Meeting Information
Agenda for CJCC Meeting #4: June 7th 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
1. Review minutes and approve
2. Bylaws Amendment regarding addition of “public health”
3. Update on recommendation of 15th member
4. Update from staffing subcommittee on CJCC Staff Search
5. Continued “Presentations” of the CJ agencies and activities in Douglas County.
a. Judge Fairchild about the district courts
b. Judge Miller about Lawrence municipal courts
c. Shaye Downing about the CJ system from the defense counsel’s position
6. Discussion about member’s contribution to staffing and supporting the work of the CJCC.
a. What can members bring to the table in terms of the agency staff and resources?
b. Data
c. Monthly, quarterly, annual reports
7. Discuss objectives and possible timing for a retreat.
8. New website for CJCC: https://dgcoks.gov/services/government/criminal-justice-coordinating-council-cjcc
9. Next Meeting: June 28
Future agenda items (also available for discussion today if time allows)
• Discussion on existing collaborations between partners, and barriers to collaboration.
• Discussion on agency outcomes: how do members track their agency data and outcomes?
• Risks and responsibilities in the collection and analysis of data in law enforcement agencies
Future presentations
• Probation - Michelle
June 7, 2016
Douglas County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Meeting (CJCC)
County Commissioner Mike Gaughan, chair, called the regular meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 2016.
MINUTES
Pam Weigand, Director of Youth Services, moved approval of the CJCC minutes for 05/17/16. Motion was seconded by Susan Hadl and approved unanimously.
Those in attendance included: Mike Gaughan; Ken McGovern, Charles Branson, Scott Miller, Susan Hadl, Tarik Khatib, Pam Weigand, Edith Guffey, David Johnson, Michelle Roberts, Shaye Downing, Craig Weinaug, Mike Brouwer and Lori Alverado.
Also attending from the KU School of Social Welfare assisting with the meeting were Margaret Severson and Jason Matejkowski.
BYLAW CHANGES
Addition of “Public Health” to Purpose section under goals: “to enhance public health and maintain public safety.
Susan Hadl moved approval. Lori Alverado seconded. Edith Guffey voted “no’ on this addition to the Bylaws. Bylaw change approved as presented.
UPDATE ON ADDITIONAL COUNCIL MEMBER
Jason Matejkowski stated the staffing subcommittee met last week and finalized the job description which has been distributed and will be posted for three weeks. The next step will be for the committee to review the applications and recommend three to five potential applicants to bring to in for interviews.
PRESENTATIONS
Municipal Court
Judge Scott Miller, City of Lawrence Municipal Courts made a presentation on the Municipal Court process. Highlights included the following:
Municipal Court has jurisdiction over ordinance violations. Some ordinances are unique to the City (example zoning codes) and some mirror State law like theft, public and traffic offenses which can also be tried in District Court. Maximum penalty in Municipal Court is $2500 in fines and a year in jail. Municipal court doesn’t handle civil or felony cases, only municipal ordinance violations that are misdemeanor offenses, and quasi judicial hearing functions where they act as a hearing officer for certain violations like towing challenges, or dangerous dog hearings. In 2014 Municipal Court saw: 3,237 non-traffic misdemeanors; 17,364 non-parking traffic offenses; 20,000 parking tickets; 100,000 meter violations which is five times the amount of misdemeanor offenses of the entire district court and four times the amount traffic offenses. They are busy and move large dockets of people in a fairly predictable manner.
The committee’s interest regarding municipal court is in the impact of municipal proceedings on jail days. In 2014, Municipal Court averaged 25 people in jail per day, though that number dropped for 2015-2016 due to case load. A lot of the charges in court have a minimum mandatory sentencing. Examples are: first offense DUI is minimum 48 hours in jail, second DUI is minimum five days and third offense driving while suspended is 90 days. However, the majority of those days are not all served in jail: 6,000 days of house arrest were served in 2014. Diversion is offered by the prosecution in appropriate cases. Of these jail stays, 40% of the days served in jail are because a defendant failed to appear in court. Failure to appear is a topic to be addressed through this council to discuss alternatives to jail time. Miller said his biggest obstacle is making orders and people not following through. Not all people work in rational self interest. This is definitely an appropriate issue for this council to address.
Miller said the Municipal Court has always offered alternatives to making people pay fines and fees. Community service as an alternative paid at $10 per hour for service performed at nonprofit organizations. If unable to work, the court matches people with things they can do with mental and physical disabilities taken into consideration. The whole point of community service is to do something to be accountable for your violation.
Miller also stated the biggest disconnect in Municipal Court is ordering evaluations and help for offenders, and this falls through because they don’t show for the evaluation. Miller suggested using an automated call system to remind people of court hearings or hire someone to make calls. There is a limited system in place to contact persons to remind them of their first court date after their release from jail.
Defense Counsel
Shaye Downing listed some of the frustrations she hears from Defense Counsel.
Concerns include:
• When defense counsel receives notice, they get defendant’s name, address and charge information only. Court is normally within 1-2 days and they have no way to contact the defendant in that time. Downing stated a phone number would be very helpful so they can call the defendant.
• Many of the defendants are housed in jails out of county due to the limited number of beds in the jail facility. Using other facilities limits counsel’s access to defendants and creates problems with the defendants’ employment because they are unable to complete their required time over the weekend.
• Defense Counsel would like to see a more unified system between divisions and judges when setting bond.
• Defense Counsel knows there is different information available to the prosecution than to the defense counsel. Sharing the bond risk assessment information with defense counsel prior to the initial hearing would expedite the defense’s ability to request a different bond amount / a reduction.
• There is only one housing pod in the jail for the female population. These defendants are treated as though they are max security because they are all housed together and that is the only housing option.
Ideas to Help
• More unified system of how bonds are handled. Low level, non-violent offenses could have a set OR bond fee. Sometimes bond is set high and the defendant has to remain in jail because they can’t pay the bond.
• Some jurisdictions use bond supervision by a third party at a cost. If funding were available this would decrease jail population.
• Encourage the CJCC to include the input of someone who has been through the criminal system.
• A number on the defense bar feel misdemeanor marijuana possession offenses could be handled with a fine, and treated as an infraction.
There was discussion on different bond scenarios. Each individual judge determines the bond amount. In the district court most low-level non-violent offenses have a set bond schedule. If the defendant bonds out, a date to appear is set. If the defendant is unable to bond out, they appear before the judge on Monday. Concern was stated when the defendant has no money to bond out, they have to sit in jail until they appear before a judge to request a different bond amount. Downing questioned why the lowest bond amount cannot be set first instead of having to go before a judge to request a lower bond.
Michelle Roberts, Chief Court Services Officer, stated some of these ideas are currently being tested as part of the risk assessment program.
Branson offered to provide a presentation to council members on the court process from the police call through the Court of Appeals. The presentation will be held June 14 at 9 a.m. in the Jury Assembly Room.
NEXT MEETING
• Next meeting, 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 28 a.m., County Commission chamber.
• Presentations by Judge Fairchild and Michelle Roberts
• Confirm the retreat for August 27, 2016.
• Full agenda will be distributed in advance.
Gaughan moved to adjourn the meeting.
Time and Date