Senate Standing Committee on Rules

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

Limon? Here. Limon, here. Grove?

Jones?

I'm here.

Jones here. Laird?

Here.

Laird here. Ochoa Bog?

Ochoa Bog here. Reyes?

Here.

Hi. Here.

Reyes here. Quorum.

Alright. A quorum has been established. If there are no objections, I'd like to take up first on today's agenda.

Governor's appointments not required to appear, starting with item 2F, the appointment of Jim Cervantes as a member of the California Housing Finance Agency board of directors. I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

Thank you. We have that motion made by Senator Ochoa Bow. Can we please call the roll?

Aye.

Limon?

Limon, aye. Jones?

I'm sorry. This is on Cervantes?

Oh, aye.

Yes.

Jones, aye. Laird?

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Aye.

Reyes, aye. 5 to 0.

Alright. That item is approved 5 to 0. Next item for governor's appointments not required to appear is item 2G, Martin Moto for the California Housing Finance Agency board of directors. Can we please have a motion? So moved.

Thank you, Senator Reyes. We have a motion. Can we please call the roll?

Limon.

Aye.

Aye.

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Jones, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Ochoa Bog, aye. Reyes?

Reyes, aye.

Aye.

5 to 0.

Alright. That motion and the item is approved, 5 to 0. Next, we have item for governor's appointments not required to appear. Item 2H, Preston Prince for the California Housing Finance Agency Board of Directors. I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

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

No.

Aye.

Limon, aye. Jones?

Limon?

Jones, no. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, no. Reyes?

Reyes, Aye.

No.

3 to 2.

Thank you. That item is approved, 3 to 2. Next item for governor's appointments not required to appear. We have item two Aye, Stephanie Landrigan for the State Mining and Geology Board. I'll entertain a motion, please.

So moved. Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Limon?

No.

Jones, no. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

No.

Ochoa Bogh, no. Reyes?

3 to 2.

Alright. That item is approved, 3 to 2. Last item for governor's appointments not required to appear is item 2J, Larry Shingold for the State Mining and Geology Board. I will entertain a motion.

Chair, it's with great pride that I I moved the confirmation of my friend Larry Sheingold.

I had a support on this.

Well, now that Now

because that flips it now.

Well, thank you, Senator Laird for moving the confirmation of Larry Sheingold. Can we please call the roll?

Limon?

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Aye.

Jones, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye. 5 to 0.

Alright. That item is approved, 5 to 0. Next, I'd like to take, up item 3, reference of bills to committees.

Madam chair, I would like to separate out ACA 7 Jackson. ACA 7 Jackson is currently referred to education and the elections committee. It does have public employment issues within the language of the bill, so I would like to also have it. I'd like to make a motion that it is also referred to labor, public employment, and retirement.

So let's take up the first motion. So your motion is to pull it out. Okay.

Just hold

on that one first. Okay.

Alright. So the first item wait. So We're agreeing to pull it out.

Yes. So we're gonna agree to pull it out.

So you're gonna take up

So the motion is to take up, item three, reference of bills to committees and have a separate vote for ACA 7 Jackson. I'll, entertain a motion for that.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator. Excuse me. Please please call the roll.

Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Jones, aye. Laird?

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes?

5 to 0. Alright. The motion to separate the vote was 5 to 0. Thank you. Now, we will, sorry about that, Senator Jones.

No problem. Now, we will take up, two separate motions. The first is for the remainder of item three, reference to bills to committees. Do we have a motion for that?

So do.

Thank you, Senator Laird. We will now call the roll for the remainder of items three references to build committees with the exception of ACA 7. Can we please call the roll?

I think we're doing We just

did that one.

I think we're doing that twice, I think.

We just did that.

Yeah. Oh. So now you have to motion Okay. To have it referred to three committees.

I think we just did that part.

Okay. So then sorry. Now the motion is

So I'm making a motion that ACA 7 Jackson, be referred in addition to education elections, which it's already been proposed, to also refer it to labor, public employment, and retirement. The president for this is, from 2020. We heard ACA 5, which is similar to this. That bill at that time was referred to Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Policy Committee. So I'd like for us to be consistent on this bill.

Alright. So that's the motion. Can we please call the roll? Oh. So you made the motion.

I'm making the motion needed.

So yeah. So okay. So the motion was made, by Senator Jones.

Can I get a second?

Just one second. We only need one motion. So I think we're okay without a second. We're going to go ahead and call the roll.

Limon?

No.

Limon, no. Jones?

Aye.

Jones, aye. Laird?

No.

Aye. Yes. Aye.

Laird, no. Ochoa Bogh?

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes?

No.

Reyes, no. 2 to 3.

Alright. So that motion fails. Next, the motion would be for ACA 7, Jackson, to be referred to two committees as is referenced in our, agenda. Can I please have a motion for that? Thank you, Senator Laird, for that motion.

Can we please call the roll?

Limon?

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

No.

Jones, no. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

No.

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, no. Reyes?

Reyes, aye. 3 to 2. Alright. That motion passes. Our final item before we turn to governor's appointees is item four, rule waiver request by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal to suspend JR61B10 to allow budget subcommittees one, two, three, four, and five to hold hearings during the blackout period on Thursday, May 28.

I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

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

Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Jones?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh?

Jones, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

Aye.

Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes?

5 to 0. Alright. That motion is approved 5 to 0. Now we will return to governor's appointees required to appear items 1E, 1 a to E, the appointments of William Muniz, Michael Ruff, Rosalind Sergeant Burns, Mary Thornton, and Jack Weiss as commissioner as commissioners for the board of parole hearings. We will welcome you all to come to the table.

You each have a name tag. Each of you will have 1 to 2 minutes for your opening testimony to the committee. In your opening, you're welcome to introduce any of your introduce any of your guests that you have here. We will flag when you approach that time. And after you each have your, 2 minutes, then we will begin with questions.

We will start to my right, mister Muniz, and then we will just go down the line. Thank you.

Is the mic open? Oh, there we go. But thank you for allowing us to be here today. I'm super grateful. I'm gonna begin by introducing my wife who is here, Duana.

She's not waving her arms or anything. 39 years of marriage in February, it'll be 40. She's been a great support to my entire life and my career and during this position as a commissioner. I wanna also express appreciation to my daughter Megan and my son Austin, both are teachers. So they're in school today teaching and I know their hearts are here with me and they've been very supportive.

I'm grateful to governor Newsom for the appointment and the confidence that it conveys. Additionally, I'm really grateful to the governor's office for the support that they always provide for us in this process. And, Scott Wyckoff, our executive officer who's here, him allowing my name to be brought forward, means a lot to me in terms of his confidence as well as prior, former executive officer, Jennifer Shaffer. It is a great honor to be here today.

I guess, the one thing I do wanna say is my career began in Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1994.

My career has been about corrections and rehabilitation. And, this opportunity allows me to continue in that vein and I definitely have a strong understanding of this process. Thank you all.

Thank you. Mister Rafferty.

Good afternoon. Madam chairperson, distinguished members of the Senate Rules Committee. It's an honor to appear before you today. I am currently serving my fourth term as a commissioner on the board of parole hearing. In that capacity, I presided over thousands of hearings and, prior to COVID nineteen, childhood extensive throughout California to visit different correctional institutions where, the lifer population was housed.

This has been a most demanding and consequential position of my professional career. The decisions entrusted to the board carry significant implications for victims, victims family, incarcerated individuals in their family, and the community at large. For that reason, I approach each matter with seriousness, humility, and care. I make every determination only after thoughtful deliberation and thorough assessment of whether an individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. I am honored to serve alongside the individuals sitting at this table.

They are dedicated public servants of the highest caliber. I am proud to work with my colleagues who commitment to public safety and faithful and service to the people of California is unwavering. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee and for your consideration. It would be a privilege for me to continue serving in this capacity, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have today. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I wanna express my appreciation to the governor for this appointment and, the belief in my abilities to carry out the duties of the role of commissioner. And I also like to thank each of you for allowing me to be here today to answer your questions with the hope of gaining your confidence. I'm also extremely grateful to my entire family for all of the support that they've given me.

Most especially my husband of seventeen years, James, and our niece who, adopted us and has allowed us to be her home since her mother's passing.

Both of them were all in when I learned about this opportunity because they knew how much this role aligns with my professional objectives. My entire legal career has been spent in public service and the majority of it has been devoted to this really nuanced and niche area of post conviction evaluation of rehabilitation and the belief that I've always held that second chances can be earned. There are not many roles that lend to that skill set, but this is one of them.

