Burnet County Collections Compliance Office 200 South Pierce Burnet, Texas 78611 512-715-5270 June 16,2016 To whom it may Concern, Re: These are my concerns, please take further time to discuss all courts involved not just Justice ofthe Peace and Municipal Courts. 1. The new CIP rules are really going to bog down our court days and the do?ckets. It is going to place a lot of extra work for the Judges and their clerks from what I can tell. We are having defendants going to court, getting their punishments, they see the clerk, and then see the collections department. Then if we as the collections or compliance department see that the defendant may not be able to handle a payment agreement we are having to send them back into court to see the Judge again. I can only speak for Burnet County but this will take When we are finished with the docket the collections department is the last office besides ifthey are put on probation that the defendant will see. This means that the court staff will have to just remain in the courtroom waiting to see what we determine for each defendant. Sometimes we don?t get done with court until after 4:00 or closer to 5:00 so when do these defendants come back to court? Immediately? If so, we will be staying late. ljust don?t see the Judges or at least my Judges thinking this is going to be a good idea. If we make them come back the following day they will not show up I can promise and the Judge may not be available. The discretionary income really bothers me as a collector. We are not here to hold people to a fire, ourjob is to help the defendant become successful at fulfilling the Judge's order for a crime that they chose to commit. If we are taking into account credit cards, and small loans or big loans, and all ofthis ?extra? stuff needed to supposedly survive then we are looking at a majority of defendants that will be placed on community service. I can tell you as a collector for the last 10 years that I have seen multiple defendants that say they cannot afford to make payments but literally have gone to lunch and seen them getting a full set of nails $45 at the local nail salon; or they have been incarcerated for public intoxication over and over, so they have money for their beer but not money to pay their fines and fees ljust think that we are taking way too much into consideration for these defendants. We see a lot of these people over and over in court and we have ones that do not and would not meet the new criteria set out but they will be the ones that will have this paid off in 30 days or even in 2 I have seen a financial evaluation where the defendant was upside ,down by $200 or more and when I ask the question so how do you think you will be able to successfully complete this payment agreement they say oh I will have this done in no time because they DO want to pay it back and they actually DO pay it Ifl went by these new rules then they would automatically be considered indigent and fees waived.. They most likely could n?t do community service because they DO have a job and when would they have the time to complete those hours without undue hardship We also have defendants that don?t meet payment plan eligibility and we DO offer them community service to pay for their fines and court costs and they never show up to fulfill those duties. So community service is not going to be our solution to this problem in my opinion. Third, only getting 20% of their discretionary income is going to make a lot of payment plans about this will not be attainable for them to accomplish during the length of their probation; or if it?s a final judgment they will be on a payment plan forever which is just more work for your clerks and collections staff. Having to wait one month before you are allowed to call or notify someone that they are delinquent is something else I disagree with. It has been proven that the longer you allow a defendant to pay out their fines and court costs the less likely you are to recover those costs. If we wait a full month before we contact someone I can assure you we will not be successful as collectors. The current business process of if they are 5 days late mailing them a postcard OR making a phone call can result in A LOT ofjust simple MOST of the time these people simply forgot and as soon as we call they say oh yes let me do that today, or give me until Friday when I get paid again. Waiting a month isjust going to hinder our collections. I truly think that you should reconsider some ofthese new rules as I see that it will make our court system a very bogged down system, cases will be reset or not heard at all, longer court days, and more hearings. If you could see as a collector what we do each and every day to make sure that these defendants are successful in making their payments I think the feeling of what we do would change. We are not holding these people to the fire and threatening them, but yes we do make them feel responsible and take accountability for what they have done and for what the Judge has ordered them to do. We are very successful in how we collect money not only for our counties but also as revenue for the state as well. Burnet County is 3 Voluntary department we are not mandated and I can tell you that we do follow the current CIP program as closely as possible and we have not had any issues and have been very successful in what we do as a department. We give these individuals every possible chance to fulfill their obligations before we tell them that a warrant could be issued for their arrest, or their driver?s license could be flagged, or before we send them to an outside source. And I do mean work with Pages and pages of phone calls and conversations trying to help them pay. I think this needs to be revisited. Thank you for your time. MoCormLoR Burl/val: Cat/mtg Collections Compact not: Supervisor governmentafCo??ctors Association of Texas anya SEinner-??resid?nt PO Box 554 (979)450-8112 Bryan, 722an 77806 'f mgovcatmet I am very concerned as a Director of a mandatory collection program. Although these proposed changes appear to work well forJustice ofthe Peace and Municipal Courts; it is clear that they do not take into consideration the crushing effect these changes will place on District, County and Associate courts. This oversight is likely due to the fact that the onlyjudges who have had input in drafting these changes are solely Justice ofthe Peace and Municipal Judges. Accordingly, in representing my concerns for courts who preside over more severe cases, I have several concerns to bring to your attention. 1. Discretionary Income should be redefined and presumptions of indigence for court costs and fines should be eliminated. As the Brazos County Collections Director, my office handles cases from Class offenses (Justice of the Peace and Municipal) to Class A, Class and Felony cases, including but not limited to, DWI, drug possession, manufacture/distribution to murder. When determining whether a defendant is able to make a payment and/or be determined indigent, the expenses that should be considered are necessities only. For instance, food, shelter, clothing, medical, child care, basic telephone service, reasonable automobile payments, insurance, utilities, etc. Many of our defendants have numerous expenses on their application which show poor financial decision making on their part, not inability to pay court costs. Both the Judges and the staff of my office routinely see defendants with new tattoos, acrylic nails, expensive hair color/cuts, etc. Many continue to purchase alcohol and cigarettes as well. It should also be noted that many defendants are arrested multiple times prior to disposition of a single case and routinely find money for bond and the majority of defendants negotiate their own dispositions. 2. Income should be based on "household income.? All household income is to the benefit ofthe defendant in paying debts, etc. For instance, we have many cases where couples have resided together for numerous years, but are not legally married. With your definition being limited to spouse, you eliminate other resources that are available to the defendant. Additionally, because the District, County and Associate Courts see defendants 17 years of age or older, you may have a 17 year old who is still in school, but is claimed as a dependent by the parents, maintains employment, drives a newer vehicle and with your presumption would immediately be excused from financial obligations because he/she is still in school. There is no argument that this presumption should apply for youth in placement or foster homes. 3. Referral to the Court after sentencing. The Brazos County Judges in District, County and Associate c0urts inform the defendant of the court costs, fine, court appointed attorneys fees and restitution, if any, at sentencing. During this court proceeding, the defendant has the opportunity to raise the issue of indigency and to provide proper documentation (which is seldom exists) to the court. This should eliminate the necessity for the defendant to reappear before the judge. With the volume of cases on the dockets, ourjudges do not have the time to revisit cases and review issues previously addressed. This requirement would delay court proceedings and place an onerous burden on the courts, which do not have sufficient staffor time to meet this requirement. The proposed changes do not take into consideration the fact that approximately 90% of Class A, Class and Felony cases are disposed of by plea agreement. The defendant is generally given more than one option for disposition and actually negotiates and chooses his/her outcome. Many negotiate for large fine only dispositions. To allow a defendant to negotiate the outcome and then leave the courtroom and designate that he/she cannot comply with those terms and should be excused from the negotiated obligations flies in the face of common sense. It minimizes the crime, devalues?the justice system and gives complete disregard to the victims of our offense. Community service is an option currently used in our department. Brazos County has set up several places within the county for people to perform their hours. For defendants who fail to complete their community service, Brazos County sends out a last chance letter which includes an affidavit. The affidavit gives the defendants an opportunity to request their community service due date be revisited and/or to discuss issues that have developed since sentencing. After the due date passes or defendant requests their case be revisited, the Judge reviews the information and decides how the case should be resolved. The judges typically determine whether community service should be modified, fees waived, or a modified payment plan implemented. If a defendant fails to appear or disregards the Court?s order, a capias pro ?ne is issued. Interviews and establishment ofa payment plan should be completed within 14 days. The proposal to wait one month is neither efficient nor logical. Currently, ourjudges send the defendant immediately to collections from the courtroom. We are able to obtain financial and contact information at that time. The defendant is then given an opportunity to return at a convenient time with additional documentation to be considered. if we wait to obtain this information and to set?up a payment plan, we may not be able to locate the defendant at all. Defendants tend to move frequently from one address to another. Presently, Brazos County requires defendants contact us within 5 business days of moving with their new mailing address. If we delay obtaining contact information, reminder post cards, and last chance letters are a waste of tax payers dollars spent on printing and postage. Just as a parent expects their child to accept responsibility for wrong doing, a defendant, who knowingly, intelligently, and willfully broke the law should be required to do the same. Therefore, the defendant should be responsible for maintaining contact with the Collection Department. Current audit standards are sufficient. Brazos Countyfailed its first audit, made the required changes and has successfully passed the next three. Getting the defendant?s correct information, their contacts, their employment information, any government assistance, bills and two references is notjust for compliance, but to ensure we have tried every way possible to notify the defendant they are defaulting, and a capias pro fine may be issued. District, County and Associate courts are most effective with this information when the defendant appears in court. Justice and municipal courts do not have that luxury. All information collected on our application is not public record. Also, I see no need to change the name of Audit Review. Probation cases need no change to the current guideline. Defendants must complete paying the assessed court costs and fines within their probation period. Changing the current guidelines will likely increase the filing of motions to revoke and motions to proceed. This outcome could be extremely unfair to a defendant who ends up servingjail time on a revocation or is adjudicated (convicted) for an offense that but for this proposed change, the defendant would have successfully completed probation. The current agreement states that defendants are to pay probation fees, court cost and fines two months prior to be the expiration oftheir probation to obtain a successful discharge. This allows the Court to still have authority over the defendant?s case if it is not paid prior to their probation expiring. Our judges take great strides at sentencing to insure the defendant can comply with probation terms. No one wants to see a defendant fail. 9. Collection Improvement Program Components must remain to have guidelines to follow. The eleven components are essential to having a successful program. Adding the email address to the list of contact information gives Collection Departments another avenue to notify defendant. Employer information is not only important in determining the amount and frequency of payments, but in supplying courts with relevant information during indigency hearings. 10. Requiring Judges to set up the payment plans in court is not feasible. There is not enough staff or time during dockets in our District, County or Associate courts to setup payment plans. In Brazos County, we have eleven courts,- yet including myself, there are only six clerks doing collections. The Judges still have the ability to tell us how much to set the plan at per month, give community service and/ or waive the fees. With all payment options available, there are still some defendants who would just rather go to jail and lay out their fines and costs. 11. No matter what you call it, it is still a payment plan. Suggested name changes may be ?Compliance ofthe Judgment and Sentence Agreement? or "Terms and Agreement of Compliance.? However, the defendants will still be making payments based on the schedule in their agreement whether it is weekly, or In all my years of experience dealing with the OCA Specialist and audit team, they have done nothing but improve processes for the Court systems. They give advice which has helped defendants accomplish goals and meet obligations in life even if it is something as little as paying a ticket in full. I have had defendants ask my staff orl ifthey can hug us to show how thankful they are that we enabled them to pay off their first case. As previously stated, my office serves eleven courts with six clerks maintaining around 18,000 active cases. When we set up a payment plan agreement, we explain the process of how this works in relation to theirjudgment and sentence, go over each payment agreement if they have multiple cases to resolve, and then ask ifthey have any questions or are confused with any part ofthe process. Prior to the defendant leaving my office, a card with my office's contact information is attached to their payment agreements to allow the defendant to contact us at a later date with any questions or concerns. My staff also gives each defendant a copy of what is expected of them and assures the defendant we are here to help them successfully resolve their judgment and sentence obligations. Establishing this rapport, lets defendants know they can come back if their circumstances change and revisit how to resolve their cases. I have worked as the Collections Director for twelve years in Brazos County. During this time period I have been able to reduce the number of capias pro fine warrants issued for noncompliance. This speaks to the illusion that we are ?putting poor people in jail.? This program is an important tool in assisting people that cannot afford to pay in full the day of theirjudgment and sentence. Without the Collection Improvement Program Components as guidelines, defendants could be placed on payment plans for 20 years owing only $3,000.00. Without the components, there is no punishment for crimes that have been committed. Finally, I strongly feel that the committee should review these procedures again including District, County Court, and Associate Court Judges in their discussion. I believe the proposed changes at this time will place a heavy burden on the already OVerworked court staff. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. If you need to contact me please feel free to do so. Sincerely yours, Tanya Skinner Governmental Collectors President Brazos County Collections Director July 18, 2016 Mr. Scott Grif?th Director, Research and Court Services Of?ce of Court Administration P.O. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 RE: Proposed Rules Changes to Chapter 175 of the Texas Administrative Code Dear Mr. Grif?th, I want to take the opportunity to point out the problems with the aggressive nature and schedule the Of?ce of Court Administration (OCA) and Judicial Council are taking with changing the rules of the Collection Improvement Program (CIP). This program was developed over the course of years, using tried methods, analyzing best practices, and piloting the programs in various Jurisdictions to come up with a model that has been so successful, the State Legislature made it mandatory for the largest Jurisdictions within the State. In the early 1990's, forward-thinking officials In Dallas County reviewed the collection process in the criminal courts and realized they had an issue. Upon looking at the amount of court costs, fees, and ?nes owed to the County, the of?cials realized a signi?cant source of County revenue was being ignored; however, upon further inspection they realized the uncollected funds represented court orders being ignored by persons convicted of a crime. The officials determined the problem was the process itself, so they began looking at court collection programs across the nation. They traveled to states like Colorado and Arizona to review the court collection programs those states had implemented. They examined best practices utilized by the private sector to develop a pro-active approach to getting these defendants compliant with their court orders in a timely manner. in February 1993, a court collection pilot program was launched in Dallas County with a two-person staff and a budget of $75,000. The pilot had 12 months to produce a $250,000 increase in the amount of court costs, fees, and ?nes collected. That goal was realized 90 days after implementation. The program was so successful that word spread throughout the Metro plex, and several other jurisdictions adopted the model and implemented a court collection program in theirjurisdiction. Those programs were so successful that the OCA took notice by the mid-19905. In September 1996, the OCA implemented a court collection pilot project, modeled largely after the Dallas County program, in the county- level courts in Brazoria County. Unlike Dallas County, Brazoria County had a successful history of collecting court costs, fees, and fines. However, at the end of the ?rst year of the pilot project, Brazoria County experienced a 131% increase in the dollar amount collected within 60 days of sentencing, and the collection rate increased by approximately 10%. However, the most important and surprising result was the 58% decrease in credits given for jail time served. Fewer citizens were spending time in jail as a direct result of the (ZIP. Mr. Griffith Page 2 After the success enjoyed in Brazoria County, the OCA began to assist cities and counties interested in improving compliance and collections with the implementation of Its model program. By September 1, 2005, the OCA had assisted 50 counties and 17 cities In Implementing a court collection program. The results were outstanding with an average collection rate increase of 91% for those Jurisdictions that reported their results. Those figures were too good for the Senate Finance Committee to ignore, leading to Senate Bill (5.8.) 978. Ultimately, the concept was incorporated into Article 10 ofS.B. 1863, which requires cities with a population of 100,000 or more, and counties with a population of 50,000 or more, to implement a program to improve collection ofcourt costs, fees, and fines in criminal cases. The results have been staggering, with an estimated $1 billion collected In additional court costs, fees, and fines due to the program. The encourages personal responsibility. According to the National Center for State Courts, "Lack of compliance in paying ?nes and fees denies a jurisdiction revenue and, more important, calls into question the authority and ef?cacy of the court and justice system." And while Improving court collection improves revenue, It is the most cost effective manner to achieve compliance with court orders for both the Jurisdiction, and more importantly, the defendant. Now the OCA and Judicial Council propose changes to this successful program that would keep poor people out of the that has been an Integral part of the program since its Inception. The proposed rules do not simply tweak the current program, but substantially overhauls the program with rules that do not meet any ofthe models the program was founded on. The changes have not been tested as the program was; there have been no pilot programs of the new rules to see what unintended consequences may arise from implementing the changes. Nobody knows what challenges will arise, yet the OCA and Judicial Council want to hurriedly rush to change a program that has enjoyed success for over two decades. Everyone can agree we should do everything we can to ensure people who are found to be indigent are not jailed because they do not have the capacity to pay their court costs, fees, and fines. This should be done as part of due process for the defendant, prior to the defendant entering the CIP. A process that ensures defendants' ability to pay should be developed, tested, and modified to ensure all Texans are treated fairly. And most importantly, this should be done with ALL 2,659 courts in the State, notjust the B77 courts (32.98%) that fall under the purview of the Collection Improvement Program. There are many poor Texans living in rural, sparsely populated counties that need these protections, as well. in summary, the Collection Improvement Program was built over years oftesting methods that would work. The haste with which this overhaul of the program ls being rushed does not follow the same reasoning that made the CIP such a successful program. Thank you for your time and consideration, Said? Austin, Texas Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:31 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: Fwd: Proposed CIP Rules Shelly - This is for our CIP binders. Thanks. Scott Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Stack Date: July 8,2016 at 2:15:34 PM EDT To: "scottgriffith@txcourts.gov" Cc: Deryl Corley Subject: Fwd: Proposed CIP Rules Shelly, this is for the binders. Thanks. Scott Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Fetchko Date: July 14, 2016 at 12:21:41 PM EDT To: Subject: Proposed CIP Rules Good morning Scott On behalf ofthe Plano Municipal Court, myselfand our ChiefJudge, Don Stevenson, would like to submit the following recommendation/suggestion in regards to the proposed CIP rules particularly the reporting piece. In reference to Section 175.4 (2), we would like to suggest changing this from a report to a quarterly report and perhaps change the verbiage to read "No later than the last day of the month following each calendar quarter, each local program orjurisdiction is requested to provide the following information regarding the previous quarter?s local program Considering the number of fees that are reported and paid to the state on a calendar quarterly basis, it seems it would be more efficient to prepare and submit our collection activity reports on a quarterly basis ratherthan every 30 days. Speaking for our court only, these reports can be time consuming to compile and are generally due at the same time many other required reports are being prepared. It makes more sense to us to align these reports with the quarterly State report so that we can eliminate the amount oftime spent on these every 30 days. We appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts and look forward to the outcome of the proposed revisions. Thank you. Karen Fetchko Municipal Court Administrator 900 E. 15?" Street Plano. Texas 75074 972.941.2176 972.941 2024 karenfe lano. ov glanogov Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 5:56 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: Fwd: Judicial Collection improvement Shelly - This is for the binders. Thanks. Scott Begin forwarded message: From: James Meredith Date: July 15, 2016 at 1:45:40 PM CDT To: Cc: "Chad Graff Sheryl Keel Phillip Smith Subject: Judicial Collection improvement I?m not sure I understand where this change is coming from, but it sounds like we are trying to fix a problem by covering everyone with this improvement program, instead of fixing broken courts. The very last straw for JP3 Smith County is a warrant. have 3 full time clerks that work very hard at keeping up with the outstanding cases. This court accepts the pleas, then works with the defendants as far as just paying the fines, time payment plans, community service Fine served ifjailed by officers. The options of DSC, deferred dispositions, what i call Judge Payment plans where,( I sit done with them like an indigency hearing), to see what they could afford to pay, on a payment plan, or to approve indigency. This Court also uses Omni and again only use of a warrant when nothing else seems to work. This program will only cause more work for the court clerks and appears to penalize the court forthe defendants responsibilities. Respectfully submitted, James L. Meredith Justice ofthe Peace 3 Troup, Smith County, TX 75789 903-590-4729 Shelly Ortiz Scott Griffith Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: RE: Comments on the proposed new rules and repeals From: Scott Griffith Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:01 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Comments on the proposed new rules and repeals Importance: High Shelly ?This email is for the binders. Thanks. Scott From: Jeff Davidson Sent: Monday, July 18,2016 2:38 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed CIP Rules and Flowchart i hope i am not beyond the deadline to respond. I was at a conference this past week, and of course, this issue was addressed. i agree with Steven Cherry and the others on this issue. This change does contradict the purpose of the collections program and may very well open a proverbial Pandora's Box. Persons who have already agreed to pay, and are making payments, will opt to do community service on an already limited and stressed system, as we are limited to places a person can do community service. There will also be an increase in persons claiming that community service is a hardship, in order to be found indigent and not have to pay their fines at all. This opens the door to individuals violating he law, knowing they can request an indigent hearing and never have to payfor their actions. truly hate to think this, but that is society today. We too, as with the other courts, have standing orders from our Judge as to what agreements we can make, and then he reviews when he returns to the office. This new rule will be a substantial increase in court room time for the Judge on an already full docket. [61' Collections Clerk Parker County JP 1 1020 E. Highway 199 Springtown, Texas 76082 682.229.2106 81 7.220.2000(Fax) Shelly Ortiz "-rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 11:57 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: Mena Ramon; David Slayton Subject: Comments on Rules Changes Chapter 175 Attachments: payment plan updatesdocx For the binders. Scott From: Aimee Sharp Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 9:29 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Comments on Rules Changes Chapter 175 r. riffith, I have attached input regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 175, Collections Improvement Program as it related to Travis County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. If I can be of further assistance I can be reach at this email or phone number below. 'hank you for your consideration, Aimee Sharp Travis County Community Justice Services Administrative Services Division Director 512-854-7836 TRAVIS COUNTY COMMUNITY JUSTICE SERVICES Pretrial Services?Sr Adult Probation The Travis County Adult Probation Department acts as the Collections Improvement Plan administrator for Travis County. All defendants who are placed on probation and do not pay court costs and ?nes at the time of sentencing are provided a payment plan by the bookkeeping section of the department. The plans are prepared and signed by staff and the defendant and maintained in the case management computer system. The bookkeeping staff revises plans at any time when circumstances dictate such a change. The probation of?cers enforce the payment plan compliance if a client falls more than 90 days delinquent as per program rules. The Travis County Adult Probation Department has identi?ed two sections of changes to the Texas Administrative Code Chapter 175 ?Collection Improvement Program? which have a ?scal impact to the department. The revisions to 171.1.e referral to Court for Review of Defendant?s Ability to Pay would require that local program staff refer a case back to court if payments would create undue hardships on the client and their dependents. The rule also requires program staff to collect information regarding defendant?s ability to satisfy with non-monetary compliance options. The staff in the bookkeeping section would normally not send any reports to court, that duty is maintained by the probation of?cers. Additionally the bookkeeping section is not in the business of determining community service hours or any other non- monetary arrangements. This additional requirement would require development of procedure and formats of reports to be sent to Court, appointment of personnel to appear at Court to present the information to the Judge, and establishment of a mechanism to implement the orders of the Court. This process is far above and beyond current practices of the probation of?ce and their interactions with the Courts. It is not responsible to assume there is no additional workload of the probation of?ce with these new requirements. While the judicial discretion remains unchanged, the recommendation and reporting process, additional court appearances required, and system implementation will impact the workload and staf?ng levels of the probation department. There are 19 probation of?cers assigned to provide the Courts with reports on existing probation matters. We know that only 59% of the defendants are employed full time, and we should expect that 7,312 individuals not employed full time will need additional court attention to their payment plans. This could require as many as 8 FTE (19 current 41%) to be assigned to provide reports to the courts. The average cost for these probation of?cers is $62,500 for a total ?scal impact of$500,000 annually. The revisions to section 175.3 paragraph 8 require telephone contact within one month ofa missed payment and paragraph 9 requires written notice to be mailed within one month of a missed payment. Currently, CIP guidelines state that such contact is made in 90 days. The requirement to both mail and make telephone calls every 30 days creates signi?cantly more work than is currently required by program rules. There are currently 10,884 defendants with a delinquent balance at the 30 day mark. That is a total of 130,608 telephone calls to be conducted and letters that need to be mailed each year. There are 240 average business days per year and there needs to be 544 calls placed and 544 letters to be mailed each business day. Even ifa staff member can make in excess of 500 calls per day that would require 1 Full- time-equivalent staff member for the phone calls and 2 additional FTE to process the additional mailing volume to be added. Accounting for salary, fringe bene?ts, and health insurance, the average cost of each staff member is $50,000 3 $150,000 additional annual cost. Additionally, the cost of mailing 130,608 letters postage, printing, and enve10pe $0.50 each) would be an additional $65,304 per year. In total the new contact requirements cost Travis County Adult Probation $215,304 annually. With the additional court of?cers and the clerical staff to ensure contact every 30 days, the total ?scal impact to the department is estimated to be at least $715,304. The total amount of court costs and ?nes collected by the Travis County Adult Probation Department in FY 2015 was $909,693. It hardly seems responsible to add program staff which would cost more than the total amount that would be expected to be collected. The department?s overarching goal is to affect behavior change in the clients so that they may become law-abiding citizens and does appreciate the role of ?nancial payments in that rehabilitation. Many times, there are underlying issues that must be addressed before clients are even able to pay. Many are returning from some period of incarceration, are drug and alcohol addicted, suffer some period of homelessness, or other signi?cant factors that may a payment within 30 days almost impossible and the 90 day timeframe is much more accommodating period. Shelly Ortiz '-rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Tuesday, July 19,2016 2:37 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Part 8. Texas Judicial Council Chapter 175 Collection Improvement Program, concerns and opposition Attachments: OCA Rules Response.pdf Shelly ?This email and the attachment are for the binders. Thanks. Scott From: Daniel Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 2:35 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Part 8. Texas Judicial Council Chapter 175 Collection improvement Program, concerns and opposition As the Director of Kaufman County CSCD, I would like to express concern and opposition? to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections Improvement Program under Part 3. Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. The proposed rule changes mandate significant changes to how community supervision cases are initially handled and processed. These changes would require my department to add at a minimum of 2.5 additional staff, which I do not have the budget, facilities, or internal funding to accomplish. In addition to Departmental staffing, additional court hearings and court time would be required, placing additional burdens on the local District Attorney's office, Public Defenders office, and Court Dockets, in order to accommodate the fee hearings, and creating potential lost revenue due to mandated fee reductions or non- monetary forms of payment. Under the changes, program staff must be designated to complete the functions of the Collection Improvement Program. While the rules do allow for these duties to be distributed over multiple staff, in order to insure compliance with the time frames and guidelines established by the rules, my Department would be required to hire additional staff to complete the interview on the ?Assessment Date,? identify ?Discretionary Income," gather ?Payment ability information," develop ?Payment Plan," in addition to the mandatory follow ?p and re-visitation called for when a defendant fails to make payments. If a defendant claims the financial cost of supervision would place an undue burden on them or their family or if a defendant refuses to sign a statement acknowledging their ability '3 pay we, ?must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if appropriate non- monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or fines are appropriate.? Due to local staff gathering this information, the local staff would also have to be present in court, thus taking more of their time and increasing the local cost to comply with the rules. The analysis of the proposed amendment by the Office of Court Administration states this is a new component and they have no way of assessing its impact or effectiveness. In addition to the proposed assessment, acknowledgement of ability to pay, and mandated court hearings, the proposed changes require additional follow up contacts when/if a defendant fails to pay their fees. These contacts must include specified information and alternatives be documented in each contact. These contacts include a final contact which must be completed in writing, by mail. This increased and additional contact requirements are in addition to case supervision which is already occurring and taking place. The totality of these rule changes will require an increase in staff time as well as personnel costs, which I am unable to meet in my funding. Furthermore, an offender's ability to pay costs is not a static, but rather a dynamic factor. Many defendants enter community supervision from jail or after exiting a treatment program. When these defendants initially enter supervision they do not have the ability to pay, however through referrals and supervision programs we can encourage defendants to obtain employment and seek a prosocial rehabilitation of the defendant through accountability, rehabilitation, treatment, and supervision. The rules as proposed do not give a defendant or the Department an opportunity to succeed and instead assumes their failure. In Kaufman County we have set up a process to have defendants referred for court if over time they show an inability to pay fees. After giving the defendant an opportunity to grow and succeed, if they show they are unable to meet their financial burdens, we will take the case back to the court and allow the court to review the fees and services at that time. The rules as written mandate all fees be addressed at the beginning of program placement instead of after working with the defendant to succeed. Additionally, as these rules advocate for defendants not to suffer an undue financial burden, we must also consider the number of victims who would suffer if restitution costs were waived. I hear from victims who due to the defendants actions, are suffering financial difficulty due to expenses incurred by the defendants offense. in my opinion, it would be inappropriate to make victims suffer a second time due a ?hardship? being placed on the perpetrator of their offense. conclusion, if the rules pass as written, Kaufman County CSCD will be unable to meet these requirements and would have to return the collection of District Clerk fees to Kaufman County. In speaking with the District Clerks office she has stated she would need a minimum of four additional staff in order to meet the requirements of the rules as proposed. Not only will this place additional burden on the District Clerks office, it will place a further burden on defendants who will have to make payments to multiple locations and track multiple accounts. David Daniel Director, Kaufman County CSCD T: (972)563-3890 F: (972) 563-0558 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use ofthe individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you are not the intended recipient orthe person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately otify David Daniel by telephone at (972)563-3890. You will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying US. KAUFMAN COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT 408 E. College St David W. Daniel Terrell, Texas 75160 Director (972) 563-3890 FAX (972) 563-0558 As the Director of Kaufman County CSCD, I would like to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections Improvement Program under Part 8. Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July I, 2016 Texas Register. The proposed rule changes mandate signi?cant changes to how community supervision cases are initially handled and processed. These changes would require my department to add at a minimum of 2.5 additional staff, which I do not have the budget, facilities, or internal funding to accomplish. In addition to Departmental staf?ng, additional court hearings and court time would be required, placing additional burdens on the local District Attorney?s of?ce, Public Defenders of?ce, and Court Dockets, in order to accommodate the fee hearings, and creating potential lost revenue due to mandated fee reductions or non?monetary forms of payment. Under the changes, program staff must be designated to complete the functions of the Collection Improvement Program. While the rules do allow for these duties to be distributed over multiple staff, in order to insure compliance with the time frames and guidelines established by the rules, my Department would be required to hire additional staff to complete the interview on the ?Assessment Date,? identify ?Discretionary Income,? gather ?Payment ability information,? develop ?Payment Plan,? in addition to the mandatory follow up and re- visitation called for when a defendant fails to make payments. If a defendant claims the financial cost of supervision would place an undue burden on them or their family or if a defendant refuses to sign a statement acknowledging their ability to pay we, ?must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if appropriate non-monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or fines are apprOpriate.? Due to local staff gathering this information, the local staff would also have to be present in court, thus taking more of their time and increasing the local cost to comply with the rules. The analysis of the proposed amendment by the Of?ce of Court Administration states this is a new component and they have no way of assessing its impact or effectiveness. In addition to the proposed assessment, acknowledgement of ability to pay, and mandated court hearings, the proposed changes require additional follow up contacts when/if a defendant fails to pay their fees. These contacts must include speci?ed information and alternatives be documented in each contact. These contacts include a ?nal contact which must be completed in writing, by mail. This increased and additional contact requirements are in addition to case supervision which is already occurring and taking place. The totality of these rule changes will require an increase in staff time as well as personnel costs, which I am unable to meet in my funding. Furthermore, an offender?s ability to pay costs is not a static, but rather a dynamic factor. Many defendants enter community supervision from jail or after exiting a treatment program. When these defendants initially enter supervision they do not have the ability to pay, however through referrals and supervision programs we can encourage defendants to obtain employment and seek a prosocial rehabilitation of the defendant through accountability, rehabilitation, treatment, and supervision. The rules as proposed do not give a defendant or the Department an opportunity to succeed and instead assumes their failure. In Kaufman County we have set up a process to have defendants referred for court if over time they show an inability to pay fees. After giving the defendant an opportunity to grow and succeed, if they show they are unable to meet their ?nancial burdens, we will take the case back to the court and allow the court to review the fees and services at that time. The rules as written mandate all fees be addressed at the beginning of program I)lacement instead of after working with the defendant to succeed. Additionally, as these rules advocate for defendants not to suffer an undue ?nancial burden, we must also consider the number of victims who would suffer if restitution costs were waived. I hear from victims who due to the defendants actions, are suffering ?nancial dif?culty due to expenses incurred by the defendants offense. In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to make victims suffer a second time due a ?hardship? being placed on the perpetrator of their offense. In conclusion, if the rules pass as written, Kaufman County CSCD will be unable to meet these requirements 1nd would have to return the collection of District Clerk fces to Kaufman County. In speaking with the District Clerks of?ce she has stated she would need a minimum of four additional staff in order to meet the requirements of the rules as proposed. Not only will this place additional burden on the District Clerks of?ce, it will place a further burden on defendants who will have to make payments to multiple locations and track multiple accounts. Sincerely, David W. Daniel Kaufman County CS CD, Director Shelly Ortiz ?-rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:45 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: CIP rules Shelly ?This email is for the binders. Thanks. Scott From: Cathy Stuart [mailto1cstuart@vctx.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:05 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP rules The rules state that you are unable to collect money or place in jail a defendant that has been found indigent or on any assistance from the State. I believe this would take away the fine and court costs of 96% of our defendants. The rule would not only be detrimental to the Counties but the State as well, due to the fact that 86% of our Court costs are forwarded to the State Comptroller. It will place a burden on our collections department to determine if they are truly indigent by the guidelines set out in the rules and having at least one employee in the courtrooms that will bring the defendant before the court so they may determine if indigent, waiving fees or having the defendant perform CSR hours. The burden is being placed on employees to decipher if indigent but also slowing the court process if the Judge has to continuously have a hearing regarding indigence. A program will need to be made available to all collection departments that will aide in the decision of indigence. The Probation departments will also be affected by this rule in most counties, due to the fact that they will be in control of the defendants that are ordered to perform CSR hours in lieu of fees. I believe the rules and/or legislation need to be discussed further and involvement with more County Departments, such as: County Judge, Auditors, District and County Court Judges, County Clerks, District Clerks, The rules will definitely affect the County budget, not only for the extra employees that will be needed, but the fees not being collected. Cathy Stuart District Clerk Victoria County, Texas (361) 575-0581 NOTICE: This e-mail message is the property of Victoria County, Texas. The contents of this message and any attachments are confidential and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please onNard a copy to cstuart@vctx.org and delete the message and its attachments from your computer. Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:12 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Comments on proposed CIP rules Attachments: Letter to OCA with CIP commentsdocx For the binders. From: Letson, Sonya Sent: Wednesday, July 20,2016 1:58 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Comments on proposed CIP rules Dear Mr. Griffith, Please find attached a letter with comments concerning the proposed revision of Texas Administrative Code Chapter 175 concerning Collection Improvement Programs. I can be reached with any questions at this email address. Thank you Sonya ?et50n Presiding Judge City of Amarillo Municipal Court CITY OF AMARILLO COURT July 20, 2016 Scott Griffith Office of Court Administration PO Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 VIA email: scottgriffith@txcourts.gov Re: Comments to proposed rules for Collection Improvement Program Dear Mr. Griffith, After reading the proposed changes to the Collections Improvement Program chapter of the Administrative Code, I have some questions and concerns, which I have summarized below. I hope these comments will be helpful, and I would be glad to expand upon them or provide concrete examples if requested. 