The Honorable Chair of Speech.

Welcome, Judge.

And congratulations.

Thank you, sir.

May I begin?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you, Chair Daly and Commissioners for welcoming me and my team here today.

We appreciate your willingness to work with us over that last seven months, both giving us grace as we learn and make changes, but also pushing us to do better.

We owe it to our community to constantly strive towards a better, more just system.

I cannot do this work alone, so I'm pleased to have other leaders in our court here with me today.

From the OCJ, we have Brensky Coleman, our CFO, interim chief of staff, Katie Calhoun, Kate Nolan, and Clifford Helm from our legal team, along with Mike Carroll, Megan Volker, Renata Steele, Charles Golbert, Remy Burton, Terry Mesa, Sarah Hemeter, and Mike McCarthy.

In addition to our departmental leadership, who many of you are familiar with, we also have Presiding Judge Rice of the Domestic Violence Division and newly appointed Deputy Presiding Judge Weaver of the Domestic Violence Division.

We also have Deputy Chief Judge Marubio, who oversees First Appearance Court, as well as the second district Skokie Courthouse.

Finally, we have Presiding Judge Ortiz, who oversees the pretrial division.

They are all sitting behind me.

I am very grateful for this team and the opportunity to bring the judiciary into this space and share additional insight about the work of my administration and the dedication of our judicial and non-judicial teams to the communities of Cook County.

When I assume the responsibilities of Chief Judge in December, one of my first priorities was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the court's operations.

Rather than implementing change without first understanding the organization, my administration undertook a thorough review of departmental priorities, budgets, contracts, staffing, and operational practices.

This assessment allowed us to identify opportunities to improve efficiency, strengthen accountability, better align our resources, and enhance access to justice for the residents of Cook County.

Guided by that review, we established clear priorities and have made meaningful progress over the past several months.

In advance of today's meeting, we provided the Commissioners with a written summary of the initiatives and accomplishments achieved to date.

Recognizing that it has been a full agenda, I will not review each of those accomplishments individually.

Instead, I would like to highlight several initiatives that I believe are of particular interest to the board and that reflect our commitment to improving the administration of justice through thoughtful leadership, collaboration, and responsible stewardship of public resources.

But before we do so, let me begin with revenues.

The Office of the Public Guardian continues to demonstrate strong and steady performance in fee collection, maintaining its historical range of 2.4 million to 2.6 million.

For the first half of fiscal year 26, the Department has collected more than 1.2 million and remains on track to meet its year-end estimate.

Additionally, federal reimbursements to tied to our Title IVE initiative continue to grow, with more than 1.6 million already submitted or received as of May.

These federal dollars help sustain vital services for vulnerable youth and adults across Cookook County.

Turning to the State of Illinois revenue, we continue to work within the AOIC reimbursement schedule for probation and detention staff.

As required by statute, counties receive salary subsidies each month along with full reimbursement for, quote, grants in aid and quote pretrial service positions.

While we have experienced an unfavorable timing variance, we anticipate alignment as reimbursements reconcile later in the fiscal year.

On the expenditure side, our personnel budget shows a favorable variance driven largely by vacancies across the OCJ Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, and the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center.

While these vacancies have produced short-term budget savings, we continue active and strategic hiring to reinforce operations across all departments.

Contractual services also shows a favorable variance due to IT costs that will occur later in the fiscal year.

Operations and maintenance remains below projections, largely due to lower than forecasted electronic monitoring expenses.

Variances in contingencies in special purpose are linked to state reimbursement timing and transportation fund credits.

I am proud to highlight our ARPA initiative.

Under ARPA grant NT 715, the strengthened Chicago's Youth Juvenile Justice Collaborative continues to deliver impressive outcomes.

Since July of 22, more than 883 youth have been served, and 645 had successfully completed diversion programming.

A Chapin Hall evaluation found that 89% of participant youth had their charges dropped, and participants were 44% less likely than similar peers to face new charges within 12 months.

These outcomes reflect the success of our trauma informed community-based approach, and they reinforce why continuing this work through the end of fiscal year 26 and into 27 is critical.

We have also advanced several major fiscal year 26 initiatives, some of which I'll go into more detail about later in this presentation.

We have added bilingual ombudsman program launching this August to strengthen accessibility and transparency across court operations for residents who speak languages other than English.

Domestic violence court enhancements, expanded after our services in collaboration with community organizations, continue to improve safety, access, and support for survivors.

A legal advice help desk expansion, now serving nearly 4,800 residents across Cook County with enhanced staffing and service days.

We've hired a director of juvenile services, successfully onboarded to strengthen oversight and strategic direction for juvenile probation and the juvenile temporary detention center.

Across our departments specialized initiatives from complex litigation recoveries exceeding 4.2 million to major operational improvements in electronic monitoring, caseworker field work, and clinical case transfers demonstrate our system wide commitment to efficiency, safety, and justice.

On hiring, OCJ and its departments continue year-round recruitment, including participation in multiple job fairs.

Interpreter hiring remains a challenge, but recent changes to minimum qualifications have resulted in successful addition of several Spanish leaking language interpreters, with more candidates in the pipeline.

Other departments, including adult probation, juvenile probation, JTDC, and the public guardian, are actively filling vacancies and are on track to reduce openings significantly over the coming months.

Finally, regarding grants, OCJ manages a portfolio of 32 active awards totaling 21.8 million.

We have secured continuation funding for major programs, expanded housing support initiatives, and applied for competitive federal grants, including a 3.2 million proposed proposal to implement an electronic search warrant system across Cook County.

We continue to aggressively pursue opportunities to strengthen services, expand capacity, and innovate.

The Office of the Chief Judge remains deeply committed to fiscal responsibility, operational excellence, and meaningful service to the people of Cook County.

Our mid-year results reflect strong stewardship, impactful programs, and ongoing monetizations across all departments.

I also want to take the opportunity to provide more details regarding changes we made in my administration, particularly in juvenile justice, electronic monitoring, and domestic violence.

In the juvenile justice sphere, at the highest level, our juvenile justice initiatives are centered on three strategic priorities.

First, we are ensuring that we have the right leadership in places to advance our vision for a more accountable, transparent, and effective juvenile justice system.

Second, we are engaging nationally recognized and local subject matter experts to provide an objective assessment of our current operations, identify opportunities for improvement, and assist us in developing concrete, evidence-based strategies that reflect nationally recognized best practices.

Third, we are strengthening the organizational foundation of our juvenile justice system.

This includes improving operational efficiency, responsibly managing staffing and overtime, enhancing our hiring and retention efforts, and securing dedicated resources to expand programming and services for the youth entrusted to our care.

Together, these priorities are positioning the circuit court to build a stronger, more sustainable juvenile justice system that delivers better outcomes for young people, their families, and the communities we serve.

I am pleased that Sarah Hemeter has joined the Office of the Chief Judge as our inaugural Director of Juvenile Services.

Director Hemeter has accepted the important responsibility of aligning the court's juvenile justice operations under a unified vision that emphasizes transparency, accountability, collaboration, and improved outcomes for the young people and families we serve.

Since joining the court, Director Hemeter has undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement process.

She has met with many of you, conducted listening sessions with judges and staff throughout the juvenile justice division, and work closely with community partners to better understand the challenges and opportunities before us.

At the same time, she has led the recruitment process for two of our most critical leadership positions: the superintendent of the juvenile temporary detention center and the director of juvenile probation.

The posting period for both positions has concluded, and interviews will begin shortly.

We anticipate making final selections by early fall.

From the outset, we were committed to conducting an inclusive and transparent search process in selecting our director of juvenile services and now in recruiting permanent leadership for the JTCC and juvenile probation.

We sought input from those with firsthand knowledge of the juvenile justice system, including members of the judiciary, youth with lived experience, service providers, and experts in education and behavioral health.

I also want to recognize Commissioner Stamps and Avic Das of the Justice Advisory Council for their participation in the director's search process and for providing valuable insight regarding the leadership qualities necessary to advance meaningful and sustainable reform.

Director Hemeter has also strengthened the Court's partnership with nationally recognized organizations dedicated to juvenile justice reform.

Through her efforts, the Annie E.

Casey Foundation has agreed to conduct an independent, comprehensive assessment of the JTDC on a pro bono basis.

The Foundation will evaluate current operations, programming, staffing, and facility practices, and will provide recommendations grounded in nationally recognized best practices to assist the court in strengthening the JTC and improving outcomes for youth.

Internally, we have also made significant process in strengthening the management of our juvenile justice operations.