And when I learned of the possibility of joining the board, I was excited because the role is one that allows me to bring that already acquired skill set to the table, but also to hone it and to expand and to build upon it. And it's a role that is weighty, but it's tremendously rewarding.

One that I find value in and I hope to also be a value add to. And I will also say I've really just been blown away in the five months that I've been with the board by the behind the scenes operations and all that goes into creating such a high quality operating system and the expertise and integrity and the welcoming nature of my colleagues who are here today and those with the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I want to thank the governor for this reappointment and for the opportunity to serve the people of the state. Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to introduce and thank my husband, Peter Wall, who is here with me today. I also want to acknowledge and honor my father, Curtis Thornton, who died April 26 for his impact on my life and the person I am now.

Prior to serving as a commissioner for the board of parole hearings, my career has given me unique experiences that enhance my serving the state of California in this way. My career began with approximately a decade as a prosecutor for both Kings and Madera Counties. In 2018, I became a deputy commissioner for the board of parole hearings prior to my initial appointment in 2019. I completed my first term as a commissioner in 2022 and my second term last year in 2025.

The transition from prosecutor to commissioner has been when where instead of seeing only the harm and destruction caused in victims' lives by criminal conduct to one where I also now get to witness change, rehabilitation, and restoration.

And where that change is still an ongoing process, I'm able to give hope by providing direction and a path forward. This background has given me an interest in justice and public safety as well as rehabilitation. And that combination, the public safety, justice, and rehabilitation, that's why I love this job. It makes it very challenging and yet fulfilling, and I do wish to continue in it. I'm honored to be doing this work and doing so as a proud representative of the state's Central Valley.

The work of the Parole Board is to follow the law and to ensure public safety. And we do that by showing up every day and making extraordinarily difficult decisions based on the law and the evidence in front of us. My goal is to continue to do this while always striving to be fair, respectful, and as prepared as possible. I look forward to answering the questions you have today. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. Thank my wife, Leslie, and Governor Newsom for the opportunity to serve. I'm Jack Weiss. I'm privileged to have spent most of my career in and around law, justice, and public safety. Briefly, here's what I mean by that.

I went to law school at UCLA where I was editor in chief of the law review. I served as a law clerk to a conservative federal judge who'd been appointed by a conservative president. I then became an assistant United States attorney assigned to the white collar and public corruption and government fraud sections. I was hired and trained by the finest attorneys in The United States. I became a member of the Los Angeles City Council where I chaired the committee that supervised the Los Angeles Police Department.

And there, I became a close colleague of LAPD Chief Bill Bratton, the finest police leader in our nation's history. He and I went on to work together in the private sector, but I wanted to return to the public sector. And once I learned about the promise of rehabilitation fostered at CDCR under governors Brown and Newsom, and the exacting evidence based process, always respecting victims that was established under our previous executive officer, Jennifer Schaeffer, this is the job I asked for.

I want to acknowledge as well the professionalism my colleagues and our professional staff have shown these past several difficult months. Thank you very much.

So now, before, I wanna thank you all for being here. And before I actually turn it to my colleagues, I'd like to, say a few words. I wanna acknowledge the difficult decisions that US commissioners must make every day in order to strike the right balance between constitutional safeguards and the risk to our most vulnerable, all with the goal of protecting the public. We know that you do not treat parole suitability decisions lightly, and neither do we.

This is why it's even more difficult when the crime involves heinous acts against children.

As a mom, it's important to me that we ensure that the public has confidence in each of you to make informed decisions in the interest of the public and victims. We can appreciate the diligence in gathering the appropriate informations, the facts, the evidence presented in interviews, the medical and forensic reports, and the risk assessment tools to make the best informed decisions in that moment.

So when you make a decision to release someone back into the community and there are significant or there is significant public attention and pressure, I think you can also appreciate the concern and the questions that come up about why that decision was made and was it actually in the best interest of the public. And even if you are applying the law, there is still some judgment that commissioners will need to employ here.

And the question becomes whether we can go back to our constituents, families, and demonstrate that the work that you're doing is consistent with the paramount goal of keeping the public safe.

And that you all have the tools that you need to make decisions consistent with our shared goal. That's why the Senate is advancing a bipartisan Bill that provides commissioners additional discretion when reviewing the work of fellow commissioners. This will provide transparency for the public so that we can understand how you voted during en banc review.

While I know that you cannot comment on how you voted in some recent high profile cases, we hope that the SB will provide the clarity and the authority so that we can help maintain together the public confidence in this process. I think we all can agree that we share the goal of reassuring the public while respecting the constitutional and civil rights of everyone during these difficult decisions.

With that, I will yield my time to members for questions or comments.

Senator Jones. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. Yeah. I'll start with this panel. I think my comments and questions actually are in line with what the Pro Tem opened with.

And let me state first and foremost, I don't envy your job. And I have said this to every parole board hearing commissioner that's come. You have 1 of the toughest jobs in the state. It's a real job and I understand it's a governor's appointment but not and I can argue that not all governor's appointments are real jobs. You have a real job.

I have some personal experience that I don't need to get into today. But I do Wanna Kinda clear an elephant in the room a little bit. The pro tem mentioned recent decisions made by the board. So I'd like to ask specifically commissioners Sergeant Burns and Ruff specifically.

You were in a hearing on February 18 where David Funston, also known by a judge, coined this coined this phrase, the monster most parents fear or the monster parents fear most who lured, raped, and beat children as young as 3 years old and was approved for release.

And the 2 of you served on that, hearing. Did you personally vote to release David Funston at that hearing?

In regards to whether or not I voted to release mister Funston or not, the hearing proceedings are confidential so I can't discuss those. I do

Are you prohibited by state law from telling the public how you voted?

The hearings are confidential. The en banc processions are confidential, so I can't discuss how I vote or anyone else in that room voted. I do feel for all the victims in any case, whether it be the Funston case or the victims of a murder case. We also, as the Madam President stated, we have a responsibility to apply the law. And so when we're making these tough decisions every day, we're also tasked with applying the law.

So that's my response. Thank you.

For sure.

Commissioner Sergeant Burns, do you have a different answer? Or

I don't. I echo what Commissioner Murph just said as far as the confidentiality of the en banc process and the fact that, you know, the law was followed and and carried out, which is what we are tasked to do.

Okay. I'm a little I was hoping to kind of understand the votes on that on a yes or no, whether you voted for them to for him to be released or not. So I'll get into some more general questions then Regarding the the Funston case and the Vogelsang cases, both have shaken badly the confidence in the board's judgment. In the Vogelsang hearing, Mister Vogelsang acknowledged that his sexual attraction to children is always going to be there, quote.

In the Fungsten matter, his testimony raised concerns about his recent sexual fantasies involving children, yet the board still found him suitable for parole before a new arrest warrant was issued in Placer County involving allegations from a previously uncharged victim.

And I would say in that case, the public dodged a bullet, so to speak, in that Placer originally didn't pursue, prosecution of that crime because they presumed, as the public did, and the victims in those cases, that he was never going to be released from prison. So thankfully, they didn't pursue those, charges at the time and were able to rearrest him as he was released from prison on a vote of this parole board.

Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and retired law enforcement s f investigators have publicly argued that some child sexual predators remain permanently dangerous. I have enough background in the sexual violent predator program because of cases in my in my district, because of audit that we've done of the California State Hospital's system and their SBP program, which I understand neither one of these cases were part of that.

But can you explain to us and I don't need each person to one person can answer for the group and if there's if other people have a different answer or amendments to the answer, I'm fine with that.

I don't need to go through one by one on this. But as a board member, can you explain to us how factors like age, time served, good behavior can outweigh the public safety risk of an inmate's admission of ongoing sexual attraction and sexual urges toward children? If admissions of ongoing sexual attraction, fantasies or urges toward children are not strong evidence of current danger, then what is?

Let me begin an answer, Senator. And let me begin first by saying, I appreciate how you began your questions a few moments ago by acknowledging your understanding. And Aye, I mean this sincerely because I know you meant it sincerely. This is a hard job. This is a this is a, when people ask me if my job as a commissioner is a full time job, I say, no.

I only work 6 days a week. This is a really difficult job and I am fortunate to work with 20 other commissioners and 50 deputy commissioners and 70 trained forensic psychologists who work all the time and pay attention, exacting attention to details. Now, we are compelled to follow the law. And when the pro tem began the hearing by acknowledging that the legislature may change the law. We will follow any law, the legislature drafts.

