Welcome to California California Home
Home
About Us
Facilities
Programs
Training
Research
Directories
Links
Navigation Tips
Publications
Recruitment
Regulations
Travel Info
Feedback
Archives


    My CA     This Site 
 Board of Corrections Meeting Minutes - April 15, 2004

Thursday, April 15, 2004
Board of Corrections
660 Bercut Drive
Sacramento, CA

Kevin Carruth, Undersecretary, representing Mr. Roderick Hickman for the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency stated that Mr. Hickman sends his regrets for not being in attendance for today’s Board meeting. He stated that Chairman Hickman was an invited speaker for the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Commission hearings being held at McGeorge School of Law. Chairman Hickman requested that Mr. Carruth relay the following information today: 1) He has pulled together a team of people to begin the work of a culture change in the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) and the departments within YACA. Acting Chair Carruth stated that Board members Mimi Silbert, Walter Allen III, and Jeanne Woodford are a part of that team. 2) There was also a juvenile justice reform workgroup that met three times, but is now disbanded. The workgroup discussed issues of state and local relations and money. Former Board member Curtis Hill participated in that group. The workgroup had broad-based consensus between juvenile justice advocacy groups, district attorneys, public defenders, police, probation and sheriffs. Acting Chair Carruth stated that the level of agreement about needed change was nothing short of astounding. The workgroup’s materials may be developed into legislative language that may go with the budget.

Executive Director Thom McConnell announced that the Board does not meet the criteria of a quorum for today’s meeting and suggested that the Board members present follow practices the Board has used since the 1980s. Mr. McConnell explained the following process:

Currently, the codes, regulations, rules, and policies under which the Board operates dictate that if it is determined that a quorum is not present the meeting must be adjourned. The process requires that the meeting be called to order, the roll be called, establish whether or not a quorum is present, if not; adjourn the meeting.

The Board’s policies and practices allow, under specific circumstances, for the Board members present to hear selected agenda items of a critical nature. Mr. McConnell explained that following the adjournment of the meeting the Acting Chair intends to ask the Board members present whether or not they would be willing to assume the responsibility of hearing specific agenda items that would be substantially damaged by or seriously affected if the Board of Corrections fails to hear those items today. Those items that staff has determined should be considered as falling under this category are Agenda Items G, H, J, and M. If the members present agree, each time one of the agenda items is brought up in discussion this morning, if the Board members present choose to move that item, the presenter will state for the record what the circumstances are that would substantially damage or seriously affect the outcome of that agenda item if it is not heard today.

At the end of the process, if the Board members present choose to move those items, they will vote on each item. A unanimous vote is needed for any action to be taken on that item. Any actions that are approved by the Board members present will be undertaken by staff with the condition that they will have to be officially ratified at the July meeting of the Board of Corrections. All other items on the agenda will be moved to the July meeting in order to be heard by a quorum of the Board of Corrections unless, someone in the audience feels that one of these agenda items rises to the level of being significantly disadvantaged by not being heard today. The acting chair will gladly entertain any suggestion from the audience on any specific agenda item, and the Board members present can consider whether it raises to the level of an emergency and, if they so choose, the Board members present can act on that item today.

Acting Chair Carruth called the meeting to order and requested that a roll call be taken. Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant, called the roll and Mr. McConnell stated for the record the Board of Corrections has six members present (Penal Code requires seven members present to have a quorum), and that six members does not constitute a quorum.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that the Board meeting was adjourned (9:45 a.m.) for lack of a quorum. He stated that the Board members present should consider reconvening as a quasi committee of the Board of Corrections in an emergency hearing in order to consider Agenda Items G, H, J, and M. He opened up the floor for discussion by the Board members and asked whether they would be willing to hold the hearing under the parameters explained by Mr. McConnell.

A motion to proceed was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Gary Mann. The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth asked the Board members whether they had any questions for discussion. There were none. He stated they would move forward with Agenda Items G, H, J, and M.

Formation of a Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group (SAG)/Executive Steering Committee Consent/Information Items (Agenda Item G)

Deputy Director Karen Stoll stated that by the guidelines just adopted, this agenda item meets the criteria as an emergency item. She stated that California has been out of compliance for several years in the composition of the State Advisory Group (SAG), which is required under federal statute. With the transfer of responsibilities from the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) to the Board of Corrections on January 1, 2004, the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) required that the BOC reapply for the federal funds, which are distributed to ongoing grantees and sub-grantees in the state of California. To bring California back in compliance, OJJDP has directed the Board of Corrections to establish a SAG that meets federal statute.

