Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013

Transcription

1 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 The public meeting of the was held on Thursday, March 7, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance: Commission Members present: Law Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair; Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr.; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens. Ex Officio Members present: Secretary John E. Wetzel, PA Department of Corrections; Carol L. Lavery, PA Victim Advocate. Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Catherine W. Dittman, Administrative Support Assistant; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Jodi Ripka, Office Manager; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support; Carol A. Zeiss, Manager of Data Management. Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; Zach Hoover, Chief of Staff for Senator Leach; Senior Judge Linda K.M. Ludgate; Public Comment Period There were no public comments. Approval of Minutes Judge Woods-Skipper moved to approve the December 13, 2012 Commission meeting minutes. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Membership The Commission Chair welcomed two new members: Senator John Rafferty and Judge Daniel J. Milliron. Professor Chanenson recognized Judge Ludgate s years of service to the Commission. Her term expired in December. She relayed her enjoyment with working on the Commission and offered her services for the future. The Chair then turned to Counsel for the election of officers. Judge Rangos nominated Professor Chanenson as Chair and Judge Woods-Skipper as Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously. Executive and Administrative Support Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to Tab 3 of the Commission meeting materials. He noted the list of committee assignments as discussed in December remains intact for the next two years. The Commission advertised for a data management specialist in late fall. It offered the position to Brenda Cooper who previously worked for the Commission. She will begin her duties in April. Additionally, the Commission advertised for a limited term data quality specialist. Grace Monjardo was hired and began work in February. She will be addressing data quality issues for all counties with the exception of Philadelphia and Allegheny. Her contract will Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 1 of 6

2 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 end in December. The Commission anticipates hiring a similar position to be based within Allegheny County and a position to be based in Philadelphia to focus specifically on risk assessment and other issues in those counties. Additionally, Duquesne Law student Genevieve Micharka is working on the case law review for the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. It should be completed in the near future and will be posted on the Commission web site. Mr. Bergstrom next addressed management and oversight issues. The Senate and House sent notice that the respective standing Judiciary Committees will continue to have oversight of the Commission. Any revisions to guidelines or other Commission matters will be forwarded to them for review. He reminded Commission members of the State Ethics Act form. Professor Chanenson and Attorney Morris will be required to complete the form by May 1 st as will the Deputy Director and Executive Director. He asked that other members of the Commission completing the form in other capacities to provide a copy to the Commission. Information on the Act and a 2001 memorandum by Counsel Mistick was provided in the Commission meeting materials. Turning to fiscal matters, Executive Director Bergstrom noted Act 9(a) of 2012 which gave leadership of the General Assembly the authority to rebalance funding of the legislative service agencies. The leadership first created a reserve account for each agency that provides for three months of funding for each. As the Commission went through three cycles of layoff notices during a budget crisis a few years ago, these funds will provide for a continuation of service. During the budget issue, The Pennsylvania State University fronted funds to keep staff employed. Second, the leadership created a separate fund that could be used by legislative service agencies to pay off any kind of vacation or sick leave for employees leaving Commonwealth service. In the past, each agency was independently responsible for retaining funds in their own budgets for payouts of accumulated leave. Third, the leadership reviewed the Commission s appropriation and carryover of less than $70,000. The carryover funds were encumbered for specific IT needs but not spent by the close of the fiscal year. The leadership agreed to move those funds into the current appropriation which creates a total of $1.8 million. Last, there was an agreement with the Executive Branch about the funding levels of the legislative service agencies for the next fiscal year. The Commission s request of $1.73 million was honored and in the Governor s Executive budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Next, Mr. Bergstrom addressed the fiscal audit solicitation. The Legislative Budget and Finance Committee suggested the Commission undergo a fiscal audit annually. The Commission has done so each year. It is time to solicit proposals from auditors for FY In the past 10 years (as long as the Commission has been undergoing an audit) only Parente Beard has submitted a proposal. It submitted an unsolicited proposal which is included in the meeting materials as informational only. In response to Judge Rangos, Mr. Bergstrom stated that the $10,000 quoted was in line with prior years. Professor Chanenson stated that while he has no reason to question the quality of Parente Beard s audits, it is a good management practice not to use the same auditors every year. Judge Rangos moved that the Commission issue a request for proposals for a FY financial audit. Judge Woods-Skipper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Executive Director Bergstrom moved to the FY budget. The total budget is $1.8 million due to the carryover funds moved as discussed. Federal funds equal $571,000, of which $400,000 is a Justice Assistance Grant. The $171,000 is a set-aside grant for supporting sentencing operations. There are currently no recommended changes to the operating budget. For FY , he expects the Justice Assistance Grant to be replaced with a Justice Reinvestment Initiative instate grant. Statute provides for up to $400,000. Therefore, the funds could be less. He expects the sentencing support grant to continue. Overall, the FY is consistent with the Commission s request. He asks for support in the General Assembly as the budget process moves forward. Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 2 of 6