We also follow case law that interprets the law. So we are not interpreters of law. We are finders of fact and we engage in an exacting process led significantly by our forensic psychologists. But I also wanna say to you, Senator, we're all also parents and some of us are grandparents. We appreciate the incredible emotional toll each of these cases has taken and we witness that when family members come and tell us decades later of what they endured.

It's a very difficult job. But we are required to make an exacting evidence based determination as to current risk of danger and the California Supreme Court has instructed us that a commitment offense more or less however awful cannot stand as evidence of current danger. And so that's how the process begins. There is there's an extensive process that follows after that so I don't want to take too much time. But that's my frame of how I begin to answer your question Senator.

And we all appreciate why it's top of mind for you.

Any other differing or supporting comments from the other commissioners?

I appreciate what commissioner Weiss just mentioned. It is really, really difficult. As a grandparent, I read a case. And in reading the case, I just read the crime, probation officer's report. And it was so damaging to myself that I literally took off my glasses because I use them to read.

I buried my face in my hands and I wept. And I really needed to get out of the house. So it was my day of prep. I got in my vehicle. I went and got something to eat.

Rolled down the windows. Got some fresh air. Came back. Continued to prep the case. I won't go into the details.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, this individual, when we did the hearing, even though my first reaction was to the difficult tragedy the family endured, that in essence was so traumatized by that I had actually had to take a break and this is what we do every day. Ultimately, that particular case without going into its specifics was a grant parole. And so we feel the pain that the family feels.

Previously worked on the restorative commission out of Monterey County and nothing changes heinous crimes. Nothing changes heinous crimes.

So you mentioned a very specific issue of somebody talking about their fantasies that continue. If someone did have fantasies and lied about it, that would most likely be a reason to deny. So really, these types of crimes are about how does this individual manage who.

They are and how they became who they are. It's about management. And so there's a lot to weigh. There's a tremendous amount of evidence to weigh. There's a lot of reading to do.

There's a lot of testimony to go through and not speaking to that case individually. I wasn't on that panel. I wasn't on that on bond process. But when we're compelled to follow the law, it is a really that is what makes the job the most difficult.

And when we talk about not being arbitrary or capricious, we don't use our whim, we don't use our emotion and we eliminate our personal opinions and really focus on does this individual in fact pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and there's just so much that goes into it that each case has and bears even though they might be similar factors like it could be assault with a deadly weapon or lewd and lascivious.

Even though the charges may be similar, each case does have dramatically individualized considerations. I don't know if that is is helpful or not. There's a lot that goes into that.

Well, let me the Pro Tem alluded to this in her opening statement which I appreciate. When she we talked about discretion and so I think I would like each person to answer this question. How much discretion do commissioners have since both of you alluded to it? How much discretion do you have as commissioners in determining some whether someone no longer poses an unreasonable risk to public safety?

And I think, you know, for me it would the litmus test would be pretty easy for me and I can say that from this diocese of course.

Would I want Vogel Seth or Funston living next to my grandchildren? I have 2 grandchildren also. And the answer is resoundingly and absolutely not. Would I want them living anywhere near my grandchildren or your grandchildren or your grand anybody's grandchildren. I don't want them released.

They both admitted that they still have ideations. So how much

and I think I would like each one and then I'll yield for a time, madam pro tem after this to give others a chance. But how much discretion do commissioners have in determining whether someone no longer poses an unreasonable risk to public safety? And then I'll start with you, commissioner Muñiz, since you were the last. Certainly.

There's so much information in every single one of these hearings that we have to prepare for and and we do it in compliance with the law. So in terms of discretion, we do have a structured decision making tool. We have a comprehensive risk assessment that's provided to us from one of our forensic assessment division psychologists. And we have a risk rating that hopefully is within the last three years. Generally, that's what it the comprehensive risk assessments are generally for three years.

So we have psychologist risk assessment. It does include the static 99 R for sex offenders and it also has a new component of structured professional judgment which is more enriched in terms of assessing dynamic risk. So when we're weighing all of that information, we're talking about a lot of evidence. There's a tremendous amount of evidence. There's submissions, there's writings.

And we are interpreted especially at the end of the day in a hearing to make a determination about offender change or a person's personal change. And so some of these areas are somewhat evidentiary. So like criminal and parole history, it is what it is. And so when we look at the record and the rap sheet, we can tell this person has a long history. That might be an aggravating factor.

And then their control during the commitment offense, that's mostly an aggravating factor. But those 2 domains are static domains. And what that means is this is never gonna change. So what becomes our point of evaluating whether things have improved, what what is their programming been like in terms of understanding their crime themselves self awareness. And then we look at their institutional behavior which may not always be the best indicator for individuals who commit sex crimes against children because their victim pool is not in prison.

We take a look at their release plans. We take a look at whether or not they meet the criteria for youth offender consideration which we give great weight to. We take a look at whether or not they meet the criteria for elderly parole. You mentioned some of those earlier as well. And we take into account a few other matters such as their physical abilities.

We take a look at their cognitive decline perhaps or they have mental health issues. So you're taking a look at all of that, and at the end of the day, we're making evaluations about cases where all of that may point to in fact that they're not suitable for parole. The majority of our hearings do not end in a grant. I think that statistic that we just came out with, 24% right now are receiving a grant to parole of hearings that are held.

So, it is the majority of the cases quite frankly are either neither coming to the board because somebody chose to stipulate to unsuitability, chose to postpone to waive their hearing or were denied, canceled, or continued.

So there's a lot of information there. When it comes to our decision, we're weighing all of that decision. We are the evaluators of whether or not someone poses an unreasonable risk based on all of that. And it's not based on the emotion of how we feel about the crime because the Supreme Court has said that after a long period of time that the crime may not be indicative of current risk. So all of that is taken into consideration.

And so, I think our interpretation of how all of that blends together is the discretion we have as commissioners. And to just say because we don't like the crime, no, somebody can't be released would be arbitrary and capricious. So we have to work. We're tasked with evaluating it and that's exactly what we do specifically to discretion. In that context, I think that's where we gain our discretion.

Okay. Commissioner Rufe, I don't need you to repeat all that. I appreciate the lesson. But just maybe on a personal, you know, how much discretion do you have in these matters and and

how do you use that discretion? Everything commissioner Mooney said in addition. I think in general, we have the application of the law. We have all those things that we're looking at. We're making these decision.

I can tell you that sex offender hearings are probably some of the most difficult hearings there are. When we're doing what's called a consultation at least 6 years prior to the incarcerated person going to a hearing, I usually would tell if I have a sex offender I'm doing a consultation on. I say, I'll I'll tell them you guys have a tough guy timing your hearings.

And I said, because you can't talk about your crime and you're not taking the necessary programming to mitigate a number of those factors. And so you need to be truthful about the crime, the impact on the victim.

If you've been diagnosed with specific sexual deviant diagnosis like pedophilia disorder, Know what that disorder is. Be able to articulate that in the hearing. Be able to demonstrate that you've got the coping mechanisms, understanding what your triggers are internal, external. All those factors need to play a role when you're going before the board. And if you look at some of the transcripts from a number of the hearings, they're probably some of the longest hearings because we too understand how important it is.

They're pretty long.

Yeah. We too understand how important it is especially when somebody who's had such a heinous crime who's been released back into the community and we wanna make sure that we're doing everything to make sure that there are no new victims. So our discretion is based on the application of the law and applying that and ensuring that the person that's sitting before us is no longer a threat to public safety.

Let me drill down on 1 thing that you said and then I'll get to the other, commissioners as well on this particular question. You said coping mechanisms. The offenders are trained to recognize their crime and develop a plan for their to to cope with it as they move forward. Does the science ever go back and evaluate whether those coping mechanisms actually work?

Or are they just, you know, some fancy theories written in in a study book somewhere that the sexual offenders can say, hey, this is my plan.

This is my coping mechanism. I'm good to go. Do do we ever go back and actually evaluate those coping mechanisms? And did they work for the individuals?

I think the only measurement of that would be statistics on whether or not that person goes out and reoffends.

Okay. I think the reason I'm drilling down on this is you know, I find a lot of times in government, theory on these type of issues and it applies I say the same thing to traffic engineers, by the way. Do you ever go back and evaluate what you actually designed? And did it do what you thought it was gonna do? And did it work the way you thought it was gonna work?