Ms. Stoll stated that Title II funds for 2004 carry a stipulation requiring formation of a SAG that meets the federal statutes prior to the expenditure of federal funds. In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act to establish national standards for the administration of juvenile justice and to promote reform of the juvenile justice system in the states. Section 223, of the Act, empowers states to establish governor-appointed State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups (SAGs) to oversee the implementation of the Act’s goals through the support of federal formula grant funds. The SAG composition has remained unchanged since 1974. The attachment to the agenda item describes what the federal statute impact would be on California if the Board approves staff’s recommendation.

Ms. Stoll stated that federal statute allows membership to be anywhere from 15 to 33. When looking at the composition of the SAG, the majority of the membership cannot be full-time state or local government employees; one-fifth of the SAG membership must be under the age of 24 at the time of appointment; and must include at least three members who are or have been involved in the juvenile justice system. She stated that Board members were mailed a copy of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) model. The ESC is a model that has been used for a number of efforts at the Board ranging from selection of construction projects; revision of both adult and juvenile standards; to development of regulations for training committees. Ms. Stoll suggested that the SAG fit the ESC model well, leaving the Board as the authority for decision-making, and that staff is proposing the adoption of the SAG/ESC model.

She stated that staff is recommending the following actions: establish a new SAG as an ESC of the BOC; limit the membership on the SAG to 15; delegate the responsibility for recommending appointments to the SAG to the BOC chair; make the BOC responsible for assuring that SAG membership complies with all federal statutes; and delegate the appointment of the chair of the SAG to the chair of the BOC on the condition that the chair of the SAG always be an eligible member of the BOC.

Ms. Stoll stated that on the last page of Agenda Item G, which is the BOC recommended California SAG make up, numbers one and two require that the chair and vice-chair be members (community-based) of the Board. She stated there is a correction to number 12 - District Attorney should read non-Board of Corrections member.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if there was a motion. A motion was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Walter Allen to adopt staff’s recommendation. Acting Chair Carruth asked for discussion.

Board Member Silbert stated kudos for Karen because of the amount of reworking she has had to do since the Board assumed the responsibilities from OCJP. She stated only people who understand all these processes know Karen’s efforts. She wanted it noted that if the BOC had not stepped in funding to people and programs doing phenomenal work would have been lost or thrown away. Ms. Stoll said thank you.

Board Member Jeanne Woodford stated that she appreciates the recommendations by the BOC staff for the make up of the SAG, but would like to suggest adding a person from the education field, such as the County Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent of Schools is involved in the education programs for juvenile hall and continuation schools. She stated that she believes the SAG would benefit from having a member from the County Superintendent of Schools as part of this Board.

Acting Chair Carruth asked Board Member Woodford whether she was suggesting this in lieu of one of the fifteen members? Ms. Woodford stated that because she is new she is not sure whether it should be in lieu of or an addition. She would like to hear input from the other Board members. Acting Chair Carruth stated that he recommends it to be in lieu of because they would like to keep the Board a manageable group. He suggested changing one of the Chief Probation Officers, either number nine or ten, to an education position and decide whether it should be designated as Board representation or non-Board representation.

Mr. McConnell stated it is staff’s recommendation that one of the Board appointed members sit on the committee so that the transition from the advisory committee to the Board, who will in this model make the ultimate decisions on those grants, be as closely connected as possible.

Board Member Silbert asked whether one of the public, non-Board of Corrections member, position be reclassified in order to include education.

Mr. McConnell stated that, unfortunately, the position must be non-government.

Board Member Silbert stated that she knows, for example, there are Charter schools that are specifically for juvenile justice kids and she assumes there are others.

Mr. McConnell stated that the position would need to be a non-government, school representative. He suggested that the Board would need to make an alternative motion.

Ms. Jeanne Woodford agreed with the suggestion and made an alternate motion that they add an education person, non-government to the SAG make up. Mr. Gary Mann seconded the motion.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that there was one more recommendation. Number eight should read Crime Victims Service Provider Member. He asked those Board members that made the motion to consider the following three changes: 1) Number eight to read Crime Victims Service Provider Member; 2) reclassify one of the public non-Board member positions to private school representative, non-Board member; and 3) reclassify one of the Chief Probation Officer member positions to county school representative.

A motion to 1) change number eight to read Crime Victims Service Provider Member; 2) reclassify one of the public non-Board member positions to private school representative; and 3) reclassify one of the Chief Probation Officer, non-Board member positions to county school representative was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Walter Allen. The motion carried.

