MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
May 21, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, May 21, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons
Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer,
Department of Parole and Probation
James Austin, Ph.D., National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Michael E. Fondi, Department 2, First Judicial District, Carson City
David R. Gamble, Department 1, Ninth Judicial District, Minden
Tom Fransway, Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Commissioners
Jerry Maple, Sheriff, Douglas County
John Jantos, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association
Tom J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities
Robert S. Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties
Glenn Van Roekel, Director of Community Development, City of Caliente
Stan Wallis, City Councilman, City of Caliente
George Sh Yan, Mayor, City of Wells
Nancy Tiffany, Operations Supervisor, Department of Parole and Probation
Dave Wyble, President, State of Nevada Peace Officers Association
Frank Paluch, Concerned Citizen
SENATE BILL (S.B.) 238:Makes supplemental appropriation to supreme court of Nevada.
Senator Raggio pointed out the assembly had amended the bill to reduce the amount appropriated to the Commission on Judicial Selection from $7,000 to $4,333. He admitted he had no information as to why they had taken that action.
SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO NOT CONCUR IN ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NUMBER 512 TO SENATE BILL 238.
SENATOR RAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATE BILL 338: Establishes emergency procedure for reducing number of offenders in facilities and institutions of department of prisons.
Ron Angelone, Director, Department of Prisons, stated he had discussed the Facilities Capacity Act (FCA) in his last appearance before the committee at which time he had been requested to revisit the plan regarding the release of individuals. He asserted the program was safe, but he acknowledged he felt the program he was about to propose would be even safer.
Senator Raggio said, "Let's make sure that...we are consistent and we know what has developed on this issue." He recalled the testimony in a joint session of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. The testimony had pointed up a need to reduce the budget, and there had been a proposal to reduce it by $47 million. The reduction was going to be achieved through the early release of inmates when a facility reached 98 percent of capacity.
Senator Raggio recalled the former proposal would apply to inmates who were nearest their release dates regardless of the offense involved. He recognized those would be inmates who were not otherwise eligible for parole because of the proximity of the end of their sentences.
Senator Raggio reflected there had been much discussion. He recalled it had been clearly indicated to the chair that the release would be across-the-board. He had been informed it would include those convicted of murder, sexual crimes or other violent crimes. He also recollected discussions of the honor camp system and seven camps that the administration had recommended for closure.
Senator Raggio requested that Mr. Angelone start from that point. Senator Callister interjected the subcommittee studying prisons had discussed the issue at length and had received some mixed messages regarding an across-the-board release.
Mr. Angelone stated all alternatives had been reviewed. He called his new proposal "Plan B." He averred the Department of Prisons and the Department of Parole and Probation should be unified into a Department of Corrections. He said they are unified in 29 states, in two states probation and institutions are grouped as a correctional agency, and in 11 states institutions and parole are unified as a correctional department. Thus only eight states, including Nevada, do not have a unified correctional program.
Mr. Angelone said the change of focus would allow the Department of Prisons to change the manner in which it deals with a limited number of beds and limited funds. He admitted the citizens of the state had objected to releasing people to the streets unsupervised. That led to another study as to how to save on beds.
Mr. Angelone said there are currently 1,300 inmates interred for parole and probation violations. Of those, more than 270 have been
returned for new felony violations as well as violation of previous parole or probation. The rest, he said, were technical violators.
Mr. Angelone declared the Department of Corrections would begin a program to determine the best method to deal with technical violators. He suggested there may be other programs within the community which would provide supervision. He said there is a 90-day period in which inmates will be returned to prison for more intensive supervision if they have violated part of the parole program. The proposed program would allow the department to stay at the current population rate with no growth; yet it would allow the department to deal with those who have not committed new felonies or gross misdemeanors with moral turpitude. The program would provide a supervised environment while the violators were on the street.
Senator Raggio asked what the goal for reduction of beds was at this time. Mr. Angelone answered it was to reduce the number by 1,000. Senator Raggio declared the overriding concern of the committee was to provide public safety. He inquired how a unified department could accomplish that. He stated:
Within the last 10 days the Department of Parole and Probation administrators visited this chairman, possibly other members of this committee, and emphatically told us that it was philosophically wrong to make such a consolidation; that the Department of Parole and Probation absolutely had to be independent of the prison system itself, and indicated that that was the accepted standard across this nation;...that it was philosophically wrong because it allowed the prison director to, in essence, because of need for bed space, dictate parole policy, revocation and parole....
Senator Raggio noticed representatives of the Department of Parole and Probation in the audience and declared he would invite their response. He indicated he would like clarification if he had misstated their position.
Mr. Angelone drew attention to a packet of information (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the research library.) which included a list of the states that have agencies with institutions, probation and parole combined under one agency. He declared the director of the Department of Prisons would not have the power to dictate, and the director would report to the three highest statewide-elected officials who set policy and dictate the administration.
Mr. Angelone said he is presently under the Board of State Prison Commissioners which includes the attorney general, the Governor as president, and the secretary of state. He admitted the Department of Parole and Probation is not presently under the prison system, although he was proposing to unite it with his department.
Mr. Angelone said there had been no change. He said:
I have not had to respond to or even communicate with the Department of Parole and Probation because during the budget allocations it was apparent that the Department of Prisons was given $85 million...to run the Department of Prisons. There was no question asked of myself what would happen if there was a unified Department of Corrections.
Mr. Angelone declared he had never been asked about consolidation. He said:
I realize other people making statements could be misquoted. I want to make sure and set the record straight. I do not dictate the policies, and I mean that in a positive way...the Board of [State] Prison Commissioners dictates [to] the Department of Prisons. Other agencies, some have boards supervising them, some don't.
Richard E. Wyett, Chief Parole and Probation Officer, Department of Parole and Probation, admitted he had made an earlier request to keep his department separate from the Department of Prisons. He said at that time the officers in his agency had and continue to have a fear of being removed from the community and being placed in a custody-type situation. He said, "We are presently the experts in the community for providing public safety. We are...afraid that we would lose some of that ability to provide public safety."
Chief Wyett acknowledged there have been many rumors regarding consolidation. He said:
...the way it was proposed...the Department of Parole and Probation will be placed with the Department of Prisons in order to accommodate the Department of Corrections. After looking at the figures and also the system it could go either way. It could go with the Department of Prisons coming with the Department of Parole and Probation.... If we enact this Facilities Capacity Act...we will be impacted with these people that [are] being released, and we will have to provide the supervision of these individuals....
Chief Wyett continued to say:
The Governor has placed a reorganization bill, and...my agency is totally for...a Department of Corrections at this time. We are in support of it because we feel that, if we are left in the community to provide...intensive supervision through house arrest, through community-based organizations for drug, alcohol and mental health counseling. ...that will give us the ability to accommodate the prison overcrowding.
Chief Wyett admitted he now feels it may work. He opined the house-arrest system already being used may enable the reduction of 1,000 beds if the system is used fully.
Senator Raggio asked if the chair had misstated the previous conversation. Chief Wyett replied he had not, that had been his previous opinion. He indicated he had given more consideration to the Governor's support of a Department of Corrections and had come to a new conclusion.
Senator Raggio asked if Chief Wyett had been directed to report that to the committee. Chief Wyett responded, "Not necessarily directed."
Senator Callister interjected he had been visited by Chief Wyett but he had interpreted his remarks differently. He recalled the subcommittee had discussed finding methods to achieve bed-savings through a less dangerous or less high-risk group of prison population. He averred Chief Wyett had basically accomplished what he had been requested to do by the subcommittee, to not use an across-the-board reduction in beds.
