Parolee problems likely to return as a major issue for San Bernardino as Legislature cuts prison budget
Readers who were following San Bernardino politics in 2007 probably remember that the question of what to do with the city's parolees was one of the year's most energetically debated issues. It looks the question is returning to the forefront.
What follows is an article slated to run in Wednesday's edition of The Sun, but before that are couple points that did not make it into the print article because of space limitiations.
Mayor Pat Morris contends that City Attorney James F. Penman's focus on his proposal to ban any new group facilities for parolees is a simplistic solution that would merely result in parolees being added to San Bernardino's homeless population.
Penman said that it may be a worthwhile initiative for the city to work on rehabilitative programs for parolees who were San Bernardino residents before going to prison, but he's concerned about making the city look like a target market for prison officials. He does not want San Bernardino to look like the ideal place to send ex-prisoners, especially if the Legislature reacts to mandates to release prisoners by loosening the restrictions on where parolees can go.
By Andrew Edwards
Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO -- The Legislature's attempts to slice dollars from the prisons budget could inspire spirited debate here over parolee issues.
Mayor Pat Morris wrote an open letter dated Aug. 27 to Arnold Schwarzengger and the Legislature charging state officials with ignoring research-based proposals on prison reform in order to make budget cuts.
Morris and City Attorney James F. Penman - opponents in the current mayoral race -- agree that Sacramento's actions could create problems for San Bernardino. They disagree over what the city should do.
Whereas Morris sees a need for rehabilitative programs, Penman wants a city law blocking new parolee group homes.
Morris said his administration has spent much time working with officials in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation on ideas to help parolees reenter society, but the state has never had enough money to make any of these ideas a reality.
"We need training. Job training," Morris said. "There is a vast sub-population of these parolees that are illiterate. There is a vast sub-population of these parolees that are mentally ill."
Penman said the city needs a strong legal tool to prevent state officials from inundating San Bernardino with ex-convicts.
The city attorney also thinks the city should have had such a law on the books well before the current wrangling in the state capital.
"We can't wait for Sacramento to release thousands of prisoners to cities," Penman said.
San Bernardino's City Council formed a special committee to examine parolee problems in 2007. The most recent scheduled committee meeting, which would have been held Friday, was cancelled at the mayor's order.
Morris wrote to committee members that the body should wait to meet until they have a more clear picture of what will happen in Sacramento.
But Penman and 7th Ward Councilwoman Wendy McCammack,
Penman said the law he wants the council to consider was sent to that committee and is mired there until the committee can convene and decide whether or not to forward his proposal to the full council.
Morris replied that there is nothing to stop Penman from bringing his proposal to the council whenever he so chooses.
In Sacramento, both the Assembly and Senate have passed bills intended to cut prison spending. The Assembly version, which passed Monday without a single Republican vote, seeks to trim prison spending by $1 billion.
California also faces a federal judicial mandate to reduce its prison population by 40,000 inmates. That court order is intended to improve inmates' medical and mental health care.
10 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
Andrew: I believe I said the committee had not met for almost a year, just to be accurate for your readers. Thanks.
Andrew,
I believe I said the Committee has not met for about one year. Either way, I put the proposed ordinance on the Council agenda in August 2008. The Mayor insisted at that time that the ordinance must go to his Ad Hoc Parolee Re-enty Committee first, before the Council acted on it.
Despite my repeated requests the proposed ordinance has not been discussed by his Committee and the Committee ceased to meet shortly after I requested the ordinance be placed on the Committee's agenda. Some meetings were scheduled but the Mayor has cancelled each one.
It is disingenuous for him to say there is nothing to stop me from bringing it to the Council whenever I choose to do so. The Mayor controls four council votes and he stopped the ordinance from being voted on over a year ago at a Council meeting after I did put it on the agenda at that time. Instead his Council majority voted to send the odinance to his committee where it still languishes.
Please ask him if he will support the ordinance now to prevent the State from dumping more parolees here.