And I'm surprised how often I hear from civil engineers, no, we don't do that.

And it happens all the time in government. So I'm not surprised by that answer. I think I would encourage the board, the parole board to whatever PhD or trained person is writing these coping mechanisms to actually go back and review them and and do they actually work. Senator or commissioner Sergeant Burns on the on the discretion, how much discretion do commissioners have in determining whether someone no longer poses an unreasonable risk to public safety?

Well, the structured decision making framework that we use is evidence based and it is meant to promote consistency amongst our decisions and, individuals. But I think the discretion comes in the fact that no case is the same. Each person is an individual and each person gets an individual evaluation. Crimes could be similar but different details and different characteristics of the person, is what makes it a process that can be automated in that way.

And so, discretion, you know, in echoing everything that my colleagues have said, but then I also think that discretion comes in and how a commissioner approaches that particular individual as far as maybe you are looking at someone who has some cognitive decline.

You don't expect them to remember every single detail, whereas someone else, you could be asking the questions regarding the offense and those details. Someone who maybe has some mental health issues, they're gonna take some different types of programming than someone who does not. And so, treating each person in that individualized manner, I believe, is up to the discretion of the commissioner and how they approach it.

Thank you. Commissioner Thornton.

Yes. I agree with my colleagues have said. I also would add that we work with a deputy commissioner. So we're not as a single person considering all this and making this as a decision on our own. We're working with a partner.

In the morning, I always meet with a deputy commissioner. We discuss our cases for the day, where we see the issues line. And it's a true collaboration. And so it's not like it's just a 1 off. No.

We're doing this as a team and so that really helps limit the discretion because we're both having to make sure we listen to another person, their view of the case, and listen to the questions, answers they're getting in their part of the hearing as well. Also, we wanted to respond to something else you said, Senator Jones. You asked about the tools and is there a mechanism to see if those work. And I would say one of those is our reconsideration hearings.

So that when someone is put on parole and they violate and they come back, they have a reconsideration hearing and we specifically ask the person, why did you do this?

Whatever it was, what the behavior was that caused them to come back. Sometimes it's them, being caught with drugs or being under the influence, having the possession of a weapon, something like that. And so we're looking why. And those the areas that people usually come back are related to most often drugs or alcohol or for domestic violence. And so that those are the 2 most common reasons.

I can't think of a single reconsideration hearing that I've had that was for someone who committed a new sex offense. But that would be a way that we could say, why didn't your tools work for you? Because that's what we normally ask when people come back for those hearings. Is to check for that.

I also want to comment on something you said about, oh, not wanting to have a person get out based on a certain crime, be my next door neighbor or live in my community.

And I just wanted to kind of share a story that I have. And we don't make our decisions based on our emotions or based on whether we want a person to be our neighbor. But I had a hearing a number of years ago, and the crime was extremely violent. And this person was planning to parole to my city, in particular, my part of this community. And even though that was the case, I had to follow the law and that person got a grant of parole.

Knowing this and that I may run into this person, I had to challenge myself. Well, how am I gonna treat this person if I run into him? What am I gonna do if I see him in the community? Shortly after he was released, he showed up in my church. And it was a challenge to me.

Well, what do I do? And I was like, you know what? He's a member of this community. And I went up and I welcomed him. I asked him if I could hug him.

And I invited him to the bible study that my husband and I facilitate. And he has come with his wife. And in fact, him and his wife have become extremely close friends of ours. They come over to our house often. They share Thanksgiving dinner with us.

But it was like, I had to challenge my own belief that this person real you know, is this person really he rehabilitated? And am I gonna treat them like it would any other citizen?

Thank you.

Those are extraordinary answers by my 4 colleagues. And I'll just say the discretion that we have is bounded and guided at all times by expertise and by a lot of other steps in the process that are not optional. They are mandatory and they are critical. Begin with a comprehensive risk assessment done by the forensic assessment division, our psychologists. That's reviewed by other psychologists there with expertise.

And particularly in the area of sex offending, that instrument has been enhanced in the past several years to provide even more exacting detail about the nature and extent and current relevance of certain aspects of that person's particular set of issues. So we don't have discretion to ignore all of that. We are indeed guided to follow-up and examine specifically where the experts point to. We do work with a deputy commissioner for every hearing. That's random.

I work with sometimes a different deputy commissioner every day, sometimes every week. We are assigned to prisons at random. We are assigned to case files at random. And then every time we issue a grant, 1 of the lawyers and we have very strong lawyers on our legal staff. 1 of our lawyers reads all of those grants before they go to the governor's office, and then that leads potentially to the en banc and review process.

So the guardrails are quite strict. We hold each other's feet to the fire. That's what en banc really is. And if you look at the recidivism stats that we publish because we do to your other question about going back and checking. We publish stats on recidivism and I think at from 50,000 feet, the people who don't go through our process, who are released as a matter of course from state prison because their term expired.

That recidivism of late is I think around 39%. People who go through life or parole process that we and our 20 colleagues do, it's about a point or 2 commit any other misdemeanor or felony within 3 years following release. And I think the latest data is .5% of those are a crime against another person. So we do check because we do care and we get reports and we do care a great deal.

I think I'll wrap up with this. I appreciate the comments you're giving reconsideration. So that does, you know, at least let me know when there's failure that there is some going back and and reevaluating it. Evidence based, you know, I'm just stuck on these 2 recent cases and well, that's not true. I'm stuck on every sexually violent predator that's been released from the state hospital program plus these 2 cases.

That, you know, evidence based and the discretion that some of you and I think I'm following what you're saying. There's discretion in some areas, not discretion in other areas. But the bottom line is you're known by your vote. Your vote is what matters. We can, as senators and elected officials come up here and give eloquent or not eloquent floor speeches as long as we want.

We can write op eds. We can put social media out. There's lots of things we can do. But at the end of the day, it's our vote that tells our that's recorded, that tells our voters and the citizens in our district where we actually stand on the issues.

The evidence based, and the individual part on these sexual violent crimes and I'm probably just camped on this more than the other types of crimes Because in my experience in dealing with these particular cases, almost always I can't say always, but almost always in my experience, the offender says they still struggle with these ideations and these temptations.

Evil thoughts, I'll say it. I appreciate the positive story. I have people in my church also that have a successful story coming out of out of incarceration and leaving living productive successful lives. But we still have to keep people that are saying they're still struggling with the evil thoughts that they have had and exercising the behaviors that they're thinking about. Especially when it comes to children, we've got to keep those people in prison where they belong.

And, the system has broken down over the last has been the the breakdown has been expressed over the last couple of months. And we will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion to fix those breakdowns. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Senator, Ochoa Bogh.

Good afternoon and welcome. I wanna first of all, just appreciate the comments and the concerns that first time expressed, at the opening. I want to also thank, Senator Jones for his comments and the concerns that I think we all have as parents with regards to these issues.

I have a set of questions that I was gonna ask, but I do wanna follow-up on on some of the points that Senator, Jones brought up and that is, 1, do we have data on the recidivism rate for child sex criminals?

So the data point that I'm familiar with and we can certainly get you data Senator, that's specific. The data point that I'm familiar with is sex offenders who were released as part of elderly parole consideration. And only a single 1 of those persons committed another felony, but it wasn't a sex offense. But we can get you the specific data that you're looking for. I was trying to find in my notes. I don't have it.

Well, I'm not sure if the elderly parole portion, is only a recent, consideration.

It's only, what, maybe a year, 2 years. So I don't think the data would be there sufficient to be able to do that. I believe that concern only came out maybe a year or 2 years ago.

I wanted to add to those comments and that is that our recidivism numbers include all released and granted individuals. So it would be inclusive of those who released who previously had sex crimes against children.

So when we look at those recidivism numbers 3% or below for misdemeanors and potentially felonies and less than 1% for crimes against persons includes the entirety of all of those who have been released on parole in the most recent, and and I believe elderly parole 2021 is when I think that was enacted for consideration.

So we do need to ensure that we're gathering data specific to sex crimes, for children. I think that would be helpful for all of us to know and also for your part. The other, thought that I had as your folks are as my colleague was trying to get at how much discernment or discretion you have with regards to making those decisions. I appreciate the fact that you said you're evidence based, collaborative, you have all of this line.

But I think it's important to note that if we're going to use the notion that the discernment or the discretion that you have is very incredibly limited if at all because everything is fact based.