We have reduced overtime expenditures, accelerate efforts to fill critical vacancies, modernize our hiring and recruitment practices, and included dedicated funding for youth programming in our budget request.

These operational improvements position us to provide more effective services while exercising responsible stewardship of public resources.

I also want to thank Commissioner Degnan for her continued engagement and thoughtful advocacy regarding programming within the juvenile temporary detention center.

Her interest, input, and partnership have been instrumental as we work to expand meaningful opportunities for the youth entrusted to our care.

As to electronic monitoring, there has been significant public discussion and at times misconceptions about the program.

I want to take this opportunity to clearly explain my administration's approach to managing electronic monitoring.

First, it's important to provide context.

Cook County supervises the largest electronic monitoring population in the nation outside of the Federal system.

Free trial release conditions, including EM are designed to achieve two primary objectives ensuring individuals return to court and reducing the likelihood of new criminal activity while their cases are pending.

Electronic monitoring is an important supervision tool, but it is not a predictive or preventative technology.

It cannot compel an individual to appear in court, prevent someone from possessing a firearm, or physically stop an act of violence.

Rather, it is one of several tools available to judges who, under Illinois law are required to impose the least restrictive conditions necessary to reasonably assure court appearance and community safety.

This is an area in which I have considerable firsthand experience, having served as a judge in the pretrial division for over five years and also during the implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act.

I understood from my first day as Chief Judge that we needed to conduct a comprehensive review of the electronic monitoring program to determine what was working well and where meaningful improvements could be made.

Working collaboratively with a multidisciplinary committee of judges, probation professionals, law enforcement representatives, and other justice system stakeholders, we identified several opportunities to strengthen program operations.

Most notably, we redefined what constitutes a major electronic monitoring violation by reducing the threshold for an unauthorized absence from a host site from 48 hours to just three hours.

Once a major violation is verified, the matter is now presented before a judge within 24 hours for prompt judicial review.

In addition, we have strengthened communication coordination among our justice partners.

We work closely with the Sheriff's Office to establish more efficient processes for identifying warrants issued as a result of major EM violations and expediting services of those warrants by the sheriff.

These operational improvements have enhanced both accountability and responsiveness within the program.

I am pleased to report that the data already demonstrates measurable progress resulting from these reforms.

While we recognize that no electronic monitoring program can eliminate all risk, our responsibility is to continually evaluate, improve and strengthen the system.

That exactly that is exactly what this administration has done and will continue to do to ensure that the program operates with greater accountability, transparency, and effectiveness while faithfully carrying out the law.

We have identified an upward trend in compliance, as I previously mentioned.

If we compare the first and last week of the budget hearing cycle, compliance rates for individuals on EM is increased from 35 percent to 42 percent.

We have also taken important steps to increase transparency and public accountability by publishing electronic monitoring warrant data on our website and proactively engaging with members of the media to provide accurate information about the program and the forms and the reforms we have implemented.

Transparency is essential to maintaining public trust, and we are committed to ensuring that the public has access to meaningful information about the program's performance.

I remain committed to doing so, everything within our authority to make the electronic monitoring program as safe, effective, and accountable as possible.

While no supervision system can eliminate all risk, we will continue to evaluate our policies, strengthen our practices, and work collaboratively with our justice partners to improve outcomes for the courts, the communities we serve, and the individuals under our supervision.

Turning to domestic violence.

In that same vein vein, we are working diligently to strengthen the operation of our domestic violence court.

I recognize that this has been the subject of considerable discussion within with the board in recent months, and I want to assure you that improving services for individuals impacted by domestic violence remains a significant priority for this administration.

Our focus is on ensuring that domestic violence court resources are available, accessible, and dedicated to those who need them most.

As part of that effort, we are in the process of relocating the stalking no contact order cases, which, despite currently being heard at 555 West Harrison, are not domestic violence matters.

We've relocated those stalking no contact orders or will be shortly to the Richard J.

Daly Center.

This change will allow us to better preserve the specialized resources and services available at the domestic violence courthouse for survivors, families, and litigants involved in domestic violence cases.

We also anticipate releasing the recommendation of the court's domestic violence committee in the coming weeks.

Those recommendations reflect extensive collaboration amongst judges, justice partners, and community stakeholders, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue with the board as we implement improvements that strengthen the court's response to domestic violence and better serve those who rely on our justice system.

In addition to these public facing initiatives, we have undertaken several operational improvements that may receive less attention but are equally important to the effective administration of justice.

We have assigned judges with significant domestic violence expertise to preside over weekend and holiday domestic violence first appearance calls at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse, ensuring that these critical matters are handled by experienced members of the judiciary when victims and public safety needs are most often urgent.

We have also relocated a non-domestic violence courtroom from 555 West Harrison to the Richard Day Richard J.

Daly Center, creating space to add an additional domestic violence first appearance courtroom.

This change will improve case flow, reduce delays, and enhance our ability to respond promptly to individuals seeking the protection and intervention of the court.

These improvements reflect our commitment to continually evaluating court operations and making thoughtful, strategic changes that enhance access to justice, improve efficiency, and better serve victims, litigants, and the broader community.

As to the judiciary.

Within the judiciary, we have also strengthened our leadership structure by creating three new Deputy Chief Judge positions to better align our large and complex organization and ensure that every major area of court operations receives focused attention.

Deputy Chief Judge Erica Redick oversees our criminal operations.

Deputy Chief Judge Mary K.

Marubio leads first appearance court and related criminal justice initiatives.

And Deputy Chief Judge Michael Barrett oversees our civil operations.

Together, these judicial leaders serve as trusted advisors and play a critical role in advancing our efforts to improve the administration of justice across the circuit court.

Each has already made meaningful contributions.

Earlier this month, Deputy Chief Judge Marubio spearheaded a countywide electronic monitor training program in partnership with the adult probation and our technology provider, TRAC Group.

More than 200 judges, assistant states' attorneys, assistant public defenders, clerks, and other justice partners participated in the training, helping to ensure a shared understanding of electronic monitoring technology, supervision practices, and violation protocols.

Deputy Chief Judge Barrett has provided invaluable leadership in improving civil operations, including including supporting the housing and eviction section through the strategic reallocation of judicial resources to enhance efficiency, reduce delays, and improve timely case processing.

Deputy Chief Judge Reddick has led efforts to strengthen criminal court operations by coordinating with presiding judges, justice partners, and court leadership to improve consistency and criminal case management, enhance communication across divisions, and ensure the efficient administration of high volume criminal dockets.

Her leadership has been instrumental in implementing operational improvements while maintaining the fair and orderly administration of justice, including reevaluating and creating a consistent process across the county dealing with individuals regarding mental health and fitness for trial.

I am deeply deeply grateful to each of these leaders for their willingness to take on these significant responsibilities.

They exemplify how judicial leadership extends beyond the courtroom and demonstrates that the judiciary can be an active partner in identifying challenges, implementing solutions, and driving meaningful institutional change.

The judges who serve the people of Cook County faithfully administer minister justice in accordance with the Illinois Constitution, state statutes, Supreme Court rules, and local court rules and administrative orders.

As part of my commitment to creating a more transparent, modern, and efficient court system, a dedicated group of volunteer judges conducted a comprehensive review of thousands of existing general administrative orders, general orders, and local court rules.

Their work resulted in updates that improve accuracy, eliminate outdated and duplicative provisions, clarify procedures, and provide greater consistency across the circuit court and ensure consistency with the statutes and the Constitution that we must abide by.

We have also implemented a standardized internal process for reviewing complaints regarding judicial conduct that fall within the administrative authority of the Office of the Chief Judge.

This process establishes clear expectation for judges while promoting consistency, accountability, and transparency in how concerns are addressed.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the Judicial Inquiry Board remains the independent constitutional agency responsible for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct or incapacity involving active Illinois judges.

Our internal process complements, does not replace that independent oversight by ensuring that matters within our administrative authority are addressed promptly and consistently.

Part of the hiring of the ombudsman is to facilitate that process internally, to harvest the complaints that come into the community and address them in the appropriate fashion, whether it be referral to the JIB internally, or as a suggestion of an appeal of a decision that perhaps is adverse.

Altogether, these initiatives reflect my belief that a modern court system must continually examine its own operations, embrace opportunities for improvement, and hold itself to the highest standards of professionalism, accountability, and public service.

Finally, I would like to recognize the many leaders and partner agencies whose collaboration is essential to the effective administration of justice.

No court system operates in isolation, and many of the improvements I have discussed today, have only been possible because of the strong working relationships we have built across Cook County government.