1. ?175.2(e) Definition of Household Income, ?175.2(l) Definition of Spouse, and Presumption of Inability to Pay when Household Income is below 125% of poverty. I believe that limiting the program staff?s analysis of household income to only married persons is too narrow. A great many, if not most, of defendants going through the CIP live in households composed of persons with a variety of relationships other than legally- recognized marriage. Generally these persons have existing arrangements for sharing expenses, so that, for example, when staff sees that the defendant lists rent at $750, they know to inquire further into the percentage paid by defendant and the percentage paid by others. The ability of others in the household to bear household expenses should be a factor to be considered in determining the defendant?s available income and resources. If the program staff is not able to consider and analyze the income of other household members, then all cases in which defendants live in non-traditional households will have to come before the judge for a correct analysis. These households are fast becoming the norm, and requiring the judge to review all these situations for a proper analysis of the defendant?s ability to pay will be an unwarranted burden. The Texas Supreme Court has recognized this reality, as indicated by the language of the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court form that is now required in civil cases. That form requires parties to give information about income from household members other than spouses, so that the court, attorneys, and other parties can have a fair understanding of the party?s financial situation in deciding whether to challenge the claim of inability to pay costs. The program staff determining a defendant?s financial ability to satisfy a criminal judgment needs this latitude as well. ?175.2(e) Definition of Discretionary Income and Presumption of Inability to Pay when dependent receives government assistance. It would be helpful for the term "dependent" to be defined. A dependent should be a person actually reliant upon the defendant for support. Further, these provisions make no mention of where the dependent lives. Ostensibly the dependent could live elsewhere in a household that qualifies for government assistance, not in the defendant?s household. ?175.2(j) Definition of Payment Ability Information. The meaning of the second sentence in this definition is unclear. Does this mean the program staff must take the information provided by the defendant at face value and may not Inquire further when initially setting up the payment plan? Does it mean that if defendant adds new citations to an existing plan the staff may not ask for updated payment ability information? Does it mean only the defendant may request a review ofthe information provided? Scott Griffith Office of Court Administration July 20, 2016 Page 2 4. Judicial discretion. Either the rules ?bind judges? or they don?t. The language "None of these provisions should bind judges or influence judicial discretion? is not helpful in directing either program staff or the judiciary. A better phrase might be ?Judges retain judicial discretion etc. 5. Application or contact information is obtained. How long must program staff wait to receive an application? May they set a deadline for receipt? Is an application considered timely if it is received 2 years after requested? What if a warrant has already been issued? This provision does not give sufficient practical guidance for the program staff or the judiciary. I appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this proposed revision, and also appreciate the opportunity to make comments to the proposal. Both the collections program staff and ourjudges strive to do the right thing in all situations. Neither the staff nor the judges have any interest in setting a payment plan that the defendant cannot pay, and the court routinely orders reduced payment plans based upon a defendant?s income and pay schedule, as well as community service for defendants who request it and are indigent. However, the court takes its judgments very seriously, as a matter of community safety and respect for the rule of law. The CIP rules should not be revised to the extent that it becomes difficult or impossible to enforce the court's judgments. Please feel free to contact me ifl can provide any further information or answer any questions. Sincerely, Sonya. Larson Presiding Judge City of Amarillo Municipal Court 201 S.E. Fourth Avenue IP.O. Box 1366 oAmarillo, Texas 79105-1366 08066786000 IFax 806-378-9317 Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:13 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Chapter 175 Proposed rules For the binders. Thanks From: Mike Wolfe Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:34 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Chapter 175 Proposed rules Dear Mr. Griffith, i would like to comment on the proposed rule changes currently in the Texas Register. If you are not the correct person to receive this, would you please forward to the appropriate person. I am the Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) Director in Taylor, Callahan, and Coleman counties. Taylor county is required to participate in the collections improvement program. My CSCD collects court costs and fines for Taylor county on all cases place on felony or misdemeanor community supervision. My main concern in these )roposed requirements is the additional workload being placed on CSCD staff with no resource relief being offered or considered by OCA. in addition the defendants inability to pay will have the unintended consequence of carrying over to the collection of probation fees. When the probation fees start decreasing, we will have no choice but to lay staff off causing revocations to go up. I listened to a webinar today with Mr. David Slayton and asked this question, his answer did not address the problem. In addition, Mr. Slayton attempted to explain the court's role and the use of its discretion. I still don't understand. Lastly I would like to point out, according to Mr. Slayton, this rule is being revised to address some concern about people being locked up for failure to pay. lwould like you to know that a group of CSCD Directors testified in May in front of a joint committee ofthe House on this issue. All testified this does not happen with probation cases. So I have to wonder why you are including a section of the population where this is not a problem. 1 therefore am opposed to your proposed rule changes and urge the Texas Judicial Council to vote against these changes. Michael D. Wolfe Director Taylor, Callahan, and Coleman CSCD Shelly Ortiz Trom: Adan Zamora Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:52 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Adan Zamora Subject: Proposed CIP Changes I am in total agreement with the letter dated July 21, 2016 sent by Mr. Arnold on behalf ofthe PAC. Even though the proposed changes do not directly affect my department at this time, a comment made during the webinar that questioned why it didn?t apply to all counties concerns me. If it did apply to us I would have a hard time trying to staff the positon or assigning anyone the additional duty. We got cut another 5% on our budget for fiscal year 2017. I thank you for taking my comments under consideration. Adan Zamora Kleberg-Kenedy CSCD Important: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately. Thank You. Shelly Ortiz 'rom: Marla Pinson Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:25 PM To: Scott Griffith; Montes; Danny Tuggle Subject: Proposed CIP Rules and Flowchart Our Hood County JP4 Court has some thoughts and concerns over the new Proposed CIP Rules and Flowchart. I guess my biggest concern from schematic is when a defendant (not indigent) does not comply with TP requirements then we are to give them Unable to Pay Options and Non-monetary Options. What exactly quali?es as an Unable to Pay Option? The court will take in no payments at all i f" we are constantly giving defendants Unable to Pay Options. These changes from previous CIP are very involved and mean so much more time and responsibility of clerks with ultimately reduced collections overall. Marla Pinson Office Mariageereputy Court Clerk Hood Cour?rty?JP4 100 E. Pearl Si..Granbury, TX ?6048 Pit-81 7-408-2530. fax-81 7-5 73-3836 mpinson@co.hood.tx.us I agree with previous statements and concerns voiced by other courts regarding proposed operational ?owchart. By waiving all penalties for indigency, this defeats the purpose ofthejustice system. No one is held accountable for their actions. We already have indigency programs in place in our court. I do not see every defendant as the clerks in my court take pleas and work with defendants on time payment plans. If indigency or community service needs arise, then a hearing is held to review appropriate indigency paperwork and present alternative option to defendant to satisfy the court such as community service. This new flow chart is very confusing and appears it will overwhelm justice ourts with limited staff, which in turn stops due process for all concerned. Judge Danny R. Tuggle Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, Place 1 Hood County, TX Shelly Ortiz 'rrom: Allen Bell Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:12 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Opposition to OCA Rule Changes Mr. Griffith; I am writing this email to state my opposition to the proposed OCA rule changes. My name is Allen Bell, and I am the Director of the Adult Probation Department in Midland, Texas. I have worked in the field of Criminal Justice for 27 years, and I have been with the Midland CSCD for 25 years. I understand that there are several different reasons that many oppose the OCA rule changes. I oppose these rule changes, in short, because it will result in many probation departments moving already scarce resources away from the supervision of offenders. The job of probation is to divert offenders from jail and prison (in a large part to save the state money) and then protect the community by changing offender behavior. If the proposed OCA requirements are put into place, my department will be forced to divert already scarce resources from our mission of changing offender behavior in order to adhere to fee collection requirements enacted by yet another state agency. In the long run, this will lead to increased probation revocation rates, cost the state money, and endanger citizens. Probation departments that must spend resources on OCA collection mandates rather than supervision will likely see violations increase. This in turn will result in revocation and incarceration. Adult probation already has a huge interest in fee collections. Over half of our operating budget comes from fees that we collect. We also collect restitution for victims, and many departments such as mine are tasked with collecting court fees and fines for the county. Probation departments have historically been able to supervise offenders, monitor and change behavior, and collect fees without the added burden of extensive OCA requirements. The burdens that will be brought on by these proposed OCA rule changes will result in probation departments having to convert probation officer positions to collection agent positions. Simply hiring additional people is not an option with our budgets unless we are given more funding by the state to perform this task (and you and I both know that will not happen). In addition, the court hearings required by the proposed changes will result in probation department personnel spending more time in court away from the supervision of their cases and judges spending more time on already probated cases rather than addressing their loaded dockets. Finally, a probationer's life (employment, finances, etc.) is not static. It is an ever changing situation. Many offenders will enter probation with no job and no 1 money. Many will eventually find employment earning a good wage, only to lose that job due to jail or the economy. A probationer may go to treatment for drugs and alcohol and be unemployed for 6 months or a year, but then come out clean and sober and 'Jbtain good employment and begin to address their financial issues. Determining an individual's ability to pay cannot be "mandated" or "regulated" from an office in Austin. It is something that must be dealt with up close and in person within the local communities. As probation officers are working with offenders to change and better their lives, they are also working closely with their economic situation and understand what can and can't be done financially. This is something that cannot be measured by how many letters are sent, how many texts are auto-generated, how many phone calls are made, or any such tic-mark that OCA thinks can be proof of a "job well done" in an audit. The proposed OCA rules will not help, but will only hurt the states probation system by making departments less effective in performing their mission, and tie up the courts in unnecessary hearings. In the end, the proposed changes will cost the State of Texas and will jeopardize the safety of it's citizens. This is a case of the tail wagging the dog! Allen E. Bell Agency Director Midland Judicial District CSCD 432.688.4104 (office) 432.254.8510 (cell) Website Midlan Shelly Ortiz ?-rom: Terry Easterling Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:17 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Changes Dear Mr. Griffith in reference to the proposed changes, we are a jurisdiction in which the collections department is run independently of the CSCD, therefor we will not be directly affected by the "improvements". I do have concerns however about the proposed indigence provisions. I worry that if a defendant is deemed indigent for the purpose of paying fines and court costs that this could be used as a defense against also paying supervision fees, as well as restitution. I also do not see how this plan can be labeled an ?improvement plan? when it appears that it will reduce revenue to both the state and counties. I hope that your organization will strongly reconsider going forward with these proposed changes. Thank you for your consideration. Terry R. Easterling, Director, Potter Randall and Counties CSCD This email and any attached ?les are con?dential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the %ad_company% company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. Shelly Ortiz From: Darren Williams Sent: Thursday. July 21, 2016 4:23 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Re: OCA Proposed Policy changes for CIP Attachments: PAC letter in opposition to CIP changespdf Mr. Grif?th, I want to add my voice in opposition to the proposed new rule changes. I am in agreement with the recent Probation Advisory Committee letter that was sent to you, dated July 21, 2016 (see attached). My opposition stems from concern that the proposed changes could adversely impact my department. My concerns are two-fold: First, that assessed Fines and Court Costs being converted to community service work, could result in an increased burden of added staf?ng and liability concerns for our CSCD Community Service program (our County currently has no such program?ours is the only one). Secondly, that referrals back to Court in the form of hearings, could result in increased staf?ng concerns or needs as it pertains to ongoing indigence determinations. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Darren Williams, Director Community Supervision and Corrections Dept. Harrison County, Texas 903?923-4016, Ext. 1244 DarrenW@Co.Harrison.TX.US Shelly Ortiz Prom: Arnold K. Patrick Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:17 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Letter in opposition to CIP changes Attachments: PAC letter in opposition to CIP changespdf Mr. Griffith, The Probation Advisory Committee is appointed by the Judicial Advisory Council and represents 122 Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, all 254 counties in Texas are represented by this body and by unanimous vote, wish to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections improvement Program under Part 8. Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. Please find the attached letter regarding this matter. Thank you, Arnold Patrick ?Con?dentiality Notice** This email message, including all the attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains con?dential information. Unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, copy or disseminate this information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of all copies of the original message, including attachments. A 8 Arnold K. Patrick PAC Chair pill rim Itf'i?liitinlum ounl yc suitor): irmiaation Advisory Committee Scott Griffith July 21, 2016 P.O. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711?2066 Mr. Griffith, The Probation Advisory Committee is appointed by the Judicial Advisory Council and represents 122 Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, all 254 counties in Texas are represented by this body and by unanimous vote, wish to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections Improvement Program under Part 8. Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. It is clear from the webinar conducted by the Office of Court Administration that less than half ofthe counties are affected by these new rules. Approximately 25% ofthe Counties in Texas are mandated to participate in the CIP and thus many will not feel compelled to voice concerns. Due to the fact that we represent all probation departments in Texas, many ofwhich will be affected by these changes directly and the rest of which could be affected indirectly, we would like to point out that our concerns should be considered with the weight they deserve. We may be the only organization that has a direct interest on how these changes affect the entire state and notjust the 25% affected directly. The proposed rule changes make significant changes to the current Collections improvement Program that will detrimentally affect local government, probation departments and state government. These detriments include an increase in needed personnel to local government, increased court hearings and court time as well as potential lost revenue to state government. Under the proposed changes, program staff are required to obtain a signed statement from the defendant oftheir ability to pay the assessed costs, fines and fees under the imposed terms. Additional requirements are placed upon both the defendant and the program staff ifthe defendant is unable to make this acknowledgement. Then program staff are required to conduct interviews with defendants whom do not acknowledge that they have the ability to pay. A referral back to court, which would require a hearing, is required for those that do not acknowledge their ability to pay. The analysis of the proposed amendment by the Office of Court Administration states that this is a new component and they have no way of assessing its impact or effectiveness. The proposed changes require additional information and instructions be given in contacts with the defendants. The changes regarding Final Contact Attempt require that before reporting a case as non- compliant a final contact must be made by program staff in writing, by mail. A negation Advisory Committee Arnold K. Patrick - PAC Chair aritpitiqmn org These changes will undoubtedly require much more local program staff time to perform as required. This will increase the costs to local government. The requirement to obtain acknowledgement of ability to pay from defendant will result in additional resources being utilized by court and local program staff. The required hearings for those that are unwilling to sign the acknowledgement will increase the amount oftlme needed for a court to deal with many cases. In addition, these acknowledgements of ability to pay are treated as absolute. A defendant?s ability to pay is not a stagnant factor. Many defendants come out of incarceration, treatment programs and other issues and are unable to bear the burden of the financial obligations out of court, however these issues are dynamic and change as the defendant progresses through the phases of re-integratlon and rehabilitation. Community Supervision and Corrections Departments have been addressing these issues with defendants from the beginning and are much better equipped and qualified to make these types of determinations. We would beg caution in making such significant and far reaching changes without further Investigation on the impacts it will make on defendants, local and state government. Sincerely, x. .- 3/ X: i'Imld Patrick Shelly Ortiz ?rom: John Mcguire Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:19 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Jo Ann Fishbeck Subject: Collections Improvement Program Mr. Griffith: We have been recently notified of proposals to change the administration of the Collections improvement Program. This would affect our department, Waller County CSCD, in the future because we currently collect court costs, fines, and attorney fees for the criminal courts of Waller County, and because we anticipate that the 2020 census will show that we will have exceeded 50,000 in population by that time. Please note that are not allowed to utilize appropriated funds forthe hiring or program costs associated with the Collections Improvement Program, because the Program?s mission is to collect funds that are not in any way connected to the operation of the CSCD. We barely have funding to hire the staff we need to perform the supervision of offenders our primary mission. if you want dedicated staff performing tasks mandated by the CIP, then I suggest you have the State fund a full time position from the budget ofthe Office of Court Administration. Our officers work full 40 hour per week schedules working with offenders, many of whom have substance abuse and/or mental health issues. There is no money in the budget to hire extra staff or pay overtime to accomplish these new CIP "improvements". In truth, many offenders on community supervision struggle to adhere to a payment schedule, and a high percentage of them ?get well? financially after they have received their income tax refund in March or April. This is true for every CSCD. A docket for delinquent offenders would require judges to add dedicated days to already scheduled court dockets. I can?t imagine that any district or county court-at?Iaw judge would agree to a day or two, each month, of delinquent fee hearings for indigent offenders. Please understand that we ARE NOT funded by our respective counties, like juvenile probation. We receive some funding from the State (TDCJ-CJAD), but rely on an unusually large amount ofour funding from our collection of probation fees from offenders, some of whom are indigent, and aren't paying our fees any more than they are paying court costs, fines, or attorney fees. All of us resent being "bill collectors?, but are forced to do it because if we don?t, we will not make payroll. Our mission is to support our courts, supervise offenders, and enhance public safety. Please allow us to do those things without the undue burden of these CIP "improvements". John D. McGuire Assistant Director 155?h 506th Judicial District CSCD W: (979)826-8051 x3123 C: (979)204-4738 Shelly Ortiz ?-rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:19 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: Mena Ramon; David Slayton Subject: FW: Proposed changes to the collections improvement program Shelly This is for the binders. Scott From: Lisa Sent: Thursday, July 21,2016 10:15 AM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Cassey Subject: Proposed changes to the collections improvement program Good morning, I?m not seeing a so called improvement in this program, when these defendants make the choice to break the law they know they do not have the means to pay the court cost and fine. Although they do have the means to pay for alcohol, cell phones, cigarettes, nails and other wanted NOT needed items. We are a class court, where you will see around 95% ofthe citations are NO INSURANCE AND NO DL, and in that 95% around 90% would have to be considered for this proposed program. Don?t think by giving them this help that they are ,?oing to go out and get Insurance-No not going to happen. What is going to happen is our court loses and once again the defendant wins no lesson is learned, and where is the Justice. Remember they day in Ferguson when the Payless shoe store got looted? Well guess what no a single pair of work boots were taken. Go figure! Our court is opposing this proposal. Thank you. Chief Clerk Justice of the Peace, Pet. 5 903-585-5428 phone 903-585-2111 fax Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 5:43 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: CIP Rules Comments Shelly For the binders. Scott From: Al Cercone Sent: Thursday, July 21,2016 5:40 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Rules Comments Mr. Griffith: After reviewing the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program I offer the following comments for publication/posting to your website: It has been this court?s experience that the Collections Improvement Program (CIP) has done nothing to improve collections in the many years since its implementation. It must now be described as a failed .?ollections improvement experiment. While I will assume there were good intentions to create the CIP, which tie the court?s hands to enforce the laws as written regarding fine collections, collections have decreased. This decrease places an additional burden on the overtaxed citizens, the people ofthe State of Texas, to make up the loss created by this program. Your request for suggestions or comment implies you intend to only place a small bandage over a fatal wound. The OCA procedures for collections are over burdensome, and are usually met with uncooperative and combative defendants who intentionally delay the process. The results are an unnecessary waste of court time, resources, and manpower that could be better utilized, all at the taxpayer?s expense for no improvement in collections, and therefore no return on the taxpayer?s investment in this program. There is also the expense ofthose employed by OCA charged to oversee, audit, and regulate compliance of the ClP?s procedures in all courts who have not received a waiver, an additional waste oftaxpayer money. Instead of being an educational opportunity, whereby criminal defendants could learn from a court experience after being guilty of a criminal offense, your procedures give them the tools necessary to beat the system and absolve themselves of personal responsibility. It is also a discriminatory practice where those law violators who are otherwise responsible and honest citizens pay for their minor crimes, while those less responsible law violators, who often ?choose? not to pay when they can, are not punished for their crimes. This court often deals with defendant?s claiming to be ?indigent? for seven or eight years before they appear to pay their fines in full. Before they do we have made repeated calls, send multiple post cards, scheduled and q'e-scheduled their appearance over and over, all requiring more wasted resources and clerk time without any credit for that additional time. We finally see those defendants, not because of any CIP procedures, but when they need to renew their Driver License and discover they cannot unless they pay their outstanding fines. A 1 punishment for a crime is intended to teach a lesson and hopefully prevent the reoccurrence. CIP procedures are rewarding crime, therefore doing nothing to prevent its reoccurrence. \lso, defining a credit card installment as a "required payment? before the court can consider how much "discretionary income" a defendant can afford is absurd and offensive. A fine is a debt owed to the people of the State of Texas as a punishment for violating one of the pe0ple?s laws. To require payment only if and when a defendant has money left over after paying for everything else they choose to pay for, including their credit card debt, is ridiculous, to be kind. Additionally, these procedures reward an ever expanding class of dependent citizens always looking for a way to avoid consequences for their actions and escape personal responsibility. 1g Judge Al Cercone Justice of the Peace, 3-1 10056 Marsh Lane Suite 132 Dallas, TX 75229-6071 Tel 214-321-4106 Fax 214-321-4912 Court: Personal: acercone@dallascounty.org Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:40 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Proposed revisions to the CIP Rules Shelly This is for the binders. Scott From: Stan Horton Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:17 AM To: Scott Griffith Montes Subject: Proposed revisions to the CIP Rules Scott. After a very long and detailed review of the proposed rules i have great concern. Texas courts are overworked as it is keeping up with compliance regulations as there written to date. Now it seems that someone or some group of people want us to actually act as loan of?cers at banking institutes. When did the judicial system break to the point that a credit check need to be preformed to assure that a person is ?nancially capable of violating the law. Come on this is absurd ll! Why in the world would a governing body make a set of rules that would tie the hands of another governing body only to further stress the system that an individual put themselves in because of disregard for public rafety. I have been a law enforcement of?cer for 35 years and an of?cial with our municipality in charge of this program. To date I have never seen anything like this. This needs to be stopped before we tear down what legal system we have left. The facts are simple. A person does not need to be proven ?nancially ?t to break the law. Don?t you think the 'l?exas Department efl?uhlie Safety needs to be involved. They Texas DPS can require all this information before issuing a driver license to its citizen. After they have been deemed ?nancially stable to violate the law then turn them loose. Other states can follow. We can even set up credit check at our state line. If you are not ?nancially stable and cant afford to break the law you cant come in. How about that. I am very willing to work with individuals and help them resolve their issues as best as possible but i am in NO way in favor of CRIPPLING the justice system. This is why America has a problem. This right here. Thank you for your time and please note that my passion in this letter is not directed at you. However it is directed at the group of individuals that felt the need to further enable those who could care less about the lives they effect. Us The menand women of America and Texas who come to work every day to keep the balance in society. Regards. 9-. Stan Horton Court Administrator/ City Marshal City of Wichita Falls 611 Bluff St Wichita Falls, Texas 76301 Phone: 940-761?7882 Fax: 940-761-7990 Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:35 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: FW: CIP rules Forthe binders. From: Tonna Trumble Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:54 AM To: Scott Griffith Montes Subject: CIP rules Scott, I am going to list just a few of my concerns about the CIP rules. I feel that the program should be dropped, if the committee is going to put in place all of the new rules that put more man hours on the Counties. Reading the Rules, and passing an audit would put a considerable amount of man hours on the collection department, if you are an in house collection department, as we are in the Hood County Districts Clerks of?ce. If the State is going to fund this for Counties, that would be different. I'm thinking that the money the County receives will not out weigh the work we will have to do to pass an audit. It seems the committee is made up of City of?cials, and County Justice of the Peace of?cials, with only one District Clerk on the committee, no District Judges, no County Court at Law Judges, no County Clerks. The ules do not seem to be written or address the higher courts, and how they function. I was also wondering if the indigents will not have to pay probation fees, if not, in a County where 3/4 of the defendants are indigent, you will be shutting down probation of?ces, or the State will have to fund them completely. They will become a babysitter, of defendants with nothing collected from them. And if the Rules do not apply to them on "fees", then that will not be fair to Counties. We collect a good amount of these fees from indigents now, but the new Rules, will ban us from tryingl! The Supreme Court seems to be so worried about the civil rights of indigents, what about the civil rights of all the victims that these indigents have victimized?? With these Rules, the taxpayer will have to pick up all of bills for indigents I can see an increase in crime over the State, because without making them pay any costs, then it will be like a slap on the hand, turn them loose, and let them re-offend I am wondering if the Supreme Court really thinks that a form ?lled out by an indigents, saying they can not pay any money, is a true re?ection that they are truly indigent? If they are out doing the crimes, do they not think they will not lie, to get out of paying fees? All of the components of the program set Counties out to fail ii! Your Rules say that an employee, does not have to be a "full time" employee, you need to re-read the Rules and tell me how they could not be a full time employee, and ever pass an audit! have been elected for seven terms, and voted in every election, from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket, but I can tell you I will de?nitely reconsider the top Thank you, Tonna Trumble Hitt '-Iood County District Clerk Shelly Ortiz ?-rom: Mena Ramon Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:29 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: Scott Griffith Subject: FW: Proposed Collection Improvements Changes Shelly, Can you add this to the notebooks, please. Thanks! From: Marilyn Galloway Sent: Tuesday, July 26,2016 1:20 PM To: David Slayton Scott Griffith Mena Ramon Subject: FW: Proposed Collection Improvements Changes FYI this may be a comment on the CIP changes. From: Dana Blanton Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:52 AM To: Marilyn Galloway Subject: FW: Proposed Collection Improvements Changes Hi, Marilyn We received this email in our general mailbox. I?m forwarding it to you because you are liaison for the Texas Judicial Council. lfyou think it needs to be forwarded to someone else, please let me know. Thank you. Dana Blanton Editor, Texas Register Office of the Secretary of State From: Weaver, Cindy Sent: Friday, July 22,2016 5:00 PM To: Register Mailbox Account Subject: Proposed Collection Improvements Changes Texas Register Although the findings ofthe Department ofJustice investigation of the City of Ferguson Police and Municipal Court do give courts a reason to review their procedures in the collection of fines, we would like to know what (ifany) research was conducted by the Texas Judicial Council on Texas Courts, which would indicate that Texas Courts need a major vamping to its collection program? in our dealings with local courts, we find that they follow the same pattern that we do, which is to have defendants, who indicate to the court that they will not be able to pay the fine in its intirely, fill out a payment application and pay in payments. We have a basic payment plan option but the clerks have the authority to modify the payments to meet the defendant's financial limits. The application lists their income and expenses. Those defendants who indicate to the collections clerk that they are unable to pay are sent back to the judge for assignment of community service or other alternate ways to be in compliance with the Judge's orders. We submit collection reports to the OCA on a voluntary basis so that we are prepared if legislation passes laws which will require our court to follow the OCA Collection Improvement Program. Our goal is to close cases, not intimidate people. We use Scofflaw Program and hire an attorney's office to work on collecting our fines. Fines also increase when warrants are issued. All of these tools increase the cost of each citation. Maybe, instead of changing the collections program, there should be legislation to reduce the court costs to a more reasonable amount? R. Weaver Harlingen Municipal Court Administrator Certified Court Clerk Level II (956) 216-5127 Ph., (956) 216-5130 Fax T011015 is a good dog to have a good dag. ?gm. -, 'r . .- Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:47 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: Fwd: Proposed Changes For the binders. Begin forwarded message: From: Jim McKenzie Date: July 25,2016 at 9:23:19 AM MDT To: Subject: Proposed Changes Mr. Griffith, My name is Jim McKenzie and I currently serve as the director ofthe Hunt County CSCD. lam sending you this email to give my thoughts on the changes being proposed to the OCA requirements. I am against any changes being made to the procedure in place. i am under the opinion that "if it's not broken, don't fix it". The current procedure in place seems to be working and feel no changes need to be made. lfthe proposed changes are implemented that would cause a financial burden to around the state in that additional staff would need to be employed to perform what is being proposed. Sincerely, Jim McKenzie Hunt County CSCD Director 903-455-9563 ext.115 Shelly Ortiz ?Irom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: For the binders. Scott Begin forwarded message: Scott Griffith Monday, July 25, 2016 12:48 PM Shelly Ortiz David Slayton; Mena Ramon Fwd: Comments regarding changes to proposed rules for OCA CIP Letter to Scott Griffith (OCA) regarding Proposed Changes to OCA CIP Rules.pdf: From: Amanda Knox Date: July 25,2016 at 10:34:35 AM MDT To: Cc: Montes Subject: Comments regarding changes to proposed rules for OCA CIP Mr. Griffith, I would appreciate your consideration of the comments, concerns and questions on the attached letter regarding proposed changes to the OCA Collection Improvement Program. Thank you, Sherry Lemon County Clerk, Wise County By: Amanda Knox, Chief Deputy (940) 627-3351 WISE COUNTY REGISTRAR SHERRY LEMON July 25, 2016 Scott Grif?th Of?ce of Court Administration Director of Research and Court Services PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 7871 1-2066 Re: Proposed Rule Changes to the OCA Collection Improvement Program Mr. Grif?th, The Wise County Clerk?s of?ce has thoroughly read the Proposed Rules as stated in the Texas Register as well as reviewed the flow charts and other information provided by our Regional Specialist, Monies. I wish to submit on behalf of the Wise County Clerk?s of?ce the following comments, concerns and questions. 0 Proposed Changes will result in a loss of revenue to the county The Collection Improvement Program that is in place for Wise County Court at Law (Misdemeanor Criminal offenses) works well. The deputy designated to the Collection Improvement Program (CIP) is diligent in collections and defendant compliance. All deputies in the Court Department are diligent about collections. A defendant?s payment amount is based on income and punishment term and staff is considerate of any hardships. The average total collection amount has increased from June 2014/2015 to June 2015/2016. There are many questions surrounding the ?Acknowledgement or Ability to Pay? form. Has OCA considered processes and parameters to provide the local CIP programs that will guide the local program in the veri?cation process? Will there be a standardized form used by all counties/municipalities that are governed by the OCA CIP rules? Are we to simply trust that a defendant is providing accurate information? An increase in ?yes? responses to the question, ?Will paying your ?ne and court cost be a hardship to you or your dependents?? is to be expected. In many instances, defendants do not wish to provide ?nancial ability information. They see providing that information as"?none of our business.? Many defendants will take a non-monetary option to cover the ?ne/court cost rather than have to pay. An increase in ?jail time credit? or other non?monetary compliance options will only further reduce the revenue that is collected by the county for court cost and ?nes. I understand that a percentage of court cost is collected by the county for the bene?t of the state. As total court cost collections decrease under the proposed rules the amount of funding received by the state will also decease. 200 N. Trinity - Records Bldg. 0 PD. Box 359 - Decatur, TX 76234 0 (940) 627-3351 0 Fax (940) 627-2138 E-Mail: sherry.1emon@co.wise.tx.us 0 Website: A decrease in court cost collected may negatively impact local services provided. Wise County maintains (as best it can) the quality of service expected by the taxpayers with reduced funds due to reduction in fees of of?ce, oil/gas revenue, and decreased tax, appraisal and mineral values. Likewise, a decrease in ?ne collections will directly affect the local funding of infrastructure as those funds go to road/"bridge funding. Wise County has in place for the option for defendants to pay by credit/debit card. If a defendant doesn?t have the money in-hand the day of the hearing they have the Option to pay by credit/debit card. Defendants may also use this method for payments if they are set up on a payment plan. This of?ce has seen an increase in credit/debit card payments since this option was implemented. Overall, I feel there needs to be more explanation about the parameters and process of determining whether a defendant is truly unable to pay. 1 have read and understand the information about discretionary income and the presumed inability to pay criteria. There are too many questions as to who is going to be the gatekeeper of this part of the process. It is my understanding that this is a Collection Improvement Program not a Compliance Improvement Program and was intended to improve collection of fine/court cost. 0 Proposed changes removes monetary punishment by requiring multiple reminders of what to do if a defendant cannot pay fine/court cost If a person commits a crime then, more often than not, he or she is aware that there will be a monetary punishment as well as possible community supervision or jail time. When a defendant is given a non-monetary option to satisfy the judgment he/she will take that option. When monetary punishment is removed what is left? As I stated previously, there are already defendants who would rather ?sit it out" than come up with the money. The proposed rule changes do nothing more than allow the defendant an ?out?. Sometimes monetary punishment, especially in the current economy, is a more effective deterrent to crime than any non-monetary punishment. 0 Proposed changes create additional hearings and more work on CIP and court staff if defendant does not comply Defendants currently on Payment Plans are provided compliance information at the time of plan set up. A compliance hearing is scheduled typically for the month after their last payment is due. If the defendant doesn?t comply with the terms of the payment plan then the compliance hearing is moved closer to the current date. If the defendant doesn?t appear at the compliance hearing the court issues a capias pro ?ne. The proposed rules have the CIP deputy constantly having to refer the defendant back to the court if inability to pay is determined after a payment plan has been established. The misdemeanor docket in Wise County is already heavy and increased Indigence Hearings would only add to the hearing caseload for the judge. Egan-Lu." Have OCA and Judicial Council considered what will happen if, hypothetically, the proposed rules are put in place and then a few years down the road changed back to the current process? Would the rules revert back to the current practice or would a new format be put in place to account for the inability for defendants to pay assessed ?ne/court cost? Please consider the concerns stated above when discussions are had about the proposed rule changes to the current Collection Improvement Program process. Thank you, Sherry Lemon County Clerk, Wise County By: Amanda Knox, Chief Deputy Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:49 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Cc: David Slayton; Mena Ramon Subject: Fwd: OCA Proposed Changes For the binders. Begin forwarded message: From: Guy Date: July 25, 2016 at 11:23:37 AM MDT To: Subject: OCA Proposed Changes Wilbarger, Foard Hardeman CSCD Oppose the proposed changes. Guy L. Elliott Director Sent from my iPhone Shelly Ortiz irom: Enax, Michael Sent: ?Thursday, July 28, 2016 12:14 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Changes for the CIP Mr. Griffith, I am writing this email to express my support of the letter from Arnold Patrick, Chair of the Probation Advisory Committee, which opposes the proposed changes to the Collections Improvement Plan. My Department collects fines, fees and court costs for the District Courts of Fort Bend County and we are very diligent in following the CIP requirements currently in place. Following the current requirements increases the amount of time we spend on cases but we feel it is time well spent and necessary. To increase those requirements would only result in additional time consuming paperwork and additional interviews which would take time away from productive supervision. I do not think the increased requirements will result in any significant return in dollars, in fact, my opinion is that the amounts collected could very well be reduced due to the way the proposed changes are set up. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. Best Regards, Mike Enax CSCD Director Fort Bend County Note: The comments on and attachments to this c-mail are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader ofthis message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. lfyou received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the original message, any and copies. Thank you for your cooperation. Thursday, July 28,2016 Mr. Griffith, In response to the proposed CIP rule changes, please take all matters into consideration. As it is, the courts are over flowing with regular dockets. The proposed changes will increase an already overloaded system. In my opinion, with the proposed changes, the job of collecting seems to fall upon the judges. The already in place are here to take the burden of recouping the costs assessed by the courts off of said courts. The proposed policy changes will greatly impact the public?s perception ofthe court system, in a negative way. A fine is assessed as punishment for a crime committed. It should hurt a little. Don?t get me wrong, there are those that are truly indigent. And we handle those cases as such. But there are also those who have worked and continue to work the system who can more than afford to pay for their crime. We as collectors use the information given to us by an offender and schedule a payment plan according to what they are able to afford. Just because an offender receives government assistance should not automatically disqualify them from paying for the punishment that the courts have assessed. In many cases an offender is more than able also willing to pay what he owes forfine costs. Waiving the costs or allowing all/most to do community service, will not benefit anyone except for the offender. If an offender is told over and over that if they are unable to pay they do not have to pay, then why would they pay? Because ifl understand correctly, all ofthe documents phone calls and such must be changed to let an offender know upfront, if he feels he cannot afford a payment schedule, he doesn?t have to pay, ever, even after failing to comply with community service. If the offender goes before a judge for an indigence hearing, he is told the same thing. As a collector, I understand that collecting fines/fees is not about revenue but about following through with the punishment that the court has assessed. But as a tax payer, I would most certainly have concerns regarding a drop in revenue that could affect my taxes. Please allow CIPs to continue to do ourjobs as we have been in the past. I understand that some changes must be made to some programs and that should be addressed. But the proposed changes will not do that. Thank you for your time. Laura Prado Collections Coordinator, Potter County Texas Shelly Ortiz ?