Senate Rules Committee

Here. Limon here.

Jones? I'm here. Jones here.

Ochoa Bogue here. Reyes? Here. Reyes here.

Limon?

Limon, aye.

Aye.

Laird?

Laird, aye.

Aye.

Reyes?

Reyes, aye.

Limon?

Limon, aye.

No.

Laird?

Laird, aye.

No.

Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Limon? Aye. Limon, aye.

no. Laird? Aye. Laird,

Ochoa Bog, no. Reyes?

Chair it with great pride to move the confirmation of my friend Larry Schein I had a a support on this Well that flips it now Well thank you Senator Laird for moving the confirmation of Larry Scheingold

Limon?

Limon, aye.

Aye.

Laird?

Laird, aye.

Aye.

Reyes?

Reyes, aye.

Limon?

Limon, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

So I'm making a motion that ACA 7 Jackson be referred, in addition to education elections, which has already been proposed, to also refer it to labor, public employment, and retirement. The precedent 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.

I'm making the motion.

Do I need a second?

No.

Aye.

Limon, aye.

Jones, no.

Laird, aye.

Reyes, aye.

Limon, aye. Jones? Aye.

Laird, aye. Ochoa-Bogue? Aye.

Reyes, aye. 5-0.

But thank you for allowing us to be here today. I'm super grateful. I'm going to begin by introducing my wife, who is here, Dewana. She's not waving her arms or anything. 39 years of marriage. In February, it will be 40. She's been a great support to my entire life and my career. And during this position as a commissioner, I want to 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, Jeffrey Schaefer. It is a great honor to be here today. I guess the one thing I do want to say is my career began in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 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. Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of the Senate Rules Committee. It is 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-19, traveled extensively 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, and 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 whose commitment to public safety and faithful 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 WANT TO THANK THE GOVERNOR OF THE 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 26th of this year, for his impact on my life and the person I am now. Prior to serving as a commissioner for the Board of Pearl 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 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 very much. I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. I thank my wife, Leslie, and Governor Newsom for the opportunity to serve. I'm Jack Weiss, and 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 Schaefer, 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.

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem. I'll start with 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 one of the toughest jobs in the state. It's a real job. I understand it's a governor's appointment but 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 want to kind of clear an elephant in the room a little bit. The Pro Tem mentioned recent decisions made by the board So I like to ask specifically commissioners Sergeant Burns and Ruff specifically You were in a hearing on February 18th of this year where David Funston also known by a judge coined this phrase the monster most parents fear, or the monster parents fear most, who lured, raped, and beat children as young as three years old and was approved for release. and the two of you served on that hearing. Did you personally vote to release David Funston at that hearing?

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

Commissioner Sergeant Burns, do you have a different answer?

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 him to be released or not. So I'll get into some more general questions then. Regarding the Funston case and the Vogelsang cases, both have shaken badly the confidence in the board's judgment. In the Vogelsang hearing, Mr. Vogelsang acknowledged that his sexual attraction to children is always going to be there. Quote, in the Funston 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 re-arrest him as he was released from prison on a vote of this parole board. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and retired law enforcement investigators have publicly argued that some child sexual predators remain permanently dangerous. I have enough background in the sexually violent predator program because of cases in my district, because of an audit that we've done of the California State Hospitals system and their SVP program, which I understand neither one of these cases were part of that. But can you explain to us and I don need each person to one person can answer for the group and if other people have a different answer or amendments to the answer I 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 let me um let me begin an answer senator um and let me begin first by saying

Any other differing or supporting comments from the other commissioners?

Well, let me – the pro tem alluded to this in her opening statement, which I appreciate. when we talked about discretion. 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 whether someone no longer poses an unreasonable risk to public safety? And I think, you know, for me, the litmus test would be pretty easy for me, and I can say that from this dais, of course. would I want Vogelseth or Funston living next to my grandchildren? I have two grandchildren also. And the answer is resoundingly and absolutely not would I want them living anywhere near my grandchildren or your grandchildren or 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?

Commissioner Ruff I don 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 how do you use that discretion

and applying that and ensuring that the person that's sitting before us is no longer a threat to public safety.

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

Well, the structure of 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 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 going to 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.