3 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Data Management and Information Access Committee Carol Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, referred Commission members to meeting materials which summarized unit activities. She noted that approximately 125,000 sentences were reported in calendar year As the unit works to get all cases submitted, this figure should increase. Executive Director Bergstrom added that the number of reported sentences will most likely be less than those reported in It is a continuation of a trend that the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts also recognizes for the past four to five years. However, it continues to be monitored as it is an anomaly after many years of annual increases in reported sentences. Ms. Zeiss called attention to the proposals from Cross Current Corporation, the software vendor for SGS Web. One has to do with allowing a transition from judicial proceeding to a person-based system for future use with parole guidelines. Another Statement of Work concerns the enhancements for criminal gangs and murder victims younger than age 13. These proposals are pending Commission decisions on the enhancements. Joan Lisle, Manager of the Information Access Unit, referred Commission Members to the Commission materials. She noted the information for data reports and data sets requested. No data sets were requested since the December 2012 meeting. She reported that the Data Management and Access Committee met and discussed revisions to the Commission s Release of Information Policy for consideration. Under General Release, version was struck as the Annual Report version of the data is used for general release data sets. Under Section 2B, contracted release, version was again struck. Another change is to shift approval of release of custom data sets from the Data Management and Access Committee to the Executive Director. The Executive Director may still seek recommendations from the Committee or Commission. Executive Director Bergstrom added that the Release of Information Policy was first established in 2000 after at least one public hearing. The Commission had a policy of not releasing sentencing data that included judge name, offender name, etc. Currently social security numbers and user inputted reasons for departure are excluded. As the Commission moves in a more open release policy, there is concern to ensure inappropriate information was not released. The Policy has been updated numerous times throughout the years to reflect a shift toward more transparency and availability of sentencing data. At this point, data sets are generally approved for release unless the scope of the request is at a magnitude that it would overwhelm staff and resources. Those cases should trigger a mechanism in which the Executive Director may question the investment of staff resources. If it is a sensitive issue or one where the Commission should actively be involved in the discussion, the request would be brought to the Committee and then the Commission. But generally, the policy should be to respond to requests as they are received. Judge Rangos noted that the number of custom data set requests is low. Executive Director Bergstrom suggested that the reason is that the general data sets are broad, and few requests would fall under custom data sets. Ms. Lisle added that individuals may generate their own ad hoc data reports via the Commission website. Judge Woods-Skipper moved to adopt revisions to the Release of Information Policy as noted. District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lisle reported that staff members are looking into developing a privacy policy. The Commission has the Release of Information Policy and a Right to Know Policy. As the Commission is situated at Penn State, there are numerous security policies. A coordinated review of all the policies is being undertaken so that any overlaps or gaps may be identified. Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 3 of 6

4 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Research and Evaluation Committee Cynthia Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, reminded Commission members of the risk presentation at the last Commission meeting and of the Commission s decision to define a low risk score. Since then, the validation sample data were analyzed against the low risk score. Findings were validated. The predictors and error rates were identical. The next step will involve using another sample from later years to validate the model. In tandem, work is underway on how to implement the risk assessment scale. Four counties with judges on the Commission will be involved in focus groups. The focus groups met this morning. Professor Ruback presented background information on why we do risk, what risk means, and the Commission s risk assessment tool project. The next step will be to send ten case scenarios to the focus group with the accompanying risk assessment for scoring. The Commission staff will review to determine how they interpreted risk, how easy it was to access the information, and similar issues. The next step is to beta test the risk assessment tool in those four counties on actual cases and compare the results with actual sentences implemented prior to the risk assessment tool. Dr. Kempinen next turned to the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program report. The legislative report was previously distributed. A Research Bulletin summarizes findings of the report. A draft is included in the Commission meeting materials. Judge Hathaway moved to approve the public dissemination of the Research Bulletin which recaps the 2013 Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Program Report to the Legislature. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. On a final note, Dr. Kempinen addressed the County Sentencing Project. In December, the Commission was provided a copy of the report on revocations and time served. Currently, staff members are undertaking a small recidivism study. Executive Director Bergstrom added information about two additional projects. The Justice Research Center at Penn State has undertaken a study of level 5 offenders. Professor Berk of the University of Pennsylvania is taking a different approach to look at risk and forecasting. Other discussions with individuals at the University of Pennsylvania occurred as well. Related projects may be established through service purchase contracts. He reminded the Commission that high risk offenders need to be identified as well as low risk offenders. Outreach and Policy Support Committee Diane Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities for calendar year 2012 since there was only one month of 2013 information for this Commission meeting. Sentencing Policy Specialists Helene Placey and Carrie Peters responded to nearly 1,100 inquiries. They conducted 30 seminars during this time frame with more than 1,000 participants in total. There were more than 39,000 visits to the Commission web site. Six seminars are scheduled for the spring. The spring 2013 edition of The Monitor is drafted and under review. In conjunction with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), $15,000 were awarded to 11 county criminal justice advisory boards (CJAB). An additional $15,000 was moved into available funding at PCCD s request. An announcement to the CJABs was made. As mentioned earlier, Grace Monjardo was hired on a limited term contract as a data quality specialist. She will be working through December 2013 on a number of initiatives. Moving on to policy support matters, Dr. Shoop noted that the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines are effective as of December 28, The text of the guidelines, matrices, offense listing, and sample form are posted on the web site. Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 4 of 6

