The County of Santa Clara
California

Report
83351
Approved as Amended
Oct 4, 2016 9:00 AM

Under advisement from June 7, 2016 (Item No. 13): Consider recommendations relating to the Bail and Release Work Group Consensus Report on Optimal Pretrial Justice (BRWG Report).

Information

Department:County CounselSponsors:
Category:Report

Multiple Recommendations

Possible action:
a. Receive BRWG Report.
b. Approve recommendations for referral to Administration and/or public agency partners.
c. Approve cessation of the Bail and Release Work Group.

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no fiscal implications associated with receiving the BRWG Report.  Approving the BRWG Report’s recommended referrals would result in costs associated with implementing the specific referrals.  These costs would be addressed and brought to the Board of Supervisors separately as part of each relevant implementation plan.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Bail and Release Work Group (BRWG) was created by the Board of Supervisors to develop community consensus on and recommend best practices for ensuring efficiency and fairness in the pretrial process.  The BRWG examined the pre-adjudication processes of incarceration, bail, release screening, and supervision of criminal defendants in Santa Clara County, neighboring jurisdictions, and other jurisdictions around the country.  Thus, the BRWG’s focus included, but was not limited to, an examination of practices relating to money bail.  The BRWG also reviewed literature on best practices for pretrial justice, and consulted with both local and national subject-matter experts. 

The BRWG first reviewed a draft of the BRWG Report prepared by staff in February 2016.  Between February and August 2016, the BRWG met several times to receive public comment and provide direction to staff for further research and development of the BRWG Report.  Staff also held two public forums to receive feedback from representatives of the bail bond industry.  Additionally, with the Board’s approval, the BRWG extended its term by 60 days to allow time for the bail bond industry to prepare and present two written responses to the draft BRWG Report, which industry representatives presented at the BRWG’s most recent meeting on August 26, 2016.  At that meeting, following further public comment and discussion, the BRWG unanimously voted to approve the 18 recommendations contained in the Report, with some modifications based on bail industry feedback, and to forward them to the Board for review and approval.

All of the County’s criminal justice system agency stakeholders participated in the BRWG.  A letter highlighting their support for these recommendations is attached.  In addition, both Administration and County Counsel concur with the BRWG’s recommendations.

A.              Goals of the BRWG Recommendations

The BRWG’s recommendations are intended to balance two primary goals: (1) to protect the safety of the community, and (2) to reduce costly and unnecessary pretrial incarceration by facilitating the release of pretrial defendants who can safely be released. 

Article I, section 12 of the California Constitution grants individuals who have been arrested and/or charged for a suspected criminal offense a right to “be released on bail by sufficient sureties,” with exceptions for the most serious crimes and cases involving serious threats to safety.  The right to “bail by sufficient sureties” is not a right to a commercial bail bond – that is, a surety bond posted for a fee by a bail bond agent.  Instead, what the California Constitution guarantees is a right to obtain release secured by some sufficient guarantee or assurance, which under the law could include the deposit of cash, a financial guarantee by any third party, or simply a promise to appear.[1] 

California law gives judges the discretion to make these bail and release decisions for defendants who are awaiting resolution of their criminal charges. The County is unique among California counties in having a dedicated Office of Pretrial Services that assists judges with making these decisions by conducting thorough risk assessments of all defendants arrested and detained in the County jails, and providing that assessment information to help the judge determine whether a defendant would pose a low, medium, or high risk of failing to make court appearances and/or engaging in pretrial misconduct if released from custody.  In many low-risk cases, a defendant may be granted an own recognizance (OR) release, which is simply a signed promise to appear at future court dates, with minimal monitoring by the Office of Pretrial Services.  In other cases, a defendant may be granted Supervised OR release, which involves more in-depth supervision by the Office of Pretrial Services to ensure that the defendants makes his or her court appearance, avoids new criminal activity or other misconduct, and obeys all conditions imposed by the court, such as refraining from drug or alcohol use. 

If the court orders a defendant to pay money bail, this can take several forms.  First, those who have financial means can post cash bail by paying 100% of their court-ordered bail amount directly to the court, or can post a property bond by putting up equity in real property that is worth twice the bail amount. In the County, few defendants avail themselves of these direct payment options. Thus, second – and much more commonly – a defendant can obtain a bail bond from a commercial surety bail agent. A bail bond is a contract between the defendant and the bail agent, in which the defendant agrees to pay a non-refundable fee of up to 10% of the court-ordered bail amount to the bail agent – either upfront or in installments – and the bail agent agrees to pay the full bail amount to the court if the defendant fails to make a court appearance. With a bail bond, no money is paid to the court upfront; all that is submitted to the court is the bail agent’s promise to either produce the defendant for all court appearances or pay the court-ordered bail amount.  As discussed below, however, this payment – known as a “bail forfeiture” – occurs very rarely because the process is extremely complex and onerous for the court to carry out.  If forfeiture does occur, the bail agent seeks to recover the full bail amount (in addition to the 10% fee already paid) from the defendant or from the defendant’s co-signers, who are often family or friends. 

Despite the constitutional guarantee of pretrial release, many defendants who can be safely released during the pretrial period are not released at all or are not released promptly.  Incarcerating these defendants imposes unnecessary costs on county governments, undermines defendants’ constitutional rights, and has negative social and economic effects on defendants and their families.  As detailed in the BRWG Report, county governments across the nation spend $9 billion annually on pretrial detention.  After the BRWG held its last meeting in August 2016, staff became aware of a recent study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis, which was “the first to assign an actual dollar amount to the societal costs of incarceration.”  According to one of the study’s authors, “For every dollar in corrections spending, there’s another 10 dollars of other types of costs to families, children and communities” – including visitation costs, moving and/or eviction costs, child welfare costs, lost earnings, loss of social ties leading to recidivism, increased crime rates among children with incarcerated parents, and adverse health effects from incarceration – “that nobody sees because it doesn’t end up on a state budget.”[2]

National research consistently identifies overreliance on money bail as a primary reason for unnecessary pretrial detention.  The BRWG Report uses the term “money bail” to mean any monetary release condition, where the defendant must pay a sum of money in order to obtain release.  The term does not refer solely to the commercial surety bail bonds industry.  This is the predominant system in the United States today, where typically a judge orders release contingent on a monetary bail amount, and the defendant must either directly pay that amount or pay for the services of a bail bond agent to be released. 

Research on best practices indicates that a better approach is to combine evidence-based risk assessments with an array of non-monetary forms of release that better protect public safety while avoiding a system where a person’s ability to be released depends on his or her financial means. Although judges bear the authority and responsibility to make decisions regarding pretrial release, the County has a significant role to play in supporting that decision-making process. As noted above, the County’s Office of Pretrial Services is already a leader in this approach, providing locally validated risk assessments to aid judges in making release determinations and supervising those defendants who are released without money bail.  The BRWG’s recommendations aim to expand upon these existing services and assist the County and its partners in accurately identifying the defendants who can be safely released, ensuring they can obtain release regardless of financial means, and, where necessary, providing supervision or other support to help ensure they attend court and do not reoffend or pose a threat to victims or others in the community.  Even if these alternatives are added to the menu of options available for judges to consider in making pretrial release determinations, judges will retain the discretion to order monetary bail conditions in any cases in which they deem it appropriate.