Senator Callister claimed he felt the purpose of investigating opinions from several people had been to determine how other states had fared with similar programs. He reiterated 42 states have some form of a unified system, which left Nevada out of the mainstream.
Senator Raggio reiterated the issue was of some concern as a matter of credibility because the committee had been emphatically warned consolidation was not the way to handle the situation.
Senator O'Donnell asked what Chief Wyett meant when he said he had been "partially" encouraged to change his position. Chief Wyett replied:
In the past 10 days I have really...felt that...we should...prepare ourselves if we wind up...aligned with [the Department of] Prisons.... I was looking for other avenues to work within the system, not going into a Department of Corrections...blind-sided by looking at only a Department of Public Safety. ...I felt if it did come to that degree that we will have to...align ourselves with the Department of Corrections.
Chief Wyett added the Governor's Office has also made statements that they now support a Department of Corrections. Chief Wyett said he was attempting to make it work and voiced the opinion the Facilities Capacity Act could work if the state utilizes parole and probation.
Senator O'Donnell asked what Chief Wyett's preference would be if there was a choice to not combine the departments. Chief Wyett responded he would probably be in line with public safety. He declared it was possible to have public safety with a Department of Corrections as it has been designed. He admitted that viewpoint differed from his earlier opinion.
Senator O'Donnell asked him what had happened within the past 10 days to influence him to change his mind. Chief Wyett said he had looked at everything under consideration. He remarked he had looked at his agency and what services could be provided better than were already being provided. He stated:
That we can provide a service for the Facilities Capacity Act as well as parole releases, parole violations, and also technical violations. I have a problem with technical violations...some...are not just some guy didn't report. There are weapons involved...which can be very dangerous. ...I looked at the house-arrest program.... We hear about getting tough on crime. Getting tough on crime does not always mean going to prison. There [are] more punitive measures in the house-arrest system than...in the prison system, and that's a community-based operation.
Senator Glomb asserted there may be a need to "go back to the drawing board" because of serious fiscal issues. She voiced her agreement with Senator Callister's statements.
James Austin, Ph.D., National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), testified for several years his organization has been charged with making projections of the prison population. He said NCCD had been asked to study the most feasible way to achieve bed-savings. He stated NCCD has contracts with about 40 states on similar issues.
Dr. Austin said Nevada has about 6,200 inmates at present. He turned to the second chart from the back in the packet (Exhibit C), his Exhibit A, which depicts projections for the next 2 years. He declared the error rate is very low for current projections so there may be 7,300 to 7,400 inmates by July of 1995.
Dr. Austin said the object of the plan is to stabilize the prison population and reduce the rate of growth. He turned to the first table in the packet which depicts those who pose the least risk to public safety if they are not committed to prison. Of the 6,226 inmates he indicated there are 1,051 incarcerated on technical parole or probation violations.
Dr. Austin admitted "technical" can mean several things. He conceded it could involve weapons, perhaps only possession with no prosecution for a new crime. It could mean not maintaining gainful employment, failure to report to a probation officer, refusal to participate in a substance-abuse program, testing positive for substance abuse, or possession of a weapon. He said the justice system may not choose to prosecute but only to revoke probation. He explained under probation violations the person is returned to the court, while a parole violation goes through the parole board.
He said the probation or parole officer makes the determination which triggers the action.
Senator Raggio noted the table makes a distinction between those who are returned for technical violations and those returned for a conviction for a new offense. He asked if that could include those who had plea-bargained even though they had been charged with a crime. Dr. Austin admitted that was true. Senator O'Donnell iterated that meant the person may have perpetrated a crime but plea-bargained down to a technical violation.
Senator O'Donnell asked if the intention was to hold the present population at 6,200 even though the projection was that there would be a necessity for 7,300 beds in 1995. He wanted to know if that meant 1,000 would be let out. Dr. Austin replied, "These people are going to be released anyway. The group I'm going after are spending...on average 7 to 12 months in prison. So everyone is going to be released eventually."
Dr. Austin said the first page of the packet summarizes projected bed-savings by each action of the state. He noted the first action would reduce parole technical violators by 50 percent and limit time in prison by 90 days. Of those projected to come in over the next 2 years, he explained, by keeping half under some form of parole supervision the number of beds would be reduced by 485 over the biennium. He said those would be violators who did not pose a threat to public safety but were having some problems with technical parole requirements.
Dr. Austin repeated the two key decision-makers would be the parole officer and the parole board. He acknowledged those who are returned would have their length of stay limited to 90 days. He admitted some might stay a little longer, some not so long, but 90 days would be the target.
Dr. Austin said the second action would go after technical violators of probation. He explained the probation officer makes recommendations to the court to revoke probation and sentence the person to prison. He said the goal was to reduce those actions by 40 percent for the least-risky persons. It would be up to the probation officer and the court. That would reduce the bed occupancy by 250.
Dr. Austin said the third action would come as a result of new legislation that would allow the Director of Prisons to award up to 90 days of good-time credits to nonviolent inmates in medium and minimum custody. He explained those would be the ones nearing the end of their prison terms and about to be discharged anyway.
Senator Raggio stated the record required clarification. He asked if that meant the early release would apply to some but not all classes of inmates. He asked if it had been resolved that there would be no constitutional issue regarding early release of some criminals and not others. Dr. Austin replied:
I've worked with a lot of states that are doing this and they have very specific criteria that says you cannot be early-released if you are convicted of such-and-such a crime, if your disciplinary conduct has been such-and-such. So this criteria is fairly typical across the states.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Angelone if he had received a change of opinion from the attorney general who originally said it could not be done. Mr. Angelone replied:
We have received from the attorney general's office their opinion that we can choose, pick the type of individuals we would like to give any type of consideration to. And it would stand any federal court litigation.
Mr. Angelone said he had a written opinion to that effect. Senator Raggio requested he submit the written opinion to the committee. Mr. Angelone said he believed earlier testimony had been given that one cannot discriminate. When the attorney general researched the problem, the attorney general indicated there is a likelihood of suits; but she opined the state will survive challenges in federal court and will not be held in contempt or for discrimination against inmates.
Mr. Angelone said the plan would allow the director to award 90 days good-time to nonviolent medium and minimum custody inmates "because we need to show what kind of bed savings there are going to be without a predictable outcome with number five [on the cover page of the packet], and that is an increase or decrease in parole rate." It would not allow good-time to maximum custody inmates, whether nonviolent or not, and it would not allow good-time to any violent offender.
Mr. Angelone reported the last time he appeared before the committee the parole rate had been 21 percent for the month and 29 percent overall for the year. He said, "Today it's 33 [percent]...so there are times when the parole board could be up around 45-50 percent, or other times it might be 15 percent...." He indicated that with the variance in parole grant rates he felt obliged to include the 90 days good-time action. Calling attention to the summary on the first page of Exhibit C, he said, "If one, two and five are working well, there is no need for three."
Mr. Angelone said, "I couldn't come to you today and say, `one, two and five, and I don't need three' because I cannot predict the future...." He admitted increases and decreases in parole rates happen monthly. He called the third proposal a "safeguard" to be used only if needed.
Senator Raggio asked what would trigger the early release. Mr. Angelone replied, "Number 3 would be triggered by being over 98
percent of capacity for 30 days, at which time that would then allow the director to allot 90 days good-days." Senator Raggio asked, "98 percent of what?" Mr. Angelone responded, "Bed capacity of the current beds that day...for the entire male prison system, for the entire female. They are separate."
