HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-15; City Council; 3684; Reorganization of Criminal Justice Planning Boarde)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL N06
DATE: June 15, 1976
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
Initial: f,
Dept. lid. L
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
REORGANIZATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD
Statement of the Matter
Since May 20, 1974, the Comprehensive Planning Organization Board
of Directors has been responsible for reviewing and approving all
actions of the Criminal Justice Planning Board. In September, 1975,
the Governor signed into law. Assembly Bill 960 requiring a new
relationship to be establishes between the California Council on
Criminal Justice (CCCJ) and the Regional Criminal Justice Planning
Boards throughout the state. On January, 1976, the Regional Criminal
Justice Planning Committee approved a set of proposed reorganization
policies in response to the legislation.
A legislative subcommittee, after numerous meetings with the
Planning Committee and the Supervisory Committee, has drawn up
recommended changes to accomplish the Criminal Justice Planning
Board reorganization. On May 17, 1976 the CPO Board endorsed the
selected alternatives in concept and are submitting this concept
to each City Council and the Board of Supervisors for review and
comment. This item will be back on the CPO Board agenda on June 21,
1976 and they have requested comments prior to that meeting.
Mr. Marc Wilson, Staff Coordinator of the Regional Criminal Justice
Planning staff will be available at the Council meeting to make a
presentation or answer any questions.
Exhibit
Letter dated May 21, 1976 from Comprehensive Planning Organization
with recommended changes and proposed resolution.
Recommendation
Council action
6-15-76 The Council indicated its general support of Alternate #4 plan
for reorganization of the Criminal Justice Planning Board. It
was also the desire of the Council that North County be repre-
sented on the Board.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION
May 21, 1976
Mr. Paul. Bussey
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm St,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Bussey;
2314 ��
svlTe 524
SECURITY PACIFIC PLAZA
�
��^
4 10,
•`3
•
121V THIRD AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALM 92101
1714y 2JJ32tt
"h.•
sue+
V
At its May 17 regular meeting, the CPO Board of Directors considered the
attached Agenda Report No. IIC". (Attachment 1) Item "CII wns based on the
fact that the California Penal Code was amended by Sieroty's Assembly Bill 960
which required that criminal justice planning boards meet new criteria for
comprising membership.
Under the present system the CPO Board acts as the policy body for criminal
justice planning and neither it nor any other established policy body in
the region meets the new criteria.
In order to comply with the new law, the CPO Board accepted the recommen-
dations of various subcommittees which considered a series of alternatives
for establishing a new Board and staff organization, and evaluation pro-
cedures. The exact action of the Board was to endorse the selected alter-
natives in concept and submit the concept to each Council and the Board of
Supervisors for review and camnent. In additon, there is attached a draft
proposed concurrent resolution (Attachment 2) of support for the Council's
review and co:mnent.
This item will be back on the CPO Board agenda at its regular meeting on
June 21, 1976. It is requested that you docket this item on the Council's
docket for their review and coment so that they could have considered it
prior to the June 21st meeting date. It would be helpful if those ccu^,m tints
could be received at the CPO offices by June 14 in time to go out to the
CPO Board members in their agenda packages.
When the item is up for discussion, Mr. Marc {Filson, who is the Staff Co-
ordinator of the Regional Criminal Justice Planning staff will be available
to you or the Council to make a presentation or answer any questions you
or they might have. He can be reached at the County Administration Building
at 236-2844.
14_4111;_4A�r
RICHARD J. INPI:
Secretary
RJH:LIVS: j
Enclosure
TOR FOR PLANNING & PROGRAM COORDINATION
MEMBER AGENCIES, Lilies oI Cansbad, 4nv1i rmta, cwvoadv t,ei Ma,. Et caiw, f-vid,dv, impeua, atwr, la Mi,sa, flat anal Gty, Qmnside, San Diego,
San Mateos, Vista. and Cowl of San Diego i EA-OtFIUo MEAT tP CantotwA uepa,tment 0 hauo vnaty, . 1100PARY MEMBER Tijuana, 0, CFA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAMN"A15 ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIE(" REGION 1 ;
ATTACHMENTI
Board of Directors
Agenda Report No.:- C.
