Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews Sheriff's electronic monitoring rules and contractor transition; attorney warns Board-level contract approval is required
Summary
The committee received the Sheriff's presentation on growth in electronic monitoring and recommended the program rules and contractor oversight item to the full Board while a public commenter (a California attorney) urged formal contract approval and raised concerns about violations and transparency.
The Sheriff's Department presented its proposed rules and regulations for the county’s electronic monitoring (EM) program and asked the committee to approve evidence of financial responsibility from the incoming program administrator, Sentinel Offender Services LLC, for calendar year 2019. The committee recommended the item to the full Board with a positive recommendation.
Crispin Hollings, the Sheriff’s chief financial officer, described program growth after an appellate court ruling (Humphreys) and the department's fee-waiver decisions: monthly participants rose from about 100 in February 2018 to about 400 by May 2019, and program costs increased although the contract at issue is under $10 million. Hollings said the rules and regulations remain "essentially the same" under the new contract, which is scheduled to begin Aug. 1.
During public comment a California attorney told the committee the file title and packet language were misleading and incomplete. He cited California Penal Code section 1203.016 and argued that the Board must approve written contracts between the Sheriff and private entities that operate the county's EM program and must annually approve the program rules and regulations. He also said the Sentinel contract slated to start Aug. 1 had not been approved by the Board and noted a steep increase in program violations in recent years based on a Controller audit.
Chair Marr moved and the committee sent the rules and evidence-of-responsibility item to the full Board with a positive recommendation without objection. The committee did not take a final Board-level contract action in committee; the public commenter urged the Board to follow the Penal Code and provide public approval of the contract at a properly noticed meeting.