Mr. Angelone reiterated the early release "would be to provide, on a case-by-case basis, 90 days good-time to nonviolent, minimum/medium-security inmates to come to 96 percent of capacity and stop. It is a pick and choose of all nonviolent offenders." He explained when 98 percent of the beds are occupied he would be allowed to release enough prisoners to take the percentage down to 96 percent only if none of the other options within the plan are working. He estimated it might apply to just three or four inmates.
Dr. Austin pointed out those who would be released would be eligible for parole but would not have been selected for parole by the parole board. He said, "There's an important finding here...those who are not being paroled in your state have the shortest sentences. The ones that are being paroled have the longer sentences."
Senator Raggio asked what would happen if there were not enough inmates eligible and it might take longer than 90 days. Dr. Austin replied the entire program rests upon the assumption that the first two measures outlined will be working.
Senator Raggio stated he did not want to be misled nor to mislead the public. He said if it were necessary to go to the early release plan it could be difficult to arbitrarily stick to the 90-day limit and some might have to be given credit for longer than 90 days.
Dr. Austin conceded the budget problem may not be resolved by the third option if the first two proposals do not reach the performance measures projected. Senator Raggio opined that would require the courts to agree or to ask a probation or parole officer to shirk his job. He said, "If they firmly believe somebody should be violated are we going to put an arbitrary rule that says to them, `Well, you can't do this because we won't make our goal'?" He repeated his concern for public safety.
Dr. Austin responded the purpose was to provide adequate flexibility so that there would be space to bring violators into the prison system. He called it "fine tuning" and said it should permit resolving a situation within the community for those who do not really need prison.
When asked what states may have the early release program other than Arkansas and Florida, Dr. Austin estimated 20 or 25 have some sort of good-time policy to expedite early release. There are 16 with early release mechanisms but they are not necessarily triggered by the capacity of the institution, he said. He explained Illinois has legislation that allows the director to give up to 180 days but it is not tied to capacity. He offered the opinion most such programs are in actuality tied to capacity whether it is stated or not.
Senator Callister asked for clarification of the numbers on the proposal. He guessed that the 485-bed savings to be attained through the first action would not require any participation of the courts. Dr. Austin admitted it would only require participation by
the parole board and officers and would be handled administratively.
Senator Callister commented:
The second component is the part that I understand the chair's concerned about, the next 250 beds.... In response...you're really saying...for us to achieve those two levels of bed savings you want the safety valve of the third which is 275 bed savings that really is...a modified mini-Facilities Capacity Act, and I think we ought to call it what it is. It's going to require some legislative change.
Dr. Austin responded:
I would say there [are] five things this state needs to look at. The first three are the ones I think are the most do-able, the most practical, and have the most direct effect. ...The grant rate...went to where it was a few years ago, which is about 45-49 percent of all cases they heard being paroled. You'd achieve another 400-bed savings on top of this.
Dr. Austin admitted nobody could predict the actions of the parole board. He said:
All this works together or it all falls apart. And if you...say we'll do that and not this, I have to tell you, as an expert, you're unlikely to achieve these savings. You have to look at this as a package deal....
Dr. Austin said it would require changes in probation, parole and the Department of Prisons for the proposal to work. He acknowledged it would not require action from the courts. He indicated the courts would only be involved if a probation officer brought a case to court and the court decided "not to revoke the person." He admitted it would not be realistic to expect all judges to work in the same direction.
Senator Callister called attention to the first three proposals with specific bed savings attached to them which were predicted to save $23 million. He noted the first proposal would be more predictable than the second and so on. He suggested the language describing the circumstances under which the director could use the 90-day good-time credit required some study. He felt that would provide another tool for the director to manage his population by giving the inmates incentive to behave in order to earn the 90 days.
Dr. Austin disagreed and opined the most predictable savings would come from the third item giving the director authority to release prisoners early. He said the first two actions would work only under consolidation because the departments would be working in concert. He suggested the Department of Prisons focuses on the most dangerous offenders first while the marginal group or the group retained in the community are secondary.
Dr. Austin submitted other savings in operations or information could be saved through consolidation, or through reallocation of staff.
Senator Callister argued:
But then under item 3, that's limited.... This mini-FCA is no longer a facility capacity that is for everyone. It has radically reduced in scope the nonviolent medium- and minimum-custody inmates, which we have been told for all 8 years I've been here Nevada had as an extraordinary number of...a disproportionate number of those folks in our system vis-a-vis almost any other any state.
Dr. Austin called attention to Table 6 toward the back of Exhibit C showing the 12-month rearrest rates. He explained he had reviewed the rearrest rate for those who had been released early. He said about 30 percent were rearrested at least once after they had been released, which would average about 1,000 arrests in the first year after release. He acknowledged the state has about 46,000 adult arrests each year, so the rearrest rate is approximately 2 percent of all arrests.
Dr. Austin proclaimed the most criminally active are not those coming out of prison but teenagers and young adults. He suggested resources should be focused on the next generation, not on those being released early.
Senator Raggio acknowledged there is a high rate in Nevada compared to other states. Mr. Angelone and Dr. Austin agreed that was true but neither knew specific numbers with which to make a comparison.
Senator Raggio asked if Dr. Austin was suggesting that following the release proposals the danger to the public from those people would be minimal by reason of Table 6. Dr. Austin responded it would have virtually no impact on the rate of crime. He stated he would stand on that.
Referring to an earlier statement by Dr. Austin, Senator O'Donnell asked if he was on contract to the state. Dr. Austin answered, "I have a contract with the Budget Division." He replied he lives in San Francisco, California.
Senator Raggio iterated the structure proposed would be dependent upon how well the first two proposals work. He asked how the legislature could direct the courts or parole board to follow the policy.
Dr. Austin responded, "I don't think you need to." He opined the reforms were administrative and implementation would be the responsibility of the executive branch.
Senator Raggio inquired if that meant the Governor would have to direct the parole board to parole 50 percent or give directions to the parole board regarding violators. He asked if it would have to be done through an executive order.
Mr. Angelone replied, "As we look at this...if you consolidate into a Department of Corrections, then the whole department reports to a...correctional commission...."
Senator Raggio asked, "Would the parole board be under your administration?" Mr. Angelone replied:
No.... That's the...Governor's mandate to work with the parole commissioners. He appoints them and works with them. But, as I said earlier, when it comes to the probation offices and parole offices...you can have some administrative regulations that are sanctioned by and approved by the Governor, the attorney general and the secretary of state. And these administrative regulations are what we want as the elected officials...of the state
as a board of correctional commissioners. So there are ways of providing types of instruments that can show people, show employees what, just like in the prison now when we lock somebody up in a disciplinary detention cell, for what part of time they should be locked up, these type of regulations can be written from the probation and parole division. So that you have guidelines. ...It's the responsibility of the correctional commissioners to make these types of guidelines and provide them with the index they can use to say, `This is a nuisance-technical violator.'
Mr. Angelone averred there are other methods that can be used for nuisance violators such as ankle bracelets or intensive supervision other than a $14,000-per-year bed. The commission would provide
guidance so the probation or parole officers would not have to "have a crystal ball" in addition to their other duties.
Michael E. Fondi, Department 2, First Judicial District, Carson City, said he had written a letter on April 28, 1993, to the committee at the direction of the Legislative Committee of the Nevada District Judges Association after the annual meeting in Laughlin. He said the judges took a position in opposition to a Facilities Capacity Act in any form.
Senator Raggio asked Judge Fondi to comment on the change proposed during the day. Judge Fondi said he opposed Senate Bill (S.B.) 338, which he called just one item in the scope of the proposal.
SENATE BILL 338: Establishes emergency procedure for reducing number of offenders in facilities and institutions of department of prisons.