5 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 The draft of the commentary/analysis section is currently being reviewed by staff members. As soon as it is completed, it will be posted on the website, and the manual will go the printer. One printing is planned. There were about 4,600 manuals pre-ordered. Other materials provided to Commission members include the new offense list, legislation passing one chamber, and recent case law. As mentioned, an impact analysis for House Bill 321 is underway. Copies of the Task Force Report on Restitution in Pennsylvania were provided by the PA Office of the Victim Advocate. Victim Advocate Lavery reminded the Commission that the Task Force was created to report recommendations concerning restitution to the legislature, governor, and judiciary. The Task Force was comprised of 39 members representing state and local interests. It was a robust process with considerable participation from the members. Recommendations were not 100 percent supported by every member, but the details of how much support they received and whether there were dissenting opinions are included in the report. After about a year of deliberations, 47 recommendations were put forth by the group. These recommendations are a mix of legislative or judicial changes and policy and practice changes. They range from the need for development of training guidelines, judicial bench books, and tool kits to tools to accomplish collections and the ability to revoke licenses. The Task Force determined that there is a need and desire for the work to continue through ongoing coordination and discussion and a need to have an identified source or home for that ongoing coordination and discussion. The Office of Victim Advocate is in the process of making that happen. The report and other materials are available on the Office of Victim Advocate s web site. Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to two other reports. Portions of the report on the Task Force on Child Protection were provided in the Commission meeting materials. It includes a recommendation that the Commission create a sentencing enhancement. Second, the PA Department of Corrections issued a landmark report on recidivism in Pennsylvania. Secretary Wetzel added that the report is available on the Department of Correction s web site. The study used the broadest definition of recidivism ever used in a study of this type. In terms of re-incarceration, the recidivism rate was about 43 percent. The rate was 50 percent for re-arrest. The combination of re-incarceration and rearrest is unique and is the overall recidivism rate is about 66 percent. The time frame is three years after a release in While the numbers are nothing to brag about, the Department feels it is important to focus on outcomes. This study establishes a baseline. It provides a point of reference to measure outcomes based on changes being made. Amendments to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines Professor Chanenson acknowledged the discussions held during the Commission policy meeting regarding any amendments to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. No action will be taken on the revisions during the meeting. However, he relayed that it is important that action be taken during the June meeting. Several issues have been resolved but others need more review, particularly in regard to child pornography. Continuing, he announced the formation of two work groups. One group will work on guideline revisions, led by Representative Sabatina. Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey will serve as lead staff. It is anticipated that this group could come back to the Commission in June with recommendations. The other is work group will focus on state parole recommitment ranges under Representative Stephens. Dr. Shoop will serve as lead staff. This group is not on a fast track but the work is part of the Commissions legislative mandate. Any Commission members that would like to volunteer to serve on the work groups is welcome. Staff will reach out to the District Attorneys Association and the Defense Attorney Association to ensure representation on the work groups. Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 5 of 6

6 Commission Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2013 Miscellaneous The Commission will hold a Policy Committee meeting and dinner on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at the Harrisburg Hilton. The Policy Committee (committee-of-the-whole) will meet again the morning of June 6 th. The Commission s quarterly meeting will be held the afternoon of June 6 th. Both meetings will be held at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in the Capitol Complex. The Commission meeting was adjourned at 1:49 p.m. Commission Meeting: June 6, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes, March 7, 2013: Page 6 of 6

