it but I hear for the committee if you would about the importance of rehabilitation in your eyes.

Yes. Rehabilitation is the nucleus of why I do this job. When I was a parole agent, you know, and and I started this

I wanna stop you for a moment. You were a parole agent where?

Well, I was a probation officer from 2001 to 2006 in San Bernardino County.

I just wanted to be sure everybody knew there's a San Bernardino connection here. Alright.

It will I mean, you're absolutely right. Reentry started in 2001 when I became a probation officer. So, you know, this is dear to my heart because, you know, when I spoke earlier about, you know, having siblings, being part of this system when paroled, there were no second chance employers that were out there to give them opportunity, you know, to have a livable life and and with livable wages. It was more like, you know, warehouse jobs and things like that at minimum wage.

So, you know, as I continue, you know, throughout my career, you know, Ranchery has been the center point of what I do because I've seen it work.

You know, you and I spoke about that yesterday. And there has been a lot of success stories that now where individuals I either supervised or indirectly supervised are now sitting across the table from me engaging in legislation or how to partner to pay it forward to those individuals that are, you know, coming through the system as well. So, I and that's where I'm to speak to about driving change, you know.

I really appreciate and I just wanna stop for a second and thank the legislator for giving us the funds, to be able to, you know, work in a rehabilitation space, for this population and and make them, you know, better citizens both in and while, once they get out in the community. But this is why I do this work.

This is why I didn't go into, you know, law enforcement from the just being a patrol cop. It was to balance that. Being able to see their lives change and for the better and also hold them accountable like a coach. You know, when when they're, you know, there's something goes wrong, you call the time out, you pull them to the side, you speak to them, you counsel them, and then you throw them back into the game. That's my mindset.

That's the mindset that I want, you know, our parole agents to have. That's the mindset that, you know, I expect for us, you know, throughout our entire operations to be able to have our, staff engaged in a professional manner with the population and be coaches and mentors, to these populations. Like I said, I came from an impoverished community. So for me, this is very personal. I strive to do well.

You know, you heard me earlier when we talk about faith based, you know, I get it. You know, there are people that, you know, have perspectives based on their lens and that's why, you know, they may see things a certain way and they may not have the whole story. Like, you know, I shared with Senator Grove earlier about my 2 hours and 48 minutes on the job and, you know, I'm being, you know, less to be held accountable for an escape.

You know, so when I look at those things, you know, I don't take it personal, you know, because I think, you know, well, maybe it's just from the lens that that individual is looking from, you know, that they don't see the totality of the story or the picture.

And, you know, but that I'm still, you know, professional where I will still engage in that because I really believe in the 360, you know, evaluation where I'm always self reflecting on myself on how I can be better.

Like I stated earlier, I'm my toughest critic. You know, and, you know, with this, you know, to kind of drive home the point, you know, I have a specialist assistant who, you know, really keep me in line every hour. So, you know, managing my calendars and things.

We would meet, you know, at our headquarters office 02:00am to get in the car together, to drive to an institution, to meet with staff that are going through shift change first and second watch, you know, and engage with them. You know, when things arise at the institutions that it gets to my level, I'm out there at those institutions meeting with the local leadership, the warden and the local leadership, 04:30, 05:00 in the morning.

And the reason why I do that is very intentional because I wanna stress the importance of the issue at hand, first and foremost. The second piece, I wanna not make sure I wanna make sure that I'm not interrupting their undersecretary was there and this is why I didn't, you know, achieve A, B, C, or D. So like I stated earlier for me, this is a passion. I understand, you know, I I there's over 59,000 employees within CDCR and and our health care partners combined.

It would be great.

It would be ideal. I would love it if all 59,000 plus, you know agree with our mission you know. And and I get it some there's going to be some levels of resistance but I will tell you there's no and people know me who have you know follow my career through these partnerships for the last, you know, 25 plus years, you know, I will let them speak to it.

There's not a retaliatory bone in my body because I really, you know, appreciate people and I really believe in humanity and treating people with respect and dignity.

My last question, because I said I was gonna ask you, is why do you want this job?

I love people. I thrive off seeing people succeed, you know. That's my gratification. I do this job not for my own self-will. It's because I feel like I can impact and make a positive impact.