Judge Fondi declared the criteria for the director in S.B. 338 is vague, subjective and with little specificity. He cited examples in the bill with which he took issue as being too broad. He said:
When we start talking about nonviolent offenders, and medium-...and minimum-security...offenders, I'm sure the statistics prove out that there are a lot of those folks. The reason there are a lot of those folks is because the legislature sends the court messages. It tells us we must mandatorily sentence certain people and requires that they be in prison for given periods of time.
Judge Fondi asserted the legislature then takes away what it has decreed through mandatory release provisions. He acknowledged the economic difficulty but added, "When parole and probation does a report to us as a basis for our determination to impose a sentence, they are required to use objective criteria, a point system..., as a basis for their recommendation." He noted the recommendation is usually very sound and it is difficult not to follow the recommendations.
Judge Fondi indicated the judges must elucidate their reasons when they do not follow the parole or probation recommendation as to why it was not deemed appropriate. He conceded many innovative programs have been developed as a result of the prison population crisis over the past several years. He explained if one of those people is returned for a violation his experience has been that there are very good reasons for the recommendation to revoke probation. The person has demonstrated that another course of conduct would be appropriate.
Senator Raggio asked how Judge Fondi would react to the proposal to admonish probation officers to reduce by 40 percent the number of offenders that would have to return to court due to a violation. Judge Fondi said he was very troubled by the proposal. He explained:
Those people in the field have a better sense of what they're doing than somebody who is crunching numbers who is in a supervisory capacity who is going to simply tell them, `Don't bring this person...or that person in' when they've been trying to work with them to either get them to fulfill the terms and conditions of probation or not.
Judge Fondi continued, "I'm troubled by the concept that somehow in this hierarchy of administration that it pyramids to the Director of Prisons." He protested that the numbers would depend upon who was director of prisons, to the vagueness of the criteria, and to the philosophy of the director.
Senator Raggio asked Judge Fondi if he would comment on the proposal to close seven honor camps if S.B. 338 passes. Judge Fondi reiterated he had communicated a vote by the judges' association that they were unalterably opposed to the closure of the rural honor camps. He reiterated his dismay over the proposal.
David R. Gamble, Department 1, Ninth Judicial District, Minden, acknowledged he had not seen the new proposal in writing. He voiced his concern that the consolidation of the department would enable the Board of State Prison Commissioners or the director to exercise control over officers in the field. He said the officers in the field now make the determination as to whether a person should be violated or not.
Judge Gamble said:
We frequently see reports of technical violations where they don't violate somebody.... We frequently see probation officers asking us to admonish probationers so they'll get back on the right track before they ever bring them in for a hearing. By the time they bring them in for hearings they have typically violated several times, and the probation officer has run out of tools to use.
Judge Gamble declared there are many probation officers who exercise a great deal of independent judgement as to whether people should be violated. He asserted that would be a conflict under consolidation because their independent judgement will be dictated by the prison board or the director. He explained a probation officer's job is to attempt to modify behavior so the court will not have to prosecute the person again.
Judge Gamble averred the job of the prison board should be to operate within the budget and to properly supervise those who have been incarcerated. He suggested the consolidation would be needed in order to force parole and probation officers to violate half as many people. He reiterated his experience had been that the officers in the field are already violating as few as possible.
Judge Gamble asserted those in the field are dedicated to their work and very qualified to exercise independent judgement.
Judge Gamble voiced another concern regarding the definition of "technical violations." He opined the definition proposed by Dr. Austin would be very difficult for judges and probation officers. He explained:
There is a huge gamut of people committing very serious offenses, if not felonies, while on probation, that we need to revoke, who have...not been convicted of a felony, and one of the reasons is...that the prosecutors just choose to violate them rather than go through...another expensive prosecution, because they are aware that if there's a good felony arrest that most judges are going to go ahead and revoke and use the probation hammer that we have on them rather than going through another extensive prosecution.
Judge Gamble said he had heard there would be a 90-day cap on the return of parole violators. He asked if that was correct. Senator Raggio asked if it was true that there would be a 90-day maximum sentence if a person was returned. Dr. Austin replied that was correct.
Judge Gamble suggested that would not give the parole officer much control. Senator Raggio agreed that could pose a serious problem. He opined it could make a mockery of parole if the only threat for a violation would be a return to prison for 90 days.
Judge Gamble said:
I would only add that every time we create an additional chunk of good-time or an additional reduction in the amount of time that needs to be served before...parole eligibility...we are continuing to lie to the public about what we're sentencing people to. This is part of the mixed message thing that Judge Fondi was talking about. I know and you know and Mr. Austin knows and the crook knows that when I give him 10 years he's going to do 2 1/2 or 3. But everybody out there in the public reads the paper and Gamble gave him 10 years. So let's vote for Gamble again because he's tough on crime. And the legislature imposed this 10-year possibility so let's reelect the legislature because they're tough on crime.
Judge Gamble asserted people are not being incarcerated to the extent the public believes. He declared he was not advocating incarceration for longer periods; he asserted there is a need to tell the people the truth about what is actually happening. He added, "The last thing you need to do is take away alternatives in sentencing. The thing you need to do is create more."
Referring to Dr. Austin's statement that everything would be tied to capacity, Judge Gamble alleged, "That's because everything is run by dollars." He averred in order for the justice system to function according to design it cannot always function properly with new methods established due to a "budget crunch."
Senator Callister reported he had heard similar comments from most of the judges with whom he had contact in southern Nevada regarding the original Facilities Capacity Act. He concurred that the public is being handed a disservice when it is suggested that heightened sanctions may serve them well. He said the new revision opposed by the judges is the third item which would give the director the ability to award early release to a select group. He asserted that was a significant shift from the earlier proposal that included every prisoner. He asked if the judges would add additional time to the sentence if they knew the convicted person was going to be eligible for early release. He also asked if the judges felt the savings under the Facilities Capacity Act would then be illusory.
Judge Fondi responded:
We tend, whenever we're confronted with kind of a scenario, to probably increase sentences knowing full well what we want the person to do by way of time. I personally...wouldn't be as offended by a selective 90-day good-time credit to a deserving or an appropriate inmate as I would this across-the-board concept.
We have that to a certain extent already in the ability of the director to give extra good-time for people who perform outstanding service. Sometimes it's very warranted. I think that would make...his job...easier to manage inmates with that carrot to dangle. That is...less offensive to me than the entire across-the-board capacity act.
Judge Fondi said he did not believe there would be any constitutional prohibitions on allowing early release. He pointed out the same type of thing occurs whenever bail is involved.
Judge Gamble stated his concern over the fact no criteria was included in the language of the bill as to who would be selected for early release. He said he was alarmed by the across-the board provision. He suggested the judges' association would not be as rancorous about the early release if it was only granted to nonviolent offenders. He suggested an earlier opinion by the attorney general's staff was in error that criteria could not be set for only those who were deserving and who not be a danger to the public.
Senator Callister asked the judges if they felt the Department of Parole and Probation may face a shortage of personnel if there is a shift away from incarceration. Judge Fondi replied the thought had crossed his mind as he listened to the new proposal. He admitted additional staffing for the Department of Parole and Probation would be more cost-effective than the numbers of personnel required for incarceration. He warned that supervision by the officers becomes less meaningful when their caseloads become too large.