Yes. I agree with what 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. and in the morning I always meet my deputy commissioner, we discuss our cases for the day, where we see the issues lying, and it's a true collaboration. And so it's not like it's just a one-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 responded 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 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 the areas that people usually come back are related to most often drugs or alcohol or for domestic violence. And so those are the two 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. It's a check for that. I also want to comment on something you said about 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 campaign 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 going to treat this person if I run into him? What am I going to 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 really, you know, is this person really rehabilitated? And am I going to treat them like it would any other citizen? Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Jones. Senator Oshobo. Good afternoon and welcome. I want to, first of all, just appreciate the comments and the concerns that Bertam 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 going to ask, But I do want to follow up on some of the points that Senator Jones brought up, and that is, one, 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 uh that specific the data point that i familiar with is sex offenders who were released as part of elderly parole consideration and only a single one 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 it 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, two years, so I don't think the data would be there sufficient to be able to do that. I believe that consideration only came out maybe a year or two 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, it includes the entirety of all of those who have been released on parole. in the most recent, 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, you know, 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 know, you're evidence-based, it's 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, you know, 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, you know, 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 want to 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 have is I wanted to just clarify because it said that a question was asked about the votes and and you know how you were directly asked Sergeant Burns and Mr Ruff on you know how you voted And it is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, 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 can and cannot, depending on what you folks decide. So given the two sexually violent and 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? 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 one way or the other. And we respect the legislative process and the lawmaking 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. They're issuing contracts or they're adopting regulations or they're really in the weeds of the administrative law state, right? We are a quasi-judicial 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 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. You 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 accept your representation, but 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 want to hear from our executive officer and our agency counsel. Okay. Ma'am? I agree with those comments. I do believe it's important for the EnBank panel to be able to discuss things openly and freely and in confidence with each other because we are doing this review of our colleagues' work, and it is so sensitive. And 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 at UnBank, 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 the 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 two commissioners are public. Those votes are made public. So what would be the difference between that and making the Umbunk meetings vote public? Well, there's only the two. So it's either going to go to a denial or it's going to 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 have the en banc. It's better to have us have that free discussion, what really is our deliberations, and why would we want that to 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 want to reiterate, and for the record, government code allows that to be public. Just for the public to be aware, and for the record here, it's already allowed. So whether 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 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 the decisions are public, why the transcripts are available, things of that nature. The board really does effort to make sure that 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 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 there's no 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 it as a board, if we do en banc and I'm on a day for cases and one 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 would be essentially having commissioners who are not interested in following the law. And I do want to follow up on one 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 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, that wouldn't be something that dissuaded me from being on the sport. Okay. All right. 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 re-traumatizing 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 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 three years ago, I was still very much in the learning process about how to approach just what's in your question, Senator. And I've now been here three years and nine 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 hearings. And every case is unique. So, yes, we're trained. Yes, we try. And I think if you poll 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. 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 one 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. You know, you don't have ability to turn off, you know, for that person. So if you don't want to be seen, turn your camera off. It's up to you. And also, if someone is a victim of a sex crime, if they don't want to have their name used, you know, how would you like us to refer to you? Do you want us to use your initials? Do you want to use Jane Doe? What works for you? and also tell them when they're going to 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 want to go in. You have the whole hearing to kind of figure out. Once they 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 like to do is you can do the PIN function so you can make the one 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 one, and they'll show it. And I like to make it big because I want to 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, Ms. Darden. 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 make sure to just even ask for the transcript purposes Maybe they didn get a chance to tell me they want to go by Jane Doe but maybe I 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 it's going to be a denial, I still want to make sure at the end that I am acknowledging the fact that I know this was not an 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, you know, acknowledgement 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 want to make sure that you know that I know that and I appreciate that you were here today to make that statement. It made a difference. Thank you. everything my colleague said within the addition I've been a commissioner now for over nine years in my first actual hearing there were seven 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, a nephew who's incarcerated back east. So I've seen both sides of that, you know, where you have the person who's lost the 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. They say how long these hearings on average take. If there's parts of the hearing that are going to make you emotional and you don't want to be here, you can step out of the room. I ask them if they're going to be making a statement today or someone else will be reading it to them. I give them there are no time limits. I explain to Marcy's Law Proposition 9 the fact that they can talk about anything they want to. 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 involving the attorneys and 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 going to be a granted parole and there are 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 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 want to 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 going to 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 that was me? What if that was my family? What if that was my child? How would I want to be treated in this hearing? And I think allowing additional time, I always ask them if they want a break before they have a chance to make their statements, their impact statements. Do you want to take a break? Would you like to 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 going to 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 I think they are. Thank you for your comments. So one final comment and then one question and one 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 wanted to just say on behalf of the public that I represent, you know, a 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 discretion, discernment in making decisions on there. 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. And I'm just speaking on behalf of the public that I represent. And finally, my final comment has to do with Mr. Wise 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 these hearings And for that I will not be and because of that continued concern that we 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 the position that you're holding, sir. Thank you. Now we're going to go to Senator Reyes.