B.              Categories of Recommendations

The BRWG’s recommendations address many aspects of the pretrial justice system – starting from the point of arrest and continuing through the end of the pretrial period.  Of the 18 recommendations, only two (Recommendations 3 and 5) directly address concerns with the bail bond industry.  The remaining 16 recommendations are intended to improve public safety and facilitate successful pretrial release by:

·        improving efficiency and consistency in the arrest and arraignment processes so that release decisions are made consistently and promptly (Recommendations 9 and 15);

·        giving judges additional tools to protect the community and make safe releases, including expanded programs to supervise and support pretrial defendants, and data reflecting whether different release types ensure court appearance and protect public safety (Recommendations 6, 10, 14, and 18);

·        ensuring that defendants who may safely be released can obtain release, regardless of financial means, by providing them with complete information on all release options; encouraging courts to order pretrial supervision instead of bail; allowing access to more payment options where money bail is ordered; and reevaluating defendants who are unable to post bail for other forms of release (Recommendations 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12);

·        protecting victims of domestic violence by ensuring appropriate pretrial risk assessments are completed and victims are notified in advance of pretrial releases (Recommendations 16 and 17); and

·        ensuring that issues related to pretrial release are taken into account in other ongoing County reform efforts (Recommendations 1 and 13). 

 

C.               Referrals for Implementation Plans

The recommendations in the BRWG Report are described at a high level and are not intended to be implemented immediately.  Instead, approval of the 18 recommendations will result in referrals to County departments, through Administration, for further study and refinement. Any recommendation approved by the Board will be referred to the appropriate department through Administration and/or to a partner agency, which will report back to the Board and other relevant entities with a determination of feasibility and more detailed proposals prior to implementation.  If the Board determines, based on further study and analysis, that a recommendation is not feasible or desirable, the Board may choose not to implement it at that time.

The below Matrix of Recommendations presents the BRWG’s recommendations as proposed referrals to relevant County departments, through Administration, and other involved public agencies, listing each draft recommendation and the affected department(s) and/or agency(ies) in an easy-to-read format. Of note, the Board already approved a Program Manager position in the Office of the County Executive to coordinate implementation of the BRWG’s recommendations.

#

Recommendations for Referral

Department(s)/Agency(ies)

to which Referral would be Sent

1

Incorporate Pretrial Justice-Related Goals into Existing Reform Efforts

Office of the County Executive

Jail Diversion and Behavioral Health Subcommittee of the Reentry Network

Behavioral Health Services Department

Domestic Violence Council

2

Explore Feasibility of Establishing a Public or Nonprofit Alternative to Commercial Bail Bonds

Office of the County Executive

Office of the County Counsel

3

Engage in State Legislative Advocacy on Pretrial Issues

Office of the County Executive

Office of the County Counsel

4

Encourage Increased Reliance on Pretrial Supervision and Discourage the Practice of Ordering Money Bail in Addition to Pretrial Supervision

Office of Pretrial Services

Superior Court

5

Adopt an Ordinance Prohibiting or Limiting Establishment, Expansion, or Relocation of Commercial Bail Bonds in Unincorporated County

Office of the County Counsel

6

Institute a Community Release Project in Partnership with Community-Based Organizations

Office of Pretrial Services

Office of Reentry Services

7

Accept Credit/Debit Payments for Non-Felony Bail at the County Jail

Department of Correction

8

Post Information about OR, Supervised OR, and other Alternatives to Bail Bonds in County Jails

Department of Correction

Office of Pretrial Services

9

Continue to Improve the Promptness of In-Custody Arraignments

Office of the District Attorney

Public Defender’s Office

Office of Pretrial Services

Department of Correction

Superior Court

10

Expand and Formalize Pretrial Diversion

Office of the District Attorney

Public Defender’s Office

Office of Pretrial Services

11

Implement an Electronic Monitoring, Home Detention, and/or Work Furlough Program for Pretrial Inmates

Department of Correction

Office of Pretrial Services

12

Complete Targeted Periodic Re-Reviews of Pretrial Assessments

Office of Pretrial Services

13

Incorporate Pretrial Justice Issues into CJIC Updates

Information Services Department

14

Collect and Share Data on Bail Performance Outcomes

Office of the County Executive

Office of Pretrial Services

15

Improve Consistency of Citation and Release and Jail Citation Decisions

Police Chiefs’ Association

Department of Correction

16

Explore and Employ Domestic Violence-Specific Risk Assessment Tools that are Validated to Avoid Racial Bias

Office of Pretrial Services

Police Chiefs’ Association

17

Explore Means of Notifying Victims when Domestic Violence Defendants are Released Pretrial

Sheriff’s Office

Department of Correction

18

Explore Adoption of In-Field Pretrial Supervision to Provide Additional Safeguards and Protect the Community

Office of Pretrial Services

 

CHILD IMPACT

The recommended action would have a positive impact on children and youth with parents who are involved in the pretrial justice system by developing policies that promote prompt release in appropriate cases, promote public safety, and increase the positive community impacts associated with a fair, evidence-based pretrial justice system.

SENIOR IMPACT

The recommended action would have a positive impact on seniors and/or their families or caretakers who are involved in the pretrial justice system by developing policies that promote prompt release in appropriate cases, promote public safety, and increases the positive community impacts associated with a fair, evidence-based pretrial justice system.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

The recommended action would promote social equity by helping the County and its partners improve the administration of fair, evidence-based pretrial justice.

BACKGROUND

The Board of Supervisors created the BRWG in February 2014 to research, analyze, and recommend improvements to current policies and practices for incarceration, bail, screening, and supervision of criminal defendants, including in cases involving domestic violence-related offenses; review state and national pretrial justice policies and identify best practices; and develop consensus on a set of recommendations for the Board of Supervisors on proposed policy and process reforms in the County.  The BRWG consists of the following members:[3]

·        Cindy Chavez, Board of Supervisors (Chair)

·        James Williams, Acting County Counsel (Vice-Chair)

·        Garry Herceg, Deputy County Executive

·        Jeffrey Rosen, District Attorney

·        Laurie Smith, Sheriff

·        Molly O’Neal, Public Defender

·        Carl Neusel, Interim Chief of Correction

·        Laura Garnette, Chief of Probation

·        Michaelene Reagan, Acting Director of Pretrial Services

·        Greg Iturria, County Budget Director

·        Dennis Burns, Palo Alto Chief of Police, Santa Clara County Police Chiefs’ Association

·        Hon. Risë Pichon, Presiding Judge, Superior Court (non-voting)

·        David Yamasaki, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court

·        Angie Junck, Immigrant Legal Resource Center

·        Raj Jayadev, Silicon Valley De-Bug

·        Zakia Afrin, Maitri

·        Teresa Castellanos, County Office of Human Relations

·        Kathleen Krenek, Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence

·        Jerry Schwarz, American Civil Liberties Union, Mid-Peninsula Chapter

Prior to drafting the attached BRWG Report, staff from the Office of the County Executive and the Office of the County Counsel spent approximately a year conducting research at the request of the BRWG, including obtaining data and information on current practices from each of the County’s public safety and justice departments and the County’s pretrial justice partners; gathering information on practices in neighboring counties and other states; conducting extensive secondary research regarding best practices in pretrial justice; and reaching out to state- and national-level experts on pretrial justice.  The BRWG’s methodology is described in detail in the BRWG Report. 

Staff first presented the draft Report to the BRWG in February 2016.  The BRWG’s review process, which occurred between February and May 2016, included publicly discussing and revising the recommendations drafted by staff based on the BRWG’s research; requesting that staff perform additional research and return with specific new or revised recommendations; soliciting input and feedback from bail industry representatives and other members of the public; and soliciting review by local experts in pretrial justice.