Senator Coffin requested the judges make suggestions regarding crimes for which sentencing could be reduced. Judge Fondi replied he noted the legislature was about to make the killing of a wild horse a felony while the killing of a deer is a gross misdemeanor. He acknowledged the mandatory minimum sentence for third offense or more for driving under the influence (DUI) presents a social problem. He said:
...those mandatory sentences...don't really mean what they say...because if you are a Nevada resident, and you have third offense DUI...if we give you that mandatory 1-year sentence, you go into the prison system and you are processed and go through the initial 30- to 40-day...60-day evaluation to determine whether you are an alcoholic and subject to treatment.... Then you are placed...under house arrest where you have residential confinement, which you pay for yourself.... We tell everybody...that...we're really tough on this, but we're really telling them one thing and doing another. I think we ought be truthful with them as to what we're doing.
We enact statutes in the trafficking of controlled substances which require mandatory, minimum prison sentences, the smallest of which is 3 years...and a fine of $50,000...for a person convicted of the lowest level of trafficking in a controlled substance. Those are outrageous. Most of the people that we deal with couldn't pay a $50,000 fine in a lifetime, and the problem is predicated upon a greater problem which is drugs in our society. And it's a legislative reaction to attempt to manage it. But it isn't working.
Judge Gamble responded:
Last session you...put a loophole in the mandatory minimum on DUI causing death or substantial bodily harm, and that gives us a tool that we can use in those special cases where a person just, on a one-shot deal for their lifetime, made a terrible error and hurt somebody. You gave us the ability to do what people hire us to do, and that's exercise discretion in taking care of these problems. If you give us that leeway, then we can send...the ones that need to be sent and not send the ones that don't need to be sent. ....I'd like to know if there has ever been one of those trafficking fines collected. ....The people we see on trafficking charges are frequently mules who are going to make $750 for the transfer, and here they are getting fined $70,000 and they've got a public defender. There's some inconsistency there.
Judge Gamble reiterated, "The more discretion you give us, the more ability we have to control who goes and who doesn't."
Senator Coffin asked if the judges could compile a list of the changes that should be considered by the legislature.
Senator Raggio reminded the committee the floor session would begin at 10:30. He told the audience the committee would reconvene later in the day to accommodate those who had not had an opportunity to speak.
Tom Fransway, Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Commissioners, testified in opposition to the Facilities Capacity Act. He described the FCA as a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state. He offered the opinion those serving prison sentences should not be released early.
Mr. Fransway pointed out Humboldt County provides honor camp service to Humboldt, Lander and Pershing counties. He said those in the honor camps are given the opportunity to reconcile their actions as well as to return a service to those who have been harmed.
Mr. Fransway commended the judges for their service and indicated their testimony as experts should be given serious consideration. He acknowledged the difficulties with the budget but suggested "pork barrel" items should be cut while proven successes should be left alone. He stated, "The honor camp system...has proven a success."
Senator Raggio invited Dr. Austin to comment on the suggestion that returning a parole-violator for only 90 days would make a mockery of parole. Dr. Austin answered that most technical violators who are returned to prison serve an average of 8 months. He acknowledged the concern over those who are being revoked for serious crimes. He declared, "If we have evidence that they are
committing serious crimes, let's prosecute and get them sentenced to an appropriate prison term."
Senator Raggio pointed out that would not help the bed-capacity problem and it would add the cost of a new prosecution. Dr. Austin replied:
If these people are not committing serious crimes, that's our judgement. Now...most of these people are not committing serious crimes.... We looked at case records.... They are engaging in behaviors that typically are, you get a local jail term or you get put on probation. You don't get put in prison....
Senator Raggio voiced his concern regarding the specific actions being recommended. He recognized there had been an across-the-board displeasure with the original proposal set forth in S.B. 338. He acknowledged the attempt to change that. He said:
What troubles me is that I'm afraid the numbers that you're projecting out of action number one, reducing the parole technical violators by 50 percent and reducing the probation technical violators by 40 percent...that that's more illusory than real.
Referring to comments by the judges, Senator Raggio stated he found it difficult to accept that the desired result could be achieved. He noted that the probation officer takes the violator into court only when he has become so exasperated he can find no other way to handle the situation. He suggested the new proposal may sound more appealing but in actuality it would be the same proposal as that in the original bill except for the exclusion of those who have committed more serious offenses.
Dr. Austin responded he was basing his conclusions on mathematical estimates. He conceded there was a question regarding the commitment of government to pursue changes in organizational behavior and whether it could be accomplished. He read a list of technical violations from a specific case which included failure to maintain verifiable residence, failure to maintain employment, failure to participate in drug testing and counseling programs and violation of house-arrest program. He said the person was returned to prison for 7 months and then discharged. He admitted the person was a problem, but he did not believe incarceration was necessary for him.
Calling on his 18 years' experience as a prosecutor, Senator Raggio stated his belief in a statement that "the only real deterrent to crime is the threat of real punishment." Senator Raggio said:
We are going to suggest by this kind of proposal that there's little or no punishment if you are convicted, if you are granted probation you don't have to follow the rules because it's only a technical violation, and we're not going to do anything about it because we're too crowded. Those kind of things all add up to a real problem for society.
A discussion ensued on a recent 60 Minutes television presentation on the early release program in Florida. Dr. Austin explained the Florida situation was different from that being proposed in Nevada.
Dr. Austin concluded:
The judge hit it right on the head. Mandatory minimums, which take away the discretion from the judges...is causing problems of enormous difficulty across our country in prison populations. So I have to come in because of these laws that have been passed by the legislature. We've got to find ways to try to control the budgets.... We've got to let the criminal justice system do what it's supposed to do, which is make decisions on a discretionary basis. If you were to get rid of your mandatory minimums...you wouldn't have a crowding problem.
Senator Raggio inquired if Dr. Austin was saying he preferred to not have to offer the suggestions. Dr. Austin responded:
I prefer to have a good criminal justice system where the judges are free to do what they need to do on an individual basis, where probation officers can do the right thing, where parole officers can do the right thing, where the parole board does the right thing, where people are doing things based on sound judgement, not on politics.
Mr. Angelone interjected:
We are asked to revisit an $88 million budget. The initial plan under the Department of Prisons solely being the Department of Prisons the only type of programs I could massage and change to reach $88 million I came and presented the Facility Capacity Act, which under my power was to save money. I had to release inmates during the last few months of incarceration.
It was felt by this committee, by many other people, no, we don't want to do that. I revisited what can we...change...to keep an $88 million budget.... I know we...are trying to make probation and parole officers make decisions that are going to govern them to do things they wouldn't normally. I don't think so. I think as we look at it now what we've said is every probation and parole officer is out there independently making decisions on different cases, and they must all be right because everybody's saying they're doing it without guidelines, without indexes, they're just doing it.... I think they're doing a good job. I think they can do the same job under other indexes.
Mr. Angelone cited the example of a person who had been on parole for 20 years and was returned to prison from another state for a technical violation because he could not afford stamps to report to his parole officer. The person cost the prison system $50,000 in medical costs within one week. Mr. Angelone suggested there were ways in which teamwork would allow keeping such people out of prison. He agreed that it is cheaper to supervise people out of prison than to incarcerate them.
Pointing to the first page of Exhibit C, Mr. Angelone said:
The reason why number 5 has question marks is because I want to make sure you all understand the Governor would never want to dictate any type of mandate on the parole board.... When you appoint a parole board you appoint them to make the decisions.... The idea is to save $23
million from our budget, run a decent prison system that's constitutional, and keep the public safe from anybody committing violent crime out in the community and make sure there's a bed for them. I think we're doing that with this total plan.
Senator Raggio reiterated his fear somebody would be hurt by a person who had been released early. Senator Callister interjected there had been a guarantee from an expert against an increase in the crime rate.