7 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 The public meeting of the was held on Thursday, June 6, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:09 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance: Commission Members present: Law Professor Steven L. Chanenson, Chair; Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Judge Daniel J. Milliron; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens. Ex Officio Members present: Secretary John E. Wetzel, PA Department of Corrections; Carol L. Lavery, PA Victim Advocate. Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Catherine W. Dittman, Administrative Support Assistant; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support. Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; David Mussel, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Lehigh County; Cynthia T. Tolsma, Director, Pennsylvania Auto Theft Protection Authority. Public Comment Period The Commission Chair made a letter from Chrissy McLaughlin part of the record. The letter supported the proposed sentencing guidelines enhancement to third degree murder of a child younger than age 13. The Director of the Pennsylvania Auto Theft Protection Authority addressed concerns about the current grading of auto theft. All auto theft is essentially a third degree felony with no provision for higher grading or sentencing enhancements for aggravating circumstances. The Authority recommends increasing the grading and Offense Gravity Score if 1) soliciting, recruiting, training or otherwise involve a minor in auto theft; 2) moving stolen vehicles across state lines; 3) theft for purposes of export; 4) repeat convictions within five years; and 5) use of a stolen vehicle to commit another felony. The Commission s Executive Director noted that both the Authority s letter and request was submitted to the Guideline Revision Work Group and the Policy Committee for review. He stated for purposes of proportionality and due to the statutory limit for a maximum sentence of incarceration, the Commission is constrained as to what it can do without a change in offense grade. Therefore, the General Assembly needs to act on increasing the grade to give the Commission more flexibility in reviewing Offense Gravity Score assignments. The Chair added that the Commission s Policy Committee would review the Authority s concerns and develop some recommendations for the Commission to provide to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. Approval of Minutes Representative Stephens moved to approve the March 7, 2013 Commission meeting minutes. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Membership Executive Director Bergstrom advised that there are three outstanding appointments to the Commission. Judge Hathaway and Judge Rangos had communications that they will be reappointed; however, the Commission has not yet received an official notice. The reappointment of Professor Chanenson or new appointment of a law professor Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 1 of 8

8 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 or criminologist by the Governor is outstanding. All individuals continue to serve on the Commission until replaced. Executive and Administrative Support The Commission posted openings for two Sentencing Policy Specialists. One would work out of the University Park Office and the other would work out of the Harrisburg Office. The positions were built into the budget. In the upcoming months, the Commission anticipates possibly adding two additional positions: one with a focus on state parole and the other a 75% clerical support position, both out of the Harrisburg office. Two service purchase contract positions are in place. One is embedded in Allegheny County and working on data quality issues. The other is working more state-wide on the same type of issues. There is a possibility of a third service purchase contract position to be embedded in Philadelphia to work on data gaps and processes. In terms of the risk assessment work, discussions are underway to use Montgomery County data. This work would be done in conjunction with Professor Berk at the University of Pennsylvania who is doing some risk assessment modeling parallel to Dr. Kempinen s work. A service purchase contract would be utilized for a temporary staff person to collect and analyze the data. All the service purchase contract positions are funded through a grant with the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency which ends in December. However, the grant could be extended. Executive Director Bergstrom directed attention to the Commission s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with The Pennsylvania State University. The Commission has had a research partnership since the early 1980s. In 1999, it was formalized with a MOU which establishes what the Commission and the University each will provide. While subject to review every year, the MOU is generally a five-year agreement. The current MOU expires in December The Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, of which the Commission is affiliated, is supportive of another five-year MOU. Judge Rangos moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and The Pennsylvania State University. Senator Rafferty seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Next, Mr. Bergstrom addressed the fiscal audit solicitation. A number of years ago, the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee suggested the Commission undergo an annual fiscal audit. The Commission has done so each year. The Commonwealth s Office of Budget reviewed the FY financial audit and was satisfied. He also added that the Commission relies on the University to ensure that the Commission is abiding by standard internal processes and rules since the audit only covers finances. During the March Commission meeting, members recommended that the Commission issue a request for proposals for the FY financial audit to broaden the pool of venders. There were no responses other than the original proposal received from Parente Beard. In the past 10 years (as long as the Commission has been undergoing an audit) only Parente Beard has submitted a proposal. Professor Chanenson stated that while he has no reason to question the quality of Parente Beard s audits, he would recommend trying to expand options for the next fiscal year. Judge Rangos added that it is difficult to get audits on small accounts. Mr. Bergstrom stated that the starting point was vendors on the State s contract list who have expressed an interest and the ability to do these types of reviews; but the Commission has not been successful in obtaining a proposal. Judge Woods-Skipper moved that the Commission accept the proposal by Parente Beard for a FY financial audit. Judge Milliron seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Turning to fiscal matters, Executive Director Bergstrom recommended changes to the FY budget. It involves moving funds between categories as noted in the Commission meeting materials. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 2 of 8