Date__5L17 7d
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Executive Director
SUBJECT: Reorganization of the Criminal Justice Planning Board
Background
Since May 20, 1974, the CPU Board of Directors has been responsible for
reviewing and approving all actions of the Criminal Justice Planning Hoard in
accordance with thb By -Laws entered into previously by both CPO and the
Planning Board.
In September, 1975, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill 960 (Sieroty)
which has been embodied in the State Penal Code Section 13800 et. seq. It
required a new relationship be established between the California Council on
Criminal Justice (CCCJ) and the Regional Criminal Justice Planning Boards
throughout the state. The bill also provided for the reorganization of the CCCJ
and regional boards. On January 7, 1976, the Regional Criminal Justice Plan-
ning Committee approved a set of proposed reorganization policies in response
to the legislation.
These proposed policies were presented to the Supervisory Committee on
January 9, 1976, before the state's final regulations were promulgated. The
Surervisory Committee chose not to act on those reorganization policies until
guidelines were developed at the state level. T:.e Supervisory Committee was
concerned that there be maximum participation for general purpose local,
elected officials in Criminal Justice Planning Board membership.
A legislative subcommittee consisting of Supervisor Dick Brown, Councilman
h,ichard Rypinski aitd Planning Committee Chairman Kevin Midlam was esta-
blished to stud] and recommend chaliges necessary to accomplish Criminal
Justice Planning Doard reorganization. After numerous meetings with the
legislative sub-coini-nittee, the Planning Committee and finally the Supervisory
Committee, the following recommendations were approved by a majority vote
of the Supervisory Committee on April 30, 1976.
`~ p. 2
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative #4 (see Attachment A) be approved and transmitted to the Board
for adoption and then to the region's cities and the County of San Diego for
formal adoption and agreements. Specifically the following characteristics
of reorganization should be incorporated:
A. Independent Planning Board with the appropriate advisory committee
structure, authorized by a separate joint -powers agreement or concurrent
resolutions of support from the required number of local jurisdictions;
B. Planning Board to be comprised of twenty-three members similar
in representation to that referenced in Attachment B of this report;
C. Staff to continue to function at the direction of the Planning Board and
under the administration of the County, and placement of staff within
the administrative structure of the Integrated Planning Office shall
be considered and implemented if agreeable to the County and the
Planning Board; and
D. Project level evaluations to be performed by the Comprehensive Plan-
ning Organization pursuant to concurrent resolutions of support or a joint
powers agreement under contract to and at the direction of the Planning Board.
It was also the consensus of the Supervisory Committee discussion that subsequent
By -Laws and agreements consider having one of the three judges recommended
to serve on the new Board be selected from North County.
Finally, staff has jointly developed a timetable to complete the reorganization
of the San Diego Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board:
April 7, 1976 CPO/RCJP staff met to draft recommended options for
Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board Reorganization.
April 26, 1976 Legislative Subcommittee met to approve recommended
draft options for planning board structure and composition.
april 26, 1976 Planning Committee received information report on options
for planning board structure and composition.
April 30, 1976 Supervisory Committee recommended a Regional Criminal
Justice Planning Board reorganized structure.
May 17, J 976 CPO Board of Directors adopt the RCJP Board structure
and authorize CPO/R.CJP staff to draft a concurrent resolution
of support for review and comment of local governments.
May/June 1976 Local governments (Cities and County of San Diego) review
and comment on the draft concurrent resolutions of support.
Junc. 21, 1976 CPO Board acts on comments of local governments con-
cerning concurrent resolution of support, staff )rganization
and evaluation process, and requests member agencies to
adopt.
June 21 to Local governments adopt concurrent resolution of support;
August 21 new Board comes into existence upon required number
of approvals and designation of representatives.
