Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press Reentry Council to act on funding cuts, DOC practices and fair-chance loopholes
Summary
During public comment the council heard sharp criticism of implementation gaps: families paying for programming, DOC visits in tactical gear, the termination of a reentry grant program and a Fair Chance hiring loophole that led to a retroactive job reclassification. The council said it will follow up.
Several public commenters used the council’s public-comment period on May 20 to demand faster policy action and greater transparency on reentry implementation and agency practice.
A long public statement (delivered by a commenter identified as Kehlani) said executive directives dating to 2016 have not been fully implemented and alleged that families are still being charged for programming that DOC receives state funding to provide. The commenter urged the council to change policies that allow DOC community corrections officers to visit family homes in tactical gear and to restore funding and public accountability mechanisms. “Families are being charged to pay for programming. DOC receives state funding specifically to provide programming that funding exists. So why are families who are already carrying the financial weight of incarceration...also being asked to pay out of pocket for programming?” the commenter asked.
Ty Reid answered a question about recidivism with a 2024 figure: “The 2024 number was 22.1 percent,” he said when asked for the most recent publicly cited rate.
Another public commenter, Carl Tobey, described a personal employment case in which he said a University of Washington position he had begun was retroactively reclassified under child- and adult‑care law (referred to in the meeting as CAL), leading to termination despite no job-related nexus with vulnerable populations. Tobey called on the council to support legislative fixes to prevent retroactive classification and to protect remote positions from inappropriate exclusion; he said he was seeking a legislative remedy and that the law taking effect July 1 should strengthen appeal rights.
Council leaders acknowledged these problems and said some statutory changes were underway. Hillary Young (legislative subcommittee) said the July 1 changes to the Fair Chance law should strengthen recourse and that the subcommittee would review Tobey’s concerns further.
Why it matters: Public commenters raised allegations that affect families and employment prospects of people exiting custody, and they asked the council to translate policy statements into enforceable protections. The council did not resolve the allegations during the meeting but flagged follow-up steps.
What’s next: Council staff said they will take notes and follow up on public comments; legislative subcommittee members signaled they would examine the Fair Chance reclassification issue.
