MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 7, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Report from Alternatives and Treatment Opportunities Sub-Committee...................................... 1
Report from Public Awareness and Information Sub-Committee................................................ 2
Report from Facilities Planning Sub-Committee........................................................................ 2
Additional Comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members.......................... 2
Chairperson Harney called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Larry Meyers, Sally Stutsman, and Rod Sullivan. Absent: Terrence Neuzil
Mental Health/Developmental Disabilities (MH/DD) Mobile Crisis Coordinator Malinda Lamb said that they hired their two new staff members. They have 15 people who have reached the point where a year has passed since they last interacted with the program. They tried to look at jail bed dates with those 15 people. For Johnson County, they have seen a difference of 314 days for jail beds. That includes only Johnson County. Going off of John Neff’s estimate of $73.22, it comes to $22,991 in savings or avoidance of cost. That does not include the cost of medications that Johnson County would be responsible for paying. County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek said that Neff’s figure includes transportation. He said that if the 15 were housed out-of-County for one year, the cost would have been nearly $23,000, which is an extraordinary savings. Lamb said that she has been working with some yearly numbers for 2006, and there does not seem to be a pattern. There are ups and downs in the numbers.
Stutsman asked if someone declines a substance abuse assessment if that means the client went some place else for the assessment. Lamb explained that it means they did not do the assessment the day of their initial appearance. They may have done it through MECCA later. R. Sullivan asked if that is something they can monitor. Lamb said there is a way they can check that. R. Sullivan said that if they show up at MECCA and pay, then that is the best of both worlds, but they had assumed that these people are the ones who would have difficulty paying. Lamb said that she can look at the percentage of people who do the assessment later at MECCA. She would not have a way of knowing if the client went to a different agency for the assessment. Harney asked if they ever end up with people getting a substance abuse assessment and a mental health assessment. Lamb said yes.
Pulkrabek said they have not had a meeting of the Public Awareness and Information Subcommittee recently, but he, Dr. Lamb, and Neuzil are going to give a presentation tomorrow morning to the Chamber of Commerce to give them an update of the whole process. He said that there is a high school civics project that was done that shows that they are at least doing a better job of informing the public about the issue of jail overcrowding. He said that students went downtown and did an informal survey on the Pedestrian Mall of people and their knowledge about the jail. 75% of the people believe that sending inmates out-of-County is more expensive, and that 25% think that expanding on the existing jail would be more expensive. Pulkrabek said that this is probably a misunderstanding that explains why some people feel that a new jail should not be built. Half of the people surveyed did not know that the land next to the jail is not available for expansion. 40% of the people believe that they should build a new jail, and 50% feel that they should do nothing. 15% thought they should add on to the existing jail, and the other 15% thought they should let petty crimes go and hold inmates for serious crimes only. The final question asked was if as a Johnson County taxpayer, would they vote for a new jail. 30% said no, and 70% said yes. A response among those who said no was that they didn’t feel that their tax dollars should be spent on helping criminals. Also, they didn’t believe it would help.
Executive Assistant Mike Sullivan said that they have interviewed firms for doing the site evaluations. They had a meeting this week with the interview work team, and they should be ready to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the March 15, 2007 informal meeting. R. Sullivan asked if there are going to be five or four sites. M. Sullivan said the initial RFP was for looking at three to four sites, but as a Board, they can negotiate the scope with the firm. R. Sullivan knew there were several sites they knew of for sure, but he doesn’t want to preclude any sites that might be right under their noses. Harney said the other thing the study would do is recommend what departments should go into a justice center. Meyers asked how long it will take them to do the report. M. Sullivan said he isn’t sure yet because they have to negotiate the scope of the project first. He guessed maybe three months to conduct their work. Harney said the Board will need to decide whether they want a combined justice center or just a jail. Lamb said that if they only want to look at jail space but not court space, they need to tell the firm that. Otherwise, the Board won’t get what they want and will spend a lot of money. Pulkrabek thought they should give some guidance in obtaining public input on site selection.
