There Goes the Neighborhood

I'm losing one of my best employees to the lure of a competitor. Not a competing bail agency, but to a competing town. Yes, that's right, I've been beat out by a city — Sacramento. Not Sacramento, as in center-of-California-politics-and-public-policy Sacramento. But Sacramento, as in there's-plenty-of-homes-for-first-time-home-buyers Sacramento.

I'm sad. Eric came to work for me five years ago. He's good. Real good. He cares. He treats the business as his own. He's honest. He works hard. He's smart. He will be missed.

I'm also sad as a Santa Rosan. For Santa Rosa is losing a bright and energetic mind along with his wife and step-daughter. Better weather, better views, better food, and two good jobs were not enough to keep Eric and his family in Santa Rosa.

As long as young families feel that the American dream of home ownership is hopelessly out of reach in Santa Rosa, there will be many more stories like Eric's. An economist might call it a sustained leakage of labor. Santa Rosans might experience it as the transportation of talent to places far and wide. In Eric's case, it's an example of future leader flight.

Much has been discussed at City Hall lately about rent control. That without it, we will lose the workforce that drives a service economy. But controlling rents does not keep Eric and his family in Santa Rosa. The only way the Eric's of Santa Rosa continue to provide Santa Rosa with the benefits of their skills, talents, and efforts is more housing inventory. Some for rent, some for sale.

Instead of creating artificial conditions that focus on one aspect of the housing shortage, let's focus on fixing the fundamental causes. Let's make it easier for builders to build, which will make it easier for buyers to buy and renters to rent.

Business Lessons Lost in New Era?

My first business mentor, Bill Trussler, passed on a lesson he learned from his mentor – raise prices immediately when costs increase. The reason: customers will tolerate slight upward price adjustments. The novice merchant may try to hold on to increases, waiting for the competition to raise their prices in hopes of picking up customers looking for a bargain. Or, at the very least, trying to avoid customers wandering over to a competitor offering a lower price.

But, the lesson goes, if you wait until the increased costs erode all profit and force a price increase just to stay in business, the customer experiences shock - an increase so dramatic that she is likely to be become outraged, to feel betrayed. Once a customer feels betrayed they will no longer be your customer.

This time-tested wisdom passed down from merchant to merchant does not seem to hold in Seattle according to the results of a study undertaken by the University of Washington. In 2014, the city of Seattle passed a minimum wage law that was to begin to take effect in 2015. Wisely, in the wake of such a mandate, the city council commissioned a periodic check of the city’s vitals to be conducted by the University. The first study, done at the inception of the new law found that 62% of merchants expected prices and rents to rise because of the law. The second study, just completed, and done one year later found that prices and rents have not changed.

The first study revealed that 10% of merchants questioned wrongly believed that the jump to $15 per hour was to be immediate. In fact, the law set two standards, one by which companies employing more than 500 people were to follow, and another, slower paced standard for companies with less than 500 employees. Minimum wages are to be incrementally increased for the first set to $15 per hour in three years. Smaller employers are required to incrementally increase wages until 2021 when they will be $15 per hour. This means a minimum wage earner’s income would rise somewhere between 8% and 12% per year. California’s new minimum wage law has similar incremental increases over time.

It seems like Seattle merchants have forgotten Trussler’s rule of passing on increases as they accrue.

Three R’s and the CCP: Recidivism; Retirement; and Replacement

There was a time when the retirement of a police chief affected, primarily, the department losing the chief and the one from which the replacement came.  I imagine management and staff experience mixed emotions: sadness watching their leader step down; anticipation of who the new leader will be; excitement over the upward potential of their own careers.  Like a game of Tetris – the blocks line up differently, pushing some towards the top. 

One of the effects of California’s prison realignment is the creation of the executive committee of the Community Corrections Partnership.   This is the body that manages realignment money and decides the policies for the county’s criminal justice system.   The meetings are public and I participate, usually, by quietly taking notes, often times in agreement, other times not.  The environment is collegial, and, I, as well as others, am afforded the opportunity to comment or express an opinion.   

