NO ON PROP 5

For the past several years, I have been involved in efforts to improve
the reentry process for ex-offenders returning to our County from
state prison. Currently the recidivism rate in California is about 70
percent. Approximately 85 percent of parolees are addicts of one sort
or another, desperately needing help in breaking their addiction and
learning to live a productive life when they are paroled from prison.

In Santa Barbara County, we have established a pilot program that is
managed by a steering committee that includes Sheriff Bill Brown,
District Attorney Christie Stanley, County representatives, local
service providers, parole and several other law enforcement officials.
This project has received statewide recognition and is considered a
model program.

In 2007-8, I chaired the Sheriff's Blue Ribbon Commission on Jail
Overcrowding. In February 2008 we issued our report recommending that
the county build a 304-bed jail in North County, and simultaneously
invest significant funds in rehabilitation, recovery, and community
corrections programs that would help keep people out of jail.

I say this in introduction because I am strongly pro-rehabilitation
and strongly supportive of efforts to help ex-offenders change their
lives.

And I'm voting a strong NO on Prop 5.

Here's why:

1) I have a strong bias against initiatives, and, unless there is an
overarching reason to support one, and I'm convinced it's well thought
out and well written, I vote NO on all propositions.

Initiatives are written by special interest groups and never undergo
the back and forth of creative critical review necessary for good
legislation.

The headline of the initiative always contains a good idea. Who
wouldn't be for rehabilitation of non-violent offenders? However,
initiatives are long, complex laws that implement very detailed
prescriptions. As a result, they produce unintended
consequences.

Once passed, initiatives are very difficult to amend, adjust, or
correct. Prop 5 requires an 80 percent agreement from the legislature
to change. In other words, it will be impossible to change.

2) This specific initiative, Prop 5, was written by a group (George
Soros's foundation) whose basic agenda is legalization of drugs. While
I personally think there may be merit in this idea, I don't think it
should be snuck in through the back door. And because the public would
not generally accept drug legalization, it makes close scrutiny of the
details of the initiative important.

3) Some of the troublesome pieces of this legislation to me
are:

It creates a parallel administration in the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation by creating a second secretary-level position in
the department. This secretary would be responsible for rehabilitation
programs and activities in the prison system. This position has
significant authority (and a huge budget) but does not report to and
is not accountable to the governor or the legislature. It's appointed
by an independent, newly created commission that, in turn, is not
accountable to the governor or legislature either. It's not clear to
me who they're accountable to.

Prop 5 defines a large amount of money to be spent on rehabilitation
in prisons and in communities. It starts out at nearly $500 million
per year and increases with inflation and population. The expenditure
of this money is not subject to legislative review. It's baked in
forever. California has huge fiscal requirements and constraints
defined by past initiatives. There are no funding sources for this
initiative. This is very bad budget process and is bankrupting the
state.

There are several parts of the legislation that make me wonder what
the real agenda is. For example, while all this money to be spent on
rehabilitation, none can be spent on testing participants for alcohol
or drug use. This means there is no real accountability for the people
in treatment. It would be like telling schools they can teach kids but
they can't test them. No professional treatment providers I know of
would run a substance abuse program without testing. Prop 5 gives
offenders lots more chances at breaking laws without any sanctions in
the treatment process. This is bad (and ineffective)
rehabilitation.

4) All the law enforcement officials involved in our Reentry Project
here in Santa Barbara County are also recommending a "No" vote. They
are individually and collectively committed to rehabilitation but do
not believe Prop 5 will accomplish what it purports to do because it
removes accountability from offenders.

In summary, I'm 100% for rehabilitation of non-violent (and violent)
offenders. Addiction is the key obstacle to this. Unfortunately, Prop
5, in my view, will set the process backwards. It will promise
something it won't deliver. It will cost hundreds of millions of
dollars. It will create a large, new, and unaccountable bureaucracy.
It will very likely reduce public safety. And eventually it will turn
the public against rehabilitation because it didn't work.

Vote No on Prop 5.