Department of Corrections
Draper, Utah
Wednesday, October 23, 2002
11:30am - 1:00pm
| MEMBERS PRESENT: | CMSN STAFF: |
|
Michael Zimmerman, Chair
|
Sandra Kinoshita |
| MEMBERS ABSENT: David Biggs John Nielsen Paul Boyden Sheriff Brad Slater Cmsnr Bob Flowers Anthony Smith Dan Maldonado Judge Bill Thorne Judge Tyrone Medley Deidre Tyler Haruko Moriyasu Carolina Webber
|
1. WELCOME, REVIEW OF MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING, & AGENDA REVIEW: (Michael Zimmerman)
Lunch was served. David Gomez from the Department of Corrections welcomed the Commission to DOC. Justice Zimmerman called the meeting to order. The minutes from Meeting #10 were approved without further amendment.
Follow-up discussion from the Board of Pardons and Parole' s September presentation:
2. 2003 COMMISSION PRIORITIES (Michael Zimmerman)
Background: At the August meeting, members discussed choosing a few projects for the Commission to work collectively on in 2003. By concentrating our efforts and influence, we can affect change. The Racial Profiling Bill is an example.
Discussion: The thirteen priorities submitted by Subcommittees (see purple handout) were reviewed. Forty-five minutes of extensive dialogue on the Racial Profiling legislation provided a necessary and informative exchange on the realities and perceptions of the law. It is also reflected in the prioritization by the group.
Law enforcement are not behind the law, finding loopholes, feeling targeted and unfairly singled out (eg. Citizens have the option to self-report their race/gender, but an officer is mandated to record their own info).
Discussion uncovered much misinformation and missing information by law enforcement and the community as a whole.
Kal Farr read portions of an email from Mike Haddon (researcher at CCJJ). The Commission requested that Mike Haddon from CCJJ and Russ Van Vleet from the Social Research Institute meet together with the Commission to discuss the constraints of the Racial Profiling legislation. Please refer to Meeting 8 Minutes, when Russ gave a preliminary warning about the racial profiling/data collection:
From the May minutes:
Racial Profiling Bill: The Research Consortium at the UofU has raised the issue that the data collected as defined by HB101 may not provide sufficient data to study the issues warranted. The group is pleased with the collaboration and contribution of the law enforcement agencies, and they want to assist law enforcement agencies to better collect data. The Consortium would like to report their progress to the Commission at a later date. They would also like to examine the constraints experienced by New Jersey, and bring this information to the Commission. Issues raised: what to do with data after it is collected; comparisons in a " neutral" zone (ie. disproportionate stops on highways?).
This law only addresses law enforcement (entry to the system), and the Commission wants to examine the multiple other areas of the legal system (through exit). Research has shown that the disproportion of people of color in the system only INCREASES as a person goes further into the system. HB101 only provides the first step, of many, to truly examine these issues. Brent Johnson volunteered to give a written background of the need and support for data collection; Ed McConkie volunteered a CCJJ PowerPoint presentation on what can/not be done with the legislation. Brent Johnson also volunteered to speak to law enforcement groups if a dialogue would be more appropriate educational tool.
It was suggested that the data collection also include a comparison of arrest/non-arrest data
The Commission reinforced its original stance and support of a data collection mechanism- NOT an adversarial dynamic where an officer is forced to self-report their race/gender at each stop and NOT to assign a race or "other" category to those they stop.
Regarding the CJS Complaint Processes category, Commission members combined all three points to make a single priority.
Regarding the Outreach/Recruitment category, Commission members combined the last two points to make a single priority.
Regarding the Indigent Defense category, Commission members added a separate priority: Examining representation of indigent people and people of color and taking this comparison further to study the effects of socioeconomic status and race
Voting:
Process for absent members to vote: Members absent without proxy will be given one week to respond/submit their three priorities via email.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS (Michael Zimmerman)
Commission Resignation: Representative A. Lamont Tyler has retired from the legislature, accepted an assignment abroad, and resigns from the Commission. He has written a letter of thanks to the Commission members (included in materials). The Commission will identify a Representative and a Senator after the November elections. The 2002 seats were held by Rep. Tyler and the late Sen. Pete Suazo.
Annual Report Update: The Commission Highlights and Appendices have been assembled. We are currently working on the Subcommittee descriptions and 2003 Plan. The final section will be the Executive Summary. A draft of the Annual Report will be available to Commission members for comment on November 18th
Utah Sheriffs Association has not submitted their Agency Response document for Section 1 (overdue)
Indigent Defense Subcommittee has not submitted their Subcommittee Report for Section 2 (overdue)
Commission comment period on full draft of 2002 Annual Report will be Nov 18 - Dec 9
THANK YOU to Annual Report Subcommittee members:
Susan Burke, Keith Hamilton, Judge Medley, Haruko Moriyasu, Anthony Smith, and Ken Wallentine (POST)
As the implementation Commission, our primary charge continues to be implementation of Task Force recommendations. PLEASE keep your agency response docs an internal priority in your agency, as they will be published in each Annual Report of this Commission.
It was commented that the current stages of the Annual Report are not user-friendly or understandable to the general public. The Subcommittee will address this. It was also suggested that we give a history of the Task Force and the recommendations, to give context to the Agency Responses.
It was also decided that if any "red flags" are detected in Agency Response documents, the Annual Report Subcommittee (specifically, Keith Hamilton or Ken Wallentine) will contact the agency representative directly to discuss them. However, the subcommittee primarily edited only for format, grammar, and spelling. The Commission comment period from Nov 18 - Dec 9 is time for agencies to provide updates/changes/edits for the Report.
Advisory Council:
Executive Committee election on November 5th (leadership for two years)
The Advisory Council identified their goals for 2003:
#1 Develop outreach strategies to communities
#2 Advise; Give feedback, recommendations, and solutions to the Commission
#3 Educate and dialogue to increase the Advisory Council's understanding of the criminal justice system
#4 Identify systemic problems
Agency Involvement at future meetings: In response to #3- Corrections, Attorney General' s Office, Board of Pardons & Parole, Multicultural Legal Center, and the Bar have presented to the Advisory Council. CCJJ has volunteered to conduct education on systemic issues (eg. Plea negotiations, sentencing guidelines, etc). CCJJ would like suggestions/topics of interest from the Advisory Council. They can also facilitate and organize panels/speakers.
4. UPDATE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION (Ed McConkie):
Ed McConkie postponed his update on the DHS implementation efforts because the meeting went overtime. He will present at the November meeting.
5. NEXT MEETING DETAILS (Michael Zimmerman)
The next Commission meeting will be on Wednesday November 27, 2002
11:30am - 1:00pm
at the Law & Justice Center (hosted by CCJJ)
6. ADJOURNMENT: (Michael Zimmerman)
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 1:20p.m.
Special thank you to Mike Chabries, David Gomez and the Department of Corrections for hosting this Commission meeting.