Administration of Justice 08/09/2013
Prison Overcrowding Litigation
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Request for Stay
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday rejected the
state’s request to delay an earlier federal court order to reduce
the state’s prison population by December 31, 2013 down to 137.5%
of prison design capacity. The state continues to pursue its
appeal of the underlying ruling, but it now must take the steps
needed to achieve the required population target by the end of
the year, which could include early release of prison
inmates.
Prior to the court’s decision, CSAC, the sheriffs, and probation
chiefs met with the Administration to discuss options in the
event that the court refused to grant the state’s request for a
stay. The Administration reiterated its commitment to maximizing
the use of expanded capacity options and minimizing direct local
impacts. As it moves to comply with the court order, the state is
examining all its options and evaluating whether and where court
and/or legislative authority may be needed as part of what likely
will be a multi-pronged plan. At this point, no final decisions
have been made regarding the elements of the reduction
plan.
The current prison population is approximately 10,000 inmates
above the court-ordered population level. Depending on which
elements of a reduction plan the state executes, we assume the
portion of inmates potentially subject to early release would be
a much smaller subset of the 10,000. For the time being, however,
specific local impacts and the extent of early prison releases –
which generally is viewed as the option of last resort – remain
unknown. We will continue to provide updates to counties in the
weeks ahead.
State Hospital Reimbursement
AB 610 (Achadjian) – Request for Comment
As amended June 25, 2013
AB 610, by Assembly Member Katcho Achadjian, is intended to
ensure that host state hospital counties are not financially
burdened with the cost of conducting involuntary medication
hearings. The measure is sponsored by San Luis Obispo County.
As counties are aware, there are five state hospitals in
California. As part of their treatment, patients treated in state
hospitals often are required to take medication. When a patient
refuses, the state has the authority to involuntarily administer
the medication. However, in the California Supreme Court Kanuri
Surgery Qawi decision, the high court held that a superior court
must rule that a patient is incompetent or incapable of making
decisions or is a danger to themselves or others before the
person is involuntarily medicated.
Last year for patients housed at Atascadero State Hospital alone
approximately 100 petitions seeking orders for involuntary
treatment with psychotropic medication were filed. San Luis
Obispo County’s Public Defender office represented patients’
interests at these hearings, incurring significant cost for the
county. Although host counties are not statutorily required to
represent patients during involuntary treatment hearings, the
state has determined that, in order to minimize disruption to the
patient and reduce related security and transportation issues, it
is in the best interest of the patient for hearings to be held in
the host county rather than in the patient’s home county. Nothing
in this measure would compel a host county to provide
representation; rather, it would set up a mechanism to reimburse
counties that do so.
Given that existing law does not make clear who is responsible
for non-treatment costs associated with involuntary medical
hearings for these patients, AB 610 would clarify that in
addition to the state, the county where a patient committed the
original crime is also responsible for all non-treatment costs
associated with involuntary medication hearings required by law.
Although the initial costs for the attorneys and related expenses
of the hearings would be paid by the county providing the
proceedings, the county where the individual originally committed
would be required to reimburse the host county a flat fee of $250
per case. CSAC encourages counties to review this measure.
AB 610 is set for hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee
on August 12.
Judgment Interest Rate
AB 748 (Eggman) – Support
As Amended July 8, 2013
AB 748, by Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman, would amend
the current calculation of the judicial interest rate charged to
public entities. This measure is set for hearing in the Senate
Appropriations Committee on August 12. It is sponsored by the
Urban Counties Caucus, with CSAC, a number of individual
counties, and a range of other public entity advocacy groups
supporting.
As counties are aware, under current law, the interest rate for
judgments against public entities is 7 percent. By way of
comparison, the interest rate on federal judgments is indexed to
a Treasury yield, which currently sits at less than 1 percent. At
a time of historically low interest rates, we believe it is
appropriate to revise the mechanism by which judgment interest
rates are calculated.
As now drafted, AB 748 would specify that for any tax or fee
claim that results in a judgment against a public entity, the
judicial interest rate would be set at the weekly average
one-year constant maturity U.S. Treasury yield. The bill has been
clarified to ensure that in no case would the calculation exceed
the existing rate of 7 percent annually.
CSAC believe this measure is appropriate and fair, as it merely
seeks to modernize the interest rate calculation to reflect
current market conditions. The change comes at no cost to the
taxpayer and, importantly, would free up resources for the public
benefit. It is our understanding that for counties alone,
interest payments associated with tax and inverse condemnation
claims over the last three years exceed $14 million. The state
would certainly benefit from this modest and, in our view,
reasonable adjustment as well.
Identity Theft
AB 1149 (Campos) – Oppose
As introduced February 22, 2013
AB 1149, by Assembly Member Nora Campos, would require local
agencies to notify consumers of a breach if unauthorized persons
access specified personal information. CSAC – as part of a broad
coalition of public agency advocacy groups – is in opposition to
the bill for fiscal and operational reasons. AB 1149 is similar
to AB 2455, also authored by Assembly Member Campos in 2012. That
measure did not advance past the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.,
To be clear, none of the public agency groups takes exception to
the policy being advanced in AB 1149. It is merely a question of
resources. There will be a cost to implementing the provisions of
the bill, and we note there is no identified mechanism to cover
these costs. CSAC and others in the coalition take seriously our
responsibilities in safeguarding personal identifying information
within our control. And while we do not question the policy
objective behind AB 1149, we also believe it is our
responsibility to raise the fiscal and operational concerns that
would flow from its implementation.
In addition to the time and cost associated with developing and
implementing a breach notification protocol so we would be
prepared to take the required steps at the time a breach
transpires, we anticipate additional costs for staff
training.
As we have previously, we also are compelled to raise concerns
regarding the feature of the bill that would make local agencies
subject to certain provisions of the Information Practices Act of
1977 (IPA). To date, counties, cities, and special districts are
expressly exempted from the IPA. We have a concern that – either
in practice or in precedent – AB 1149 would be the first step in
imposing additional and potentially costly new responsibilities
on local agencies at a time when we are challenged to deliver
core public services given difficult fiscal conditions.
It is difficult to predict the costs associated with our members’
compliance with AB 1149, if enacted. The fiscal impact would be
driven by the size and frequency of security breaches, but could
be substantial – certainly if experienced across the thousands of
individual entities represented by the associations jointly
opposing this measure.
The measure is set for hearing in the Senate Appropriations
Committee on August 12.
SB 1022 Jail Construction Program
Bidders’ Conference Planned for August 12
At its July 22 board meeting, the Board of State and Community
Corrections approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) for counties
to seek funding for local detention and treatment facilities.
Counties will recall that SB 1022 authorized an additional $500
million in state lease-revenue bond capacity for additional local
capacity development. At this
link, the RFP, which includes on page 7 a timeline of key
events, and other relevant information is available.
Importantly for counties interested in submitting a proposal,
there is a bidders’ conference planned for Monday, August 12 in
Sacramento. More details are available on that meeting in the
RFP. Construction project proposals will be due to the BSCC on
October 24, with recommended awards presented to the BSCC at its
January 2014 meeting.