Native American Funding (Agenda Item H)

Deputy Director Karen Stoll stated that this agenda item addresses Native American funding and meets the criteria as an emergency item. During the transfer of OCJP responsibilities to the BOC in January 2004, it was learned that a decision had not been made regarding the distribution of Title II funds for a Native American project as required by the March 2003 application submitted to the federal government. The Native American funding issue is part of the eligibility requirements and part of the pass through of funding for California. As far back as Board staff can research, the SAG has increased that amount from less than the $3,000 set-aside to $80,000 each year.

Ms. Stoll stated that when the programs were transferred to the Board staff researched what has been done with these funds in the past and discussed what can be done in the future to address the needs of the Native American population in the state and, in particular, the youth. Staff initially met with Mr. Olin Jones, of the Attorney General’s Office, Office of Indian Affairs, to discuss the best approach and impact that the limited Native American set-aside funds could have. After these discussions, it was staff’s conclusion that these funds should be used for serving youth and not be used for conferences, as they had sometimes been used in the past. Mr. Jones recommended that Board staff approach the Inter-Tribal Council of California, Inc. (ITCC) to discuss the possible uses of the $80,000.

The Board staff have also been in communication with the OJJDP monitors regarding the Title II funds, inquiring whether the allocation of the set-aside needed to be competitive or non-competitive, and whether or not a tribal council would meet the needs designated by the federal statute for these funds. Staff received clearance from the OJJDP that funds could be awarded non-competitively to ITCC. As a result, Board staff entered into discussions with the ITCC, reviewed their record keeping and staffing capabilities, and met with their staff.

Ms. Stoll stated that staff is recommending that the Board authorize staff to work with the ITCC and use the experiences and research findings the Board has had with the Challenge Program, JJCPA, and ROPP to assist ITCC in developing a program that will have evaluation capabilities and also meet the needs of Native American youth. The needs of Native American youth do not differ significantly from other youth in California, but are exasperated by vastly different cultural elements. Obstacles such as violence, drug and alcohol use, poorly funded schools, and cultural issues greatly impede Native American youth. The ITCC uses the family approach to help address the issues listed above. Ms. Stoll introduced Connie Reitman, Executive Director, ITCC.

Ms. Reitman stated that as Executive Director for the ITCC, she extends her sincere appreciation for the opportunity to address the Board today regarding their interest in providing prevention/intervention programs for at-risk Native American youth. Formed in 1968, the ITCC was designed to promote unity in advancing the economic, educational, cultural, and social status of Native Americans in California. Over the years, the ITCC has had the opportunity to develop successful programs and services impacting, at one time or another, all 109 tribes in the State of California. She stated that they have a Board of Directors that is elected by 39 delegates to the ITCC, who represent their respective tribes under governmental resolutions approved on an annual basis.

It is through these delegates that the annual goals are established based on their defined needs. Throughout the years, the ITCC has created programs and services to address tribal community needs in the areas of health; education; social services; environmental protection; alcohol and drug treatment; economic development; employment; cultural preservation; and tribal government development, which is aimed at creating self-sufficient tribal communities. These programs and services have impacted every age level of their tribal communities including the youth.

She stated that through community development efforts, the ITCC has engaged the tribal communities in designing a service system that specifically addresses the needs of tribal youth. They have advocated for and supported the establishment of Indian education centers in over 33 sites allowing tribal youth to access after-school programs that provide tutoring; homework assistance; counseling services; parenting skills training; library and cultural activities. Through dissemination of information and provision of training and technical assistance, the ITCC has enabled tribes to access funding to provide programs such as Head Start; childcare; youth advocacy services; educational services; health education; teen pregnancy prevention; youth violence prevention/intervention; family strength building; alcohol and drug prevention/intervention, all of which they advocate should include cultural-based values and practices.

Ms. Reitman stated that one of their major functions, as a multi-tribal organization, is to design a tribal service system that will manage and administer programs for participating tribes. The ITCC has designed a number of viable approaches for provision of services that enable the tribal communities to become competitive in the funding arena, leverage resources, and increase the number of youth participants and their families that benefit from such services. They have developed multi-disciplinary teams in various communities throughout the state and through that approach have improved access to locally based agency services, created networks among appropriate resources to focus on tribal youth needs, and have developed youth and parent education curriculum incorporating cultural perspectives that promote healthy lifestyles in the tribal communities.