9 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 Judge Milliron moved that the Commission modify its FY budget as reflected in the meeting materials. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The proposed budget for FY is $2.3 million. It is comprised of three sources. First is the state appropriation. Both the Governor s budget proposal and House Bill 1437 include an appropriation level of $1.73 million. This is the amount the legislative leadership suggested when rebalancing the Legislative Service Agency budgets and creating reserve accounts. Second, a state-funded Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) grant of $400,000 is anticipated. The Justice Reinvestment legislation created grants from funds realized from reductions in state prison population. However, if there are no savings, there are no funds to reinvest in the system. The most recent Department of Corrections projections suggest that it has not experienced the reduction in population that it expected. It may be due to a transitional period or some other factors. However, the Budget Office is considering filling the void to make sure that the agencies listed in the JRI distribution formula are held harmless and receive anticipated funds. As this grant is not firm, the Commission has continued to be prudent in its expenditures. Third, a federal Justice Assistance Grant is anticipated. For a number of years, the Commission has received a grant of approximately $175,000 to offset outreach costs. Salaries for three positions and some related expenses are covered by this grant. There are also carryover funds from the prior fiscal year. The proposed FY operating budget is the same as the current year s budget with changes in salaries and fringe to accommodate any additional positions and potential salary increases. These increases would be linked to the increases authorized by the University. This year, increases will not be known or effective until October 1 st and will not be retroactive to July 1 st as in previous years. Judge Rangos moved to approve the FY budget in the amount of $2.3 million, using the current budget as the operating framework. Judge Milliron seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Executive Director Bergstrom addressed two additional service purchase contracts tied to the upcoming fiscal year. [Professor Mistick, legal counsel, exited the room]. First, the annual service purchase contract with The Pennsylvania State University is in the amount of up to $1.44 million and allows the Commission to purchase services through the University, such as salary, fringe, operations, etc. The University then invoices the Commission monthly, and the Commission pays the University from its state appropriation. This contract can be amended if the budget increases. Some Commission expenses are handled directly through the Commonwealth account and not via the University. Judge Wood Skipper moved to approve the Service Purchase Contract with The Pennsylvania State University in the amount of $1.44 million for FY District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Second, the Commission contracts legal services annually. For a number of years, the Commission has contracted with Professor Mistick for these services. The Service Purchase Contract is in the amount of $20,000, or $5,000 per quarterly meeting and the work occurring between the meetings. Judge Milliron moved to approve the Service Purchase Contract in the amount of $20,000 with Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick for legal services for FY District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. [Professor Mistick, legal counsel, returned to the room]. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 3 of 8