AB 109 was very specific about who can make up the executive committee of the CCP.  Of the CCP’s seven members, only one represents the interests of the cities.  By statute, the Board of Supervisors must pick a police chief from one of the cities in their county to sit on the CCP.   Sonoma County’s first and only municipal representative is Santa Rosa’s Chief of Police, Tom Schwedhelm.  On December 20, 2013, he is retiring. 

There seems to be some disadvantage for a municipal representative in the governing of county-wide funds and policies.  The ratio of county-to-city representatives is 6-to-1 in favor of the county.  Cities don’t generally receive funding from a county, though policies implemented by the CCP have a tremendous impact on the cities.  County department heads speak a budget language foreign to most. Considerations and procedures follow a different law or custom from a city police department. Normally, a city police chief would not be dialed into county politics. A municipal representative might feel like baseball player thrust into a cricket match. 

Not so, with Chief Schwedhelm, his has been the loudest voice demanding a definition of “recidivism.”  The Chief knows that the only way to accurately measure Realignment’s effects is to have a clear, concise and stable meaning of the word.  A criminal justice consultant under contract with the county has been tasked with helping the CCP reach a consensus definition.  But such consensus remains elusive.

The leading approach is to loosely define the term while tracking all of the variables.  The variables are many and include: offender status – whether the offender is a felon or misdemeanant; offense type triggering the recidivist label – whether the new offense is a felony, a misdemeanor, or a violation of probation; if the new offense is a violation of probation – was it is a technical violation (meaning missing an appointment, or testing dirty); time frame of the new offense from the initial offense – 1 year, 2 years, 3 years; should new offenses only be considered if they occurred during the probation period; or should they be counted if they happened at all - any time after the initial offense?

Tracking all of the variables seems to be prudent.  But, just as the home-plate umpire should not be the pitcher’s mom , a government body, which receives state money based on how low their reported recidivism rate is, should not be free to massage the numbers into the shape most favorable.   

The chief deserves to enjoy his retirement.  He has done an exemplary job for his city. He was hired from within; a rarity in police departments that I hope is repeated.  He enjoys the respect and appreciation of his officers, as well as the community he’s served.   Chief Schwedhelm has also done a great job on the CCP.  

Thank you, Chief for your service to Santa Rosa and your leadership on Sonoma County’s CCP.   May your replacement as chief serve us half as well, and may your replacement on the CCP continue the push for accountability.

 

Drivers Licenses for Undocumented Aliens

The law bobs and weaves like an aging boxer.  Currently, if a citizen of Mexico bails out of a California jail on criminal charges then absconds to Mexico, there is a legal protocol for the bail agent to return the defendant to local custody.  It’s not an easy process, but the process exists.  That was not the case several years ago, so a bail agent had to factor the additional risk posed by bailing out a citizen of Mexico.

Over the years I have bailed hundreds of people whose only charge was driving without a license.  The bails were relatively small, usually between $1,000 and $2,500, which would cost the client $100 to $250.

There’s not much of a defense to mount for driving without a license – either you were issued a license or you weren’t. If you were not issued a license, you pay a fine.  If you’re a multiple offender, you go to jail – for 6 months.  Additionally, from the mid ‘90’s into the early 2010’s, the defendant’s vehicle was usually confiscated. 

Some clients I bail choose not to go to court - even for a relatively minor offense as driving without a license. In many of those cases, my investigation would turn up reports from the defendant’s “people” that he went to Mexico.  No doubt some of those reports were true.  But, I suspect, then and now, that many simply moved on to other areas within the state, found work and bought another car.

It’s frustrating to be “gun shy” about posting a small bond on an offense that should be low risk only because the defendant is from another country.  But the arrests continued to be made and the calls kept coming.  In some, I could hear fear in their voice; my jaundiced ear figured those to be the virgins.  In others, I could hear resignation, they were the experienced ones.

The method I used to limit losses occurring from a defendant absconding to Mexico, or elsewhere, worked exceedingly well, was simple, and cost nothing.  I discovered it one night when I was driving a client home from the jail.  I learned that this was the defendant’s fourth arrest for driving without a license.  The three prior times were in Napa County.  He was already sentenced and had a turn-in date to serve six months in the Napa County jail. 