She stated that all of this work has been done to address the disproportionate number of tribal youth involved in behavior or lifestyle practices that place them at risk. At the current time, they operate a youth delinquency prevention and intervention pilot program funded directly from the federal government entitled “Tribal Youth Power Program.” The ITCC has taken this funding opportunity to implement a program that provides core activities, which they believe is critical to the successful diversion for at-risk youth from the juvenile justice system. They have defined this program to provide individual wraparound case management, provide mentoring for youth, provide examples of healthy lifestyles through trained volunteers, and they also have peer and elderly mentors for this program.

Ms. Reitman stated that the ITCC also provides court advocacy for youth, parents, and relatives. They have developed curriculum that focuses on parenting skills to address some of the negative lifestyles that exist in the homes of some of these youth; weekly alcohol and drug information meetings based on traditional cultural practices; coordination of ITCC resources with existing services of local agencies to expand on what they are able to provide, look at the development of youth leadership and peer mentors; and include a balance of youth recreation and cultural activities to support what they hope are long-term changes in the lifestyles of Native American youth. ITCC has staff with various degrees i.e., Master’s degree in Public Administration, Education Administration, Teaching Credentials and numerous other certifications that reflect their competency in working with youth and their families.

In addition, support staff is available to promote the development of agreements and coordinated services and resources among tribal governments, government services, and community-based organizations for tribal youth and their families. Ms. Reitman stated that it is their hope that the action the Board takes today will enable the ITCC to expand on this basic program design and enable them to continue providing these types of services and activities for tribal youth. She thanked the Board for their time and consideration.

Ms. Stoll stated that the proposal discussed with ITCC focuses on sixteen tribes in Lake, Mendocino, Fresno, and Madera counties. The ITCC has extensive grant management experience and systems in place to manage grants. They have indicated that they would focus Title II monies in the prevention, intervention, and education areas. They intend to expand a pilot program called Tribal Youth Power Program, which focuses on 10-18 year old at-risk youth. They have a four-stage program described in the agenda item.

Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion in order to proceed with further discussion.

A motion to discuss the Agenda Item H was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if the Board members had any questions. Board Member Gary Mann asked how ITCC would identify children at–risk and what kind of numbers are they looking at. Ms. Reitman stated that the ITCC selected the impact areas because the 39 tribes (members of the ITCC) made youth services a priority in their communities. In the catchment areas, in the small communities, if they were to apply for this type of funding on their own they could not be competitive, so they pool together. She stated that they are looking at about 500-600 youth in the targeted catchment areas to be participants of this program.

Board Member Gary Mann asked whether the Gaming Industry allocates any funding towards this effort. Ms. Reitman responded that people are under the assumption that casino tribes are really contributing funds back into their communities. The decisions to fund programs aren’t necessarily in the hands of tribal people, but in the hands of people that are managing and operating the casino industry for the tribes. If anyone is from the counties of Fresno or San Diego, they know that the tribes are negotiating with local county governments and local programs to funnel large amounts of money to impact local communities. So, the strategy is that they contribute to the local communities.

Ms. Reitman stated that the ITCC is the largest tribal organization in the state and of the 39 tribes that are members of the ITCC, 10 of their tribes are gaming tribes. Over the years, the ITCC has benefited from donations for specific functions. In the past five years, the total contribution from the Gaming Industry has been about $12,000. Local foundations are established by the tribes and Gaming Industry, and they tend to contribute to local activities. She stated that the Table Mountain Casino recently contributed $10 million to the expansion of a hospital to serve the Fresno community; Sycuan Casino, in San Diego County, is currently negotiating with the county to purchase emergency management equipment as part of the homeland security. These are priorities for those communities, and it is very important to the tribes, at this point, and their businesses to create this good will among the local community.

The ITCC is contributing to United Way projects, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and programs of that nature. Ms. Reitman stated that over the past thirty plus years that she has been promoting community advocacy, the ITCC has gone to the County Board of Supervisors or to the state and has requested that more money be designated for youth services or elderly care, and she stated that they are not only dealing with Indian communities, but they are dealing with forms of government that have other priorities on their agenda, and the ITCC does recognize this and respect it.

Board Member Gary Mann stated that it appears with those numbers that it would be an issue they would recognize. He does not understand how this cannot be seen as a priority. Ms. Reitman stated that she believes this is a priority, but the allocation of the funding priority is different. It has been her experience in dealing with government entities that sometimes even when community representatives are advising public officials about where money should go, they don’t necessarily follow that advice. So, they are out there struggling to communicate those needs and trying to create other safety nets through various resources to be able to create a full round of services. As a person in community development for thirty plus years, it has been a real struggle even before gaming happened for us. It is an ongoing struggle, and the ITCC is looking at ways to address that by creating more awareness among the tribes about how they can use that money.