Along with all other members of the public, representatives of the bail bonds industry were given an opportunity to provide public comment at all publicly noticed meetings of the BRWG.  To ensure a full opportunity for bail bonds agents and industry representatives to provide input and information for the BRWG Report while the BRWG was in the process of developing its draft, staff also organized two public forums.  Letters were sent individually inviting every licensed bail agent in Santa Clara County to a staff-led public forum on May 3, 2016.  At the Board’s direction, staff held a second public forum on May 19, 2016 to solicit additional input from interested bail bond industry members.  After the two staff-led public forums, the feedback and information received from the bail industry were incorporated into the BRWG Report. 

At the BRWG meeting on May 31, 2016, and the Board meeting on June 7, 2016, representatives of the bail bonds industry requested additional time to provide input on the BRWG Report and proposed recommendations.  On June 7, 2016, the Board extended the BRWG’s term to September 30, 2016, to provide an additional opportunity for input from the bail industry.  In advance of the August 26, 2016 BRWG meeting, the California Bail Agents Association (CBAA) and the Golden State Bail Agents Association (GSBAA)[4] each provided a written response to the BRWG Report.  The CBAA and GSBAA responses were distributed to the BRWG, and CBAA and GSBAA representatives had an opportunity to present at the August 26, 2016 BRWG meeting.  After hearing those presentations, asking questions, and discussing issues raised in the reports, the BRWG voted to move the eighteen recommendations contained in the BRWG Report forward for approval by the Board of Supervisors, with modifications to Recommendations 16 and 18 based on the feedback received from the bail industry groups.

CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION

The Board of Supervisors would not receive the BRWG’s Report, and would not make referrals regarding implementation of the BRWG’s recommendations.


[1]  The United States Constitution also does not provide a right to a commercial bail bond; rather, the Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive bail.”

 

[2]  A September 10, 2016 article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about the study may be found at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/incarceration-in-the-u-s-costs-more-than-trillion-a/article_070eecea-42c1-5258-a508-062079e9b333.html

[3] Orry Korb, former County Counsel, and John Hirokawa, former Chief of Correction, also served on the Bail and Release Work Group prior to their retirements.  Vice-Chair James Williams previously served on the Bail and Release Work Group in his former role as a Deputy County Executive, and Garry Herceg previously served in his former role as Director of Pretrial Services.

[4]  The GSBAA response is attached without appendices.  For a copy of the full report, refer to the August 26, 2016 Bail and Release Work Group meeting agenda, item no. 4 at http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7963.

 

Meeting History

Oct 4, 2016 9:00 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Forty-three individual addressed the Board.

At the request of Supervisor Chavez, as amended by President Cortese, the Board received the report, approved Recommendations for referral to Administration and public agency partners, with the exception of Recommendation No. 3, relating to legislative advocacy, and Recommendation No. 5 relating to an Ordinance prohibiting or limiting establishment, expansion, or relocation of commercial bail bonds in unincorporated County areas; with clarification that Recommendation Nos. 9 and 15 do not require a report to the Board prior to implementation; and, authorized the Board President to forward correspondence to appropriate partner entities.

At the request of President Cortese, the Board declined to approve Item No. 9c, the cessation of the Bail and Release Work Group; directed Administration to report to the Board on date uncertain with actions to add two additional members to the Bail and Release Work Group to represent the bail industry, and simultaneously provide a work plan delineating which approved recommendations should go directly to the Board and which should be considered by the Bail and Release Work Group at one additional meeting prior to coming to the Board on date uncertain.

RESULT:APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Cindy Chavez, Supervisor
SECONDER:Ken Yeager, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian

Transcript

Oct 4, 2016 9:00 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 
10:21 AMAble to live their lives and to contact and to work and convicted of a crime because they can't make bail. This is like debtors prison. Please pass this. Public speaker: good morning, I want to speak in support of this proposal. I'm a resident of san jose downtown. I was a county employee for over 20 years. I worked in drug and alcohol for 15. That's basically where I have seen the effects on people of criminal justice system.