-rom: Collection Department - Rodina Scott Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:39 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Comments on proposed new rules for the Collection Improvement Program Good afternoon, The system in place under the current Office of Court Administration rules for collections in Texas already conforms to the Department of Justice opinion in their letter from March 2016. These proposed rule changes will bog down the system to the point that time is wasted in the Collectors and Judges spinning their wheels while the Defendants play the system trying to see how long they can put off their punishment. We already put a great deal of time and effort into attempting to get Defendants to comply with their Court Ordered punishments, these changes will more than triple that work load on an already stressed system. The rule changes will also increase the cost to the Taxpayers significantly while the Defendants will reduce their financial obligation for use ofthe Courts? time. As a Taxpayer, I believe it is the Defendant?s responsibility to pay for their usage ofthe Court system, not my responsibility. As a Collector, I believe it is my responsibility to help Defendants comply with their Court orders in such a way as to be mutually beneficial for each side. Their payment plans should be reasonable within their budget, but still repaying the obligation of their punishment without wasting more time or more Taxpayer money, all the while avoiding incarceration if possible. It should be the experienced Collector?s responsibility, in conjunction with the Defendants, to quickly evaluate a Defendant?s budget to set a reasonable rate. As Collectors? salaries and financial situations are more similar to that of most Defendants, Collectors are in a unique position to be able to understand when Defendants are giving an accurate financial picture and when they are falsifying their information in an attempt to get out of their ibligation. Judges do not have the same perspective due to very high salaries coupled with a significantly different standard of living. One benefit that has inadvertently come out ofthe current collections process is that Collectors are now teaching Defendants how to budget and prioritize their finances, something many Defendants never learned to do. A more appropriate situation would be for the Collectors and Defendants to come together to determine a Defendant's true financial picture, as we currently do, and if that picture is a grim one that suggests indigence, take that information to the Court and recommend the costs be dismissed or community service granted in lieu of payment. Funny enough, that is what most Collections Departments in the Texas are already doing. Stop trying to fix what isn?t broken. Regarding calling people indigent under a certain national poverty level statistic, you are essentially saying a vast majority of Defendants are no longer responsible for their actions. You are instead shifting the financial responsibility of the Defendant?s punishment to the Taxpayers. And by these standards, most of the Collectors in Texas are under the poverty level as well. Since July 2006, Potter County has recovered 15.7 million in Fines, Court Costs, and Court Appointed Attorney Fees forJustice, County and District Courts. We have seen 5 6.2 million given in Jail Credit and over$ 600,000 in costs dismissed. in all, that represents the financial obligations of 31,091 Criminal Cause numbers satisfied. This is money paid by the Defendants to compensate for usage of the Court system and all Departments involved in the arrest, investigation and prosecution process. A process that spans more than just the Police, Prosecutors and Judges, this system also requires Clerks, IT personnel, Records Management personnel, Mail Clerks, Switchboard Operators, Courthouse Security personnel, Collections personnel and even Human Rresources personnel among others. Potter County currently has$ 13.7 million outstanding in Court obligations for 15,959 Criminal Cause numbers owed to the 4 Justice, 3 County and 5 District Courts. Ofthat$ 13.7 million, there are only 2,412 active Capias Pro Fines for a total of$ 1.1 million dollars. That represents an average ofS 460 per warrant. For the total outstanding balance owed to the Courts, the average cost is 5 159.77 per Cause number. Per Office of Court Administration research, Collectors spend 36 minutes working on each Cause number having a balance ofS 300 when Defendants follow their payment plans without becoming delinquent. For an average cost ofS 859 in Potter County, that is 103 minutes of work spent to Collect a balance ifthere are no times of 1 delinquency and no further hearings or actions regarding the balance. Given that Potter County has 15,959 Criminal Cause numbers with a balance at an average ofS 859 per Cause number, this represents 27,396 man hours, or 684.9 weeks of work, or 13.17 years for one Collector to assist Defendants in complying with their Court Ordered obligations. That burden shbuld remain on the Defendants, not shifted to the taxpayers in paying additional staff for each County to comply with the proposed requirements. The proposed requirements would not only increase the amount oftime the Collectors and Judicial staff would have to spend on each case, it would also increase the amount of costs dismissed or discharged through community service for Defendants who are certainly capable of paying. They may not be capable by the standard of someone who has a 100K per year salary, but they are most definitely capable by the standard of the income and expenses Defendants report to their Collectors every day. There are Defendants who do work low wage jobs, receive social security benefits in lieu of working, are self-employed construction workers or child care providers, or have any number of other valid, legal ways of earning a living to pay their rent, utilities, groceries, daycare costs, life and health insurance, phone bills, and yes, even their Court ordered obligations. While those forms of income may seem too low to be considered to someone with a high income, for a population that has very low or often no expenses, they are still valid forms of income that allow Defendants the dignity of being able to comply with their Court obligations. For those Defendants with a tight budget, most, if not all of them, can still afford 20 or 30 per month. Were you aware that working even 1 day per month at a day labor company pays more than 30 for that day? Many Defendants may be poor, but they certainly aren?t incapable of paying. Most Defendants are capable of paying quite a bit more per month or of paying in full within 30?90 days of their guilty plea. Every dollar in uncollected Court Cost and/or Court Appointed Attorney Fees becomes a dollarthe County must get Taxpayers to pay to prosecute a Defendant for their disregard ofthe law. For every uncollected Court Cost and/or Court Appointed Attorney Fee, that is a dollar less of Taxpayer money in the general fund or a specific budget that could go toward more necessary services such as fire protection and prevention, road maintenance, patrolling Deputies, and the like. If Potter County Collections had not recovered 15.7 million in the last 10 years and that burden had remained on the Taxpayers as it previously was, what essential services would we have had to forgo? How much higher would the property taxes have to be to cover that balance? Prior to the Collections Improvement Program, Potter County allowed nost Defendants to ?sit out? their obligations, which translates in no money coming in to compensate for the prosecution process, but having to pay to house these Defendants in jail. Other Defendants paid very little because each Department shuffled the time?consuming burden of collections to a tertiary task that very few people took up. Contrary to what some may think, Collections is not in the business of generating revenue, putting people in jail or increasing the burden to the taxpayers. We are here to help Defendants pay their obligations to the Court that they incurred when they chose to disregard Texas Law and take that burden off the Taxpayer. We do not tack on any unnecessary or illegal fees to the Court obligation as it has been discovered that some States do. Most Defendants want to pay their obligations ifthose payments are reasonable. The Collections Department is here to make sure the payments are reasonable for a Defendant?s budget but still sufficient to discharge their Court ordered obligation. There will always be a section ofthe population who does not want to pay regardless oftheir income and ability to discharge their obligation either through payments or community service. For those Defendants, they find it amusing to see how much of the Court?s and Collections Department's time they can waste. A system of unnecessary repeated show cause hearings gives that population the opportunity to waste the Court's valuable time. i say valuable in the overhead expenses of salaries and utilities to keep the Court open for additional hearings above and beyond what we already accomplish. As we already know, the current outstanding balance ofS 13.7 million will take approximately 13.17 years for one Collector to recover. The DOJ investigation and report was generated in response to Counties and States who are unfairly incarcerating Defendants while tacking on unreasonable additional costs in a rotating system designed to generate revenue. Those jurisdictions should face reform. in Texas we have been very fortunate to have a fa r-sighted Legislature that saw a Collections program in Dallas County which helped Defendants comply with their Court ordered obligations without placing an undue burden on either the Defendants or the Taxpayers. The Legislature then created he Collections improvement Program in response to seeing the financial burden of prosecution resting on the Taxpayers while Defendants got out oftheir obligations by sitting in jail. The current Collections Program works. it is a model that should be proudly held up to the rest of our Country to show how proactive Texas has been in striking a 2 balance between Defendant obligations and Taxpayer burdens. These proposed changes are overblown, unnecessary, and appear to be a response to a problem that does not exist in Texas. Finally, we must all remember, these obligations are a legal part of a punishment. These Fines, Court Costs, and Appointed Attorney Fees aren?t a purchase or a bill desired by any Defendant. They have always been a Court ordered obligation as part of the punishment phase of the law. If you take away the teeth of a punishment, then why bother having a punishment at all? Just like Defendants don?t want to go to jail, they also don?t want to pay unnecessary costs or waste any oftheir time. Collectors are here to help the Defendants comply with their Court Orders while recouping the money spent in arrest, investigation and prosecution. Collectors are here to take the burden of collecting that money offthe Court to help lessen their overloaded dockets, Judges and Clerks. Please allow the Collectors to continue to do theirjobs by assisting Defendants in compliance and keeping Defendants from wasting the Court's valuable time using the current CIP that has a proven track record of working while not running afoul of anyone?s civil rights. Thank you for your time and attention, Rodina Scott Collections Deputy Potter County, Texas 806-379-2235 Shelly Ortiz ?From: Judge Chuck Ruckel Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:46 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Collections Improvement Program Mr. Griffith: The proposed changes in the collections process will only increase the workload on the already overloaded Justice Courts and Clerks. Please do not change these rules or, at least, invite representatives ofthe Justice Courts to provide input and develop rules that make sense and accomplish improvement. Judge C. Ruckel Collin County Justice Court 3-1 920 East Park Blvd, Suite 220 Plano, TX 75074 (972) 881-3001 Larry G. Bevill, County Clerk Taylor County, Texas 300 Oak Street, Suite 100 Abilene Texas 79602 - (325) 674-1202 bevill@taylorcountytexas.org July 28, 2016 Mr. Scott Grif?th Of?ce of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas, 78711?2066 RE: Public Comment, Proposed CIP rules Dear Mr. Grif?th: I have read and re-read the proposed CIP rules and have the following comments. When the CIP ?rst began, OCA staff crisscrossed the State making presentations that judgment without penalty, judgment without consequence is not effective judgment. Of course during those days, the OCA was about raising money for the State. This version of the CIP is about not creating hardship, non-monetary punishment and removing the threat of incarceration. This version launches Texas into a Texas Court system that merely provides ?slaps on the wrist? for individuals who BROKE THE LAW if they can prove indigency. Whether the crime was a felony or a misdemeanor, the person is a criminal who made a choice to break the law. Their punishment should be a hardship on them. Without consequence or without suf?cient consequence there is no ?lesson learned? to redirect them from committing the crime again, second, perhaps even multiple times. I have learned these lessons listening to OCA staff over the last two decades. Putting this proposed CIP into place will make it so the people who pay ?ne and court cost, the people who go to jail, will be those who have jobs and are contributing to society. The folks who purge from society will be those who get a ?slap on the wrist? from the Texas Court system. I object to the following determinations in the proposed CIP. (6) Referral to Court for Review of Defendant?s Ability to Pay (A) Referral to Court This proposed change will result in adding additional docket time to our judges. In Taylor County our judges are busy; adding an additional hearing or conference is an undue hardship. This is especially wasteful when considering that once this community of criminals/defendants learns that they can postpone or eliminate thejudgment through these rules, the escalation of undue hardship claims will commence. (6) Referral to Court for Review of Defendant?s Ability to Pay (B) Presumption of Inability to Pay Just because a person is going to school does not mean that they can?t pay their court cost, fees and ?nes. A number of ?students? have jobs and other ?nancial support, giving them discretionary income. This should not be the ?free? pass as is currently written into the proposed rules. (6) Referral to Court for Review of Defendant?s Ability to Pay (D) Information Regarding Non-Monetary Compliance Options The result of this proposed change is effectively adding additional cost and liability on governments. There may be established Community Service programs in larger counties; however in Taylor County they do not exist. My experience is the courts will have to create and fund these programs and then monitor them; thereby creating more bureaucracy. This takes time and labor hours will be spent which costs tax payer money. All the while our state legislative leaders are working to eliminate the ability of local governments to raise tax rates and budgets these proposed rules are increasing costs on local governments Additionally ifthe County creates the program the County can be held liable for the program. When the criminal community learns they can keep their money and not pay fine and court cost, the burden on these programs will increase. Increasing costs, increasing time, increasing liability create a recipe for ?nancial disaster. Finally, I suggest that additional rules be added for repeat offenders. Someone who continually breaks the law, either in the same offense or additional ones, should have an increased level of hardship. In closing, I will end on a positive note. The removal of the time requirements for full payment is greatly appreciated. The majority of those in my county who do not pay in full are largely unable to pay by the 4th month as well. Congratulations on removing a requirement that was largely unobtainable. Sincerely, ?Original to follow by USPS mail? Larry G. Bevill Taylor County Clerk, and Taxpayer Shelly Ortiz rom: Shelli Berry Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:39 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: FW: Rule Changes Mr. Griffith, Hood County Community Supervision and Corrections Department strongly opposes the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program. Under the proposed changes, Local governments would be forced to hire additional staff to perform these requirements, increasing local costs. The courts would be flooded with cases that are referred back due the defendants inability to pay. A defendants inability to pay is often times a temporary situation, clue to incarceration or loss of a job. Please consider each ofthese factors before making any changes to the program. Respectfully, Shelli Berry Director Hood County GSCD This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or priviledged information, and Inauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system. Shelly Ortiz rom: Rochelle Thomas 4 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:07 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Comments regarding proposed rules for Collections July 27, 2016 Dear Mr. Scott Grif?th, I am sending this email in response to the proposed changes to the Collections Improvement Program. I have been working with defendants for over 30 years in Adult Probation and as such am very familiar with the collection of payments owed on behalf of a crime committed. Although you do not include restitution or probation fee payments, it seems all other ?nes and fees imposed as a result of their offense are included. Requiring a defendant to swear his is n_ot indigent is counterproductive to the sentencing precess. Numerous defendants are sentenced as part of a plea agreement thereby acknowledging they will pay the monies assessed at the time they accept the agreement. Having a defendant sign something swearing they are not indigent starts a long and difficult road to getting them to pay. Many defendants may not be employed to their full potential at the time of sentencing, especially if they were incarcerated prior to sentencing or if they thought their sentence would involve incarceration. Under employment and unemployment are common situations and are addressed when placed on probation. A standard condition for probation is usually to obtain and maintain employment. To assume that a person who gets benefits such as those laid out in the rules is automatically indigent is wrong. Aany defendants work on a cash basis, use their paychecks for very nice cars or even assume ridiculous rent to own agreements. Numerous defendants can assume a part time job in addition to a full time job even if it is a single parent who works full time and babysits other people?s children while caring for her own for money when they are off. Additional examples include mowing a few lawns for extra cash on the weekends, or a regular part time job in addition to their full time job at least until their ?nancial obligations are settled. The rules proposing additional staff responsibilities, court appearances and reports will be counterproductive by causing additional unfunded expenses incurred by those involved in the collection of monies owed. Some counties are turning to an outside collector that charges additional fees to the defendant in addition to what was court ordered. This is also counterproductive to the situation. Additional concerns will be an increase in Community Service Restitution being ordered for those not on probation but will be referred to probation departments to monitor the hours completed and report back to the Courts. This will be an additional expense to probation departments for an already unfunded mandate. Requiring defendants to swear they will pay, requiring payments to be spread out over the period of a probated sentence and holding defendants accountable ?nancially for the costs incurred as a result of their behavior is good sense. In closing and as previously mentioned, although the proposed rules defining a defendant as indigent are not involving restitution or probation fees, I am con?dent it will eventually be used as the standard in Courts to determine whether someone is indigent for all monies to be assessed. Thank you for any and all consideration of the above. Sincerely, Rochelle Thomas COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT PO. BOX 1250, WACO. TEXAS 75703 RALPH 1-. STROTHER . 19'" DISTRICT COURT (254) 757 5070 MATT JOHNSON (504 Street) 54? DISTRICT COURT GARY R. COLEY JR. 74?? DISTRICT COURT JIM MEYER 110'? DISTRICT COURT VICKI MENARD 41"" COURT MIKE FREEMAN WILLIAM W. SEIGMAN counrv counr AT LAW No I DIRECTOR T. BRADLEY GATES COUNTY COURT AT LAW Na 2 6 SCOTT FELTON COUNTY JUDGE Scott Gri??ith PO. Box I2066 Austin, Texas 7871 1?2066 Mr. Gri?ith. I serve as Director of Adult Probation for the McLennan County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) and wish to express Opposition to the proposed rule changes to the Collection Improvement Program (Chapter 175), Texas Judicial Council (Part 8), Title I (Administration) of the Texas Administrative Code, as posted in the Texas Register. I understand that the proposed rule changes are in response to a Department of Justice letter dated March 14, 20l 6 outlining ?illegal enforcement? of ?nes and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country, urgingjurisdictions to review ?court rules and procedures within your jurisdiction to ensure that they comply with due process, equal protection. and sound public policy." While the principles outlined in the DOJ letter are sound, the proposed revisions to the Collection Improvement Program appear to go far beyond addressing those principles. McLennan County was audited under the current Collection Improvement Model in 2014. Due to the sample selection procedures, the majority ofth cases audited were clients on probation. So the result of the county audit was dependent upon how well we, as a department, documented contact with the defendants, addressed their delinquencies, etc. Distinction between face to face contacts vs. telephonic/written cortespondence was an issue, as was the exact timing of such contact. As a result of the audit, we put in place processes that addressed the current Collection Improvement Model rules. Addressing the proposed Collection Improvement Program rules will pose an additional hardship and, in many cases, require that we return to court whenever ?Ability Issues? are discovered. Monitoring the compliance ofdefendants is what we do, but we are not solely concerned with the current ?nancial status. We are an agency that addresses multiple risks and needs of clients. We do not solely concern ourselves with their ability to pay, but we certainly must document such at each of?ce visit or fail to abide by the current Collection Improvement Model. A defendant?s ability and/or willingness to pay are not static factors. ?Ability Issues? during community supervision are ?uid, less definite and dependent upon their current status. They may occur multiple times during supervision. While I cannot speak for representatives of all Texas county entities that collect ?nes and costs, I can imagine that determining ?Ability Issue? through telephone and mail contact will prove di??icu It and require additional program sta?". Auditing such contacts for compliance will prove even more difficult. The current Collection Improvement Model is dif?cult to manage for as financial responsibility is a fraction ofwhat we deal with. Making it more cumbersome and less de?nite will prove even more dif?cult. Perhaps addressing indigence at the time of sentencing and prior to Capias Pro Fine issuance may be a simpler approach. Sincerely, I . 7 I-l. I - William W. Seigman Director of Adult Probation McLennan County CSCD Shelly Ortiz 'rom: David Brabham Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:15 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: proposed changes to court collections Dear Mr. Griffith: Let me voice my opposition to the proposed changes to court cost and fine collections. This is not well thought out and much more information needs to be gathered before making these changes. Thank you. Judge David Brabham 188TH District Court David.Brabham@co.gregg.tx.us "Con?dentiality Note: This email and any attachment to it is con?dential and protected by law and intended for the use of the individua1(s) or entity named on the email. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination or distribution of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender via return email and delete it completely from your email system. If you have printed a copy of the email, please destroy it immediately.? Shelly Ortiz ?rom: DeAnn Owens Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:48 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Rules Please leave the rules alone. DMWOWW P0175 Sm??vCownLy, Tm 903 690-4892 Shelly Ortiz irom: Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:45 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Rules Changes I do not approve ofthe suggested rules changes. Please don't change anything at this time. Denise P. Dyess Justice of the Peace Dawson County Texas P. O. Box 1268 Lamesa,TX 79331 (806) 872-3744 phone SM 73" District Court Norm Court 3" District Court Dun Moan, Judge Curt" Turrunru. Judge Mari: Calhoun, Judge Steve JelTus. Dlrector 17 3"1 Judicial District Community Supervision 85 Corrections Department 109 West Corsicana, Suite 100 PO Box 790 Athens. Texas 75751 (903) 675-6122 Fax (903) 575-519? July 27, 2016 Mr. Scott Griffith PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 RE: Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rule Changes Dear Mr. Griffith: I am writing concerning the proposed rule changes to Chapter 175: Collection Improvement Program. After reviewing the proposed changes, I feel I should voice opposition to them. The current system was tested, piloted and proven effective. It is a good system. There are rules currently in place that allow for extending payment deadlines, waivers, allowances for CSR, etc. address defendants' financial obligations and employment We are very thorough and qualified to make proper decisions concerning someone?s ability to pay. The ability to pay can change and oftentimes does. There is a difference between someone truly indigent and someone who is not living within their means. These new rules are allowing the same relief when you look at your definition of discretionary income. There is no accountability if one is allowed to run up large credit card bills, buy new cars, and buy expensive clothing with no regard for paying court-ordered obligations. This is just one of the many discrepancies and concerns 1 have that hopefully will be addressed before passing these new rules. Currently, there is no way of assessing what impact these new rules will have. What is the harm in slowing down and piloting a program or doing an impact study to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed rules? Sincere] yours, an Steve Jefqu Director sb Letitia Farnie 2555 Cullen Blvd. Pearland, Texas 77584 281?997-5900 Mr. Scott Griffith State Office of court administration Via electronic mail: scott.griffith @txcourts.gov Re: Texas Judicial Council Proposed Repeal and implementation of New Collection improvement Program Rules Public Comments Dear Mr. Griffith, The current proposed collection program changes need to be put on hold. - It appears that the next legislative session will be reviewing 'due process steps' for fine only charges. - A review of the Collection Program should be done in light of separation of powers. It is understood and agreed thatJustice and Municipal Courts must follow standard accounting and collection processes BUT the proposed OCA Collection Program, with punishment, requires the court system to be an investigative branch with specific, unreasonable responsibility for the actions of the defendant. This is unacceptable and unethical and must be reviewed and stopped. We agree as TJCJA suggests that the language in Code of Criminal Procedure 45.057(hl address notification requirement be added to any person with a ?ne or cost due for a fine only misdemeanor. As stated in the obligation would end upon disposition of the case. The responsibility should be upon the party to provide current and accurate contact information for the duration of their obligation to the state. The person with the citation has the responsibility to make Sure the Court always has current and correct contact information. When the Court has correct information the person will receive notifications of hearings which is vital. However the Court cannot force a person to "pick up their mail" or "read their mail to receive the information. (sending letters to incorrect addresses wastes the taxpayers money numbers that are in correct wastes time and money as well). If the Texas Criminal Procedure process is followed justice is assured- Please change the cu rrent/ proposed mandates. These mandates take time away from helping those persons who come to court and need assistance. Why does the Court need to verify information given to them within 5 days? The person just gave the information; if it is correct - the Court has wasted their time; if it is not correct -the court has wasted their time and they still cannot contact the defendant. Should it not be the responsibility for the person to make sure the information is correct so they will receive The State when they notify people of surcharges use the address on the person's driver's license whether it is correct or not and the person is "deem ed to have received that notification" why are the Courts mandated to do more? Why complete a "defendant interview" within 14 days? Again, this is more burdensome on a court for the 5% of the defendants who most likely are not going to c00perate and follow the process any Way. The Judge at a docket can and should conduct the indigency hearing and do any and all within their authority to extend time to pay/ give community service/ find If a defendant misses a payment why does the burden shift to the Court? (the court has to call/ the court has to send a letterf all these processes must be Again this is time and expense for the Court. if the OCA would like the list of persons (with addresses and phone numbers) that owe fines from the Court, then OCA can set up this process to contact and interview and recall and resend letters, then the OCA can let the Court know which defendants should be given a warrant for 0 Copies Pro Fine Warrant after months of this delaying process. The defendantshould be responsible to take care if this obligation they have; just like every other obligation they have. Creating blanket over reaching changes for all courts/judges when 95% of the system is working properly is not ?scally responsible to the citizens of this State. Please hold off any more changes at this time. Please follow the requests from the TJCJA, Jeri Yenni, Brazoria County DA, representing five district courts and four county courts at law, and others. /i Since?giy, ur- .ff Judge Jim Hansen PO. Box 10536 Presiding Judge Lubbock, Texas 79408 904 Broadway (806) 775-1547 FAX (806) 775-7956 July 27, 2016 RE: comments concerning the proposed Chapter 175 CIP Program changes Let me ?rst state if there is a true concern about oppressing indigent individuals in the class fining process, the State of Texas should immediately abolish the unconstitutional DPS surcharge program. This program targets poor people and unconscionahly penalizes them for being poor, and should be abolished in total before mandating new provisos on the courts and the CIP programs in Texas. You should also abolish the $25 time payment fee which unfairly targets those with the lesser ability to pay within 3 0 days. You are tasked with coming up with rules that walk a ?ne line. I hope you come up with rules that are fair in identifying truly indigent defendants. Moreover, I pray you do not simply rebrand criminal defendants as victims, with the police and courts as the bad guy. As to the issue at hand, I agree defendants should be advised of inability to pay rights, but I strongly disagree with any ?presumption of indigence?? under section 175.3(a) (6) (B) There should be presumption, rather it should read ?the defendant is eligible if. . I am uncertain in reading your document in the aforementioned Section that defendants must meet either condition i, ii, and or all three conditions. I believe an individual has to take some responsibility and follow steps to receive reduced 01? no fine amounts. Our County has worked hard establishing a CIP of professionals who conduct a thorough, exhaustive intake review when individuals state they are unable to pay ?nes within thirty days. They go above and beyond what is called for to ascertain an individual?s ability/ inability to pay a ?ne, and will allow payments in small increments. I also work very hard to provide and monitor community service options, and reduce or absolve ?nes when circumstances dictate. We are in compliance with everything written within the document. A convicted criminal defendant claiming indigence should be reguired to cooperate and show proof of their indigence if the investigation by CIP merits additional research of the indigence claims of the af?davit. I again reiterate convicted criminal defendants should not have an automatic ?get out of ?nes free? card in the form of a signed af?davit. The automated provision runs contrary to the rule of crime and punishment. Punishment, ?nancial or otherwise, serves as an incentive against continued bad behaviour. The proviso in 175.3(a) (6) (B) seems to state ?students do not have to pay ?nes?. This sends an entirely wrong message to young people. Will they also be forgiven for alcohol, tobacco, and penal code ?nes, over and over? The plan as written appears to create an ?escape hatch? or ?trap door? that will be abused far more often than accomplishing any supposed noble purpose. The ?presumption of inability to pay? proviso for students should be taken out of the document immediately. Attending school should not exempt an individual from all ?nes, only a limited number of individuals in speci?c circumstances. In my 26 years on the bench, thousands of parents have paid their high schoolers ?ne and stated ?you can work it off?, or ?you can pay me back when you can?. Also, many students have iobs and can pay their ?nes, or they do community service. If you automate a ?trap door? for ?ne forgiveness in the plan, it simply makes no sense. As far as convictions, I see two types of people for class violations: the one time only violator, and the career criminal, who commits class offenses and higher crimes on a regular basis. If they know they have an escape hatch by lying, bigwill lie, perjure, cheat or steal. When you give these defendants a ?pay? or ?no pay? option, 9 out of 10 will not hesitate to say anything to get out of paying a ?ne. If the CIP review of the indigence af?davit reveals incorrect or false information, the CIP and courts should retain the ability to require proof and reinstate the ?ne in full. I believe there should be additional punishment for those who attempt to cheat the system. I am also not aware of instance where an individual has been prosecuted for perjury for signing a false af?davit. Convicted criminal defendants need to pay a ?ne, a reduced ?ne, work off their ?ne through community service, or, if they choose or refuse, lay out their fine injail. In many instances, people will come to my of?ce and request to lay out their ?nes, or they send over a request because they are already in jail for other crimes. 1 encourage you to proceed with caution in crafting rules that ensure the right of an indigent individual, while at the same time including a carefully thought out protocol to keep individuals from cheating the system. If you write these rules incorrectly, you are putting an undue burden on the court, and creating a whole new class of individuals who can commit crimes without fear of punishment, and drive our roads without licenses or insurance. y'ludge Jim Hansen MY SUGGESTED PLAN An indigent individual has a responsibility to appear in court and answer court summons just like any other person. Being poor does not give you rights to ignore the court and play the indigent card at a later time. REQUIRE Comte to send a show causenotice before any warrant is issued in a class case. You can use whatever verbiage you think is best in the- notice. The Show cause hearing allows the Judge to explain the plea options (if there is no plea), or to discuss community service, fine reduction, or indigence. if the person wishes to claim indigence, they should be required to bring proof (food stamps, government assistance checks, a paycheck stub, etc. If the person provides a bad address, or fails to appear at show cause, they have WAIVED their right to claim indigence, and a warrant may issue. The burden should be on the defendant. It should not be presumed. It should not be given freely. It should not be granted to anyone willing to claim indigence simply because they do not want to pay the ?ne. The defendant should be required to provide proof of indigence if it is not evident, and the defendant should appear in court to claim indigenpe, In any other circumstance, you empower defendants to ignore an initial appearance, ignore subsequent notices, sign pay agreements and blow them off, have courts and clerks move through a ?ve or ten step process to get to a Capias Pro Fine, then, after all that, allow the defendant to cry ?indigent?, and walk out unscathed. 100'h Judicial District Community Supervision Corrections Department Carson, Childress, Collingsworth, Donley, Hall PO. Box 126 Childress, Texas 79201 (940) 937-3671 (940) 937-3786 (fax) Becky Fuller, Director Carol Holcomb, Asst. Director July 27, 2016 Scott Grif?th PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 Mr. Grif?th, I am the CSCD Director for a very rural district. I have just become aware of the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175 Collections Improvement Program under Part 8. I want to voice my concern and opposition to these changes. The small counties in the 100th Judicial District would be devastated by these changes. I see absolutely no positive outcome through the proposed changes. Someone needs to reassess their projections of the ripple effect this will have on the citizens of Texas and make some wise decisions. Sincerely, Becky Fuller, CSCD Director 100th udieial District CSCD Shelly Ortiz rom: Kathy McGinnis Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 4:10 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP I disagree with the proposed new changes. i thought violations had PUNISHMENTS assessed to them. When did breaking the law become a debt? Why should paying any debt take priority over a court order? Judge McGinnis Box 730 Waskom, TX 75692 PH: 903-687-2694 FAX: 903?687-3295 This message including attachments contains confidential and proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the addressees shown above. It contains information that may be confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by eturn e-mail and delete this e-mail, including attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. if you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that the copying, use, or distribution of any information or materials transmitted in or with this message is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Shelly Ortiz rom: Donna Crawford Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:47 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Rule Changes Griffith: Please do not change the court collection rules. We will continue to work to collect the fines and fees, but these changes would make it extremely difficult to comply with these new rules and keep our work caught up. Donna Crawford Chief Clerk Justice of the Peace Pct. 5 Smith County, Texas 903-590-4891 Shelly Ortiz .rom: jpl@co.titus.tx.us Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:47 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Collections Improvement Progarm I ask that the Collection Rules not be changed. The only thing needing to be changed is to do away with the surcharges if someone wants to help those that are indigent. It is a system that continues to buy people and keep them from having a valid license. Please reconsider these changes. Judge Kay McNutt Titus County, Texas Shelly Ortiz rom: Eloyce Matthews Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:29 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: proposed changes to CIP My name is Eloyce Matthews. I am the director of Deaf Smith County CSCD. I believe this would overwheim our department. i am against the proposed changes. Eloyce Matthews, Director Deaf Smith County Community Supervision Office 235 3rd, Rm 204 Hereford, Texas 79045 806-364?3791 Fax: 806-363-7010 Shelly Ortiz From: Beth Smith Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 3:06 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Rules Dear Sir, Please leave the JOP rules as they are. It?s very confusing when rules are changed every 2 years. Thank you, Beth Smith JP 2 Hays Shelly Ortiz :rom: Randi Ortega Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:49 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: OCA Proposed Changes to Collection Improvement Program Dear Mr. Grif?th, I am the director of the Hutchinson, Hansford and Ochiltree County CSCD (Adult Probation). I wish to express my concern over and opposition to the proposed changes the OCA is making to the Collection Improvement Program. This has the potential to cause a serious adverse ?nancial impact to my department which would result in the loss of staff, and a decreased ability to adequately supervise the criminal offenders the court places on community supervision in our jurisdiction. This would increase recidivism rated, crime rates, and decrease public safety. Respectfully, Randi Ortega Director Hutchinson, Hansford Ochiltree Counties CSCD J06-273-0108 806?202-0271 (cell) Shelly Ortiz 'Irom: Jan Morrow Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:28 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Rules and Revisions In response to the proposed rule revisions for the Collection Improvement Program which I believe will greatly impact not only our Court system here in Texas but which could very well negatively impact our nation as a whole. While I am a proponent ofthe 14th Amendment, I believe that a presumption ofinability to pay would certainly set a precedent that could prove detrimental. I have spoken not only with my staffbut others in the judicial community and the consensus is that such broad sweeping revisions will change our judicial system as we know it. It appears that these changes would simply be inviting more individuals to claim a "hardship" in a system already taxed to the breaking point. If a survey was given to the American people to ask them that if they received a citation and either 1) plead and chose to pay the ticket; 2) request a driving safety course and were assessed court costs or 3] were found guilty at trial and assessed a fine and costs; would it be a hardship to Jay these amounts? Without a doubt the majority would claim a hardship to pay as this is an expense that isn?t budgeted for. Court costs continue to increase to help fund programs for those that are experiencing a ?hardship?. This is merely indicative of the cycle that we as a society are perpetuating. Many of the individuals that we see here at the Justice Court level are habitual violators and owe fees at several levels of court. Throw in surcharges and re?instatement fees and the system is placing a burden on the poor and middle class and simply perpetuating poverty. This being said, swinging the pendulum back in the other direction, in what seems an extreme move, can only exacerbate the burdens placed on the courts, local and state government and eventually trickling down to the taxpayers. It appears that the revisions are based on the fact that the courts are utilizing a central collection agency; please know that is far from accurate. Not all counties and cities that are mandated for the Collections Improvement Program use a centralized collections department. Wise County for one is mandated for the however, each JP office, the probation department and the County Clerk office all must handle our own collections. It appears that the revisions would place a hardship on staff members who are trying to accommodate the provisions that are currently in place with the CIP. Being that our county is mandated to participate in the Collection Improvement Program and that each entity is acting as the collecting agent, each office must have at least 1 employee whose primary function is collections. My office only has 3 clerks and it would be a struggle to ask that they do more than is already asked of them now. Asking that they be responsible in determining presumed inability criteria and discretionary income for an individual then that same individual may receive a different determination from probation or some other entity perhaps even in a different county. There is also the matter of an increased amount of reporting over what is currently asked of the courts. Application forms for payment plans would require additional information from individuals and honestly, the court spends a great amount oftime now trying to get completed applications particularly those received by mail. With the increased amount of information needed on the applications, and the presumption of inability as well, I have a great concern that the courts will become a clearinghouse for individuals information. The applications that are required by the CIP are subject to open records requests [barring the information that must be redacted such as social security numbers). Collection agencies, collection attorneys and for that matter individuals may access the increasing number of criminal/court databases that counties across Texas are providing on their website and see that a particular defendant has requested a payment plan. With an open records request, most of the information that the individual provides will be privy to those who wish to provide a request. That being said, I pray that great and thorough thought be given to the revisions before lasting and potentially detrimental changes are made. Sincerely yours, Ian Morrow Wise Co. George D. Gilles ROBIN MALONE DARR MIDLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE MIDLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 N. LORIANE. SUITE 1000 500 N. LORIANE SUITE 301 TEXAS 79701 MIDLAND. TEXAS 79701 David W. Lindemood RODNEY W. SATTERWHITE 313?? DISTRICT COURT 44157 DISTRICT COURT MIDLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE MIDLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 N. LORIANE. SUITE 900 500 N. LORIANE. SUITE 901 MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701 MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701 Elizabeth B. Leonard LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT COURT MIDLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 N. LORIANE. SUITE 800 MIDLAND. TEXAS 79701 TELEPHONE: 432.688.4380 Dear Members of the Texas Judicial Council: After discussing the proposed amendment to Tex. Admin. Code 175, (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), the Midland County District Judges and County Court-at-Law Judges oppose the proposed changes Contained in the Amendment. The Amendment contemplates several logistical, ?nancial and equitable challenges that we do not support. I will address each of these concerns as they pertain only to indigent defendants. As a logistical matter, this Amendment requires a staff person to obtain contact information and payment ability information, verify home phone number and primary contact phone number, establish payment ability and prepare a payment plan. In determining payment ability, the staff employee must delve into the defendant's required payments, his credit card spending. his income tax liability, and analyze necessary expenses including transportation, food, medicine and medical services or supplies, housing, child care and Clothing. The staff person must accomplish the inquiry/review within a very Short time frame. Midland County does not currently employ the staff necessary to perform this job responsibility. Another difficulty arises when the court decides to accept a probation plea prior to determining if the defendant has an ability to pay. If the court proceeds with the plea, the court may have to schedule an "Ability Hearing" and amend all of the paperwork. As a judge, I would not want to accept a plea agreement without some assurance the defendant has an ability to pay. Instead of accepting a plea within a week, the court must postpone the plea until all of the necessary forms, interviews, veri?cations and court hearings occur. This logistical problem iS only magnified by the defendants Sitting in jail awaiting a plea hearing, and in Midland County, that translates to $86.00 per day, per inmate. Over the past one year period, approximately 51% of Midland County's felony cases, being 969 felony defendants, qualified for a court appointed attorney. The Midland County standard for a court appointed attorney substantially mirrors the Amendment's ?Ability to Pay? standard. This potentially adds 969 Ability Hearings to our court dockets, just for felony cases. This is not an efficient use of the Court's time and resources. The Amendment would also significantly reduce the probation fees used to operate our Community Corrections and Supervision Department The Amendment contemplates a reduction of fees for CSCD, but does not provide an additional funding source to supervise the offenders not paying the probation fee. This lack of funding leads to my last point: does probation look different for indigent defendants? if an indigent defendant is not paying fees, how will the court punish him? Will the indigent defendant receive an increase in community supervision hours while the non-indigent only has to write a check? Will the indigent defendant get prison offers at a higher rate than the non-indigent defendant? If an indigent person cannot pay for supervision. will the prosecutor offer probation and require CSCD to supervise the indigent for free? if indigent defendants are not receiving probation offers from the District Attorney's Office. will they request ajury trial just to receive probation, thus increasing the Court's trial docket? In sum, these changes add significant personnel costs, additional court hearings and potentially different outcomes for indigent defendants. Therefore, we cannot support this Amendment. If the Committee has any questions, we welcome the opportunity to discuss our concerns. Respectfully Submitted, f, I Elizabeth 8. Leonard G?o?r $91: "J?o?dy" Gilles David W. Elnbemood Local Administrative District Judge Court Judge 318'h District Court Judge 238?h District Court -- .. I (V ?6352 ?l/L Robin Malone Darr 385?" District Court Judge fict gaurt marge 0' it Kyle Peei??r Marvin Moore County Court at Law #1 County Court at Law #2 c;\users\dj23801\desktoplcip letter Shelly Ortiz a?rom: Edward Salazar Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 20l6 1:55 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Attachments: PAC letter in opposition to CIP changespdf Mr. Grif?th, I have attached a letter written by Arnold Patrick, Probation Advisory Council Chair. I want to inform that agree with the PAC and oppose this CIP effort as it does not provide us with the resources needed to implement this program. Sincerely, Edward Salazar, Director San Patricio County CSCD Aransas, Bee, Live Oak McMullen Counties 404 W. Market Sinton, Texas 783 87 \361) 364-4243 ext 229 Fax: (361) 364-5642 r?f'a' rail-i A I Arnold K. Patrick - PAC Chair .vrobatton Advisory Comm mu i'll. Scott Griffith July 21, 2016 P.O. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711?2066 Mr. Griffith, The Probation Advisory Committee is appointed by the Judicial Advisory Council and represents 122 Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, all 254 counties In Texas are represented by this body and by unanimous vote, wish to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections Improvement Program under Part 8. Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. It is clear from the Webinar conducted by the Office of Court Administration that less than half ofthe counties are affected by these new rules. Approximately 25% ofthe Counties in Texas are mandated to participate in the GP and thus many will not feel compelled to voice concerns. Due to the fact that we represent all probation departments in Texas, many of which will be affected by these changes directly and the rest of which could be affected indirectly, we would like to point out that our concerns should be considered with the weight they deserve. We may be the only organization that has a direct interest on how these changes affect the entire state and notjust the 25% affected directly. The proposed rule changes make significant changes to the current Collections Improvement Program that will detrimentally affect local government, probation departments and state government. These detriments include an increase In needed personnel to local government, increased court hearings and court time as well as potential lost revenue to state government. Under the proposed changes, program staff are required to obtain a signed statement from the defendant of their ability to pay the assessed costs, fines and fees under the imposed terms. Additional requirements are placed upon both the defendant and the program staffif the defendant is unable to make this acknowledgement. Then program staff are required to conduct interviews with defendants whom do not acknowledge that they have the ability to pay. A referral back to court, which would require a hearing, is required for those that do not acknowledge their ability to pay. The analysis of the proposed amendment by the Office of Court Administration states that this is a new component and they have no way of assessing its impact or effectiveness. The proposed changes require additional information and instructions be given in contacts with the defendants. The changes regarding Final Contact Attempt require that before reporting a case as non~ compliant a final contact must be made by program staff in writing, by mail. lig-f??i?' A are" Arnold K. Patrick PAC Chair ?mbauon Adwsory Committee :1rnold.p;n I'lt'ktii'lltitlulmu our sit-d mg These changes will undoubtedly require much more local program stafftime to perform as required. This will increase the costs to local government. The requirement to obtain acknowledgement of ability to pay from defendant will result in additional resources being utilized by court and local program staff. The required hearings for those that are unwilling to sign the acknowledgement will increase the amount of time needed for a court to deal with many cases. In addition, these acknowledgements of ability to pay are treated as absolute. A defendant?s ability to pay is not a stagnant factor. Many defendants come out of incarceration, treatment programs and other issues and are unable to bear the burden of the financial obligations out of court, however these issues are dynamic and change as the defendant progresses through the phases of re?integration and rehabilitation. Community Supervision and Corrections Departments have been addressing these issues with defendants from the beginning and are much better equipped and qualified to make these types of determinations. We would beg caution in making such significant and far reaching changes without further Investigation on the impacts it will make on defendants, local and state government. Sincerely, . - Ak? I'tiuld Patrick TODD M. WINSLOW Director UVAIDE 8.: REAL COUNTY ll2 ii. North St 76l Atcnuc C'uurtltoiisv Hquurc Rm; 7 Communin Supervision llondu. l'cms 7?36i Lit-aide iexns mm at Formations Department pom m-mm (830) 278-067] (830) 278-1122 Fax i33ll1278-3l57 July 27, 2016 Scott Griffith PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 Mr. Griffith, lam writing to echo the concerns and opposition to the proposed rule changes for the Collections Improvement Program previously submitted by the Probation Advisory Committee. it is my opinion that the proposed changes will create an increased burden (personnel, time and lost revenue) to probation departments and to local and state government. The proposed changes will result in the need for more staffand will increase cost to which ever entity is collecting fees (probation or local government). The acknowledgements of ability to pay are in my opinion unnecessary. Community Supervision and Corrections Departments have been addressing defendant's ability to pay, and can monitor the changes in ability to pay over the term of probation. Our department does not seek incarceration for defendant?s whose sole violation is the non-payment of fees. We work with defendant?s on obtaining employment, and utilize administrative and compliance hearings to address issues of non-payment. Ultimately, the Court makes the determination ofwhether a defendant is indigent or intentionally avoiding payment with the financial ability to do so. i respectfully request and recommend further investigation into how these significant changes will impact all involved. fl. . {fir Todd Winslow Director 38lh Judicial District CSCD Shelly Ortiz ;rom: Lindberg, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:33 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed changes to CIP Importance: High Scott, After reviewing the documents regarding the proposed changes to the rules for the CIP program, the judge and I have the following questions/comments: 1. Because it appears there will be an increased workload for the judges, does the State plan to fund the additional judges which will be necessary to carry out the provisions of this proposal? 2. These proposed changes appear to eliminate the deterrent effect of fines and effectively encourage recidivism. 3. It is likely that courts will experience increased costs for additional staffing, postage and printing needs based on the requirements ofthe proposed changes. 4. Lastly, are there any provisions for penalties to defendants who fail to provide accurate information to the court with regard to their financial status and ability to take care of outstanding fines without undue hardship? Thank you foryourtime. 'Aelissa A. Lindberg, CMCC, CPM Court Administrator Abilene Municipal Court Ph: (325)676-6303 Fax: (325)676-6286 Shelly Ortiz "=rom: Dean Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:00 AM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Montes Subject: Proposed Rules Changes to Collection Improvement Program ..AGAINST The proposed changes to the rules would create a hardship on the courts and clerk's of?ce having to implement these changes. We are a small county barely over the 50k population limit. Having to bring cases back before the judge because of the defendant not being able to pay the amounts after they already agreed that they could indeed pay those amounts in the plea bargain they accepted is a redundant process that will just keep us going in loops. Currently if a defendant cannot pay, our CSCD determines if the defendant is eligible for Community Service in lieu of a portion or all of their ?ne and order is sent to our judge for approval or non approval. He is presented the facts without having a hearing on a case by case basis done by our CSCD. I have to be honest. My belief is that if you make it mandatory that after amount of days late, then a Capias Pro Fine is issued, we don't need all this nonsense. With a Capias Pro Fineout. If they can afford to pay the monies they get out of jail. If the can't, they can request an indigency hearing and have their costs waived or laid out in jail. These proposed rules changes are the complete opposite from the current rules of collect, collect, collect. Does this mean that the current rules have no merit and don?t work? I don't understand all this red tape tying our hands while trying to do our job. This of?ce has always had a voluntary collection program that we feel vorked. Dean Chief Deputy Hood County Clerk's Of?ce 817-579-3222 ext 5620 email: Website: Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Sent To: Subject: Griffith Wednesday, July 27, 2016 9:04 AM Scott Griffith Collections Improvement Program proposed changes My name is Benjamin Diaz, and I am the Director ofthe Lamb County Community Supervision and Corrections Department. I am writing you today to say that I oppose the rule changes to for Chapter 175 under Part8. These changes will have a negative impact on most across our state. I honestly cannot remember the last time we have revoked and incarcerated a person on community supervision solely because they have failed to pay fees. I am in not in the business of sending folks to jail because they are too poor to pay fees, and i think most around the state would agree. We work with our probationers to seek employment and improve their financial situation first and foremost. Thank you for your time. Benjamin Diaz Director Lamb County CSCD 100 Drive. Rm 209 ,ittle?eid. TX 79339 Phone (806) 385-4222 ext. 246 Fax (806) 385-3273 Shelly Ortiz "rom: Wes Criddle Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Changes Mr. Q?rifj'it?, ?Too many times, I see legislation passed' t?at a?ects a lot queopk and'tlie ones w?o are never aslied' tlie clianges are good" or (Sad; are tlie ones wlio are t?e most a??ected 5y t?e clianges. I tliinliit wou?f 6e wise for tlie committees and'l'egislators to contact tlie people a??ected' 6y tlie clianges. No one seems to talie into consideration tliat tliere are many 6udget constraints t?at are never taken into consideration Eefore enacting tliese clianges. {Many of us are locked in witli limited'num?er qfsta?'wlio are taxed witli duties 5eyond' t?eir liired' positions and" legislation forces more worli to lie placed on our o?ices and' no consideration is given to tliis idea. I understand t?at someone ?as a great ialea to do sometliing and' it sounds simple enouin wlien first passed; 6ut tlien legislators ?ew to pay someone to watcli tlie ones in t?ejoEs created' for tliis legislation and' t?en someone is neecfecf to lie ?ired' to watcli t?e ones watcliing t?e ones ful?lling t?e clianges anrf t?en tliere are more liired to watcli tlie watcliers watc?ing t?e wor?ers. . ..it never ends and' tlie citizens are being taxed' more and more to pay for tliese new positions and" yet t?e ones for wliom tliis legislation is piled upon gets no re?ef. Sit (fawn witli t?e peop?e wlio d'o tliejo?s andtal'lito tliem a?out your ideas Eefore enacting new lizgislation. ?s ones cliargetfwitli tlie cofkction qftlie monies for tlie state and counties, you Hamstring us and' tlien give us legislation tliat really is next to impossilile to complete. We are elected' 5y tlie people to do a joli amfwe do not do tlie 1'05 tlien we will' lie unseatecf 5y tlie people. Legislation is going to continue untiftliere are no ?nes or fees collected and yet tliere wiil' 6e a trememfous paper traif to prove tliat we liave 6een legisfatecf out of a jot? as we[[ as yourselves. "Iiian?you for your time anticonsuferation in t?is matter: Sincerely, Wesley 9V1. Cna'd'l'e, Wood' County Justice of t?e (Peace, (Pct. 2 2?1 6 Wort? Greenm'?'e J?'g?way jl?ost O??ice (13010325) Mimofa, Texas 75773 (903 5 69-3 802 [q?qcej (903) 569-62 70 {Tamimi?z} This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent reSponsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized disclosure of the contents of this message could be subject to severe criminal or civil liabilities. If you Lave received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Shelly Ortiz irom: Steven Cherry Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 5:07 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Changes Mr. Griffith, I hope there is still time to address the proposed changes. First of all, this seems to contradict the whole collections program. I understand that there is a need for indigent hearings and we have already seen an increase in the amount of those, but a constant reminder is going to create a nightmare for courts. I feel that a defendant that was going to make their payment may elect to bypass that by requesting community service and treat that as a form of an extension. We as well, have the ability to accept pleas and establish payment plans without the defendant seeing the judge. I can see an increase in courtroom time forjudges and clerks with the amount of defendants that might explore the indigent process. I am sure that most courts have a process in place to deal with indigent defendants, but I don't know if we are prepared for the impact this might have if we continue to advertise it for delinquent payments. Steven Cherry Court Services Director City of Grand Prairie Shelly Ortiz irom: Mitch Shamburger Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:05 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP rule change This is FYI and does not have to go any really hesitate to press the send button, but several otherjudges have expressed the same sentiment and are smart enough to keep their mouth shut! Just blowing off steam. From a Justice Court/ Municipal Court Judge If you created the prOposed CIP flowchart it might make since. Looking at it from the outside shows it is complicated. But, I believe that is the way you like it. Defendants are referred to as customers? A customer shops because they want to. A defendants goes to court because they have to. A customer can walk out when he wants to. A defendant may unless he is indigent. After reading the proposal I am convinced OCA or the Judicial Council would like to take over my court or at least dictate what my clerks do with their time. Collections is only a part of what we do. With a staff already spending much of their time entering data to generate OCA reports you are now ?requiring? the courts to do additional work and reporting. Time they used to spend sending late notices and contacting defendants. If we operated like a bank it would have some merit. lfthe defendants were coming in and applying for a loan to pay their fine it could work. However, the person traveling through Winona, Texas who lives in New Jersey, will probably do his business by phone mail and maybe internet. And, if he does not take care of business we can suspend his Driver License until he does. (something we cannot do with Texas drivers.) The idea that everyone should be considered indigent is absurd and guts the already weaken position of the courts. Add the vagueness of "undue hardship" and expanding it to dependents? i wait for the defendant to claim, "l am already behind on child support and paying this fine will take food out of my third wife?s baby.? How about letting them pay fines with their Texas Star card along with food stamps. Mitch To: Scott Griffith From: The District and County Court at Law Judges in Brazos County Re: Proposed Changes in the Collections improvement Program Date: July 25,2016 We were recently informed by the head of our Collections Department of the proposed rule changes to the Collections improvement Program. Although the changes proposed would affect all criminal courts in the state, the Rules Advisory Committee did not have a single county court at law or district judge on it. Not surprisingly, the changes in the CIP are geared more toward the operation of a class court, but would significantly impact all criminal trial courts in the state. Here are some of our concerns after speaking with our collections director and criminal associate courtjudge: One of the proposed changes would have a defendant, after going in front ofthe judge, go down to the colleCtions department to then confirm with collections that the moneys owed can be paid without undue hardship. If the defendant then tells the collections department that they can?t pay the money assessed, the defendant has to be brought back in front ofthe judge. On a regular docket day for us, 99% cases resolved would be due to a plea bargain where the defendant had input into the agreement reached. Our prosecutors routinely make 3 different offers for different combinations of fines and jail time and of course, the defendant can plead not guilty. Ifthe defendant could not complete the terms of the agreement, he/she should not have represented to a judge that they could by accepting the state?s plea bargain. This is also a logistical concern. For example, after the afternoon docket, a defendant goes to collections. Once in collections, the defendant says the payment of moneys owed would be an undue hardship. The collections department would then have to take the person back up to the court to see the judge. By the time all of this occurs, it may be after 5pm and the court may be gone for the day. Again, this is a logistical problem for County Courts at Law and District Courts that JP and municipal courts may not be encountering due to the procedural differences of the courts. The "contact information? collected by collections department would no longer include defendant?s employment information or their spouse?s employment information. While collecting the information doesn?t appear to be strictly prohibited, the fact that language regarding the employment information is being removed from the current language is telling. The definition of "household income? only includes the defendant and a spouse. It needs to include any income from anyone in that household. As we all know, many people live together without being married. Further, this would more closely compare to the order adopted by the Supreme Court in civil cases as of May 16, 2016 by Misc. Docket No. 16-9056. The definition of what is discretionary income would allow expenses that are purely discretionary to be considered ?required? and therefore, not discretionary. Here is the proposed definition: "Discretionary income? means the amount of a household?s net (after-tax) income minus the amount of all required payments and the cost of items that are essential for the defendant and the defendant?s dependents. Required payments are those which would result in a penalty or other adverse impact if payment is not made, including, but not limited to, loan, credit cardl and car and health insurance payments: court mandated payments, such as child support and victim restitution payments; and fees for drug testing, rehabilitation programs, and community supervision. items that are essential for a defendant and the defendant?s dependents are those which are necessary to ensure the well-being of the defendant and defendant?s dependents, including, but not limited to, transportation, food, medicine and medical services or supplies, housing, child care, and clothing. Under this definition, as long as a defendant pays for cigarettes, alcohol, cell phone bills, hair and nail appointments, movies, meals out, vacations etc. by credit card, they are not using discretionary income? Also, there is also no reasonableness built into the determination of discretionary income. For example, a defendant could have a vehicle payment of $900 or more when there are obviously less expensive alternatives for transportation. We completely agree that we don?t want people to lose their house and want them to be able to feed, clothe and provide for their families, but this de?nition isjust ridiculous. Further, the collections department would only be allowed to collect a maximum of 20% of a defendant?s discretionary income. Why only 20% of discretionary income? This may work in class cases where fines are generally $500 or less, however, with potential restitution and fines in CCLs and District Courts being in the thousands or more, this is not workable and could extend payment plans for years. These proposed changes may create more and for non-payment which would ultimately hurt the defendant and could increase the number of convictions. This is a very negative, unintended consequence of these changes. These changes may work fine for the courts that hear exclusively class misdemeanors, but are not workable for courts hearing criminal cases with much higher financial stakes involved. The simplest solutions would be for the changes to apply to municipal and JP cases only and not to county court at law and district court cases at least until these trial courts have some input. Another simple solution would be for plea bargained cases to be exempted from these rule changes. To be clear, we do not propose to take away a person?s ability to request modifications in payment plans, the ability to request community service be performed in lieu of payment, nor waiver of moneys in apprOpriate cases under the current rules. We are concerned that these changes unnecessarily tie the hands ofour collections departments from the start. For these reasons, we oppose the proposed changes to the Collections improvement Program. Respectfully, .. i g?g?tmt Steve Smith, Ju - Kylerawthorne, Judge 85?h District Court Jim Loc '?riudge County Court at Law #2 ?rst a ?ii-Elvis Bryan, Ill, Judge ?Wstrict Court "(if Kinanda Mama, Judge County Court at Law #1 Shelly Ortiz rom: Karen Alexander Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:47 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Amendments - against At this time if a defendant fails to pay according to his payment plan he is contacted and if he can show that his financial circumstances have changed to the extent that his ability to pay is affected than we require proof of that change and re- evaluate the current payment plan inciuding giving the opportunity to perform community service. This is usually accomplished without requiring an additional hearing and only requires a judge?s signature on an order we generate. The proposed revisions seem very cumbersome without really accomplishing any more. lfthe required fees and fines are too easily paid by the defendant where is the punishment and the incentive to not continue the behavior that brought him before the court in the first place? Karen Alexander Chief Deputy Court Section Johnson County Clerk 817-556-6324 Shelly Ortiz rom: Sent: To: Subject: Scott, Dawn Cole Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:25 PM Scott Griffith NEW RULES AND REPEALS OF CIP Against the new rules and repeals of CIP. Dawn R. C026 Randall County Judicial En 2309 Russell Long Ste 134 Canyon, TX TQUIS 806-468-5560 806468?55 l2 Shelly Ortiz ,rom: John Kelley Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:54 AM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Arnold Patrick Subject: Probation Advisory Committee letter dated July 21, 2016; re CIP Greetings Mr Griffith, Just a short line to voice my endorsement of Mr Patrick?s letter regarding proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program. Although Morris County is small and not mandated to participate in the CIP, lam apprehensive that all large or small, would be affected if this change is adopted, and not necessarily for only reasons stated in the letter. Offering probationers an "opportunity" to be exempt from partial or all fees plays right into the hands of many, if not most, of our clientele who study ways to beat the system, and will go the limit to that end. i know, as I am sure you know, that members of the criminal culture feed off each other?s experiences. With the changes, soon all will know it won?t cost them anything to take a shot at not having to pay court-ordered fees which keep our system operational. The maiority of CSCD "Basic" funding comes from the court-ordered fee collections. Revenue from fines and costs is a major contributor to the funding for county and district. To maintain a workforce of educated staff, salaries must (at least) keep up with annual cost-of?living increases. Without an increase in state funding and with a decrease in fee collection that is certain to happen with adoption ofthe proposed changes to well, the negative impact on state, local and CSCD is obvious. CSCD loses personnel, supervision becomes less effective, and local crime becomes a major issue of .he state again as it was a few years back when the costly prisons were numerous and over-crowded. By the way, probationers are not sent to prison just because they cannot pay their fees. By the end of term, the officer knows the client well enough to know his/her potential ability to comply financially. Probation, the court and the client will work out a reasonable resolution. As mentioned in Mr Patrick?s letter, most probationers start out having a difficult time fitting fee payments into their budgets, but in time they usually find a way to pay in full. Giving them an up-front chancefor exemption encompasses extra work and costs as mentioned in the letter, and also the potential to wreck the CSCD budget. In closing, and in stride with Mr Patrick?s letter, please be cautious "in making such significant and far reaching changes without further investigation on the impacts it will make on defendants, local and state government?. Sincerely, john 7021112)), (Director 76? amf 2 7 6?5 jud'icmfiDistn'ct Morris, Camp and-Qitus Counties 903?645-31 66 [ill This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. Shelly Ortiz 'rom: Sent To: Cc: Subject: Mr. Griffith: Ladonna Jones Tuesday, July 26,2016 10:06 AM Scott Griffith Michael C. Graff; Hugh Taylor; Jamie Smith; Sherry Rushing; Brad Morin; Joe Black; Megan Pinson; 'Clarice Watkins'; Michael Smith; Nancy George proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program I am opposed to the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program for several reasons. 1. The proposed rules will add to an already tremendous work load on the collection and court staff ofthe counties and cities involved. 2. They will affect ONLY the counties and cities required to participate in the Collection Improvement Program and will impose an unfair financial burden on said entities. 3. The rules will give some defendants a "way out? of accountability for Violations of the law thus reducing the integrity of our court systems. 4. And the proposed rules will most certainly add to the increasing financial burden of law abiding taxpayers in funding our court systems and local governments. Ladonna Jones Fine Collections Manager (and Taxpayer) Harrison County 200 Houston, Room 318 Marshall, TX 75670 This transmission may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, your are hereby noti?ed that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Shelly Ortiz 'lrom: Hugh Taylor Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:28 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Rule changes Mr. Griffith, lam opposed the changes in the CIP for a number of reasons. As a former JP, was involved in the implementation of the original plan in Harrison County. My impression of the new proposal is that our staff will be burdened with a case load that is impossible to administer. Our budget constraints are no different than other counties. To add staff forthis administration will be a drag on high priority needs such as deputy pay and road repair. Our plan works for the intended purpose at the present time. lie-?g T470504 Harrison County, ?l?exas/ Peter Whetstone Square. Room 3 4/ Marshall, Texas 75670 Harrison County Judge @harrisonjudge lWebsitc 935.3401 (99039354353 This electronic mail message contains con?dential information which is legally privileged and intended only for the use of the recipient named above. We request immediate noti?cation by return email to charlesn@co.harrison.tx.us of misrouted emails so that we can correct the error and request that you destroy all topics of this misrouted email. If you receive this email in error, you are hereby noti?ed that any copying,? distribution or the taking of any action in reliance of the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. ANY STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO BE USED, AND NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN CAN BE USED BY YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW, or (ii) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN. Shelly Ortiz irom: Raul Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 10:49 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Mr. Grif?th, Just wanted to let you know that the Winkler County CSCD opposes any changes to the CIP. Raul Santillan, Director 109th Judicial District Winkler County CSCD Shelly Ortiz 'from: John Choate Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 4:04 PM To: Scott Griffith I would like to state my opposition to the CIP (collection improvement program) rule changes. The changes will have a negative impact on courts and the state as a whole. John Choate Director 27lst Judicial District CSCD Jack and Wise Counties Sent via the Samsung Galaxy active. an 40? LTE Sinai-[phone Shelly Ortiz l-?rom: Katherine Sadau Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:58 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Opposition Mr. Griffith: Re: OCA Rule Changes I would like to voice my opposition to the rule change to the CIP, Collection Improvement Program. Thankyou. Katherine Sadau, Director 69th Judicial District CSCD Moore, Dallam, Hartley, and Sherman Counties MARY ALDOUS First Assistant TRAVIS TOWNSEND Chief - Criminal Division JONES Chief? Civil Division VICKI KRAMER investigator JERI YENNE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRAZORIA COUNTY 25, 2016 Via Electronic ail: Via Certi?ed Mail. Return Receipt Requested Scott Grif?th State Of?ce of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711?2066 RE: Texas Judicial Council Proposed Repeal and Implementation of New Collection Improvement Program Rules Public Comments on behalf of Brazoria County, Texas Dear Mr. Grif?th, Please ?nd below comments submitted on behalf of Brazoria County, Texas (the ?County?) regarding the Texas Judicial Council?s proposed repeal and replacement Texas Administrative Code title 1, chapter 175. Brazoria County has ?ve district courts and four county courts at law. A collections program overseen by the Brazoria County Clerk manages collections compliance efforts on behalf of these courts. In addition, Brazoria County has eight justice of the peace courts. Each justice of the peace court independently manages its collections. The County?s comments reference several areas in which the proposed rules effectively supersede courts? authority in adjudicating cases and place an undue burden on courts and local programs? ability to ef?ciently manage cases. The County urges the Texas Judicial Council to reconsider the proposed revisions, which will have an unwarranted negative impact on judicial authority and ef?cient case management, and place a signi?cant ?nancial burden on counties similar to Brazoria County. 1. Several Proposed Rules Diminish Judges? Legal Authority and Discretion. The proposed rules state in several areas that they do not intend to limit, in?uence, or bind courts? authority or discretion. Despite these assurances, the pr0posed rules, when considered along with their practical impact on courts, will have this outcome. Proposed Sections 175 and (6) provide an example where the proposed rules have this effect. Under the current rules, a judge may discuss with a defendant his or her payment ability information, take into consideration potential ?nancial hardships, and order a tailored payment plan based on the circumstances of the case and information received directly from the defendant COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 E. LOCUST, SUITE 408A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angiclon Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil DivisiOn (979) 864-[233 (281) 756- 1233 (979) 864-[525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 2 concerning his or her ?nancial situation. When a defendant is before the court, the judge may inquire into any payment ability issues at that time, and the defendant may raise any concerns. After the judge orders a payment plan, the defendant?s contact information is veri?ed, the defendant is interviewed to review the plan, and the defendant hegins making payments. In the alternative, the defendant may provide his or her payment ability information to the local program, which will formulate a plan that must yield to the defendant?s income and debt and payment obligations. In the event the local program sets the payment plan, it ?require[s] payment in full in the shortest period of time that the defendant can successfully make, considering the amount owed, the defendant?s to pay, and the defendant?s obligations to pay other court-mandated amounts, including child support, victim restitution, and fees for drug testing, rehabilitation programs, or community supervision.? TEX. ADMIN. CODE (emphasis added).? The current rules are drafted to ensure defendants are not unfairly ordered to pay fees, ?nes, or costs, while recognizing the need to effectively manage cases. In the event a judge sets a payment plan under the proposed rules, the local program must refer the defendant back to court if the defendant represents after appearing before the judge that the court-ordered payment plan would be an ?undue hardship.? This proposed change is one example of an unnecessary procedure that will force defendants to return to court to discuss the same information that, under the current rules, is already addressed with the court. Prior to the defendant interacting with the program staff, the defendant has appeared before the court, the court has considered the circumstances of the case (including the defendant?s ?nancial situation), and the court has issued an order. Nevertheless, the proposed rules require that program staff and the court go through this process again, and if the defendant makes a representation that differs from that made to the court or is unsatisfied with the court?s initial order, the rules require the court to reconsider its order. This procedure (1) creates unwarranted, repetitive, and costly work for program staff, slows down the court, and (3) discourages courts from ordering the payment of fees, fines, and costs. The unavoidable consequence of these changes is that courts and local programs will be forced at the outset to provide defendants with payment plans that comply solely with the defendant?s desires, and not plans that the court deems the most appropriate or efficient, in order to avoid overwhelming the court. While going out of their way to state repeatedly that they do not hinder a judge?s authority and discretion, the proposed rules are clearly written to have that effect. The proposed rules under Section require local program staff to refer a defendant back to court if, while collecting information to establish a payment plan, the defendant indicates that he or she would suffer an undue hardship by paying the costs, fees, and fines. The current rules require local programs establish plans that defendants can ?successfully? complete and must into consideration the defendant?s ?ability to pay? and other existing payment obligations. TEX. ADMIN. CODE In other words, a local program currently violates Chapter 175 by setting up a payment plan with which a defendant cannot comply. Further, in the event the defendant?s situation changes and he or she caimot comply, the defendant may request at any time a different plan or non-monetary compliance options from the local program or court. COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 11 E. LOCUST, 408A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (281) 756-l233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 3 A further example can be found in proposed Section which mandates a ?nal contact attempt be made before a case may be reported to the court as non-compliant. The proposed rule states that it does not ?interfere or alter the judge?s authority to adjudicate a case for non-compliance at any time." llowever, the rule clearly prohibits a court from requiring or requesting a ioea] program report cases in which defendants have failed to make payments after receiving notice of past-due payments under Sections and (9). In other words, the rule expressly purports to not strip courts of their authority to take action based on non-payment, but disallows a court from even receiving noti?cation of such nonpayment. This revision presents another example where the intent of the rule revisions is evident in their practical impact?the minimization of courts? authority to oversee cases. II. The Proposed Rules are Contradictory as to Court Referrals. Proposed Section is contradictory as to which cases must be referred to court based on an indication of an ?undue hardship.? Proposed Section 175 states the following: if a defendant interview or other information collected by local program staff indicates that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, or that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, local program staff must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if appropriate non?monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or ?nes are appropriate. Proposed Section however, provides the following: Local program staff may refer to the court cases in which the defendant is not presumed to be unable to pay under but that local program staff have received information indicating that the defendant may not have the ability to pay the costs, fees, and fines assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents or may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents. The proposed rules state that a local program both ?must? and ?may? refer back to court any defendant who indicates that he or she is unable to pay due to an ?undue hardship.?' The County requests that this ambiguity be clari?ed so that local programs, at a minimum, not be required to refer a defendant to court unless some discernible criteria is met. The term ?undue hardship? is not de?ned, and the rules provide no clari?cation as to what this means. A local program would 1 Proposed Section lists scenarios where a defendant is presumed unable to pay, but these criteria do not purport to address each situation where payment would cause an "undue hardship." COUNTY COURTHOUSE, i II E. LOCUSTI SUITE 408A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864- I233 (281) 756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 4 not be able to comply with a compulsory rule, as the proposed rules provide no guidance as to the meaning of this term. In addition, any referral to court, whether permissive or mandatory, is unnecessary. Under the current rules, a defendant is interviewed by either the judge or local program staff, the defendant provides his or her payment ability information, and a payment plan ?that the defendant can successfully make? is established based on the information provided by the defendant. Requiring that a defendant be automatically referred to court after establishing an achievable plan is unnecessary. The Current Rules Comply with the Department of Justice?s Requirements. On March 14, 2016, the United States Department of Justice issued a letter listing seven constitutional principles to be considered in assessing and enforcing ?nes and fees. The current rules do not infringe upon any of these constitutional principles. Payment plans already must be established in a fashion that the defendant can successfully make payments. The current rules do not prohibit a defendant from requesting a hearing at any time in the event his or her ?nancial situation changes, including the reconsideration of the payment plan or a request for a non- monetary option due to inability to pay. The current rules provide for multiple contacts regarding nonpayment be made before the defendant may be arrested. Courts currently are not limited on alternatives to incarceration in the event that a defendant does not comply with a payment plan. The County?s collections programs operated under the current rules comply with each of the principles listed in the Department of Justice?s letter. As such, the proposed repeal and replacement of Chapter 175 is unwarranted. IV. The Proposed Rules Place an Undue Burden on Local Government and Indigent Defendants. The proposed rules will undoubtedly hinder the comts? ef?ciency and authority in managing cases, but they will also place unnecessary ?nancial burdens on the County. The proposed rules? ?scal note states that ?[t]he actual cost of complying with the new rules will vary depending on counties? and municipalities? current operations and systems. However, OCA does not anticipate that the cost will be signi?cant.? For Brazoria County, the proposed rules will come at a substantial cost to the County. As is stated above, the County has nine independent of?ces that collect for courts within the County. Of course, each of these local programs will face signi?cant initial costs in implementing new rules. However, the ?scal note incorrectly suggests that the ?nancial impact is limited to these initial costs. In Brazoria County, employees perform many of the tasks that the ?scal note downplays as performed by ?noti?cation systems? and ?programming.? The proposed rules add numerous procedures (which often must be repeated) to a system that already involves much documentation, interviews, phone calls, mailings, noti?cations, and reporting for each case. One need only compare the Of?ce of Court Administration?s current and proposed flowcharts to visualize the exponential growth of tasks for program staff, as well as the circular process that is facilitated by encouraging courts to repeatedly hold hearings on referrals from the local program. In addition to the increased burdens on local government, the proposed rules increase the number of times defendants must travel to and appear in court. By creating a system where defendants COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 E. LOCUST, SUITE 408A, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Divislon Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (281)756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 5 may potentially return to court a number of times throughout a case, the proposed rules will unduly burden indigent defendants who must travel to and appear in court in lieu of other necessary obligations. V. Implementation of Rules Unfairly Impacts Counties Subject to Follow-Up Audits. Earlier this month, Brazoria County submitted to OCA auditors a declaration of compliance to permit OCA to perform a follow-up audit of the County?s programs. According to OCA, the audit cannot be performed until January 2017, at the earliest. Depending on the approval and enactment of proposed rule changes, Brazoria County may face the prospect of implementing changes in response to new rules and being subject to a follow-up audit. In the event changes to the rules are approved, Brazoria County should not be subject to a follow-up audit that evaluates compliance With the new rules. Sincerely, . Jeri Yenne Criminal District Attorney liramria County, Texas COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 11] E. LOCUST, ANOLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (231)756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-17 l2 Shelly Ortiz ?Trom: BCDJ-Addison, Jeff Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 2:01 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP changes I have looked through the proposed changes and I cannot support the proposed changes. Thanks, Jeff M. Addison Judge County Court at Law Bowie County, Texas Shelly Ortiz 'som: Scott Griffith sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:37 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Collection Improvement Program For the binders. Scott From: Dale Rush [mailtozdrush@srcaccess.net] Sent: Thursday, July 28,2016 1:36 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Collection Improvement Program I want to voice my opposition to the prOposed rule changes for Chapter 175 Collections Improvement Program under Part 8 Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. Dale Rush, Director 50th Judicial District Community Supervision and Corrections Department Serving Baylor, Knox, Cottie and King Counties Shelly Ortiz rom: Sherry Gilmore Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:55 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Changes to collection improvement ipl-mtavlorcountvtexasom Against, no changes to system working Shelly Ortiz rem: Janie Farris Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:54 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Rule Revision 2016 Dear r. Griffith, It is my intention for this email to be short and to the point. I do not need to reiterate information that you have and that has been provided to the Judges ofthis state concerning CIP. The proposed Collection Improvement Plan will only make ourjobs as Judges/Clerks/Court/Collection Department more difficult and complicate and confuse the general public who are trying to work within a system they already do not understand. I appreciate the fact that those who TRULY do not have the ability to pay; not those who just DO NOT CHOOSE to pay, be given as much consideration as possible to take care ofthe consequences of their choices and decisions. Making defendants appear in court, complete paperwork, sent to collections, collections having to send back to the courts, defendants having to re-appear, with no assurance that anything will be resolved. This is notjust inconvenient, but is time-consuming and poor use of the limited resources that most courts experience. This new plan can only be seen as a dog chasing its tail Probably oversimplify, but true. strongly urge all who are in the decision making position to reconsider, table, and further explore. I would hope that Judges and Clerks from all different size courts within the state he a part of this decision making process. Respectfully submitted, Janie H. Farris Justice of the Peace, Pct. 1 Walker County 717 FM 2821 West, Suite 300 Huntsville, Texas 77320 936-436-4966 Shelly Ortiz 1on1: Allison Albritton aent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:52 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Rule Changes Please leave the rules as they are. Why, Smith COW/uty, JPS 903 ~590 ?ll-895 Shelly Ortiz tom: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 1:59 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Issues With The Proposed CIP Rules Attachments: Issues with the proposed CIP Rulespdf For the binders From: District Clerk Sent: Thursday, July 28,2016 12:48 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: B. Glen Whitley Mark C. Mendez Lynne Finley Courts - Criminal District Judges Brent Carr Doug Gowin Alisia C. Morris Subject: Issues With The Proposed CIP Rules Mr. Griffith Please accept the attached comments from me on the proposed CIP Rules. We believe that there will be a significant drop in revenue from the current 3.2 million we collect on a yearly basis on felony gases. It has been proven over a multiyear period that criminal defendants can pay the amount assessed. We have a ?financial unit" in Tarrant County who works for the judges that assesses the ability to pay early on a case and which is factored into the judicial decision of what fines to assess. We hope that serious consideration will be given to leaving our current processes in place as they have worked well since we began the collection improvement program in 2007. Regards, Thomas A. Wilder Tarrant County District Clerk 100 N. Calhoun St, 2nd Floor Fort Worth, TX 76196 817-212-7206 dclerk@tarrantcountv.com issues affectinq the clerk with the new proposed CIP rules: . The new proposed rules will quickly decrease revenue for the county, by restricting the efforts of the collection officers. . Reviewing the TJCDIR list of committee members, it clearly shows an unfair representation, as there is not sufficient feedback from county and district courts. Changes are being considered without involvement from all parties that will be affected. . A signed statement (Ability Acknowledgment Form) will need to be obtained from the defendant as to whether they are able to pay the costs or if it will create an undue hardship for them. What will restrict an individual from stating that they cannot pay, when they actually can? Who will be responsible for creating the Acknowledgment Form the clerk, court or Who will responsible for administering the form? . Extended payments and lowered payments will now allow a defendant to complete their probation and have a balance on their costs. The current goal is to have the defendant satisfy their debt before their probation is complete. This will create outstanding balances on the books. . Interviewing will become an extended process due to all the additional requirements. This will create a bottleneck for the judicial compliance officers. . At various stages of the collection process they have proposed that the individual can claim inability to pay and they have to be referred back to the court. This will create a hardship on the courts for the compliance officer to send the defendant back to the court. . The new rules also state the compliance of?cer can request a hearing to verify indigency status. This again will probably not be well received by the judges. . There are now presumed inability criteria that the clerk will probably have to determine. One being the determination as to whether the individual is below the Federal Poverty Guideline. . This set of rules will require more reporting. OCA will now want the number of cases that were referred back to the court. Submitted by Tom Wilder, Tarrant County District Clerk 7/28/16 Shelly Ortiz 'om: Scott Griffith sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:41 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Proposed CIP rules For the binders. From: SHARON GARDNER [mailtosznanaSl@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:37 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed CIP rules It is my opinion that any additional responsibilities given to the Courts is unnecessary. This is a Justice Court and most of our defendant's do not appear in person, they do not always give their current address and hardly ever give a phone number. They take care of their charges by mail. email, fax etc. This is a "fine" only court, so if the ability to collect a fine becomes impossible if it is a "undue hardship" then we are doing a lot of work for nothing as well as the complainant. I think we need to be reminded there is usually a choice whether a law is broken or not. Courts already have the ability to use their discretion on setting fines, allowing community service in special situations. The State should not take away another opportunity for judges to use their "discretion." Again, in a fine only Court and the convicted defendant never has to pay that fine, or do community service what is their punishment? If you choose to adopt this program, please exclude Justice Courts. Thank you for your time. Sharon Gardner Justice of the Peace, Nolan County The DISTRICT and COUNTY COURT AT LAW of BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS 710James Bowie Dr. New, Boston, Texas 75570 Mr. Scott Griffith P. O. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 7811-2066 Re: Proposed changes to CIP provision ofthe Texas Administrative Code Mr. Griffith: After a close review of the proposed rule changes for the Collections Improvement Programs under T.A.C. Title 1, Part 8, Chapter 175, Subchapter A, by the Judiciary of Bowie County we unanimously oppose the proposed changes. We join numerous other jurisdictions which have also expressed their opposition to the proposed changes. We would point out that these proposed changes would require more hearings before the courts not only increasing the burden on already tight dockets, but also increasing the strain on defendants resulting from more time off work or away from their families to repeatedly appear in court. Our courts join in the objections made by other jurisdictions and caution that due to the far reaching and varied interpretations of the proposed changes, in particular where such changes could be applied to all costs resulting from a conviction, the potential for many unintended consequences appears to be a significant threat. We believe these proposed changes, as written, should be rejected and a more detailed analysis of the impact on the Courts already tight dockets, Community Supervision and Correction Departments, and local county finances be undertaken before further rule changes are proposed. t- . .. ca ?air/4 1,374,411 4" Bill Miller, Presiding Judge lingby' -, iart, PresidingJudge Judicial District Court 102"" Judicial District Court, Bowie and Cass Counties, Texas Bowie and lied River Counties, Texas Leon F. Pesei, Jr., Presiding Judge ison, Presiding Judge 202"?Judicial District Court Bowie County Court at Law Bowie County, Texas Bowie County, Texas Shelly Ortiz rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 3:59 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Counties 50,000 or Over - Proposed Revisions to the Collection Improvement Program Rules Importance: High Forthe binders. From: Teresa Kiel Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 3:44 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Nanette Forbes Subject: Counties 50,000 or Over - Proposed Revisions to the Collection Improvement Program Rules Importance: High Good afternoon lVlr. Griffith, Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change. Let?s hit the fiscal impact first. We predict revenues will drop dramatically because of the defendants? option to claim nability to pay? and receive community service instead; costs will increase because additional manpower will be needed for clerks to ?monitor? community service. Community Service is already being monitored by the Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD/Probation), why do you intend to add these duties to the collections department? These changes will have a significant negative fiscal impact on local collection programs. In fact, this may force counties to create and fund separate collections departments for all courts. Most counties can?t afford it today. Referral to Court for Review this is another item that should be a referral from the probation department and not the collections department. We are not responsible for supervising. it is important to note that Guadalupe County does not have a "collections department? per se; but rather each clerk?s office is responsible for collections in the courts they serve. i understand how this could work if there were a designated collections department in every county; but remember, not every county can afford such. We honestly believe the reason costs are not being collected is because the defendants simply choose NOT to pay. (They have other things they?d rather spend their money on.) The jewelry they wear, the cars they drive, the cell phones they carry indicate their ability to pay. Trust me, we see it every day. We realize some of them have substance abuse problems, which affects their ability to make good decisions. The proposed changes aren?t going to do anything about solving the underlying problems that produce these negative behaviors in the first place, they will simply leave more money in the defendants? pockets. Let?s not forget: costs,fines and fees are NOT punishment unless they are collected. Adding the definition of discretionary income is critical but we believe setting payment amounts "not to exceed 20% of their discretionary income per month? is too generous. They will continue to use the rest for non-essential items rather han their "obligations". Can we shoot for 30% maybe? The bottom line is: These proposed changes create more work for the local program staff with no authority to keep them compliant with their payment agreements. The tone we will be setting for them if they owe money to the courts, they can get out of it at any time by saying it will be a hardship on them. We are planting the seed or even raining them to not take their consequences seriously, especially if we have to include alternative options in every phone call and every notice! This undermines the entire criminal justice system. Again, we do not understand how this will not have a significant fiscal impact on both state and counties. If they can claim a hardship, then they can avoid all consequences. Why even prosecute? Thank you for your time and consideration. Kindest regards, Teresa Kiel Teresa Kiel Guadalupe County Clerk Seguin, Texas 830-303-8859 Shelly Ortiz lrorn: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:54 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: CONCERNS Re: "Proposed" Collection Improvement Program Changes Importance: High For the binders. From: Cassey Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:39 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CONCERNS Re: "Proposed" Collection Improvement Program Changes Importance: High Mr. Grif?th, It is on behalf of the Bowie County Fines and Collections Department that I am writing today, to express our concerns and to oppose the ?Proposed? changes to the Collections Improvement Program. After reading and rereading these ?Proposed? changes, it is hard for us to understand, how the State could call these ?Proposed? changes fair and just for all involved. First, how can our Collections Department be expected to monitor a program, where there are so many steps to the process, that will not only cause confusion to the defendant but the staff as well? *Starting with the Court, then to the Collections Department to pay, then back to the Court because of undue hardship, then back to Collections Department for community service conversion, then back to the court for non?compliance of community service plan, then back to Collections Department for revisions to the community service plan, then back to the court for repeat non-compliance. . . .. *Starting with the Court, then to the Collections Department to pay, payment plan is made, defendant makes payment, then the following month defendant informs that they?ve lost employment and request a hearing, then back to the Court because of undue hardship, then back to Collections Department for community service conversion, then back to the court non-compliance of community service plan, then back to Collections Department for revisions to the community service plan, then back to the court for repeat non- compliance .. Confused yet? These are just a couple of scenarios and from someone that does this daily; believe me when I tell you, that there are more where those came from. There are so many gray areas and unanswered questions that, in our opinion, will lead to non-compliance from the very beginning. The defendant does not go into a plea of guilty blindsided. He or she has spoken with the Court District Attorney at some point to see what their options are. In that case, why would they enter a plea of guilt and accept the ?nancial obligation of a ?ne and court cost assessment, knowing their own ?nancial abilities? Due to violation of privacy and HIPPA laws, how are we as a Collections Department supposed to verify some of the information that is requested in the ?Proposed? area of ?Presumption of Inability to Pay?? It is already a tedious process to obtain income/?nancial information from the Defendants. That being said, what are the consequences if the defendant fails to submit this requested information set forth in the ?Proposed? changes so that the Court or Collections program can verify that there is in fact is an undue hardship? ?Household Income? Why not ask for the income of all that live in the home, and not just from the defendant and their spouse? "Discretionary Income? In our opinion, this de?nition is ludicrous. If this de?nition is really what we have to base the ?ndings on, then at least 95% of our defendants would have an undue hardship ?nancially. When did Credit Cards become essential? Due to these ?Proposed? changes, an expansion in our community service program will be needed. Additional employees for the said program will be a foreseen problem with a decrease in county revenue. At what point do we draw the line and stop coddling the defendant and start holding them accountable for their action of breaking the law? Why even have laws if we are just going to let them be broken without punishment. Where is the fairness and justice for the people that choose to obey the law? This all started with a choice. Thank you for your time regarding this matter. Cassey Tutt Collections Specialist Bowie County Fines Collection Dept. (903) 623?6803 415TH DISTRICT COURT Graham Quisenberry judge Presiding Dawn Ryle, CCM Court Coordinator Civil (817) 598-6162 Sheila Scruggs, CCM Court Coordinator Criminal sheila.scruggs (817) 598-6102 117 Fort Worth HighWay Weatherford, Texas 76086 Facsimile (817) 598?6161 July 28, 2016 Of?ce of Court Administration and via email to scott.griffith@txcourts.gov Ann: Mr. Scott Griffith Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711?2066 Re: Chapter 175 -?Collection Improvement Program? proposed rules Dear Mr. Griffith: This letter is prompted by a notification received from my local chief of the Parker County Community Supervision and Corrections Department that input is sought regarding the rules referenced above. Notwithstanding that I could write a virtual book about what is wrong with the proposal, let me simply state, object.? This exercise in bureaucratic overreach purportedly has its genesis in a US. Department of Justice letter dated March 14, 2016 and Article 103.0033 of the Texas Code of Q?minal Procedure. With respect to the state statute, it references a program to . .improve the collection of court costs, fees, and fines imposed in criminal cases. . while the letter essentially accuses "certain jurisdictions" of illegal activity. In that regard, this 9 page letter impugns the integrity of all courts and their supporting agencies While claiming that only "certain jurisdictions" offend. The irony is not lost on me that while the title of this federal department contains the word "justice", that same department effectively assumes that since a few are committing illegal acts, then all concerned must be guilty. While heretofore I have not been inclined to receive instruction from federal bureaucrats on what is just, I must new deal with such arriving on my front doorstep. This travesty apparently now produced the springboard upon which an agency of the State of Texas seeks to give us at the county level another dose of government from afar. We do not want it and more important, we do not need it. I reviewed the "program provisions? to the point where I was almost totally confused, which did not take long. I also took a look at the "?ow chart" provided with similar results. Is it not manifestly obvious to you rule-makers that if you need a flow chart, then the rules themselves are confusing? Actually, the rules do not merit much discussion from my perspective since they simply are not needed in any form. This ruse is simply about the state getting its money largely at the expense of the localities. This is a bit ironic since the letter implies protection of those ?in poverty? but, as mentioned, implies thatI and my fine colleagues are crooks. The function of the is to prosecute those engaging in illegal activity, not lecture the law?abiding on what we might do in the future. If the D01 is not prosecuting these alleged crimes, then I personally resent that, also. The auditor from the Of?ce of Court Administration was in our local CSCD office last week. According to your auditing standards, our results were perfect. Even so, you apparently now wish to fix what is not broken. Frankly, we in Parker County do a better job of providing justice, which can sometimes involve collecting money, than anyone with the or Office of Court Administration could hope to do. One final point I would make is that the cost of implementing this program to all Texas taxpayers will exceed any "improvement" in collections. Those needing assistance in paying court-assessed amounts Will actually be caught in yet another oppressive government program that claims to help, but really does not. I think I care more about these people than does anyone in Austin. Sincerely 'senberry PS. I a 1 cl sing a copy of Arnold Patrick's July 21 letter to you on the position of the Probation Advisory Com: ittec. In light of past experience with these opportunities for public comment, I must confess I could not help thinking, as I read the letter, you really will not care what Mr. Patrick had to say and thus, will not give much consideration to my comments, either. If the spirit of justice is really our guide here, I expect you to take into account our comments and act on them. A I No. AmoldK.Patr1ck?PAC Chalr whim? 5"er Comm nadir!astaosobiaumgtmeqeeam Scott Griffith July 21, 2016 PD. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2065 Mr. Griffith, The Probation Advisory Committee is appointed by the Judicial Advisory Council and represents 122 Community Supervision and Corrections Departments, all 254 counties in Texas are represented by this body and by unanimous vote, wish to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections improvement Program under Part 8, Texas Judicial Council as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. it is clear from the webinar conducted by the Office of Court Administration that less than half of the counties are affected by these new rules. Approximately 25% of the Counties in Texas are mandated to participate in the and thus many will not feel compelled to voice concerns. Due to the fact that we represent all probation departments In Texas, many of which will be affected by these changes directly and the rest of which could be affected indirectly, we would like to point out that our concerns should be considered with the weight they deserve. We may be the only organization that has a direct interest on how these changes affect the entire state and not Just the 25% affected directly. The proposed rule changes make significant changes to the current Collections Improvement Program that will detrimentaliy affect local government, probation departments and state government. These detriments include an increase in needed personnel to local government, increased court hearings and court time as well as potential lost revenue to state government. Under the proposed changes, program staff are required to obtain a signed statement from the defendant of their ability to pay the assessed costs, fines and fees under the imposed terms. Additional requirements are placed upon both the defendant and the program staff if the defendant is unable to make this acknowledgement. Then program staff are required to conduct interviews with defendants whom do not acknowledge that they have the ability to pay. A referral back to court, which would require a hearing, is required for those that do not acknowledge their ability to pay. The analysis of the proposed amendment by the Office of Court Administration states that this is a new component and they have no way of assessing its impact or effectiveness. The proposed changes require additional information and instructions be given in contacts with the defendants. The changes regarding Final Contact Attempt require that before reporting a case as non- compliant a ?nal contact must be made by program staff in writing, by mail. Arnold K. Patrick PAC Chair ?Tobauun Adm?? amaeimaickeimailtacamasaeam These changes will undoubtedly require much more local program staff time to perform as required. This will Increase the costs to local government. The requirement to obtain acknowledgement of ability to pay from defendant will result in additional resources being utilized by court and local program staff. The required hearings for those that are unwilling to sign the acknowledgement will increase the amount of time needed for a court to deal with many cases. in addition, these acknowledgements of ability to pay are treated as absolute. A defendant?s ability to pay is not a stagnant factor. Many defendants come out of incarceration, treatment programs and other issues and are unable to bear the burden of the financial obligations out of court, however these Issues are dynamic and change as the defendant progresses through the phases of re-integratlon and rehabilitation. Community Supervision and Corrections Departments have been addressing these issues with defendants from the beginning and are much better equipped and qualified to make these types of determinations. We would beg caution in making such significant and far reaching changes without further investigation on the Impacts it will make on defendants, local and state government. Sincerely, rnuld Patrick Shelly Ortiz crorn: Scott Griffith Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:56 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: proposed collection improvement For the binders. Scott From: Kathy Gwinn Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 4:55 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: proposed collection improvement I am voicing my opinion AGAINST the revised Collection Improvement Program. Our court utilizes our part-time clerk whose job is the Collection of ?nes due. She spends approximately 25 hours a week making phone calls to defendants and mailed notices that payments are late. Now we are a fairly small county and right now we have 45 payment plans in our ?les. Our of?ce doesn't have the man?power to spend any more time on payment plans and verify what you are asking the court to do. We work diligently with our defendants Jut more often than not the defendants are not willing to work with the courts. Example: Today I had show cause hearing for 20 defendants who are behind in their payments and/ or they have not taken care of their fine.We have mailed notices, called them if a phone number available and we receive either no answer, no e- mail to contact them and courtesy notice comes back not deliverable as addressed or they ignore the mailed notice. I had one (1) defendant show up and he has a job, but his hours have been cut back. I extended his payment plan and lowered his payments. he still said to me this is just throwing money away, I get nothing from paying this ticket" Imagine that statement I had 2 others show up and pay their ?nes, they had forgotten about them. 2 defendants came in and made a small payment and worked out a payment plan. Now what about the other 15, they didn?t even show up to see how or if the court was willing to work with them. In other words, you can give them all these opportunities and chances to make their payments or work with them, either community service or lower payments but you can't get them to respond to your calls, e-mails or hearing notices. The paper trail alone is mind?boggling much less the notes and phone calls that are generated because of this program already. All of this takes staff, time and money yet these defendants are not paying. The courts spend more time and thus more money yet our collections are down. We spend anywhere from 30 mins to 1 hour with a defendant setting up a payment plan with us. These new regulations mean more time. In addition to using one employee to work the payment plans now you are asking for ANOTHER REPORT be done to make sure we are implementing these new regulations. When the local commissioners are asking us to generate more revenue by accessing more ?nes, yet our Federal Government is telling our troopers that they must go to the border. Our ticket numbers are down, our revenue is down and the Texas 'udicial Council and OCA want to continue to 'push more regulation on the courts and for what? We work with these defendants every day, when they come in smoking and have a drug paraphernalia ticket and can't ?nd a job well, "there's your sign?. I believe that to continue to implement more and more regulations on the court is the wrong direction. While the legislature is making more laws for us to enforce and prosecute the Texas Judicial Council and OCA continue to cripple the courts by your constant The defendants are the ones who have broke the laws and yet it is the courts that you continue to impose undue hardship on. Thank you for your time. Gwinn Justice of the Peace?Precinct 3 Hood County 541 7 Acton Highway. Granbury, Tx. 76049 8] 7-579-3202- office 81 7-296-9809-cell kgwinn@co. hood. tx. us ?30" it" Sylvester Tur?_e_r_ CITY OF HOUSTON. . I J. Department Name Mayor ad?s. ?and? Barbra E. Hartle Director and Presiding Judge P.0. Box 1562 Houston. Texas 772514562 T. Dial 311 wvmhoustonixgov Mr. Scott Griffith Director of Research Court Services Office of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin Texas 78711-2066 Dear Mr. Griffith: The City of Houston Municipal Courts Department (COH MCD) has read and reviewed the proposed changes to the new Chapter 175 under Texas Government Code Statute 71.019 and offers the following comments and questions regarding the rule changes. 0 Will the Office of Court Administration (OCA) provide a standardized Ability Acknowledgement Form or will the courts be responsible for creating their own? 0 Will the OCA provide standards as to how the court determines the defendant?s discretionary income or will the courts be responsible for developing their own standards? Will the'OCA also provide a standard form/formula/guidellnes/ for courts to use to determine a person?s inability to pay or will this also be the responsibility of the courts to make such determinations? The proposed rules would place unfunded mandates on the Courts by OCA to hire additional staff to accomplish goal of having dedicated programing staff in addition to the added costs to update existing computer technology and programing to accomplish the new rule changes. I MCD believes the issuance of a citation to a driver for a traffic violation is the best tool to change the behavior of drivers to comply with traffic safety laws especially in large urban areas such Houston/Harris County. If drivers believe there will not be any consequence for their driving behavior, then Law Enforcement Officers may not write as many traffic citations which may lead to more accidents in areas that already have a high amount of traffic related accidents and fatalities. We look forward to OCA clarifying and responding to some of our comments and questions in the near future. Please to do not hesitate to call me for any follow up questions or assistance as you prepare a new Chapter 175 ofthe Texas Administrative Code. Council Members: Brenda Stardig Jerry Davis EllenR Cohen DwighiA Boykins Dave Martin Steve Le Greg Travis Karla Cisneros Robert Gallegos Mike Lasier Larry V. Green Mike Knox David W. Robinson Michael Kubosh Amanda Edwards Jack Christie Controller: Chris Brown Sincerely, F) w: Barbara E. Hartie Director and Presiding Judge City of Houston Municipal Courts Department Shelly Ortiz J-rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:16 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Personal Request to Table Collection Amendments Gordon Starkenburg Attachments: Gordon Starkenburg feedback to OCA proposed collections amendments 7-2016.pdf Forthe binders. From: Gordon Starkenburg Sent: Thursday, July 28,2016 9:48 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: David Slayton bgravell@wilco.org Subject: Personal Request to Table Collection Amendments - Gordon Starkenburg The attached request is based on my own personal thoughts. The goal to amend was merited but the product must be tabled. Please review my own personal thoughts about the proposed collection program amendments. - Gordon Starkenburg - Brazoria County Justice of the Peace. 832-858-8291 FYI - I do have personal history with the original SB 1863 in 2005 and the building of the collection program. Changes are eeded but the Legislators already set the intent that we can not change without a Legislative change. Please table the proposed amendments for now - Thank You. Regarding OCA Memo dated May 27,2016: Analysis of Proposed Amendments to Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 175, Collection Improvement Program. I ask that the Proposed Amendments be tabled for at least the following two reasons: 1.The Primary Goal of the Collections Improvement Program is to give specific steps to the courts for the ?Improvement of the Collection' of Court Cost, Fees, and Fines imposed in specific Criminal Cases. That direction and authority is spelled out in CCP As stated in CCP 103.0033, the program MUST focus on two components both dealing with collection improvement. The proposed ?amendments? change that focus without authority to do so. Since the creation of Chapter 175 based on SB 1863 (79? Session 2005), there have been three legislative changes. (HB 2949 82nd Session, SB 1 82?? Session, and SB 387 83? Session). None of these legislative changes changed the focus or intent of the original bill. The proposed changes to Chapter 175 create a new primary goal and add components NOT authorized by the Legislature. I understand the goal of the proposed amendments but challenge the authority to modify the specific collection focus set by the Legislature. 2.Question of Equal Justice for ALL. The proposed amendments create a protected class. CCP 103.0033 limits the scope of Chapter 175 to counties based on population size. With the proposed changes, a 17?year- old High School student speeding in a school zone is automatically presumed to be unable to pay all the costs, fees, and fines assessed to the charge. In a county NOT under Chapter 175, a similar l7?year?old High School student would NOT be afforded that same ?presumed right'. I believe this unauthorized component violates the Constitutional right of Equal Justice for All. If the goal of the proposed amendment is to modify ?Due Process? in the State of Texas, then we need to ask the Legislative Branch to review that process for the whole state. Art. 103.0033. COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. In this article: (1) "Eligible case" means a criminal case in which the judgment has been entered by a trial court. The term does not include a criminal case in which a defendant has been placed on deferred disposition or has elected to take a driving safety course. (2) "Office" means the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System. (3) "Program" means the program to improve the collection of court costs, fees, and fines imposed in criminal cases, as developed and implemented under this article. This article applies only to: (1) a county with a population of 50,000 or greater: and (2) a municipality with a population of 100,000 or greater. Unless granted a waiver under Subsection or each county and municipality shall develop and implement a program that complies with the prioritized implementation schedule under Subsection A county program must include district, county, and justice courts. The program must consist of: a component that conforms with a model developed by the office and designed to improve in?house collections for eligible cases through the application of best practices; and (2) a component designed to improve the collection of balances for eligible cases more than 60 days past due, which may be implemented by entering into a contract with a private attorney or public or private vendor in accordance with Article 103.0031. Not later than June 1 of each year, the office shall identify those counties and municipalities that: (1) have not implemented a program; and (2) are able to implement a program before April 1 of the following year. The office shall develop a methodology for determining the collection rate of counties and municipalities described by Subsection before implementation of a program. The office .shall determine the rate for each county and municipality not later than the first anniversary of the county's or municipality's adoption of a program. The office shall: (1) make available on the office's Internet website requirements for a program; and (2) assist counties and municipalities in implementing a program by providing training and consultation, except that the office may not provide employees for implementation of a program. The office may: (1) use case dispositions, population, revenue data, or other appropriate measures to develop a prioritized implementation schedule for programs; and (2) determine whether it is not cost?effective to implement a program in a county or municipality and grant a waiver to the county or municipality. The office shall grant a waiver to a county that: (1) contains within its borders a correctional facility operated by or under contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and (2) has a population of 50,000 or more only because the inmate population of all correctional facilities described by Subdivision (1) is included in that population. Each county and municipality shall at least annually submit to the office a written report that includes updated information regarding the program, as determined by the office. The report must be in a form approved by the office. The office shall periodically audit counties and municipalities to verify information reported under Subsection and confirm that the county or municipality is conforming with requirements relating to the program. Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 899 (S.B. 1863), Sec. 10.01, eff. August 29, 2005. Amended by: Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1171 (H.B. 2949), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., C.S., Ch. 4 (S.B. 1), Sec. 41.01, eff. September 28, 2011. Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 24 (S.B. 387), Sec. 1, eff. May 10, 2013. Shelly Ortiz ?Erom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:29 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Propesed Amendments to Texas Admin Code Chapter 175, Collection Improvement Program For the binders. Scott From: RICHARD MANN Sent: Friday, July 29,2016 9:15 AM To: Scott Griffith Cc: STACY TROTTER KIM ROGERS Subject: Propesed Amendments to Texas Admin Code Chapter 175, Collection Improvement Program Mr riffith, i wish to express concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175. Collections Improvement Program under Part 8. These changes will require more local staff to perform the requirements and increase costs to our local counties. It will also add the need for more resources to be used by the courts and time for the courts to hear so many cases. The Community Supervision and Corrections Departments have already been dealing with indigent 'efendant and working with them for successful completion of probation without incarceration, with success. Thank you for hearing me on this matterRichard Mann Director Ector County Adult Probation 312 N. Texas Odessa, TX 79761 (432) 498-4103 (432) 498-4392 (fax) Denton County 3 County Clerk Juli Luke Juli Luke (940)349-2012 Denton County Courts Building Fax (940)349-2013 1450 E. McKinney, 1" Floor Juli.Luke@dentoncounty.com July 27, 2016 Re: Proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program Mr. Grif?th, Thank you for allowing those counties that will be affected by the proposed change of rules to voice concerns and comments. These changes will have a huge impact on Denton County. The proposed guideline provisions, Collection Improvement Program includes: local program need not require 40 hours per week of an employee?s time but must be a priority. This discredits the amount of individuals in largely populated counties that will qualify for this program and the time it will entail to ensure compliance according to ?175.5 Compliance Review Standards. This places an undue burden on counties and their ability to collect fees. Additionally, staff must refer cases to the courts, which will now take them away from their duties to address each case qualifying for referral. As staff will be required by the Court to attend the hearings determining indigence and provide the information as outlined in Further, states: None of these provisions should bind judges or in?uence judicial discretion. .. While we agree the judge should make the ?nal determination, this negates the time it takes collection staff to compile the required data to make the determination. Ultimately, too much is required. Collection departments will be expected to continue with their current business practices but now compartmentalize a portion for those that qualify for such a program and follow alternative procedures. Directly affecting the business processes of a department and dismissively implying that it I wouldn?t require additional time to remain compliant is trivializing the duties of the staff. While I have emphasized the effect on time this implementation would now take, this does not lessen the ?nancial impact it will have on counties, due to signi?cant loss of revenue. 1 am only addressing the issues that concern the county clerk?s of?ce, which oversees collections. The other departments and of?cials within this county should be consulted with regards to any required changes for their respective of?ces or departments. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Respectfully, Juli Luke Denton County Clerk . x. are. alga? Suki *it. v" s' - Mk?" Ill-5,13: Shan Alexander P.0. Box 10536 Director of Judicial Compliance Lubbock, Texas 79408 Phone# (806)775-1654 Fax# (806)775-7959 July 28. 2016 The American Bar.org Standard states: The legislature and executive should determine the public policies of sentencing and enact the statutory framework for the sentencing system. The legislative function is performed best by statutes that articulate the societal purposes in sentencing, define the authorized types of sanctions, and set the maximum limits of those sanctions. In this, we find the proposed revision to the Collections improvement Program. A statutory framework that is designed as an extension of the courts and an additional avenue for carrying outjudicial sentencing regarding costs, fines and fees. Before addressing concerns on how these changes will affect the current program, it is necessary to first require clarification in the definitions and components that are being revised. 1. What is an "undue hardship? and how has this document truly defined its meaning? This statement is mentioned at least 13 times throughout the document, but doesn?t provide a clear and concise definition or method of determination. Another repetitive term in this document is the statement regarding dependents, but again it does not provide clarity as to who is being considered as a defendant?s dependent? a. Can a defendant claim their dependents ifthey don?t live with the offender? b. What will be the verification process for ensuring this information is true and correct so as to also enSure fair consideration and reporting? Why is only 20% of the discretionary funds being allocated for payment of costs and not 100%? a. Per 175.2(d) in the definition of ?Discretionary Income? all items that could potentially create a penalty including medical supplies, cable, credit cards and child care are already being considered. b. Also, said section also mentions mandated court payments should be considered, but payment arrangements on court costs comes after what has traditionally been considered luxury items. credit cards, loans, and particular leases.) "Household income" does not mention all forms of monetary receipts such as trusts, student loan refunds, SSI, or other allowances besides employment. a. How would the new rules work when an offender lives with roommates or family members? How is an informal marriage determined? This is especially important in upholding the definition and determination of "Household income" between couples. a. What is the legality for upholding a defendant's claim for an informal marriage without proof? 6. In consideration of all payment plans established by the local program, to ensure judicial discretion is not being overlooked. Should all plans be reviewed by the judge? 7. Under "Presumption of Inability to Pay" guidelines, will a defendant be required to provide proof? 3. What timeframe, if any, will be instituted for accomplishing the "Referral to Court?? The proposed rules do not appear to have taken statistical data or lateral objectivity on the part of the local program into consideration as to how these rules are applied. Meaning that what may work for Houston and still maintain a viable program, may not work for Lubbock due to fewer resources for offenders and higher eligibility for government services. This is especially true when referencing section 175.3(a) (6) (B) regarding offenders that attend school. Many students at this age tend to work while attending school. Also, many student?s parents are willing and able to pay on their behalf. But the significant piece that appears to be removed is the ability for the local staff to verify the validity of an offender?s claims prior to being returned to court. Essentially, the proposed rules creates an umbrella that makes it easier for offenders to avoid punishment due to circumstances. In turn, this will create an avenue that allows people to repeat offenses without consequence. Below are some statistics from the Lubbock County Judicial Compliance that have been acquired using interviews during the course of the last 30 days under the assumption of implementation of the proposed rules. PAYMENT PLAN CRITERIA COURT TO MY AGREEMENT Amman CASES . (50 cases per court level) JUSTICE COURTS 34 cases 1 2:3 16 cases 1:3 'T?aEes/ i=2 'Dis'riucr COURTS 34 cas?s 2:3 16 The cases above are frorn?a list?ofcases approved for payments under the current rules. Lubbock County averages 500 cases per month for all courts which would see an estimated 300 cases per month returned to court forjudicial review due to "Presumption of Inability to Pay?. In section 175.6(b) (1) it mentions that waivers for implementation can be granted provided the local program proves cost to implement is greater than revenue. 1 can assure that if the aforementioned numbers remain true then revenue will be lost immediately and continually. Although. it is not in the interest of the local program to speak on the judges behalf. When numbers return to courts in such high amounts, one can only ascertain that other remedies will be sought. It is the responsibility of local programs to ensure compliance of the court?s sentences when it comes to costs, fines and fees. In essence, how do we maintain the integrity of the court system with all due respect to the Collections Improvement Program under these conditions? Especially, if a judge spends more time ruling on the ability to pay than just rendering a ruling? Even in its current form, the rules of the CIP, does not remove, deter, or offset a court's judgment. Therefore, it is our duty to ensure the integrity of the courts, the justice system as a whole. and the public at large. Jigs Shan Alexander, irector of Judicial Compliance COMMENTS APPROVED BY: Honorable Drue Farmer, County Court# 2 _l lmmrahle James Hansen, 1 Honorable Ann-Marie Carruth, .1). Judicial men?(m [u?ma Robinson, Compliance Assistant Mike Castillo, Compliance Assistant Ed Schercr, Compliance Assistant Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:36 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Proposed changes to collection programs Forthe binders. Scott From: Matt Crain Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:35 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed changes to collection programs To whom it may concern: I am not in favor of the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Plan (CIP). Thanks, Matt Crain Judge, Hill County Court at Law Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:13 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Proposed changes for Part 8. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL CHAPTER 175. COLLECTIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM For the binders. Scott From: Ralena Kimbrough Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:12 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed changes for Part 8. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL CHAPTER 175. COLLECTIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 7?29?16 Aransas County Collections Re: Proposed changes for Part 8. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL CHAPTER 175. COLLECTIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM fly concerns are in line with that of our County Court at Law Judge, see below. We have had multiple discussions about these changes. The concerns he did not list, that I have, is if we, counties of less than 50,000, do not institute non-monetary compliance options are we opening ourselves up to law suits in the future? I foresee this leading to convicted criminals getting nothing more than a scolding, taking away the authority to hold people accountable for their choices/actions. What happened to the concept, of a fine is not a bill it is a court ordered judgment for a crime committed. consulted with my County Court at Law Judge. He is aware that our county is not required to report due to our less than 50,000 population. Nonetheless, he expressed these concerns: 1) Many of our "indigent" do not work, nor do they seek employment. There is no requirement for even a facade of effort to escape being "indigent". Many of our applicants? affidavits list zero income and zero expenses. Why not have the same work requirements as State programs for food stamps and housing? We are enabling indigent status for intentional indigents to the detriment of those truly indigent through no choice of their own. Yes, this is a comment on the program as a whole, but the changes are only adding to the existing expense. 2) In small counties like ours, there are limited opportunities for this type community service due to fewer organizations existing. The County will have increased personnel expenses to develop and manage an expanded community service program to benefit many who are unlikely to be willing workers. 4) More hearings mean more tasks and time for jailers, bailiffs, judges, court administrators. Cost? 1 With concern, Misty R. Kimbrough Aransas County Collections Specialist 301 N. Live Oak, Room 101 Rockport, TX 78382 361-790-0139 phone with voicemail 361-790-0119 facsimile rkimbrough@aransascoun?tvorg Misty R. Kimbrough Collection Specialist COMPLIANCE Aransas County Clerk's Office 301 N. Live Oak, Room 101 Rockport, TX 78382 361-790-0139 phone 361-790-0119 fax Office Hog: 8:00 1 1:45 AM 1:00 - 4:45 PM ATTENTION PUBLIC A "Reply to All? of this e-mail could lead to violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Please reply only to the sender. "Disclaimer - This email and any ?les transmitted with it may be con?dential and contain privileged or copyrighted information. You must not present this message to another party without ?rst gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any Views stated in this communication are those of the actual sender and not necessarily those of Aransas County, State of Texas. Nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a speci?c statement to the contrary is included in this message!" Please refrain from printing this email unless completely necessary. Go Green! To: Scott Griffith From: Bridgett Pitre. Dallas County Criminal Courts Collections Manager Subject: Collection Improvement Program Rule Revisions Date: July 29, 2016 Scott Griffith: This memo is in response to the Proposed Collection Improvement Programs rule revisions that were released in June 2016. These proposed changes would have an adverse effect on the Dallas County collection of court cost, fees, and fines. Because we would like to be part of the solution. we are offering alternative suggestions that would not pose a negative impact to our collection efforts. Therefore, please see the following list of objections and solutions: In the proposed changes of Chapter Improvement Program Provisions: Referral to Court. If a defendant interview or other information collected by local program staff indicates that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs. fees, and fines assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant's dependents, or that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs. fees. and fines assessed by the judge within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant's dependents, local program staff must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if appropriate non-monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or fines are appropriate. Determination of indigence should be established before the defendant is sent to collections. Judges should be required to determine indigence at the time of plea sentencing. At that time, a prescreen form should be given to the defendant by the judge to determine his/her inability to pay. Once the form is completed and reviewed by the judge, indigence is determined. If inability to pay is established community service could be offered. If the defendant is able to pay, the Judge should send the defendant to collections division for payment arrangements. On the proposed changes of Chapter 175.3 Components for Local Program Operations. Collection Improvement Program Provisions: 509 Main Street at Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75209 DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS JOHN F. WARREN DALLAS COUNTY CLERK .. ?This telephone contact must also include information about the availability of non-monetary compliance options and how the defendant may request a hearing for the judge to consider the defendant?s ability to pay and options available for the defendant to satisfy the judgment. (9) ?The written notice must also include information about the availability of non- monetary compliance options and how the defendant may request a hearing for the judge to consider the defendant?s ability to pay and options available for the defendant to satisfy the judgment. (10) The local program should not report the case back to the court as non- compliant until at least one month after the final contact attempt to provide the defendant time to discuss with local program staff new payment plan terms or alternative non-monetary compliance options for the court to consider. Any communications made to the defendants, whether oral or written, should not include non-monetary compliance Options. Providing defendants with unable to pay options in every point of communications would give the allusion that payment of court cost and fines are easily avoidable, thus decreasing the severity of punishment in a criminal case. It is our goal during the interview phase of collections, to assist the defendant with every available option to comply with the Judge?s sentence. For that reason, should the interview/collector see the need to reevaluate inability pay due to reduction in payment, the defendant is sent back before the judge. In conclusion, the proposed changes of Chapter 175.1Collection Improvement Program Provisions would pose a major threat to the Dallas County Clerk Collections division collection efforts. This collection program has accomplished a lot and contributes greatly to Dallas County 2.5 million residents. Adopting these proposed changes would be step in the wrong direction, undoing all of the hard work and accomplishments this program has achieved. Please consider my objections and suggestions as strong alternatives to the proposed changes. 