Senator Coffin asked when Mr. Angelone had been given new budget projections with instructions to meet them. Mr. Angelone replied it had been in October of 1992 and by December he had formulated the facilities capacity scenario.
When asked what budget he had submitted prior to that time, Mr. Angelone replied:
We never did. This...budget cycle was the best of the worst in which we were given a figure and said `This is your figure, you build your budget.' Which I like. I didn't like the numbers, but at least I liked the principal....
Senator Coffin responded, "Usually it's the other way around. Usually you come up with a budget based on what you think you need to do your job."
Mr. Angelone acknowledged he had just been informed by his chief of fiscal services the department had originally submitted a budget for $109 million.
Senator Callister said:
I want to make sure I get on the record...what legislatively would need to be done, because...much of this is kind of an administrative change of philosophy. I would certainly characterize items 1 and 2 as that. Am I correct in assuming that the new item 3, which is the 90-day good-time credit maximum available for nonviolent minimum and medium inmates would require some legislative approval? So we'll need a bill draft that would do that.
Mr. Angelone replied that was correct.
Senator Callister continued:
Secondly, the item 4, the consolidation, would require either a bill draft or...I don't know how the chair's going to deal with other consolidation issues.... But that would be the only two items that arguably would need some legislative change.
Mr. Angelone answered that, too, was correct.
Senator Callister declared:
I think it would be inappropriate...of me not to recognize and applaud publicly what I think is the leadership that the Governor is demonstrating here today. ...Someone needs to say we must reconsider this state's fiscal policy in relationship to this state's incarceration policy.... I think the message that's being sent today to parole board members, to probation board members, to legislators is the same one that I'm hearing...which is...reconsider your incarceration policy.
Senator Callister asserted the plan presented by Dr. Austin was in direct response to the committee's request for a focused program with the least risk to the population.
Jerry Maple, Sheriff, Douglas County, stated:
I believe it is time that we went back to the basics where public safety is concerned. We must be reminded that providing for the physical security of our citizens is the very first responsibility of government. It's the reason that government was established.
Sheriff Maple asserted that the state is only as strong as the law enforcement agencies that protect it. He said, "The quality of life we hear so much about is hanging by a mere thread unless you, as public servants, go back to the basics. The quality of life we have in the future may be considerably less than we had hoped for." He suggested that investing in law enforcement, including prisons and officers, is economically sound.
Sheriff Maple offered support for the honor camp system. He voiced his understanding that it is much cheaper to keep a person in an honor camp than behind bars. He suggested putting more people in honor camps as a method of reducing the prison population. He said Douglas County had only experienced a few minor problems with those from honor camps. He opined the honor camp system allowed a way for the offender to repay society.
John Jantos, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Lyon County Chapter, read a letter (Exhibit D) in opposition to S.B. 338. The members of the Lyon County Chapter of MADD calculated that 1,100 medium security male inmates would qualify for the "305 house arrest" program and thus suggested its expansion.
Senator Raggio announced he would recess the committee until after the floor session. He asked those who wished to testify to return at that time. He recessed the meeting at 10:35 a.m.
At 11:57 Senator Raggio called the meeting back to order. He announced it was a continuation of the hearing on S.B. 338.
Robert Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), testified SNEA was concerned over the proposed closure of the honor camps.
Mr. Gagnier stated those who deserve to be out of prison should be released whether the prison is full or not, and if the person should be in prison that is where he belongs. He asserted the number of beds available should never be a factor. He alleged it puts correctional personnel in a very bad position if they cannot enforce rules and regulations due to a lack of beds.
Mr. Gagnier said SNEA opposes the proposal to combine the Department of Parole and Probation with the Department of Prisons. He reiterated members of SNEA who work in the Department of Parole and Probation believe the consolidation would totally destroy their ability to work with their clients.
Mr. Gagnier brought to mind that a large number of parole and probation positions authorized by the last legislature had not been filled. He pointed out he had not heard how many officers would be added to make up the deficit and for the additional work load to implement the FCA proposal.
Tom J. Grady, Nevada League of Cities, offered a written statement (Exhibit E) regarding S.B. 338. He directed his remarks to the new "Plan B." He alleged that anyone who violated parole had violated the trust of the people.
Mr. Grady read an article from the March issue of Reader's Digest entitled "When Criminals Go Free" written by a Texas district court judge. The article alleged two-thirds of all convicted criminals in the United States eventually are placed on probation and that 43 percent are rearrested within 3 years.
Robert S. Hadfield, Nevada Association of Counties, indicated that some factors are missed when the committee gets involved in a discussion of numbers. He pointed out a model system had been developed throughout the state in which inmates of the honor camps do productive work in communities.
Mr. Hadfield asserted the honor camp inmates "provide the backbone of the fire fighting response mechanism that this state has for the public lands and the watershed of our state which are critical to the...future development of our urban areas as well as tourism in our rural areas." He stated he did not want those services to be forgotten during the discussions.
Mr. Hadfield said the maintenance service performed by honor camp inmates to the state parks will be lost if the camps are closed. He reminded the committee those services would have to be provided from some other mechanism if the honor camps are closed.
Mr. Hadfield recalled he had heard that there was a 90-day early-release program already in use in the honor camps. He stated his belief honor camp inmates who perform fire fighting services are eligible for 90-day leave for emergencies. He asked how that would fit into the picture.
Mr. Hadfield asked the committee to consider the partnership that exists between the state and the counties. He averred the savings enacted by the legislature for the state are often passed along to the counties. He indicated the counties would probably have to bear the costs of additional trials for early-release violators. He admitted the state pays for the judges, but he pointed out the counties pay the costs for arrests, processing and jail.
Mr. Hadfield added many of those people wind up on the social service rolls, the medical indigent rolls and become the responsibility of the counties. He said:
While you may save bed costs and the costs that come with caring for the inmates while they're in there, some of those costs continue and are borne by other people. A.B. 488, which will release prisoners for humanitarian purposes, is being done to release the financial obligation to the state.
ASSEMBLY BILL (A.B.) 488: Provides for expedited release from prison of terminally ill or physically incapacitated prisoners.
Mr. Hadfield declared the counties want to be legitimate partners with the State of Nevada and want the system to work. However, he said, when the counties are excluded from the dialogue or the shift in costs is not recognized by the proponents, the counties have great concern. He pointed out the counties will have to contribute $46 million in matching medical indigent funds to help balance the state budget.
Mr. Hadfield asserted the Department of Prisons should inform the legislature what the costs to local governments will be if costs are cut in the penal system so that legislators can evaluate the entire picture. He noted the counties do not have control over the numbers for human resources, the budget, or other factors that will impact county budgets and cannot estimate daily costs, whereas the state agencies can give estimates of costs per day.
Mr. Hadfield urged the committee to keep in mind that those in the honor camps are doing productive work that not only helps the state and local communities but also helps themselves. He concurred with comments made by Judges Fondi and Gamble with regard to their concerns for the system.
Mr. Angelone acknowledged inmates of honor camps do receive up to 90 days in good-time credit for fire suppression. He said that program was included in the budget and the program would continue for the Stewart, Indian Springs and Silver Springs honor camps. He said the figures for the inmates of honor camps that would be closed had been removed from the budget because those inmates would no longer be given the opportunity to fight fires.
In response to a query by Senator Raggio, Mr. Angelone said the inmates of the honor camps that will remain would be entitled to both early-release programs.
Senator Callister asked Mr. Hadfield what budgets he would cut and what sources of revenue he could recommend in order to keep the rural honor camps open.