I am particularly grateful for the collaborative partnerships I have developed with the state's attorney, with State's Attorney Burke, Public Defender Mitchell, Sheriff Dart, and Clerk Sporopoulis.

We meet monthly to maintain open lines of communication, identify emerging issues, resolve operational challenges, and develop practical solutions that improve the functioning of our justice system.

Those meetings have fostered a level of coordination and trust that allows us to address complex issues proactively rather than reactively.

And I sincerely appreciate each of these leaders for their commitment to collaboration and to serving the residents of Cook County.

Our office has also worked closely with President Prequinkle, her administration, and the Justice Advisory Council.

Together, we are identifying opportunities to strengthen programs and services that improve public safety while addressing the underlying factors that often lead individuals into the justice system.

This partnership reflects our shared commitment to investing in evidence-based approaches to support rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and improve outcomes for individuals, families, and communities.

The Justice Advisory Council has also played an instrumental role in strengthening collaboration with Cook County Health, particularly regarding the delivery of behavioral health, medical, and supportive services for youth at the juvenile temporary detention center and adults housed at the Cook County Jail.

We recognize that improving access to health care, mental health treatment and other supportive services is not only the right thing to do, it also contributes to safer communities by addressing many of the factors associated with future justice system involvement.

Through these ongoing discussions, we have already identified several concrete opportunities to strengthen coordination, improve continuity of care, expand access to critical services, and ensure that individuals involved in the justice system receive appropriate support both while in custody and as they transition back into the community.

These collaborative efforts are an important part of our broader vision for a justice system that is not only fair and efficient, but also responsive to the needs of the people it serves.

In closing, I hope my remarks today, together with the written materials we have provided, and the collaborative relationship my team and I have built with this board over the past eight months, demonstrate that we are delivering on the commitments I made when I sought the Office of Chief Judge.

Since taking office, we have focused on translating those principles into meaningful action, building a court system that is more transparent, more accountable, more efficient, and more responsive to the people it serves.

We have strengthened leadership, improved operations, modernized policies, enhanced collaboration with our justice partners, and remain committed to continuous improvement across every area of the Circuit Court.

While there is still important work ahead, I am proud of the progress we have made in a relatively short period of time.

None of these accomplishments would have been possible without the dedication of our judges, employees, justice partners, and community stakeholders, all of whom share a commitment to improving the administration of justice in Cook County.

I want to thank President Preckwinkle and the members of the Board for your partnership, your support, and your thoughtful engagement throughout this process.

I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively collaboratively with you as we build a court system that reflects the values of fairness, transparency, accountability, and excellence of public service.

Thank you for your time.

I am sorry this was so long.

It was my first time.

I could keep going, but I won't.

Nevertheless, I am thankful to all of you.

I am thankful to the residents of Cook County.

I know there's a lot of work to be done.

I am up for the task, and I'm looking forward to doing it with all of you together.

I welcome your questions.

And you sent us a letter today outlining the set what has been occurred in the seven months that you have been the uh Chief Judge.

And your testimony today really shows a dedication of you, the judges behind and all the judges under your leadership.

And I really want to thank them.

Wish Judge Rice the best.

And we have known each other a long time, and as she moves on, it's I know you're uh big loss.

But Judy, I want to thank you for your great leadership on this issue.

There's a number of issues that I know the board members will be bringing out.

But this morning there was a reference about uh EM.

And I just want to clarify.

So if uh on the EM, if an individual violates the EMS, say like on a Friday, and there's a holiday on Monday, will they add the individual will that not be served until Tuesday?

Not correct.

So the way that currently operates is this.

Um under the old system, that would have been true.

Uh under the current system, if someone violates their EM, in other words, their A-Wall are away from their residence for more than three hours.

Track group flags that notifies our home confinement unit, who then goes out and makes a check of the home to confirm that the individual is still not present.

If they are not present, they then alert our adult probation department that Friday night.

On Saturday morning, a uh violations of condition release document is prepared, delivered to the court, and appears in front of the judge on Saturday.

So the objective is to get any violation that is major in definition within in front of a judge within 24 hours, which, under the old system, as you pointed out, if it occurred on Friday night and Monday was a holiday, Tuesday would be the next day that that case would be heard in the court.

We modified that.

And I know you're thank you for your reports that are in uh the health committee and um the domestic violence report has been submitted.

You you have addressed it.

I know your your leadership on that, the and the individuals members will be addressing that as well.

But hopefully we could and individuals who might be part of the system who believe that they don't have to.

To report to you, I would say this board has a very strong position.

Yes, we must have the status sharing.

There must be a reporting.

You are the Chief Judge.

These judges are they are in charge.

So whatever we can do and assist you on that matter, I know this board is going to.

Vice Chair Lowry.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Chief Judge Beach.

It's good to see you.

Thank you, and thanks to your staff for being here and all the judges who are here.

Um like the chairman, I have had the pleasure of knowing uh Judy Rice for a long time.

Um I I actually count her as a childhood friend.

Um I'm so proud of the work that uh you have done, Judge Rice and the domestic violence violence division, uh, and in other areas that you have already served and that you will serve.

And to all the other judges, we appreciate you.

We thank you as well.

Uh also, Chief Justice, uh Chief Judge, thank you for having your office reach out in anticipation of today.

I truly appreciate that.

One thing I want to share, if not remind you of, is I do serve on the Illinois Judicial Conference, and we will be meeting in October to basically set up our work for FY27, uh, the to-do list, so to speak.

And I want to be sure that I've got a list from your office so I know how I can best give voice to the needs of the courts in Cook County.

And uh I don't know you well, but I know you well enough that I think you trust I will give voice to it.

So uh maybe Brinski, I can lean on you and we can talk.

Um but I'm gonna go into that meeting ready to roll on behalf of everything that you and and all of you are doing.

So thank you for that.

We will arm you as best we can.

I know you will, and I appreciate that.

You guys are gonna make me look smart that day.

So thank you.

Um E.M., you you talk about or you note the establishment of an EM committee.

Who comprises the committee?

So the original committee was myself, Judge Ortiz, Judge Marubio, Judge Redick.

Um we also had individuals from adult probation.

Um we also had individuals from the home confinement unit.

Um it was primarily internal individuals that were part of that process.

I am in constant communication with Sheriff Dart, and so we were using him as a resource.

In fact, Sheriff Dart has volunteered his individuals to come in and assess our system and how we are operating to give us improvements on it.

Um, frankly, when him and I had the conversation, I he had done an operated EM for a long period of time.

Um to not tap that resource and understand what he knows as best we can would be a mistake.

And so we did use him and we've allowed his individuals to actually come in and observe our processes to help refine them.

Is there a labor voice on that committee, you know, such as someone from the Teamsters or one of the There was not.

It was primarily an internal group that did so.

Yes.

You know, I'm I'm just a big believer in collaboration, and you bring all the stakeholders to the table.

I hear from members of the Teamsters relative to EM, so you too should hear from them.

So I know that uh Megan Volker, our adult probation was in constant communication because what we were doing was seeking some impact bargaining because of the original agreement, limited our abilities to really address these things in a fast fashion that I wanted to.

And I'm thankful for the Teamsters and ASPE for their ability to kind of work on that problem with us.

I think they recognized what we recognize, which is we needed to move faster and more efficiently, and they were they were good partners in that process.

So although they weren't at the internal table drafting up the process that we would go through, they were certainly part of the process in determining the ultimate result of how we're going to get this done.

Glad to hear that.

Bill, I'm whatever union you are suggesting, if they can.

As there is multi-unions, that might be.

That's why I said such as, Chairman.

I said such as.

I said such as.

So, Chief Judge, relative to uh the EM program, I think it was yesterday, today start running together, but as we were having our hearing with uh the Office of the Sheriff and speaking with Sheriff Dart, he outlined some of the differences between the EM program that the Sheriff's Office had, and I guess they still do for about 150 individuals, and the EM program which uh your office has.

And there are some differences he noted.

Um just wondering, you said you two are in in touch, you're you're in contact.

Are there any facets of the sheriff's program which the uh your program has not yet incorporated, but you anticipate you might or not?

So one of the things that we did implement with them is that individuals who are still wearing their EM bracelet who were AWOL, and a warrant was out for them.

Under the statute, they're allowed to have access to our track group data as the location of that individual.

That is a system that we have recently put into place with the sheriff.

I would note that some of the differences between the way the sheriff operated his EM program and the way we're operating it, and frankly, um uh contrary to what you hear in the public, right?

Um, and what's recited over and again in the public is there is not two free days of movement.

The individuals are allowed, actually, the wording of the statute is um to participate in basic activities such as those listed in paragraph A of the statute.