509 Main Street Suite .300 a Dallas, Texas 7590? Shelly Ortiz ?.rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:54 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Collection Improvement Program For the binders. Scott From: Carolyn Jones Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:52 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Collection Improvement Program I totally oppose Chapter 175, the Collection Improvement Program under Part 8 of the Texas Judicial Council as posted July 1, 2016 in Texas Register. Carolyn Jones, Director Andrews County CSCD Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:54 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Concerns about C-IP rule changes Attachments: DOJ CIP.docx Forthe binders. From: Andrea Weilacher Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:21 AM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Concerns about CIP rule changes Good morning Scott My name is Andrea Weilacher and I am the department manager for the Denton County Collections and Compliance Department. Attached is my letter of concern. We have been very successful in the way we handle our Collections program. Our office works with those who have little income to create a payment plan within their budget. I cannot stress enough what an impact these proposed changed will have on our county and the local and state budgets. Thank you, ?ake Mn?ng Department Manager Collection Compliance Department Denton County Clerk Ph: 940-349-2030 Denton County Collections Compliance Department Denton County Courts Building, 1st Floor 940-349?2030 Phone 940-349-2031 Fax July 25, 2016 Re: Proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program To whom it may concern: As the Department Manager of the Denton County Collections Compliance Department, I am concerned about the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program. These changes will not only affect the Collections department but the District Felony, Criminal Misdemeanor and Justice of the Peace courts. 1. The proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program (CIP) will create a lot of extra work on the Judges, court clerks and collections staff. On any given day, the Criminal courts have a docket of over 100 plea hearings. Some get jail time, others are reset for a later date. The majority will be sent to the Collection Compliance Department to set up a payment plan for fines and court costs. Our Collections staff consists of 4 full time employees and one department supervisor. Due to county budget restraints, we can?t afford to hire the additional personnel that will be required to appear in court with a defendant and prove their indigence. After court, the defendant still has to report to adult probation and Collections. Our department does not have an overtime budget in place allowing us to work past a 40 hour work week. Denton County fiscal year runs from October 1st to September Budgets for the coming year have to be approved months in advance by Commissioners Court. The reduced collection of court-imposed fees and fines will have major effects on local and state budgets. 2. CIPs have shown to significantly increase revenue to the state, courts and local government by millions of dollars annually. Allowing court ordered fines and fees to be ignored diminishes public respect for the rule of the court. A fine is punishment collected on a crime committed. 3. Payment guidelines all fines and court costs should be required to be paid in full no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of probation or preferably sooner. The proposed rule change of not paying more than 20 percent of the defendant?s discretionary income would require most defendants to be placed on a longer probation in order to have their fees paid off during the probationary period. Extensions will only decrease their chances of successfully completing probation. Without the CIP components as guidelines, defendants owing $3000 could potentially be placed on a 10 year payment plan only paying $30 a month. This is an example ofthe quagmire this will create. 4. Having to wait one month before the Collections staff is allowed to call or notify defendants who are delinquent is bad collection practices. It has been proven that the longer you allow a defendant to pay out their fines and court costs, the less likely the county or state are to collect those costs. lfthe proposed changes to the CIP are passed, it is inevitable that all the municipalities, counties, and state will feel the impact of the loss of revenue. 5. Those defendants that are truly indigent should be required to do community service in excess of what was ordered through probation and get credit towards their fines and fees. Not all judges are doing this and find it easierjust to waive all fees and be done with the case. There is no justice in waiving fees. The proposed Collections Improvement Program changes must be reconsidered. The proposed changes most certainly will congest the court system with indigence or show cause hearings plus put a lot more stress on an already stressful job of a Collector. Ourjob is not an easy one but we are successful in how we collect money not only for our county but also for the state as well. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to penalize individuals who break the law. These penalties include fees along with incarceration or probation. To simply create guidelines that require erasing an assessed punishment based on the income of an individual is discriminating against those that are required to pay because they don?t meet these qualifications. Sincerely, Andrea Weiiacher Department Manager Denton County Collections Compliance Department Denton County Texas Friday, July 29, 2015 Good morning Mr. Griffith ljust want to express my thoughts and concerns about the proposed rule changes to the CIP. OCA was created to help the counties and cities in Texas to collect fines, court costs, fees, etc. that is owed to the court. It is designed to allow people who do not have the money to pay in full the day they are assessed these monies, to set up a payment plan. To me this is being fair to ALL defendants. If the proposed changes are made, in my eyes it will not be fair. It won?t be fair to the person that has more access to cash than the one who does not. Paying for an offense that a person has committed is a form of punishment. It is not supposed to be convenient. have the following posted on my bulletin board outside my office: Principals of Understanding: A fine is punishment and not a "Bill". The payment is the defendant?s responsibility. 0 it is expected that the defendant must sacrifice to pay. 0 The defendant must give payment the highest priority. 0 The defendant must expect consequences if payment is not made. 0 The defendant needs to understand the consequences. 0 The payment is a Court Order, a sentence which may not be convenient. A court is not where people prefer to spend money. 0 Many people come to court with money. I truly believe if you take away most of our rights to collect money it will show the defendants that they are free to do as they please. The crime rate is high enough already. if they know they can get away with it without consequences like paying money the crime rate will sky rocket out of hand. This will cause more problems than what we already have. Several people have made mistakes and they learn from them because there are consequences for their action: such as paying fines and fees. A lot of these people will not repeat bad choices because they know there will be consequences. We have programs and steps in place to help the people who really need it. (ex. Community service) if our probation officers see a person that is really trying and need help; they have steps in place as well to assist the defendants. It is my opinion, unless you have been in our shoes as collectors, decisions such as the changes that are being proposed, the committee should pilot the program before changes are made. We as collectors see first?hand who really needs help. I have seen so many people out in public that are on probation at the store purchasing alcohol beverages, cigarettes, tobacco, get their hair and nails done, etc. These things are not cheap to buy or get done. A lot of these people are on public assistance. To me, if they have money available to do these things they should be made to pay. The people that are proposing these changes are not out here like we are and see these things. The purpose of us collecting the money owed to the courts is a punishment, in hopes to deter people from committing crimes. 1 want to thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I really hope the panel will reconsider the proposed changes. I think the current CIP is fair as they can be to ALL without these proposed changes. As a collector and a citizen i feel like it would be an injustice to ALL if the changes are passed. Sincerely, Tanya Hall Director of Nacogdoches County Collections Department 423"?Juoicw. DISTRICT COURT CI I). Duoom, Jooaiz lat. Mun it?. 1 . Denomin Silireoum .. . . .t .. till-'1 loom .. . . . . anmal (,ourl Liam/mam? IV "qr (.rrln' Lam! Cow-durum on.) SHI r- ?02 till) sat-ins? (in) summit liu- Minus?: Fm Isl-sir. (SI 3) Slit-finalt his lid Uffrri'u! Rrpurm Llelmruh July 20?? To Whom It May Concern: Re: Proposed Changes in lhe Collection Improvement Prey-tun am writing to object to the proposed changes in the Collection lmprovmnent Program. Bastrop County has moved to a centralized collection model, through the County 'I'Iensurer's Of?ce. and it is working well for linstrop County and its citizens llustrop Count): 'l?rcnsurer. Ms. Laurie and her staff. do an excellent job balancing the need to collect assessed lines and court eosts wliilc lespeetiug and identifying] Folks that are indigent. There is no need to change the current system, I visited Iwith Ms. and her stall. ond asked them to drull some on itlen objections from their perspective. their objections rellcel my objections, hove attached it For your considerution. A person that violates the law, whether it?s ll Class troll-Le ticket or a felony euse, should and must the line nod (:0th costs associated with the ease. Additionally. we must take into consideration people that me indigent. No one wants to create a "debtor's prison." Hustron County does an excellent collecting fines, toes and court costs under the current system. There is no need to implement the proposed changes. They are too cumbersome and it w0ultl. in my opinion, be a signi?cant ?nancial htuden to implement them Please do not hesitate to contact me il'you have any questions. llk'L'r'I.it Jud]. Presiding PART 8. TEXAS JUDICIAL COUNCIL CHAPTER 175. COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 175.1 Purpose and Scope. 1) while the modi?cations may not create a hardship for the defendant, the proposal to send the cases back to the court will create a hardship to the various courts. In addition, the cases are criminal cases that warrant compliance and adherence to the courts instructions. 3) Some counties do not have the resoUrces to offer community service or other non- monetary compliance options. is the Justice Department willing to pay for a longitudinal grant program as Indicated in Art. 103.0032 Collection improvement Plan to fund the creation of other non-monetary compliance options.(l.e. Community Service Programs)? 175.3 Collection improvement Components Sending the cases back to the courts is expensive and for small counties. The court dockets are saturated with a high volume of violent offenders and civil cases that warrant the Judges to spend quality time to make optimal decisions on these critical cases. Sending the cases back to the Judge for review Is not reasonable. While the determination of lndigency should he made by the court. perhaps an administrative review hearing without flooding the dockets would be optimal. 1) Defendant Interviews Defendants should hava the option to waive the requirement to allow the defendant to pay more than 20 percent ofthe defendant?s discretionary income per month. Some defendant?s may not want to participate in an extended payment plan. in addition. any/all defendantisi can claim undue hardship on their application. Local program staff only has a few options to try and verify payment ability of a defendant. What is the proposal to help local program staff validate financial Income accuracy? Claiming undue hardship on an application becomes the standard because there are no means to prove otherwise. 2) Referral to Court for review of defendant?s ability to pay. Sending the cases back to the courts is expensive and ln-ef?clent for small counties. The court dockets are saturated with a high volume of violent offenders and civil cases that warrant the Judges to spend quality time to make optimal decisions on these critical cases. Sending the cases back to the Judge for review is not reasonable and would require funding from state for additional staff. To require our county to implement a trackable "non- monetary? option so as not to impose undue hardship on the defendant, directly creates undue hardship on our county. While the determination of indigency should be made by the court, perhaps an administrative review hearing without ?ooding the dockets would be optimal. 3i Payment Plan Guidelines. Time requirements are essential to this component. Immediate compliance reduces the court's costs associated with managing compliance and reduces the risk of non-compliance. 4] Telephone and Written Notice Contact. The options the defendants has if they are unable to pay and information regarding the availability of non~monetary compliance and how a defendant can request a hearing for the Judge to consider the defendants ability to pay should only be disclosed at the beginning, during interview. Including the language continuously in telephone calls and written contacts is inef?cient. Fiscal Note. We do not concur with Ms. Henry's belief that there will not be fiscal implications for state government. The modi?cations are impeding the CIP's from implementing best practices on criminal cases. There Is a lack ofjustice, when a person can commit a law violation and not be held accountable. The fiscal impact on local counties is significant; flooding the courts with the same case over and over cost money and time; breeding defendants to claim undue hardship because local program staff can?t otherwise verify their finances cost us money; the decrease in collected fines and fines will absolutely financially impact our county and creating non-monetary trackabie options is very expensive. The injustices that occurred in another jurisdiction should not create a nationwide sanction. The current CIP model Is an optimal best practice collection approach that requires a modification in the OCA flowchart at best. TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURTS ASSOCIATION 1350 NASA Parkway, Suite 200 - Houston, Texas 77058-2800 - 281-333?9229 TMCA dues are not deductible as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes, but may be partially deductible as a business expense. TMCA estimates that 83% of your membership dues for [yearlsl] are allocable to lobbying activities of the TMCA, and therefore are not deductible for income tax purposes. July 29, 2016 The Honorable Scott Grif?th P. O. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 7871 1-2066 Dear Mr. Grif?th: The Texas Municipal Court Association (TMCA) asks that the Collection Improvement Program allow the elected or appointed judges of the State of Texas to do what we are required by law and the Constitution. Issues with the Collection Improvement Program have been brought to the attention of the Of?ce of Court Administration. TMCA has concerns about the ethical implications for the municipal court judiciary regarding portions of the current Chapter 175 Collection Improvement Program as well as proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program as they pertain to the Canons of Judicial Conduct. These issues must be addressed prior to implementation. Respectfully, Board of Directors [Texas Municipal Court Association Board of Directors The-independent? organization-for all Texas?Municipai C?ourts personnel Shelly Ortiz \?from: Ronald R. McBroom Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:11 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Collection Improvement Program lam against the Collection Improvement Program I think the programs we already have in place workjust finer Judge Ronald R. McBroom Johnson Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Sent To: Subject: Against #1 Geneva Mason Deputy C1erk-JP4 117 MAIN ST P.O. BOX 1964 VAN TX 75495 903-813-4200 ext 3411 903-482-6543 903-482-6573-fax Geneva Mason Friday, July 29, 2016 1:00 PM Scott Griffith CIP Rules comment Office of the Municipal Judge 601 E. HICKORY. DENTON. TEXAS 76205 - (940) 349-8139 The Honorable Scott Griffith it! lifl WEE), U, l5. PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 July 29th, 2016 Dear Mr. Griffith: Please record my comment as being AGAINST PROPOSED AMENDMENTS As a judge of a mid-sized municipality in the Dallas/ Ft. Worth metropiex area, I have, over the last several years, formed the opinion that the current Collection Improvement Program, under Chapter 175 of the Texas Administrative Code, may compound or intensify financial pressure on defendants and contribute to the perception that Courts are harsh and indifferent to the economic circumstances of the public, many of which are struggling to make ends meet in hard economic times. The proposed amendments do not seem to alleviate these concerns. Instead of encouraging processes whereby defendants may appear before the Court to personally present relevant information regarding their ability to pay, both the existing and proposed rules under Chapter 175 of the Texas Administrative Code (CIP Program,) require that ?collections staff? collect a large amount of personal and financial information from defendants. In some cases, the information required is more akin to personal and financial documentation often required by banks as a part of loan "qualification". And, while I understand the desire to treat our case collections more efficiently as if they are traditional business transactions, our customers are not "customers by choice." In certain situations, our "customers" would not normally be eligible for traditional business type loans, and in many cases, these defendants simply may not have access to that information. Our attempts to collect information may be misinterpreted by many of our most disenfranchised defendants as intimidating, and in other cases so overwhelming so as discourage some defendants who might otherwise attempt to make payment, from requesting direct and personal access to the Court (judge) In courts that have long-established processes for appearance before the judge, and in cases in which a judge has determined that a payment plan isjustified and appropriate based on the representations of the defendant, thatjudicial plan may be seen as being subject to review by "collections staff? who require that the defendant participate in interviews and provide substantial documentation. (Sec. and Sec. and Comments and Recommendations Collections Improvement Program Page 1 of 3 Many of the poorest defendants (those who would be most adversely affected,) are left with the impression that if they do not have bank accounts, IRS tax documents, written proof regarding rent or mortgage, child support documentation, or documentation regarding discretionary income (See Sec. 175.2.(d) and they will not, or cannot qualify for additional time to pay. For this reason, many defendants simply give up on the system, turn around, walk away and wait for a warrant to be issued. Unfortunately, if not appropriately implemented, the Collections Improvement Program may add to an impression often held by the public that courts are created to ?generate revenue? and collect money for cities, counties and the State of Texas. In some situations, court staff may be left with the impression that the Court will be punished if they allow someone who might not be "qualified" under the ClP?s criteria, additional time to pay, even ifthe judge has entered a finding to the contrary. Specific Recommendations: Recommendation 1. Revise Chapter 175 - Applicability to Courts Based on Performance or Compliance. The current and proposed CIP is applied to courts without regard for or consideration of that court?s established procedures, relative compliance with accepted and appropriate processes for similar courts or the overall ?collections performance? of that court. While it would require a substantial effort to establish universal standards of performance as to acceptable collections compliance, under the current program, courts are required to staff for and modify court procedures to meet the requirements of the Collections Improvement Program. And, without offering any form of additional funding assistance, many cities and counties may perceive the program as an "unfunded mandate." As the CIP is intended as way to help municipalities to "improve" their collection practices, perhaps it might make more sense to only require that cities who fail to meet certain collections standards or criteria be required to comply with all of the provisions of the program. The CIP, or portions of it, might better be offered as a "best practices tool? for those courts who meet certain standards - but a mandatory process for those that do not. Recommendation: Revise Chapter 175, Texas Administrative Code to "apply only to those Courts who, after audit and examination by either the State Comptroller?s Office or the Office of Court Administration, fail for a period of twelve months or more to collect more than eighty of the fine or fees assessed as a part of a court order." Recommendation 2. Exempt ?Judge Ordered Plans? from the Requirements of Collections Staff Verification, Staff Interviews or Collection of "Payment Ability Information.? It was my hope that the proposed amendments would further clarify that a "judge ordered plan? would be exempt from the burdensome requirements of collecting ?payment ability information? or participation in a "Defendant Interview.? Perhaps the proposed amendments actually do exempt the defendant from these, if the defendant indicates that ?they have the ability to pay.? However, ifthe Comments and Recommendations Collections Improvement Program Page 2 of3 defendant does not indicate that they have the ability to pay, then, at least according to my understanding of the proposed amendments, local program staff must then collect the ability to pay information. One would think that this issue would be addressed at the time of the defendant?s appearance before the judge. The Proposed Amendments to Chapter through appear to be an attempt to clarify required collections information. However, based on its predicate as to whether the defendant indicates they "have the ability to pay?, ?doesn't have the ability to pay?, or "does not state whetherthey have the ability to pay" the courts obligations are not clear. More critically, these standards related to the defendant?s ability to pay, require that the defendant be able to understand and assess what these standards mean, or rely on court staff to inappropriately (and perhaps illegally) advise the defendant as to what these terms mean. As to the preface "for all other cases? is so broad in scope that I am not sure anyone can understand what it might mean. In short, Section 175.3 remains confusing and open to such interpretation that one cannot be sure how or when certain mandatory processes are triggered. Recommendation: Once a defendant has appeared before the judge in open court, and once the Court has, based upon the representations of the defendant, determined an appropriate payment plan that will allow the defendant sufficient time to pay, the local program staff is required only collect ?contact information? as defined under Sec. In closing, i would like to ask that the Collections Improvement Program simply allow the elected or appointed judges of the State of Texas to do that which we are required by law to do ?to inquire, to apply justice fairly, and to listen to and consider the individual facts of each case and the circumstances of each defendant. I do not wish to use judicial independence as a shield to inquiry. Instead, I think that all municipal, justice, county and district judges should be held accountable for our processes, and that we be required to perform ourjob?all of ourjob, by providing all defendants with access to the Courts. But, in order to do so, we must be given the ability to use our discretion without fear that the decisions we make in open court might place our courts in conflict with collection program requirements that might subject our courts, cities or counties to sanction. Respectfully, ROBIN A. RAMSAY Presiding Judge Denton Municipal Court of Record City of Denton, Texas Bo_bi eiremset??isitxe?i an ?03 0. Comments and Recommendations - Collections Improvement Program Page 3 of3 Shelly Ortiz from: David Hawley Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 12:10 PM To: Scott Griffith; Montes Subject: Comments on the Proposed CIP Rule Changes Attachments: Scan0182.pdf Please read the above attachment and consider what the proposed rule changes to the CIP will do to the Justice Courts and the system. It is hard enough now to collect fines court costs if this system goes in effect, it will have a huge impact on staffing and the reduction of collections in the justice courts. Please consider our pleas. Judge Hawley would you please send this to Rep Judith Zaffirini, I do not have her address. Thank you. JUDGE DAVID HAWLEY Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 0 Grayson County July 2016 Representatives from Grayson County Offices have been able to review the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program (CIP). I myself from the Justice Court feel that these changes will significantly impact our county in a negative way. The current CIP program is designed to enforce court orders that have been issued from our local courts. The proposed rules basically remove the enforcement of those court orders. The requirement for a referral back to the court for a non-monetary plan under the proposed rules changes will severely hinder the local courts ability to quickly handle a large number of cases in a single court day. This would decrease the number of cases heard in a court and increase the number of inmates in the county jails statewide. The proposed rules changes, does not address the enforcement of the non?monetary plan. What is the court?s recourse ifthe defendant does not comply with the non-monetary plan? Is the court to issue a warrant put the defendant in jail? Is the court required to waive the court ordered fines and court costs? The current CIP program is designed to evaluate the defendant?s income and determine the appropriate payment schedule for the defendant to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules address hardships on the defendants and their ability to pay their court ordered ?nes and costs. Under the proposed rules, if someone receives assistance as described under ?Presumption of inability to Pay? then the CIP needs to refer the defendant back to court. It does not address a defendant that fits this presumption, but agrees to the payment plan set up by the CIP program anyway. Can the court accept a payment if the defendant wants to pay instead of participate in a non-monetary plan? Can a combination of payment types be accepted to complete the court ordered fines and costs? The current CIP program is designed to encourage compliance with court orders and satisfy the payments plans as quickly as possible. The proposed rules restrict the ability of the CIP staff to schedule plans that exceed 20% of the defendant's disposable income. The maximum amount of fine and that can be assessed to a defendant on a felony case is $10,000- If a person has a disposable income of $100 a month then their payment cannot exceed $20 under the proposed rules. This would mean that this case would have to be managed by the local program in excess of 40 years, just to pay the fines. It has been proven that the longer an agreement, the less agreement is successfully completed. The pro posed rules do not address what procedure the CIP is follow when the defendant does not have a disposable income. Doesthe CIP need to refer them to the court even iftheydon?t meet the "Presumption of Inability to Pay? guidelines? 101 W. Woodard Street 0 Denieon, TX 75021 0 Office: 903-465-0984 - Fax: 903-464-9718 JUDGE DAVID HAWLEY Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 0 Grayson County The current CIP program is designed to notify the defendants ofthe consequences ifthey fail to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules require continued noti?cation of non-monetary options with no consequence if not satisfied. If the defendant is notified of payment alternatives and fails to comply with the payment plan or ask for a non-monetary plan, what are the courts enforcement options? The current CIP program allows counties to retain a large portion of the collected funds. The proposed rules changes would have a dramatic impact on the county?s finances. The estimated amount of cases that the proposed rules would affect in Grayson County would be approximately 50% ofthe cases lfthose court orders could not be enforced and no monetary punishment could be accepted on those cases than Grayson County would lose an estimated $650,000 a yea r. If the court orders are not enforceable, what do the counties do to recoup the resources that have been used to comply with the CEP statue? Defendants are going to continue to commit crimes and violate the laws of the State of Texas. The recidivism rate is already high and we see a large portion of the same individuals multiple times. This will only increase ifthe proposed rules are approved as they are currently written. The courts will not have any power to enforce the laws of the State of Texas. The goals of the local CIP programs are to enforce the court orders, collect the fines and court costs, provide an avenue for the defendants to learn from their mistakes and provide them an alternative to jail time. A small portion of the counties in Texas are mandated to comply with the CIP statutes, but the laws of the State of Texas apply to everyone. Why should therules be different from one county to the next? We strongly encourage the deficiencies in the proposed rules be addressed before a changes could be considered. The Justice of the Peace Courts have spoken with in this county all agree that these proposed rules would severely cripple and slow the criminal justice process in Grayson County and the State ofTexas. Please considerthese points before making a decision that will impact small and largejurisdictions, Judge David Hawley Justice Court Pct. #2 Grayson County 101 W. Woodard Street 0 Denison, TX 75021 0 Office: 903-485-0984 - Fax: 903-464-9718 Justice of the Peace, Precinct One July 29, 2016 Via email to scott.griffith@txcourts.gbv Mr. Scott Griffith P.0. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 Re: Comments to Collections Improvement Program Rules Change Dear Mr. Grif?th: I have been able to review the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program (GP) and -I feel that these changes will significantly impact my court and county In a negative way. The current CIP program is designed to enforce court orders that have been issued from our local courts. The proposed rules basically remove the enforcement of those court orders. The requirement for a referral back to the court for a non-monetary plan under the proposed rules changes will severely hinder the local courts ability to quickly handle a large number of cases in a single court day._This would decrease the number of cases heard in a court and increase the number of inmates in the county jails statewide. The proposed rules changes, does not address the enforcement of the non-monetary plan. What is the court?s recourse If the defendant does not comply with the nonsmonetary plan? Is the court to issue a warrant put the defendant In jail? Is the court required to waive the court ordered fines and court costs? .- . The current CIP program is designed to evaluate the defendant's income and determine the appropriate payment schedule for the defendant to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules address . hardships on the defendants and their ability to pay their court ordered fines and costs'. Under the proposed rules, if someone receives assistance as described under "Presumption of Inability to Pay? then the CIP needs to refer the defendant back to court. It does not address a defendant that ?ts this presumption, but agrees to the payment plan set up by the CIP program anyway. Can the court accept a payment If the defendant wants to pay instead of participate in a non-monetary plan? Can a combination of payment types be accepted to complete the court ordered fines and costs? The current CIP program is designed to encourage compliance with court orders and satisfy the payments plans as quickly as possible. The proposed rules restrict the ability of the CIP staff to schedule plans that exceed 20% of the defendant?s disposable income. The maximum amount of ?ne and that can be assessed to a defendant on a felony case is $10,000. Ifa person has a disposable income ofj$100 200 S.Crockett St. Sherman,TX 75090 (903)813-4346 Fax (903) 893-9264 Larry Atherton Justice of the Peace, Precinct One a month then their payment cannot exceed $20 under the proposed rules. This would mean that this case would have to be managed by the local program in excess of 40 years, just to pay the ?nes. It has been proven that the longer an agreement, the less agreement is successfully completed. The proposed rules do not address what procedure the CIP is follow when the defendant does not have a disposable income. Does the CIP need to refer them to the court even if they don?t meet the "Presumption of inability to Pay? guidelines? The current program is designed to notify the defendants of the consequences if they fail to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules require continued notification of non-monetary options with no consequence if not satis?ed. If the defendant is notified of payment alternatives and fails to comply with the payment plan or ask for a non-monetary plan, what are the courts enforcement options? The current CIP program allows counties to retain a large portion of the collected funds. The proposed rules changes would have a dramatic impact on the county?s finances. The estimated amount of cases that the proposed rules would affect in Grayson County would be approximately 50% of the cases If those court orders could not be enforced and no monetary punishment could be accepted on those cases than Grayson County would lose an estimated $650,000 a year. Ifthe court orders are not enforceable, what do the counties do to recoup the resources that have been used to comply with the CIP statue? Defendants are going to continue to commit crimes and violate the laws of the State of Texas. The recidivism rate is already high and we see a large portion of the sameindividuals multiple times. This will only increase if the proposed rules are approved as they are currently written. The courts will not have any power to enforce the laws of the State ofTexas. The goals of the local CIP programs are to enforce the court orders, collect the ?nes and court costs, provide an avenue for the defendants to learn from their mistakes and provide them an alternative to jail time. It is my opinion that these proposed rule changes would severely cripple the criminal justice process in rayson County and the State of Texas. Thank you for your ideration, ge Lar ton Justice th eace, 1 Grayson County, Texas Office 903-813-4345 Fax - 903-893-9264 200 S. Crockett St. Sherman, TX 75090 (903) 813-4346 Fax (903) 893-9264 Tamas? MIKE REEVES 509 North Union Streets Justice of the Peace Whitesboro, Texas 76273 Precinct 3 Phone: (903) 564-3550 Grayson County Fax: (903) 564-9127 July 2016 Representatives from Grayson County Offices have been able to review the proposed rule changes to the Collections improvement Program (CIP). I myself from the Justice Court feel that these changes will signi?cantly impact our county in a negative way. The current program ls designed to enforce court orders that have been issued from our local courts. The proposed rules basically remove the enforcement of those court orders. The requirement for a referral back to the court for a non- monetary plan under the proposed rules changes will severely hinder the local courts ability to quickly handle a large number of cases in a single court day. This would decrease the number of cases heard in a court and increase the number of inmates in the county jails statewide. The proposed rules changes, does not address the enforcement of the non- ?onetary plan. What is the court?s recourse if the defendant does not comply with the non-monetary plan? is the court .o issue a warrant put the defendant In jail? is the court required to waive the court ordered ?nes and court costs? The current program is designed to evaluate the defendant's income and determine the appropriate payment schedule for the defendant to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules address hardships on the defendants and their ability to pay their court ordered fines and costs. Under the proposed rules, if someone receives assistance as described under "Presumptlon of Inability to Pay" then the GP needs to refer the defendant back to court. it does not ad dress a defendant that ?ts this presumption, but agrees to the payment plan set up by the program anyway. Can the court accept a payment if the defendant wants to pay instead of participate in a non-monetary plan? Can a combination of payment types be accepted to complete the court ordered fines and costs? The current CIP program is designed to encourage compliance with court orders and satisfy the payments plans as quickly as possible. The proposed rules restrict the ability of the CIP staff to schedule plans that exceed 20% of the defendant's disposable income. The maximum amount of fine and that can be assessed to a defendant on a felony case is $10,000. if a person has a disposable income of $100 a month then their payment cannot exceed $20 under the proposed rules. This would mean that this case would have to be managed by the local program in excess of 40 years, just to pay the lines. it has been proven that the longer an agreement. the less agreement is successfully completed. The proposed rules do not address what procedure the is follow when the defendant does not have a disposable income. Does the CIP need to refer them to the court even if they don't meet the ?Presumption of inability to Pay" guidelines? current program is designed to notify the defendants of the consequences if they fail to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules require continued notification of non-monetary options with no consequence if not satis?ed. if the defendant is notified of payment alternatives and fails to comply with the payment plan or ask fora non-monetary plan, what are the courts enforcement options? The current CIP program allows counties to retain a large portion of the collected funds. The proposed rules changes would have a dramatic impact on the county?s finances. The estimated amount of cases that the proposed rules would affect in Grayson County would be approximately 50% of the cases If those court orders could not be enforced and no monetary punishment could be accepted on those cases then Grayson County would lose an estimated $650,000 a yea r. If the court orders are not enforceable, what do the counties do to recoup the resources that have been used to comply with the CIP statue? Defendants are going to continue to commit crimes and violate the laws of the State ofTexas. The recidivism rate is already high and we see a large portion of the same individuals multiple times. This will only increase if the proposed rules are approved as they are currently written. The courts will not have any power to enforce the laws of the State of Texas. The goals of the local CIP programs are to enforce the court orders, collect the fines and court costs, provide an avenue for the defendants to learn from their mistakes and provide them an alternative to jail time. A small portion of the counties in Texas are mandated to comply with the CIP statutes, but the laws of the State of Texas apply to everyone. Why should the rules be different from one county to the next? We strongly encourage the deficiencies in the proposed rules be addressed before 3 changes could be considered. The Justice ofthe Peace Courts I have spoken with in this county all agree that these proposed rules would severely cripple and JW the criminal justice process in Grayson County and the State ofTexas. Please consider these points before making a decision that will impact small and large jurisdictions, Justice Court Pct. #3 Grayson County Rita G. Noel Justice of the Peace Precinct 4 Grayson County July 2016 Mr. Scott Grif?th PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 7371 1?2 066 Re: Comments to Collections Improvement Program Rules Change Dear Mr. Grif?th: Representatives from Grayson County Offices have been able to review the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program (CIP). I myself from the Justice Court feel that these changes will signi?ca ntiy impact our county in a negative way. The current CIP program is designed to enforce court orders that have been issued from our local courts. The proposed rules basically remove the enforcement of those court orders. The requirement for a referral back to the court for a non~monetary plan under the proposed rules changes will severely hinder the local courts ability to quickly handle a large number of cases in a single court day. This would decrease the number of cases heard in a court and increase the number of inmates in the county jails statewide. The proposed rules changes, does not address the enforcement of the non-monetary plan. What is the court's recourse if the defendant does not comply with the non-monetary plan? is the court to issue a warrant put the defendant in jail? is the court required to waive the court ordered fines and court costs? The current program is designed to evaluate the defendant's income and determine the appropriate payment schedule for the defendant to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules address hardships on the defendants and their ability to pay their court ordered fines and costs. Underthe proposed rules, if someone receives assistance as described under "Presumption of inability to Pay" then the (JP needs to refer the defendant back to court. It does not address a defendant that ?ts this presumption, but agrees to the payment plan set up by the CIP program anyway. Can the court accept a payment if the defendant wants to pay instead of participate in a non-monetary plan? Can a combination of payment types be accepted to complete the court ordered fines and costs? The current CIP program is designed to encourage compliance with court orders and satisfy the payments plans as quickly as possible. The proposed rules restrict the ability ofthe CIP staff to schedule plans that exceed 20% of the defendant?s disposable income. The maximum amount of?ne and that can be assessed to a defendant on a felony case is $10,000. if a person has a disposable income of$100 PO. Box 1964 - 117 S. Main St. - Van 75495 903-482-6543 - Fax: 903-482-6573 Email: noeir@co.greyson.bi.us a month then their payment cannot exceed $20 under the proposed rules. This would mean that this case would have to be managed by the local program in excess of 40 years, just to pay the fines. It has been proven that the longer an agreement, the less agreement is successfully completed. The proposed rules do not address what procedure the CIP is follow when the defendant does not have a disposable income. Does the OP need to refer them to the court even if they don't meet the ?Presumption of Inability to Pay? guidelines? The current CIP program is designed to notify the defendants of the consequences ifthey fail to comply with the court orders. The proposed rules require continued notification of non-monetary options with no consequence if not satisfied. If the defendant is notified of payment alternatives and fails to comply with the payment plan or ask for a non-monetary plan, what are the courts enforcement options? The current CIP program allows counties to retain a large portion ofthe collected funds. The proposed rules changes would have a dramatic impact on the county?s finances. The estimated amount of cases that the proposed rules would affect in Grayson County would be approximately 50% of the cases lfthose court orders could not be enforced and no monetary punishment could be accepted on those cases then Grayson County would lose an estimated $650,000 a year. lfthe court orders are not enforceable, what do the counties do to recoup the resources that have been used to comply with the CIP statue? Defendants are going to continue to commit crimes and violate the laws of the State of Texas. The recidivism rate is already high and we see a large portion of the same individuals multiple times. This will only increase ifthe proposed rules are approved as they are currently written. The courts will not have any power to enforce the laws of the State of Texas. The goals ofthe local CIP programs are to enforce the court orders, collect the fines and court costs, provide an avenue for the defendants to learn from their mistakes and provide them an alternative to jail time. A small portion ofthe counties in Texas are mandated to comply with the CIP statutes, but the laws of the State of Texas apply to everyone. Why should the rules be different from one county to the next? We strongly encourage the deficiencies in the proposed rules be addressed before a changes could be considered. The Justice of the Peace Courts have spoken with in this county all agree that these proposed rules would severely cripple and slow the criminal justice process in Grayson County and the State ofTexas. Please consider these points before making a decision that will impact small and large jurisdictions. Sincerely, T. ?l t. Judge Rita Noel Justice Court Pct. 4 Grayson County Shelly Ortiz KIM ROGERS Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:32 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: MYRTA RICHARD MANN Subject: Proposed changes to Texas Administrative Code Mr. Griffith, I want to take this opportunity to let you know of concerns that this department has regarding the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program. The presumption of a defendant?s inability to pay is likely to result in an immediate and unnecessary drop in collection of Court Ordered fees and fines. The anticipated drop, combined with the significant costs of the proposed changes, could place sizeable and unrealistic burdens on county budgets and staff. Collections departments currently work with defendants to determine what they can reasonably pay and over what period of time. This avoids placing undue financial hardship on them while still allowing them to fulfill their obligations to the courts. Thank you for your time and consideration. 9% Ector? County Compliance Director 300 Grant, Room 116 'dessa, Texas 79761 Office 432-617?3290 Fax 432-617-3291 Shelly Ortiz Alma Trejo; Robert Anchondo; Wallace Hardgrove El Paso Council ofJudges response to OCA CIP rule change EL PASO COJ RESPONSE TO OCA CIP RULE 28 16.pdf irom: Derek Ware DWare@epcounty.