Grits hasn't had a chance to read the Sunset Advisory Commission report (pdf) on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, nor the agency response (pdf), nor the agency's self-evaluation (pdf), but I at least wanted to give readers the links as well as point out bloggerly critiques at Texas Watchdog and the Burnt Orange Report, both of which fault the agency in particular for a lack of transparency. A public hearing April 10 will focus on the agency (with TDCJ and correctional managed health care up in June, see their meeting schedule [pdf]).
One key Sunset recommendation for the Judicial Conduct Commission, the first one, in fact, harks back to the Sharon Keller fiasco where the commission imposed what turned out to be an illegal sanction after adopting findings of fact critical of the judge's decision making and forthcomingness with her fellow judges in the whole "We Close At 5" brouhaha. Sunset Staff recommended Texas adopt a "Constitutional Amendment," to "Authorize the Commission to use its full range of sanctions following formal proceedings."
Another key problem identified by Sunset staff was also readily apparent in the Keller fiasco, in retrospect: "Inconsistencies Between Its Statute and Rules Create the Potential for Litigation and Inefficiencies in the Commission's Operation." Indeed, discussions by commissioners during that episode made it clear this was an ongoing issue that arises for them frequently, whereas the first recommendation was more or less unique to Keller's situation.
Other recommendations and critiques, say the two blog posts, related to a lack of transparency even (perhaps particularly) with Sunset staff. I'd have to read the reports themselves to say more, but anyone interested in participating in the agency's Sunset process should find all they need in the above-linked documents to get engaged.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Sunset. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Sunset. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 25 Maret 2012
Rabu, 07 Desember 2011
Grits readers' disdain prompts closer look at Judicial Conduct Commission Sunset review
With the State Commission on Judicial Conduct up for review by the Sunset Advisory Commission, I thought it worthwhile to ask Grits readers - who as a group are probably more aware of such matters than average Texans - whether they thought the Commission was doing a good job. The result was one of the most lopsided reader polls Grits has ever conducted. Of the 173 respondents, the answers were:
Let's take a closer look at the SCJC in light of its pending Sunset review. Asked "What key obstacles impair your agency's ability to achieve its objectives, the SER responded:
Asked by Sunset, "What are your agency's biggest opportunity for improvement in the future?" the agency replied: "If the Texas Procedural Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct were revised and updated, the agency would be in a better position to serve the public and the judiciary through clear and consistent rules and canons that reflect current changes in the law." The Code of Judicial Conduct (pdf) and the Procedural Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges (pdf) are both promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court, so the agency has no rulemaking authority to correct the perceived shortcomings in (2) above. The agency's enabling language is in Article V, Sec. 1a of the state constitution, while its statutory authority lies in Chapter 33 of the Government Code.
The agency's budget for FY 2010 from the general revenue fund was was $1,001,626, cut slightly to $948,000 per year over the next biennium. But since they only spent $932,303 of their budget in 2010, that minor haircut shouldn't really cut into their activities too dearly. The agency has 14 FTEs, or full-time equivalent employees, led by executive director Seana Willing.
The number of disciplinary actions issued annually has risen in recent years before dipping in FY 2011:
Where do cases come from? A third relate to criminal cases. Again from the latest annual report: "Fifty-four percent (54%) of those cases were filed by civil litigants, their friends or family members, or by pro se (self-represented) litigants. Criminal defendants, including traffic defendants and inmates, accounted for approximately 33% of the cases. Three percent (3%) of the cases were filed anonymously and only 5 cases (0%) were Commission-initiated."
Many complaints are dismissed because staff deem they do not specifically address misconduct under the agency's jurisdiction under Supreme Court rules: "Finally, of the 1,192 cases closed [in FY 2011], approximately 51% alleged no judicial misconduct. Approximately 28% were dismissed after a preliminary investigation and approximately 21% were disposed of following a full investigation requiring a response from the judge." (One of the legislative changes suggested below was to allow reconsideration when those complainants bring forward more information.)