You know, when I speak about the leadership that's here in this room and how much they've been here to support, I'm not trying to minimize that. What's more heartwarming, you know, not to throw shade to them, but what's more heartwarming is the frontline staff who reached out to me and gave me their full confidence over the last forty-eight hours. You know, that's where I know that the impact is being had.

The frontline staff are the heart of the department. Period.

I've said it throughout my career. And, you know, as Undersecretary, I have been committed from day one. Obviously, a learning curve because I didn't grow up within the DAI, Division of Adult Institutions, you know, family tree. I came from the outside.

So there was actually a learning curve that has taken up hours and hours of time outside of work to get up to speed on how to address issues, how to speak their jargon, you know, their language.

And, you know, with this leadership and the momentum that we have with being boots on the ground, I'm really excited about this opportunity. You know, when I go out to the institutions, I'm meeting with the population. And I always tell the wardens, take me to your toughest facility. I like to engage in conversation with individuals that are in restricted housing. Let me see what that working environment looks like with staff.

I have, you know, walked away from the leadership team, and then I have conversations with the correctional officers to get their advice in regards to or suggestions on what they think they need. Some of them come to surprise. They're like, wow, I never thought you would ask that. And I'm like, if this is your one shot, what do you need me to take back to Sacramento, slash Elk Grove, where our headquarters is?

And my transition with wardens, you would think it was very complicated. I've got to tip my hat off to them. They embraced me. I went and I worked in an institution and did a second watch shift on one of their busiest days to get a ground-level assessment on the stress and the activities, shadowing a sergeant as the Undersecretary. That's my level of commitment to this organization, to the staff.

You know, when there's tough days, they still show up the next day to carry out the duties to get us to where we can achieve our mission. And that's what I've signed up to do, and that's what I pledge, and I will continue to do it as long as I'm in this capacity.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem.

Thank you. Senator Laird?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And let me just say first, I've not been operating at full speed the last week, and I almost always meet with every candidate beforehand. So I just want to apologize for those of you that appeared or are appearing and will appear that I just didn't get a chance to have a conversation with you beforehand, because I find it very important. That's when you get a sense of who people are in a more relaxed setting.

But you also build the relationship so that as we have issues that go on, there'll be a comfort level in communicating, and I'll have a sense of who you are. And so I hope, even though I didn't get a chance to meet, that we still get to operate that way.

And I want to comment on the late-breaking stuff just because, and I appreciate what my colleagues have done already. It is so difficult, and this happened once before with someone from your department. This is my sixth year on the committee where this opposition and these charges came in within twenty-four hours of the hearing. And that puts us in a very, very difficult position.

And it also puts us in a difficult position because a lot of times it is subject to litigation, and so it puts things out there that the candidates can't respond to really clearly.

And it puts us in a position of appearing, if we don't take it seriously or that there's some merit to it, that we are somehow not doing our job or not getting at the real issue. And so I appreciate the exchanges that have gone on because I think they get to that. But it just means that we have a higher responsibility of just making sure that we didn't miss something when this happens. And so I can only imagine this.

We live in the political world where we get late-breaking stuff all the time, and sometimes it's brutal.

But I don't think all the time you signed up for it when you were doing this. And so I appreciate it, and I just really want to take your comments at face value, and I want to take your comments about retaliation and you not having a retaliatory bone in your body at face value. But just understand the pressure it puts on us to make sure that we're right in having that in front of us.

Thank you, Senator. I will tell you this: it's lonely at the top. I will, you know, honestly say that.

You are just shamelessly going for the Chair's vote right now.

You know, when you see these things come through, you do. Like I said, I'm an open book. I evaluate myself, and I see things. And I knew what I signed up for when I came to the Division of Adult Parole Operations and was appointed as DAPO Director. That's where a lot of that stems from.

It was a bad culture. I mean, it's the reality. And, you know, when I see things like that, I will say I appreciate the response because it allows me to reflect, but I know that with my level of involvement, that's not what I'm about. I'm about moving a mission forward. I'm not thinking about individuals who are trying to target and bring me down.

