Twenty-seven
people from around Wisconsin came out early on a Wednesday morning to
support fundamental changes on the parole commission. After the
meeting, we held a small debrief and then rally (only a dozen or so people stuck
around braving the below freezing weather). We plan on returning to
attend the next meeting on Wednesday March 4. Next time we will have
our rally immediately after the hearing goes to closed session,
however unpredictable that may be. This month, we learned that public
examination and demonstrations of support is an effective way to
speed the change we need. Hope to see more people on March 4!
The meeting.
It took the DOC 20
minutes to arrange a larger room in the training center for us. There
we waited another ten for commissioners LaCost and Drankiewicz to
join us. Tate said they all left the small meeting room together, but
the others were inexplicably delayed.
The room was chilly.
It reminded formerly incarcerated attendees of the prison housing
units the DOC keeps uncomfortably cold to keep people from being able
to think straight. While we waited for the commissioners to make it
into the room, we asked Chairman Tate to turn up the temperature. He
apologized and said “us being here will warm it up,” then added,
joking “you all brought the heat.”
Then he offered to
let organizational leaders speak up and represent their groups, since
we were waiting anyway. People from ExPO, FFUP, MOSES, James Reed
Unitarian Church, MICAH, Supporters of Incarcerated People (SIP), and
the ACLU turned up, as well as others.
Once everyone was
together, six people represented the Parole Commission: Chairman John
Tate II, Commissioner Danielle LaCost, Commissioner Doug Drankiewicz,
and three “Offender Records Associates” Caitlin Hendricks, Sarah,
and Oliver.
Agenda item 1: draft memo on expectations.
Our work exposing LaCost and the DOC’s undermining of parole releases appeared to had an impact even before we packed the room. Tate started the meeting with a draft memorandum that outlined his expectations for how the Bureau of Classification and Management (BOCM), the Program Review Committee (PRC), DOC and the Parole Commission will conduct themselves.
Highlights he pulled
out include:
-
PRC should have people as ready for release as possible, as soon as possible. “Don’t wait for parole to ask, get people enrolled, so they are ready when the hearing happens.”
-
BOCM should move people to lower custody levels “as makes sense” without waiting for Parole to recommend or request it. If someone hasn’t had serious conduct reports for a year or more, they should be moved back down to lower security, instead of waiting 2, 3, 4 years.
-
Commissioners should also endorse for a reduction in custody based on conduct reports, and efforts to not disrupt their environment, not their sentence structure.
-
Commissioners should not defer without endorsing for programming.
-
Anger management, domestic violence programming not only prepares people for release, it also improves unit safety and stability in the prisons, so BOCM should provide that to parolees as soon as they can.
-
BOCM should wait to provide SOT and SUD programming until someone is closer to release.
-
BOCM should stop using old interpretation of deferrals. Tate provided a guide in the memo. As a draft memo, it is not yet available to the public, so we will have to request it when it becomes public so incarcerated people can see if BOCM and Commissioners are following the guidelines or not.
-
The Commission is looking for three phases: Protection of the Public, Risk Reduction, Release Planning.
-
Phase 1: Protection of the public means institutional adjustment, cooperation with BOCM and Parole’s expectations, and really severe convictions “like triple homicides”. These are the only circumstances where deferrals in excess of 18 months are only appropriate.
-
Phase 2: risk reduction. Program engagement and movement to better prepare for release, is what 12-18 month deferrals are for.
-
Phase 3: release planning. Getting people to lowest level of custody, release planning, building funds, and lining up for any lacking programming to be addressed in the community.
-
The primary importance is maintaining safety, and also victim sensitivity, but at the end of the day, “if we can expedite processes for people earning their freedom, we want to do that.”
He said the DOC was
very receptive and will align with them. After finalizing the memo,
it will be disseminated to all the institutions, so: y’all inside,
keep an eye out for it and send FFUP a copy if you can!
Agenda item 2: new hire.
Jackie Height, a
senior social worker at Racine Correctional accepted the job offer.
She is John Tate’s former mentor when he was doing social work
there. How the interview process went: Tate set the criteria for
hires, 57 people applied, 32 made it through the initial screening by
two DCC staff (he described this phase as “absolutely hands-off”
he didn’t even know who was doing the screening). He chose to
interview the top 10, which ended up being 19, because three were
tied for 10th, and six more were added to address equal opportunity
to make sure there was a diverse pool.
First round of
interviews narrowed down to four applicants, then chose based on them
talking about things like motivational interviewing, understanding
trauma, the need to schedule their own days, identifying need for
external communications regarding release to include communities and
families, rather than just judges and DAs.