I felt like you took the last couple of ones first. I'm going to say carefully, we take into consideration the fact that 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're obligated actually to take a look at that information. And 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 – they're tested and the test results show they're using some sort of drug, they're not being written a 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 four 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 one-off test, it 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 one-off 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 one of the critical parts of his answer that I would just want to amplify is, and this is something that we have discussed 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 one 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, I don't think, to base a decision solely on that one item in that column in 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. 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 want to participate in MAP because they're discouraged by the board's use of MAP records in parole denials? I would encourage them to rethink that decision, to let them know that, one, 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 looked at as you took steps to help yourself and so that what I would say Thank you In preparation for today hearing

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 lead to a 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 the last five years, we're looking, maybe they haven't had any dirty tests or positive tests since 2021. That prompts me to want to 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 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.

That was a 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 either to support the grant or not or the commutation or not.

Yes.

Yes, ordinarily we're looking at write-ups there are different types of write-ups, serious rules, violations administrative and behavior chronos

Yes.

It depends. I mean, like I was trying to explain there. So 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. And then the lower level would be like a 128 behavior chrono.

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

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.

Yes.

And so that would be a discussion that the incarcerated person and his attorney would have. If ordinarily a person involved in a violent rules violation and they going before the board ordinarily you see them either postpone or stipulate the 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.

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

Something to consider?

understanding what their triggers are, internal, external. And 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 et cetera. And that information will usually be included in the comprehensive risk assessment. The psychologist will speak to whether or not the person had parole plans, relapse plans, or has written to transitional housing.

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

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.

Yes, the presiding commissioner.

Are you talking about elderly parole specifically? That's one of the factors considered.

We look at a number of factors, specifically at their age, long-term confinement, any diminished physical or mental physical condition that may be suffering from, and weigh all those in determining suitability. Age in itself is not a factor that 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 a person has taken the steps to mitigate those risk factors through rehabilitative programming, self-awareness, and all the factors that we've talked about to include structured decision and utilizing those tools to make decisions regarding their suitability The last two were post growth and community support What is it that you look at there Post growth would be rehabilitative programming

Because a lot of times or some of the times when you're looking at these cases, is 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, you know, in their childhood, and there weren't people, and now they're not afraid to ask for help. So that really becomes important that they have that help available.

When I do a reconsideration hearing, the first thing I do is I read the granting panel's transcript and see what the issues were and their concerns, and then I ask 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.

The numbers vary from 17 to 27. But 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.

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 six 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 commit a crime, probably commit a crime. I would imagine that that would be very different.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

I know that, and now it's literally on two or three 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 your time. We confirmed you after that was litigated, and that was our statement.

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

Commissioner Muniz. 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.

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 1172.1 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 a little under 4,000 people that this will apply to.

Yes.

I mean this is 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 really get a hearing There's a process of consultations that significantly our deputy commissioners will engage in with the population that ostensibly qualifies. And so that will give people who really should be going forward the chance to have something to shoot for and people who need more time will be told that and that'll sort of ease. Even itself out.

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.

Hello, my name is Raven 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 and data. Thank you.

Thank you My name is Tommy Trauber I a resident of Tulare County I also represent an anti coalition I support the appointment of all five of the commissioners I believe their decisions will be data 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.

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'm here today supporting him because of the high standard that he set. Thank you.

have we ever made a bad choice or regrettable choice? And 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 pro-social behavior. So, therefore, I definitely support the commissioners working within the capacity. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ike Valerie from Los Angeles, California. I fully support the confirmation of these commissioners. I'm a product of the rehabilitation process as well as the board process. And I'm just thankful to be here to give them my support. And I'm a member of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. 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.

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. And I've been out 14 years, and I went through a process that, you know, all of you guys said before you guys, and 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 Brandon Patterson. I'm from Fresno County. I'm also a life coach with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition's Hope 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.

Thank you. Do we have any more witnesses in support? All right, so no additional witnesses in support. if there are any witnesses in opposition. This is your moment to come forward. All right, seeing none, 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.

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

Limon, aye.

Laird? Aye.

Ochoa Bogue? No.

Reyes? Aye.

So move.

Limon? Aye.

Jones?

Laird, aye.

Ochoa, Bogue, no.

Reyes, aye. Three to one. 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, J.D., as Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings. Thank you, Senator Laird, for making the motion. Can we please call the roll?

Limon, aye.

Laird? Aye.

Ochoa Bogue? No.

Reyes? Aye.

Limon? Aye.

Jones?

Laird, aye.

Ochoa Bogue, no.

Reyes, aye. Three to one. That is three to one. We leave the roll open for members to add on I will entertain a motion for Jack Weiss J as Commissioner Board of of Parole Hearings Thank you Senator Laird Can we please call the roll

Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogue? No. Ochoa Bogue, no. Reyes? Aye.

Board of Parole Hearings. Can we please call the roll? Jones? No. Jones no. Three to two.

Jones? No.

Jones? No.

Jones? No.