10:22 AMThe earlier people can be released will allow them to participate in a drug rehabilitation program so they won't be in jail just doing nothing. So thank you for your time.
10:23 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you, next speaker, please. Public speaker: good morning, president cortese, members of the board of supervisors. I'm richard connie, executive director. We support all 18 bail and release recommendations. We urge your support because in developing these recommendations, the group was guided by the principals of public safety, fairness and effectiveness in a pretrial justice. The law office focus on many low income residents in santa clara county. People are faced with impossible choices whether paying for their rent, food or buying clothes for their family. This is not affordable. This forces low income defendants to serve as bail agents. Instead of this, find the most appropriate for pretrial release. We urge your support of all 18 recommendations. Thank you.
10:24 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, everyone. You know, I thought about what I was going to say then I heard the report and the things you want to change in the jail, and so i'm going to start off with this. We are guilty, we are innocent until proven guilty. If you guys pass or knowledge or sign off on these recommendations that will be really a blessing because 70% of the people that are in incarcerated cannot make bail, and when they can make bail, it's a hardship on the family. I have been on both ends of that spectrum. And bypassing this, you will balance the scales of justice. We are innocent until proven guilty, but that's not how the case is now. By these recommendations, you can make that statement true. Thank you. [ applause ] public speaker: good morning, my name is roj. I'm actually part of the bail and release workgroup. I would like to thank the county staff that arrives at this moment. This is a consensus report. I'm assuming you don't hear that word too often here and I think it speaks volumes and sends a particular message. That was not through consensus. That was reached through common sense. In particular, think about the contents of that table. People who have that vantage point on the aspect of public safety. Someone in opposition or barrier. Yet the public defenders office office and the police chief organization also coming together to reach consensus. I wanted to acknowledge that there is actually one dissenting sole voice and that's in the room that is the bail industry. I hope you understand the rational for that. Also the need for change brought out to the larger communities as well by the letter you received by the domestic violence service providers and calling for both public safety and to respect the life and liberty and freedom. As challenging as this nation is an either or choice but either county can achieve both. There are folks that are going to speak today and ask to rise and stand in the supreme bill of form. These are mothers whose kids are next door and the parents who are in the buildings next door and these are folks who believe the county can lead them in a pretrial justice and challenge this incarceration. That's the people locked up in county jails. Thank you.
10:27 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: hi, my name is jerry schwartz. I was actually a community representative on the workgroup. When I first started I was pretty naive about how bail worked. It was a very educational experience. I want to thank you for the opportunity to participate and it went on a little longer than anticipated, but it was worthwhile. I was kind of surprised. My motivation was primarily one of considering standards. It is just not fair for people to be incarcerated solely for the reason that they are poor which is the effect of money bail. I was kind of surprised that some of the little things. I will just draw your attention to recommendation no. 7. I think that ought to be implemented with some alacrity. It is that the jails should have be able to take credit cards for bail. Most people have credit limits that are higher than their bank accounts. If they can use a credit card to post bail, a lot would do so than they can under the current circumstances. Thank you.
10:29 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you for being here. Next next public speaker: good morning. I'm here in support sft recommendations. I actually work with the families that are directly impacted by money bail. Anytime i'm with them during weekly and daily basis I hear of them not being able to afford money bail and they are being incarcerated because they are just poor and can't make a bail. I also hear about the harm. So, if you know, their loved ones losing employment because they are incarcerated and sometimes losing housing. Those that do make bail sometimes go into that because of the significant amount that they have to pay. I urge you to support these recommendations. Thank you. [ applause ]
10:30 AMPresident dave cortese: thanks for being here. Next speaker, please. Public speaker: yeah, when we are talking about the bail, this whole dynamics, we are talking about the mexican. The vast majority of the people locked up in jail are wallowing are mexicans. We are not terrorist. We are proud americans. I want to say this: that all this stuff could be bypassed if we promote justice. Zombie politics doesn't recognize the legitimacy. The vast majority. There is a popular opinion, molly, that you are to fault. The Judge Had me right out there on market. Yet the public defenders office didn't help. They messed it all up. It's a failure bought the public defenders office is ineffective. The politics meaning to say, hey, victorious, you are a community, are a segment of the political community and not only there, but our democracy of promoting the class interest. The class interest to let's take it out and look at it inform are what it really is. Let's get a public audit and find out whenever that money is going because it's not spent on the people to promote their human rights. I would recommend molly and jeff rosen. You should get this book here. It's called guide to management. In the content it says right here setting slaves free. Because this is a new collective bargaining agreement because it's bringing the punishing shaet. And jeff rosen and marla o'neal. You are picking on the wrong people. Go after the criminals.
10:32 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. i'm going to ask everyone to direct your comments to the board of supervisors. This is an opportunity to petition the board, not the audience. Public speaker: thanks so much for having me. David ball from santa clara law school. My students spend their semester studying the jails. I would like to thank everyone speaking in support of the recommendations. I want to point out a couple of things which is the alternative to pretrial release and that is commercial assurity bail. It is true that the penal code says that main consideration should be public safety. You really have to ask yourselves, what does money have to do with an assessment of risk. You can't sort out the dangerous and the non-dangerous from money. Looking at the validation of the local pretrial services instrument. Those who are released on commercial terms of release are rearrested on the rate almost ten times the amount of those who are released on or. The rearrest for those released on money bail is about 29%. And for the own recognizance is. 8%. You get a better rearrest rate. I want to point out the irony which is that if I pay cash bail and I don't show up, the next day I lose my entire cash bail. If I pay money bail, the bail industry has 180 days to recover that. When we talk about what's privatized, these are the profits and the cost still born by the taxpayer. Thank you
10:35 AM> public speaker: when they took me in and dropped the ball on my case when I was on a jury trial and a warrant I had, item to get a hold of someone from the public defenders office office. I was not able to get a hold of them. I take care of my 86-year-old grandmother and she was terrified and i'm at elm wood. He said i'm your attorney and he told me to go f myself. You try to reach out in jail. It's a scary thing. I'm not going to tell my grandmother to bail me out. I'm going to stay in there. The public defenders office should let you get a hold of a lawyer. And instead of sending you free water. Why don't we have a door like wal-mart. That never happens here. Every time victorious come to these meetings, we walk up there and sit in that lobby. It's just sad. People keep getting wrecked in there and they are told to get water. The people here, I feel bad about how they are being represented there. Maybe it wouldn't be necessary for me.
10:37 AMPresident dave cortese: next speaker, please. Public speaker: hi. I'm jose. Thank you for your time. I want to go ahead and support the different options and actually into money bail because what I believe is just if you be a system of you know whether you are innocent or guilty should really depend on whether or not you have the money to pay the bail -- or not. An individual should be given time with their family to prepare as well. Unfortunately individuals that get caught up in the system they are low income already. So doing so would hurt their families even more. Thank you. Public speaker: good morning, supervisors, my name is susan, a long time san jose resident activist in the japanese community and also affiliated with the santa clara valley chapter of the aclu. Money bail is fundamentally unfair because it's a different process of criminal justice for low income people. It does not make our society better. It waste precious public resources while grocery reaching a few. There is no reason to tolerate such a system. I urge the board of supervisors to act with determination to end it and replace it with something that works for all residents regardless of income level. I received the recommendations of the bail release working group and I urge the board of supervisors to accept them and move forward. There is a national movement to end national incarceration in this country. Santa clara county should be a part of it and should be leading it. Thank you.
10:39 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you for being here. Public speaker: good morning, supervisors, i'm from san jose and a chapter of the aclu. People in santa clara county are in pretrial. Many are incarcerated simply because they lack the financial resource to post bail. The recommendations from public safety help ensure appearances and help ensure that after people are arrested those that can be in custody are released rather than staying in jail at a great personal expense and great cost to the county. I urge the board of supervisors to accept the report and to approve it's recommendations so that pretrial justice can be improved. Thank you.