And that includes uh work or employment approved by the court, unemployment or seeking employment, uh medical site psychiatric or mental health treatment educational institutions.

Basically, there's eight things which are considered um basic activities, which allows that movement.

We use the word essential movement as the judiciary.

So we don't say you have two free days where you are allowed to go anywhere you want and do anything you want, although that is what the perception is in the public based upon what people say.

The reality is the judges evaluate the requests and draw up freedom time for those individuals twice a week to do those things they need to do or more than twice a week if necessary.

Also, a very common misperception, which is repeated over and over again is that we don't know where those people are on that free time.

The reality is we know exactly where they are every minute on that free time.

So if they were to commit an offense and law enforcement came and said, where was Jim Smith on this date and time, we would be able to tell them exactly where that individual is.

We have access to that data.

It's a misconception that is repeated again and again and again.

Um it is just simply not true.

We know where everyone is that's on our EM program that's wearing a bracelet every minute of every day, whether they are on their basic essentials or essential movement or not.

Thank you for setting the record straight.

Always happy to if I know, I will.

If I don't, I'll find out.

That's fair.

That's fair.

One other question.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you for the grace.

Um quick question.

With regard to the uh EM process, I'm glad you clarified that.

That helps a lot.

With regards specifically to domestic violence victims, is there a way to identify for them when people are on these free no, I don't want to call them freedom movements, but the basic essentials are is there a way to notify them?

There is, um, and that's a that's a great question.

Um there is an app that comes with the service that we you, the state provides us.

So the track group that runs the EM program also runs the GPS exclusion zone program, is how I refer to it, which the bulk of the domestic violence cases revolve around GPS exclusion zones.

Um that app would allow the individual, the the victim or um the survivor, um, to be notified any time the individual is within 2,500 feet of them.

In fact, their phone would alert them to the location of that individual and their proximity.

Um of the frustrations we've had, and I have been speaking with various groups about, is that our uptake of that app by victims is very low.

For some reason, they are not agreeing to download the app, which would alert them to the individual who would be on that essential movement freedom or on a day-to-day thing to to track it.

Um it's a difficult issue.

Canada uses the same.

Their uptake is is much higher than ours.

Minnesota, the uptake, or Wisconsin, I believe the uptake is much higher than ours.

For some reason, we need to get communication to our victims that are coming into the building to use this app.

It would be beneficial to them to do so.

And we've been discussing that with the advocates.

I just did so the other day.

So let me find out.

Um Do you guys know what the percentage of uptake is?

For us?

Yeah.

It's below 25 percent.

We believe our uptake for using that app is below 25 percent.

Wow.

And in Canada, it's 100 percent.

And in Canada, it's 100 percent?

Yes.

Apparently, Canada is really good at this.

100 percent of their people uptake that app and take advantage of it.

Um in asking some of the um advocates regarding why people aren't using that app, their view was distrust.

Um, was the reason they weren't downloading the app and using the app.

Uh so we need to find a way to break through that barrier.

Yeah, and yeah, get them to understand this is for their safety.

This is uh this is something we want to give them to prepare them and protect them.

Now, is this something that the uh public defender is the public defender or one of the other attorneys branches could actually um make as part of the domestic violence because it's difficult for us to push um safety and restraining orders and orders of protection if we're not actually doing everything.

So we're doing it on our end, is what it sounds like, but we need our victims and survivors to also know about this app, but then also take the steps to actually utilize it.

And as you know, unfortunately, they aren't taking the victim isn't uh using it.

They aren't mandated, but we spend a lot of money on free services.

So it it's kind of like a return on investment.

We're gonna give you the service for free, but we need you to help us to help you.

So I think the State's attorney, the victim advocates, and the you know, advocates that assist people are probably the front line to kind of creating that level of trust to download that app and understanding what it does for them.

Um we had we've started those conversations with them.

We in fact we just was it yesterday?

It was yesterday.

We start we we we had this conversation and and showed them the statistics, saying this is a tool that we need to use.

We'd like you to help us put that into into to use.

So I'm gonna jump back in before I I cede my time, Chairman.

Um, EM is going to be uh, you know, obviously an issue, Chief Judge, today, and I shared that with your office as we were talking, you know, in preparation for today.

But the last couple of years, we as a board, we spent a lot of time uh hearing about and and really embracing the restorative justice community courts.

And I would like to hear from your perspective uh how are those courts doing?

What are your thoughts about those courts, not only today, but going into the future?

So I'm committed to the restorative justice courts.

Uh I believe in them.

Uh the studies don't lie.

Recidivism is much lower when individuals go through those restorative justice courts.

Um but to have those operate and operate efficiently, um, or at least it operate at all.

It requires everyone to collaborate and move cases in there.

I could tell you to date, or as to um I think it was June 1st.

We'd seen 57 cases referred to the restorative justice courts since January 1.

And so, you know, you're looking if we have four restorative justice courts operating, uh that's not many.

It's not it's not enough.

Um and it's not enough uh it's not enough to keep them living and thriving, which is what we need them to do.

Right.

Um and so, you know, just State's attorney Burke, I still call her Justice Burke.

Uh State's attorney Burke and I have had these conversations, and she did increase the level of cases when I first came into office.

She did increase the number going in.

Um, but we want more.

Um we need more uh to have those go.

Now I know that you guys had funded additional restorative justice courts in our conversations.

Um the reality is is that I've asked our partners to help us set those up.

Um basically the question is before I sign a lease somewhere, will you confirm that you will send cases, provide staff, you know, the sheriff, sheriffs, the states attorney states are all these things.

And it's to date we have not had any commitment from any of our partners to do that.

Um and perhaps it is because they're seeing the numbers we're seeing.

And it's hard to, you know, position FTEs in a place that might not see enough cases to make it worthwhile.

But as we sit here today, at least the plan for FY27 is to maintain the four, but just try to increase usage relative to those four.

I would I would love that.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

I would love that.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um thank you, Chief Judge, for being here.

Um and for all of your comments.

You know, you did send us a memo with 40 bullet points highlighted about what you have accomplished in the last seven months.

And that's a significant amount of work.

You've obviously been very, very busy.

So I appreciate you taking leadership in this space um and hitting the ground running.

I think government also grinds to a halt when leaders stop speaking to one another.

And you're very active communication style leads me to believe that I'm confident that government will not grind to a halt.

Instead, the judicial branch will continue uh to improve.

So thank you for all of those things.

Um we'll talk about is DV.

Um you did include some of what you talked about today and those bullet points in the memo you sent.

But really, my question is um about the stalking no contact cases moving from 555 West Harrison um to downtown and other courthouses.

When do you feel like that will be complete and those cases will move out so that you can focus on DV specifically at 555?

We're targeting September 1st.

I could tell you with defense I'm I love data.

Um I I like to base all our decisions on data.

Uh our latest data is that 24.9 cases per day come through the domestic violence court as stalking no contact orders, um, which I've been informed is almost a third of the volume of cases heard there on a daily basis.

So the intention is to if we can remove that third from domestic violence, and I think you already know this, but we remove it, we can free up some bandwidth of those judges over there to focus more on the cases they're there to focus on, um the domestic violence cases.

So September one in short is our target date to do that.

It requires collaboration with the sheriff this September.

September 9-1.

Um so we've identified the space, we've looked at building it out, we've started to create it.

Um we have soft commitments from our partners to staff it.

Uh the sheriff is hard committed to to staffing it.

Um so we're we're on our way to having it done.

Okay, so in connection with the data that you'll acquire after September 1, when will you know if the number of judges that you have there are sufficient and the operations are sufficient sufficient to really manage the caseload the way that you want to see it managed.

Will it take is it like a year, six months, three months?

I'm hoping in six months we'll we'll get a real idea of what it looks like, because that should encompass you know the variability that we see with holidays and um those types of events.

Uh you know, obviously the longer, you know, longitudinal studies are always stronger than short studies.

Um so six months I think would be the minimum for which I would feel comfortable saying, okay, we have a a baseline of what we have left in this building that we need to focus on.

Um and then I obviously we'll we'll evaluate from there.

I'll take a moment to note, you know, and I mentioned this in in my um remarks is that we've already created one additional courtroom over there by removing misdemanary misdemeanor juries from that building, which again were not domestic violence related matters, removing those from that building and bringing those to the daily center so we could create another courtroom over there.

Um it is a landlocked facility, as you know.

Um they're bursting at the seams.

Uh when I visit the location, which I do, um I'm disappointed in what we're providing for the county residents.

I think it could be better.

