Victim Services Committee Meeting - CJCC

11.27.19 APPROVED Minutes (268 KB)

Members present:     Elizabeth LaBroscian; Linda Hoffman; Rick Spoentgen; Pat Rego; Ryan Werner; Jeff Shimon; Ryan LaBroscian

Members absent:       Tammy Hill; Annette Kuhlmann; Nikki Dobbs; Jenna Greenwood

Others present:          John Miller

1. Called to order at 2:35PM. Certification of Open Meeting compliance.

2. Amended agenda. Motion by Hoffman, 2^nd by Rego. Unanimous vote approval.

3. Minutes reviewed

   1. Not voted on/approved due to not being on agenda – need to place on agenda for approval next month.

4. Agency update

   1. DA’s office – ADA Albrecht now is DA Albrecht. Working on hiring his replacement for a full-time general ADA position.

      1. Also – have new courthouse facility dog – Gino

   2. Hope House – 2^nd Co-Director started (Jamie S) – in charge of finances and grants. Previously w/ Dane County Rape Crisis and WI DOJ.

   3. Baraboo PD – currently 1 PO position down. Looking to fill it. Candidate that is going to be offered position next week.

5. Trends or Concerns

   1. Concerns with judiciary – certain things that they are finding “appropriate,” which were previously not appropriate. Concerns about limiting victim impact statements, dismissing cases from the bench, legal advice from the bench. Are being experienced by all members of the justice system. Discussion of possibility of oversight and checks/balances.

      1. Mention possibility of DA’s office appealing if there is an appealable issue or contacting Crime Victim’s Rights Board.

      2. Possibility of victims filing law suits with aid from Legal Action of WI.

      3. Potential of Office of Crime Victim Services reaching out to District Court Administrator to see about that person’s input into situation.

      4. VOCA site-visit – concerns voiced to them; they planned to look into the issue.

   2. Concern about grievance w/ Crime Victim Rights Board and their opinion on victim information dissemination. No further DA’s office referrals for the time being – that was the main-stay of the referrals. BPD also sending, but LE (generally) doesn’t send many.

      1. Meeting w/ Chief Dep of SCSD and Chief of RPD soon to discuss issue.

      2. Discussion of how to get increased LE participation.

         1. Possibility of creation an access point via Zerker for DA’s office (or possibly Hope House) having access to get vic information/ reports. Caution urged based on Wis. Stat. § 950.04(1v)(dr) and CVRB memo.

         2. Ideas for ways to get consent to disseminate victim information to HH and not be in violation of Ch 950:

            1. Inclusion of check-box of HH notification on DV form?

            2. Inclusion of notice on 72 hr no contact? Possible issues if a victim doesn’t think s/he can edit the form?

            3. Inclusion of opt-in line for initials of victim on 72 hr no contact form and SA investigation form?

6. Discuss raising quorum to avoid walking quorum

   1. Problems of guaranteeing that there will be sufficient attendance if quorum is raised

   2. Possibility of sending proxies – pros and cons

   3. Discussion of trying to get a more diverse LE representation – presently 3 BPD supervisory/management members comprise total LE membership. Possibility of getting on a Chiefs’ meeting agenda.

      1. Noted that all LE was approached, but BPD was the only taker thus far.

      2. Possibility of court security being able to come.

         1. SCSD previously approached – deferred to Det. McClure who was unavailable.

   4. Decision of issue paused for now – will be on next agenda – need to talk to other LE about possibility of increasing membership first.

7. Work Group Membership

   1. < >

      Discussion of APRAIS implementation. Potential of making it a county-wide program – should be addressed at the Chiefs’ meeting. Lots of pros for information gathering, but potential con of another form.

      1. Possibility of editing the DV worksheet to include it without adding things.

   2. Question of who should be asking the questions – LE or Hope House.

   3. If not going to be used by every entity (LE, VW, DA, and Judges), (like the proxy isn’t really being used by judges), then what is the point of doing it. Judiciary will have to be involved in the training if they’re going to use it. Possibility of state legislation (like AZ) mandating use.

      1. Training options would be more expensive, but would bring members of each discipline from AZ here to train their counterparts (like judiciary, DA, VW, LE).

      2. Regina and Amanda looking at bringing the training people up during Jan, 2020.

8. < >

   Next meeting – 12/18/19 – to continue discussion of victim surveys, potential add in of check-box to worksheet for information disclosure to HH. E. LaBroscian to do the agenda.

• < >

  Rego – discussion of creation of Child Advocacy Center (CAC).

• Spoentgen – discussion of homework assignments – discussion of he and Greenwood looking at/analyzing some available grants (likely too close to deadline to apply) – data to go to LaBroscian. Then reach out to WI CAC.

• Data collection discussion for jail software

  1. Discussion of whether the data should be collected by the jail or the agencies (LE, DA, DHS, etc.)

  2. Possibility of collecting information about DV arrests/convictions from offender

     1. LE noted that they get the information about prior arrests for the proxy from dispatch.

  3. If ideas are had for data-points for the jail to collect, provide to E. LaBroscian by 12/4/19 – she will provide them to Regina Baldwin.

• Next Meeting date and agenda items

  1. 12/20/19 @ 3:30PM – room likely to be 213 W. Square, but TBD

• Public Comment - none

   

  Adjourn: Moved by Shimon; second by Werner – adjourn by unanimous vote.

   

   

   

Respectfully submitted;

Rick Spoentgen

ADA – Sauk County