You have structures that you follow and all of that. My question would be, is there a need for the human factor to be able to make and be in your shoes? Or is something like this going to be substituted by AI that's going to be using all the evidence? And I'm asking this because I don't want any of us to use the notion that, you know, we don't have as much discernment, we don't have enough discretion in making decisions because this is why you're being appointed.

This is why you're being vetted to be in this position to make decisions based on your personal professional experience, your life experiences, and have discernment and discretion in making those decisions.

So to hear that we don't have as much, we're following protocol, we're following process, then why have any of you appointed and just not have a system like AI make all those evaluations.

So I just wanna make make a point there that it's important to own up that whether or not you do have discretion, we need to beg to ask the question as to, well, maybe you do need a little more discretion because this is why we're vetting you and the public is trusting you to make those decisions on that end. So, point on that.

Now the other, point that I had is I wanted to just clarify because it said that, a question was asked about the votes and, you know, how you were directly asked, Sergeant Burns and Mister Ruff on, you know, how you voted. And, it is my understanding and correct me if I long, but government code allows but does not require unbanked meetings of your board to be held in private.

And it also allows but does not require that the votes be withheld from the public and the media. So your initial vote on parole hearings is published and made public. Right? Which is very interesting to me because those are public and private which only encompasses maybe two of the members. And yet when the 21 come into play, then it's then it can and cannot depending on what you folks decide.

So given the 2 sexually violent predator cases that, has created a loss of public confidence on the board process because that is the public opinion, Do you think that greater transparency such as publishing commissioner votes at the board level will help restore that public trust? And in addition to that, would you, each of you, I'm asking all of you, would you offer a motion or support a motion at your next AMBAC meeting to make the votes at those meetings public? Why or why not?

I'll since you had to start, I'll start over here and say that we will follow the law. We will follow the law that you and your colleagues enact. And I don't think it would be appropriate to make a motion that is contrary to the law 1 way or the other. And we respect the legislative process and the law making process, and we will follow and adhere to whatever legislation is adopted by this body and signed by the governor.

And, you know, we already as you said, when we make a decision, our name is there on the case we decide.

I mean, we're very familiar with what it's like for making very emotionally charged decisions to be public and have our name on it. And we will defer to whatever you and your colleagues decide.

But current government code allows them to be public if you choose to do so. So the question is, would you choose at the next AMBAC meeting to make this public?

I will say that, we are an unusual commission in that many I heard that before we started, there was a number of commissioners who were on the docket before we were who are on more traditional, say, types of commissions with their, issuing contracts or they're adopting regulations or they're really in the in the weeds of the administrative law state. Right? We are a quasi traditional body and the ability to deliberate in confidence with your colleagues and discuss other colleagues work, which is what we do.

We 360 each other without fear or favor is something that enables us to make as certain as we can be that we're always getting a decision to release someone right. So that's that has been a very useful part of the process. We will defer to whatever the legislature does, of course.

Once again, current law allows them to be public. So the question is, would you or not allow or vote to have these public votes made public? These votes made public or not?

I wouldn't do anything like that unilaterally. I would only do something that my colleagues, that our executive officer, and our agency council thought was appropriate. So I just I understand the question, but I don't feel it's appropriate to answer it right now. I just don't.

But I don't feel?

I don't feel it's appropriate to answer it.

Okay. Even though government allows for you to be able to do that?

I I accept your representation, but I would have to this is something that would have to be decided as a body.

Well, as a body, yes. I agree. You folks have to decide that as a body, but would you be supportive of making it public?

I would wanna hear from our executive officer and our agency council.

Okay. Ma'am?

I agree with those comments.

I do believe it's important for the en banc panel to be able to discuss things openly and freely and a confidence with each other because we are doing this review of our colleagues work and it is so sensitive. And I would even though you noted that when we're in a hearing, the results are public, but the deliberations of the panel members are not. And I would say that's similar for us in en banc as well as other judges who make decisions.

And the process behind reaching and coming to a decision is done in the chambers. It's not a public part of decision to release how they got there.

And so I would defer, as commissioner Weiss did to make a decision on that, but for those reasons.

So going back, the original meetings that you folks have with the 2 commissioners are public. Those votes are made public. So what would be the difference between that and making the unbunk meetings votes public?

Well, there you're there's only the 2. So it's either gonna go to a denial or it's gonna go to a grant. So you know how the vote is, but what I'm saying is the deliberation process behind how we got there is not made public. And so I think that's where I apply that to how the embank. It's better to have us have that free discussion.

It what really is our deliberations and why would we want that be exposed to public? We should be able to have those discussions, that are very sensitive in confidence and with free discussion.

Okay. Well, just, wanna reiterate and for the record, government code allows that to be public. Just if you know, just for the public to be aware and for the record here, it's already allowed. So whether you not you choose to make them public or not, it's up to you. And that's what I'm asking today.

So again, I would, you know, also agree with what has already been spoken as far as what would be necessary and a decision that would be made by the entire body. And I'll also say that I do believe in the merits of the deliberative process. I also see the, tension between the need for transparency which is why, you know, the decisions are public, why the transcripts are available, things of that nature.

The board really does effort to make sure that process is illuminated for the public. But also the merits in the deliberative process.

It fosters that discussion that I think you would want. That would just be free thinking and free from undue influence.

Senator, I concur with commissioner Weiss and Thornton and sergeant Burns. I don't have anything else to add.

It is a deep and understandable concern that all of you would have in this process. I certainly would understand. There there is integrity that is afforded by keeping the deliberative process to the board itself. And, I would agree with what was said here today and if the law changed, I certainly would move in that direction. But because of the

There's a change in law. It is what it is. It's government code right now. It can be public.

It could be and I know that in terms of how we've approached as a board, if we do en banc and I'm on a day for cases and 1 of my cases, they try to separate us So that we don't have to be there. If I happen to be on today's board, for example, board occurred today and my case comes up, I'm excused. I don't even get to be involved in how they evaluate my case.

I think there's some value to that and if there was a move to change that, I'd be super supportive of that as well. Most of the laws that apply to the board came into being before I was ever introduced and so my goal is always to just follow the law.

That's would be essentially having commissioners who are not interested in following the law. And I do wanna follow-up on 1 issue you mentioned was discretion. We do have the ability to tie with our deputy commissioners. So, Senator Jones, I think that is as well when we evaluate this information, sometimes we don't evaluate it the same and I I think that speaks to discretion as well. I would be supportive if we were influenced to do that.

I would be supportive of making that. It takes away a layer of help to us as Board Members to act independent of public opinion. We're tasked with not being sort of disconnecting ourselves from public outcry and I think that may disrupt the process. But if that's where the call is, then I certainly would be agreeable. That wouldn't be something that dissuaded me from being on this board.

Okay. Alright. So, we are familiar with Marcy's law that gives victims and victims' families and prosecutors and law enforcement a formal role in parole hearings because their perspectives are part of that public safety determination. We have received complaints that, some commissioner comments have been dismissive, inappropriate, or retraumatizing, to families and victims, while also being disparaging to some of the prosecutors, law enforcement, and other participants. How do you each ensure that you are being respectful and treating all parties in a professional manner?

And what training do commissioners, get in order to ensure that you are, acting in a way that is respectful and professional in the process?

We do have extensive training, in everything you just mentioned. And, these are the most emotional moments in many people's lives. And even when we try our best and maybe it would look on the transcript like we got it right, we still fall short. Because this is the first time often that a family member or relative or the victim, him or herself, has heard the person who committed this crime say what they did.

And I can tell you that when I first met you 3 years ago, I was still very much in a learning process about how to approach just what's in your question, Senator.

And I've now been here 3 years and 9 months, and I still try every day to get better and better at it because it's the most just awfully intrusive emotional moment in the lives of the people who are participating in our in our hearings. And in every case is unique. So, yes, we're trained. Yes, we try.

And I think if you pull my colleagues, they'll tell you that to a person, even ones who've been here much longer than I have, that every day we try harder.

It's so we're not perfect at it. I'm sorry to hear about the comments that you related in your question.

I agree about the training. We have a lot of training on handling cases that have victims and how to be respectful. I think 1 of the things I try to do at the beginning is tell victims or victims' family members, some basics. Like, you know, if you have your camera on, everyone can see you. A lot of times they're very concerned with the person who's still in the institution seeing them.

I you know, you don't have ability to turn off, you know, for that person. So if you don't wanna be seen, turn your camera off. It's up to you. And I also, if someone is a victim of a sex crime, if they don't wanna have their name used, you know, well, how would you like us to refer to you? Do you want us to use your initials?

