HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 10242016 - PPC Agenda Pkt
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
October 24, 2016
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE Record of Action from the September 26, 2016 meeting. (Page 4)
4. CONSIDER recommending a nominees for appointment to the CY2017 Community
Corrections Partnership (CCP) and CY2017 Community Corrections Partnership
Executive Committee. (Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff) (Page 8)
5. CONSIDER approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a
contract with AtHoc Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,800,000 for the provision of
proprietary software maintenance for the County's Community Warning System for the
period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. (Heather Tiernan, Sheriff's Office) (Page
16)
6.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 28, 2016.
7.Adjourn
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Public Protection Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Public Protection Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:10/24/2016
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION - September 26, 2016
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION - September 26, 2016
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925) 335-1036
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its September 26, 2016
meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE Record of Action from the September 26, 2016 meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impart. This item is informational only.
Attachments
Record of Action - September 2016
Page 4 of 16
PUBLIC PROTECTION
COMMITTEE
*** RECORD OF ACTION ***
September 26, 2016
9:00 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Candace Andersen, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:David J. Twa, County Administrator
Timothy M. Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator - Committee Staff
1.Introductions
Convene - 9:03 AM
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
No public comment
3.APPROVE Record of Action from the August 15, 2016 meeting.
Approved as presented
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4.1. RECOMMEND establishing a County Office of Reentry and Justice (ORJ) within the
County Administrator's Office, as a pilot project to commence January 1, 2017.
2. PROVIDE direction to staff.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Forward to the Board of Supervisors for consideration
2. Establish a workgroup to assist with the transition of AB 109 responsibilities to
the Office of Reentry and Justice
Page 5 of 16
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.1. ACCEPT an introductory report on the issue of certain fees assessed by the County
related to the juvenile justice system; and,
2. PROVIDE direction to staff regarding next steps
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Forward report to the Board of Supervisors for discussion with two possible
courses of action, 1) Establish a moratorium on the assessment of juvenile fees,
and/or 2) Refer the issue to the Racial Justice Task Force for evaluation once that
advisory body begins its work.
2. Probation Department should work with County Counsel to review existing
policies and procedures related to the collection of juvenile fees assessed.
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6.ACCEPT a status report from the District Attorney and the Employment and Human
Services Director on Public Assistance Fraud investigation and prosecution efforts
within the County.
Approved as presented with the following direction to staff:
1. Forward report to the Board of Supervisors.
Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
7.REVIEW and APPROVE the final draft RFP for Facilitation and Data Analysis
Services for the Racial Justice Task Force.
The Public Protection Committee is also requested to provide input and direction to staff
on the timeline for the procurement process and the composition of the RFP Review
Panel.
Approved as presented
Vice Chair John Gioia, Chair Candace Andersen
AYE: Chair Candace Andersen, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
Page 6 of 16
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for October 24, 2016 at 9:00AM .
9.Adjourn
Adjourned - 11:38 AM
The Public Protection Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Public Protection
Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Public Protection Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street,
10th floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Timothy Ewell, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1036, Fax (925) 646-1353
timothy.ewell@cao.cccounty.us
Page 7 of 16
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:10/24/2016
Subject:APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Submitted For: PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: APPOINTMENTS TO THE CY2017 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
PARTNERSHIP & EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Presenter: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036 Contact: Timothy Ewell, (925)335-1036
Referral History:
The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of 2011), which
transferred responsibility for supervising certain lower-level inmates and parolees from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to counties. Assembly Bill 109
(AB109) took effect on October 1, 2011 and realigned three major areas of the criminal justice
system. On a prospective basis, the legislation:
• Transferred the location of incarceration for lower-level offenders (specified nonviolent,
non-serious, non-sex offenders) from state prison to local county jail and provides for an
expanded role for post-release supervision for these offenders;
• Transferred responsibility for post-release supervision of lower-level offenders (those released
from prison after having served a sentence for a non-violent, non-serious, and non-sex offense)
from the state to the county level by creating a new category of supervision called Post-Release
Community Supervision (PRCS);
• Transferred the custody responsibility for parole and PRCS revocations to local jail,
administered by county sheriffs
AB109 also created an Executive Committee of the local Community Corrections Partnership
(CCP) and tasked it with recommending a Realignment Plan (Plan) to the county Board of
Supervisors for implementation of the criminal justice realignment. The Community Corrections
Partnership is identified in statute as the following:
Community Corrections Partnership
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1.
Presiding Judge (or designee)2.
County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS3.
Page 8 of 16
District Attorney4.