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:06 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: High Good Afternoon Mr. Scott Grif?th, The County of El Paso has been informed you are the point of contact to receive responses pertaining to the purposed OCA CIP rule change. Yesterday afternoon The El Paso Council of Judges collectively drafted a response to the purposed OCA CIP rule change. Judge Robert Anchondo, County Criminal Court at Law headed this effort on behalf of the COJ. The COJ unanimously agreed to the submission of the attached response and has been signed by Judge Alma Trejo, Administrative Judge, County Criminal Court at Law A copy of this response has also been sent to fax number 512-463-1648. EL PASO COJ RESPONSE TO OCA CIP RULE 28 16 (PDFformat) Respectfully, Derek Ware, .Manager Fz'imncial Recovens Division Paw Carma-3 500 E. San Emerita Ava, -. Eli gaff/990] Humilitl?i?ls?hl? ext. 2371 July 28, 2016 The El Paso Council of Judges opposes the proposed changes. After reviewing the proposed rule change from the Of?ce of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System?s (OCA) Collection Improvement Program (CIP), it has been determined it would have a detrimental and counterproductive results not only to all County and District Courts, and other El Paso County of?ces but would serve more of an injustice and disservice to those assessed fees on their court cases. The following is a list of concerns imposed by the proposed OCA changes. Under the proposed changes, after a defendant stands before a judge and pleads guilty, the defendant is required to report to the El Paso County?s Financial Recovery of?ce (Dedicated Local Program Staff), a division under the Budget and Fiscal Policy Department responsible for the recovery of assessed court cost. The Financial Recovery Division is to con?rm the cost of court proceedings owed can be paid without undue hardship. If the defendant expresses they cannot reimburse the assessed cost at the time of their plea, the defendant is to be returned back to court so an Indigency Hearing can be held. On a regular docket day, 99% of cases resolved are due to a plea bargain, where a defendant and their appointed or retained counsel are given ample opportunity to give their input into the terms of agreement/judgment to include assessed court fees. After the ?Bill of Cost? is presented to the defendant detailing their assessed fees and the defendant expresses to the FRD Specialist that the defendant cannot comply with the assessed fees, it is assumed that the defendant has misrepresented to the court that the defendant has agreed with the terms of the plea to include paying the assessed fees. If the defendant cannot comply with the terms of the plea bargain, it is at that time they are afforded the opportunity and the responsibility to express their concerns. The Judiciary of the County of El Paso has no intention of placing a defendant in a situation to fail. If a defendant is to express their concerns at the time of plea, the judiciary will not hesitate to take their concerns into consideration. This one example of the proposed OCA CIP change is counterproductive and increases the lack of resources by having to return a case back to court when the opportunity was already given befOrehand for the defendant to express their inability to comply with the terms of their plea bargain. The Financial Recovery Division is already conducting ?nancial interviews on defendants after their plea in accordance with the current OCA CIP rules. After reviewing ?nancial interviews currently being conducted, about 80% of cases under a plea bargain, based on the purposed rule change will have to be referred back to the court for an indigency hearing therefore, increasing the case load for the court. After running a statistical sample test that included financial interviews based on the purposed OCA rule change, requiring a dependent?s ?nancial status to be taken into account, an additional 10 to 12% of defendants, would have to be referred back to court. For a total of 90 to 92% of cases returned for indigency hearings. This is NOT taking into account the remaining 8 to 10 of defendants given a payment arrangement who then default on a single payment. A phone call and notice must be triggered by the FRD staff using the purposed noti?cation verbiage informing the defendant of their option to return their case back to court for a hearing. Within the County of El Paso, 99% of plea bargains is equal to about 765 cases per month. If 90 to 92% of these cases were to be referred back to court for an indigeney hearing, on average of 696 cases per month would be sent back totaling approximately 8,352 additional cases added to court doekets per year. Not only is this imposing a massive number of additional hearings to a docket but would also deplete already de?cient resources and logistics from those of?ces that directly and indirectly support the court process. As a result, Page 1 of3 July 28, 2016 courts would have to rely on the taxpayer and community to assist in covering additional costs that otherwise would not be needed. As per the purposed rule changes de?nition of ?household income?, it only includes the defendant?s and a spouse?s income. It does not take into account additional income from those who contribute residing within the home of residence. However, the proposed rule states that the court cannot impose an undue hardship on defendants and their dependents. This is clearly unreasonable and illogical. For example, if a dependent is working and contributing to the household expenses, those contributions cannot be taken into account as part of the household income. However, if a dependent is receiving one of the qualifying forms of government assistance, yet it is less than their contribution to the household expenses, the government assistance is to be taken into account without mention of their contribution to the home. This methodology would actually place a defendant at a possible surplus of income and again the proposed rules would be counterproductive. As per the purposed rule?s de?nition of ?Discretionary income? meaning the amount of a defendant?s net (after- tax) household income minus the amount of all required payments and the cost of items such as credit cards, clothes, food, and vehicle. It is understandable and agreed that a defendant should not lose their home or be unable to feed, clothe, and provide for their families by retaining the means to pay the cost of reasonable expenses. However, under this de?nition, as long as a defendant pays for cigarettes, alcohol, multiple modern cell phones, hair dresser, nail appointments, movie or concert tickets, meals out etc. using a credit card, they are not using discretionary income therefore, these expenses cannot be taken into account. The de?nition of the proposed term also does not de?ne an allowable amount to be spent on clothes and vehicles. A defendant may have multiple luxury vehicles or a habit of spending on overpriced and unnecessary clothing; yet again, it cannot be taken into account? Subsequent creating a biased ?nancial evaluation. Additionally, the Financial Recovery Division would only be allowed to recover assessed court expenses at a rate of 20% of a defendant?s discretionary income per month. With potential restitution and ?nes in County and District Courts often in the thousands or more, this is not workable and could extend payment plans for years and may result in a defendant?s probation being extended since they did not comply with part of the agreed terms of probation of paying their restitution and/or ?nes in full. The proposed rules may create more Motions to Revoke Probation (MTR) for non-payment which would ultimately hurt the defendant and could increase the number of convictions. This is a very negative, unintended consequence of the proposed rule change. Ultimately it would set up a defendant for failure and would actually incur more cost to a defendant in the long term. Under the purposed Texas Administrative Code, ?175.l, (C), the purposed rule change does not alter a judge?s legal authority or discretion to design payment plans of any amount or length of time, to convert costs, fees, and ?nes into community service or other non?monetary compliance options as prescribed by law, to waive costs, fees and ?nes; or to reduce the total amount a defendant owes at any time after assessment date; or to adjudicate a case for non-compliance. This authority is not new, the judiciary already uses this discretion to prevent placing a defendant in a position of failure. As mentioned before, if a defendant expressed their concern regarding the terms of cost at the time of plea bargain, the judges would employ this tool and prevent a defendant having to be recycled through the judicial process for a second time exhausting unnecessary resources. Page 2 of3 July 28, 2016 One solution would be for the plea bargained cases to least be exempt from these rules since all of these concerns are brought to the attention of a defendant and their counsel prior to them accepting the terms of plea/judgment. Just as other dedicated program staffs throughout the state of Texas, The El Paso County?s Financial Recovery Division regains monies from those who have exhausted resources throughout the judicial process. These are not only resources directly drained from the courts but from other of?ces required to support the judicial system such as arresting agencies, emergency response teams, clerical and technical support plus, legal counsel if needed. These are ALL resources initially funded by taxpayers. The Financial Recovery Division's goal is to assist in making the County and taxpayers whole by replenishing funds to allow public services to continue without interruption or placing the additional burden of cost upon the taxpayers and community. Judge Alma Tfe?o Administrative Judge County Criminal Court at Law 1 Page 3 of3 (@112 ?enate at @112 ?tate nf mexaa Senator Craig Estes District 30 July 29, 2016 Via email to scott. gov Mr. Scott Grif?th PO. Box 12066 Austin, TX 78711-2066 Re: Comments to Collection Improvement Program Rules Change Dear Mr. Grif?th: I am writing concerning the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program published in the Texas Register on July 1, 2016. My constituents in Grayson County have expressed serious concern over the administrative and ?nancial burdens that would result on the County if the proposed changes are implemented. I have reviewed the proposed changes, and I am also concerned. I believe that the Texas Judicial Council's laudable goal was to provide clarity and ?exibility to local judges and program administrators for securing the payment of costs, ?nes, and fees, and to actually improve the rate of collection from defendants in the program, but I am not persuaded that this goal will be accomplished with the new procedures. In fact, I believe the opposite may occur?- that, in many cases, judges will be forced to accept non-indigent defendants' mere assertions of inability to pay, and then be forced to monitor these defendants in alternative community service-type programs to satisfy their debts, which do not exist in Grayson County to a large enough degree to absorb such defendants. This would obviously not improve the rate of collection, and it would result in a greater administrative burden on the County judicial system. I hope that the Texas Judicial Council (TJ C) carefully considers the probable real-world consequences of the proposed rule changes. I'd also like to request that the TCJ work with Grayson County and others in order to propose alternative changes that are likely to accomplish goals, while also not unduly burdening Texas Counties. Respectfully, Scnato Craig Estes Proudly Serving District 30 CAPITOL OFFICE: WICHITA FALLS DISTRICT OFFICE: PO. Box 12068 DENTON DISTRICT OFFICE: 2525 Kell Blvd., Suite 302 Austin, Texas 78711 4401 North 1-35. Suite 202 Wichita Falls, Texas 76308 512-463-0130 Denton, Texas 76207 940-689-0191 FAX: 512-463-8874 940?898?0331 Fax: 940-689?0194 Dial 711 for Relay Calls Fax; 940.393-0925 Shelly Ortiz iubject: FW: Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules - Comments From: Judge Dan Schaap Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:25 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules - Comments I am the judge of the 47th District Court for Potter and Randall Counties. While I recognize there may be a need for better procedures and more due process with regard to the collection of ?nes and fees from criminal defendants, I am concerned that the proposed rules increase the amount of bureaucratic effort required to operate the program without providing sufficient discretion to the Collection staff to make a determination about a Defendant?s ability to pay and take an appropriate action short of taking the Defendant back to Court. I fear that the percentage of felony defendants that ?t within the ?inability to pay? paradigm is very high and will burden the Courts with yet one more task to fit within court calendars that are already present logistical challenges. That is particularly true for a Court like the 471?, which serves 3 separate counties. Along that same vein 1 must point out that a county like County, with a population of 2000 people, does not really have the wherewithal to consistently jump through all the hoops contemplated by the new plan. There is no choice but to assign this to someone whose training and experience is not commensurate with the demands of this program. In short, some consideration should be given to a signi?Cantly abridged version of the plan for the many small, rural counties in Texas. Thanks for your consideration of these comments. Judge Dan L. Schaap Judge Dan L. Schaap 47th District Court Randall County Justice Center 2309 Russell Long Blvd, Canyon, Texas 29015 (806) 379?2350 OFFICE (806] 379-6158 FAX. This email and any attached ?les are con?dential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those oi'the author and do not represent those of the ?i/taad?eompany?i?n company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility [or any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. Shelly Ortiz From: Tina Villa 'Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:07 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules Judge Castillo, Hood County P2, and I,Tina Villa, Of?ce Manager of Hood County JP2 are against this proposed change. Thank you, Tina Villa Office Manager Justice of Peace Pet. 2 Hood County, TX Shelly Ortiz From: Jennings, Sharon Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:29 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP Rules Dear Mr. Grif?th, I ask that the CIP program not be applied to the smaller courts, population under 50,000 or so. The economy in these rural areas has suffered in recent years and the burden placed on the courts may be unbearable. Just keeping up with what is now required can be dif?cult to manage. Our court has already made changes to have better contact with persons regarding payment of ?nes and fees. I think it is important to continue to improve processes in all courts. I appreciate your consideration for the smaller courts. Regards, Sharon Jennings, CCM Municipal Court Administrator City of Corsicana 903.654.4861 sicnninasiihci.corsicanalx.us is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do Hotiz Lynne Finley . District Clerk 2100 Bloomdale Rd 3am 0 I We 12132 McKinney. Texas 75071 972-548-4320 or 972-424-1460 Ext 4320 (Metro) July 29,2016 Scott Griffith Texas Of?ce of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 Mr. Griffith: As District Clerk for Collin County, and responsible for court collections in cases heard by 11 District Courts, wish to express my concern and opposition to the proposed rule changes for Chapter 175 of Title 1 of the Texas Administrative Code concerning the Collection Improvement Program as posted in the July 11 2016 Texas Register. Under the proposed rules, upon disposition of a case, program staff would be required to get a signed statement from a defendant regarding whether the defendant has the ability to pay the assessed costs, ?nes and fees under the imposed terms without undue hardship to the defendant and defendant's dependents. Additional requirements are placed upon the defendant and the program staff if the defendant is unable to make the acknowledgment. Program staff is then required to conduct interviews with defendants whom do not acknowledge that they have the ability to pay. Currently less than 5% of defendants pay in full at time of disposition and a conservative estimate would be that between 60%?80% of defendants would state that any payment would be an undue hardship. In meeting this requirement, Collin County would have to add at least one full time position to interview defendants. con?rm incomes (including household members) or their participation in federal and state assistance programs Experience in the past has shown that in many instances. when completing applications of inability, individuals may not always be forthcoming in disclosing their true income and resources. How do you handle situations, in which the defendant does not provide program staff with complete ?nancial information or a complete application? is the proposed payment plan followed or is the case put "on hold" until information is received? Proving participation in a federal or state assistance program can be dif?cult. Will OCA give program staff a means to con?rm participation in state programs such as Medicaid or Food Stamps or do we just take the defendant's word that they participate? The proposed rules also require that program staff refer the defendant back to the court for a hearing for those that do not acknowledge their ability to pay. This requirement would not only add additional work for the courts, but would also require program staff to monitor when the hearing was scheduled, ifthe defendant showed up for the hearing. and the outcome of the hearing. With 11 district courts in Collin County, if the court had questions regarding the application during the hearing, with current staf?ng, it would be nearly impossible to be available for all the courts. In addition, requiring a hearing may also cause hardship for the defendant them to take off work and arrange transportation. How do you handle situations in which the defendant may live out of county or even out of state? In addition, regarding the proposed interview and court hearing requirements, the proposed rules do not address how to handle cases in which a defendant does not show up for the interview or the hearing. Do program staff continue with collection efforts phone, calls, and mailings) or does the case remain in limbo until the interview is completed and the hearing held? What are the time frames for defendants to respond for requests for information? How many times are hearings rescheduled, if the defendant does not show? The proposed changes also require additional information and instructions be given by program staff in contacts with the defendants. Both phone and mail communication must include steps the defendant can take if they are unable to pay. Given that many of our defendants are in and out of compliance in making their payments, would these individuals be required to complete a new ?nancial application and have a hearing before the judge each time they were unable to pay? The Collin County District Clerks office currently works with defendants in setting up their payment plans. A defendant?s ability to pay is taken into consideration. payment plans generally range from $10?$50 per month. The proposed rules will certainly require more program staff to carry out the new requirements, with little evidence that the changes will positively impact outcomes. The required hearings for those that are unwilling to sign the acknowledgement will increase the amount of time needed for a court to deal with many cases. In additional, these acknowledgements of ability to pay are treated as absolutes. A defendant?s ability to pay is not a stagnant factor. Many defendants come out of incarceration and treatment programs and are unable to bear the burden of the ?nancial obligations of the court, however these issues are dynamic and change as the defendant progresses through the phases of re-integration and rehabilitation. As the Collin County District Clerk, I respectfully oppose the proposed changes to Chapter 175 of Title 1 of the Texas Administrative for the afore-stated reasons and request caution in making such significant and far reaching changes without further investigation on the impacts it will make on the defendants, the courts, and the program staff. Sincerely, Lynie Finley, JD 3. Collin County District Clerk July 29. 2016 l't'u email to wg?luiitmeourts.gm Mr. Scott Cil'il'l'tth 'l'csas Ol'lice ol'L?ottrt Administratitm PO. Box 12066 Austin. Texas 787] l-2066 I?m {elem/3y a! (512) 463-1646: Re. Program Rules 'hunge Dear Mr. Ciriliith: The Texas ()l?liee ol? Court Administration recently proposed Changes to the rules regarding the Collections Improvement Program which is codilied in Article 103.001. cl .req.. oi? the 'l?csas Code 0 l? Criminal Procedure. It is our understanding that the public has until July 3 l. 2016. to submit any comments about the proposed changes to the rules. With a population ol'just over l20.000. (irayson County. 'l?exas. barely meets the 1 10.000 population threshold ("or having, to participate in the Cll?. Most of the other counties required to participate have much gr 'ater populations and more resources than we do. On behalfol'Grayson County. the undersigned county ol?licials submit the following comments in opposition to the proposetl rule changes. which will adversely affect Grayson County it' they are implemented. l. Sununary of proposed rule changes. The essence ol? the proposed rule changes is to direct those defendants who qualify as being unable to pay lines and court costs into an alternative method of satisfying the assessment ol' costs. fees. and lines other than through the payment of money. The proposed rule changes will implement a procedure by which each defendant is asked to state whether he or she is able to pay such ?nes and court costs, and, ifnot, direct the defendant into a non-monetary program to satisfy the monetary portion of the defendant's sentence. Under the proposed changes, the county?s CIP staff will be required to obtain a signed statement from the defendant of his or her ability to pay the assessed costs, lines and fees under the imposed sentence. Additional requirements are placed on both the defendant and the CIP staff if the defendant is unable to make this acknowledgement. A referral back to the court, which would require a hearing, is required for those that do not acknowledge their ability to pay. The proposed changes also require additional information and instructions be given in contacts with the defendants. The changes regarding Final Contact Attempt require that, before reporting a case as non-compliant, a ?nal contact must be made by the county?s CIP staff in writing, by mail, and it must explain non-monetary options. The requirement to obtain acknowledgement of ability to pay from a defendant will result in additional resources being utilized by the courts and by the county?s CIP staff, which is already stretched thin. The required hearings for those defendants who are unwilling to sign the acknowledgement will necessarily increase the amount of time needed for a court to deal with many cases. 11. Grayson County has only one non-monetary program. Grayson County does not have any non-monetary programs that can be utilized to address a defendant?s inability to pay, other than community service plans for fines and court costs, which are monitored by our county?s CIP. It will not be practical to direct each and every defendant who is deemed unable to pay to Grayson County?s community service program; our community service will quickly be overloaded, and defendants will have to remain in the community service program for too long, thereby increasing the chances that they will not complete their program successfully. Furthermore, the proposed changes basically eliminate the enforcement of non- compliance because no consequences will result if the defendant fails to comply with the payment plan or fails to complete a non?monetary plan. Eventually, word will get around that any defendant who can qualify as being unable to pay will never be held accountable for failing to complete a non-monetary program in Grayson County, and respect for such non-monetary programs will eventually erode. Proposed rules will cause delay to court The requirement for a referral back to the court for a non-monetary plan also will severely hinder the local courts? ability to efficiently handle a large number ofcases in a single court day as defendants shuffle back and forth between the CIP staff and the court to determine whether they are unable to pay. This will decrease the number of cases heard in a court, it will 2 cause backlog on our courts? and it will most certainly increase the strain on our criminal justice system. IV. Proposed rules will cost Grayson County revenue from collections. The current CIP program allows counties to retain a large portion of the collected funds. The estimated amount of cases that the pr0posed rules would affect in Grayson County would be approximately 50 percent of the cases each month. if those court orders cannot be enforced and no monetary punishment can be accepted on those cases, then Grayson County will lose an estimated $650,000 a year. However, our county?s expenses related to enforcement of our criminal judgments will not decrease at all. If 50 percent of the defendants in Grayson County can avoid paying ?nes and court costs and still be excused from an alternative, non-monetary program because we simply cannot logistically man such non-monetary programs in a timely manner, then we fear that defendants who commit crimes in Grayson County will soon come to learn that their actions will go unpunished, and they will lose respect for our criminal justice system. V. Grayson County is not likely to receive a waiver. The proposed rules will allow a county to seek a waiver under certain circumstances, including if Grayson County can demonstrate that the estimated costs of implementing a local program are greater than the estimated additional revenue that would be generated by implementing the local program, and if a compelling reason exists for submitting the waiver request after the entity?s implementation deadline. We are concerned, however, that Grayson County will fall too far behind before we can gather the data necessary to satisfy the waiver requirements, or that the standard for satisfying the waiver requirements will be too high, yet Grayson County will still suffer from the proposed rule changes. What we think will happen is that all qualifying defendants will be funneled into om community service program, which will then be so overloaded that it will not be able to function properly for the persons for whom it is designed to bene?t, but this factor does not appear to be a part of the waiver analysis. In sum, Grayson County respectfully requests that the proposed rule changes to the Collections Improvement Program be rejected. Thank you very much your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, County Wi?g Magch Criminal )istrict Attorney Joe Bl'th?t?tj', I I if Rayburn ?Rim? Nail 513?? District Court Sifmf, wit] grqn'gwh hat?Z/?lfd Judgc Jamcs I Icndorson County Court at Law No. 1 Alan Brown Director, Community Services Corrections Division I Jutlttu Jim Fallon Sheriff?5t,ch Tom Walt- -- I. (I: 15?" District Court Hamid? Brian K. Gary District Court IL. (/?er?ettz? -, 5' Judgc Carol M. County Court at Law No. 2 Cc: Hon State Senator Judith Zaf?rlnl Shelly Ortiz irom: Justice of Peace #3 - Gary Jackson Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:36 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Changes Mr. Griffith, I am writing to inform you that myself and the other three of Potter County, Judge Debbie Horn, Judge Rich Herman, and Judge Thomas Jones are against the proposed indigent rule changes. We believe the way it is now works very well. Thank you. Judge Gary L. Jackson Justice of the Peace Potter County, Precinct 3 P.O. Box 50487 Amarillo, Tx 79159-0487 Phone - (806) 355-3070 Fax - (806) 352-0129 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. In addition, this message and the attachments (if any) may contain information that is con?dential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other ban the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e?mail and immediately delete this message from your system. Shelly Ortiz 'irom: Craig Johnson Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:12 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Craig Johnson Subject: COMMENT ON PROPOSED CIP RULES: AGAINST Mr. Griffith, Upon review of the proposed changes to the CIP rules I have found them to be very problematic, vague, cumbersome, and expensive in addition to being very invasive and potentially unfair to defendants. Therefore, I am against the rules being adopted and implemented. The new rules place the responsibility of the determining what a defendant can and cannot afford upon court. No one knows their financial situation better than a defendant. I do not believe the court has any business telling a defendant what they can or cannot afford. Nor do I believe the court has any business evaluating the schedules of defendants to determine if they are able to satisfy the assessment with non-monetary compliance such as community service. Those decisions are best left to the defendants. Key terms such as ?undue hardship" have not been defined. Since the terms are not defined and are left open to interpretation could lead to unfair and confusing situations for the defendant. For example: A defendant may be considered unable to pay costs because they have an "undue hardship? in one court, but another court does not find an "undue hardship? exists. Furthermore, ifa defendant is found unable to afford costs in court they may still be required 0 pay charges and fees in other areas driver?s license surcharges). That is unfair and confusing for defendants. The presumption of inability to pay costs based on the defendant being required to attend school due to the compulsory school attendance law is misguided. A defendant?s standing as a student has absolutely no bearing on the ability to pay costs. While some students and their families struggle financially not all are students fall into that category. Many students have far less time than money due to school activities. Those students commonly prefer to pay their costs to avoid missing or conflicting with their educational activities. Since the presumption of inability would apply to all students the court would be required to show the student was not unable to pay costs which would draw out and complicate the process needlessly. The proposed new rules put forth many changes. Implementing and working under the proposed new rules would dramatically increase the time it takes court staff to process and evaluate these cases. The cost in manpower and efficiency could easily, and unfairly, overwhelm smaller counties and courts within them who do not have the personnel and budget to handle them. This is especially true for counties that do not have a centralized collection office. As previously stated lam against adopting and implementing the proposed changes. fudge/Crow? D. fohmow Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2 Wise County, Texas Shelly Ortiz ,?From: Sheryl Keel Sent: Friday, July 29. 2016 3:29 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: proposed cip rules Scott i do not think the new changes that are trying to be put in place will help the program at all, only hinder it. We have come a long way in the way the program is ran now. Just a couple of things that I saw is how can the new changes go in effect for mandatory counties vs. volunteer programs. You have two defendants with the same citation, 1 is given a "pass" because they are maxed out on credit cards and the other is penalized for paying his bills and not being in debt. see potential law suits there. Another problem I see is that the docket sheets will be even more heavy. When a defendant has to go back to court and prove that now they cant pay. Please reconsider the proposed changes. Sheryl Keel Judicial Compliance Supervisor 200 Ferguson St. #800 Tyler TX 75702 903-590-4624 Shelly Ortiz "pubject: FW: Collections Improvement Program From: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:43 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Collections Improvement Program For the binders. Scott From: Hughes, Judge Jean (CCL) [mailtonean Hughes@ccl.hctx.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:40 PM To: Scott Griffith <5cott.griffith@txcourts.gov> Subject: Collections lmprovement Program 8 eat I?m contacting you as oi? the Texas f.\ssociation of County Court at Law Judges rcgarcling the (IllJ proposals. You probably have alreadf? rem-hissed letters from a number of our members or their counties as well as the .l?roba Lion Atlx-?isory First if there is an effor I: to rework these whielii we ee rt ainl}? hope will he the east-3.. we would be glad to ol'l'er assistance from our organization. Secondly, while we Where this might be an attempt to handle Class misdemeanor situations \?rliteri-z courts have standard set lines [?or certain offenses? over 95% 01' Class iliiscli-n?neanors thru felonies a res:.tlt:. of a plea bargain. There is presumption at. the time of the plea that l; l'nzoause the defendant has freely and entered into this agreen'tenl.., they have the to pay. As current lat-v allows (CCP Art. 43.091) the eon rt can waive. line and eosts upon default if appropriate. Third. the options are not practical in the everyday operation of courts. er are drowning it is. Again, please let me know if we can offer an}r assistance. esp tactfully? Judge Jean Sprad ing Hughes Chair, Criminal Justice legislation Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 15 State Bar of 'I'exas Judicial Section 1201 Franklin li?resident, Texas Association of County Houston, 'l'exas 7?7002 Court at Law Judges 713-755-4760 Office 713-899?3915 Cell .1'5 t. BRENT A. CARR 0F Judge L.-.. County Criminal Court No. 9 Toni Freeman low 401 W. Belknap, 8th Floor Lorl Official Court Reporter Fort Worth, Texas 76196-7673 Cum-t Coordinator (817) 884-3410 Scott Grif?th PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 7871 1-2066 Mr. Grif?th. I am currently the Local Administrative Judge for the Statutory County Courts in Tarrant County. We wish to express our concerns regarding the proposed rule changes to Tex. Admin. Code Ch. 175, Part 8 (Collections Improvement Program) as posted in the July 1, 2016 Texas Register. We would like to echo the issues presented in the Probation Advisory Committee?s recent letter regarding the proposed rule changes. Speci?cally, we are concerned with the increase in costs and staf?ng that will be required for assessment of ability to pay and management for compliance with non?monetary options. Currently, there is no statutory mechanism in place to monitor non-monetary payment options post- conviction and your proposed rules do not address this issue. If our Community Supervision and Corrections Department could not ful?ll this role in its current form, it would necessarily fall to the courts or the clerk?s of?ce. For example, would this require the courts to establish a postrconviction supervision of?ce 01' some other unit of administration to monitor non?monetary payment options? It is clear that further investigation and information is needed to address the potential impact of these changes to local government and the courts and the methods by which any such changes can be put into effect. Sincerely, f? if 692% rent, A. ('arr, Judge Shelly Ortiz ?om: Tammy Sosa sent: Friday, July 29. 2016 3:48 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Against changes I am against adopting and implementing the proposed changes. The proposed new rules put forth many changes. Implementing and working under the proposed new rules would dramatically increase the time it takes court staff to process and evaluate these cases. The cost in manpower and efficiency could easily, and unfairly, overwhelm smaller counties and courts within them who do not have the personnel and budget to handle them. This is especially true for counties that do not have a centralized collection office. Tammy Sosa Of?ce Manager Judge Craig Johnson Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2 Wise County Shelly Ortiz irom: Paredes, Juan Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:01 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Montes; Rumuly, William Laney, LaMysa; Ewing, Theresa Mares, Ninfa Subject: CIP Rule Changes Scott: The City of Forth is submitting the following regarding the proposed Collection improvement Program rule changes. 1. Verification of Contact Information a. Consideration should be taken for municipalities that arraign defendants at locations away from the local program staff. High volumes of time payment orders can be challenging to process within 5 calendar days, especially when a large number of arraignments are conducted on weekends. The court recommends amending this time requirement to 5 business days. 2. 6(3) Presumption of Inability to Pay a. Clarification is need to address if verification is required on any of the presumption categories i. Is the local program required to validate proof of school enrollment, financial assistance programs, etc. 3. Other Cases a. Clarification is need for the local program staff on defendants not presumed to be unable to pay but may have received information indicating the inability to pay. 4. Attempt [to Obtain Application or Contact information a. The court feels the one week verbiage can be clarified and extended to 10 business days if mailing an application Juan Paredes Assistant Clerk of the Court Fort Worth Municipal Court Office: 817-392-5868 Cell: 817-994-2214 City of Fort Worth Working together to build a strong community. FORT WORTH Follow Fort Worth Shelly Ortiz jrom: Gary, Keith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:45 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Carter, Gloria; Rogers, Ryan Subject: Proposed CIP Amendments I believe I posted a comment in June, butjust in case. Dallas Judges routinely offer alternative non-cash means for a defendant to dispose of their case. When the defendant chooses to pay, but is unable to pay the fines and fees in its entirety, the current process in Dallas allows for the defendant to work with court staff to come up with a payment plan that is amenable not only to the court, but also the defendant. We currently have an 80% success rate for defendants meeting the terms of the payment plan agreement and disposing their case. in those cases where the defendant does not complete the pay plan we have at least collected the initial 30%. Defendants that can?t afford to pay have already told that to the Judge prior to working with our clerks. If we start offering indigency to defendants that have already been sent to court collection staff by the Judge, we are just opening ourselves up to additional delays by defendants that are trying to "game the system?. Additionally, courtroom dockets will be severely impacted by defendants that are exploring the possibility of using indigency as a way to avoid paying a citation they were once willing to pay. If there are any further questionsadditional assistance, please contact me via email, or phone 214?670?4973 . I. . 5107/ Sun it L?s ('tmri Um ul'lJullns DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS JOHN F. WARREN DALLAS COUNTY CLERK To: Scott Griffith From: Rhonda Pennington, Dallas County Clerk Chief Deputy Subject: Collection Improvement Program Rule Revisions Date: July 29, 2016 Scott Griffith: There is cause for concern in reference to the proposed changes in the CIP. The changes will affect our County negatively in the following ways: The revisions will change our judicial system as we know it. It will ovenrvhelm the courts with indigent hearings and show cause hearings that must be heard in addition to the daily court pleas and trials it appears these changes would encourage fiscally-abled customers to claim that they are unable to pay cost/fines. Offenders often have multiple cases across felony and misdemeanor courts. The changes would relieve the offenders from the obligation to pay costs/fines for each case that is currently before the courts. 0 The revision also places the financial burden on the courts and local/state government. This burden-eventually trickles down to the taxpayers. The burden of proof concerning customers? ability to pay is shifted to county employees. Currently, we are able?to examine all of the customer?s resources family members, possible discretionary money spending patterns) as possible avenues to collect court costs and fines. These means would not be permitted under the proposed CIP changes. - The reduced collection of court fees/fines will have major effects on local and state budgets. 509 Main Street Suite Dallas, Texas 0 Dallas County successfully provides community service opportunities for those offenders who are truly indigent. Judges will be more inclined to waive the fees/fines to avoid additional hearings, resulting in loss of revenue. The current was designed to assist cities and counties with collecting court costs, fees, and fines assessed against persons convicted of (or placed on deferred adjudication or deferred disposition for) misdemeanor or felony charges when they are not prepared to pay all court costs, fees, and ?nes, at the time of assessment and when time to pay is requested. Being prepared to pay and unable to pay are two different terms. The current changes allow those who have the means but are not prepared to pay into those who have no expectation to pay. The estimated additional revenue generated by the mandatory Collection Improvement Programs in the state of Texas is $494,591,672 and includes both state and local revenues. I believe that crime does not pay, criminals pay for crime. Court cost and fines are not punishments until they are collected. The wrong message is being sent to offenders if we adopt the new program rule provisions. Rhonda Pennington Dallas County Clerk?s Office Chief Deputy 509 Main Street Ste. 300 Dallas, Texas 75207 214-653-7565 ph. Main Street Suite .300 Dallas, Texas Shelly Ortiz FUbiect: FW: Proposed Amendment From: Angelita Hunter Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:00 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Amendment Mr. Griffith, was in charge of the collection process and ensuring we met the OCA regulations before my promotion. ljust saw the proposed rule change and flow chart and our court has basically operated that way since I have been employed here. We also give them the opportunity to write a letter to the judge expressing extended time, or review of their pay plan. This has been very effective since people may lose a job, after the payment plan has been established. I do think that 60 days is an excessive amount of time, and we have been very effective the current OCA policy. Purely speaking as an ex-collection clerk, I do believe the OCA time frame now, gives the defendant?s plenty of time to appear and/or write a letter if unable to appear (work, out of state, etc). From my own personal experience, almost everyone takes it seriously when they aren't able to pay on time, and will act within a week of their payment default. With Food Stamps, or any government help, it is required that one prove the need of hardship with tax returns, divorce decrees if ordered to pay child support, termination letter from former employer, utility bill to prove residency, lease or rent, etc. I believe that requesting such documentation would help properly assist defendants and their needs at the 'nitial point of being the pay plan. If a defendant states that they are indigent, after the pay plan, to request them to produce documentation of all the hardships for the court to justify why CS was given, lower payment plan, or any other outcome that could be ordered? I commend those involved in this process, to help secure the rights of all, and thank you for allowing others to comment with our questions and concerns. Respectfully, 14 WW WW Judicial Clerk, Municipal Court of the City of McKinney 972?547?7677 Deski 972?547-7686 Fax i ahunter@mckinneytexas.orgi Liberty lles In the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.? Learned Hand Please visit the link for online citation: new. The material in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is con?dential, privileged, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that the unauthorized review, use, disclosure, duplication, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return email and destroy all electronic and paper copies of the original message and any attachments immediately. Please note that neither City of McKinney nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Thank You. Shelly Ortiz 'rrom: Mike McAuliffe Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:00 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Proposed Changes After having read the proposed CIP rule revisions and looking over the existing and proposed CIP. i believe that a maze has been developed compared to what was in place already. My collections has the defendant fill out all necessary paperwork stating their financial situation and comparing it to what is owed on any given situation. My clerk does not overcharge anyone to get the fine paid off in 30, 60, or even 90 days. We never want to put a burden on home finances or put the defendant in a situation that is not manageable. If anything, our office does not add all the additional charges (collections, serving warrants, We try to have them pay out what they can afford each month, sometimes as little as $10.00 lam not interested in putting these people in jail overfines, due to the costs the county incurs with jail time and housing of the defendant. We have not had anyone claim indigence when a low amount is offered to them and they are treated with respect every time they come to the window to pay. I am afraid that word will spread that they can claim indulgency, not pay, be given community service. When a capias pro fine warrant is issued, they are brought back to court, and then what are we to do with them? it appears that we just excuse the fine and write the whole thing off. Once that is started then the snowball effect will take place. lam all for community service in exchange for fines owed, but what happens when an individual signs up for community tervice, then doesn't fulfill their hours, are we then to hold them in contempt and place them in jail? Or do we just write them off dismissing the fines so that the county doesn?t foot the bill, then when it gets out that we dismiss the tickets, no one else pays and we lose all the way around. There has to be a better way to handle indigence without punishing either the counties or the public by violating rights. Thank you. Judge Mike McAuliffe Taylor County Justice of the Peace 1-1 301 Oak St., Suite 611 Abilene, TX 79602 325-674-1338 Office 325-674-1250 Fax Shelly Ortiz 'pm: Dottie Zavala ant: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:14 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: 'Landra Hudson? Subject: Proposed CIP Rules We are exempt from this because our population is under 100,000. However, if there are plans to change that requirement, my main concern would be that it is too much for small courts. With that being said, below are a few of my concerns/questions to the proposed rules. ?1 75.3. Collection Improvement Program Components. (4) Veri?cation of Contact Information. Within ?ve days of receiving the contact information, local program staff must verify both the home and primary contact telephone number. Veri?cation may be conducted by reviewing written proof of the contact information, by telephoning the personal contacts, or by using a veri?cation service. Veri?cation must be documented by identifying the person conducting it and the date of the veri?cation. What happens if the phone numbers are wrong/do not work? (5) Defendant Interviews. (A) Within 14 days of receiving an application or receiving a case in which the judge has set a payment plan before referring the case to the program and the defendant has indicated that the defendant does not have the ability to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes under the payment plan terms ordered by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the riefendant?s dependents, local program staff must conduct an in?person or telephone interview with the defendant to view payment ability information. Interviews must be documented by indicating the name of the interviewer and date of the interview. What happens if the person cannot be contacted? (B) Within 14 days of receiving a case in which the judge has set a payment plan before referring the case to the program and the defendant has indicated that the defendant has the ability to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes under the payment plan terms ordered by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, local program staff must conduct an in-person or telephone interview with the defendant to review the terms of the payment plan set by the judge. Interviews must be documented by indicating the name of the interviewer and date of the interview. Why do we need to contact people that have the ability to pay? (6) Referral to Court for Review of Defendant?s Ability to Pay. (A) Referral to Court. If a defendant interview or other information collected by local program staff indicates that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, or that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge ?within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, local program staff must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if appropriate non-monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or ?nes are appropriate. Will local program staff be educated so that they will know who can and can?t pay? Who will fund that education? (B) Presumption of Inability to Pay. (ii) the defendant?s household income does not exceed 125 percent of the applicable income level established by the federal poverty guidelines; or What does 125% mean? How much is that? the defendant or the defendant?s dependent receives assistance under the following: (1) a food stamp program or the ?nancial assistance program established under Chapter 31, Human Resources Code; 1 (2) the federal special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1786; (3) the medical assistance program under Chapter 32, Human Resources Code; or the child health plan program under Chapter 62, Health and Safety Code. 