Do you wanna use Jane Doe? What works for you? And, also tell them, you know, when they're gonna be speaking. So by the beginning, we have introductions, and by the end, we have those victim impact statements. If there's multiple people, let them know.

You can decide the order that you wanna go in. You have the whole hearing to kinda figure out. Once I get there, I'll say who would like to make the first statement. And then, we do mostly hearings by teams. And so what I'd like to do is you can do the pin function so you can make the 1 person's, box bigger.

And when they speak, I like to make it bigger so I can see them. And often, they will bring a photo of their loved 1, and they'll show it. And I like to make it big because I wanna look. And if they're putting it so I can't see it, I ask them, can you please hold it up? Because I want to look and I want to see that person that they love and lost.

And I try to be respectful while they're speaking and pay attention. Let them know that it matters to me.

Thank you. Miss Thornton.

Just to build on that, I do, employ a lot of those same techniques, in my hearings and also even if there's a victim who's not present depending on the type of offense that we're talking about. I'll make sure to just even ask for the transcript purposes, you know.

Maybe they didn't get a chance to tell me they wanna go by Jane Doe, but maybe I'll say, please refer to your victims as victims 1 and victim 2 so that their names aren't even, made public through the transcript itself.

And I always try to make sure that I am acknowledging the victims who are present and their statements and that even if the hearing goes their way, right, and they get it's gonna be a denial, I still wanna make sure at the end that I am acknowledging the fact that I know this was not a easy thing for you to do to come here today.

I know that, you know, this is retelling a lot of emotions and feelings, and I want you to know that you were heard today.

And I'll say that, you know, regardless of whether it's a grant or a denial, when it's a grant, there's more than, you know, acknowledgment and letting them know various services that might be available to them. But even in a denial, I know this wasn't easy. And I wanna make sure that you know that I know that, and I appreciate that you were here today to make that statement and made a difference.

Thank you.

Everything my colleague said with the new addition, you know, I've been a commissioner now for over 9 years. In my first actual hearing, there were 7 victims. And there's no training you can receive that prepares you for the emotion of those victims when they're talking about the loss of their loved one. I make it a point because I've personally experienced a family member being murdered and I have a family member or nephew who's incarcerated back east.

So I've seen the both sides of that, you know, where you have the person who's lost a family member and you have the person who has someone who's incarcerated.

I make it a point, especially in initial parole suitability hearings to talk to the victims and tell them what to expect. Even if someone's from victim services is there, I tell them this is the process. This is how long these hearings on average take. If there's parts of the hearing that are gonna make you emotional and you don't wanna be here, you can step out of the room.

I asked them, are they gonna be making a statement today or someone else gonna read to reading it to them.

I give them there are no time limits. I explained to Marcy's proposition 9 the fact that they can talk about anything they want to and just the only ground rules is to be respectful and that goes across the board for the district attorney as well as the incarcerated person's attorney.

If there is a problem within the hearing room, then I usually will take a break if it's involved in the attorney to tell them you need to be professional, that was inappropriate or whatever the case may be. But I do make it a point also if there is gonna be a grant of parole and their victims to explain to them that there's other services available to them through victim services. But I do make it a point to talk to everyone.

Thank you.

I think we all hear the words you said about victims feeling like they were somehow disregarded or treated poorly. That that kind of hits me in the heart. I would hope that those allocations were not relative to something that I did. I certainly would never wanna treat somebody like that. It would be insult to injury to individuals who are the family members or the victim of the actual crime to be treated disparagingly by any of us in the hearing process.

I follow all of those what everyone has said. And if there is a grant, we also say that a grant doesn't excuse and doesn't forgive in any way behavior. It never could. Nothing we really do in a hearing is gonna make what victims have endured or lost okay. It's just not.

So I believe the way that I interact with the victims or the victims next of Kin and family members is just to treat them with the utmost respect that I believe they deserve because I think that is what they deserve. So I think all of these steps that everyone has outlined and then viewing it from the perspective, what if what if that was me? What if that was my family? What if that was my child? How would I wanna be treated in this hearing?

And I think allowing additional time, I always ask them if they wanna break before they have a chance to make their statements, their impact statements. Do you wanna take a break? Would you like to, you know, catch your breath, get a drink of water? Catch your breath.

And when there's initials or there's gritty details, I almost always apologize in advance for some of the gritty details we're gonna talk about because some of those gritty details are about insight and denial potentially and how the incarcerated has addressed those issues.

And so sometimes we have to talk about some of the darkest things that are relevant to the case. And I don't know that anybody's ever really prepared to hear all of that. So I think we treat them like they're special because they think they are.

Thank you for your comments. So, my, 1 final comment and then, 1 question and 1 final comment is what I'll have today. And that has to do, first of all, the comment on the responses of trying to ask about your discretion and your discernment in these cases. I just want wanted to just say on behalf of the public that I, you know, I represent, you know, million people.

I was not satisfied with the answers that any of you gave as far as being accountable in the positions that you're being held, that you're holding.

We want more. I think the public wants more in knowing who you are and how you come up with these decisions. And in alluding to the fact that we have a system, this is the system, this is the process, this is the laws that we're processing, it takes away from your personal, ability or your personal discretion, discernment in making decisions on there, it's it felt like you were just pushing away that responsibility and blaming something else other than yourself in making a final decision.

And that's not why you are chosen to serve and that is not why you are in those positions that you're sitting in. I'm just speaking on behalf of the public that I represent.

And finally, my final, comment, has to do with, Mister Weiss here today. Back in 2023, I along when I sat with we originally interviewed you when I sat on rules. We received a lot of concerns about the way that you treat many of the attorneys, the victims and their families. And we had a lengthy conversation on that end and so forth. And you made a lot of commitments during that hearing when we were here in 2023.

However, since then and now that you're coming for a reappointment, I have to say that I'm disappointed that we're still receiving complaints about your professionalism and your personal conduct in

in these hearings. And for that, I will not be and because of that continued concern that we're receiving from both the public, the families, the victims, and the professionals that you're dealing with, I will not be supporting your appointment today, sir.

And I just wanted to, encourage you that you, will most likely be reappointed, but I strongly encourage you to reassess and evaluate your behavior that is public in a lot of ways and so that we don't continue to receive these concerns, this concerning behavior, in your in the in the position that you're holding, sir. So

Thank you. Now we're gonna go to Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Madam PT. There have been so many questions already asked of you very specifically about those who abuse children and how somehow that needs to be reevaluated and getting statistics. I won't go into that. I have a few other areas that I do want to cover. CDCR's healthcare services has stated that MAT drug testing is intended solely for medical professionals to guide clinical treatment and not for disciplinary or legal decision making.

Given that relapses are a part of recovery and past unreliable drug test results, and recognizing that there had been past unreliable test results. How do you use medical records of someone in the map program when issuing or denying a parole?

I felt like you took the last couple ones first. I'm gonna say carefully. Carefully. We take into consideration the fact that really is directed towards treatment. But because our job is public safety, an individual whose risk factors include substance abuse and may have been a critical component in the commission of their crime, we were obligated actually to take a look at that information.

Inherently, I think somebody might argue we shouldn't. But I believe we should because if a person is struggling with substance abuse, while that information is intended not to they don't get a write up if they're in the map program and they're found to be, you know, they're tested and the test results show they're using some sort of drug.

They're not being written for rules violation report for a very good reason because that would just elevate their score, place them at a higher level of a prison and generally speaking, those level 4 prisons are run by gang members who are selling the drugs and are very dangerous and they take very seriously collecting their debts. So really what's happening there is people are being treated and not written up when they fail so that they can be successful.

For our part, in my way of looking at it, this is a really critical consideration that may be relevant to their risk.

And so, if there's a 1 off test, may not be the real thing. Of course, we know the period of 2024 from April to July when we had a reagent that was faulty. And during that period of time, assessments were conducted and the department took a look at the 461 or so individuals who were denied and then broke it down by how many of them were in the MAP program, 99. And then they broke it down by how many of them had test results.

I think that was 19 and 15 of them were brought back for a subsequent hearing.

So I think it's important that when somebody says, I didn't use drugs that is something we have to take very seriously. But we're making a consideration about a release into the public and when someone says, I didn't use drugs. That's like saying it's not my gun or giving a false identification. So I take it very seriously and I take it in the context that if there's not a pattern, then maybe it is a 1 off and it's or it's not reliable. That is a consideration.

