Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061986 - 1.66 /'k- 6------- TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator DATE: May 22, 1989 a�� SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 363 (Bader) Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an OPPOSE position on AB 363 by Assemblyman Bader, which would reduce the County General Fund revenue from fines and forfeitures by restricting the cases being supervised by the Probation Officer where the County retains 100% of the fine revenue. BACKGROUND: Current law allows the County to retain the fine and forfeiture revenue for all cases placed on probation. There has been considerable controversy over the definition of"probation"and in what cases the Legislature intended that the County retain the fine and forfeiture revenue because the individual was being supervised on probation. AB 363 has been introduced by Assemblyman Bader. It makes two significant changes in the circumstances when the County may retain the revenue as opposed to sharing it with the cities pursuant to Penal Code Section 1463. AB 363 qualifies the conditions under which the County may keep this revenue by specifying that it is only on cases where the Probation Officer "is actively supervising a case pursuant to an order of any court". This language is apparently intended to rule out cases of "summary" probation where the Probation Officer frequently does not actively supervise the defendant. However, the phrase "actively supervising" is rather vague and could lead to constant controversy over whether a case is being actively enough supervised. Often, because of staff shortages, the Probation Officer may not see a defendant as frequently as a city might think is intended by the term"actively supervising". The use of this term without some additional definition will inevitably lead to more lawsuits in an effort to determine what the intent of the Legislature was. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: x Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s): 100YM66 , Action of Board on: June 6, 1989 Approved as Recommended Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND Unanimous(Absent 1 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED .111N a IQ County Probation Officer PHIL BAT CLERK OF THE BOARD Municipal Court Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Director,Justice Systems Programs Assemblyman Bader BY: Deputy Clerk CSAC clvm:eh(AB363bo) Les Spahnn,Jackson/Barish&Associates LEGISLATION: AB 363 May 22, 1989 Page -2- Second, the bill excludes fines collected by the Probation Officer pursuant to the driving under the influence statutes. The County Probation Officer reports that there are some 3000 - 4000 drivers who are on formal probation for second or subsequent convictions. At$390 per defendant on 4000 cases per year, the revenue at risk here is some $780,000. If the language in AB 363 were to take effect the County would lose about $600,000 of this revenue. This appears to simply be an effort on the part of the cities to take more revenue from the counties. This revenue is needed to provide justice services to the residents of cities as well as unincorporated areas of the county. In view of the substantial revenue loss which the County would suffer, it is recommended by both the County Probation Officer and the Municipal Court Administrator that the Board of Supervisors oppose AB 363.