Among legislative changes suggested in the SER to "assist" the agency in "performing its function":
Relatedly, I'd like to see more records opened up after the Commission's case evaluations are complete. Under current rules, the public can't really know whether the agency is doing a good job or not, and Grits readers, at least, are under the impression they are not.
Since the Sunset process is focused on what the Legislature can do, the self-evaluation report fails to inform us what similar changes the agency thinks need to be made by the Texas Supreme Court rules - the main barrier identified in the SER to improving their operations. No opinions at all were proffered on that score. Perhaps during the hearing process some of those will be identified on the record and the high court can take them up.
What else do they need to fix at the State Commission on Judicial Conduct? Let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments.
See related, recent Grits posts:
Yes: 3%In the agency's self-evaluation report (pdf, hereafter SER) for the Sunset Commission, the agency opined (p. 3), "A judicial office is a public trust. In order to function effectively, the system must be assured of the public's faith and confidence." A key goal of the agency's oversight work, says the SER, is to ensure that "public confidence in the integrity, competency, impartiality and independence of the judiciary is preserved." If Grits readers' opinions are any indication, the SCJC has lately been of little assistance in that task.
No: 62%
Only when the media is paying attention: 27%
Don't know/can't tell: 6%
(Figures don't add to 100% due to rounding)
Let's take a closer look at the SCJC in light of its pending Sunset review. Asked "What key obstacles impair your agency's ability to achieve its objectives, the SER responded:
1) Budget cuts and restrictions on general revenue spending continue to impair the agency's ability to achieve its objectives.After the fiasco over the SCJC's attempt to extend leniency to Judge Sharon Keller - where they found she'd engaged in misconduct but imposed a lesser, illegal sanction that was overturned on appeal as unconstitutional - I'd add 4) Bending over backwards to let judges (especially district and appellate judges) off light. And if Grits readers' opinions are any indication, you could tack on: 5) Lacking public confidence in the agency's judicial oversight function.
2) Incomplete, outdated, and/or inconsistent rules and procedures also impair the agency's ability to achieve its objectives.
3) The size of the board - 13 members - is too large, costly and unnecessary.
Asked by Sunset, "What are your agency's biggest opportunity for improvement in the future?" the agency replied: "If the Texas Procedural Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges and the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct were revised and updated, the agency would be in a better position to serve the public and the judiciary through clear and consistent rules and canons that reflect current changes in the law." The Code of Judicial Conduct (pdf) and the Procedural Rules for the Removal or Retirement of Judges (pdf) are both promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court, so the agency has no rulemaking authority to correct the perceived shortcomings in (2) above. The agency's enabling language is in Article V, Sec. 1a of the state constitution, while its statutory authority lies in Chapter 33 of the Government Code.
The agency's budget for FY 2010 from the general revenue fund was was $1,001,626, cut slightly to $948,000 per year over the next biennium. But since they only spent $932,303 of their budget in 2010, that minor haircut shouldn't really cut into their activities too dearly. The agency has 14 FTEs, or full-time equivalent employees, led by executive director Seana Willing.
The number of disciplinary actions issued annually has risen in recent years before dipping in FY 2011:
2007: 45The number of dismissals has also generally risen:
2008: 56
2009: 70
2010: 89
2011: 42
2007: 1,008Municipal court judges and JPs represent 39% and 21% respectively of all judges under the SCJCs jurisdiction, but they represented a disproportionately small number of total complaints, while they were more likely to be targets of significant discipline: According to the agency's annual report (pdf), "in fiscal year 2011: justices of the peace received 19% of the complaints filed, but accounted for 55% of all discipline issued by the Commission, a fairly significant increase over fiscal year 2010. Disciplinary actions against district and appellate judges experienced a sharp decline to 7% and 0% respectively. Municipal court judges received 9% of the complaints filed in fiscal year 2011 and accounted for 24% of all discipline issued by the Commission in fiscal year 2011. Consistent with prior years, 44% of all cases filed in fiscal year 2011 were against district judges," who accounted for just 12% of all judges under the SCJC's jurisdiction and 7% of disciplinary actions last year. This makes it appear that district judges and appellate are receiving less scrutiny despite receiving more complaints, and that the SCJC reserves its "hammer" for the lowest-level jurists. That's not encouraging.