Board Member Gary Mann wanted to know why this agenda item is such a time sensitive issue, and would it be better addressed if the Board had a full quorum. Ms. Stoll stated that the money should have been allocated last June 2003. It was actually submitted in last year’s application to the federal government, and they would lose the full spending availability for this money if a decision is not made today. Board Member Donald Sheetz wanted to know why it wasn’t allocated last year. Ms. Stoll stated that OCJP, at the time, knew it was going to be abolished, and they were caught up in the fact that they were disbanding, so they did not address this item.

Board Member Walter Allen stated that in addition to government funding, it is his feeling that the Gaming Industry should be providing the ITCC with more assistance. He stated that he looks at all the card clubs in California and the existing gambling in our cities, and he knows for a fact they don’t provide anything to youth issues, so he appreciates the work that ITCC is doing. Ms. Reitman thanked Mr. Allen for his comments. She stated that this money would give them an opportunity to provide those services and to build on an existing system. They are looking at a system that has been successful and they want to give it an extra charge, in terms of adding staff to augment those services. There would not be any start-up costs for this project.

Board Member Gary Mann thanked Ms. Reitman and stated that he appreciates her answering their questions and that he does sense her frustration. Board Member Mimi Silbert stated that she is very supportive of what the ITCC is doing and it sounds like a wonderful idea, especially since they do not have to start over again. It doesn’t appear as though there should be any problems since the ITCC oversees the tribal communities for the entire state, so all the turf issues fall away. Her only question is whether there is a research attendant to this, as there are with the other juvenile intervention programs. Ms. Stoll stated, that unlike the strong research base used at the Board for the juvenile demonstration grants, the federal government does not require it, but they are moving towards requiring at least the collection of outcome data with all of their programs. She stated that for $80,000 they are not going to be able to do a lot of evaluation, but they definitely will be working with the ITCC to gather some useful data. ITCC already has a number of instruments in place to collect data and Board staff will assist them.

Acting Chair Carruth asked Ms. Stoll whether federal funds could be used for research. Ms. Stoll stated yes, but traditionally it has not. Further, Congress is not pleased that they have not received any impact type data on a number of the federal programs administered by OJJDP and that they are in the process of developing standardized outcome reporting by grantees. Acting Chair Carruth asked Ms. Reitman what would happen if the Board made approval of this award contingent on receiving $80,000 from the Gaming Industry to bring the total to $160,000. Ms. Reitman responded that she could try and raise that money. In the past, they have provided concept papers to the casino tribes for what they believe are viable services focusing on early childhood education; elderly long-term care development, but they have not been very successful. She stated that she would like to look at the possibility of securing this funding and then developing more information.

Ms. Reitman stated that the ITCC has begun to develop the kind of data collection information, through their program, that would enable them to provide more accurate information about what the needs really are and how they might design approaches to address those needs that may be a little different than what they have done historically. She believes this is an opportunity to hit the ground running and collect information that is critical, not only to different institutions, but to those serving their communities.

She believes this is something the ITCC could eventually present to the tribes and express to them the importance of how their financial participation would help promote the types of approaches, treatment and counseling they believe are important, but, again, it would definitely be a selling point. She stated, quite frankly, program funding to tribal communities or the ITCC has historically not been on a stable basis. Typically, the amount of money allocated does not allow you to conduct the other types of needs assessment based on data collection, research, and surveying.

The ITCC is always looking for other sources of money that will help them provide these services. They are developing the survey tools and the methodology to begin collecting baseline data, which would enable the ITCC to design more appropriate and responsive programs.

Ms. Reitman stated that the ITCC works with tribes to create consortiums, particularly in childcare. They have 18 tribes participating in the childcare program, 35 tribes in the energy assistance program, and a little over 45 tribes in the emergency management program. She stated that what they find unique in their communities is that while there has been rapid growth of financial resources for these efforts, the capacity of the tribal communities to respond to their own development and education has not kept up with that pace. As a result, there are large amounts of money at their disposal for energy management, but the educational process and the capacity building needs to happen. ITCC is working on designing that type of training and technical assistance because they know the long-term benefits will prove themselves out.

Ms. Reitman stated that it is her commitment to work with the tribes to offer training and technical assistance in government development so they can begin making the types of decisions that support their own social and economic growth. It is not enough to have millions of dollars and big beautiful buildings. They know bad decisions will be made, no decisions will be made, or they are going to get a few good decisions.