All my bondsman’s instincts were telling me this guy was going to skip.  But I liked him.  He was a young, hard-working man, and he was honest.  Though it was within my right to return the premium he’d paid and take him back to jail, instead, I turned to him and said, “This is an expensive inconvenience for you.  You knew what the risks were when you bought your car. You probably knew what the risks were when you decided to come here for work.  I’ve put up money to get you out of jail.  I’ve bet on you.  I stake my money and my honor on you.  I do so because I believe you are an honorable man that will live up to the promise I’ve made on your behalf.  As a man of honor, tell me now if I was wrong.”  

He looked into my eyes and told me that I was right to trust him and that he appreciated what I had done.  He made every one of his court appearances and served his 6 months.  Not every person I bail is a “man of honor”.  But, every Mexican national that I’ve bailed for driving without a license, when I’ve posed the issue in that way, have proven that they are men and women of honor.

Today, Governor Brown signed AB60 into law that allows undocumented aliens to obtain a California driver’s license.  It has been a long time coming, like the bell for that aged boxer trying to avoid his opponent's glove. As long as a person is of appropriate age, passes the driver’s test, acquires liability insurance, and shows competency in understanding traffic signs and laws, what possible reason could there be to deny that person a license? 

It delights me that these men and women of honor will now be able to drive to work and their children’s schools, safely, fully insured, and without fear of being arrested on the road because of their status.  

Gang of Five - Where Are They Now?

Gang of Five

I heard about California’s Gang of Five when I attended my first bail agent’s convention.  The year was 1988, the meeting was held in Monterey, and I had only recently decided to become a bail agent.  The keynote speaker was Rusty Areias, the best looking of the Gang of Five.  The attendees enthusiastically received Rusty as he took the podium.  When he regaled us with tales of epic battles against Willie Brown, then Speaker of the Assembly, fantastic images of dragons and dragon slayers floated through my mind.  As a young republican I had heard my share of horror stories about Willie Brown.

In 1987 and ‘88 Democrats held 44 seats in the Assembly, while the Republicans held 36.  The Gang of Five voted as a block, sometimes against the direction of the Speaker.  They were punished for their disloyalty, committee assignments stripped, staff reassigned, office space shrunk, parking privileges cancelled.  The Speaker tried to crush their will, but the Gang held tight.  Republican sponsored legislation continued to move, but Democrat sponsored bills were halted for fear that the Gang would cross the aisle and defeat those they had issue with.  In the Speaker’s words, “perception of power is reality”, and he did not want it to appear that he lacked power.

I was 22 years old, with a mortgage, a wife, a new-born, and a management job in my in-law’s small chain of paint stores.  If I was a bigger man (by that I mean more mature, less sensitive, and educated) I don’t think I would have felt so stifled.  But, I wanted to blaze my own trail, make my own mark, take the rewards, and taste the briny-sweet flavor of victory seasoned with risk.  Thank God the young are so naïve. Rusty Areias and The Gang of Five represented exactly what I craved.

I saw Rusty’s name on a Twitter feed the other day.  The FPPC levied a fine against him and others for engaging in “shadow lobbying”.  Shadow lobbying is seeking to garner support for a client’s cause or position without being a registered lobbyist.  I’m sure I’ve over simplified the issue. It seems to be a very fine line. I started thinking about the Gang of Five and wondered what they were up to.

Areias served as chair of the Coastal Commission.  Later, he was Director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation under the Gray Davis administration, serving from 1999 to 2002. Last year we learned that the State Parks Commission had been maintaining a secret fund for 12 years.  The official findings are that the fund’s existence was unknown to State Parks directors, including Areias. The same findings also show the fund grew most from 1998 to 2003.

The best known Gang of Five member was Gary Condit.  After a scandal that unseated Democratic Majority Whip, Tony Coelho, Condit won a special election to Congress.  Unfortunately, Condit, is known more for his relationship with Chandra Levy, than for his government service.  We know not what tomorrow brings so, make the most and best of today.