2008: 966
2009: 1063
2010: 1,208
2011: 1,192
Where do cases come from? A third relate to criminal cases. Again from the latest annual report: "Fifty-four percent (54%) of those cases were filed by civil litigants, their friends or family members, or by pro se (self-represented) litigants. Criminal defendants, including traffic defendants and inmates, accounted for approximately 33% of the cases. Three percent (3%) of the cases were filed anonymously and only 5 cases (0%) were Commission-initiated."
Many complaints are dismissed because staff deem they do not specifically address misconduct under the agency's jurisdiction under Supreme Court rules: "Finally, of the 1,192 cases closed [in FY 2011], approximately 51% alleged no judicial misconduct. Approximately 28% were dismissed after a preliminary investigation and approximately 21% were disposed of following a full investigation requiring a response from the judge." (One of the legislative changes suggested below was to allow reconsideration when those complainants bring forward more information.)
Among legislative changes suggested in the SER to "assist" the agency in "performing its function":
- Amending the definition of "willful and persistent misconduct" to include chronic failure to obtain required judicial education hours.
- Amending statutes and rules surrounding reconsideration of dismissed complaints, allowing for reconsideration for good cause or when additional information alleging misconduct is presented.
- The statute should be clarified so "that judges who are removed from office by a Review Tribunal following formal proceedings initiated by the SCJC forfeit their retirement pensions upon removal."
- Require retired judges who are "eligible to sit by assignment" to notify the Presiding Judge of their administrative region and have their name removed from the list of eligible judges if they receive a Public Reprimand, Public Censure, or resign in lieu of discipline. "Currently there is no requirement that the judge request that his/her name be removed from the list and there is consensus among the Presiding Judges that they have no legal authority to remove a judge from the list.
- The Commission wants to extend confidentiality provisions governing their work to include information presented at trial. (A terrible idea, IMO; legislation to do this was rightly vetoed by Perry in 2009. It was re-filed during the most recent session but went nowhere.)
Relatedly, I'd like to see more records opened up after the Commission's case evaluations are complete. Under current rules, the public can't really know whether the agency is doing a good job or not, and Grits readers, at least, are under the impression they are not.
Since the Sunset process is focused on what the Legislature can do, the self-evaluation report fails to inform us what similar changes the agency thinks need to be made by the Texas Supreme Court rules - the main barrier identified in the SER to improving their operations. No opinions at all were proffered on that score. Perhaps during the hearing process some of those will be identified on the record and the high court can take them up.
What else do they need to fix at the State Commission on Judicial Conduct? Let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments.
See related, recent Grits posts:
Jumat, 02 Desember 2011
Advocacy groups compiling Sunset wish lists ... Do you have yours?
At the Texas Tribune, Ben Philpott has a brief item on how various liberal and conservative groups are approaching the opportunities presented by the Sunset review of Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The Texas Civil Rights Project, according to attorney Scott Medlock, is "proposing measures he says could improve prisoner conditions while cutting costs for the state, like reviewing sentencing policies that keep geriatric inmates behind bars, where they disproportionately use up the prison system’s limited health care dollars." "So that results in old and frail prisoners who have already served an extremely long time in prison that then become very expensive to care for as they reach their later years," Medlock said.
Meanwhile Marc Levin of the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation suggested that Texas:
How to Get Involved
If you're interested in reform at these agencies and want to participate in the Sunset process, you can do so by submitting written comments, lobbying Sunset Commission members (which is a very helpful approach), or showing up to speak at public hearings, which may be less effective if you don't show up with written testimony/materials and very specific recommendations. Go here to learn more about how to participate in the Sunset process. More people should. Here are the "self evaluations" from the criminal-justice related agencies currently up for Sunset review:
It's not just organizations but also average folks can also get involved in the Sunset process, if they're willing and able to do a little brain and legwork. In this case it's not that hard: Read the self-evaluation of the agency that concerns you. Take notes as you go, thinking both about what's been said and what's been omitted. Identify problems you see at the agency - particularly any not identified in the self-evaluation - and (really important!) suggest proposed solutions. Write down your concerns, ideas or questions. Submit them to the Sunset Advisory Commission as comments.