You know, I'm always looking positive and finding ways to uplift people. And that's what I'm about. You look at my track record, you can see, even go through my resume. When you take a look at it, I didn't get any issues until now. And I'll be frank, even as the DAPO Director, I didn't even have anything to do with the hiring of my special assistant.

I removed myself from the hiring process. I don't engage in that. Like I said, within my fifteen months as a DAPO Director, when I was before this committee, I pledged that I was going to reactivate or establish the Community Reentry Unit, that many of our stakeholders wanted to get back online because there was a big disconnect between the providers and the parole division. I was able to achieve that.

I was able to establish our Community Compliance Unit, which are individuals that go out there and bring individuals that are out of parole compliance back into compliance under our supervision.

I was able to work with our deputy director to be able to make our behavioral health reintegration mental health more robust than what it is. I was able to establish the honor guard team, working with the union, who really supported those endeavors that were made. And this is in fifteen months. And those are just some of the highlights. So I don't have the time of day to sit here and retaliate against anyone.

Most of the staff in the audience will tell you my bedtime is 8:30 PM, but I'm up at 2:30 AM.

And then you're making the other people get up to go take those trips for shift change. Yes. Oh, that's rude.

I tell you, Senator, they are troopers, and that's why I have to give them a shout out. Because they understand my commitment. They understand the professionalism that I require of myself. When you look at those, and I don't want to speak, like I said, specifically, I can't speak specifically about the litigation.

But when you look at the contents of those things, it is not my character. And historically, when you look at, you know, when individuals try and make change, there's people that want to resist. You will get attacked. You know, let me

use this exchange as an opportunity to sort of go into that a little bit. I hadn't intended to, but the door just, don't, if I had met with you, I usually say I only will ask what we talked about, but if you open a door, I have a real right to walk through it. And when I first came to the legislature the first time, it was twenty-three years ago, and I was named budget chair shortly near the beginning.

And it was when Governor Schwarzenegger took office and there was this $500 million cut to your system. And then six months later, it is discovered that that cut was never entered into the books.

So the department is overspending at the rate of $500 million a year at a time when there was a huge deficit in a different time. And it was only at the end of my Assembly service that there was even a hint in legislation or a budget thing to move a little bit to rehabilitation from sheer punishment and incarceration. And so in that sixteen or eighteen years, there's been the things we talked about in the previous hearing of moving to a different model.

Governor Brown did the thing of getting a lot more people out or back into the local. And there's been a real recognition that there needs to be more.

Just services and skills and other things given to people before they get out in a way that they don't come back. And so how would you, in your time, and I know you're, in San Bernardino,

in San Bernardino, learning the hard way before you got into the system. But how have you experienced that as somebody in the system? How have you seen how you have to move to take your experience and your will to sort of accomplish that change that just wasn't on the books twenty years ago?

Thank you. Driving that change, getting out there in the communities, working with the community-based organizations, finding out what's out there that's trending in regards to what's the need for the jobs that are out there in the community, and inviting them into our institutions, making sure that what's being done in the institutions is applicable to what's going to be out there once they get released from custody.

So that's one of the things that I've always focused on when I was working as a Director of the Division of Adult Parole Operations, and even as Undersecretary, constantly having robust conversations and partnerships, pushing my directors from both DAPO and their leadership team and the Division of Rehabilitative Programs, pushing them to meet with our stakeholders and engaging with meetings that's going to bring in those relationships and valuable programs that are going to be meaningful to our population to get them prepared before they release.

Then we also

Oh, no. Go ahead. Sorry.

Then we also have what we call our transitional community reentry programs that I would like to touch on. Male community reentry programs, we have seven of them statewide, and we also have female community reentry programs, which is six statewide. Those programs, where individuals are still serving their custody time in the communities, have been proven to really impact the recidivism rate.

You know, for the males, it's about a reduction in about 13.8%, roughly, and then I want to say about 18% for the female population. So for me, that middle ground in regards to the transition piece, where you have them inside the institution working on themselves, and then they get to the MCRPs and FCRPs.

They're still getting those skill sets, being able to get themselves prepared.

I'm giving you a pass on acronyms, but

Male community reentry programs and female community reentry programs. So when they get out there, they're able to start getting their driver's license or California ID, start working and getting their birth certificates, things like that, and being able to start that transition.