Um if I see somebody sitting on the floor, to me, that's an immediate problem, right?

We're not we're not even meeting the fundamental basics of being able to help people who come in the door.

So creating space over there is part of solving that problem.

Okay, so then so six months goes by, and then you'll provide some sort of random communication to the board to say, here's where we are today, here are my needs.

I don't have any, or there are significant needs that I need and personnel, additional judges, additional space, whatever it is.

So that I mean, the point of these budget meetings really is to plan around dollars that you're gonna need to make sure that you can operate the way that the you know the state constitution and the statute requires.

So it would be, I guess, our expectation that you come back with either a budget ask um or to say it's operating perfectly.

Okay, I will do that.

I know um uh commissioner Gaynor and I had a discussion regarding that just recently, and um she had asked us a question of like what what do you know that you need at the moment?

Um and right now, I mean, if I could duplicate Renata Steele, that's what I would do, right?

She's very efficient, she gets things done and accomplished over there, and frankly, we need to bring resources like that there.

So I may I've already planning on asking for some form of court administr administer position over there to do that, but certainly we'll evaluate over the next six months, and if there's more, we'll I'm not afraid to ask.

All right, the second thing is emits and then electronic orders that the judiciary would sign instead of handwriting them out.

So, what is the plan to get the judges on typed orders and to reduce uh handwritten half sheets?

You're speaking my language, let's start with that.

Um I I started using typed orders um when I was at the first appearance court and got many of the judges over there to adopt a similar system.

Um as far as emits, uh we have mocked up a what we call a transmittal, which is the document the judge writes on.

Uh, we've mocked one up which would facilitate emits.

In other words, it would allow the judges to check a box, which would create the code for the emit to work.

Um if you look at how we currently do it, and it's not pretty, um, judges hand write almost everything they're doing on that document.

And so to facilitate emits in efficient way, I think we need to go to a more efficient system, which is actually having the box on the transmittal, and so the judge can you know indicate person to remain in custody on this case or person released on this case.

Um those are simple things, but they're there's things that we've already mocked up, they just need to be put into to work, you know.

The second part of that question, which I think how long will that then let me let's put a pin in that, then how long would that take from a tech perspective and from like a retraining the current judge's perspective to incorporate?

I think sadly the tech perspective is probably easier and faster to do than the training the judiciary is.

Um we have judges who have been doing it the same way for 25 years, and sometimes effectuating change or culture changes takes some effort and some time.

Um so we will do that training.

I'm sure Judge Reddick is up for the task.

It's just gonna have to be done.

Um I know uh Mike Carroll's sitting here.

Mr.

Carroll, we do have the mock-up, and is it Judge Reddick have it in our hands already?

Okay.

So it's in process.

We I can't put a date on it, but uh couple weeks.

Yeah, tomorrow.

No problem.

I got it.

I think handled is the right word for this.

I feel like that you know, the commitment is the upfront part that I'm looking for, and that you've articulated here today that you know sometimes is more of a hurdle in certain areas than others.

So, you know, you're committed to it.

Sounds like you have the tech, and then you know, getting the people on board will eventually happen.

But I think that that will, you know, quiet and settle some of the downstream imits issues where people are trying to interpret what the handwriting is, or you know, when the sheriff gets it, you know, with a delay because of all the people in that that train, you know, it'll get people released that should be released faster, and that does accommodate justice.

I agree entirely.

Um, having been the supervisor at first appearance court, I would get phone calls at midnight from the sheriff's department saying we don't understand what was written on this.

What's the fair?

It's very fair.

Yeah.

So the third thing is something that we have talked about before is the reimagined youth detention in particular, the Sora Center and that kind of model.

So I did visit the SORA Center.

Um, and it seems like the leadership there is committed to making that work in a new and improved way.

So I appreciate the ability for that to move forward.

So are there plans to kind of replicate the SORA Center to give uh youth more options between just being released or being detained?

So um as the SOAR Center, it it has been a success to date.

I'm happy with the way that's operating.

They've staffed up very quickly to the point that we could host 12 children at that facility.

Um I think the most we've had at that facility at any one time is four.

Um, so we're not maxing out our use of that as of yet.

Um part of the RYD has been kind of put on hold.

Uh, you know, we brought in director Hemeter and we want her to lay eyes on the vast part of juvenile and JTDC and be the guiding hand in that.

So as to RYD itself as a whole, that is kind of on pause.

Our commitment to Source Center was immediate because we knew there was a need, and we got it arranged pretty quickly in coming into office um dealing with the female female side of SORA Center, um, which doesn't exist at this point.

Um we did have conversations with Maryville Academy about hosting that.

Um, however, we could not come to an agreement um based upon their reluctance or refusal to take trans youth into their facility.

Um and that was a non-starter for us.

So we're looking at alternatives uh and talking to um the operator of SORA Center to see if they're willing to stand up another location to do so.

Sounds great.

Um so I just want to say thank you for your willingness to audit the JTDC.

I mean, there are there is a lot of opportunity there because those kids are under the care custody and control of the county.

Um, a continued investment in programming and investment in an additional um, you know, eyes on that to find lots of areas for improvement.

I think historically there hasn't been a line item for programming in our budget, and I know with Cineco, we have broached um the opportunity to add that to kind of create a separate line just for programming.

Number one to track it to see how it's being used, see how much money is being used for that.

So I would like to work with your office and with our budget team to add money to that line to figure out how we can get people paid so that they're not just having some unpredictable volunteers.

I mean, they are predictable, but you know, once somebody's a volunteer and they're not being paid for that work and there's no contract, you know, it doesn't always lead to the best outcomes.

So your willingness to look at the JTDC with critical eyes is really important for those kids and for the people who care about those kids.

So thank you very much for doing that.

Um two more things, just the restorative justice.

I know you you talked about it being an important part of our vision for a justice system that's varied and that not every defendant really needs to go through the anachronistic system that just only leads to trial.

So I think you know, that is really important that we continue to look at what that restorative justice system looks like.

I know it's a peace model system, um, but that doesn't mean that it always has to be the the peace circle.

I do think that there's opportunities to look at it in a different light and kind of move it in a direction that's evolving and not just stuck in one type of model that was designed decades ago.

Um I know that Margaret Clugeen is here today and that she's done a lot of work in that area.

Uh she's excellent at educating people about the ways that it is beneficial to the kids and it's a better use of county dollars than sending kids to the JGDC or even the SORA Center.

Um so I think you know, this board's fully in support of it.

I know it's not always up to you because uh the uh the Sean Mitchell and Chief Judge Bark really have to make sure that young people are pushed into that system, that the kids agree to or that young people agree to to move through that system, but I do think that we need a varied type of opportunity that it's not just somebody goes through trial.

That's not the right fit for everybody.

The last thing I'll mention is um something I've sent said to a number of of other electeds that have been before us on these uh budget briefings is that during midway blitz, the county has spent a lot of money on responding to it.

It's unprecedented that the federal government is coming into a local jurisdiction uh with the kind of conflict that we've seen here.

I just I don't recall you know, I don't know, since like the civil war, that this kind of conflict where there are the federal government working against local jurisdictions and municipalities and ending up in blue with bloodshed.

And so because of that, uh the sheriff's office, the the chief judge's office, the state's attorney's office, the public defender have had to spend a certain amount of dollars to protect your interests to protect the people who are in Cup County.

So I'm formally asking everybody, including you to assemble the amount of money that you have spent on uh responding to midway blitz to document it so that eventually um we can ask for the federal government for those dollars in return.

I mean, at a time when we're not receiving FEMA money and that we're not, you know, SNAP benefits are being cut.

We have 110 million dollars that we're not getting in Medicaid money, and now we're just spending money responding to an assault, just money's going out all over the place, and so we're not keeping those taxpayer dollars between the ditches to make sure that we are providing support services the way government needs to, and was designed to.

So I'd like you to kind of look at what money you've spent, um, document it and then send it to our office.

We'll collate it.

And I do think that we need to ask the federal government back for that money to be reimbursed.

If you know they'll say no initially, but that Trump administration will not be in there forever.

And so repeated requests for that might get us something.

If we don't ask, we'll never get.

Mr.

Coleman, Mr.

McCarthy, you got that?

All right.

Okay, that those were all my questions.

Thank you so much.

Have a um I was gonna say have a great day, but thank you for being here.

Thank you, Commissioner.

And thank you for all your help over the the last eight months.

It's been nice having communications with you and and uh brainstorming things that we could do better.

And I I'm thankful for your your time and help.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chief Judge, for your presentation.

Um again, thanks for for this document that really highlights and it summarizes.