Training and
timeline- Height will attend hearings with the existing commissioners
to learn how things are done. Tate spoke highly of her ability to
make assessments and do the job. Drankiewicz emphasized the
importance of preparation with the person’s file. Some old law
prisoners have explained how this preparation with the file process
is relatively new. The files are mostly prepared by the DOC and focus
on people’s original offense.
On March first
Danielle LaCost will be gone, so Tate and Drankiewicz will split up
her hearings starting then, until Height is competent to start
handling hearings on her own. Tate will also sit in on Height’s
first hearings to make sure of this.
At previous meetings
Tate spoke about hoping to hire 2 new commissioners, but because
LaCost delayed her resignation until March 1, he cannot hire a second
one from the current pool, by statute. Also, statutory changes during
Walker’s administration are why the commission is limited to only 4
people (Tate and 3 commissioners) at a time. LaCost is currently
handing Stanley, Jackson, New Lisbon, Oakhill, Green Bay, John Burke,
Sanger Powers, McNaughton, Thompson, Oregon, Dodge, Columbia and
Portage, as well as hearings for people out of state. Anyone in those
facilities with a March hearing should expect their hearings to be
bumped to the latter half of March, and possibly delayed.
Agenda 3: office issues.
The one year backlog
on correspondence mentioned at the last meeting was for
correspondence from incarcerated people to the Parole Commission-
mostly complaints. Correspondence and support letters from outside
were never that far behind, and the new office staff has caught that
up with the exception of a few letters that require more complex
responses that staff would like Tate to review before sending. FFUP’s
questions about Executive Directive 31 (a rule allowing consideration
for extraordinary circumstances, like deteriorating health and
unusually long sentences that was never promogulated) is likely one
of those responses, so we will hopefully get an answer to that soon.
They will now move
on to catching up with letters from inside, ensuring that everyone at
least gets an acknowledgment of receipt or form letter, if not a full
response. Hopefully this will be a crash course for the new staff in
what’s been going on with the commission previously.
Tate spoke highly of
the new staff, recognizing Sarah’s discipline as a former marine,
and spreadsheets Oliver created to organize correspondence and manage
work flow. Tate requested that commissioners write reports more
carefully regarding information sources for redaction processes. He
requested that commissioners indicate where information in reports
are coming from, specifically distinguishing between whether
information came from a person’s PSU file or the person’s
statements in the hearing itself.
Off Agenda: future steps.
The meeting wrapped
up after that, but we were able to talk informally with Tate for a
while as the room cleared out. Some people delivered support letters
directly to him. We also discussed the issue of his senate
confirmation, which is still being held up by Senator Fitzgerald and
other leaders. Tate shrugged off the delay and restated that not
being confirmed wasn’t impacting his approach.
The Senate Judiciary
and Public Safety Committee, led by Van Wanggaard of Racine County
strongly supported Tate’s confirmation, but Scott Fitgerald hasn’t
allowed it to come up for a vote. Instead, his party appears to be on
a "tougher on crime" mission that will further
overcrowd Wisconsin prisons, amplifying the human rights crisis
occurring in our state.
Tate also talked
about the process of updating administrative code rules. There will
be a public hearing scheduled for this, where people can testify and
speak in support of changing criteria to increase releases. After
that hearing, Tate intends to assemble an advisory committee to help
him write new rules, this committee would include prosecutors,
Judges, formerly incarcerated people, community organizers and
victim’s advocates.
FFUP has already
drafted and proposed new
rules with the active participation of people incarcerated under
the old law. We even proposed those changes under statute 227.12, a
process by which regular people can propose rules changes. We
delivered this proposal again, along with a support petition signed
by 600 people. Forming another advisory body will also delay a reform
process that is urgently necessary and could happen much faster. To
quote from a recent
letter we received from Harlan Richards, who was sentenced under the old law:
“There are fewer
and fewer old law prisoners every year. It would be a waste of time
and resources to rewrite the administrative code under these
circumstances. It would be cheaper, easier and quicker to just
reinstate the old rules [from prior to act 28] with one modification.
It would solve the biggest problem which is the commission's
unbridled discretion and require actual objective facts to deny
parole rather than the current subjective decision making which has
kept us warehoused for decades.”
In the time spent
gathering advisers and recommendations to build the perfect hearings
process, Tate could release most, if not all of the remaining old law
prisoners. We need a parole commission chair who is committed to
making their own job obsolete until Truth in Sentencing is repealed
and Wisconsin returns to a system of indeterminate sentencing,
anything short of that is a prolongation of grave injustices.
No comments:
Post a Comment