And do you see that is good because you're talking about, whatever you call them, your clients, your supervised population. And when you have that kind of institutional change over time with your own staff, and it's just from my experience in the cabinet, I mean, I had Fish and Wildlife. We have more scientists in Fish and Wildlife than we have game wardens now, because that is more where the shift has been.

But if you were a game warden and you were in the agency for twenty-five years, you are not happy about some of that change. Yes. And so you are experiencing that

Yes.

with, so how do you deal with the fact that there's that we always did it this way, we like it, I'm comfortable in my job doing it the way we always did it, and yet you're pressuring them to do things a different way to support the programs you were just describing?

Just like the panel stated earlier, education. Also leveraging the ambassadors and the staff that are at the same classifications that have bought in and see the fruits of what's been implemented as far as the initiative. So from that standpoint, leveraging on those angles, continuous messaging, and hearing these individuals out in regards to their concerns. And that's what it's about, just continuing to message.

I have a master's degree in marketing, and part of that, you know, business administration, but with emphasis in marketing, and a lot of that is talking about branding and messaging.

And it's about communication. And that's why, as Undersecretary, in approximately nine months, I was able to get to all 31 institutions, day trips, with the exception of Pelican Bay, which we had to fly into, in a small, I don't even know what it was, it was like a farm, but we flew into, and it was a twenty-one-hour day. But that's the level of commitment to engage with staff to make sure that I'm hearing from them.

I appreciate what I'm hearing from the leadership teams, but for me it's about really having my ears to the staff that are at the front lines.

Let me ask a couple of last questions that are more about programs. And one is that the Office of the Inspector General had some concerns and recommendations about policies of contraband coming in. Is that within your purview?

Yes, that's operations.

Okay. How do you respond to their concerns? So we're working with our Office of Correctional Safety in regards to finding ways to where we can intercept the different types of contraband. We have passive K-9 searches that take place now that readily search the staff and visitors as well.

And what we're doing is we do a lot of collaboration with other law enforcement and information sharing to kind of bring us up to speed to make sure that we have an awareness of how contraband is being introduced into our institutions.

Okay. And do you feel like those policies are making progress or there's a difference here?

There's a lot of work to do. I mean, we're still looking at that. We have drone interdiction, and we have other technologies in place that we know that enhances that type of criminal behavior that we have been utilizing and leveraging. And I believe that is having a significant impact. But we're still looking at other opportunities as we continue.

How do you measure it? Do you measure it by how much contraband you seize or experience inside?

Yes, when we actually recover it. Yes.

Okay. And then the other thing, and it was discussed I think a little bit in the previous hearing, is the 2024 Prison Rape Elimination Act report. I was just going to ask what your assessment is about the response to that, and whether you think that there's things in place that weren't in place before that report that are making a difference.

Yes. As Associate Director Ratliff stated, we've been boots on the ground with this. We've done a lot of training for our staff.

We also have hired retired annuitants that specialize in female offender programs, and really working with the institution leadership and the population in regards to this. You know, the campaign that she stated earlier around, see something, say something, the different avenues of reporting, whether it's through various advocacy groups, the OIG hotline, peer grievance route, just different, the ombudsman, which is a critical piece as well.

And then we also have that third-party complaint process for that as well.

Okay. And once again, just to restate what we were saying before. It's always so hard because we hear all these processes are in place. But we're trying to make sure the bottom line is that the needle moves. That the process isn't the end. The result is knowing that the risk is lessened considerably.

Yes, I totally agree. And my model is always, when we reach a goal, it's always about continuous improvement, ongoing improvement. And that has been something that I live by for many, many, many years. And that's what we're going to continue to do.

There's times where we have to look at policies, and then we meet with our stakeholders and we have to refine those things because of how trends are and how things evolve, to make sure that we have the best policies and practices in place to ensure the safety and security of all that enter our institutions, and then those that are under supervision in the community as well.

Yeah. Thank you. I really appreciate you sticking with this.

I appreciate you. Yeah.

Thank you. And so I want to just follow up. In regard to the late and breaking piece, it's a folder full. And I asked the last group, you know, that I pick up mostly on themes. And as Senator Reyes has mentioned, there were a few themes in a lot of pages that were submitted to us very last minute.