But it's taken in the context of the entirety of the file when there's other issues. And in particular, when there's concerns about their credibility. I think when they tell me I didn't use drugs and they're not credible about other elements, it makes me question whether or not that's a relevant matter or they're being credible in saying they didn't use drugs. That's kind of how I evaluate that component.

Commissioner Weiss.

I agree with what my colleague said. And 1 of the critical parts of his answer that I would just wanna amplify is, and this is something that we have discussed and that's been a part of the trainings that we regularly receive is, and this was part of the problem frankly with the test that went awry with the faulty reagent was, okay, you have that 1 item of evidence, but as a lawyer, you want to know is it corroborated by other evidence?

Or is it truly conceivably an erroneous piece of data? So it wouldn't be right to be I don't think to base a decision solely on that 1 item in that column and basically a spreadsheet or a database. You would want to do further investigation into what the person's other experience has been in the program.

What other programs they're using to keep themselves clean or do they regularly go to NA? Do they regularly go to AA? Do they know the steps? What's gone wrong? And what are the substances in question?

So corroboration like any decision you make as a lawyer, I think is critical there.

Commissioner Sergeant Burns, what do you say to someone who doesn't wanna participate in that because they're discouraged by the board's use of MAT records in parole denials?

I would encourage them to rethink that decision to let them know that 1, I know there is a rumor going around various prison yards that use of Suboxone is looked at, frowned upon by the board. And I actually, when I was still in training, observed a hearing where that person was told no that's not true. And it was like a light went off, like a light bulb in his head. And he was like, really? It's not?

And he ended up with a grant. But so I think that getting that message out there is important. Letting people know that, I mean, that's the reason the program exists. Right? It's medically assisted treatment and it's not frowned upon.

It's looked at as you took steps to help yourself and so that's what I would say.

Thank you. In preparation for today's hearing, even as an attorney, I wasn't familiar with all that the parole board had to do and what you have to base your decisions on. And the fact that the seriousness of the original crime was not the decisive factor.

The court has already said, that although in the past, parole was routinely denied based solely on the severity of the original offense, then the Supreme Court came down saying that can't be your process. So when you talk about having to follow the law, I absolutely understand that.

And I can only imagine how difficult that would be when as you mentioned, commissioner, when you having to step aside because you're hearing the details of how heinous that original crime was, but that cannot be the decisive factor. That it has to be based on the evidence of what of the current unreasonable risk of dangerousness. The safety risk to the community. When you say that you are following the law, Commissioner Thornton, is this what you were talking about?

Is having to follow that 2008 court decision that says you must base your decision based upon the rehabilitation, basically,of that individual and whether or not they currently pose a risk to the community.

Yes. As well as under the law, we have to use all relevant reliable information in making our decisions. And so because if someone has a substance abuse issue, those records are relevant to that. And a lot of times people are committing crimes while under the influence or somehow drugs are connected to the crime.

And so we would be negligent if we're not looking at that. Another thing I wanted to add is that we're looking at the number of positives, the recency of the positives, and that can really, give us a talking or bleed to discussion with a person, have they addressed all their relevant risk factors.

And so if someone has a substance abuse issue and we're looking at a history of maybe they have last 5 years, we're looking, maybe they haven't had any dirty tests or positive tests since 2021. That prompts me to wanna ask them, okay. Well, what caused you to relapse then?

But more importantly, what have you been doing since then? Because now you're doing really well. So what tools have you learned since that time that you didn't have then then that are being helpful to you that are helping. And maybe instead of a negative, it's actually a positive because now they've learned something from a failure that they can show this positive result from. Okay.

Commissioner Ruff, Let me find my note if I may. I have a constituent who was found suitable for parole in March 2024. Yet he remains incarcerated until August 2030.

Commissioner Ruff, I I let me find my note if I may. I have a constituent who was found suitable for parole in March 2024. Yet he remains incarcerated until August 2030.

I understand. I have to look at my notes again.

For someone who is granted parole but their minimum parole eligible date was subsequently changed having to do with credits and the lawsuit that is pending.

If that person is seeking to commute their sentence, which is what it was suggested that they do. How does that parole grant by you and your colleagues', factor into the review of a commutation application.

The fact that you have already granted, that the parole board has granted parole and now this person is being told, "you're not going to be released until 2030", which would have been they're released at any-

And then if I understand your question, that person is then requesting a commutation to be released earlier.

That was the suggestion.

We would weigh all the factors. We would look at, because whenever we get a commutation package, there's an investigation that's included by our investigative unit.

We would look at the factors that the granting panel was looking at when they made that decision and see if there's been any new information that occurred at that time and then we would make our recommendation needed to support the grant or not, or the commutation or not.

Thank you for that. In the list of items that are considered, the institutional behavior when determining suitability or parole, institutional behavior, psychological evaluations. When we're talking about institutional behavior, are we talking about write ups?

Yes

let me ask commissioner Houghton. We're talking about write ups?

Yes. Ordinarily, we're looking at write ups. There are different types of write ups, serious rules violations, administrative and behavior Chronos.

Now in that regard, I think they were what, called 115's?

Yes.

So, as I understand if someone has received a recent 115, they're most likely to postpone, waive, or stipulate.

It depends, like I was trying to explain it, with the 115, there's going to be a serious rules violation or it's going to be administrative. Those are usually, I guess you could make the comparison, one would be a felony, one would be a misdemeanor.

Then there's the lower level, would be like a 128 behavior chrono. So, as regards to stipulating or postponing their hearing, that would usually be a discussion that the incarcerated person would have with their attorney. If it was a more serious, let's say, violence

Specifically, 115, that's considered a minor violation.

Okay, administrative? There are different types.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. So, for instance, a person involved in a physical altercation or a fight, that would be considered a "division D". That would be a serious rules violation.

Still under 115?

Yes.

Okay.

So, that would be a discussion that the incarcerated person and his attorney would have. Ordinarily, the person's involved in a violent rules violation and they're going before the board.

Ordinarily you'd see them either postpone or stipulate unsuitability because they want to get some, what they would call clean time before they go to the board.

So, they want to indicate that they're no longer that person. If it was something of a minor nature, they might go forward with the hearing. That's up to the incarcerated person and their attorney.

The other is psychological evaluation. That's something that you just review. You have an expert that prepares that for you and that's one of those items that you review.

It is, It's usually in the comprehensive risk assessment.

Parole plans and that's what they're going to do once they're released?

Something to consider?

Yes.

Yes and as I talked about before, in parole plans, you're looking for relapse plans, understanding what their triggers are internal, external. Those things are covered when the psychologist usually interviews them and talks to them about their parole plans.

They'll ask them do they have relapse plans and etc. That information will usually be included in the comprehensive risk assessment. The psychologist will speak to whether or not the person had parole plans, relapsed plans, or has written to transitional housing.

The other on insight and remorse, does that have to do with them talking about the details of the initial crime? Heinous as it was.

Yes. Often in hearings, you'll hear from the victims that I never got a letter from, he or she. Ordinarily, that's not going to happen unless they're part of some type of restorative justice where they actually, the victim, wants the letter from the incarcerated person.

The next was victim input and my colleague has asked some questions about that. Do you invite the victims to come in and share or if this is something that they request?

This is something that you request. Usually when victims are going to participate in the hearing, there is a process that they have to go through in order to participate in that. There's a time period when they have to actually request, to participate in the hearing.

If there's someone that comes on day of hearing and they're not part of it, usually, I'll contact our, me personally, I'll contact our legal department and say we have a victim here.

They're not on our list and they'll go through a process and it'll be at the discretion of the commissioner to allow that person to participate or not if they are authorized.

The commissioner being you?

Yes. The presiding commissioner.

Okay. The other is time served and age. What is it that you're looking at for time served?

Are you talking about elderly parole specifically?

That's one of the factors considered.

Right. So, I mean, the existing law based on the three-judge panel, overcrowding. Initially it was 60 years of age serving, 25 years and that was amended to now it's age 50, serving 20 years.

We look at a number of factors specifically at their age, long term confinement, any diminished physical or mental condition they may be suffering from and weigh all those into terminating suitability.

Age in itself does not a factor that, it's a factor we consider but it takes more than just you being 50 years of age or 60 years of age.

We're looking at all the other risk factors and whether or not person has taken the steps to mitigate those risk factors through rehabilitated programming, self-awareness and all the factors that we've talked about to include structured decision making and utilizing those tools to make decisions regarding their suitability.