If you're in Austin, or can make it for a visit, try to visit with Sunset staff in person about your concerns. (The Sunset liaison staffer for each agency is listed in the self-evaluation document.) It's also considered common courtesy at that point to share your concerns with the agency up for review (contact info is also in the self-evaluation report). Who knows, maybe they'll preemptively implement your idea, or maybe you'll be turned down but still get a chance to ask questions and gather more intel. Either way, at least at the hearing you can say you've spoken to them about it.
The next step, if one were pursuing the task the way a lobbyist would, would be to contact the offices of the various members of the Sunset Commission and share your comments/concerns/solutions, preferably in in-person visits. Unless you have personal connections with the legislator in question, you'll probably end up talking with a legislative staffer assigned to the topic (which is fine). Those meetings not only give you a chance to pitch your ideas but also to cultivate intelligence about what commission members are thinking about, what other special interests are asking for, etc..
So if you do your job right as a citizen lobbyist in the Sunset process, by the time the Sunset Commission holds a hearing to discuss the agency that concerns you, all of the Sunset staffers and commissioners (or at least their staff) will already be aware of the concerns you're raising. When that's the case, it's a lot easier to get your ideas seriously discussed than if you simply show up cold at the hearing for the first time. Some ideas brought forward that way end up in the Sunset recommendations, it's true, but one's chances are better if there's been a lot more prep and legwork done before-hand.
I'm excited to see the Sunset process unfold for each of these agencies, though I'm concerned (but hopeful) that advocacy groups are well-positioned to capitalize on the opportunity. We'll see.
See related, recent Grits posts:
The Texas Civil Rights Project, according to attorney Scott Medlock, is "proposing measures he says could improve prisoner conditions while cutting costs for the state, like reviewing sentencing policies that keep geriatric inmates behind bars, where they disproportionately use up the prison system’s limited health care dollars." "So that results in old and frail prisoners who have already served an extremely long time in prison that then become very expensive to care for as they reach their later years," Medlock said.
Meanwhile Marc Levin of the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation suggested that Texas:
must prioritize its prison space to keep threats to society behind bars but should steer lower-level offenders, like individuals convicted of minor drug possession, out of jail.They're right that the Sunset process presents a great opportunity to pursue changes at TDCJ, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and also the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, all of which are up for review in 2012-13. During Sunset, agencies are vetted thoroughly once every 12 years by the Lege and Sunset Commission staff, and the Lege must pass a bill verifying the agency continues to serve a vital function. Sunset bills often include various reform measures, though just as frequently legislators tack on pork or other favors for special interests. The bills must pass or else, at least in theory, or the agencies cease to exist. Much of the Sunset action is already happening behind the scenes as staff prepare preliminary reports and ready for public hearings next year, so early input is generally more effective, though of course Sunset bills can and will be amended all the way down to the waning days of the Legislature.
"We have about 17,000 low-level drug possession offenders in our Texas prisons right now," Levin said.
"Not all of them would be eligible under this because it excludes those with prior significant felony convictions and so forth. But it certainly would save several hundred millions of dollars."
How to Get Involved
If you're interested in reform at these agencies and want to participate in the Sunset process, you can do so by submitting written comments, lobbying Sunset Commission members (which is a very helpful approach), or showing up to speak at public hearings, which may be less effective if you don't show up with written testimony/materials and very specific recommendations. Go here to learn more about how to participate in the Sunset process. More people should. Here are the "self evaluations" from the criminal-justice related agencies currently up for Sunset review:
- Texas Department of Criminal Justice
- Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
- Windham School District
- State Commission on Judicial Conduct
It's not just organizations but also average folks can also get involved in the Sunset process, if they're willing and able to do a little brain and legwork. In this case it's not that hard: Read the self-evaluation of the agency that concerns you. Take notes as you go, thinking both about what's been said and what's been omitted. Identify problems you see at the agency - particularly any not identified in the self-evaluation - and (really important!) suggest proposed solutions. Write down your concerns, ideas or questions. Submit them to the Sunset Advisory Commission as comments.
