Senate Standing Committee on Rules

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?

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.

I have the full trust in the governor's vetting process as well as the panel here before me. I myself am a byproduct of the board system and today, I am a contributing and productive member of my community. For that, I thank you for your service and your time.

Thank you. My name is Tommy Traubber, I'm a resident of Tulare County. I also represent an anti-recidivism coalition. I support the appointment of all five of the commissioners as I believe their decisions will be data based and based on the law.

Furthermore, as a formerly incarcerated person who sat before commissioner Ruff, I can attest to the rigorous nature in which he conducts his hearings and the thoroughness in which he examines the data that determines his suitability. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California here to support these confirmations. We believe that these commissioners will faithfully uphold their responsibilities and the law and we are grateful to be here today.

My name is Terrence Harris from Sacramento, California. I am the regional manager of the hard team in the Northern Region for Anti Recidivism Coalition and I support the governor's vision on the confirmation. Thank you.

How are we doing today? My name is Denzel Nunsuch. I'm a resident of Plaster County and also a member of ARC and I too was one of those thousand hearings that commissioner Ruff did and because of his high standard, I did not get it the first, second, or third time.

I had to go in there four times to prove to him that I understand how to use my tools and I here, today, supporting him because of the high standard that he set. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Rodney Buckley and I am from the Sacramento region and I too am a survivor of crime. I would like to support these commissioners working within their capacity.

The reason that is, first, I would like to say, I think it's valuable we as human beings ask ourselves, have we ever made a bad choice or regrettable choice? If so, are we the sum total of that choice?

Now with that being said, I can say for a fact these commissioners not just demand that, the people that come before them, do not commit another crime, that they do not display antisocial behavior but they show some form of prosocial behavior.

So, therefore, I definitely support the commissioners working within the capacity. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is David Amaya. I'm from Monterey County. I'm the director of inside programs for anti-recidivism coalition. I'm in support of today's confirmation of these commissioners.

I too am a product of the board system. I went four times, commissioner Roberts was my board member and I'm the product of that trial, a barrier of rehabilitation, the success that the board has for us. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Aiki Valerie from Los Angeles, California.

I fully support the confirmation of these commissioners and I'm a product of the rehabilitation process as well as the board process. I'm just thankful to be here to give them my support and I'm a member of the anti-recidivism coalition. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Ray Bracamante. I work for the anti-recidivism collision. I'm a life coach at State Prison. I'm also a victim of crime.

I was molested as a child. Today, I also hold healing circles for victims. I understand the process of change, the process of forgiveness and how hard it is to forgive yourself committing a crime and for others to forgive you.

I also work side by side at times with the attorney general that tried my case and who showed up to my graduation. I'm a product of the board process as well.

I've been denied twice and then when I went back, I earned it and it's a very hard process for us to do but as well for you guys and I'm in support of the governor, what he's doing with you guys. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rudolph Castillo. I'm from Madera County. I'm a life coach at Avenal State Prison with the anti-recidivism coalition and I fully support all five Board Members. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Elijah Range. I'm with the anti-recidivism coalition. I am a life coach assigned to San Quentin State Prison. I too have a vested interest in this process.

I went to a board hearing four times. I was sentenced to 33 years, to life. I served 31 and a half years. I was 17 when I committed my horrible crime. I stand here today 50 years old. This process has showed me that rehabilitation works. Thank you.

My name is Felix Lucero. I'm with the Anti Recidivism Coalition out of San Joaquin County. I too am a product of the board commissioners. I've been out 14 years and then I went through a process set before you guys, it's a rigorous process and I earned my way out.

I've been out 14 years and I support every one of the commissioners.

Good afternoon. My name is David Garnica. I'm from San Bernardino County. I served 23 years of a life sentence and I've been out twelve years now. I work in, Quercus Street Prison as a senior life coach and we pretty much work together.

I tell my guys, I'm getting you ready to be a citizen again, be a good neighbor again and whatever that takes. First, they have to know what inside, free motion, responsibility is.

Without them, not just two but all three, you're not ready to go home. So, my job is to prepare to be there as well. I'm in full support of your confirmation. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Brandon Patterson. I'm from Fresno County. I'm also a life coach with the Anti Recidivism Coalition's Hope and Redemption team and I support all five commissioners and I believe that their decisions will be based off the letter of the law. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Kamau Butcher. I work with Uncommon Law. We support the existing processes that the board has for determining eligibility for parole.

I would also urge the committee to continue exploring the topic of the medical assistant treatment program. The chilling effect that our clients and others in CDC, our custody experience, is not based on rumor.

It's based on the reality that MAT drug tests are prone to false positives, and even when tests are administered correctly, have an eleven to one hundred percent false-positive rate.

CCHCS has communicated this to the board that accessing and interpreting medical records is actually contrary to the best practices and undermines treatment for folks in the program. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any more witnesses in support? Alright. See no additional witnesses in support. If there are any witnesses in opposition, this is your moment to come forward.

Alright. Seeing then, we are going to bring it back to the dais members. Do we have a motion? And I'm sorry, I'm going to take them one at a time.

So I'm going to start with, I will entertain a motion for William Muniz as commissioner board of parole hearings.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Can we please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

That is three to one and we will leave that open for absent members to add on. Next, I will entertain a motion for Michael Ruff as commissioner board of parole hearings. Do we have a motion?

So moved.

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

[ROLL CALL]

That is three to one. We will leave the roll open for absent members to add on. Next, I will entertain a motion for Rosalind Sergeant Burns, JD, as commissioner board of parole hearings.

So moved.

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

[ROLL CALL]

So moved.

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

That is three to one. Next, I'll entertain a motion for Mary Thornton, JD, as commissioner board of parole hearings.

[ROLL CALL]

That is three to one. We'll leave the role open for members to add on. I will entertain a motion for Jack Weiss, JD, as commissioner of board of parole hearings. Thank you, Senator Laird. Can we please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

We will hold the roll open. That appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate floor for confirmation. All of these appointments will be moving to the full Senate floor for confirmation. We want to thank you all for being here and for the work that you do on behalf of the state of California.

Thank you. I am going to leave the role open for absent members. We are going to reopen the role for members to add on. We're going to start off with William Muniz, as commissioner of board of parole hearings.

Can we please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

The appointment does move forward to move to the full Senate for confirmation. Next is Michael Ruff. Can we please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

The final vote is three two. The appointment is approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation. Next is Rosalyn Sergeant Burns. Can we please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

The appointment does move forward to the Senate for full confirmation. Next is Mary Thornton, JD. Could you please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

The final vote is three to two. The appointment does move forward for full Senate confirmation and the final vote is Jack Weiss. Can we please call the roll?

[ROLL CALL]

That final vote is three to two. The appointment does move forward for full Senate confirmation. This concludes today's agenda. I'd like to thank everybody involved and the public for being here.