Public Defender5.
Sheriff6.
Chief of Police7.
Head of the County department of social services8.
Head of the County department of mental health9.
Head of the County department of employment10.
Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs11.
Head of the County Office of Education12.
CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offenders13.
Victims’ representative14.
Later in 2011, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), which
served as “clean up” legislation to AB109. Assembly Bill 117 (AB117) changed, among other
things, the composition of the local CCP-Executive Committee. The CCP-Executive Committee
is currently identified in statute as the following:
Community Corrections Partnership-Executive Committee
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)1.
Presiding Judge (or designee)2.
District Attorney3.
Public Defender4.
Sheriff5.
A Chief of Police6.
The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or alcohol and
drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors)
7.
Although AB109 and AB117 collectively place the majority of initial planning activities for
Realignment on the local CCP, it is important to note that neither piece of legislation cedes
powers vested in a county Board of Supervisors’ oversight of and purview over how AB109
funding is spent. Once the Plan is adopted, the Board of Supervisors may choose to implement
that Plan in any manner it may wish.
Referral Update:
Each year, the PPC reviews the membership of the Community Corrections Partnership and
makes recommendations for appointment to non ex-offico seats to the Board of Supervisors. The
Board has made these appointments on a calendar year basis. Today's action is necessary to bring
recommendations to the Board in December, which will take effect on January 1, 2017.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND nominees for appointment to seats on the CY2017 Community Corrections
Partnership & Executive Committee (see attachments).
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Page 9 of 16
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
CY2016 CCP Membership
CY2016 CCP Executive Committee Membership
CSAC Informational Letter
Page 10 of 16
EXHIBIT A ‐ 2016 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIPSeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeciex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Magda Lopez (designee of Presiding Judge)ex‐officioCounty supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOSDavid J. Twa, County AdministratorDecember 31, 2016District AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceAllan Cantando, City of AntiochDecember 31, 2016Head of the County department of social servicesKathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services Directorex‐officioHead of the County department of mental healthCynthia Belon, Director of Behavioral Health Servicesex‐officioHead of the County department of employmentStephen Baiter, Executive Director‐Workforce Development Boardex‐officioHead of the County alcohol and substance abuse programsFatima Matal Sol, Interim Director of Alcohol and Other Drugsex‐officioHead of the County Office of EducationKaren Sakata, Incoming County Superintendent of Schoolsex‐officioCBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal offendersRoosevelt TerryDecember 31, 2016Victim's RepresentativeDevorah Levine, Zero Tolerance Program ManagerDecember 31, 2016Page 11 of 16
EXHIBIT B ‐ 2016 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PARTNERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEESeatAppointeeTerm ExpirationChief Probation Officer (Chair)Todd Billeciex‐officioPresiding Judge (or designee)Magda Lopez (designee of Presiding Judge)ex‐officioDistrict AttorneyMark A. Petersonex‐officioPublic DefenderRobin Lipetzkyex‐officioSheriffDavid O. Livingstonex‐officioChief of PoliceAllan Cantando, City of AntiochDecember 31, 2016Representative approved by BOS from the following CCP members: Kathy Gallagher, Employment and Human Services DirectorDecember 31, 2016 *Head of County department of Social Services *Head of County department of mental health *Head of County department of alcohol and substance abuse programsPage 12 of 16
MEMORANDUM
July 12, 2011
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officers
From: Paul McIntosh
Executive Director
Re: AB 117 and the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP)
There continues to be a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding regarding
the changes in the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) encompassed in
Assembly Bill 117 (Chapter 39, Statutes of 2011), passed as part of the 2011-12
budget. AB 117 did not change the make-up of the CCP, first formed in SB 678
in 2009, but does provide for revisions to the makeup of the CCP’s Executive
Committee, which originally was established in AB 109 (Chapter 15, Statutes of
2011).
The fourteen-member CCP in each county remains essentially unchanged and is
comprised of the following (Penal Code Section 1230.1):
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Presiding Judge (or designee)
County supervisor, CAO, or a designee of the BOS
District Attorney
Public Defender
Sheriff
Chief of Police
Head of the County department of social services
Head of the County department of mental health
Head of the County department of employment
Head of the County alcohol and substance abuse programs
Head of the County Office of Education
CBO representative with experience in rehabilitative services for criminal
offenders
Victims’ representative
AB 117 requires the CCP to prepare an implementation plan that will enable the
county to meet the goals of the public safety realignment. AB 117 is silent as to
what those goals may be and provides counties with flexibility in how to address
realignment. AB 117 does not abdicate the board of supervisor’s authority over
appropriations and does not enable the CCP to direct how realignment funds will
be spent.