If you're in Austin, or can make it for a visit, try to visit with Sunset staff in person about your concerns. (The Sunset liaison staffer for each agency is listed in the self-evaluation document.) It's also considered common courtesy at that point to share your concerns with the agency up for review (contact info is also in the self-evaluation report). Who knows, maybe they'll preemptively implement your idea, or maybe you'll be turned down but still get a chance to ask questions and gather more intel. Either way, at least at the hearing you can say you've spoken to them about it.
The next step, if one were pursuing the task the way a lobbyist would, would be to contact the offices of the various members of the Sunset Commission and share your comments/concerns/solutions, preferably in in-person visits. Unless you have personal connections with the legislator in question, you'll probably end up talking with a legislative staffer assigned to the topic (which is fine). Those meetings not only give you a chance to pitch your ideas but also to cultivate intelligence about what commission members are thinking about, what other special interests are asking for, etc..
So if you do your job right as a citizen lobbyist in the Sunset process, by the time the Sunset Commission holds a hearing to discuss the agency that concerns you, all of the Sunset staffers and commissioners (or at least their staff) will already be aware of the concerns you're raising. When that's the case, it's a lot easier to get your ideas seriously discussed than if you simply show up cold at the hearing for the first time. Some ideas brought forward that way end up in the Sunset recommendations, it's true, but one's chances are better if there's been a lot more prep and legwork done before-hand.
I'm excited to see the Sunset process unfold for each of these agencies, though I'm concerned (but hopeful) that advocacy groups are well-positioned to capitalize on the opportunity. We'll see.
See related, recent Grits posts:
Selasa, 15 November 2011
Tidbits from the parole board's 'self-evaluation'
A couple of notable items from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' "self evaluation" (pdf) for the Sunset Commission:
Regular readers are aware the parole board makes decisions regarding only a fraction of the 70,000+ releases from TDCJ each year. Prisonsers in state jails and SAFP serve their sentences (generally less than two years) day for day. And offenders with longer sentences sometimes age out, serving their full sentences day for day and leaving prison even if the parole board never grants early release. The Texas parole board considered 97,513 offenders for release in FY 2010, according to the agency's self-evaluation report, approving more than 33,000 of them:
So parole approval rates have been slightly rising; if they continue to increase at roughly the same pace over the next five years it would eliminate all pressure for new prison construction or leasing additional beds.
Technical revocations
The parole board not only affects the prison population based on who it lets go but also based on how many people under its supervision go back to prison each year. Of offenders sent back to prison after their parole was revoked (28,969 people in fy 2010), says the self-evaluation, 12,573 or 43% of those revoked were for technical violations only. Another 4,230 had their parole revoked because of a "law violation, no new conviction," while 12,122 (42%) were sent back because of a new conviction.
Clemency
The parole board recommended clemency, mostly full pardons, in 41 of the 237 non-capital cases it considered in FY 2010. They could have added that Perry granted only 9 of those 41. The budget for the entire clemency division, with a staff of seven, was $308,476 in FY 2010.
Blame the underlings
There was a remarkable veiled reference to the controversy surrounding the board's application of "Condition X" (sex-offender conditions) without due process to parolees who were never convicted of a sex crime, in which the self-evaluation seemed to blame staff and exonerate the board for its contretemps with the judges::
Don't be late
Wanna communicate with the parole board but the chair won't place your issue on the agenda? You get your chance just once per year: "Once a year at a regularly called board meeting, the board will afford the public an opportunity to present comments that are not on the posted agenda. BPP-POL.141.202 outlines the procedures to follow for persons not employed by or under contract with the board who wish to have items placed on the board’s posted agenda." Be there or be square.
How it works
On p. 33 of the pdf is a chart with a good summary of the parole process for the layman.