It does, I would agree, put a really, you know, we want to do the same, we want to do good for California as you do. And so when information comes to us last minute, we don't want to disregard it just because it's last minute. We want to make sure that we've thought about it. And some of the themes included discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower, and hostile work environments. Those pieces came up multiple times.

How do you respond to repeated themes, in particular, similar to the question that I asked the previous panel: if these are the repeated issues that keep coming forward, how do you deal with it, not just as a one-off in terms of how you solve it, but how do you systemically try to make that change? When these, at least in this case, happened to be some of the themes.

And I appreciate you giving us an understanding on the timing of them and also on the nature of change. But I'm also not putting a value on it on whether it's true or not, as just a matter of information. Can you speak to how you address changes that need to be made systemically after repeated themes of concern?

So one of the things is, like I stated earlier with the group, you know, we talk about zero tolerance for that type of misconduct. And for me, like I said, that's not who I am. That's not my character. For people that really know me and know me as a person, personally, and as a leader, I'm very transparent.

There's avenues in which for those allegations. There's a process for those in regards to reporting to the Office of the Inspector General. There's a process for Office of Internal Affairs as well. And then they would be able to look at those things that are being alleged.

So for me, without, like I said, because of the sensitivity around the litigation piece, I'd look forward to that day in court, if it gets to that point.

But my thought process around when you talk about retaliation, hostile work environment, it's far from the truth. I'm just being candid. I don't put staff in that type of situation. I believe that if it was merit to those things, I definitely wouldn't be sitting here. I am, like I said, I'm a believer.

I walk by faith, not by sight. So when you have, this is a challenging position as a leader. You're going to have, I mean, the reality is, you're going to have people clawing at you. For me, like I stated earlier, I believe in upward mobility with staff. You look at my resume: EEO coordinator over a significant period of time, peer support mentor.

I told you, I'm a humanitarian. I believe in loving people regardless, all walks of life. So when I see stuff like that, does this sting? Yeah. But when you know you're not what's being portrayed, I keep my head up.

I bend but don't break. And like I said, I'm appreciative of that because I'm a person that, if anything, like I said, ten times hard on myself. I'm always critiquing myself on how I can do better. But one thing that I don't do is disrespect. I do not go after people with malicious intentions, evil, or anything like that.

I'm always an individual, which I'm sure there are many out there in the audience that can second, that I am an individual who just enjoys people and uplifts people. That's who I am. That's my core. I stated the department's values earlier; that's why I signed up for this job, is to carry out those values. But not only just carry them out internally, but pass them down throughout the individuals that are going to carry the torch when I'm done with my career.

You're speaking before you today as an inner-city kid, impoverished community, growing up, one of eight, second oldest, oldest male, two brothers in incarceration through our system. Five sisters. Our department has had some very dark days, which you all mentioned earlier. I want to change that. I'm committed to doing it.

And in order to do that, you have to drive change. Going back to my education days through my master's program, there's a scholar researcher, John P. Kotter. You look at what he talks about when he talks about organizational culture shift. You have to establish a sense of urgency when you're making this change.

You have to get staff that are a coalition of individuals that are going to understand the mission and help you get there. You're going to have resistance. That's the way the process works. But I've been committed through this. This is not something that I just arbitrarily decided, oh, I'm just going to sign up for this job.

I sleep well at night. I don't have to look over my shoulder, because at the end of the day, I'm all about making the right choices regardless of how difficult they may be. And my track record within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation illustrates that. That's who I am. And I will continue to be that way.

I am very unapologetic for where I grew up. I'm unapologetic when it comes to carrying out the practices in regards to the department's values. I can't apologize for those things. Carrying out our mission, that's what it's about. Helping people become better people.

That's what is embedded in me. That's what I'll continue to do beyond my time in CDCR, giving back to the community, San Bernardino, LA County. Those are the type of things, that's the character, that's the person you see before you today. I understand the pressure, as Senator Laird and Madam Pro Tem, you expressed, regarding getting those opposition letters at the eleventh hour and the decisions you have to make today.

But I will tell you this, and understanding that you vote for me, I will not disappoint, because it's just who I am.