The reality of it, from a tribal woman who has served her community for 35 years, is they have a long way to go and that money has never been the answer to the ills that affect their communities. The ITCC still needs these funding opportunities that come their way to help them create more viable programs, and in the process share this with their tribal leadership and say this is the best we can offer.

Board Member Gary Mann asked Ms. Stoll what would happen if this did not pass today. Ms. Stoll stated that California would lose the full year’s use of these funds and that it would be returned to the federal government, or the BOC would have to develop an RFP and go to another organization who would have less than a year’s use of the funding. OCJP staff has previously surveyed the tribes and held meetings in Northern and Southern California in 2003 with low attendance at both meetings and some inherent problems with direct grants to individual tribes. Staff believes ITCC is the best organization for distribution of this funding. She stated that Olin Jones, from the Attorney General’s office, wanted to be here today to lend his support for this project, but his mother-in-law suffered a stroke. He asked Ms. Stoll to communicate his support for the program.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that the only way to award this money on time, if a vote was not taken today, would be to call a special Board meeting. Ms. Stoll responded that is right. Acting Chair Carruth thanked Ms. Reitman for her excellent presentation, and stated that she is obviously a role model for her community.

Ms. Stoll stated that staff recommends the Board authorize staff to work with the ITCC to develop a Title II grant proposal for $80,000 for Native American youth and upon completion of the proposal, authorize staff to enter into contract with the ITCC.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if there was a motion on the floor.

A motion to authorize the BOC staff to work with the ITCC to develop a Title II grant proposal for $80,000 for Native American youth and upon completion of the proposal, further authorize staff to enter into contract, on behalf of the BOC, with the ITCC was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

Request for Construction Time Extension – Contra Costa County (Agenda Item J)

Field Representative Doug Holien stated that this agenda item addresses a grant contract that will lapse unless the Board acts today and therefore, meets the criteria as an emergency item. It is a request from Contra Costa County for a grant agreement extension to March 4, 2005 in order to complete construction of its 240-bed juvenile hall project in Martinez, to be followed by the standard 90-day grant closeout procedures to be completed by May 31, 2005.

At its September 19, 2002 meeting, the Board required county officials to submit written progress reports for Board review and appear at subsequent meetings to address project progress. Construction proceeded to about 80% completion by November 2003, at which time the County Board of Supervisors terminated the contract with its construction contractor for a variety of material defaults. At that time, construction ceased on the project, the county engaged counsel and negotiated with the surety company to hire another contractor. The county’s letter (Attachment A in the agenda packet) from the county administrator, John Sweeten, indicates that a new contractor, Flintco, has been issued a notice to proceed to complete the project, and it also provides the details and milestones of the county’s completion plan.

Mr. Holien stated that if the Board approves the county’s extension request today, staff recommends: that the Board continue to monitor construction progress; require the county to submit information item reports to the Board until the project is completed; request that county officials submit quarterly written construction progress reports to staff by June 24, 2004, September 24, 2004, December 24, 2004, and March 24, 2005; and continue to appear at subsequent Board meetings to address project progress. He stated that the bottom line is the project appears to be back on track; a new contractor is on the job and mobilized; and construction is moving forward again on the project. Mr. Holien introduced Steve Bautista, Chief Probation Officer, along with Mark Gaul, Construction Management Consultant.

Chief Bautista stated that he wished he was before the Board under different circumstances, but he is thankful to say that the county is back on track. He is pleased that the Board has the opportunity this morning to meet Mr. Mark Gaul. He said Mr. Gaul has had a very significant role in the construction process for Contra Costa County. He acknowledged Mr. Gaul and asked him to stand. He stated that Mr. Gaul is the single most responsible individual for the construction project getting as far as it did before having to pull the plug. He does not know of another individual that pushed harder, that gave anymore of their personal effort on this project than Mr. Gaul. He was on site every day; he was there early; stayed late; he pushed and pushed; took it on as a personal issue not just as a project; and was not only professionally disappointed, but personally disappointed when they had to make the decision to terminate the general contractor.

He said Mr. Gaul, upon the actions that the county took, made every effort to ensure that the county’s investments were protected during the time they were arranging to secure a new general contractor. Mr. Gaul is very familiar with the new contractor and is working with him on another BOC project and is very optimistic that the county will be able to complete the project. They have been able to enter into an agreement with a replacement company for the fire suppression system, which is approximately 40% complete. That project required a dismantling of the entire system and reinstalling. The county has tentative agreements with all of the remaining subcontractors, minus one, and if that subcontractor is not willing to proceed, Mr. Gaul has identified two other subcontractors that are very capable of coming in and handling the responsibility of completing the project.