Regular readers are aware the parole board makes decisions regarding only a fraction of the 70,000+ releases from TDCJ each year. Prisonsers in state jails and SAFP serve their sentences (generally less than two years) day for day. And offenders with longer sentences sometimes age out, serving their full sentences day for day and leaving prison even if the parole board never grants early release. The Texas parole board considered 97,513 offenders for release in FY 2010, according to the agency's self-evaluation report, approving more than 33,000 of them:
Parole Approval rates:
2006: 26.26%
2007: 29.82%
2008: 30.74%
2009: 30.26%
2010: 31.01%
So parole approval rates have been slightly rising; if they continue to increase at roughly the same pace over the next five years it would eliminate all pressure for new prison construction or leasing additional beds.
Technical revocations
The parole board not only affects the prison population based on who it lets go but also based on how many people under its supervision go back to prison each year. Of offenders sent back to prison after their parole was revoked (28,969 people in fy 2010), says the self-evaluation, 12,573 or 43% of those revoked were for technical violations only. Another 4,230 had their parole revoked because of a "law violation, no new conviction," while 12,122 (42%) were sent back because of a new conviction.
Clemency
The parole board recommended clemency, mostly full pardons, in 41 of the 237 non-capital cases it considered in FY 2010. They could have added that Perry granted only 9 of those 41. The budget for the entire clemency division, with a staff of seven, was $308,476 in FY 2010.
Blame the underlings
There was a remarkable veiled reference to the controversy surrounding the board's application of "Condition X" (sex-offender conditions) without due process to parolees who were never convicted of a sex crime, in which the self-evaluation seemed to blame staff and exonerate the board for its contretemps with the judges::
In 2009, the Legislature transferred the institutional parole operations from the TDCJ to the board primarily because the majority of the institutional parole officer’s duties and responsibilities supported the board’s statutory authority to release an offender on parole or mandatory supervision and constitutional authority to make clemency recommendations to the Governor for capital cases. Since the transfer, the quality of the case summaries has dramatically improved as has the work performance of the staff and overall efficiency of the operations. This transfer removed one obstacle that hindered the effectiveness and efficiency of the parole review process.The parole board is claiming their problems with federal judges occurred "because supervising staff misinterprets the board’s intent or incorrectly applies conditions of release the board imposes." Really?! The staff misinterpreted your intent or somehow incorrectly applied it? Hogwash! And they'd have us believe that the "obstacle" to fixing this problem is that the board should have more control over TDCJ parole officers? That's pretty blatantly using the Condition X controversy as an opportunity for an unwarranted power grab. The real problem is the board's overt defiance of numerous state and federal court decisions, not that staff or anybody else misinterpreted what they said or meant.
The parole officers authorized to supervise offenders released by the board were not transferred and continue to work for TDCJ. This obstacle, most recently noted by a federal judge, has resulted in continuing liability and litigation defense expenditures because supervising staff misinterprets the board’s intent or incorrectly applies conditions of release the board imposes. The board and TDCJ have appeared jointly as defendants in state and federal courts and in some cases, monetary damages and attorney fees were awarded to the Plaintiff and their attorneys.
Don't be late
Wanna communicate with the parole board but the chair won't place your issue on the agenda? You get your chance just once per year: "Once a year at a regularly called board meeting, the board will afford the public an opportunity to present comments that are not on the posted agenda. BPP-POL.141.202 outlines the procedures to follow for persons not employed by or under contract with the board who wish to have items placed on the board’s posted agenda." Be there or be square.
How it works
On p. 33 of the pdf is a chart with a good summary of the parole process for the layman.
Sunset process gives public chance for input at TDCJ
The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has put up a helpful page encouraging people to get involved in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Sunset process between now and the next session in 2013. A notable excerpt reads:
If you care about criminal justice reform, now is the time for you to speak up and voice your concerns. Presently, the Sunset Advisory Commission has begun its review of TDCJ and other criminal justice-related agencies, including the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Based on its evaluation, the Commission will make recommendations on how each agency can be improved or whether the agency should be abolished.You can take part in this opportunity for improvement by letting us know what should be done to improve Texas' criminal justice agencies. TCJC has created a comprehensive guide to the Sunset process to help individuals understand the process, how they can get involved, and what resources are available. To download a PDF version of our guide to Sunset please click this link: Policy Guide to the Sunset Review Process, and to download a 1-page flyer on how to participate in the Sunset process, please click this link: Share Your Story - Participate in TDCJ's Sunset Review Process!