The Mayor's plan, which was approved by a 4 - 3 vote of the City Council, to spend $8.4 million to rehab 100 apartment units in Arden-Guthrie, and his application to Washington D.C. for another $8 million plus last month to purchase and rehab the apartment complex at 1700 E. Date Street, between Del Rosa and Sterling Avenues, will provide housing for several hundred newly released parolees when the State finds out those low income apartments are going to be made available.
Even if the Mayor says he doesn't plan to have those apartments occupied by parolees he must know that with the State saying it is getting ready to release 27,000 to 40,000 inmates, prison officials will be searching for cheap housing for these people.
Don't be surprised if the State "suspends" the legal requirement that prisoners must be paroled to the County where they were first convicted. The State Legislature can simply declare "an emergency" because the Federal Court has ordered the release of thousands of prisoners and the State will claim it has to put them wherever housing can be found.
With most cities turning down this money, and with most of those who are accepting it using the money for either senior housing only or non-clustered housing (contrary to the Mayor's plan to cluster it in one or two areas) the State will jump at us and any other city foolish enough to do what we are about to do: create hundreds of new low income apartments at the same time the State is being required to release not hundreds, but thousands of inmates.
Do you feel safer in your home and in your neighborhood today than you did four years ago?
If your answer is yes, then you should vote for my opponent. But if your answer is no, vote for real change this time. We will be that change. Please give us the chance. What the City has been doing the past four years just isn't working. We don't need another four years of the same failed policies and programs that emphasize making our City a destination point for parolees who claim they want to be rehabilitated.
It isn't San Bernardino's duty to be the only city in the region offering rehabilitation and cheap apartments to parolees. We've done more than our fair share already.
It makes no sense to me--- for the mayor to wait until the dam burst in Sacramento and we are inundated with parolees. It makes no sense to me--- for the mayor to be thinking about housing parolees as his priority instead of protecting the residents of the city from the onslaught of parolees. It makes no sense to me to re-elect Morris.
I am voting for Penman for mayor. His comments clearly show that he has researched the problem. More importantly, he has made it HIS PRIORITY TO PROTECT the citizens of San Bernardino.
Penman is right. We should NOT be taking in more parolees than our fair share. We should NOT be creating more low income housing areas that eventually become centers for criminal activity. We SHOULD instead use all that money to build cleaner, safer neighborhoods that will attract prospective businesses to our city. Morris says parolees need job training, but if we have no new businesses I fear that the only job parolees will turn to is again victimizing innocent people.
For San Bernardino to become a depository for parolee’s who did not originate from the City of SB is WRONG. For the Mayor and his ad-hoc committee to think otherwise is WRONG. For the Mayor to feel he can rehabilitate countless numbers of ex-felons at the cost of the tax payers, voters and residents of SB is WRONG. This current Mayor seems to be deaf and blind to the voice and concerns of the citizens of SB that was loudly shared (against) in 2007 when he tried to push his open door policy on allowing the State to dump parolee’s within the City limits. He should be using his self imposed communication talents in Sacramento instead of Washington DC defending the interest of this City against unauthorized dumping of ex-felons who have an overall average return rate to prison of 68% total (70% men and 52% women) in 2008.
(Ref: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/
Annual/PVRET2/PVRET2d2008.pdf ).
These figures have a direct impact on local area crime statistics in and around SB. San Bernardino already has a plate full of unpleasant issues they are have to live and deal with (i.e. molestations at Phoenix Centers, pilferage at Phoenix Centers, Gangs and Graffiti and a questionable City Budget to name a few). This coupled to poor to non-existent City leadership, rebuilding the key City Staff and regaining the confidence of the voters and residents that look to City Hall for something more than controversy and non-cooperation on what is best for our City.