August 1, 1976 CCCJ submits the State Plan to.LEAA for approval con-
taining statewide reorganization pursuant to AB 960.
September 1, 1976 New Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board holds first
meeting.
RICHARD J. HUFF
Executive Director
RJH: j
Attachments
ATTACIHVIJ,-N t A i
ILO9
L•^ c
N n
LV
ro
i
CN
C. N
cN
C
OZI C do
F-u
O L
O i
O
L
Cl QI V w
..O_ aLi
CL-
'-cF-
to
JJ N 7
c >.4. C
•N d
P Q
( •;
•N Q
U 1 V
Y
tU d
SIN N d
N V'1 0.
0.
C C c
In
i"
W
cn in 'it+�
C ro
1: O 4-
M O
(: M 4.
O N O
X t M w
ro UN O
1 4.
ro U O
Cn to J1
d T p4.1
I
C L
V L
O c L
v 4J
C7 m! c L
4J
W L
d
ta7 f.Ticr
-1 �u
p
N- ro
ro
^ C
J C
W
C
c 4J
c G t0 c.
s: 0.
tUf (n in 0.
C.
•X N •G.
3 0.
C) N� t1
Q/ N N O.
L J1
C >1•'• L
cI a, N
tU N N# N
CICIN# t
CIC
•^
O
C
C)S -#
a).0 c#
dA C#
aa))� N
O a "OK
C•U O
•+
Od'�
> E at rJ
7 f_ 414i41
> 4- 01 l��J
> <• (-¢ J
1
O at cl•O
O rJ t'7 C{9
0,C) CJ CL 9
O fJ d G 17
•^ O. N C
1-•
AV CI roN
OL.Ev
•I
L0. ��.^._i ^J(^
cL -Mtn
0.�L�
roN LroN
7
0. > y C
D. � o�
0. ^.�C) ; i
= 3 O) "� 1
o. •.
2d u c
W
r a) •.- i 0
ro v e a't c
N a) A o c
R) a7 A Ct ^
a u N cj
W
u C C o J.1
4j
.O c C O_
ro c c _O
ro c C C
T
•in
V C c _O
cJ "7 N o J
'cl
�)
0.
a) o C V
L am= >1 0 •^
c at a) at
ro tV A JJ tU
C a7 ram- at in
ro NAB o
C a) a)
p No Y a)
C a) (u of
ro N J7 N a)
4J 4) cl, U
L 41C c •.-
�;
N ro C) V t o
•c •O ro L
•G p p L
ro ro i
ro p i
ro ro •c N'O
ty
0.r L O N
J.1 a •r•
V U •r
4.J c d •.-
Z
JJ C - ••-
O.•^ C to
•^ E •^ L
4.. * o c
ro m t. •.- •^
G --o 4J a
ry of L •.• •�
4- ro o 4J C
p tT L •.- .r
4- ea 0 �-• C
ro m L
4J I= c ••"
V, p ••' L
CCOWroo
LL0.GN
EL0.CN
iL0.Cro
LT.0..:ro
cc.-roo
Wr(u 0U' •rJ
rOC�•--I U'
6C�-+•-•U•
DO�-(D
oC�+�J'
w.-. M0-r)
0 a 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 o a
o 0 0
if;1
IC)1
/J tr) t7
01
NO NY
a) •r- 1
t- t
r 1
l
VI rn O L N
r
4.1
r
4J p 7 VOI 2
vt p
N p VMI.
14 p
N p
4.1 N
#
.r CT
•.� 4J
Y
4.1
a- 41
4J
.t•.
L L
V N v r-
E A
L
u
y
U ¢ >
.0 y
41 d >
.c of
41 cC
4A C)
.i"C
N 4)
!N.•
��p•' i
cl
'a
4- a)
>
a1 Jv,
>t^ L M u
?�
^C7U 7cj
F
0v
OaN)j
OH¢
O.N•�ru..
