The County Health and Human Needs Committee (aka HHN) and the Public Protection and Judiciary Committee (aka PP&J) met last night to discuss the jail resolution and came up with two different conclusions, which will go to the Personnel and Finance meeting on Monday and the full County Board on Thursday.
I testified at the council meeting last night while these committees met, so, I can’t really blog all three meetings this morning very adequately, but I can do a little. This is what I got.
PUBLIC PROTECTION AND JUDICIARY
Here’s the public input.
Here’s the discussion by the committee.
They made the amendment I told you about yesterday and it passed! Leland Pan, Carousel Bayrd, Mike Willett (one of the county board’s most conservative members!) and eventually, Dorothy Krause voted for the amendment. The young person on the committee did as well, but their vote isn’t counted. Those voting against the amendment were the chair, Paul Rusk, Andy Schauer and Maureen McCarville.
So, the Sheila Stubbs substitute passed with this amendment.
Amendment to Proposed Sub of Resolution 556
1) Add new paragraph at line 270.
“Mead and Hunt shall also recommend immediate solutions to bring all of our jail facilities into compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards to ensure the safe care and custody of youthful offenders. “2) Add at the end of line 280:
“ Upon receiving these long-term recommendations from the workgroups, the county board shall consider whether to retain a consultant to develop and implement long-term proposals from the workgroups, with the goals of reducing our jail population, improving facilities, and addressing the needs of inmates.”3) Delete lines 296 to lines 315
There was also a Dorothy Krause amendment they handed out.
Using the conclusions of the three workgroups, Mead and Hunt shall propose actions that can be taken in the short term to address health and safety issues including compliance with the PREA standards, special needs beds and addressing mental health needs in the current facilities, as well as other indicated programming, both in current facilities and in community based facilities. Mead and Hunt shall also continue to address longer term needs as recommended by the three workgroups and as detailed in the needs assessment and master plan to optimize programmatic treatment and behavior management resources, especially that considers the reduction or elimination of racial disparities, reduces jail population, improves facilities and addresses the needs of inmates.
Andy Schauer wanted to make the amendment but withdrew it. John Hendrick who was at the meeting but not on the committee, offered to make the amendment at the Personnel and Finance Committee meeting, but there was a question about if it was a viable amendment (this is capital money and the amendment affects other operating issues.)
The final vote was the same, but they picked up Andy Schauer on the final vote.
HEALTH AND HUMAN NEEDS
Here is the whole meeting.
They discuss who can testify – of course, they don’t want to hear it. At 3:51 they move the substitute, Zweifel moves it, Clausius seconds. Jeremy Levin, the chair, says they need to talk about their rules, they need to suspend them to take testimony, any testimony. The chair says he is willing to be flexible and would entertain testimony from those who haven’t testified before. Wegleitner points out what is on the agenda to allow people, Levin says they need to suspend the rules. Jenni Dye makes the motion to allow it as on the agenda. That passes. Wegleitner tried to amend it to allow people to speak if they have spoken before, since there a very few, but it isn’t friendly to the chair. She also makes the motion, but there is no second. They explain people can speak again on Monday (March 23rd) at 5:30 at Personnel and Finance and at the county board on Thursday (March 26th). After 7 minutes
This item starts with public testimony at about 11 minutes in. They only allow 3 minutes, but we can’t figure out why, since the county board rules say you get 5 minutes. I can’t find rules for HHN anywhere, but I don’t think I know where to look. The first person who testifies is on a different item, so the public testimony actually starts at about 30 minutes in.