Pulkrabek said that they had previously mentioned that they need someone to give the CJCC some direction. He thought that in the preliminary findings of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) study, the presenters found that the County needs to revamp the CJCC Committee including bringing in additional members who are policy makers. An example would be Steve Street because he can make policy decisions when it comes to the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). They could also add a judge. One of the problems is finding a judge who is interested enough to make a monthly meeting. He said that the recommendations that the committee would give are just that, recommendations. He imagined, though, that if the committee came to him with recommendations, his department would give them a serious look. He said he is going to ask the National Institute of Corrections to reorganize the CJCC Committee. The Board will need to consider who would be a good candidate to chair the committee. The person would need to be willing to step up and move this committee forward and have about 10 to 20 hours a week to do so. He said that Mr. Weber from NIC suggested that they consider contracting out for someone to handle the groundwork for a year or so. Then, County Attorney Janet Lyness of perhaps M. Sullivan could chair the committee, if they have time. This is something the Board needs to consider. He recommended doing what NIC mentioned. He said they need a clear leader, but it would probably be best if he is not the Chairman of that particular committee so that it doesn’t appear that he is trying to drive it for his own gain. Harney said he thinks they have done a good job up to this point, but they do need a leadership person. With the Communication Center Committee, they got to a certain point and then recommended that Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) take the leadership role. This is a similar situation.
Harney said the judges made it clear that they are willing to help with talking to community groups, but they have to be very careful given their positions of what they do. They can’t get active in the committee side of it. Pulkrabek thought they could be somewhat active in the community when it comes to talking about a change in the criminal justice system. They can put their input there, but they cannot go out and publicly promote the justice center. R. Sullivan mentioned District Six Court Administrator Carroll Edmundson as a possible liaison among the judges. Pulkrabek said he doesn’t think Edmundson would think the same that a judge would, but they could certainly consult him. He said Judge Doug Russell might be interested. In fact, he told the gentleman from NIC that he might be interested and could try to work his schedule so that one day a month he could join the meeting. Judge Steven Gerard also has a bit of interest in working with them. County Attorney Janet Lyness said that it would be good to have at least one judge if not one District Court Judge and a District Associate Court Judge. The latter are in Johnson County all the time, while District Judges rotate through counties. For example, Judge Russell is in Tama County today. She thought the public would be interested in hearing what the judges think the County’s criminal justice needs are. Pulkrabek said that Judge Russell sat on the Facilities Subcommittee that interviewed the outfits that are coming in for the site analysis.
Pulkrabek said he wishes the Public Defender were here because they need to discuss another, potentially contentious issue. He said there will surely be a recommendation to hire a facilitator or expeditor who works out of the Attorney’s Office. This is a recommendation that came out of the Jail Space and Services Committee, and he is sure it will be one that comes out of NIC. Many CJCC members are in agreement that an expeditor could be an effective person to moving things along. It is his understanding that the Public Defender is opposed to that, but it has proven effective in Scott County. Harney said that it was unanimous at a previous meeting that Pulkrabek missed that they did not think that an expeditor would be effective in Johnson County as it is in Scott County because of the way the court system is set up. He said former County Attorney J. Patrick White, the Public Defender, and several others were involved. Pulkrabek said that there are other committee members in the audience who do think it would be appropriate. Lyness said that she would like to investigate what Scott County and other counties do and then come back with a recommendation.
R. Sullivan said that when they talk to just the Sheriff’s Office, they think one thing, while the Attorney’s Office thinks the CJCC should focus on another thing. And then, the judges want another. He said he doesn’t know who is right or wrong on this. To some extent, with the mental health stuff and the MECCA stuff, they have picked the low-hanging fruit. To some degree, he thinks it would be a good idea to have everyone in the room and have those conversations take place to air out the differences. This is a necessary step before going to the public and saying they have tried everything they can to remedy the overcrowding in the jail and such. Pulkrabek said he is happy to do that. R. Sullivan said over the two years they have been discussing this, he has been hearing bits and pieces of conflicting ideas he thinks they need to work out. Harney said that he thinks one of the judges was at the earlier CJCC meeting when they discussed having an expeditor. Pulkrabek said that by bringing a new group of policy makers together, they can take a look at this and do exactly what R. Sullivan is talking about. He said he feels strongly about revamping the committee and declaring a clear set of goals and a vision. Again, someone is going to need to step up and hire someone on a part time level. R. Sullivan said that he wants to be sure that they do not lose the citizen control of the group if they do bring someone in.