Um I was um uh when you said you weren't gonna you know touch upon everything, and I mean it it goes to show you the fact that your your speech also omitted, maybe not uh in in a in a bad way, but a lot of the other work that you all are doing.

So I commend you for how meticulous you have been regarding all aspects of the chief judge.

It's not just the courts and the judges.

There's so much between that.

Um and it does take a lot of work, but most importantly, it takes intentionality.

So I just want to commend you and and and your team because you know you can't get a lot of things done, yes.

You mentioned it earlier, without the right stakeholders, but internally within your office and the people that you have selected as leaders within the office.

Um I commend you for for for again how intentional you've been around surrounding yourself with people that are really do care about making the system uh better, um more equitable and successful.

So I just want to say that before I go into my questions.

I'm very fortunate to have them.

Yeah.

Um so I had some questions, some of them have been addressed either in your speech or with previous questions, but I want to go over some of the the aspects um in the letter that you sent over to us.

So you talked about the EM, the committee, you highlighted who's been a part of that.

Um do you foresee um well, number one, do you have you seen it be successful?

What has come out of that?

Are there any additional things that you're hoping that this committee um because it is established, I'm not sure if it's gonna be a long-standing established or if it's just again coming up with recommendations and making those adjustments.

So just want to know what the future of it was and what exactly was it able to kind of provide over to you.

So let's start with what it provided.

Um we went in, we created this committee.

Really, the objective was to look at our internal procedures as to how we were handling things and evaluate them.

Um so it was really an introspective look at what are we doing, what are the time frames that we're working with, and how can we make them operate faster?

The second part that we did is we um took track group, our vendor on the EM, who operates electronic monitoring all over the globe.

They have mass data sets that they're able to draw upon um to help educate us as to what works and what does not work.

Um so one of the interesting statistics um that they provided to us is that an individual who violates EM in the first 48 hours is likely to violate it again and again and again.

So we started evaluating people in the first 48 hours, which was not happening under the prior procedures that were in existence.

Um because what we found and what they confirmed is that it's a very small percentage of people that are on EM that cause the vast amount of alarms.

And those vast amount of alarms that come into our adult probation department create noise, right?

Um they distract you from perhaps the the real serious issues that you need to look at.

And so we're trying to dial down that noise, and that was related in that statistic that we went from 38% of the people in compliance to 42 just by dialing things in and paying closer attention right out of the gate.

Um as for the long term, um, as I mentioned in my remarks, I am a believer in continuous improvement.

You have to continuously be looking at what you're doing and how can you do it better.

And we are looking at those things now.

The committee doesn't meet on a regular basis as it did in the past.

It's more ad hoc at this point.

But I am trying to develop a culture within the OCJ, which is to bring me problems immediately.

I I don't want to wait for it to be a problem.

I want to see the problem before it's actually a problem and try to develop a response to it.

And it's a difficult thing to change in a culture.

People like to talk about all the things you do well, right?

I don't want to talk about what I'm doing well.

I want to talk about what I'm not doing well so that I can be better.

And so I'm trying to develop that culture within the judiciary.

It's like let's not pat ourselves on the back.

Let's talk about where we're failing and what we can improve.

So that culture change takes years.

I mean, it really takes years, and so it's going to be a long process.

Um the committee will meet as we develop or identify problems and then brainstorm how to solve them.

So it's going to be ongoing.

Um since the EM was shifted over to the chief judge, I know you may not have not had as much understanding, obviously, of how the sheriff ran things.

But do you see through the the judge's perspective if more people are going on EM now because they feel that maybe it's still under the um you know the chief judge's office, or do you see that going down?

What what have you seen in regards to how many judges are sending or are um asking for EM for cases?

I I think the number is consistent from the sheriff to us, but I think uh director Bulker is that accurate that it's remained consistent.

Okay, it's accurate that they've it's remained a consistent percentage.

And then you mentioned it's gone up to 42.

How do we get higher than that?

Um with two components being looked at.

One, ensuring to your point that the folks that continuously violate it are um you know are being looked at and their circumstances are being looked at, you know, through through a certain lens, whether it's malicious or maybe it's not, maybe there's something going on with the device, et cetera.

Um, and also balancing what advocates have been calling for, which is privacy and other protections, um, more flexibility, et cetera.

So there's two two ends to it.

Um obviously ensuring the safety of the public is important, it's crucial.

So looking at, you know, the um who are most who who are the individuals that are more likely to violate that are dangerous versus again the the other side of ensuring that you know people are not overly surveilled on something that maybe people feel like they shouldn't be on EM for.

Right.

So that's a tough balancing act is as you've kind of highlighted in the way you described it.

I think it's important to understand there's a difference between major violations and minor violations, right?

So when we talk about this compliance number, that's people who have absolutely no violations whatsoever.

Um a minor violation is very different than a major violation, a major violation, which is the ones that we've dedicated ourselves to bringing within the court or in front of the court within 24 hours are strap tampers.

So if somebody foils their bracelet, they cut their bracelet, they try to disarm it in some way, or they're away from their home for more than three hours.

And our check in that system to confirm that is that the home confinement unit actually goes out and checks to see if they're there.

Um those come in within the court within 24 hours.

Minor violations would be say somebody was asked to work overtime at their job and came home an hour later.

That is not something they would be dragged into court over.

That was not something we would want to interfere their life about.

Um and so those cases are brought up on their minor violations are brought up on their next normal court date where the judge will give them an opportunity to explain like why were you out of compliance for that hour?

And and the judges are reasonable.

They understand that this list of necessary you know, movement is important.

I mean, these are fundamental things people need to do to live their lives to see their doctors to get treatment.

And so um, you know, as we know, many of these individuals, they're not going to a doctor with an appointment, maybe they're going to a clinic where they have to wait.

There's an understanding that exists in that process.

Um for the same reason as say they were more than three hours late getting back from a clinic appointment.

If home compliment gets to their home and they're there, they're not violating them.

They're saying, okay, there's a reason for it, and that's fine.

Um there's a difference on the domestic violence side.

Um individuals who are um out on GPS exclusion zones, we really don't give them much grace at all.

If they violate the zone even for a minute, we're reviewing that within 24 hours.

And the reason why is because it's a very sensitive population, and we've ordered them to stay away from that individual, and we expect them to do so.

So we don't create uh we don't allow much grace, I guess, in that space.

Um but what we do do is we review it.

Um if it looks like say the person was on a train passing through the zone.

The judge is gonna take that into consideration and potentially either not issue a warrant or not enter a violations of conditions or release on that.

Yeah.

Um I appreciate that because I think that there's so many different, I would say it's a big spectrum.

Um, and a lot of these um I wouldn't say they're gray areas, but they're also areas that need to be again looked at very carefully and evaluated.

So I appreciate that.

Um in um the the report, the bullet points, you said that you implemented a plan with the um sheriff's office, the clerk's office to process warrants for major EM violations.

Those are the ones that you're talking about, um, including those zones, I'm assuming, including the other thing.

And those are the ones that are done within 24 hours.

And when was that officially implemented?

And then has it been, do you consider it to be successful?

Uh January 1st, I think was our date.

I'm looking at you, Megan.

Is that correct?

February 1st?

February.

So yeah, it took about 60 days for us to get in that into place.

And um success is relative, right?

Um the system will never be perfect.

Uh as I said in my remarks, it's not prohibitive.

It's not gonna stop someone from going out and possessing a gun or doing those things.

Um but the fact that we are in higher rates of compliance already, uh, I think is indicative that we are moving forward.

Uh I would like to believe that the longer that we continue on this path, the more our compliance rates will go up as people begin to understand the system and the limitations in it.

Um and as you um mentioned uh uh the warrants, and I I know I know um State Attorney Burke testified earlier today.

Um take a moment to talk about that is that um the judiciary does not expedite the warrant.

Um that is not what we write on the piece of paper.

Um what we've done is we've worked with the clerk um to code violations of conditions of release in a certain way.

And so there are basically two codes that now exist in clerk's poropolis system, one for violations of conditions of release, the other for failures to appear.

They're both warrants.

Um, but the violations and conditions of release are sent to a different email address in the sheriff's office where he may choose to expedite it, and I'm sure he is, because he does an excellent job of triaging each warrant that comes in, evaluating the individual and kind of determining which one he's going to try to service in a way.

And as I said, he has access to location data, so that allows him to him to expedite that warrant.

So it's not done by the judge.

Yeah, and I don't believe a judge should ever say this warrant is more important than that.

That's not our job, that's law enforcement's job, and we let them do their job.