I'm committed to this career. I've been embedded for years. I love helping people. I love helping and giving back to the community. Being one who had to deal with racial profiling as a teen, to where I am, you look at the history of CDCR.

How many individuals have sat in this seat before you looking like me? With the background I have? Looking at it from the various lenses, when you speak to having family members perpetrators of crime, family members victims of crime, office partners, law enforcement partners, victims of crime at the hands of individuals who we supervise. Very heart-wrenching.

But it allows me, when decisions are being made and discussions are being had before policies are put into place, to look at different lenses to make sure that I'm able to go in these meetings and challenge what's before us to make sure that we have the best product as an organization.

We have a lot of work to do. Full disclosure. But we need to drive it. I've heard hearings over the last few months about how CDCR has continued to be a certain way, and it wasn't pleasant. That stung to me, being a second in command.

I want to drive that change. And I need my stakeholders, I need my leadership teams, both inside the institutions, out in the community. I need my frontline staff as well to continue to roll up their sleeves and fight this fight. And that's what it's all about.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I feel like this is what these public hearings are intended to do. To make sure that we have the opportunity to hear from you, but also to have your voice, your perspective, your experience on record. And I think that I very much appreciate your very thorough response.

And, or may have been, acknowledging that change is difficult. That this is, you know, that CDCR is a big institution with imperfections. And I think certainly all of us on this dais know about big institutions with imperfections. And so we appreciate your commitment to do better. And whether or not that is about you yourself, but for CDCR.

Yes.

Because that's what this is about. It's not about you alone. And I think it's valuable to have this discussion and exchange, so the public can also have, not just us, not just us five, the assurances, but so that the public can have the assurances that it is the intention of the second in command for CDCR to do better for California, because I think it's a commitment that we would all make about the work that we do, the institutions and governance ourselves.

So I don't think we're asking anything that we ourselves wouldn't ask about our role, and very much appreciate your comments and the time you've taken to walk us through what has been, you know, what threw us off. I actually did not know about this till today.

And so it was a moment of trying to ensure that even if the voices are last minute, that they're not disregarded because they're last minute. No matter when you say something, it should also be included, but your voice also is included in our thinking about this. So I appreciate that.

Thank you. And I thank you for giving me that opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Oh, we do have, okay. So, yeah. Senator Reyes. Normally, we don't speak after the Pro Tem has asked you questions. I do want to push back.

The Pro Tem has asked questions. I asked the questions also, as did my other colleague, Senator Laird. These are serious accusations, and I don't want us to be flippant about it. And I'm getting that impression, the more you responded to the Pro Tem, as if, oh, it's nothing.

There's no way that's me. There's not a single retaliatory bone in my body. If somebody lodges any kind of complaint like that, I'm going to be thinking, what might I have done that may have been misinterpreted? If it had been one person, it would be different. If it's more than one person, I've really got to think about it.

I've got to think through what I may have done that would cause somebody to feel that way. What I may have done to make two people feel that way. And I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson, but I've got to push back, because if, and Madam Pro Tem said, you know, when we recognize and we see things that we do wrong. But I'm sorry. I didn't hear you say one point that it's possible that something could be misinterpreted.

And I recognize that there is a lawsuit pending and your words have to be measured. But I also want to be clear that if a lawsuit is filed against me, if complaints are filed against me, even if I know in my heart there's no way I did that, I'm going to think twice. I'm going to try to think about what I may have done, that even if it's misinterpreted, because if more than one person is saying it, I'm sorry.

One person? That's one person.

You have more than one person. I'm going to push back. I need to hear from you without you having to divulge any information that would be used against you in this lawsuit. I'm going to use a hypothetical. If one person lodges a complaint about you, talking about retaliation and a culture of fear and intimidation,

That is one thing. If two people lodge a complaint against you claiming the same thing of retaliation and a culture of fear and intimidation, as a hypothetical, not as anything having to do with this. If you were talking to your subordinate, and they said, there's no way that's me, you know me, and I've got ten people that are going to tell you that's not me.

What would you tell that subordinate about how they should deal with having more than one person, more than two people lodge complaints against them on the same theme? What would you tell that subordinate to make them a better person?