Mr. Hadfield replied he had sent out a letter to each senator in which he explained why the $3.64 cap on county government would not work. He said:
Because of that an ad valorem tax is not of any use to anybody because, if it's anybody else than counties, we have to lower our tax rates throughout the state in order for someone else to raise theirs.
Mr. Hadfield pointed out there are five counties that are already at $3.64, so any state increase would cause them to lower their rates. He said legislation has been proposed to raise the $3.64 cap to exclude voter-approved bonded indebtedness and state indebtedness. He explained that would mean neither state nor school district debts would be funded at the expense of local government operating rates.
Mr. Hadfield acknowledged that the result of a state property tax increase would still be an increase in property tax. When Senator Callister asked if Mr. Hadfield felt such a tax should be increased to keep the honor camps open, Mr. Hadfield replied:
This is such an important issue with our membership that if the State of Nevada, after you go through the budget...collectively, and you can't make these numbers work, my personal opinion is that it's penny-wise and pound-foolish that you pay me now, pay me later, that you will have such a problem in 1995 that this session will look easy.
Mr. Hadfield stated, "You need a broader revenue base, and if it were possible...the sales tax should have never come off food."
He declared that was his personal opinion. He stated, "You have so many little tax bases, to go to just one doesn't solve the problem for anybody."
Senator Callister asked:
The answer...would be to broaden it by either going to a sales tax on food or to a statewide property tax, given an exclusion from invasion of the $3.64 cap which would be dedicated to school districts and local?
Senator Callister explained he wanted to know what Mr. Hadfield's recommendation would be. Mr. Hadfield replied, "Broaden the tax base and raise the taxes to do it."
Senator O'Donnell asked Mr. Angelone what percentage of prisoners come from urban areas. Mr. Angelone estimated approximately 81 percent of all those entering the prison system come from Clark County.
Senator O'Donnell suggested that approximately 80 percent would return to Clark County if the honor camps were closed. Mr. Angelone responded that if the camps were closed the inmates would be sent to prisons, one in Clark County. Senator O'Donnell asked if it was fair to assume that about 80 percent of those that would be released would return to their "native urban area." Mr. Angelone admitted a percentage of them would return there.
Senator O'Donnell submitted that the $23 million cost to keep the honor camps open would essentially prevent the prisoners from returning to the urban areas. Mr. Angelone replied, "That's not the reason to keep the camps open. I hope that wouldn't be the reason."
Senator O'Donnell said:
What I'm saying is, you have an additional 1,000 beds that you can move people around in. If those additional 1,000 beds are kept open, then that means that those prisoners aren't going back to Washoe County and they're not going back to Clark County.
Mr. Angelone replied, "That's absolutely correct."
Senator Jacobsen offered the opinion Mr. Angelone appeared to be reluctant to appear before subcommittee meetings. He asked what had prompted "Plan B" and when it had been decided upon. Mr. Angelone replied:
I've never been invited to a committee meeting that I didn't show up to, and if it fell through the cracks I'm awful sorry that the department or myself was not here for any meeting.
Second, I was asked by this committee...or what I interpreted both in committee meetings, subcommittee meetings, and lo and behold, what I read in the newspaper being said by elected officials. And with all that it was said that the Facilities Capacity Act, as it stood, was in the eyes of some elected official not acceptable; that people were fearful for public safety; and that it was not going to happen.
We brought NCCD in, which is the nonprofit organization that for the past 8 years has helped us predict the number of beds in our 7-year plan, and we've done an awful good job with it, to look at any other method in which we would still keep within our budgeted figures that were given to us, have people in a...nonviolent environment, not back in prison, and still save the 1,000 beds and the $23 million those 1,000 beds cost.
That's how `Plan B' developed. It was not something that was in somebody's pocket before, it was just from hearing from this committee collectively, individually, and I developed it with NCCD based on how we could turn 1,000 around and make sure that they were nonviolent people that would be targeted, and not violent people.
Senator Jacobsen stated he, as subcommittee chairman, had been informed by the Department of Prisons that he would have to give Mr. Angelone 10-days notice prior to a visit to an honor camp by the senate subcommittee members. He said he had been informed that "I couldn't take any civilians with the subcommittee" and that the lieutenants at the honor camps had been instructed to be absent when the senators visited. He said he did not understand the procedure. He pointed out he was a friend of the prison system and the legislators were not on a "witch hunt." He speculated employees had been "muzzled."
Mr. Angelone responded, "I don't think that's true, senator, and I'd like to respond to that. That's a damned lie."
Senator Jacobsen related he had toured all the honor camps and prisons over the past few years on a regular basis. He expressed concern that the forest service employees and their families had not been informed as to their future employment. He acknowledged that was not due to anything that the Department of Prisons controlled. He suggested that the $23 million could be raised by a tax of 10 cents on each package of cigarettes. He said he would support a cigarette-tax or a property-tax increase to support the honor camps.
Senator Jacobsen referred to charts in his office which indicate the investment in the honor camps including personnel, value of equipment, and costs to "mothball" the camps. He insinuated some information was lacking which made it difficult to arrive at a solution.
Mr. Angelone acknowledged that Senator Jacobsen is the "greatest champion of our conservation-camp program of any official" and a supporter of the Department of Prisons. He explained:
The lieutenants were told, because of the weekends, that you were going, and due to the Fair Labor Standards Act, they could not be there at the camp, but they could be anyplace else...if they wanted.
Three, I...asked if I could have one of the officials from the department level that knows the total picture go along because there are people with their own prejudice in any department. When they're going to lose their job or be moved to another part of the state they're going to give a slanted view. And it's only fair that the department's total picture would have been seen. Never did the department lie, never did the department tell people they could not talk. I have never disciplined an employee, and I'm finishing my fourth year as director, I've been here 8 years. I've never disciplined an employee for saying anything to anybody. I just tell them to be accountable for what they say....
I have nothing to hide. I am trying to put a budget together that I was given $85 million to do. I'm doing it.... I don't have the other $25 [million]. If I had it...I'd produce it....
Mr. Angelone declared the proposal was the safest program he could provide with the $88 million. He denied that he had ever asked anyone to lie or deceive or muzzle anyone.
Senator Jacobsen responded he had not talked with Mr. Angelone but he had received many calls and letters making allegations and expressing concern.
Senator Coffin asked if the cost of additional parole and probation officers was included under "Plan B." Mr. Angelone replied he had not because he did not feel it was prudent to do so until there was some sort of consensus on the proposed reorganization. He acknowledged that should be studied if the plan is accepted. Senator Coffin opined the information should be made available in order for the senators to make a determination on the plan.
Senator Coffin said he would like to know how many more officers would be needed if the plan was implemented. Mr. Angelone said he would confer with Chief Wyett to ascertain how many officers would be necessary. Senator Raggio asked him to do so as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Grady interjected:
Elko Mayor Polkinghorn had to leave early.... He would like to go on record as being very, very opposed to this legislation.
Senator Coffin asked Mr. Angelone if the notification policy to victims would have to be changed regarding those who would be eligible for early release if the legislation should pass. He asked if statutory modification would be necessary. Mr. Angelone replied he did not believe so, that it would continue on as is. Because of the "quick scenario," Senator Coffin asked if "Plan B" would give enough time to inform the victims. Mr. Angelone said his department would know 30 days in advance at which time the victims would be notified.
Senator O'Donnell said he had received a letter and a petition which he wanted entered into the record. He read:
I am writing this letter to you because I strongly oppose the Facility Capacity Act. My 25-year-old daughter...was murdered in a double homicide in February of 1992. The alleged murderer was out on parole when this tragedy occurred. He was sentenced to a life sentence for sexual assault.