But by generating codes and data, it allows them to do that in a more efficient way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um next to next uh bundle of updates were regarding juvenile justice.

I did have some questions, but you actually answered them previously and um addressed them in your remarks.

Um the one aspect that I didn't see on here that I'm hoping that maybe I can work closely with your office is in regards to uh potential um situations.

Uh I I've mentioned the case that happened two weeks ago where uh uh somebody was detained um outside of the JTDC, which was somebody that was actually coming out uh and they were detained.

17-year-old was detained with their family members.

Um ICE did um did that, and he woke up, I think in like Florida or something, and later, a few days later, electronic monitor was removed by them is what we're assuming.

Um so I think advocates and and myself and some of my colleagues were really worried about what that process really looks like, right?

Um how did I know that they were coming out at that time?

Um, you know, release um information was that was that something that is either being shared somehow or how are they accessing this information?

We've worked with the state attorney, obviously with the sheriff's office.

There's the ICE detainer ordinance that prohibits, you know, specific collaboration with ICE.

Um there's certain uh policies um that we are seeing that ICE continues to circumvent or violate um and they're using every loophole um in the book.

So um this one particularly I think touched many of us because this is a young person coming out out of the JTDC.

So I don't know.

Um obviously would be glad to talk to you offline regarding this specific case, but I don't know if there's anything that you all can share in regards to what safeguards are being done within the JTDC boundaries to ensure that the young people there are um number one kept safe, um, that are not um uh you know being targeted.

Um I always say that there's always a process, there's there's a legal process to do things.

Um, but a lot of the times we're seeing is that these processes and the laws are and sanctuary policies are being violated.

So I I don't know if there's anything that you can share on that end, and if you can't, you know, on the record, it's fine.

Um, but just want to make sure that I um uh that I follow up with you in that specific case.

And I'm thankful for you doing so, and I'm happy to discuss it offline with you as much as you want.

I can assure you though that we do have internal processes and procedures that prohibit JTDC employees from communicating with ICE about anybody in our custody.

Um we know that at one point, not in this particular case, that ICE had called into the facility to try to ascertain whether we had a young person there.

And our policies say you can't confirm or deny, you can't say a word.

Um, and we certainly try to monitor that and reaffirm that policy and procedure as much as we can to the individuals who work there.

Absolutely.

Well, thank you for uh stating that.

Um I guess the last uh well, we talked about interpreters um the five new staff being hired.

So I I knew that there were some uh work that was being done there.

Also had some uh questions regarding third-party contractors in regards to accessing, you know, we're having language access in the courtrooms.

But uh your updates talks about technology being utilized.

Um can you just walk us through what technology that is?

Yeah, so we're we're operating a pilot project in branch 23 with Judge Dan Gallagher.

Um, and really this was his idea, and I compliment him for it.

Um what we did is we used some of the uh knowledge we gained during COVID um through our IT department, uh Mr.

Carroll.

Um, and what we've done is the old system, and let me highlight how rough it was is that our shortage of interpreters was such that if um a Spanish speaker appeared in court on Wednesday in branch 23, they would be told to come back next Tuesday when a Spanish interpreter would be available in the building.

And obviously, at least to me, that is not a workable answer.

That is two days that this person has to take off work or be away from their family or get themselves to that courthouse.

That is not an acceptable thing.

So what we did was is that we set up a computer in the courtroom with a set of headphones.

Um and the interpreter can be centrally located at a different facility.

Um so it is live interpretation using Zoom.

It is as though the interpreter is standing right next to the individual.

It's just they're wearing headphones rather than having their ear whispered into while the proceedings go on.

And in doing so, we've been able to alleviate that come back in a week or come back in five days.

Um the system is working well.

Um we are contemplating trying to roll that out to the other um courthouses so that more interpreters or less and excuse me, less interpreters can handle more courtrooms up to obviously a reasonable limit.

Um that combined with the addition of the five interpreters and the change in the process that we've implemented for hiring, I think will go a long way towards helping solve this problem.

Are there five additional uh individuals um with a union?

Yes, I believe so.

Yeah.

Uh Ms.

Mez is here, is that true?

Yeah, yes, they are.

Imagine if she said no.

I yeah, I was pretty sure, but I wanted to, you know, be right is better.

Okay, moving on to the next set of bullet points.

Yes, can we come back because we're absolutely um Commissioner Miller?

Yeah.

Thank you.

And thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for your team's work on the domestic violence task force.

I know it was months in the making and many meetings, and so I think some of them are here today.

So I just want to thank them for their work.

And um, I know that you will continue to make those enhancements that we've talked about.

So some of the things that were outlined in your report, I think uh Commissioner Naya asked about I I just wasn't really clear about the electronic monitoring and the increase from 35% to 42%.

Um can you just explain that one more time?

It just wasn't sinking in.

That's the increase in people who are in total compliance, meaning no alarms.

No alarms are being generated by those individuals.

Yeah, and so though did you say something about the people who are not in total compliance?

Well, the people who are not in total compliance are going to break down into one of two categories, major violations or minor violations.

Um major violations are individuals again who um tamper with their strap, cut their strap, or are away from their home or area for more than three hours or enter into an exclusion zone.

Those are major violations.

Those people are brought into court within 24 hours, or at least the case is brought into court within 24 hours.

Okay.

Minor violations would be somebody who was maybe three hours and one minute, right, late getting home.

That's a minor violation.

They're not brought into court within 24 hours, nor is their case.

They're brought into court on a future date.

So when you look at that total compliance number at you know, 40 something percent, a lot of those, the bulk of those individuals are minor violations.

Um the major violations are a very small percentage of those.

Okay.

All right, got it.

Um and then thank you for the outline that you provided us.

In the outline, you talked about the added legal help desk at DLE in Markham for domestic relations cases.

So this was a major thing that came out during the domestic violence task force as well as domestic relations task force that we I mean domestic relations hearing that we also had.

And so when we're looking at this expanded um legal help, would these be lawyers, advocates, and and how would they be dispersed?

Because we did hear a lot of discrepancies between the different courthouses.

It well, you know, I met with some individuals the other day, Chicago Legal Aid, for instance.

I think they have 115 attorneys uh in their office.

Um they would love to be in every location.

It's an issue of money, right?

As it always is as far as that.

I will find the space for people if there's financing in a way to have advocates, whether they be attorneys or non-attorneys present.

Um so to answer your question short, you know, the conversation with Chicago Legal Aid, it's attorneys.

Um others are advocates who are not attorneys.

Um I can't, I don't at the moment can boil down to you exactly who's where and doing what, but we can get that to you if you'd like.

Yeah, I would because the other discrepancy that we hear is that people don't want to necessarily travel, especially to the Markham courthouse, which you know, um if you can comment on that, because we've heard that a lot from what's come out during our hearings.

I've I've heard that as well, and I've asked, and I was told that wasn't true.

So I think it depends on who we talk to, we get a different answer.

Um I am working my way through that problem.

I don't know if Renata or Judge Rice have any views on that.

I think so.

Just for clear, you mean the advocates or whoever.

Yes, whoever, because if they're assigned to a courthouse, they their obligation should be to be there no matter where they're gonna be.

Because the people who work for the county have to be there.

Yes.

Right.

So I think probably the best way to do is get an answer to you uh soon sooner rather than later, because I think we and we also probably need to boil the question down to more specific so I can understand.

Are you talking about court advocates?

Are you talking about volunteers or Chicago?

Volunteers.

I'm talking about people who work for the county who are part of the system that under the various countries.

Yeah, I think so.

If people are picking and choosing, which is what we heard, people are picking and choosing where they want to go, which leaves under resourced areas in inconvenient areas of their choosing to decide it's inconvenient to travel to Markham.

So we see that already as a very d big discrepancy.

So if there is since we're talking about budgets and we're talking about money, if people are working and they don't just want to go somewhere, then maybe they shouldn't work here.

Commissioner Hi.

You too.

Um I just want to make sure I understand your question.

Um and yes, Renata Steele with the Office of the Chief Judge in the domestic violence division.

Um I just want to make sure I understand your question.

Are you saying that there are individuals that typically would work and provide supportive services in a courthouse like Markham and they're refusing to go there?

That I don't know, refusing is the right word.

They're not there.

Okay.

Well, this is the first that I'm hearing of it, and we would be happy to look into that.

Um there are no advocacy agencies that work for the county, so they're all private organizations, they're all nonprofits.

Um, and there are many within Cook County that service the various courthouses, and there are some advocacy agencies in Markham.

So I would be happy to look into it and see um from the ones that do have like regular um office space and everything in the Markham courthouse and find out what might be going on and get away.