You know they were a good person, but to make them a better person, whether these complaints are founded or not founded, a court of law is going to determine that. But what would you tell that subordinate in that circumstance?

So what I stated earlier, Senator, was about the 360, you know, looking at self-reflection of myself.

No, no. I'm not going to ask you about you anymore.

Okay.

Because you've already responded to that, and I heard you. If you had a subordinate that had a complaint, the first complaint, retaliation, the culture of fear and intimidation, then the second complaint, third complaint, what would you tell that subordinate to make that subordinate a better person if you already know that's a good person? They're doing a good job. They're doing everything that they can.

But you know that there are three people who have said that that is an issue. What would you tell that subordinate to make them a better person?

I would have them, and, you know, obviously, when you provide them with the policies and then have a conversation with them about, you know, saying that, hey, this

Policy is going to say no fear, intimidation, culture. Policy is going to say no retaliation. So take it from there.

Yeah. So then I would,

I'm sorry for pushing back, but I heard the response, and it was bothering me very much.

Okay. Thank you. So what I would do is have a conversation with the staff and let them know what's being alleged, and to have them do some self-reflection on, is there anything that they thought would give this perception on why individuals felt this way about the individual, and allow them some opportunity, that time, to process that information. And acknowledging the fact that, like you stated earlier, they're good employees, or employee.

And also acknowledging that, but also just putting it on the radar so that they understand and see if there are some concerns there with that individual.

Very good. I thank you for that response, and I, again, I thank you for the time you took yesterday. This is too important, and as has been mentioned, it isn't just those of us here in this room who are listening to this. There are other people who are listening, and who are looking at our decision and looking at the Governor's decision, and we want to do right by all of them. It is your staff.

It is the population. Yes. It is everybody who comes in contact with you. You're a God-fearing man. You know that we're not perfect.

Sometimes there are times when, you know, steel, the strength of steel, a sharpened steel, and sometimes we need that in our lives. And when that happens, we have to be willing to allow that steel to sharpen us. And I say that to you, respectfully. Because I would want from you, as the leader, to be able to then give that same advice, to do the same thing for those people that you are going to, for whom you're the leader.

Yes.

Yes. You have to change the culture, but at some point, okay, we have to change the culture, but we've got to figure out what works best without causing issues like we are seeing. This is really important stuff. I appreciate your responses.

I appreciate, it appears, the willingness to look internally at what can be done with you and with anybody you supervise to make everybody stronger. CDCR is not an easy place to work. I have family who work there, and I know that it takes a toll on you, on your family, but you are in a different position. You're not the front line. You are the leader.

And as the leader, a whole lot more is expected of you than would be expected of others. To whom much is given, much is expected, and that is the position you are in. And that is what we expect of you. That is what I expect. I'm sure that is what we all expect.

With that, we are going to open this up. If there are individuals here who are in support, I'm going to ask that you come forward now, that you state your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joe Paul. I'm a pastor in the city of Los Angeles. Recently relocated to Seattle, Washington, so I came down to lend my voice. 58 years old and have been a long term resident of the state of California. I've worked in all levels of criminal justice reform over the last twenty five years.

I've led nonprofits. I've been a resident of CDCR in my youth, and I've had the the privilege of working with under secretary Johnson for about the last four years or so. We we were introduced to each other by the LA County Sheriff's Department with some of the post release supervised individuals that we were trying to engage. From day one, the level of communication, the level of transparency, the level of authenticity that I'm not used to from bureaucracy period, let alone CDCR, was just refreshing.

And from that place, learning that he was a man of faith and and that he had some convictions about what the department should look like, particularly in in the matter of rehabilitation, it just really encouraged me to stay the course and build a relationship.

And over the course of that time, we've certainly done some great things. He's introduced me to some of the wardens in his institutions to really bring community led and community driven resources and solutions into the institutions. None of the things that we're talking about are ever gonna happen without community involvement. Those who are at the closest proximity to the issues, having their experiences lend to the solutions that we're working on. So I am in great support of the undersecretary remaining in this position.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, since, yeah, just name, affiliation, and your position. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Elaine Zucco with Cal State San Bernardino, reentry efforts. I'm here to support Mr. Johnson. And after hearing all this, because this is one of the many hearings I've been to, I just wanted to say, he is the change he wants to see in the world. He's not a bystander.