If you wish to participate by filling out a questionnaire, please click the link here: Sunset Questionnaire. We are also providing a questionnaire that is specifically directed toward incarcerated individuals. If you would like to print a copy and mail it to someone you know, please download the PDF version by clicking here: Incarcerated Persons Questionnaire.
An agency's Sunset review typically only occurs every 12 years, so we must seize upon this rare opportunity to improve the criminal justice system. Through the Sunset process, and with your help, we can achieve the necessary reforms that can make Texas' criminal justice system a model for others.
Go here for more detail. Here's TDCJ's self-evaluation report (large pdf), here's the one (pdf) for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, there's a separate one (pdf) for the Windham School District, and one more forthcoming for the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Here's the home page for the Sunset Advisory Commission.
How can you get involved (beyond filling out TCJC's questionnaires above)? Basically, start by reading the above-linked self evaluations with a fine tooth comb. If you dispute anything in them or have recommendations for reform they didn't include, put them in writing, submit them to Sunset staff, then come to the public hearings when they're announced and testify about your specific concerns. You can also present your ideas to staff at the Sunset commission or in the offices of individual legislators on the Sunset Commission. TCJC is right that the Sunset process presents unique opportunities, even if it requires playing the long game. It's an important chance to identify problems and promote solutions that won't come along again for more than a decade.
How can you get involved (beyond filling out TCJC's questionnaires above)? Basically, start by reading the above-linked self evaluations with a fine tooth comb. If you dispute anything in them or have recommendations for reform they didn't include, put them in writing, submit them to Sunset staff, then come to the public hearings when they're announced and testify about your specific concerns. You can also present your ideas to staff at the Sunset commission or in the offices of individual legislators on the Sunset Commission. TCJC is right that the Sunset process presents unique opportunities, even if it requires playing the long game. It's an important chance to identify problems and promote solutions that won't come along again for more than a decade.
Rabu, 26 Oktober 2011
TDCJ, parole board publish self-evaluations for Sunset process
From the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition's latest newsletter:
They're right. The Sunset process is a unique opportunity to suggest improvements at the agency at a deeper-in-the-weeds level than is often possible. Check out those self-evaluations, as will I, and I'm sure Grits readers will be hearing more on these subjects sooner than later.TDCJ's Sunset Review is Beginning - We Want Your Input!If you care about criminal justice reform, now is the time for you to speak up and voice your concerns.TCJC is very excited to tell you about a unique opportunity to offer input and suggestions that will help improve Texas' criminal justice system. Presently, the Sunset Advisory Commission has begun its review of TDCJ and other criminal justice-related agencies, including the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Based on its evaluation, the Commission will make recommendations on how each agency can be improved or whether the agency should be abolished.You can take part in this opportunity for improvement by letting us know what should be done to improve Texas' criminal justice agencies. TCJC has created a comprehensive guide to the Sunset process to help individuals understand the process, how they can get involved, and what resources are available. Please click the link below to download a PDF version of our guide to Sunset:To download a 1-page flyer on how to participate in the Sunset process, please click below:Again, the Sunset process is in its beginning stages, and most agencies under review have already submitted Self-Evaluation Reports (SERs), which are available on the Sunset Advisory Commission's website. To view each agency's SER, visit the Sunset SER webpage here!To view individual agency SERs, please click on the links below:
- Note: The Correctional Managed Health Care Committee's SER is not yet published.
An agency's Sunset review typically only occurs every 12 years, so we must seize upon this rare opportunity to improve the criminal justice system. Through the Sunset process, and with your help, we can achieve the necessary reforms that can make Texas' criminal justice system a model for others.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)