10:40 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: public speaker: my name is angelo bigelow. When families come in we help them work on their case and work with their families to bring their loved ones home to be able to get the outcome that they seek. More often than not, just to support everything that was said, bail directly affects the families that walk in. There is a need to bring about something else other than money bail in order to have these people have access to be able to come home. People's jobs, people's employment, people's schooling are all affected because they are not able to come in. Oftentimes people who go in, the circumstances on the outside are not considered. Maybe in pretrial services that is something to consider. I have a young mother who walks in on Sunday and tells us a story about how her son has this million dollar bail and was arrested as an 18-year-old, a senior in high school. He has a 4. 0 gpa and a football scholarship as not able to go to school because of this. If there were a pretrial to consider the circumstances of this young man and there would be a mistake or jeopardy, maybe the outcome would have been different. I would like to state for the record, that you are not making a decision today. This is a decision to still consider. I think all of these options deserve at least that and that is more consideration and more time to think about it and be able to dive more into it. Thank you. [ applause ]
10:42 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning. Fernando perez. I'm also staff at santa clara county. Every week debug, family is facing chaos with upcoming court dates or visits to the jails. These families on top of having to be at these court dates, having to go to work and take care of the families, they need to be united, they need to be together. Alternatives to bail would help bring their loved ones home to better support the family unit to prevent them from going into further chaos. These recommendations are positive for our county, we can change history, make history and set a precedent. I want to commend the board for giving me a chance to speak and everyone else. . Thank you very much. [ applause ]
10:43 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. good morning. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, i'm angie with the immigrant resource center. For the last couple of decades we have counseled thousands of cases over issues of crime. Issues of money bill have not only restricted people of their civil liberty but a process to obtain better outcomes. We hear from defendants pleading to be released as soon as possible and they are done so as a detriment to themselves and family members and including deportation. This is only further compounded by an immigration system where there is no right to government appointed council and when you do get a bond you have to pay for the majority of that bond so these families have faced greater economic instability. By doing this, we will have able to have more individual life determinations and be processed and fairness. This is a particular point in time where counties in the country facing issues around money bail in particular we are working right now in harris county that is working the largest bail in the united states and the pretrial justice. Santa clara's approach to us is a very measured approach in addressing these issues affirmatively and looking at options of money bail to ensure public safety. Thank you.
10:45 AMPresident dave cortese: next speaker, please. Public speaker: good morning. My name is sharice, the chief executive officer of the pretrial justice institute. Thank you for having me here to speak. I'm grateful to be in a room where people have contributed to consensus report. I have traveled to the east coast where we are looking about how to change these jails. Many they are having a difficult time struggling through data working with a consensus to work with our own county. I commend you for doing so without the outside pressure. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my analysis which I did by letter drawing on our organizations's long history in working across the country. I begin with one simple cooperation, your collaboration is remarkable, but it's not unusual across the country. You see national organizations are presenting the stakeholders who are part of your workgroup who have over the last several years in presenting in support of the shift toward risk decision making. We are happy to have santa clara along for the ride. As part of the workgroup's recommendation to move away from discriminatory money based bail. I would like to take a few cautions. Things like bail bonds, credit card payments and 10% bail May seem like a stepping stone. Other jurisdictions have seen the same with minimal impact. In purposely getting to the other side of the stream. We also feel that no amount of guidance can hail the uninstitutional bond. Both of those assumptions around money bail are wrong and false and do more in federal court to see these lawsuits happen. I apologize for running out of time. Let me note this one final thing. Set some milestones for how you would like to reduce the jail population and what rate you would like to see a money value client. Thank you.
10:48 AMPresident dave cortese: ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, supervisors. I'm sorry i'm late. I wrote something. So I apologize if i'm not going to give you eye contact. People who are at low risk and not convicted of a crime and cannot afford bail are sitting in jail as we speak. They have no interest in safety in our community, but only interest in profit. It's not fair when those who have the same case and different risk when those without money are not released and those that have money can be released across the country. The bail cost family money and cost money away from their parents and jobs and financial stability is what stabilizes healthy families and healthy communities. Something I read, a "says we are talking about releasing people in the street with no accountability" that was from a ceo of bail bonds, bad boys. There needs to be accountability for our communities. It has to be made by those that know our communities. It can't be by these that have no interest in our communities. Not the transformation that can be made from those mistakes because otherwise they would be standing with us. So I urge you guys to vote yes, and thank you for your time. [ applause ] next speaker, please. We didn't divide these cards up according to content. I'm calling them exactly in the order they were given to me. Public speaker: thank you very much, supervisor cortese and board of supervisors. I want to again thank the supervisors for their work and in this process. I know they have spent a lot of time on this. There is a lot of things and especially supervisor chavez she's done some tremendous work there which is kind of surprising. I think there is a lot of things I agree with on this report. Actually a majority of it that we agree with on this report. The things that are adversely going to affect bail, I have a problem with that. I believe the reason the pretrial was set up was to help the indigent, those who can't afford bail. I understand helping those. Also I need to make sure, you have to know why the bail is set up and that is to protect the public. We agree on the 18 recommendations. We agree on no. 6, no. 7, no. 8, no. 9, no. 11, no. 12, no. 13, no. 14, no. 15, no. 17. Bail on individuals released at the jails in california represent about 5% of those released. That's not what we should be looking at. We should be looking at those individuals who are currently in custody because they can't afford bail. Those people need to be helped. Also, I would like to see more money set for the public defenders office. There is big need there. There is and you hear it from everybody talking today. There is need there. Dismantling this bail system, it works. Our company has a 99% success rate. We spend over $1 million on retrieving individuals and putting them into custody with a small percentage of the county's total business.
10:52 AMYou have to wrap up.
If you dismantle this, you will be spending tens of thousands of dollars. Public speaker: good morning. I'm a bail agent. All court systems should follow the certain principles. The accountability and fairness serves upon the criminal justice system was founded. The primary focus are protection of the public safety and ensuring those released pending trial reappear. The focus points of appearance and public safety should never be considered independently of one another. Public safety is best served when the defendant is afforded a quick and sufficient ability to defend themselves to providing an opportunity at mercy. While we are the bail agent can and support a well thought out proposal that increases the responsibility and fairness, we can't do so when you are protecting those who we serve. Not all of the proposal is being advanced are designed with these principles in mind. In fact, some programs May even tear up the very fabric of public safety where crime is also increasing. Due to opposition of proposal one it is also right that we are consistent than we oppose proposal 3. Advocacy at a state level regardless of what the legislation has proposed or maybe proposed in the future, it is improper for a county agency to spend the outcome of the legislation time and money to seek it's passage. I will wrap up here. I thank you kindly for your time in letting us express our side of the issue. It's been a little one-sided in here. We want the opportunity to explain the reasons for our opposition. We would have voted to have more opportunity to be involved in this report. I feel we are coming to it at the end. I believe we are a much bigger stakeholder as we are viewed.
10:55 AMPresident dave cortese: next speaker, please. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, board, a third generation bail agent. My father was a bail agent in 1945. To rules of accountability and responsibilities in fairness. Bail agents are opened to supporting the community faith based to provide additional resources to defendants in the criminal justice system as proposed by proposal six. But must oppose the establishment of government agency or non-profit organization wholly to provide an alternative to the bail industry. Largely misunderstood. The bail is to provide an assurity system to provide support to the defendant. Friends, family, co-workers and other community relationships that drive the ability of the defendant to assurity in california. This allows assurity bails to allow them to live in their communities and where their families are from. However merely referring the defendants to another governmental agency and another non-profit designed to move people through the system does not inspire mentorship and caring nor does it maximize the community. These organizations across the country are merely a clearinghouse and lack a level of connectivity. This is seen when a bail serves his or her clients. Thank you.
10:57 AMPresident dave cortese: thanks for being here. Next speaker, please. Public speaker: hello, i'm from the east coast. Good afternoon from where I come. Board of supervisors, thank you for allowing me to be here today. I appreciate the work that you have done. Supervisor chavez, I appreciate your statement earlier today that this is a commitment to continued discussion going forward on improving the system. I echo my colleague that he said that the decision doesn't support the recommendations. In addition to being involved in the bail industry as a chief executive officer i'm a former criminal defense attorney from philadelphia and much like many of the people in this room, I was also on the opposite side of the glass at one time when I made the mistake of driving under the influence. When you have the discussion of risk assessments and need to follow those risk assessments many talk about the tools of supervision. A colleague of mine speaking in colorado and we have seen nightmare in colorado of imposition of associated with the fee. As recently as this morning, the state is now being sued by the association of counties for the in affordability of supervision being thrust or their shoulders. I ask you to review that as you navigate the waters. Risk assessment tools are not necessarily the solution. They can have an inherent bias when they are based on certain bias. As the professor of university of pennsylvania said after 1 month ago, after the system assessment tools cannot be unbiased. Thank you very much. We look forward to being involved.