The last two were post conviction growth and community support. What is it that you look at there?

Post conviction growth would be real rehabilitative programming. So and support in the community really is, do they have family members that are going to support them out there or someone that's going to support them.

Because a lot of times or some of the times when you're looking at these cases, you'll hear the person, the incarcerated person said that they didn't have the support in the community in the past or they came from a trauma in their childhood and there weren't people.

Now they're not afraid to ask for help. So that really becomes important that they have that help available.

I think one of my colleagues talked about reconsideration hearings. One of the things we look at reconsideration hearings, which is a person who is paroled and came back into custody is, why did she come back in custody?

What went wrong? When I do a reconsideration hearing, the first thing I do is I read the granting panels transcript and see what the issues were and their concerns and then I asked the person who's returned to custody, what happened?

Why didn't you use your relapse plan? Where was your support network? So it's really important that they have support in the community. Especially somebody who has had a substance abuse problem in the past.

Thank you for that.

I'll just add, same thing with the mental health. It's important that they understand the importance of the mental health and that they're going to seek an attention in the community, should they start decompensating.

I asked these questions because, again, in preparation for the hearing today, I realized there were so many things that were considered in making a determination whether or not to grant or to deny parole.

The statistics show that it appears, it's about just a quarter of those who come before you are granted parole and the numbers vary from 17 to 27.

I was most interested in the recidivism rate, in the fact that once they have gone through this process, the possibility that they're going to return is such a small amount and I think that is quite frankly, as difficult as your job is, It's to your credit that you have vetted those who are imprisoned.

You've given them the time early on telling them in 10 years or in 3 years, you're going to be up before the board and you have time to figure out if you want to stay here, if you want to figure out your life outside of here.

We know that in the end, most everyone is going to leave and the fact that there is a great emphasis on rehabilitation and that becomes a factor, an important factor and probably the most important factor.

For me it's heartening. It's good to hear that, because there may be some instances and I have been told in the past there are some cases where that person needs to be there for the rest of their life.

The majority of people who do go in to come out and the efforts that are made to figure out what we do while they were there, to make sure that when they come out, they come out as a better person, I think is extremely important.

There are the instances that have been brought up by my colleague, Senator Jones. That is that is something that is extremely important and looking at statistics, is something that I think that would help in some ways.

The fact that somebody had feelings, had thoughts that could lead them to commit a crime. I think is an extremely important factor. I wasn't at the parole hearing; I don't know how it was presented. It could have been something that happened five years ago, that they said this in the record.

If it were something that happened 6 days before, I'm sure that that would be a factor that would be considered if that person said, "I still have these feelings and I want to cope, with the young children" and will probably commit a crime.

I would imagine that would be very different but the job that you have is an important job. It's an important job and as the madam PT said at the very beginning. It's a difficult job to do, the work that you have to do, the factors that need to be considered.

That's why I went through the list because I thought it was important for me to remind myself, all that you have to review in making your decision. Making sure that you have discretion, I think that our lived experiences are going to provide that discretion for us.

Although I want you to have discretion, I don't want discretion to be all over the board, because then we're not going to know what it is that needs to be done for a person to finally get to the point where they are granted parole and I think that, if that is our goal, then we have to have the criteria set.

Although I want you to have discretion, just as I want a judge to have judicial discretion when making final decisions, it has to be based on something and I do appreciate the work that you do.

I'm sure that if we were to review every one of your decisions, I'm sure if you were to review your own decisions, there might be some where you would have some question of it but I thank you for your answers. Madam PT, I yield back. Thank you. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, madam chair and I'm sorry because we're on deadline that I couldn't meet with you. Usually, I do. Although I think I've been on the rules committee for the confirmation of four out of five of you. So, you're not unfamiliar to me.

It is clear from this hearing that you have a thankless job and I think one of the interesting things is that I take from some of the comments, is I've been at this long enough that we've been through determinant and indeterminant and when I was first in the assembly twenty three or twenty four years ago, it's when we took the first steps to rehabilitation.

These arguments still go on in the background and yet you have to live with whatever the law is, while these arguments are going on in the background and so I appreciate the fact that you want to respond to the law even though people are still arguing about the law.

So that is a difficult thing. I was also on the rules committee in 2023 for commissioner Weiss confirmation and at the time because there were concerns, we delayed a hearing, we re-questioned, we did different things and for me, those questions were satisfactorily answered.

The commitments were made that I thought that the commissioner realized what the issues were and wanted to deal with them. There was a suggestion made that in the last three years, some of those concerns have continued but you weren't given the chance to respond.

So I wanted to see if there's any comments you would like to make about that.

As I said, appreciate it, Senator but as I said, these are emotional and in some ways, fundamentally unsatisfying hearings and proceedings for so many parties.

I know that and now it's literally on 2 or 3 years ago. I think a couple letters were sent to committee members and I sat down with committee staff and went through all of the details of those letters. I don't need to and details matter but I won't waste-

We confirmed you, after that was litigated and that was our statement. Just for the record.

I appreciate it and appreciate the chance to be in front of you again, Senator.

Then I would also say there's so many things I wanted to ask and almost all of them, people veered into in one way or another.

So let me just do one thing and that is, the governor sort of made a request that you promulgate regulations to create one process for the board to exercise its existing authority, to make recommendations to both the governor and I think the courts for commutations and sentencing.

Who would like to take a stab at what the progress is, in sort of dealing with that and where it's going? Commissioner Munoz.

We actually voted on this yesterday. The entirety of the board, portion of the board was on video but the rest of us were in person as is mandated.

I did that law so, I'm glad you were there.

Thank you for that. It did pass and so there is now a mechanism for the board to utilize the board's discretion to make these recommendations under 4801 of the penal code. As well as eleven 72.1 of the penal code to the governor, as well as to the sentencing court for recall of sentence and commutation.

So that was voted on yesterday with a lot of difficult labor from staff behind scenes and it is now a process. It was already in the law, we just didn't have a mechanism.

We didn't have codified policy and regulation, to not make it underground regulation, to make sure it's done fair and equitably for some little under 4,000 people that this will apply to. So, it is now complete, I don't know if you have any further questions.

Well, the thing is as you mentioned the 4,000 people and the time frame is I think by the end of 2035 and so does that raise any questions about your ability to handle that volume or to deal with that over that time?

I mean, it's just a brutal job and we have a process in place and we will get it done. We have a dedicated staff that will make sure that everyone gets the opportunity.

They don't really get a hearing. There's a process of consultations that significantly, our deputy commissioners will engage in with the population that ostensibly qualifies.

So, that will give people who really should be going forward, the chance to have something to shoot for. People who need more time will be told that and that'll sort of-

even itself out.

Well, it's a resource strain but it's worth it but that's how we will handle it, resource wise.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you very much, madam chair.

Thank you. This is now the portion of this hearing where we will welcome any members of the public, who are here to testify. We'll begin with those who are here to testify in support. You're welcome to come forward now.

Danica Rodarmel of Holt Consulting. I have experience supporting survivors in parole hearing processes and I support the confirmation of all five commissioners because I believe that they've been thoroughly vetted.

I trust that they will uphold the law and that they'll also take survivor perspectives very seriously. Thank you.

Denise Nelson Sloan, the director of Life Support Alliance, a nonprofit life support agency. We support commissioner Muniz's confirmation. His grant rate is about average. He is reflective of his knowledge of the prison system. We'd be happy to see him back on the board.

We support commissioner Ruff. He's rather abrupt but he is fair minded, understands the culture, is direct and straightforward in his answers to commit to incarcerated people. We support commissioner sergeant Burns.

She is new but she has very great promise, we believe. We think new eyes and ideas are good for the board. We do not oppose commissioner Thornton but we have concerns.

Her question lines are often more prosecutorial than judicial, and we would like to see a change in that.

We support commissioner Weiss. We understand some of the crimes he has to deal with are personally distasteful and that sometimes comes across his questioning but that does not seem to be reflected in his decisions. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rayvn from the California Coalition for Women's Prisoners. California takes really great pride in rigorous vetting and appointment process. Therefore, when release is granted by the board, it is earned.

We trust the commissioners before us to uphold that standard to make decisions with integrity, lead with the law and ground each determination in data. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Johnny Diaz. On behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, I am a resident of Madera County and I would like to express my sincere support, in the confirmation of the commissioners here today.