He went to prison on May of 1982 and was paroled in October of 1989. This is a life sentence? Had he served at least 10 years my daughter would be alive today.
We must stop releasing violent criminals from prison. We must have truth in sentencing. We must stop letting criminals use our justice system like a revolving door.
I have collected 1,200 signatures in just one week. These people all agree that we should not be releasing violent criminals on an early release program. They are all against Governor Miller's Facilities Capacity Act.
I am hoping that you can convey this message to the Governor.
Senator O'Donnell did not read the name of the scrivener since the court case is still pending.
The petition (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.) against early release contained approximately 1,200 signatures.
Glenn Van Roekel, Director of Community Development, City of Caliente, voiced opposition to the proposed legislation and to "Plan B." He agreed the issue is controversial and often appears in the media. He said "Plan B" sounds like a plan in Texas and he related incidents that have occurred there attributed to the early release of prisoners.
Mr. Van Roekel expressed his concern over the imminent loss of 26 jobs at the Pioche honor camp. He said there are no other jobs in the area, so the families will have to leave the area. There are 44 children in the school at Pioche from those families, and the loss of the honor camp will force the closure of the school.
Mr. Van Roekel pointed out when the new Highway 318 opened in 1982 it bypassed Pioche and Caliente with a loss of 80 percent of the vehicular traffic. He said the result was that it reduced the number of business licenses in Caliente by 50 percent in 1984. He noted a proposed women's prison in Pioche never came to fruition. The promise to build up the honor camp at Pioche with an appropriation of $4 million made by the 1991 legislature was taken away after it had gone to bid.
Mr. Van Roekel added his support to Senator Jacobsen's suggestion to impose a 10-cent tax on cigarettes or find some other way to retain the honor camps. He said:
If this act passes you will not see the cities of Caliente or Pioche...come back here anymore because we'll be a ghost town. We just can't handle any more of this kind of a situation.... We're not...just urging the camp to stay in the area because we love the services it provides local government.... There are five state parks. Those parks have over a million visitors out of Las Vegas come visit every year. Those parks don't have a maintenance budget.
Mr. Van Roekel stated the five state parks in Lincoln County are all maintained by the honor camp crews. He indicated the million visitors will be very disappointed when the parks deteriorate because the state budget does not provide for their maintenance.
Stan Wallis, City Councilman, City of Caliente, asked what impact the Facilities Capacity Act would have on the gaming industry because of the high crime rate in Nevada and because of the proliferation of gaming in other states. He suggested gaming revenues may decrease.
Mr. Wallis agreed it may be difficult to find funding and suggested projects such as the construction of a new building in Las Vegas could be put off for two years.
Senator Callister explained the new office building will be paid over a 20-year period through a bond issue. He said that would not provide the needed $23 million. He asked both gentlemen what source of revenue they could recommend not only for the coming biennium but for the future, or what should be cut from the budget.
Mr. Van Roekel reiterated the tax on cigarettes would be one solution. He stated Utah uses state employees on road crews at a lower cost than the cost for wages paid by private contractors in Nevada, and he asserted the roads are better than those in Nevada.
Senator Callister responded Utah has a state income tax and a property tax that is nearly double that in Nevada. He added Utah does not rely heavily on discretionary spending.
Mr. Van Roekel repeated his suggestion that the cigarette tax be considered. He said the citizens of the City of Caliente had supported such a tax 2 years ago.
George Sh Yan, Mayor, City of Wells, presented testimony (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.) in opposition to S.B. 338. He attached a chart to his testimony that indicated 62.5 percent of those released from United States prisons had been rearrested, 46.8 percent were reconvicted and 41.4 percent reincarcerated.
Mr. Yan added "Plan B" could greatly impact the checks and balances in the system. He felt separation of the system should be maintained. He suggested it was not prudent to close the honor camps if more prisoners were going to be released early under the FCA. He declared the primary concern of the legislature should be public safety and deterrence of crime, not the number of beds.
Nancy Tiffany, Operations Supervisor, Department of Parole and Probation, declared she had come forward to express her own opinions, not those of the department. She explained she oversees the release and parole of inmates as well as the residential confinement program of DUI offenders under the "305" program.
Ms. Tiffany opined the consolidation of the Department of Prisons with the Department of Parole and Probation would present a conflict of interest. She said:
On many occasions I've been pressured by Nevada Department of Prisons employees to do releases, to approve people that I did not feel was appropriate. I felt it was a violation of public safety.
I was able to go to my supervisors with my concerns and stop those releases until an appropriate plan could take place, or disapprove them for "305." If my bosses are the Department of Corrections and they need bed space, they're free to tell me, "No. We don't care about your concerns. You will either do it or you have no job here."
Ms. Tiffany said she was also concerned that the State Board of Parole Commissioners could no longer send a parolee back to prison for up to 3 years on a revocation. The proposal would cap the return at 3 months. She said she had seen many violent offenders commit new violent crimes. She offered to show the members of the committee files that demonstrated her allegations.
Ms. Tiffany asserted:
A problem will come up with their prosecution...and the prosecution will go forward on a new rape or a new murder or a new serious crime like armed robbery. They are then returned to the prison on what is frequently being termed today just a technical violation.
I think it's a real slap in the face to the victims of those new crimes to find out that the person's only going to be revoked for 3 months.
Ms. Tiffany explained she often talks to the victims and she see their "enormous" pain. She said they are outraged when they learn that the perpetrator is out on parole.
Ms. Tiffany referred to anecdotal information presented earlier by Mr. Angelone in which he told of a parolee who had been returned to prison because the man could not afford stamps. Ms. Tiffany agreed the man had cost the State of Nevada a great deal of money. She recounted:
He was also on a life parole for murder. He was being supervised through another state, and he announced that he was not going to report anymore, he was not going to be supervised. That other state asked the Department of Parole and Probation to take him back and get him out of their state, because he won't cooperate.
He was there under the terms of the federal Interstate Compact Agreement between states. We had no choice but to bring him back to prison. He refused to come voluntarily. That was our first choice.... When he refused he had to be brought back in custody, returned to the Department of Prisons and brought before the parole board.
I don't consider that a frivolous return or just a technical. Whoever he murdered, I'm sure their family would be very insulted by the notion that he should be allowed to remain out-of-state and announce that he's not going to report anymore because he's old and sick.
Dave Wyble, President, State of Nevada Peace Officers Association, said he represented 150 parole and probation officers statewide. He called attention to the numerous communications that had been sent to the senators regarding the matter of the merger.
Mr. Wyble said the association is not against any type of merging. He acknowledged the necessity to reduce spending. However, he stated that the association has a problem merging with the Department of Prisons. He declared that bedspace should not be a consideration to place parole and probation into the new department. He asserted:
It will diminish the responsibilities of the officers to the courts.... The technical...violations...that are serious in nature, who would know better than a parole and probation officer that is supervising the individual on the street. If a parole and probation officer is not making a just decision...the judges and the parole board decide if that person is returned either to the prison or is sentenced to prison or jail.
Mr. Wyble acknowledged the pressures "to find bedspace, to get people out any way you can" during his 17 years of corrections experience.
Mr. Wyble opposed "Plan B" and requested a public hearing on the matter.
Frank Paluch, Concerned Citizen, came forward to say he was unable to attend meetings often and he had come just to listen. However, he said, he was concerned over what he had heard during the day. He averred the honor camps are important and should be kept open. He suggested they save money in the long run.
Senator Raggio produced a letter to be entered into the record from the Lander County Board of Commissioners (Exhibit H) opposing closure of the honor camps .
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
May 21, 1993
Page 1