11:00 AMPresident dave cortese: next speaker, please. Public speaker: hello, i'm a lifelong resident of san jose. I'm in support of the county moving forward with the recommendations of bail reform. I want to dedicate the rest of my time on the clock for the people who should be alive today but who were inadequate jail facilities. Our jails with 70% of inmates who could not afford jail. One life lost is too many. Last year we had three in custody deaths. May they be at peace. Thank you. [ applause ]
11:02 AMPresident dave cortese: ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, my name is jeff clayton. The director of the american bail coalition. Thanks for having me here today. It's been noted that this is a report of consensus. We encourage you to adopt. The only thing is adding bail -- or otherwise creates a litany of problems. The danger is preventative of prevention. If you look at the report that aclu proposed trial increased 70%. If we give them the tools to lock people up with no bail, that's dangerous. Maybe those are going a little bit too far. This is a laboratory of democracy. You can use as much bail -- or as you choose. Certainly we'll be having those conversations in sacramento. If you don't recommend it, c'mon down to be part of the process. Bail is not for everybody. It should be jogging the releases anywhere in the country. I commend the work that you have done here. I think we would like to be included in any process going forward. Certainly the recommendation no. 2, there has been some discussion about this bail concept. I would like to continue those conversations. My central point is limitation is too far. The expansion of preventative attention would be disasterous. Public speaker: good morning, working partnership usa. I'm asking you to put forth the recommendations by the bail and release group. It will reduce the number of people from our jails and all the while maintaining public safety. I will be brief because my colleagues have already shared why this is important. Very simply this is the right thing to do for our county and for our community. I want to thank the staff for putting their hard work on this issue and leading on this. Thank you.
11:05 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, i'm richard hobbs of the immigration liaison association silicon valley chapter. As an immigration attorney I have had dozens of cases where low income immigrants charged with a crime do anything to get out of jail. When they don't have money to make bail in the vast majority of cases despite their innocence, they concede guilt. Since the immigration law of 1996, all crimes of immigrants are crimes for life. Judicial recommendations against deportation and expungement have no effect. The result is that tens of thousands of immigrants are either reported or unable to receive relief including dopa applicants. The bail will dramatically reduce the ability of immigrants forced to accept a plea that harms them for life. Please support these recommendations. Thank you.
11:06 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. next speaker, please. Public speaker: good morning, my name is davora. Recently i'm here today to ask for the recommendations for the bail as recently within a week, my son was released. And I had a hard time with bail because I am a low income parent and grandmother. Without the help of the community. The family and the naacp and the news media, I don't know how I would have made it. I sat through 2 trials of unjust for my son. If first trial mainly alone, the second trial with the family. And I made it. It was hard. A lot of times no parking, no gas. But I was there everyday. Every visit, there with his children. His bail was $50,000 and they put $200,000 on top and there's no way I would have been able to do that. I'm asking that you consider the bail recommendations and we have the inmates. The way the families are treated when we come down there to see and visit is really not fair. Thank you.
11:08 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, my name is jason wall. Our bonds company is here. I'm speaking to recommendation no. 5 that is to proposed zoning ordinance prohibiting the establishment of location of incorporated areas of this county. I read this report and find that proof has offered no explanation for such recommendation there is a comparison to the pay day loan. Maybe the word to understand that the department of county insurance regulates the industry regulations regardless of bail and when and where and how that takes place. That is sufficient to regulate the industry and such. I don't believe the ordinance without explanation is necessarily a warranted consideration of the group which we are in agreement with. Recommendation no. 5, I don't think it's well placed we ask that be denied. Thank you.
11:10 AMPresident dave cortese: I will call the names. ( calling names ) public speaker: I am joseph. I didn't intend on speaking today. I just dropped off my children at school. I'm a bail bondman for about 10 years. I think there is a little misconception about what I do. I want to clarify what my job is. When people call me, I don't advertise in the jails. Me and my wife, we are a family business. We base our advertising more internet base. We get calls from the families versus the jail. What I do is I explain to my clients, that they have a right to refuse to do bail and wait to go in front of a judge. the Judge Has the ability to release them pending the court appearance. The Judge Can release you on or on a pretrial release or wait until the d. A. Files charges. Those are the options I give my clients. What I offer them is an insurance product. I insure the defendants appearance in court. It's like a car accident if you get involved, the insurance company pays the damage for the vehicle. It's the same with me. If a defendant of mine appears in court, I actually am physically responsible for that defendant's appearance. I can lose my house, my wife and my kids can lose our house. I have to go out there and find the defendant and bring them into court. I'm not arguing for or against a pretrial release. I don't hear anyone saying they are going to strap on a gun and find them. I'm the one that puts myself in danger and finds those defendants to appear. I don't see the d. A. Or anybody else doing that. That's my point.
11:12 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) if we can keep people ready to speak, it will help everyone. Public speaker: hi, how are you doing. Good morning, my name is robert vin. Born and raised in san mateo county. I work in bail bonds. We would like to be part of the process. It's my industry doing this for 18 years, we helped out a lot of people. You know, a lot of this is basically to help society, the public. You know some of these individuals we are bringing back in. They are high risk. And we just really would like to be part of this process.
11:13 AMThat's all I have.
11:14 AMPresident dave cortese: we hear you loud and clear. ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, my name is ashley miller. I work in santa clara county. I have been a bail agent for 3 years with bad boys bail bonds. I want to say whatever the outcome is if you could please include us in the outcome. Thank you.
President dave cortese: thank you. ( calling names ) public speaker: good afternoon, i'm ryan leery with bad boys bail bonds. I have been in san jose and worked with bad boys for the past 13 years. As ashley said that we would like to be involved. I see it one-sided as what people's perspective from the bail industry is. We would like to be involved. Thank you.
11:15 AMPresident dave cortese: ( calling names ) public speaker: good morning, my name is yvonne martinez. A bail agent with bad boys bail bonds. I was born and raised here in san jose. I would like to ask that you guys please include our company in the further process and of course my colleague said no matter what the outcome is, we would like to be involved. I feel that bail bonds is important. As other speakers have said. I understand that some families don't or cannot afford these services, but as far as the pretrial services and/or and supervisors -- it would help them for. If if you would be able to help people with programs that cannot afford monetary bail.
11:16 AMPresident dave cortese: ( calling names ) public speaker: i'm viera. A san jose resident. I had no plans in speaking today. I was going to support with my physical presence. But I have heard a few things I wanted to address. In future of consideration of this issue, as a community member as a resident. I don't fear for my safety with my -- who May have been taken in for a small crime and do not have the means to be released. They don't make me feel unsafe. Those are members of my community. What makes me feel unsafe in my neighborhood is poverty. Which bail measures contribute to. I applaud all the groups that have involved in creating these recommendations. These are groups that represent the community. I said a lot about division about domestic violence. There is part of a consensus on this issue. I have been really disturbed to hear people from a for profit industry that is not a community organization that represents the community ask to participate in the process in the future. I just want to let you know that I want to speak out against that. They do not represent me. They represent their shareholders. That's fine. It's their job to represent their shareholders. But they do not represent the community. I would ask you to exclude them from participating in this process. Thank you very much.
11:18 AMPresident dave cortese: next speaker, please. Public speaker: my name is mark garcia. I know a few of you up there. I'm a retired lieutenant from the sheriff's department. I work fbi undercover, dea, state department, bureau of narcotics enforcement. My entire year was investigating crimes and putting people in jail. I retired in 2010 and came out looking for something to do and I chose recovery. I got involved with the bail institution. My partners would say that I jumped ship. 30 years working in law enforcement and now in a business that let's people out. It's a constitutional right to bail. We can't select the constitution amendments that we want to adhere to. I have seen some of the recommendations. I haven't read the document completely. If people can't afford bail, there should be other ways and other means for them to get out before they go to trial and face their charges. Where I come in is i'm the guy that gets the call at 2:00 a. M. From a mom whose son is an on a drug binge and she wants him back in custody. I'm the one that goes out to find that individual. I worked with law enforcement. I know there is over 50-60,000 warrants in the system in santa clara county that never get worked and if the they are, it's a small percentage. You are going to have a hard job going out there and being there at 2:00 a. M. Where you bring them back into custody when you release them on something other than monetary. Public speaker: hello board of supervisors. This meeting i'm in agreement with that. On September 2nd, he's a homeowner. The bail was $35,000. I post bail for him. Now they booked him in jail. They say he will never pay. He was released. The pretrial services release a lot of drug dealers. Thank you for being here. Public speaker: my name is monica, of santa clara county. My concern about this whole process is who is going to be looking for these defendants when they miss their court date? We ensure they make their appearances and make it to court. In santa clara county. They don't go looking for them. We don't have the santa clara county sheriff's department. They don't have the resources to look for these people. Where does that burden get placed on. I would say it belongs to the taxpayers. They are going to look for people who miss their court dates if everybody is released on or. Although there are many recommendations that I agree with to run more efficiently. I don't think getting rid of bail is a solution. There are many cases where bail is necessary where parents needs to be guaranteed. I don't see hear what the cost is going to be. And who is taking care of that cost.