'e they required to provide proof? Exceptions to Defendant Communications Rules. (1) Attempt to Obtain Application or Contact Information. An attempt to obtain an application or contact information described in is made either by mailing an application or contact information form or by obtaining the information via the telephone within one week of the assessment date. An electronic report or manual documentation of the attempt must be available on request. Should the defendant not return a completed application or contact information form and the post of?ce not return the application or contact information form as undeliverable, the local program must make a second attempt to contact the defendant with any existing available information within one month of the ?rst attempt. An electronic report or manual documentation of the second attempt must be made available on request. Is it at this point where they are reported as non-compliant? Thank you for your time. Doro?w Zmalaz, Court Clerk City of Lake Jackson 5-B Oak Drive Lake Jackson, TX 77566 (979) 297-1031 ext 2753 (979) 292-0130 (fax) Shelly Ortiz '-rom: Louise Cates Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:11 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Mandy Hays Subject: Comments CIP rule changes Mr. Grif?th, Hi, my name is Louise Cates, P3 Court Clerk Wise County. One of my responsibilities is to process compliance with the Collection Improvement Program. There are few a concerns that I have regarding the proposed rule changes. One being the ?nancial agreement interview that requires determining ?undue hardship? as described by the CIP rule changes by calculating discretionary Income and presumed Inability to pay. This does not allow for the defendant to determine their own budget regarding payment that is due for the offense that the defendant committed. This only perpetuates poverty and does not allow for personal responsibility, rather it is a donation/gift/freebie/handout. The defendant should be able to request an inability to pay hearing of their own accord prior to entering into a financial agreement and not the court clerk determination of the defendants budget by calculating discretionary Income for an inability to pay hearing. Also, there is a huge difference regarding population for each county. Each change that requires more in depth analysis requires more dedicated staff. [here should be a compliance exception or 2 tier compliance that would accommodate counties that are closer to the low end of the population starting point. I understand the premise that this program is designed to be a true Collection process and the good that it allows regarding payment plans for defendants as well as reporting for the state. However, it does not address the ability to process collections at the expected level that these rule changes require for smaller counties. Thank you, Louise 0. Gates Court Clerk Wise County Pct.3 (940) 433-2969 (940) 433-3062 Shelly Ortiz ?irdm: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:33 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: opinion on proposed rules For the binders. Scott From: Gail Loeb Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:25 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: opinion on proposed rules I read the e?mail proposal when it was received. I think it?s great? making the clerks do what they should be doing. Sincerely, Qaifg. ?066 Presiding Judge Municipal Court Jity of Corpus Christi 120 N. Chaparral St. Corpus Christi, Tx. 78401 361-826?2520 Shelly Ortiz ?rom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:42 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Mesquite Municipal Court: Response to Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules For the binders. From: Lidia Barraza Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:35 PM To: Montes Scott Griffith Subject: Mesquite Municipal Court: Response to Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules Judge Crane and I reviewed the Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules and submit the following response: To determine that the defendant falls under the federal poverty level they will be required to complete a detailed application and interview. We believe there will be resistance or opposition from the defendants to provide all the information required on the application and to have interviews after their application is reviewed to informed them of other non-monetary options. We are basing this belief on past experiences ofthis court having defendants walked out upset without doing anything on their case saying that it is ridiculous that the court is requesting all that information just because they are requesting a payment plan. Most defendants will not have the proof of expenses or proof of government assistance or school records. It will be very time consuming for both the defendant to provide proof of all their expenses and for the court to verify the expenses listed on the application. Due to the volume of cases it will require more court staffjust to work on these cases. What happens if they complete the application but don't have or don't submit the proof of the expenses? If the defendant enters on the application that he/she is unemployed, how is the Court going to verify that? A better proposal would be to allow those Defendants willing and able to make pay plans to be quickly processed (with the basic contact information provided) and if those defendants are later delinquent to go on a show cause docket, then the more detailed financial application and processing interview can be conducted. The real word is that over 60% of our pay plans are fully paid without delinquencies or show cause issues. Why burden this percent ofthe paying public with the inconvenience of filling out forms and conducting an interview when there will be no need or use ofthe work product. Thankyou, Lidia P. Barraza Court Administrator Mesquite Municipal Court 211 Municipal Way PO. Box 850137 Mesquite, Texas 75185-0137 372-216-6601 lbarraza@cityofmesquite.com Shelly Ortiz ,irom: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:47 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: CIP For the binders. From: Timothy Green [mailtozjudge@mybigspring.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:46 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP The concern for the small courts are, in addition to current duties and requirements, making this fit in the many duties that already must happen with court. I feel that there could be some incentives for a smaller court if they (the small court) could offer someone in their court a financial incentive to accept more duties increase to court cost on all cases) to head the CIP. i can see the value to having a clear plan to collecting monies owed to the court, the challenge is getting the personal to take on the CIP roles. I do however believe that a financial incentive, however small, may attract an office staff to take on this challenge and grow a CIP. I do applaud efforts to continue to improve compliance with court orders, but I feel the heavy lifting is the challenge of mplementing a Timothy Green Municipal Court Judge curv'ur? B1 PH: (432) 264-2533 f- DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are (Or should be) addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying ofthis email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in errorl please immediately notify igdgemebigsgringcom Shelly Ortiz from Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:49 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: proposed CIP rules For the binders. Scott From: Jenny Garcia Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 4:47 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: proposed CIP rules Mr. Griffith, I am a 1 person office and my work day does not allow any extra time to submit such information. This in no way is an improvement for the court or defendants who come in wishing to take care of a citation. This will cause severe back up for all involved. Everyone is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. This is a huge interference with giving someone a fair and speedy trial. This will cause a severe backlog in all cases. I am currently at the mercy of my city requesting another person to help staff this office just to keep up with the day to day tasks to ensure that all defendants get fair customer service that they deserve. Please take this email into consideration before making this change and burden upon the courts. 'hank you, Jenny Garcia Court Clerk Mont Belvieu Municipal Court 281 576-5018 ph 2814385?2288 fax a . . s. .H 13-? . .. "vi ?Hw P: 1.3., A Shelly Ortiz from: Brandy Wood Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:01 PM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Montes; Ronald R. McBroom Subject: OPPOSED: Proposed Collection Improvement Program Rules Mr. Griffith, Our court would like to voice opposition to the proposed changes to the CIP. From the prospective ofthe individual Who will be expected to carry this out, we will be drowning. The CIP is cumbersome enough as it is. The rules, as they CURRENTLY are devour a tremendous amount of time and it would be detrimental to our ability to maintain compliance should the program be made more complex and tedious, as this proposal suggests. There needs to be a level of expectation for the defendant to take responsibility for working with the court to resolve their charges, and to bear the consequences ifthey don?t. It is fully a two-way street, but these proposed changes are unbalanced. Thank you, Brandg Wood Justice Court Clerk, JP1 226 Featherston Street Cleburne, TX 76033 Phone: (817) 556-6033 (817) 556-6198 Shelly Ortiz from: Roberto Baez Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:09 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: CIP COMMENTS Good afternoon, More than comments or feedback, first have a question, are you going to allow the Local Staff Program to be able to assist defendants by setting payment plans without seeing a Judge? This practice will definitely alleviate a lot of traffic during court hearings. If you are recommending this as part of your changes, how much time the CIP staff can set a payment plan for? I really like the Flowchart, it is well done and very clear to follow. Respectfully, Roberto Baez, MBA, Court Clerk Municipal Court Administrator City of Brownsville Municipal Court 1034 E. Levee St. Brownsville, TX 78521 Tel: 956.574.6637 Cell: 956.592.5202 Fax: 956.574.6655 roberto.baez@cob.us lirtuwnwiilc mu fry?ff, NH 1mm Du ?liil' {51.2} Eli-uh CITY OF BROWNSVILLE PRIVACY NOTICE: This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that may be privileged, con?dential or exempt from disclosure under applicable federal or state law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, contact the sender and delete the original and all copies from any computer. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily those of the City of Brownsville. Shelly Ortiz From: JENNIFER BILLINGS Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:06 PM To: Scott Griffith; Landra Hudson Subject: Proposed CIP Rules I am very concerned on this proposed Collection Improvement Program. I currently only have 2 clerks in my of?ce including myself and do not foresee getting another clerk anytime soon. Our work day does not allow any extra time to be able to complete all of the necessary components that this program would require, much less be able to have a dedicated staff member for this. This will have the opposite effect of improving a defendants compliance. This will in no way be helpful to defendants or clerks in the long run. This will cause a severe back-log with all cases which will hinder giving defendants a speedy process in the disposition of their cases. jenng'fer ?llings Court Administrator Municipal Court City oI?DaytOn, Texas Phone 936)258-53l2 Fax (936)258-2663 Attention: This is con?dential transmission from the sender to the ll'you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and inform the sender. Any dissemination of the contents of this email without proper authorization could result in criminal penalties. Shelly Ortiz 'rrom: Hays, Mandy Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:06 PM To: Scott Griffith Subject: Comments on the Proposed CIP Rule Changes Dear Mr. Griffith, My name is Mandy Hays and I am the justice court judge for precinct 3 in Wise County, Texas. We are a relatively small county with a population just over 62,000, so we are fairly new to the collections program. We have had some growing pains, but have adjusted well and i believe are doing a very good job with the CIP. After reviewing the proposed changes to the CIP, have some concerns. lam worried that administering justice now requires a collection agency scale in one hand and a calculator in the other. We do not have a centralized collection office. Every office in our county handles their own payment plans. The defendants and the court work together to determine what payments fit into the defendant?s budget. It seems over-reaching to tell a defendant what they can or cannot afford. I realize that this works both ways and could also force the defendant to pay more than they wanted because the CAN afford more than what they are stating, but it seems the pendulum is swinging too far. Surely there is a less invasive way to solve this issue. Under the new rules, if we have a defendant that says they want to pay $50 per month, we would have situations where we would have to tell them, ?no, our calculations show you can only pay $30 per month.? This seems odd for a court to say to someone that is taking responsibility fortheir fine and court costs. Also with the new rules, we would have to say to someone who is under the compulsory school attendance law, "you are a student, therefore you are considered indigent.? They may have birthday money saved or they may work in 'he evenings when they are not in school and paying a citation would be less of a burden than community service. The new rules do not allow a remedy for this. i am against the changes as they stand at this time. I?m not sure what the solution is to the problem or perceived problem, but i pray that all comments by the people administering the CIP will be carefully and thoughtfully considered when adopting new rules. Sincerely, Mandy Hays 3% Justice of the Peace, Pct. 3 Wise County, Texas Phone: 940-433-2969 Fax: 940-433-3062 Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:32 PM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: Fwd: Comment on Proposed CIP Rules and Flowchart For the binders. Begin forwarded message: From: Lacy Britten Date: July 29,2016 at 8:48:59 PM CDT To: ?scottgriffith@txcourts.gov" Cc: Lisa howard Date: August 1,2016 at 11:19:06 AM EDT To: gov" Subject: collection improvement program Section 175.2 Required payments are those which would result in a penalty or other adverse impact if payment is not made, including, but not limited to, loan, credit card, and car and health insurance This section de?nition is overly broad. purchase. no matter how unnecessary or frivolous, on a credit card could mean that a person has no discretionary? money to pay the court. Judge Mitchell Solomon DENNIS BONNEN CAPITOL OFFICE: 2 DISTRICT OFFICE: PO. Box 2910 L- . 122 E. TN. TX 78768-2910 TX 77515 2) 4630564 . . . (979) 848-1770 FAX (512) 463-8414 FAX (979) 8493169 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 28, 2016 . :14 um}, la? 7? AUG Ul 2015 - - OFFICE Mr. Scott Griffith COUR OF -r . State Office of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, TX 78711-2066 Dear Mr. Griffith: It has been brought to my attention by a number of Brazoria County elected officials that the Texas Judicial Council (TJC) has proposed to repeal the existing Collection Improvement Program and replace it with a vastly different program that will have an expansive impact on the way counties manage their collections. wish to express my serious concerns with the proposed changes, as well as the manner in which this endeavor is being undertaken. Through my discussions with various individuals, the consensus appears to be that the existing Collection Improvement Program is working effectively and efficiently, while ensuring proper due process for the defendant. Further, the program in place provides ample discretion and authority to our courts so as to not limit, influence, or bind them in such a way that they are unable to work with a defendant's individual circumstances. Contrary to TJC's expressed goal, it appears that the proposed changes would effectively tie the hands of our local courts. In addition to these concerns, actions appear to create a solution to a problem that does not exist. The current rules comply with the U5. Department ofJustice's requirements and there has been no formal mandate by the to make changes to our existing collections system. Further, as outlined in Brazoria County District Attorney Jeri Yenne's attached letter, the proposed rules not only diminish judges' legal authority and discretion, but are also contradictory in their direction while placing a significant undue financial burden upon our local governments and indigent defendants. I V- ill"- I . . ?(Juli . utl {ff-Jinn :E-llDISTRICT 25 BRAZORIA (PART). MATAGORDA As such, I wish to offer my strong opposition to the direction TJC has taken with respect to the proposed changes to the Collection Improvement Program. Further, I respectfully request a response outlining the impetus and justification for such an extensive overhaul so that my office and the local government of?cials serving Brazoria County may have a better understanding of this undertaking by TJC. welcome the opportunity to visit further with your members regarding this matter, while also inviting you to engage directly with those tasked with implementing and managing court collections in Brazoria County and throughout Texas so that you do not make a decision absent the invaluable input of those impacted by these changes. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns and position. lfi can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, Dennis Bonnen State Representative - District 25 Speaker Pro Tempore MARY ALDOUS RAETHELLA JONES Flt?St Assistant Chief- Civil Division TRAVIS TOWNSEND VICKI KRAMER Chief - Criminal Division {5 7 Chief Investigator JERI YENNE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRAZORIA COUNTY july 25, 2016 till2015 Vin Electronic Mari: Via Certified Mail. Return Receipt Requested OFFICE OF Scott Grif?th COURT ADMINISTRATION State Office of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 RE: Texas Judicial Council Proposed Repeal and Implementation of New Collection Improvement Program Rules Public Comments on behalf of Brazoria County, Texas Dear Mr. Grif?th, Please ?nd below comments submitted on behalf of Brazoria County, Texas (the ?County?) regarding the Texas Judicial Council?s proposed repeal and replacement Texas Administrative Code title 1, chapter 175. Brazoria County has five district courts and four county courts at law. A collections program overseen by the Brazoria County Clerk manages collections compliance efforts on behalf of these courts. In addition, Brazoria County has eight justice of the peace courts. Each justice of the peace court independently manages its collections. The County?s comments reference several areas in which the proposed rules effectively supersede courts? authority in adjudicating cases and place an undue burden on courts and local programs? ability to ef?ciently manage cases. The County urges the Texas Judicial Council to reconsider the proposed revisions, which will have an unwarranted negative impact on judicial authority and efficient case management, and place a signi?cant ?nancial burden on counties similar to Brazoria County. 1. Several Proposed Rules Diminish Judges? Legal Authority and Discretion. The proposed rules state in several areas that they do not intend to limit, in?uence, or bind courts? authority or discretion. Despite these assurances, the proposed rules, when considered along with their practical impact on courts, will have this outcome. Proposed Sections and (6) provide an example where the proposed rules have this effect. Under the current rules, a judge may discuss with a defendant his or her payment ability information, take into consideration potential ?nancial hardships, and order a tailored payment plan based on the circumstances of the case and information received directly from the defendant COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 E. LOCUST, SUITE 403A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (281) 756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 364-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 2 concerning his or her ?nancial situation. When a defendant is before the court, the judge may inquire into any payment ability issues at that time, and the defendant may raise any concerns. After the judge orders a payment plan, the defendant?s contact information is veri?ed, the defendant is interviewed to review the plan, and the defendant begins making payments. In the alternative, the defendant may provide his or her payment ability information to the looal program, which will formulate a plan that must yield to the defendant?s income and debt and payment obligations. In the event the local program sets the payment plan, it ?require[s] payment in full in the shortest period of time that the defendant can successfully make, considering the amount owed, the defendant?s ability to pay, and the defendant?s obligations to pay other court-mandated amounts, including child support, victim restitution, and fees for drug testing, rehabilitation programs, or community supervision.? 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE (emphasis added). The current rules are drafted to ensure defendants are not unfairly ordered to pay fees, ?nes, or costs, while recognizing the need to effectively manage cases. In the event a judge sets a payment plan under the proposed rules, the local program must refer the defendant back to court if the defendant represents after appearing before the judge that the court-ordered payment plan would be an ?undue hardship.? This proposed change is one example of an unnecessary procedure that will force defendants to return to court to discuss the same information that, under the current rules, is already addressed with the court. Prior to the defendant interacting with the program staff, the defendant has appeared before the court, the court has considered the circumstances of the case (including the defendant?s financial situation), and the court has issued an order. Nevertheless, the proposed rules require that program staff and the court go through this process again, and if the defendant makes a representation that differs from that made to the court or is unsatis?ed with the court?s initial order, the rules require the court to reconsider its order. This procedure (1) creates unwarranted, repetitive, and costly work for program staff, (2) slows down the court, and (3) discourages courts from ordering the payment of fees, ?nes, and costs. The unavoidable consequence of these changes is that courts and local programs will be forced at the outset to provide defendants with payment plans that comply solely with the defendant's desires, and not plans that the court deems the most apprOpriate or efficient, in order to avoid overwhelming the court. While going out of their way to state repeatedly that they do not hinder a judge?s authority and discretion, the proposed rules are clearly written to have that effect. The proposed rules under Section require local program staff to refer a defendant back to court if, while collecting information to establish a payment plan, the defendant indicates that he or she would suffer an undue hardship by paying the costs, fees, and ?nes. The current mics require local programs establish plans that defendants can ?successfully? complete and must into consideration the defendant?s ?ability to pay? and other existing payment obligations. 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE In other words, a local program currently violates Chapter 175 by setting up a payment plan with which a defendant cannot comply. Further, in the event the defendant?s situation changes and he or she cannot comply, the defendant may request at any time a different plan or non-monetary compliance options from the local program or court. COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 E. LOCUST, SUITE 408A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angletcn Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (281) 756-1233 (979) 364-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-17l2 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 3 A further example can be found in proposed Section which mandates a ?nal contact attempt be made before a case may be reported to the court as non~oompliant The proposed rule states that it does not ?interfere or alter the judge?s authority to adjudicate a case for non-compliance at any time.? However, the rule clearly prohibits a court from requiring or requesting a local program report cases in which defendants have failed to make payments after receiving notice of past-due payments under Sections and (9). In other words, the rule expressly purpons to not strip courts of their authority to take action based on non-payment, but rlisallows a court from even receiving notification of such nonpayment. This revision presents another example where the intent of the rule revisions is evident in their practical impact?the minimization of courts? authority to oversee cases. II. The Proposed Rules are Contradictory as to Court Referrals. Proposed Section is contradictory as to which cases must be referred to court based on an indication of an ?undue hardship.? Proposed Section states the following: If a defendant interview or other information collected by local program staff indicates that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, or that the defendant may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents, local program staff must refer the case to the court for the judge to determine if non-monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or ?nes are Proposed Section however, provides the following: Local program staff may rate: to the court cases in which the defendant is not presumed to be unable to pay under but that local program staff have received information indicating that the defendant may not have the ability to pay the costs, fees, and ?nes assessed by the judge without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents or may be unable to pay the costs, fees, and fines assessed by the judge within the time period ordered by the court without undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant?s dependents. The proposed rules state that a local program both ?must? and ?may? refer back to court any defendant who indicates that he or she is unable to pay due to an ?undue The County requests that this ambiguity be clarified so that local pro grams, at a minimum, not be required to refer a defendant to court unless some discernible criteria is met. The term ?undue hardship? is not de?ned, and the rules provide no clari?cation as to what this means. A local program would Proposed Section 175 lists scenarios where a defendant is presumed unable to pay, but these criteria do not purport to address each situation where payment would cause an ?undue hardship." COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 E. LOCUST, SUITE 408A, ANGLETON, TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Area. Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Civil Division (979) 864-1233 (281)756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 4 not be able to comply with a compulsory rule, as the proposed rules provide no guidance as to the meaning of this term. In addition, any referral to court, whether permissive or mandatory, is unnecessary. Under the current rules, a defendant is interviewed by either the judge or local program staff, the defendant provides his or her payment ability information, and a payment plan ?that the defendant can successfully make? is established based on the information provided by the defendant. Requiring that a defendant be automatically referred to court after establishing an achievable plan is unnecessary. The Current Rules Comply with the Department of Justice?s Requirements. On March 14, 2016, the United States Department of Justice issued a letter listing seven constitutional principles to be considered in assessing and enforcing ?nes and fees. The current rules do not infringe upon any of these constitutional principles. Payment plans already must be established in a fashion that the defendant can successfully make payments. The current rules do not prohibit a defendant from requesting a hearing at any time in the event his or her ?nancial situation changes, including the reconsideration of the payment plan or a request for a non- monetary option due to inability to pay. The current rules provide for multiple contacts regarding nonpayment he made before the defendant may be arrested. Courts currently are not limited on alternatives to incarceration in the event that a defendant does not comply with a payment plan. The County?s collections programs operated under the current rules comply with each of the principles listed in the Department of Justice?s letter. As such, the proposed repeal and replacement of Chapter 175 is unwarranted. IV. The Proposed Rules Place an Undue Burden on Local Government and Indigent Defendants. The proposed rules will undoubtedly hinder the courts? ef?ciency and authority in managing cases, but they will also place unnecessary financial burdens on the County. The proposed rules? ?scal note states that ?[t]he actual cost of complying with the new mics will vary depending on counties? and municipalities? current operations and systems. However, OCA does not anticipate that the cost will be signi?cant.? For Brazoria County, the proposed rules will come at a substantial cost to the County. As is stated above, the County has nine independent offices that collect for courts within the County. Of course, each of these local programs will face significant initial costs in implementing new rules. However, the ?scal note incorrectly suggests that the ?nancial impact is limited to these initial costs. In Brazoria County, employees perform many of the tasks that the ?scal note downplays as performed by ?notification systems" and ?programming.? The proposed rules add numerous procedures (which often must be repeated) to a system that already involves much documentation, phenc calls, mailings, notifications, and reporting for each case. One need only compare the Of?ce of Court Administration?s current and proposed ?owcharts to visualize the exponential growth of tasks for program staff, as well as the circular process that is facilitated by encouraging courts to repeatedly hold hearings on referrals from the local program. In addition to the increased burdens on local government, the proposed rules increase the number of times defendants must travel to and appear in court. By creating a system where defendants COUNTY COURTHOUSE, E. LOCUST, SUITE 408A, ANGLETON. TEXAS 77515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brazosport Area Fax-Criminal Division Fax-Clvil Division (979) 8644233 (281) 756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1525 (979) 864-1712 Mr. Scott Grif?th July 25, 2016 Page 5' may potentially realm to court a number of times throughout a case, the proposed rules will tmduly burden indigent defendants who must travel to and apear in court in lieu of other necessary obligations. V. Implementation of Rules Unfairly Impact Counties Subject to Follow-Up Audits. Earlier this month. Brazoria County submitted to 00A auditors a declaration of compliance to permit OCA to perform a follow~up audit of the County's programs. According to OCA, the audit cannot be perfonned until January 2011', at the earliest. Depending on the approval and enactment of proposed rule changes, Brazoria County may face the prospect of implementing changes in response to new rules and being subject to a follow-up audit. In the eVent changes to the rules are approved, Brazoria County should not be subject to a follow-up audit that evaluates compliance with the new rules. Sincerely, iminai District Attorney razoria County, Texas COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 111 EL SUITE 408A, TEXAS 71-515 Angleton Area Houston Area Brumport Aral Fu-C?tahtal Divlslon FauaCivll Divllion (979) 864-1233 (2111) 756-1233 (979) 864-1525 (919) 8644525 (979?) 864-1712 Shelly Ortiz From: Scott Griffith Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 6:49 AM To: Shelly Ortiz Subject: FW: Proposed Amendments to Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 175, Collection Improvement Program Forthe binders. Scott From: James Mosley Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:42 AM To: Scott Griffith Cc: Randi Ortega; Mark Snider Subject: Proposed Amendments to Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 175, Collection Improvement Program Dear Mr Grif?th: I wanted to take the opportunity the express my opposition to the proposed amendments to the Collection Improvement Program. I am the judge for the 316th District Court in Hutchinson County. I apologize for the tardiness of this e-mail but I just found out about the proposed changes late last week. The proposed changes, although not directly effecting our probation department because we are under the 50,000 population threshold, will undoubtedly create more work for already overworked departments with no corresponding increase in funding, and will result in a signi?cant decrease in revenue for the effected departments given the overwhelming number of "indigent" clients they serve. More than 2 out of 3 clients served by our department are indigent as de?ned by this very generous de?nition of indigence as proposed in these rules. I see no mechanism by which a probation department will be able to make up for these lost revenues. Further, I can confidently state that I have never been involved in a case in which revocation of probation was sought solely on the grounds for failure to pay, either as a judge or as a criminal defense attorney for many years prior to taking the bench. This appears to be a case of a solution searching for a problem, a problem that does not exist in our department. Additionally, I believe that although these amendments do not apply to our department today, the "creeping" nature of bureaucracy makes it virtually inevitable that the 50,000 population threshold will soon be done away with, not to mention the fact that there is a very good constitutional equal protection argument to be made by a probationer in a rural county of less than 50,000 population who does not get to take advantage of these new rules while a probationer in a large county does, based solely on where they are placed on probation. For all these reasons, I oppose the proposed amendments to the Collection Improvement Program. Thank you for your time. James Mosley. - JAMES M. MOSLEY z" -3 JUDGE :1er DISTRICT COURT HUTCHINSON COUNTY HUTCHINSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 MAIN. 0 Box COURT COORDINATOR STINNETT. TEXAS 19093 KIHI LANTELME PHONEIBDEI era-Anna FAX l?o?l COURT REPORTER EMAILI udge1moalayogmall com LAVONHA STATER FOUNDATION ?gx?f?i L- ll l: Len-u. Texas Appleseed aswm'lis a A August 1, 2016 Via Email: Scott.Griffith@txcourts.gov Mr. Scott Griffith Director of Research Court Services Office of Court Administration PO. Box 12066 Austin, Texas 78711-2066 Re: Proposed Amendments to Collection Improvement Program Rules Published July 1, 2016 Dear Mr. Griffith: We represent a coalition of organizations working together to improve the way municipal and justice courts administer justice for low-income Texans. We write to express support for the proposed amendments to the rules governing the Collection Improvement Program (1 Tex. Admin. Code Ch. 175) published on Iuly 1, 2016, in the Texas Register, as well as to encourage additional rule revisions to further improve the Collection Improvement Program. We commend Chief Iustice Hecht and the Texas Judicial Council for addressing the impact that fines and court costs have on low-income Texans by revising the Collection Improvement Program (CIP) rules. We also appreciate that two of our organizations were invited to participate in the Advisory Committee and that you were receptive to our ideas and suggestions during that process. As attorneys and advocates, we frequently encounter individuals who cannot pay the fines and court costs assessed in Texas? municipal and justice courts. With more than 17 percent of Texans living below the federal poverty line, many Texans simply lack the income necessary to pay fines and court costs, even though most wish to comply with court orders and to resolve their criminal cases. In too many cases, low-income Texans? failure to pay fines and costs leads to suspended drivers? licenses and vehicle registrations, resulting in even more fines and court costs; arrest warrants that cause them to fear law enforcement and lose housing and employment opportunities; and jail sentences that dramatically disrupt their lives. The CIP should facilitate compliance with court orders so that individuals avoid such consequences, and the proposed amendments would help to accomplish this purpose. Mr. Scott Grif?th August 1, 2016 Page 2 The Proposed Rules Would Help Identify Those with No Ability to Pay and Remove Them from the CIP. Overall, the proposed rules would help to ensure collection efforts are not undertaken against those who are completely unable to pay fines and costs. We support the proposed rule change providing that the C113 does not apply to individuals with no ability to pay fines or costs, and that when CIP staff identifies such individuals, they are to be referred back to the court for alternative sentencing. 41 Tex. Reg. 4747-48 175.1(d) ti: This change will encourage judges to utilize the alternative sentencing methods available under Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to impose sentences that those with insufficient income are able to complete. The proposed rules should also help to identify people with no ability to pay by providing a clear standard to guide CIP staff, creating a presumption that those below a certain income level or who receive government benefits are unable to pay any fines or costs. 41 Tex. Reg. 4748 Additionally, by requiring that individuals be provided with information about non-monetary compliance options when payments are past due, the rules would support the identification of individuals whose financial circumstances have changed so that they too could also be referred back to court for alternative sentencing. 41 Tex. Reg. 4749 Ultimately, the effect of these new rules should be to remove individuals with no ability to pay from collection efforts of the CIP, instead encouraging courts to use alternative ways to hold these individuals accountable. The Proposed Rules Would Make Payment Plans More A?ordable and Accessible. The proposed rules would also help facilitate access to payment plans that are actually affordable. The existing CIP rules state that payment plans must result in "full payment within four months of the assessment date? for justice and municipal courts (1 Tex. Admin. Code and that defendants be required to pay the "highest payment amounts? per month that they are able to pay (Id. The effect has been to bar many individuals from payment plans entirely. When the ?highest amount possible? for an individual would not be sufficient to result in payment in full within the inflexible time limit, pe0ple have essentially been told the only option is default and noncompliance. We have encountered courts requiring defendants to pay 25% of the amount owed as a "down payment? to enter a payment plan, and defendants who have been told by court staff that there can be no deviation from the four- month requirement. We support the proposed rules? elimination of the time limits and ?highest amount possible? requirement. The new rules are more appropriate because they tie payment plan amounts to each individual?s discretionary income, capping the amount at 20% of discretionary income. By making payment plans affordable, more people will be able to access payment plans and be able to succeed in paying the amount ordered to resolve their cases. The Proposed Rules Appropriately Clarify that the CIP Does Not A?ect Judicial Discretion. Finally, the proposed CIP rules also make positive changes clarifying the role of judges versus CIP staff. We support the clarification that the CIP is not intended to limit, nor can it limit, the Mr. Scott Griffith August 1, 2016 Page 3 discretion of any judge to waive or reduce the amount of fines and costs that are owed or to otherwise impose alternative sentences. 41 Tex. Reg. 4747 Also, the existing rules suggest that CIP staff may seek capias warrants when an individual has failed to make required payments (1 Tex. Admin. Code when in fact, only a judge may decide that a capias warrant should be issued. We support the proposed rule removing reference to CIP staff seeking warrants and clarifying that all staff may do is refer the case back to the court for non? compliance once staff has completed the required collection attempts. 41 Tex. Reg. 4749 Additional Modi?cations to the CIP Rules Would Help to Ensure Jiustice for Low-Income Texans. We also offer suggestions for several ways in which the proposed rules could be further amended to improve the functioning of the CIP, with a special focus on protecting those who are struggling to pay court-ordered fines and costs. I. Set lime limits so that pavinenl plans and court involvement do not last indefinitely. The proposed rules have eliminated the current time limit that payment plans be completed over the course of four months, as discussed above, and we support this change. Under the proposed rules, staff will need to determine the amount the defendant can actually afford, given her discretionary income, and establish a payment amount of no more than 20 percent of defendant?s discretionary income. One unintended consequence of these changes could be for defendants to be put on payment plans that endure for a significant number of months, even years. For example, if a defendant is sentenced to pay $250 in fines and costs, and her discretionary income is $50 per month, CIP staff may determine the appropriate payment amount is $10 per month. This means she would not pay off her fines and costs for more than 2 years. The longer it takes a defendant to complete a sentence, the longer she must remain under court jurisdiction and the more likely she is to fail. For this reason, we would propose adding a limit to the number of months that payment plans can endure under the new rules. Specifically, in the proposed rule should be amended to reasonably limit the number of months that a defendant can be required to pay, by adding as follows: ?Generally, payment plans should not require the defendant to pay more than 20 percent of the defendant?s discretionary income per month for a period of no more than six months.? Similarly, it should be made clear in proposed that ?unable to pay means unable to pay within a reasonable number of months. Here, "unable to pay the costs, fees, and fines assessed by the judge?, could be changed to read, ?unable to pay the costs, fees, and fines assessed costs assessed by the judge within six months." If a defendant cannot pay in full within six months given the limitations on payments tied to the discretionary income, CIP staff should be required to refer the case back to the court for appropriate non- monetary compliance options or waiver or partial waiver of costs, fees or fines pursuant to proposed Mr. Scott Grif?th August 1, 2016 Page 4 II. Ensure that all defendants have the ability to comply with ordered payment amounts, and that all defendants understand what to do if their financial circumstances change In the new proposed defendants who have been put on a payment plan by a judge are not subject to the same type of ability-to-pay inquiry as those who are put on a payment plan by CIP staff. Instead, defendants must fill out a form stating whether or not they can pay the judicially ordered payments without ?financial hardship? or "undue hardship.? Existing statute does not require judges to conduct ability-to?pay inquiries, nor does it place any limit on the payment plan terms established by judges, meaning that judges could potentially impose unaffordable payment plans without realizing that defendant will not be able to successfully make the ordered payments. Other judges may rely on CIP staff to do a more intensive initial financial screening of defendant?s ability to pay. Ideally, all persons who are referred to the CIP, including those with a judicially-ordered payment plan, would receive the same ability-to-pay inquiry envisioned in proposed If the judicially-ordered payment plan required a payment of more than 20% of defendant? 5 discretionary income, the payment plan terms could be revised to bring it into compliance with the 20% cap. This would ensure that any defendant who is unable to pay a judicially-ordered payment plan is quickly identified and referred back to the court, or payment plans are appropriately revised based on defendant?s actual discretionary income. If this is not changed, CIP staff should at least be required to use understandable language on the forms that ask whether a defendant is able to pay a judicially-ordered payment plan. Asking an individual whether she can pay without ?financial hardship" or ?undue hardship? is not easily understood, and could lead to different responses from people with identical income. It would be better to ask "whether the defendant has the ability to pay the costs, fees and fines . . . without struggling to pay all of defendant?s and his or her dependents? expenses,? or something similar that is straightforward and easily understood. Furthermore, we have frequent contact with individuals whose non?compliance with court orders is due to changed financial circumstances. They may leave court believing that they have enough money to pay a fine or costs, only to encounter an unexpected major expense, like a medical procedure or car repair, or lose their jobs and find themselves without any income. The new rules should make clear that CIP staff must provide information to all defendants when they are referred to the pIOgram about the process for seeking relief if financial circumstances or income changes, or defendant for any other reason is unable to pay at some point in the future. This information should be provided when CH3 staff collects ability to pay information (41 Tex. Reg. 4748 and when they conduct defendant interviews (Id. And in proposed the rules should state that program staff will review and modify payment plan terms if necessary upon the defendant reporting to program staff that income or expenses have changed. Mr. Scott Grif?th August 1, 2016 Page 5 Additionally, we support the newly proposed rules' presumption that recipients of certain government benefits, like state nutrition and medical assistance programs, are unable to pay any fines or costs. 41 Tex. Reg. 4748 To this list of government benefits, we recommend the inclusion of the Telephone Lifeline assistance program that is administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas. The Lifeline program provides reduced rate telephone service for thousands of impoverished seniors and low?income Texas families who do not otherwise participate in programs administered by Health and Human Services agencies. Finally, in proposed 175.1(d) which outlines certain cases to which the CIP does not apply, the proposed language should be modified to clarify that the CIP does not apply to "cases in which the defendant is incarcerated but not yet released." The intent to exempt this group of people from the CIP is made clear in proposed rule 175.5(b) related to Compliance Reviews (stating that "eligible case" for OCA Compliance Reviews does not include cases in which "the defendant is incarcerated, unless defendant is released and payment is required?). However, 175.1(d) should be changed as well to exempt this group of people for the sake of clarity. Clarify that waiver and reduction of fines and costs is an option available to defendants. The proposed rule 175.1(c) states that the CIP does not alter a judge?s discretion to, among other things, ?waive costs, fees, and fines; or to reduce the total amount a defendant owes at any time after the assessment This suggests that reduction, or partial waiver, of fines and costs can only occur after the assessment date. Yet, a judge has the discretion to set the fine amount in each case within the guidelines prescribed by the legislature, and therefore has the authority to change, waive or reduce that amount at any point. A judge may decide to reduce a fine to below what is typically assessed in her court at sentencing and is within her judicial authority in doing so. This language should be clarified to provide that judges have legal authority or discretion to waive costs, fees, and fines or to reduce the total amount a defendant owes ?at any time" rather than ?after the assessment Similarly, proposed sections 175.3(8) and (9) should be amended to include notice about waiver options. These proposed provisions provide for the content of the notice that must be provided to defendants when payments are past due. They provide that defend ants must be notified of ?nonvmonetary compliance options" and the ?options available for the defendant to satisfy the judgment.? Here, defendant should also be notified of the ability of the judge to "fully or partially waive the fines and/or costs owed." IV. Include more reporting requirements in reports to the Office of Court Administration. The Office of Court Administration through the CIP already gathers data from local courts. 1 Tex. Admin. Code The proposed rules add an additional category of data: "the Mr. Scott Griffith August 1, 2016 Page 6 number of cases in which local program staff referred the case to the court under for review of the defendant's ability to 41 Tex. Reg. 4750 While this piece of information will be valuable, the proposed rules should be amended to collect the following additional pieces of information from each court as well: 1. the number of cases in which a judge, at the time of assessment, determined defendant unable to pay any amount at time of assessment and therefore ineligible for the 2. the number of cases in which a judge, at the time of assessment, authorized discharge of the costs, fees, and fines through non-monetary compliance options, making defendant ineligible for the 3. the number of capias warrants issued by judges after a defendant did not comply with payment plan terms that CIP staff imposed,- and 4. the number of jail commitment orders issued by the court for nonpayment of fines or costs, or noncompliance with court orders regarding non-monetary compliance. All of these numbers are ones that courts should be able to collect relatively easily and would provide valuable insight into how well the CIP is facilitating compliance with court orders by low-income individuals. Conclusion We appreciate the judicial Council?s attention to the problems with the Collection Improvement Program and efforts to revise the rules so that low-income Texans are treated fairly and able to resolve the fines and costs they owe. We respectfully ask that you consider these additional rule changes to improve operations and fairness of the Program even further. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Mary Mergler Andrea Marsh Susanne Pringle Texas Appleseed Texas Fair Defense Project mmergler@texasappleseednet amarsh@fairdefense.org springle@fairdefense.org Randall Chapman Texas Legal Services Center Matt Simpson Trisha Trigilio rchapman@tlsc.org American Civil Liberties Union of Texas msimpson@aclutx.org ttrigilio@aclutx.org