10 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 Data Management and Information Access Committee Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access Unit, referred Commission members to meeting materials for both her unit and the Data Management Unit. She noted that the meeting materials included a summary of the Data Management and Access Committee meeting with Judge Rangos. She and Carol Zeiss, Manager of the Data Management Unit, also met with Judge Rangos concerning standard sentencing reasons listed in SGS Web. Meeting materials included sentences reported from 2001 through 2013 to date and the number of inquiries for assistance to the Help Desk. Information was sent to judges on sentences reported in the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts Common Pleas Court Management System but not reported in SGS Web. Additionally, notice was sent to judges that the 2012 calendar year for sentencing information was closing May 31 st and affording them an opportunity to verify sentencing information. A summary of SGS Web projects currently underway or recently assigned are provided. Executive Director Bergstrom reminded Commission members that the Commission has two sources of revenue to pay for the SGS Web enhancements. One is a federal grant in the amount of $400,000 and the other is the state appropriation itself which includes a line item for SGS Web enhancements. Some of the enhancements are tied to changes from the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Bergstrom elaborated. With the requirement to develop parole guidelines, the Commission will need to collect parole information. It would be helpful to leverage existing sentencing information already collected in SGS Web for use in a parole module. It would augment the information used in parole decision making. The information in SGS Web would need to be transformed from a judicial proceeding-basis used in sentencing to a person-basis used in parole. Therefore, the Commission is working on data quality and to ensure that all sentences are reported to the Commission and reported accurately. It will provide a foundation as the Commission continues to build out the system to meet its duties for parole and resentencing guidelines. One initiative is to help improve the Prior Record Score information by creating a floor of conviction offenses and adjudications to count toward the Prior Record Score. SGS Web could utilize its own stored sentencing information and previously completed Prior Record Score Worksheets to identify prior adult convictions or prior juvenile adjudications. Review of sentencing information shows that 1) there may be negotiation around the Prior Record Score by not including some conviction offenses, 2) there may be information that was not known and, therefore, not included, or 3) there may be errors. This could undermine the sentence actually imposed for someone who may be a serious and repeat offender. By creating an error check or floor, conviction offenses would be added going forward. It provides a starting point for the Prior Record Score. It would both improve the accuracy of the sentencing guidelines and take advantage of information already reported to the Commission. The Commission would need to make a policy decision as to whether to allow editing of that information. There may be out-of-state convictions to add, for instance. The project is a large expense but adds much value. In response to the Chair, the Executive Director acknowledged that notice to the Commission of any expungements or reversal of convictions would need to be addressed. Judge Rangos noted that the Commission s obligation is to provide accurate information and allow attorneys to argue staleness or other relevant factors to determine if a sentence should be mitigated or aggravated. Mr. Bergstrom added that he has been investigating ways to streamline SGS Web to take advantage of information that may be available in the Common Pleas Court Management System (CPCMS). Currently, SGS Web imports offender and offense information from CPCMS. If possible, additional information may be able to populate additional fields in SGS Web in order to reduce the burden on users entering information into two different systems. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 4 of 8

11 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 Ms. Lisle returned to discussion of the meeting materials. They include data report and data set requests. Also, two reports are included in the Guideline Review materials. One is the composition of Prior Record Scores. The other pertains to offenders sentenced at the top of the standard range. Research and Evaluation Committee Cynthia Kempinen, Research Director/Deputy Director, turned attention to an update of the risk assessment project. The meeting materials include the 7 th Interim Report which focuses on the validation of the risk scale. The validation used a second sample from the 2004 through 2006 data, which was the same years as the development sample, and a sample from 2007 through The findings were consistent with those of the development sample. The same eight predictors of recidivism were found and to the same extent. The level of recidivism of offenders defined as low risk was 22% and the error rate was essentially the same: about 15 people falsely predicted to recidivate for every one person falsely predicted not to recidivate. The error is on the side of over-predicting arrest, which was a policy decision of the Commission. Dr. Kempinen reported that the basic conclusion is that the 14 point scale is recommended for use at this point. However, the risk scale should be revalidated periodically. The next part of the risk assessment project involves incorporation of the risk scale into sentencing guidelines. A survey is ready to be deployed to four counties that participated in the March focus group meeting. The group was expanded to include assistant district attorneys, assistant public defenders, all judges and all probation officers in those four counties (Allegheny, Blair, Philadelphia, and Westmoreland). The survey consists of six actual case scenarios with Pre-Sentence Investigation information. The goal of the survey is to ascertain the best way to present risk information so that it is understood. Judge Hathaway moved to approve the public release of the 7 th Interim Report, Validation of Risk Scale. Judge Woods Skipper seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Kempinen next discussed the county sentencing project. The primary purpose of this project was to collect information on county sentencing practices, particularly time served, and parole revocation practices. Some additional information was collected such as previous incarcerations, age at first crime, and demographic and socio-economic characteristics. A mini recidivism study will be conducted. Analysis should indicate if the same factors predict recidivism for this sample and if there is added benefit to including additional factors. Last, the Research and Evaluation Unit will begin work on the State Intermediate Punishment Program evaluation for the legislative report due February Outreach and Policy Support Committee Diane Shoop, Manager of the Outreach and Policy Support Unit, summarized the outreach activities from January through April Sentencing Policy Specialists Helene Placey and Carrie Peters responded to more than 350 inquiries. They conducted 9 seminars during this time frame with more than 410 participants in total. There were more than 15,000 visits to the Commission web site. The spring 2013 edition of The Monitor was published electronically. As mentioned earlier, Mark Pieper was hired on a limited term contract as a data quality specialist in Allegheny County. He will be working on a number of projects. One will be comparing the first three months of Sentencing Orders against sentences reported in SGS Web and the Common Pleas Court Management System. Also as mentioned, the SGS Web User Questionnaire was distributed in April. To date, 57 responses out of 67 counties were received. An individual county-based report will be provided to each President Judge with a copy to the Questionnaire's point of contact. An aggregated report will be compiled and sent as well. Grace Monjardo, another limited term contracted data quality specialist, is coordinating this project. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 5 of 8