,>
Ot •^ •- .- ••
O M S C7 p N
N G
N )•,
vl C
N L
N
N
N d
E v Q' O 4-
O 14 a) O O
O
V
U r X E A L
a)
- .. y
.- Ct
.•• N
a)
y
'^
t- -.>- 4i
•.-
u O c.. G.
LL.
4J NUO UA
O c 0. en •.- E
u
p >�
+� ••'
r aJ
JJ Y
a) aJ
p > t...
4.1 Y
C
pN a)
41 N E
d1 U
4JMS • U
to
U-
c o =- O
d
o u
Q
O 4J
d
at 4J
at C t
O .- U C
C 1. (U
�0 O E
b to
'a N ..
'p p
V L U
N t () v\
cn
N 401
a) U 4'1 QQ V
O uMr- VY
4�
L Lc
c 4�
L L C
C 4J
L Lc
a) p
L 4J 4J
N C 8 A p
4) O
57
'a V1 r N a) .-
Oa)at
Lt. 41 E
0a)N
U. 41 E
Oa)at
W 4J $
0-4J
ty N Q
OYu
O 4J C, E U
ro
L
p
G
1
1
N
O ca
c1. �.
N
to
N
r
Cu
cj
W
N Of
p!
.ac c N
L
L O
a)
•c
•L
Y N
J•4
M
CC
v .�-•
Vn
O
Na•4J
al N a1
Vp
d 4.1
-0 'a
L }-
4)N
d
to N
7 ctN
41 U
at
aY4J
:3741
(A C
i
cl:
tnr .
.-%-
L•
rc
to
0.
G
U ncJ
L'c
41 44
U cl'v
U O.O
(n E
C Q0.
•r�CJL
p
N
E oN
C O C
•rLp
c 00
•.- LV
cc: Y
OL
J
d
i _V
N N
H
N O.
.0 c1 E
t cL=
•tn•• V
-J
to N
U t- 1•
NO
U V
ro4J
U roY
s-
7
.0 N
v
L
•crH
J: r•
c: m
We fu
(�^S
iFNL
ji
X r. >1
X N
o. O.o
O
Y
p N
O N'o
y •�c0
M_
4 N
M W o
-u
'
rl' (�' C
�L
oo'
O
ch
[;
Q V
Q t0-
In
67 U
to 4. a)
d 4- L
O O ,C
rl •.E-
u ..c..v
4AJ
S
C
•.- o
O to t.
Q
cl
[J .-
m
tQ 1.1 4
n
Q o.
IU
N
Or. poi
o)
nNN
-Z
tom,
n-
co
• c
w N In S.
4-tY
w > 4J
LLI 4N.1 N •C
u7 p III cl
>• ttoo U
b O •
r)...rn •
O. N G. C1
Uj
O &-
0. L •r-
d)
O. C cl. 7
W at a 1�
G. c O. O
to a) 7 Vl
1- N-
4J
alrL
Ox)
r]
V N O 1:
O N O
is01 N
(1,(�
.: V) 41
ry L m U
L to O
U 4--
1"' •
N
M l7
.
2
4J
N 'v
>1 '0
C C
4- U -p
4-
N a i1
'A 4J r
V !1 rl
O) .O O
a
Y r
4j > N
a) O C
V �O
L 0. to
W N
a)
41 .L. l'
C E 4J
(�W 4.
1 L. O
u
,a-
4J 4
- t:
44'.. At
A 'J.•:
a) 4 at
N tL C
M yJ O
y
to t0
ALTERNATIVE N4 ATTACINEW 1B
••attar s
`� ♦ 111A IhY:
t�tt:Y iLS�'CtION
t.I.l:lD fur%RRAt.
ISoRY FlR: ON
Ww REFrNAL
LFF SRMRT 10
.'BODIES AM:
AINANTAGFS:
Allows balanced, system -wide representation.