11:23 AMPresident dave cortese: ( calling names ) public speaker: I just got a speaker card. Is this on nine? please c'mon up. Public speaker: hi. My name is dwin. I'm here to make a quick point. There isn't anyone here from the community that is here defending or advocating for bail companies. Thank you.
President dave cortese: that concludes the speaking request on item 9. I appreciate all the speakers and taking the time to be here and expressing their points of view. Obviously this is a serious issue being taken up by the board of supervisors. We always appreciate public comment. We have a motion by supervisor chavez which was to move the three items as recommended as part of the agenda. Second by supervisor yeager. We have a motion on the floor. I indicated earlier that I would gladly request from the amendments to the motion. I would like to do that at this time without cutting off any comments from other board of supervisors. That said, as far as 9a receiving the brwg report. I'm not requesting any changes to 9 a. On 9 b prove recommendations for referral to administration and/or public agency partners. I will indicate the item as numbered on the recommendation. On 9 and 15. These are both areas where I don't believe the board of supervisors would have a need for any information aside from the position of recommending these changes or practices, almost a change of attitude if you will in some cases on 9 and 15. I would like to recommend as part of the action today the board delegate to the board president as an initial step the writing of a letter to those partners especially on the bench and in the system and go ahead and encourage those changes. That is what's being asked for here. If there is another expression, i'm open to that. 9 and 15, I would say let's just do it. On recommendation 3, I have concerns the way the recommendation is written on the actual recommendation matrix. The language starts off by saying advocating for legislative changes in sacramento for bail bond agencies or adopt requirements for transparency. The recommendation is really not asking us for referral for further study per say, although it says it up on top. If you read it says engaged. I'm not willing to engage in this to eliminate bail bond agencies or adopt requirements for increased transparency. I would certainly be in favor of that. What I would recommend is we just leave item 3 out of these recommendations and allow our county executive and our legislative advocacy folks in santa clara county to come back to us if they with issue to come back with specific language for legislation that they bring that to us. That's how we typically operate here or in support or oppose position on the legislation. I'm not willing to delegate that kind of broadbrush direction to folks at the county to fear that they do a lot of work and come back and be frustrated by some of our willingness to go that far. On item 2. This is the establishment of non-profit or public alternative to commercial bail bond agencies or the industry. I have no problem with exploring. I would just ask that that exploration comes back to us ultimately with very very clear recommendations and best practices of how a non-profit for a public alternative would engage enforcement. I know some of the speakers spoke to that. It's hard for me to imagine as the opportunity to speak to some of the major parties last week that there are some best practices involving non-profits throughout the country. It's not clear how they are handling enforcement or what the record is for enforcement. I will come back to that momentarily. Recommendation 5 to prepare an ordinance. Again, this much like three seems to be very different than the rest of the recommendations in that it seems to be more focused on the bail bond industry itself dramatically reducing it or somehow eliminating it in the county and county unincorporated areas. The one issue that I think could be relevant with no. 5 is the need for transparency and state county law prohibits us by policy or ordinance requiring transparency on data numbers actual experience within the industries books if you will and to the extent that our land use ordinance in our land use legal scheme can require transparency. I'm interested in that, but I would at this point suggest that we eliminate that the motion the portion of the recommendation that speaks to where I am implies elimination of the agency from unincorporated areas. I'm not sure if that's what the end game is here. The recommendation 10 really is what I think where end game should be all about. And here is one to speak to that for a moment. I'm not asking for a change to recommendation 10. But, in the year 2010, the opportunity to make the state to the county address that year, I called for essentially the elimination of juvenile hall to put it out of business. They had a population of 350 at the time. Our last census I looked at was less than 80 incarcerated at juvenile hall. That is not the result of coming after any particular industry. That's the result of the kind of work that a lot of these other recommendations are calling for, diversion. In fact at the juvenile level there has been a tremendous amount of success not just with what we would call pretrial, but prebooking. Diverting people even before they are booked. If we have a problem with the number of people required to post baylor even the number of people incarcerated, and I do in both areas, I believe we should be trying to shrink the number of people, reduce the number of people we are booking in the first place. And, I think most of these recommendations are really focused in that area and I commend the bail release and working group for all of that work and for the spirit of essentially trying to do with our adult population what we've already done with the juvenile population. Lastly, so that's 9b. Those are the changes I would request. On 9c. Instead of the cessation of the bail and release workgroup, I would like the language changed to spengs suspension of the bail and release workgroup until such time that recommendations come back at which time the bail release working group should convene one more time with the inclusion of representation from the bail industry to make a one more set of final recommendations to the board of supervisors before all that comes back. So that would be my request, supervisor chavez, sorry to we've in my comments along with my requested changes. But if I need to clarify anything, please let me know.
11:33 AMSupervisor cindy chavez: the only one I would want to just ask a follow-up question, two. On item 9, what you are suggesting is that we reconvene the bail and release workgroup to hear the final studies and recommendations after the staff has completed going through them?
11:34 AMYes. on 9c. I know the bill is included in the tail end of this process, but recommended it be included in the final meeting of the release group.
The method for doing that, if we pull the bail and release workgroup together. There are two ways. One we can have a public meeting at night to invite all the members of the bail and release workgroup and from the industry to get feedback. That's one way to do it. The other way would be to actually appoint two positions. I would recommend two only because it would be better than one and it doesn't make the group too much bigger. But i'm really asking what your preference is.
11:35 AMI don't have a preference. I would be willing to defer that to the sheriff. Two would be fine. I believe two people could represent the industry from what I understand how the industry is divided up.
Part of the reason i'm making that recommendation is the report we got we got two different institutions that did that. What that would mean is the board would have to make a formal appointment because it's a brown act body and would have to come prior to hearing the bulk of the initiatives. The only thing I would want to encourage is that where the staff deems there would be little controversy to coming back to the board there is an an of agreement and an area of no agreement. That would come to the board. We would let the staff put together when we take an action to add two members, we can come back with a recommendation with what come before that group.
11:36 AMI know asking to convene another time is twofold. It would be beneficial for us to know if there is a consensus reach at that time and the second because there is a lot of details in the recommendation that I think is going to be important for us to inside where the working group is before we adopt. I'm fine with your interpretation of what i'm asking for in the need to come back with the brown act.
11:37 AMThank you. I don't have a problem with any of the recommendations. I want to confirm, item 5, are you asking for that to be removed?
I think item 5 is premature. I am asking for it to be removed. Yes.
All right. i'm comfortable with all the request including removal of that item.
Can staff ask for clarification on item 2. I just want to make sure we get it straight.
President dave cortese: I was not changing the recommendation to go off and explore those options, non-profit or public alternative. I'm fine with that. In terms of my request for amendments. It was just asking for a little bit more specificity when that comes back that enforcement practices to come with recommendations. As I sit here today, i'm not clear. I want to make it clear that i'm not endorsing the creation of non-profit without understanding it. I'm sure a lot of other people have questions besides that one. When I was asking for a friendly amendment, I want to make that request for enforcement for the need for methodology to come to back.
11:38 AMI understand that now. thank you.
Supervisor cindy chavez: I understand that as a motion maker.
President dave cortese: the last thing to say on speaking on the motion aside from the request I just made for amendments, I am for whatever it's worth, i'm much more inclined permanently and I maybe out voted. If we are going to create an entity that will provide for bail industry, that it be a non-profit. I'm almost guaranteed to vote against any attempt to build that into the d. A. 's office, the sheriff's office or any of the law enforcement related justice system that we have here now. That's, like I said, that's just speaking on the motion. We have a long way to go before we see something like that come back. That's not what I understand that debug are after. I'm interested to see what that looks like. That's all I have on the amendments to the motion. I will move on to other board of supervisors vice-president simitian?