So I support his appointment to Undersecretary, and I appreciate your job. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, everyone. My name is Royal Ramey. I'm formally incarcerated, and I am the CEO of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program. And I'm in full support of mister Johnson. Thank you.

Thank you. I may know an author who worked on that.

Hello. Once again, my name is Jacob Brevard, and I am the chief of programs for the Anti Recidivism Coalition, also known as ARC. And I wanna give mister Johnson my strong support, for being the type of leader that reaches out and crosses lines. He's one of the only secretaries, the undersecretaries that visited a c a r c office. He came in, He dialogued.

We talked about changes that could be made in the system on both sides. And his transparency and his willing to willingness to work with everyone to make a better c d c r is something that I'm really looking forward to. So mister Johnson has my strong support.

Thank you. Just name, affiliation, and position, please.

Hello again. Emily Wunder, advocacy director of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. We look forward to working with the undersecretary. Thank you.

How you doing once again? My name is Denzel Nunsuch, and I am one of the success stories that Jason spoke about earlier. One of the guys that was under his supervision who now sits across the table for him, and I can tell you that he takes personally and great responsibility with the power that you place in his hand. So I look forward to working with him. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Rob Bornoff. I'm the executive director of the Anti Recidivism Coalition, And it seems like an unlikely partnership, but we rely on the partnership with CDCR more than all of our other collaborative partners. So we wholeheartedly endorse mister Johnson's, nomination for this.

Great. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jess Lasoya. I'm the chief of staff for Amity Foundation. I am here on behalf of our CEO, Doug Bond, and the organization in full support of mister Johnson.

Thank you.

Afternoon. Chris Larson, policy manager in the Sacramento office of ARC Anti Recidivism Coalition in full and strong support of mister Johnson here. I'm looking forward very much to working with you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Chris Acosta. I'm a life coach formerly incarcerated at VSP, and I'm full support of mister Johnson. Thank you. Hi.

Dan Seaman on behalf of a number of organizations, Californians for Safety and Justice, Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, WellSpace Health, The Reentry Providers Association of California, and the Crop Organization, as well as ARC, all in strong support. And personally worked with Jason for a long time and strongly support his nomination. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Matt Keith, retired secretary of corrections, and mister Johnson personally, man of integrity and honor, and on behalf of myself, and on behalf of a coalition of nonprofit reentry providers, and strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, everyone. I'm Elijah Range, life coach, San Quentin State Prison. I'm a for formerly incarcerated individual and full support of mister Johnson.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Tyson Nguyen, and I am also formerly incarcerated. I am very strong supporter of mister Johnson. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is David Amaya. I'm the director of inside programs for anti recitizen coalition. I'm here in strong support of Jason Johnson.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jamelle Carter. I'm a life coach. I'm part of the amazing hope and redemption team. A lot has been said.

It felt like the boardroom in here. I'm from San Bernardino, and I just wanna say that the rehabilitative services that's been provided to me in in the CDCR, I got it right. Right? I'm with ARC. I've been home now ten years, and I'm making my family proud.

I'm making the community proud. I wanna say to you, man, I'm looking forward to working with you, the wardens. I'm very privileged down there in Ironwood, with warden Christopher Pierce. I mean, we changed the narrative working hand in hand together. Right?

So I just look forward to, working with you, and I'm in support of it. Right? Thank you, mister Johnson.

Thank you.

Espa Nunez on behalf of the anti recidivism coalition and crop. We're here in strong support of mister Johnson. Thank you.

in strong support of mister Johnson. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ray Brockamonte. I'm formerly incarcerated as well. I'm a life coach for the hope and redemption team for the ARC anti recidivism terrorism. Fully in support of you, mister Johnson. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rodolf Castillo, formerly incarcerated, life coach at Amino State Prison, and I'm with Anti Recitalization, strong support of mister Johnson. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is David Dominguez, formerly incarcerated, a member of ARC, and I volunteer at the juvenile halls of Sacramento. I'm as part of mister Johnson.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Raymond Espinosa, formerly incarcerated. I work in District 5. I own California for Mule Creek State Prison, and I confirmed in support for mister Johnson.