12 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 In addition, Ms. Monjardo sent out reports to each judge listing any sentences not reported in SGS Web but reported to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, based on Offense Tracking Number. About 7,000 sentences were not reported to the Commission. In some of those cases, the sentences had not yet been imposed and in others, the Offense Tracking Numbers were missed in the Judicial Proceeding. In other cases, the charges were reduced to summaries; these sentences should not be reported. Ms. Monjardo also sent out the notices about the closing of the 2012 year of sentences and an opportunity for judge verification. Last, Dr. Shoop mentioned the report, An Examination of Criminal Justice Offenders in Pennsylvania, by AnnMarie Cordner, a professor at Kutztown University. The report notes the importance and need of sentencing guidelines education. The Outreach and Policy Support Committee recommended that the Commission respond to the author and to the report sponsor, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, concerning the current educational and outreach activities offered by the Commission. Executive Director Bergstrom added that he will make Steve Feiler, head of Judicial Education, aware of the report as well. Judge Rangos was also in discussions with Dr. Feiler about judicial trainings including sentencing guidelines. Professor Chanenson noted that he attended a Commission seminar conducted by Ms. Placey and was pleased to see that a few judges and law clerks also were in attendance. He would encourage some cross advertising between the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the Commission to ensure that judges know that the Commission is holding seminars across the Commonwealth. Dr. Shoop next addressed the policy portion of the meeting materials. They include the Impact Analysis of House Bill 321 which mostly addressed the stacking issue. Also included is the listing of legislation passing one chamber, the new offense list, recent case law, and the majority and concurring opinions for Commonwealth v. Batts. Additionally, the materials include a resolution from the Bar Association about re-examining Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Substance in a School Zone and testimony from the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association regarding sentencing guidelines. The 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manuals were all distributed by Jodi Ripka. The Outreach and Policy Support Committee met in January and April The State Parole Recommitment Range Work Group met in May. Dr. Shoop will be following up with a meeting about data collection with point persons from the Board of Probation and Parole and the Department of Corrections. The Guideline Revision Work Group met in April and May. Professor Chanenson added that the District Attorney s Association is suggesting a different approach to sentencing guidelines. The Executive Director had discussions with the group, and Professor Chanenson expects he, Mr. Bergstrom, and District Attorney Schultz will have additional informal conversations with them before the next Commission meeting. Amendment to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines The Executive Director reminded Commission members of the morning discussion regarding the Amendment to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines and the lengthy discussion concerning sexual abuse of children, 18 Pa.C.S Given that legislation is still pending, the Commission will not incorporate any changes concerning sexual abuse of children in the Amendment. The Commission is also constrained due to statutory limits. It was determined that the Commission would recommend to the General Assembly a change in statutory grade based on indecent contact with the victim. Senator Rafferty s Chief of Staff, Ryan Boop, drafted suggested changes to the statute. There would be a baseline of a felony 2 for subsection (b) and a baseline of a felony 3 for subsections (c) and (d). If there would be indecent contact with the victim, the grade would increase by one step. The provision about a second subsequent offense would be removed. Language would be inserted for a sentencing guidelines enhancement related to age of child, determination of pre-pubescence, number of images possessed, and the nature and character of the abuse depicted. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 6 of 8