Jerry Eaves left the Assembly in 1992.  He served as a San Bernardino County Supervisor for 2 terms, his final term marked with scandal.  It was alleged that he received gifts from entities that had business before the Board then voted on their matters. Charges brought in Federal court were dismissed with an admonishment to the prosecutor for being overly zealous. Eaves entered a plea of no-contest to 7 reduced counts.  There is a fine soccer complex that bears his name.

Charles Calderon was the recognized leader of the Gang of Five. He currently sits in the Assembly. His son, Ian, is an Assembly member in the neighboring district.  Calderon was the first Latino Assembly majority leader.  He ran for Attorney General but lost to Bill Lockyer.  Two brothers, Ron and Thomas, both serve in the Senate. Ron has his own legal problems.  The FBI raided his Senate office early this summer and the case is pending.  A man stands apart from his brother.  Anyone that has siblings understands the import of that observation.

Steve Peace is an advisor to the San Diego Padres.  He is also the architect of California’s Top Two Primary system.  For that reason alone, he is one of my heroes.  Peace was also the writer and producer of the “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” movie franchise.  There were three Killer Tomatoes movies.  Perhaps calling it a franchise is generous, but he is my hero, and heroes receive much benefit.

Incidentally, I have since met Willie Brown.  He was the guest of honor and entertainment at a salon dinner at Ramekins Cooking School in Sonoma. Ramekins is owned by Sacramento power broker, Darius Anderson. The menu was selected by Willie (it's uncomfortable calling him Mr. Brown). During each course Willie related the food to his story.  It was a fascinating experience with exquisite food, interesting people, and, of course, Willie.

I'm sad that so many members of the Gang of Five have been marked by scandal.  Not because I feel let down by their supposed failings.  Rather, because I too have failings and sometimes have been forced to eat only from the bitter bowl of brine. In those moments, it helps to remember that this too shall pass.

 

If Obama Was a Bail Agent

If Obama was a bail bondsman, would he attack Syria?

A few years ago, I bailed a man for the petty offense of public intoxication.  Usually, I get cosigners before I post a bond, but this time I did not.  He persuaded me that he was an otherwise responsible person. And, this being the age of cell phones that dial by name rather than number, he could not remember any of his friends’ or family member’s phone numbers.

The bond amount was small, only $1,000.  The premium he had to pay was $100.  He lived in the neighboring county and he promised he would call in a credit card number to cover the fee once he got home.  More often than many would think, I have bonded people out under similar circumstances, I’m rarely stiffed.  But, I’m a bail bondsman and over the years I’ve developed a sense of when to bend the rules of underwriting and when to hold firm.

This would not be much of a story if the man did as he said he would do.  He did not call me with a credit card number, nor did he send a check, a thank you note, or a bottle of wine.   He failed to appear in court, and, as is customary, the court notified me that I had 180 days to produce the body, or pay the $1,000 bond. The court does not use the word “body”, but I like the sound of it.   It conjures up a spirit of days past and people that hear me say it instantly understand that it’s no joke.

When things like this happen, I turn to the same bail investigator I’ve used for 13 years.  Steve, using methods he prefers to keep to himself, tracked the absconded client to a little town near Olympia, Washington.  From his office, Steve called the man.  He was surprised to hear from us and declined our request for him to return to Sonoma County.  He also, declined our request to pay the bond. Before hanging up, he said something like, “Go to hell.  What are you going to do, come here and get me?”

It costs a lot of money to pay two men to drive in a full-size SUV 1,500 miles, stake out a house, and arrest the fugitive when they find him. I’m a good boss, and feel like the people I hire should be able to eat meals and sleep in a motel when they are performing an extended service like this.  Two days later, when Steve and his partner knocked on the man’s door, he was surprised.  He expressed his surprise all the way back to Sonoma County.

Contrary to what many believe, the criminal mind assesses likely responses before it acts.  This is not true for every criminal, but it is true often enough that I count on it.  This man decided that it didn’t make sense for me to spend all that time, money, and energy to bring him back for such a small bond.  He figured he was out of my reach, and that the phone call to him was merely to express empty words. If my business was a publicly-traded corporation, where executives answer to a board of directors, and the board answers to shareholders, he may have been right. A corporate board has a tendency to seek the quickest profit, or the least expense.  But, my business is not publicly traded, it’s closely held by one shareholder, me. I can afford to take the long view.