San Bernardino is at the threshold of a period of time that could be known as a NEW BEGINNING! City Hall has a dynamic new City Manager; the hunt is now on for another strong leader to fill the role of Asst City Manager. We have a new well respected and strong Police Chief. We also have a golden opportunity to redefine the direction the City will take during the next four years by electing a NEW MAYOR and four NEW Councilpersons. The voters of SB MUST seize this moment in history and make history by cleaning house at City Hall thus sending the message that the status quo politics is no longer good enough for our City. The new leadership must always listen and hear the voice of the voters and residents and in doing so it will send a clear message for future City politicians that all elected will be held ACCOUNTABLE for the direction the City is heading at any given time, along with their promised accomplishments (or lack of). Ethics will be at the forefront as the Mayor and Council will no longer enjoy residing in a clouded fishbowl of public office and dealings where the public is fully aware of the on-goings. Purged will be the attitude that has been routinely displayed of that is good for a reelection is OK and will be replaced with what is good for SB as a whole without influence of any special interest. Where past accomplishments will speak loudly at re-election time. We soon will have the opportunity to have the elected leadership utilize the cards of positive progressive growth for SB face up on the table of which they sit. No secrets, no surprises!
This is NOT a pipedream but an OPPRTUNITY for SB to right itself in the coming November elections and the future. To invoke the much needed change in its existing elected that have lost the passion to unselfishly think of the City first and foremost.
Increasing the levels of ex-felons and homeless at this point in time is one of the most irresponsible considerations ever considered for San Bernardino.
Those who think differently should NOT be given a place in City leadership.
I wonder how many San Bernardino residents read this article. The issues brought up will have long lasting impact in the years to come. San Bernardino may become a city of rehabilitation, a city of perpetual crime, or an average big little city, or something unforeseen. As an idealist graduate student and proud new homeowner in San Bernardino, this article brings up some really deep questions in which there are no simple answers. Statistics presented by Tired of the Status Quo (68% of ex-felons returning to prison) cause one to wonder if rehabilitation is even possible or if resources are too scarce/poorly distributed to make rehabilitation a feasible scheme. The idealist in me wants to believe that rehabilitation is possible and these men and women we label as "ex-felons" can live next door as productive citizens. However, the realist in me knows resources are limited and we must choose carefully what to invest in. At this time, I have no answer. As a city resident I want my streets to be clean and safe. Due to their past history, ex-felons seem to represent a risk to the security I desire, especially if the resources are not there for them to properly enter back into society. However, to not invest in them would only cause problems of crime and repeat offenses to magnify and escalate. I am not saying as a city we should accept the task of rehabilitating more than our fair share, but that we should attempt to look at the bigger picture of society to determine how to best reach the end result most of us desire (safety). We live in one of the most resource rich areas of the world, yet we are living in times where we are one major health care incident away from bankruptcy. There's got to be a way to use our resource rich environment (which includes people, money, time, and energy) more efficiently so we wouldn't have major budget crises happening in almost all areas of government.
I have not lived in San Bernardino for the duration of Mayor Morris' term (moved here in February 2009), but I have lived in Southern California and have spoken to many people who have lived here. I for one would not have moved into my particular San Bernardino neighborhood if it had the same crime statistics as it had the previous year. One of my neighbors, lifetime resident, has seen the clean-up of the neighborhood and several problems eliminated over the years. Do I truly believe that this is all due to the office of Mayor? No. I do not believe one man or woman is able to move mountains by him/herself. I do believe he has been one spearheading and streamlining the process. From who I’ve met and seen, he’s surrounded himself with very competent people working towards the same goal. My neighbor has collaborated with the police and other neighbors to improve my neighborhood. While there is still work to be done, it can only be done with both residents and city workers. I believe that communication and collaboration are two of San Bernardino's biggest assets that have yet to be fully utilized. I commend Mayor Pat Morris for his dedication to many of San Bernardino's pressing issues. Do I think more could be done... always (which isn't specific to Mayor Morris, that's just the beauty of politics and me being raised a dreamer). I am looking forward to learning more and finding common ground to build from during this upcoming election. Clean politics are a major strength for a city in transition, for no matter what the outcome, residents are more educated and ready to go forward than before. I for one have not chosen who to endorse and want to hear more debate and discussion.