The committee discussion starts at 1:35:25ish. Jenni Dye makes the amendment above, same as Leland Pan did at Public Protection and Judiciary (above). She explains that she wants to hear from the workgroups first so they have a better picture of their options, but only Jenni Dye and Heidi Wegeleitner voted for it. The 4 white guys all voted against – Nick Zweifel, Jeremy Levin, Bill Clausius, Matt Veldran. I think Ronn Ferrell was absent. Youthtoe is in favor. Levin has “trouble” with the amendment, says that a workgroup worked on the substitute with a larger group. (i.e. we already agreed to something, you can’t change it now.) Veldran says she supports the sub as is because Stubbs is at the forefront of the racial disparities work and we can’t throw this out here now. (Audience clearly offended by his statement.) Zweifel says that long term planning should be defined by a location, we can provide services in the community. Doesn’t support the amendment. He could support 4 if the Public Safety Building were removed, everything doesn’t need to be in that building. Dye points out that even though Stubbs name is on the substitute resolution, it was a group effort. She suggested much of the language in 4 and now is proposing to eliminate it because we need trust that we are going to listen. We need to meet people in the middle to gain trust. Levin says that he doesn’t think that they will get that trust, he wants to leave the Public Safety Building in the resolution. Wegleitner says the amendment won’t disengage Mead and Hunt from the workgroups, which was argued by Levin, they are specifically mentioned in 2. She says that this is a compromise, she would like to see more radical things in the resolution, but this is better than it was, but she can’t vote for the resolution without this. She also says that they should be listening to those that are impacted. Again, that motion failed
Other motions made include:
Zweifel Amendment
Zweifel makes a motion to remove the Public Saftey Building (PSB) so that Mead and Hunt aren’t handcuffed to a location. (interesting choice of words).
– On line 296 it says “Mead and Hunt shall propose a solution incorporating the solutions of the workgroups” and strike “for the consolidation of the functions and operations at the PSB site.” (This is amended by Wegleitner’s friendly amendment, and instead, they just put a period after “workgroups” and eliminate the rest of the sentence.)
– Line 308, strike “of the PSB for”
Seconded by Clausius
Wegleitner appreciates the intent that mental health services can be better provided in the community, but removing the reference in 297 and then leaving it in the needs assessment and master plan and she thinks the rest of the sentence needs to be struck too. Zweifel says that is friendly. Levin isn’t sure why it focuses on PSB since he wasn’t involved with the drafting. Levin asks for the motion to be withdrawn to consult with others who drafted this, he’d like to consult with the sheriff. He understands what they are trying to do, but doesn’t know if its good, bad or indifferent until he hears from the experts. Zweifel says then why are we voting on it as it is if we don’t know? (Audience likes that!) He says that Personnel and Finance can change it back. He says the problem is the location, we need long term solutions. Levin lectures the audience (wow. worth listening to) Levin still against it and talking. Dye supports the amendment, it makes the substitute stronger. Veldran is concerned (lights go out, they turn them back on) that the money is capital and if they eliminate too much, will they have issues? Is this still addressing something physical? Wegleitner says we still need capital borrowing to study capital projects, this doesn’t change that. This amendment allows us to consider a better designed facility for people in crisis that is off site. Zweifel agrees with Wegleitner, this might be an opportunity not to put the money in the sheriff’s budget but in other areas of the budget. (Audience likes it, Levin lectures.) Levin talks again repeating himself, trying to control the committee, he will vote against it until he hears otherwise from the sheriff.
Motion passes. Passes 4 – 2, youth vote is for it. Levin and Veldran voted against.
Dye Amendment
Line 315 – strike the words “potential for” and have it read “reduction in jail population due to reduction and elimination of racial disparities” (I think – Levin’s clarification and Wegleitners clarified and made this clearer, but the language should read as quoted)
She says this isn’t about potential, this is about us getting there. She wants Mead and Hunt to give us strategies on getting the reduction, not just reduction on the population, but the disparities as well.
Motion passes.
Final vote on amended sub 1
Weglietner explains she voted for the amendments, but feels it needs more work and more input from the community, she may have additional amendments and would like to engage further with the community. She will be voting against for now, may vote for in the future.
Passes 5 – 1, youth votes yes. Wegleitner is the no vote.