Chief Bautista is requesting that the Board support the recommendations by staff because the county would like to get this project completed. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have. Chief Bautista also apologized to the Board for this delay. He said the delay did not come about because of lack of effort on the county’s part. It is an unfortunate thing that has occurred.

Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion.

A motion to approve staff’s recommendations to extend the grant agreement construction date until March 4, 2005, to be followed by the standard grant closeout requirements to be done no later than May 31, 2005; staff continue to monitor construction progress and submit information item reports to the Board at each meeting until the project is completed; and county officials submit quarterly written construction progress reports to staff by June 24, 2004, September 24, 2004, December 24, 2004, and March 24, 2005, and continue to appear at subsequent Board meetings to address project progress was made by Mr. Walter Allen and seconded by Ms. Mimi Silbert. The motion carried.

Board Member Allen stated that no apology is necessary from Chief Bautista. He appreciates the fact that with 80% project completion that the county was able to get the right type of help to complete the project.

Acting Chair Carruth asked, as a point of clarification, whether the fire suppression contractor is a subcontractor to the general contractor. Chief Bautista responded that the current fire suppression subcontractor was brought on board before the county hired the new general contractor, because an assessment was needed on the system previously installed by a different subcontractor. Mr. Gaul stated that was correct.

Funding Plan for 2003 Title II, Part E, Challenge Accountability Program (Agenda Item M)

Deputy Director Karen Stoll stated that this agenda item is also considered an emergency item. The Challenge Activities Program (CAP) funds should have been distributed last year by OCJP and are set to expire on September 2005. It is one-time money in the sense that Congress did not appropriate the Challenge money for the following year. As a result, the BOC has been in communication with the federal monitors in Washington about possible distribution approaches. Ms. Stoll stated that they have presented these approaches to the federal monitors for review to assure that they are not in violation of the federal statute.

Federal regulations do not mandate the process for disbursing CAP funds. Therefore, the Board has discretion on the awarding process. The two distribution options being presented for the Board to consider are: 1) Competitive Request for Proposal - RFP (competitive model), which has been used in the past, and 2) Formula Block Grant Model (non-competitive model). Traditionally, the competitive model has been funded at the $200,000/year program for a maximum of three years. Ms. Stoll stated that because they only have one year of funding, $200,000 would only fund eight projects and the ninth project would receive about $155,000 if they wished to use the competitive model.

Ms. Stoll stated that the disadvantage of going with the competitive model is that they would have to hold public hearings, hold training sessions, and receive and rank proposals. The last time OCJP conducted a competitive process, 296 proposals were received, had to be reviewed, and recommendations had to be made. This process would take us well beyond the year’s expiration date. This would result in the jurisdictions receiving the money to spend more on fixed assets i.e., equipment, cars, digital cameras etc. and less on direct delivery of services.

Staff is recommending the Formula Block Grant Model used by programs such as the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) funds, which are based on juvenile population and criminal justice expenditures by cities and counties. Approximately 75% of the allocated funds that California receives are used by those cities and counties to develop proposals and programs. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA) funds also utilizes a similar option based on county population. Some of the smaller counties feel disadvantaged with this approach, because they only receive a small amount of money to address program needs. As shown on the attached chart, under Option #1 of the Formula Block Grant Model, some of the smaller counties would receive funding as low as $60, $460, and $657. This option would not help the counties that need it the most.

What the Formula Block Grant Formula model will do is allow the counties an opportunity to leverage state funds with federal funds, augment their budgets to enhance or expand their JJCPA programs, or create a new program based on one of the Challenge activities. This option would allow the counties to save parts of their programs they would otherwise be losing due to the $16 million reduction in the JJCPA program next fiscal year. Option #3 is also based on population. Ms. Stoll explained the differences between Options #2 and #3 below:

Option #2 - small counties with less than 1% of the population would receive $10,000; $15,000 for medium counties with less than 2% of the population; and large counties over 2% of the population would receive a proportionate share of the balance based on their population percentage.

Option #3 - sets the threshold lower. Five thousand ($5,000) would go to counties with less than .05% of the population, $10,000 for small counties with less than 1% of the population; $15,000 for medium counties with less than 2% of the population; and large counties over 2% of the population would receive a proportionate share of the balance based on their population.