11:40 AMVice-president joseph simitian: thank you, a lot to unpack on this one. Bear with me for a minute. I want to lay on the where I come from on the whole range of possibilities. We heard from people who have spoken today from a very personal place and I want them to know I understand and respect that. We also heard from people who have spoken from what I would character ize from a value place and also heard from people who spoke from a private enterprise. I understand that. Ful each of us will bring our own frame of reference for this. For me my reference to this conversation to the is the practical frame of reference. What can we do that will actually make the system work? Both to keep the people safe and the rights of people in the system. If I had to characterize the conversation from my perspective what I would say is we have a limited range of tools. Because we have a limited range of tools, some of those tools have been over relied upon and I put money bail in that category. I would like to see a wider range of tools that does not involve the elimination of money bail, but simply to make sure we have a wider range of tools so that on a case by case basis good choices can be made about what an appropriate tool is. That's where I come from. It's a pretty set of practical issue that working tools have to work with. The second thing, I want to underscore the shout out to supervisor chavez and the working group for the comprehensive approach they took and for the consensus based approach that they took. Candidly, we didn't hear a lot today about public safety in reference we have. With reference to public safety on top of mind. I'm looking at the page in our packet. I'm hearing about protect the communicated, community violence. Better protection. I would like to keep those public safety concerns center for two reasons because it is our job to keep the public safe. I think it's important that we keep saying that first because as I say it's our job. Second because I think it's important that we don't make people see this as an either or. The case that the working group has made to keep the public safe and still provide options that are not available that will enhance improve the system. That's what i'm looking to see as a result of the this exercise and I think that's where the working group has tried to take us. I give them a shout out for that. That being said, I want to make sure we understand where we are after the friendly amendments are offered. I too would not have been able to September recommendation no. 5. My understanding is that it is now removed from the matter. I'm seeing an affirmation of that. Thank you. And on item 3, engage in advocacy for pretrial issues and in abolition of money bail particularly in the absence of other tools and even in our own area to date. My understanding is that that was eliminated from the advocacy section. My understanding further was that any advocacy coming from this area will come through this entire board for approval or rejection by this board rather than delegating to staff as a matter of necessity.
11:44 AMYes.
That's very reassuring to me. then I want to just underscore yet again that action under b. Recommended action to approve recommendation for referral to community agency partners, does not mean we are approving action in any of those areas. It means we are approving referral in all of those areas that have been left on the list.
11:45 AMThat's correct with the exception of items 9 and 15. What while I think i'm not certain that there is some work that will need to come back, but what president cortese is asking we continue work on item 9 that is in custody, arraignment and improve release. I don't think there is controversy in I any of those areas.
Understood then. with that, I will form an aye vote. One is there was reference to memo of domestic violence. I wonder what other victims right groups have engaged in this process. I can look to staff
11:46 AMSupervisor cindy chavez: actually not many. Part of the reason that domestic violence was called out is part of the reason that you May recall when we brought the work release bail program together that the primary issue was in response to issues of how we were handling a number of issues but really around immigration. What we continued to ask is how do we keep people safe. On 18, it will allow us to work on an evidence base tool where we would do a better job of protecting potentialing victims of further victimization. That's one thing we work very closely with. Catherine worked on the committee. Is there something else you are interested in?
11:47 AMI'm not interested in a particular group, I am interested in making sure. I'm going to ask at the staff level and through your leadership that there be other advocacy to victims groups. We brought the victims compensation back from the county from a non-profit. I believe we have relationships there. There are crime victims groups at the state level that will weigh in. I think it's important because it will provide a set of in set and provide a recommendation and will give greater credibility.
Thank you for the feedback.
The one challenge as supervisor cortese was suggesting the desirability of having the group reconvene, given that 18 items down to 15 or 16. I'm guessing progress is going to be made on these in different parts of the organizations and different agencies and different rates of speed. I know you don't want to wait to move forward on some of these until everybody is done for a meeting. I'm saying how are we going to make sure the utility of pulling the group together again doesn't end up impeding the progress.
11:48 AMI'm going to ask the staff to put together a work plan, and I think there are some items that can come directly to the board that should that are on a shorter timeframe. I would like to give the staff based on the discussion to come back with a work plan and a recommendation and not put them on the spot today because that needs to be looked at on a time line.
11:49 AMIf we can get the best of both world's, I would love to see it as I think there is value on these. On the other hand, I would hate to see the other work where we are waiting for the last group to show up.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
President dave cortese: supervisor wasserman?
President mike wasserman: thank you for this effort. I will be accepting the motion along with the amendments specifically 3, 5, 9 and 15. I will also use this opportunity that public safety especially victims public safety is important to me and any recommendation we make always consider the effect it will have on the safety of our public especially the victims. Thank you.
11:50 AMI have one more question. the accept debit card to the accepted is that moving forward?
I want to give the staff time to consider all of these. These are recommendations that the staff needs to investigate to determine a number of things, but let me talk about the top four. One, always and in the form of is public safety, two, how practical are they, three, what have we learned from other parts of the country, and four, how are we addressing the overall scheme of the issue. I want to give staff to digest this and come back to us.
11:51 AMWith that understanding I want to give that one a shout out as well. It's the 21st century. We ought to be able to make that work.
I want to thank her and everybody from the committee and staff who worked so hard on these. Obviously we have a ways to go before we have a final decision on all of these different areas. Just what I wanted to say how proud I am of the work that we are doing particularly criminal justice issues in santa clara county. I know that there is going to be many other jurisdictions of looking to us. But clearly this is an area where we need reform. Who knows how many decades of not centuries have gone by without this comprehensive look at what we do with the pretrial and arresting people and with bail and keeping people in jail unnecessarily when they don't necessarily need to be there. I have been following this with a greater interest and look forward to getting the final recommendations soon. I think this is so important each day when people are going through the criminal justice system as we are really impacting as speakers have said, not only the individual, but the whole family and the whole community.
11:52 AMSupervisor cindy chavez: thank you, I just wanted to make a couple comments. One, let me start by saying thank you to everybody who came and spoke. I think this is a very important conversation. Sometimes it's a conversation that is difficult to be in this environment, but I would like to thank everybody that came to share their thoughts. I want to emphasize a couple things. One, the intent behind this, when we took this very first venture and you said yes, I support establishing a bail release workgroup. It's to improving public safety and improving fairness at the same time. We were trying to do both. I want to emphasize that because I read Mr. Stanley's report about us recklessly letting people loose and that is not the intent. The entire criminal justice system needs to respect every part of our community. It was always about fairness and public safety. Absolutely. And I want to emphasize that because any recommendations that come to the board need to be measured with that. Absolutely. I think that's very important. Let me emphasize. All of us represent a district. I represent the poorest district with a high crime rate. Public safety is important for me not just because I live there but many people are concerned about public safety. It's to be fair and to make sure that as often as possible we don't have people coming back into criminal justice system. This is designed for people not to continue to recidivate. It's just critical. It's critical that we are smart about how we approach this. I also want to em soo itself that I understand that everyone that needs to be evaluated are going to have to look at costeffectiveness too. It's something we have to do and we need to be thoughtful about that. The thing that's also important to me about this process is that I think that with the district attorney, jeff rosen, sheriff, lorie smith, probation, our chief probation officer, laura garnet, our public defenders office, everyone of them care about safety too. They are telling us go forward, research it and let's see if it works. With that, I just want to say, I really appreciate my colleagues support on this. I very much appreciate the level of support and I appreciate the level of work that staff has brought to this. In closing I want to mention to my colleagues, I was okay with disbanding the bail and release workgroup. I'm asking for an aye vote from all of you and I really appreciate your interest in this. It's very important to our entire community.
11:56 AMPresident dave cortese: thank you for your leadership from across the board. The board expresses it's gratitude and your leadership in the bail work and release group to put recidivism out of business. We'll conclude with voting at this time and all votes have been cast. That carries 5-0. [ applause ] I imagine there is going to be some folks sticking around who have been here all morning for item 10. We are going to take that up hopefully fairly concisely.

11:56 AMCan you tell me what we have in terms of public speakers on that item? Hopefully fairly concisely. The board will need to take a recess. After 10, we'll take a break and then unto 22.
11:57 AMItem 10.
Good afternoon president cortese and members of the board. As the board recalls back in March there was a recommendation to enter into a 5-year agreement for advertising for bail bonds agents and criminal defense attorneys in the county jails.