Additionally.... I really like the fact that leaders mentioned in the article like Wendy McCammack and City Attorney Jim Penman can respond with corrections and comments to the article for the public to easily access. I wish there was more of that so that I can really know what my local politicians think and not just hear their name mentioned sporadically.
If you've made it this far, I also appreciate you for being interested in what a new resident to this great city has to say :)
New San Bernardino Resident: I assume by your comments that your neighborhood works closely with a neighborhood association or neighborhood watch and good for you. Those had to be started because city hall, for the most part, was doing nothing, but started under Mayor Valles, not Pat Morris. I am glad you have seen some progress, but I can guarantee you it has not been because of one man or woman, as you so correctly state. But I do understand what you said early on in your post, and I agree, this city cannot be a rehabilitation city in order to survive. Pat Morris has spent 30 years trying to rehabilitate people while he was the drug court judge, and you can see how far we have gotten in this city on the drug war. But anyway, keep searching for information of your own, and like you said please don't listen to the ugliness of campaigns without speaking directly to the candidates, although some are more charming and alluring than others.
For New San Bernardino Resident:
I welcome your thoughts and viewpoint. Fresh eyes and ideals are always welcome to hear and see. Sadly, SB does have a parolee problem where (as noted by the City Attorney) the State has identified SB as a depository for parolees from other parts of the State to continue their rehabilitation process. Today, our (the City’s) plate is full of halfway houses, or parolee homes. We do not need other areas “laundry” as we are all working hard to bring SB from the abyss that has plagued SB for years.
Our current Mayor was a judge prior to taking the reins of City’s leadership 4 years ago. As a judge he was noted for trying to rehabilitate instead of incarcerate felons many who were repeat offenders. The repeat offender’s statistics speak loudly for themselves and for the success of his approach while on the Bench. The Mayor’s focus should be on providing decisive leadership to our City, a job of which he (Mayor Morris) was elected to do. Starting his tenure by sidestepping the published nepotism restrictions (hiring his son) leaves something to be desired and smacks of lack of ethical decision making ability. Additionally, fathering and directing Operation Phoenix Centers around the City costing untold amounts of redirected valuable funds and were supervised by his handpicked site leaders, one of which is in jail today accused of inappropriate actions with a minor young girl. The final cost of this incident to the City has yet to be made public. Your investigation into each candidate is necessary to help assure SB is afforded the best possible leadership available for the next four years and beyond.
As you are new to the City, I invite you to also investigate the proposed locations of the parolee housing and its relation to your neighborhood. One idea was to have a barracks type living conditions with dozens if not more residents coming and going at any given time.
As a long term resident, I welcome you and your family to SB and I hope to see your involvement in holding the elected accountable for their promised actions and for providing quality leadership to a city that was once known as the “All American City”.
Please remember if you are not part of the solution then perhaps you may be part of the problem. Getting involved, caring and being realistic about what is necessary to recover is the necessary element our success.
Just to keep the record straight, it was an "All America City", not sure why, not grammatically correct, but that is how the designation is listed. Anyway, don't look for that designation with 4 of the 8 sitting at the head table as of now. Maybe about a year after at least three change at the top. One can only hope. Thanks for everyone's candidness. It sure feels good to know there are a few out there with some centrist thoughts.
New San Bernardino Resident,
Welcome to San Bernardino. We are pleased to have you here.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have at penmanformayor2009@yahoo.com.
To all who care:(and all here appear to say they do).
Mayor Morris has referred to the parolees as:
" our brothers and sisters returning to SanBernardino and we must accomodate them"!!
ADD TO THAT!!
His "Parolee ad hoc committee", was so looking forward to do just that!
AND SOOOOOO:
SanBernardino must go on experiencing Judge/Mayor Morris's good works and programs, both from the courts and from the dias!
"THE NEVER ENDING STORY"
HHMMMMMMMM?