Pulkrabek said that the Sheriff’s Department is very close to launching a day reporting program. This is similar to what Tama County is doing. A person might end up working eight hours, whether it is for painting for Facilities Director Dave Kempf or something else. Every eight hours of work would count for a full day in jail. It is yet another jail alternative that people have requested and that they are getting very close to moving on. It will probably be up and running prior to the next joint meeting. Judge Gerard is ready to go on this as well. Stutsman asked if the work assignments are just with the County. Pulkrabek said they are going to line up work. They aren’t publicly advertising for work, but he knows that Habitat for Humanity can use some help as could Kempf. Also, Conservation Director Harry Graves already uses prison labor out at Kent Park. Stutsman said they will have painting to do at the Health and Human Services Building. Harney said that a lot of litter needs to be picked up. Pulkrabek said that there is a lot of litter along Interstate 380. He said this has been a pet project that he hasn’t had much time to work on, but, luckily, Captain Wagner and Sergeant Adolph have taken the ball and have run with it.
Harney asked if the CJCC is going to be asked to take a second look at what they need or will they be asked to just move on to the justice center. Pulkrabek said that the main CJCC committee is what he wants to revamp. He thought the sub-committees could be left in place. The main CJCC is missing some people who could help make recommendations when it comes to policies. He does not want to interfere with other processes that are already underway. There are still some things that need to be tweaked and discussed, and some of the people are not on the committee that need to be. Harney said he doesn’t want to hire a firm to look at a site if the committee is going to change what they want to do. Pulkrabek said he absolutely supports what the Board is doing with having an outside party looking at a site analysis because no one in Johnson County has that expertise. They are not looking at changing midstream.
M. Sullivan said that if all they are looking for is a facilitator, he suggests that they contact JCCOG, unless the person has to have a criminal justice background. Stutsman thought they should put this on the agenda for further discussion. Pulkrabek said it would be a good idea to think about it. It would be ideal according to the NIC to have someone in place by the time the CJCC meetings and negotiations take place. Harney asked what Pulkrabek expects the government group to do. Pulkrabek said they can help the committee establish a vision or path and look at any pitfalls that others might be missing. When NIC comes back, they will have a solid two days of meetings with them to develop a plan.
Pulkrabek said that the number of inmates have been running in the 30s and 40s. They dropped back into the teens recently. As usual, the numbers bounce for unknown reasons. Yesterday, they had 21 inmates out-of-County.
Street said he sees the criminal justice system as a system. He said he thinks of the jail as a bucket, and all of the people including judges, parole officers, police officers, and the public defender is a spigot churning water into that bucket. If they only turn back one of the spigots, there really has been no change in the volume of water in the bucket if it is full. There is just more room for the other entities to let more water into the bucket. They need to look at the overall system before they can have an impact on the overall volume in the bucket. They need to have people on the CJCC who can make important policy decisions and are willing to do so. Regarding an expeditor, he is firmly convinced that this is the one thing that can be done that would definitely save jail bed days. Someone might be on probation and then get rearrested for another crime. The County then files a report of violation with the court. That individual is held on bond or without. What typically happens, when there is a new legal charge that is the primary concern, the County Attorney’s Office does not want to prosecute the probation revocation until the new charge has a disposition or a conviction. What often happens is that they file the report of violation with the County Attorney who files it with the Court, but the Court Administrator will set the hearing back several months in anticipation of that new charge getting resolved. In many instances, they are not interested in sending the individual to prison. They are looking at some sort of intermediate sanction. If the new charge would be resolved quickly, that revocation hearing could be moved up, and the matter disposed of quickly. The way it is set up now is that it is not anyone’s job to watch these cases and identify those cases where that hearing could be moved up or dealt with a plea. They could get the people moving and get the hearings moved up, thereby saving jail bed days. This scenario happens over and over again, so the expeditor could have some impact on that. Iowa Code dictates that if a person gets arrested for a crime and is released on recognizance or under the supervision of the Department of Correction Services, and then gets rearrested for a crime that is of an aggravated misdemeanor or felony level offense; that person is ineligible for any release other than bond. There is a problem with this law. Street said to imagine that he is a drug dealer who got arrested and then bonds out jail. Then, he gets rearrested for another crime. This means he is eligible for a recognizance or a release under the Department’s supervision because he posted bond on that original charge. But, if he is ‘Joe Shmoe’ who gets arrested for driving under suspension and then gets arrested for an OWI second, he is not eligible for release because he had been released on recognizance previously even though this is a misdemeanor. He said that one thing the group is going to do is study for one month how many cases coming into the jail fall into that 811.2A scenario and how many jail beds they take up. He said he has talked with Senator Dvorsky about getting that law repealed because it takes discretion away from the judges on making release decisions. In any case, an expeditor would help in this situation. Harney said they can revisit this issue.
The group agreed that the next joint meeting would be May 2, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
Adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor
By Casie Kadlec, Recording Secretary