Membership
I Municipal Court Judge
1 Superior Court Judge (Criminal)
I Superior Court Judge (Juvenile)
1 Sheriff
1 District Attorney
I San Diego City Attorney
1 County Supervisor
S Mayors or Councilpersons
1 Police Chief's Assn. Rep.
I San Diego City Police Chief
I Chief Probation Officer
1 County Bar Assn. Rep.
1 City Manager's Assn. Rep.
1 Asst. CAO - Fiscal $ Justice Agency
S Colrammity Representatives appointed
by FRC with the approval of the rest
_ of Manning Board.
23 Members (12 Elected, 11 Non -elected)
Not Represented on Board:
De fenders, Inc.
Specific North, East and South.P.D.s
Court Administrators
Human Resources Agency Rep.
Health Care Agency Rep.
Small Board allows maximum manageability.
Maximum flexibility for meeting socio-economic membership balance is achieved by
selecting general government representatives at large.
Independency of Board allows for simple, streamlined process for policy and decision
making.
Closest balance between county and cities representation is achieved (8 from County,
9 from Cities, 6 from Community).
Majority are elected; public representation is adequate.
DISADVANTAGES:
Independency may make JPA difficult to obtain.
Seme members may have to represent large groups of diversified interests in order to
keep membership down.
Quorums of principles may be difficult to attain if members such as District Attorney,
Sheriff, County Supervisor, and Judges do not attend regularly.
Establishes another• single purpose planning function which may fragment regional
decision !Waking.
roposed Concurrent Resolutiop"
r1lATTACHMENT 2
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING BOARD
WHEREAS, the City (County) of
the improvement of the criminal justice system for
its citizens; and
wishes to continue
the increased protection of
WHEREAS, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 pro-
vided a .rational strategy to address problems in the administration of justice,
and the Crime Control Act of 1973 was enacted by Congress to continue the
efforts of this Act; and
WHEREAS, the California Council on Criminal Justice, as the State
agency responsible for planning for the improvement of criminal justice through-
out California has, pursuant to Penal Code Sections 13904-5, required that a
balanced planning board with a broad community base be established and desig-
nated as the entity for conducting regional criminal ,justice planning it! the San
Diego Region; and
WHEREAS, the City (County) of deems it appro-
priate to promote the increased efficiency and effectiveness of cooperative
criminal justice planning in the San Diego Region by supporting the establishment
of such a board; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that effective evaluation and A-95 review is
necessary to the conduct of such an effective cooperative planning effort; and
WHEREAS, Section 13902 of the California Penal Code provides that each
county in California shall constitute a local criminal justice planning district
upon execution of an arrangement acceptable to the county and to at least that
one-half of the cities in the county which contain at least one-half of the popula-
tion of the county; and that the City (County) of wishes to affirm
the criminal justice planning district and to support the establishment of an
appropriate Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board, staff organization, and
an effective evaluation process. NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (Board of Supervisors) of
to support
A. The establishment of a criminal justice planning district in the
Sari Diego Region;
B. The establishment of a governing board to be called the San
Diego Regional Criminal Justice Planning Board to be made up of
five Mayors or Councilpersons, one Municipal Court Judge, one
Superior Court judge (Criminal), one Superior Court Judge
(Juvenile), the Sheriff of San Diego County, the District Attorney
of San Diego County, the San Diego City Attorney, one County
Supervisor, one Police Chiefs' Association representative, the
San Diego City Police Chief, the Chief Probation Officer of San
Diego County, one County Bar Association representative, one
City Managers' Association representative, the Assistant Chief
Administrative Officer for the Fiscal and Justice Agency of the
County of San Diego, and five community representatives; totaling
23 members, a majority of whom are elected officials,
C. The further integration of criminal justice and other planning
efforts by placing the staff of the Criminal Justice Planning
Board vAthin the administrative structure of the Integrated Planning
Office of the County of San Diego, and
D. The assignment of evaluation of criminal justice projects funded by
the Board to the ;areawide A-95 reviewing agency, the Comprehensive
Planning Organization.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
1976 by the City Council (Board of Supervisors) of the City (County) of
Authorized _