13 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 The Chair added that a letter to the General Assembly would be sent pursuant to Section 2153(a)(12) of the Commission s enabling legislation which gives it power to make recommendations to the General Assembly concerning modification or enactment of sentencing, parole, and correctional statutes which the Commission finds to be necessary and advisable to carry out an effective, humane, and rational sentencing, resentencing, and parole policy. The letter would be sent as soon as possible given the General Assembly is in the midst of budget negotiations and will break for a summer recess. Commission members would have an opportunity to review the letter draft prior to sending it. Upon being sent to the House and Senate, a copy of the letter will be sent to the District Attorney s Association, Defense Attorneys Association, and the Attorney General. Judge Milliron moved that the Commission send a letter to the General Assembly with recommendations of modifications to 18 Pa.C.S District Attorney Schultz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Bergstrom directed attention to the summary of the Amendment to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines previously decided at the December and March meetings. Additional changes were discussed at the morning Policy Committee meeting. In (a)(4)(ii), the Department of Health and Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs was changed to the Department of Drug and Alcohol. In (c)(2)(3), language relative to State Intermediate Punishment was modified to reflect recent changes in statute. Where relevant, the term defendant was replaced with offender. Sentencing guidelines recommendations were made for offenders less than age 18 who are convicted of Murder 1 and Murder 2. Language was added in Offense Gravity Score: the offense gravity score of 15 is assigned only for Murder 1 and 2 when committed by offenders younger than age 18. To maintain consistency with the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines, text concerning the criminal gang enhancement and third degree murder of a victim younger than age 13 enhancement will be (j) and (k) rather than (d) and (e). The subsections can be rearranged in a future edition of the guidelines. If during a final review, staff members catch any typos or formatting errors in the text or offense list, they will be corrected. Judge Woods-Skipper moved to adopt the Amendment to the 7 th Edition Sentencing Guidelines as described. Judge Rangos seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair thanked Judge Woods-Skipper and her committee, Representative Sabatino and his Work Group, and staff for all their work on the Amendment. Miscellaneous The Executive Director alerted the Commission members that the National Association of Sentencing Commissions Conference will be held in August. The conference is being held in conjunction with and at the University of Minnesota Law School. Costs will be lower than in the past. Additionally, the content of the conference is specific to the interests of the Commission. The Commission will cover the cost of registration, hotel, and travel. A reception will be held August 4 th, and the conference itself begins the morning of August 5 th and ends midafternoon on August 6 th. Commission members interested in attending should contact Cathy Dittman by June 26 th in order for her to make conference registration and hotel arrangements. Attendees are responsible for making their own travel arrangements. After June 26 th, attendees must also make their own hotel reservations and register for the conference. As noted, these costs will be reimbursed. The Commission will hold a Policy Committee meeting and dinner on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at the Harrisburg Hilton. The Policy Committee (committee-of-the-whole) will meet again the morning of September 5 th. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 7 of 8

14 Commission Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 The Commission s quarterly meeting will be held the afternoon of September 5 th. Both meetings will be held at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in the Capitol Complex. The Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m. Commission Meeting: September 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: June 6, 2013: Page 8 of 8

15 Commission Meeting Minutes: September 5, 2013 The public meeting of the was held on Thursday, September 5, 2013 at the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. with the following individuals in attendance: Commission Members present: Judge Sheila A. Woods-Skipper, Vice Chair; Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway; Defense Attorney Royce L. Morris; Senator John C. Rafferty, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; Representative John P. Sabatina, Jr.; Judge Jill E. Rangos; District Attorney Francis J. Schultz; Representative Todd Stephens. Ex Officio Members present: none Commission Staff present: Mark H. Bergstrom, Executive Director; Dr. Cynthia A. Kempinen, Deputy Director/Research Director; Professor Joseph Sabino Mistick, Counsel; Joan Lisle, Manager of Information Access; Ryan S. Meyers, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carrie L. Peters, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Helene Placey, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Dr. Diane E. Shoop, Manager of Outreach and Policy Support; Nancy S. Xavios, Sentencing Policy Specialist; Carol Zeiss, Manager, Data Management. Guests present: Ryan T. Boop, Chief of Staff to Senator Rafferty; K. Bret Bucklen, Director of Planning and Research, Department of Corrections; Travis Kryder, staff member to Senator Rafferty. Public Comment Period There were no comments. Approval of Minutes Judge Rangos moved to approve the June 6, 2013 Commission meeting minutes. Judge Hathaway seconded the motion. The meeting minutes were amended to reflect Representative Sabatina s attendance. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Membership Executive Director Bergstrom reported that Professor Chanenson was reappointed to a two-year term by the Governor. The Chief Justice reappointed both Judge Rangos and Judge Hathaway for two-year terms. The next reappointments will be in the new year. Notices will be sent at that point. Executive and Administrative Support Two newly hired Sentencing Policy Specialists were welcomed and introduced: Ryan Meyers and Nancy Xavios. Mr. Meyers worked at Centre County Probation and Ms. Xavios worked at Berks County Probation. They will be working closely with Ms. Peters and Ms. Placey. The Commission anticipates adding two additional positions: one with a focus on state parole and the other a 75% clerical support position, both out of the Harrisburg office. Two service purchase contract positions are in place. One is embedded in Allegheny County and working on data quality issues. The other is working more state-wide on the same type of issues. Staff have been working with a gentleman from Philadelphia County to develop a contract for some additional work there and are nearing a point where we execute that contract. That goal is to better understand and, hopefully improve, the processing of cases in Philadelphia. Commission Meeting: December 5, 2013, 2013 Commission Meeting Notes: September 5, 2013: Page 1 of 5