In his assessment, the man overlooked the value of his story.  When he was booked into the Sonoma County jail, he couldn’t help but tell everyone he encountered, how that crazy guy at Romelli Bail Bonds chased him all the way to Washington for a mere $1,000.  For the rest of that year and into the next, not one person that I bailed out of that jail skipped court.

If Obama was a bail bondsman, he would take military action against Syria.  He would weigh the costs, the risks, the rewards, and then he’d act.  He’d know that the world is watching.  He would not risk the outcome on the deliberations of 435 people that answer directly to their own form of shareholders, voters. He would know that other regimes will be emboldened if he doesn’t act.  He would know that there are significantly less costs, however one measures them, dissuading others from engaging in the use of weapons of mass destruction than ignoring them when they do.  He would know the cost of empty warnings outpaces the cost of backing those warnings up with appropriate action.    

I believe congress will approve military action against Syria, but it will be by a slim margin, and that is enough to cast doubt in the minds of other regimes that our warnings lack strength.  If Obama was a bail bondsman, he’d understand that the criminal mind tends toward exploiting weakness and avoids challenging the strong.  

 

Recidivism after Realignment

I'm a Realignment hobbyist.  I'm not a professional, since I'm not paid by a government agency, think tank, or educational institution.  But, I have attended many of the same conferences as the professionals and poured over many of the same reports.  When AB109 was passed, the landmark legislation popularly known as Realignment, the justification for it's enactment was to reduce recidivism.

Left to policy maker's, and ultimately, the public's imagination, was the issue: What is recidivism and how is it calculated?  Black's Law Dictionary tells us that recidivism is, "a tendency to relapse into a habit of criminal activity or behavior." A lay-person might assume that the recidivism rate includes any offenses committed by a convicted person at any time after their conviction.

But what constitutes an offense?  Is it any offense, jaywalking, for example, that makes an ex-offender a recidivist? Or is it only the commission of a felony?  Does violating parole terms, such as failing to report to a parole officer at an appointed time, or consuming alcohol trigger the recidivist label?  How about the time frame?  Does re-offense within a year constitute recidivism?  How about 5 years?  Or, is it only counted during the time one is on parole?

The State's recidivism calculation is no longer relevant. Parolee's (the new lexicon is PRCS, which stands for post release community supervision), for the most part, are no longer being monitored by the State. Instead, they are monitored by county probation departments. The aggregate data, computed by each of the 58 counties is what matters, now.  How recidivism is defined, and calculated is a significant issue. So far, the counties don't agree on how the rate is calculated.

When the concept of Realignment was introduced to local governments, it was claimed that California's recidivism rate was 70%.  According to the CDCR's latest recidivism report, which was calculated in 2011, released in 2012, and spans the years 2002 through 2009, the return-to-custody rate for prisoners released for 1 year ranged between 45.2% and 49.1%, depending on the year.  For prisoners released for 2 years, the highest rate in the range was 62.5%. And, for prisoners released for 3 years the highest rate in the range was 67.5%.  Intuitively, the longer time period reviewed, the greater the number of incidences of returns-to-custody.

I attended a conference lead by Matt Cate, then Secretary of  CDCR, and Karen Pank, Executive Director of Chief Probation Officers of California. The question was asked, how will we know if Realignment is working? The answer given was when we see the recidivism rate improve.  But without uniform calculations and reconciling the aggregate recidivism rate with former methods of calculation, how can we give true meaning to any of the numbers reported.

Realignment has been in effect for less than 2 years.  Based on the length of time previously needed to calculate recidivism rates and the increased complexity of compiling all of the data from the 58 different counties, it seems likely that any numbers currently quoted represent 12 months of data. Before Realignment, the one year recidivism percentile was in the high 40's.  I'm worried that policy makers will crunch one year's worth of data, find that it's somewhere in the 40 percentile and claim victory.  I'm even more worried that policy makers will hit the reset button every year, and not report the data based on 2 and 3 years stretches.  A recent blog post by California State Association of Counties, Executive Director, Matt Cate (yes, the same Matt Cate) confirms that I have good reason to worry.