Page 13 of 16
The seven-member CCP Executive Committee, as provided in AB 117, is
comprised of the following:
Chief Probation Officer (Chair)
Presiding Judge (or designee)
District Attorney
Public Defender
Sheriff
A Chief of Police
The head of either the County department of social services, mental health, or
alcohol and drug services (as designated by the board of supervisors)
Under AB 117, the CCP would develop an implementation plan and the
Executive Committee would vote to approve the plan and submit it to the board
of supervisors. The plan would be deemed accepted unless the board of
supervisors voted via a 4/5 vote to reject the plan and send it back to the CCP.
Concerns have been raised regarding why the CAO or board member is not part
of the Executive Committee and why a 4/5 vote is required to reject the plan.
CSAC’s role in the drafting of this component of AB 117 was as one of several
stakeholders involved in the public safety realignment. While most of the county
stakeholders maintained general agreement on realignment issues during each
phase of negotiations in general, there were disparate opinions in how the
planning process should unfold. CSAC felt strongly that the only way
realignment will be successful is if the planning effort results in a significant shift
away from a predominantly incarceration model and movement to alternatives to
incarceration. Therefore, it was critical that the planning process be structured to
encourage compromise in the CCP to reach the goals of the community in a
manner acceptable to the board of supervisors.
The CAO, as you know, must be in a position to remain objective and provide the
board of supervisors with unvarnished recommendations on matters that come
before them. Having the CAO or a board member as part of the Executive
Committee, and therefore casting a vote on the plan to be presented to the board
of supervisors, would represent a conflict of interest to the CAO or board member
and place them in a position that could compromise their independence. Rather,
this approach seemed to capture the best of both worlds – the CAO is part of the
planning process and can bring that global vision to that process but is also free
to make contrary recommendations to the board of supervisors should they
disagree with the ultimate plan adopted. Likewise with a member of the board of
supervisors being part of the executive committee.
Some have commented that the 4/5 vote requirement to reject the plan submitted
by the CCP limits local flexibility and discretion of the board of supervisors.
While the dynamics of the planning process will differ from county to county, the
goal was to force consensus within the CCP and the planning process and not
Page 14 of 16
provide an avenue for a participant to try to push their opinion outside of the CCP
with the board of supervisors. A super majority makes an “end run” difficult, but
still enables the board to reject the plan if the board disagrees with it. A 4/5 vote
requirement is not unusual, but does place a higher level of focus on the planning
process. It should be noted, as well, that counsel has opined that meetings of
the CCP and the Executive Committee will be subject to the Brown Act and all
discussions will be required to be conducted in a public meeting.
AB 117 is not a perfect solution but it represents a negotiated agreement that will
enable California’s counties to move forward with the dramatic changes
necessary to make realignment successful. Clearly the successful
implementation of realignment will require a significant paradigm shift in our
public safety communities. The successful model will not be an incarceration
model, but one that seeks to divert and rehabilitate citizens, returning them to be
productive members of our community. Hopefully, the construct of the CCP –
that is intended to drive the local public safety community to a consensus about a
“different way of doing business” - will ultimately lead to that approach.
Page 15 of 16
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:10/24/2016
Subject:AtHoc Inc. Contract - Community Warning System
Submitted For: David O. Livingston, Sheriff-Coroner
Department:Office of the Sheriff
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: AtHoc Inc. Contract - Community Warning System
Presenter: Heather Tiernan, 925-646-4461 Contact: Heather Tiernan, 925-646-4461
Referral History:
AtHoc Inc., is a full-service alert and warning company specializing in fixed siren systems and
emergency notification systems. Alerting Solutions, Inc., provides support for the Contra Costa
County Community Warning System. The Contra Costa County Community Warning System
consists of 25 separate and linked control centers, monitoring systems, and communication
systems between emergency responders, sirens (40), and other alerting devices (700+), and
automated links to radio and television stations serving the community.
Referral Update:
On October 18, 2016, the Board of Supervisors referred this contract to the Public Protection
Committee for additional review and discussion.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner, or designee, to execute a contract with AtHoc
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,800,000 for the provision of proprietary software maintenance
for the County's Community Warning System for the period of July 1, 2016 through June 30,
2021.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
$3,800,000 over the five year term of the contract. This contract is fully funded by the Certified
Unified Program Administration (CUPA) with allocated business plan fees.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 16 of 16