She stated that either Option #2 or #3 works. Staff has leaned towards Option #3 only because it makes 12 of the rural counties whole with what they lost under JJCPA. In the 44 remaining counties that have accepted the JJCPA funds, it only makes up about 10% of their loss. BOC staff is recommending that the Board approve the expenditure of funds in all ten of the Challenge activity areas; authorize disbursement of Challenge Activities Program funds based on the Formula Grant Block Model; authorize allocation of Challenge Activities Program funds to JJCPA counties to enhance or expand current program activities (if existing programs meet one of the Challenge Activities guidelines), or create a new program based on one of the Challenge activities, and adopt either funding Option #2 or #3 for distribution of Federal Title II, Part E, Challenge Activities Program funds.

Ms. Stoll stated that staff would like to add a fifth recommendation that is not included in the agenda packet. Recommendation #5 - if a county chooses not to accept its allocation, staff recommends that the funds be divided among the larger counties.

Acting Chair Carruth asked for a motion.

Board Member Silbert reiterated that if the Board does not move quickly the counties would lose full availability of the money. Ms. Stoll responded yes.

A motion was made by Ms. Mimi Silbert and seconded by Mr. Walter Allen to 1) approve the expenditure of funds in all ten of the Challenge activity areas; 2) authorize disbursement of Challenge Activities Program funds based on the Formula Grant Block Model; 3) authorize allocation of Challenge Activities Program funds to JJCPA counties to enhance or expand current program activities (if existing programs met one of the Challenge Activities guidelines), or create a new program based on one of the Challenge activities; 4) adopt funding Option #3 for distribution of Federal Title II, Part E, Challenge Activities Program funds; and include recommendation #5 to disburse any funds not used among the large counties over 2% of the population.

Under discussion, Board Member Woodford stated that the smaller counties seem to have less programs available and asked whether Option #2 would be a better way to go for getting additional funding for the smaller counties. She said she is aware that some of the smaller counties have absolutely minimal or no mental health services available. She realizes that they can’t direct how these funds are utilized, other than within the guidelines of the program, but there are counties requesting funds for new positions and to expand mental health services. Ms. Stoll stated that they have counties that had to cut some of their program components based on the 14% cut they experienced under JJCPA, and she is certain they would be very receptive to receiving additional funding.

Acting Chair Carruth asked whether additional money would follow. Ms. Stoll stated that Congress made no appropriation for next year for the Challenge funds.

Acting Chair Carruth asked whether there were any other questions. There were none.

Acting Chair Carruth asked if all were in favor of the motion. The motion carried.

Acting Chair Carruth stated that this concludes the hearing of the four emergency items. He expressed his apology to those in attendance because the other agenda items were not heard today. By the next meeting in July, the Board should have two new appointees, which would help with the quorum issue.

Mr. McConnell thanked everyone for their attendance.

Meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gloria Guerrero
Executive Assistant

Board Members

Kevin Carruth, Acting Chair, Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Jeanne Woodford, Director, Department of Corrections
Walter Allen III, Director, Department of the Youth Authority
William B. Kolender, Sheriff, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Gary W. Mann, Deputy Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
John L. Scott, Chief, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (absent)
Donald R. Sheetz, President, Street Asset Management
Mimi H. Silbert, Ph.D., Executive Director, Delancey Street Foundation
Thomas L. Soto, Chief Executive Officer, PS Enterprises (absent)
Zev Yaroslavsky, County Supervisor, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (absent)

Board Staff

Thomas E. McConnell, Executive Director
Gloria Guerrero, Executive Assistant
Bill Crout, Deputy Director, FSOD
Jim Sida, Deputy Director, STC
Karen Stoll, Deputy Director, CPPD
Doug Holien, Field Representative, FSOD

Guests

Susan Bellonzi, Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Jeff Budd, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Rick Chavez, Fresno County Probation Department
Suzanne Collins, Sacramento County Probation Department
John Dietler, Dietler Group
Pat Dietler, Dietler Group
Thomas Ferrara, Solano County Sheriff’s Department
John Fitzgerald, Placer County Sheriff’s Department
Norm Hurst, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department
Bert Liebersbach, Monterey County Sheriff’s Department
Laura Magnani, American Friends Service Committee
Cheryl Munyon, TRG Consulting
Harry Munyon, TRG Consulting
Ollie Dimery-Ratliff, Fresno County Probation Department
Connie Reitman, Director, Inter-Tribal Council of California
Dennis Runyan, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Gary Steele, Sacramento County Probation Department
Bob Wellott, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Departmen
t


Back to Top of Page

© 2003 State of California. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor. Conditions of Use Privacy Policy