And I know you've been very good at being a part of all the conversations that we had, have been having through both domestic relations and domestic violence.

So I don't want to um deliberate over what those differences are.

We just want to make sure that if we're looking at funding external or extra services, that it's equitable across the courthouses and that people can't say that they're not going to a certain place versus another place because it's too far and they work for Cook County.

They need to be able to go wherever they need to go.

Yeah.

Um so and and maybe I'll just say one more thing.

Um historically, and as you've heard repeated many times, there has been a decline recently in funding.

There's never been enough funding for service agencies, the advocacy groups that support survivors.

And because of that, sometimes they have limited staff, so they're not able to be in all the places that they would like to be.

And so that could be one of the issues in terms of like why we have advocates that are at 555 that are not able to be at 555 and the daily center just because there is a shortage of staffing.

But in the suburban courthouses where everything is under one roof, um I can definitely look into A, whether or not advocates that are providing domestic violence advocacy services within the domestic violence cases would also be able to support someone who, for instance, has a domestic violence order of protection within the domestic relations case and get back to you.

Right, yeah.

So I mean, so thank you.

And um this is just to get some.

Oh, I'm sorry, Judge Rice wants to jump in really quick.

Let me um Good afternoon.

Judy Rice.

Uh one of the things that we know is that our advocacy agencies get money from the city, uh, and they may need money from the county to be able to fund uh advocates to go to many of these locations.

Um we don't employ any advocates in uh the office of the chief judge.

These are all uh agencies, nonprofit agencies that work with us as our community partners.

But they have funding to work in the city, but they need the funding to work in the county.

So that's something that the county board can be very helpful to us with.

Well, and we'd love to be helpful if asked.

Yes.

So let's let's get that, you know, um focused on because I think this is a circular conversation that keeps happening.

So if that is a need, let's get the need addressed.

And if there's advocates that have funding from one source versus another, we'd love to, I mean, I'm sure here we'd love to see some kind of funding source for domestic violence cases and domestic relations cases for advocates to be at the suburban courthouses.

So if that is a need, this is where we discuss the need.

Right.

And I I think um that they are asking uh, and uh I know that you'll have been meeting with many of the advocacy groups, uh, but uh funding uh has been cut from the federal government, and so we have to make up for that.

Right.

Yes.

Okay, thank you, Judge Rice.

And then the other thing that was outlined in the modernization and transparency piece, um, I think it was talked about a little bit, but again, we're since we're talking about budget.

So is there a budget that you need for this that we can help you get when we're looking at the recording and presentation of the digital evidence and interpretation that's listed on the the sheet that you gave us, Chief B.

So yeah, that would be under our technology budget for the interpretation portion.

Um so certainly we could ask there to do so.

Um I don't think the cost of roll interpretation functions like that out is that great.

Um it's it's probably a negligible number.

It's just finding the solution, which we've done and now testing that solution and then rolling it out uh around the So we do have the funding for it?

I think we can operate, yeah.

Mr.

Carroll is indicating he has it in his budget.

So victims also have been saying that they get charged if they wanted to have a recording of this.

Is there a way that they could not be charged for that?

Sure.

Uh first well, first of all, we uh answer that.

Yeah, go ahead and I have some details on all that into.

Yeah.

Um we um we transcribe, we record all domestic violence hearings that happen uh within domestic violence court.

And what we do is we allow people to file what's called a 298 petition.

Uh and then that 298 petition, they can detail uh that they do not have uh sufficient income to purchase those records.

And so when a judge signs that uh order, they can get those transcripts for free.

And uh we're issuing those many, you know, many a day for people to get their transcripts free of charge.

Okay.

And I would add on um court reporters and court specialists, the ones who generate those transcripts off those audio recordings are individuals that are funded by the state.

The state appoints things about 11 million dollars a year to those individuals.

Um those individuals are all unionized.

Um the cost per page is a negotiated contract with that union, the IBEW to generate those transcripts.

Um so the 298 petitions really come out of the state budget to do so.

Um if the objective would be to finance all those, um obviously that would be a legislative act by the state to do so, or perhaps um money coming from the county to pay for those individuals who are not capable of of doing so.

Um but interestingly, the negotiated rate that occurs here in Cook County is then adopted statewide um as the rate that everybody across the state pays for transcripts.

Okay, and I do think from a legislative standpoint, the other thing that we learned that there's many things that are by statute that need to have conversations with at the state level, and I think that's gonna happen.

So I know you guys aren't in that.

We're not in that, so someone else has to figure that out.

All right.

My last question about the stalking no contact.

I know you said that um there's we had a number of how many there are.

24.9.

Okay, 24.9.

Um, do you have a number of how many of those that are stalking no contact also have a felony charge associated with them?

I don't think any of them would have.

Yeah, none of them would have a felony charge attached to them.

Some of them do.

We've heard from victims that say that they've had stalking no contact that has a felony charge associated with it, and so they're still waiting.

So that's something else I think we can talk about later.

They they would not be attached to each other statutorily, they're very different.

Um they someone could have a pending felony case and file a stalking no contact or be the subject or respondent in a stalking no contact.

Um but yeah.

So but they're not they're very different.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Kevin.

Thank you, Chairman.

Oh wow, that was loud.

Um I'm passing over to Commissioner Aguilar because I know he has to make a comment before he leaves.

And then I'll go come back.

Okay.

Thank you, Judge.

It's good seeing you.

Good to see you.

And uh my comments are not to criticize your office.

You first of all, you're doing a fantastic job, and I admire everything you have done the last this past eight months.

But I am concerned about the EM because there's a history behind it.

About over two years ago, I had a meeting with the Illinois Chiefs Association and other law law enforcement agencies with uh Commissioner Moore.

They were very, very concerned about the transition of EM to your office.

And they described it, that that's gonna happen, it's gonna be fatal when we found out what happened.

Um you're a branch of government.

We're a branch of government.

We're a legislature, you're the judicial, and there's an executive, which is the president.

The sheriff office falls under our jurisdiction, not the other way around.

And I believe, personally, you should not be this EM program should have not been pushed to your office, absolutely not.

You are not a law enforcement agency.

I have contacted other counties and I've got some advice on EM.

And I had discussions with the judge, and he was blaming it on the Safety Act.

When I talked to other prosecutors in other counties, there's this not necessarily this that is absolutely not true.

The Safety Act has nothing to do in the administration of EM.

And the release of some of these people to your office had some consequences that we have seen.

It's unfair to you that this was you walked into a Hornets judge, and I feel really bad about this.

I know we had a discussion about this.

Um, as as the chiefs of police have described, it over two years ago.

It's a it was extremely dangerous.

We saw the results.

What was going to happen?

So I am very, very concerned about the DEM uh being transferred to your office.

You're not a babysitter.

You execute justice.

We legislate, and they uh and and the president executes uh uh the her office.

The sheriff is the is the warden of jail.

He should be out there, and this is an operational function of the sheriff of law enforcement, and and uh uh you should not be given this burden, and it's a shame that this is happening, and I'm very and I'm a for discussions with the sheriff, and I just don't know what else to say.

But that's the little history behind it.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I I've appreciated our communications over the last eight months that they've been helpful, and I'm thankful for it.

Um and I don't disagree, there is some a separation of powers argument that could be made somewhere along the line.

I heard that's in the Constitution somewhere, but uh Yes.

But I uh yeah, the judge.

We I I've discussed the the EM, we have the best EM officers in the country.

Other counties, other sheriffs, other states have come in that we have the Krem of the Krem of EM officers.

They can prevent certain crimes.

They know where the hotspots are at.

They know how to prevent it, and they prevented a very uh very uh uh cases that could have been fatal.

I I've seen them, I admired them.

I we should be very proud of our officers because they do an excellent above and beyond jobs.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chairman.

Hello, Chief Judge, welcome to your first uh mid-year budget you're in.

Thank you.

First, I I want to just uh uh uh you know share that you've got a great team around you.

Uh I echo the accolades that you shared about Renata, the county would be better off if we had more many more Renatas uh within our county government.

Uh so I I actually, when I was in law school uh uh interned at the domestic violence courthouse under presiding judge Rice, and I know we're gonna miss her uh ton and excited to see uh uh uh the moves that uh Judge Weaver is making and also I'm familiar with uh Judge Marubio as well.

So you got a great team around you.

Um I did have a few questions.

I wanted uh uh just back to the um conversation on EM.

I know hey, what with this consolidation, it's definitely a big shift.

Um I know that prior to that consolidation it it was kind of operating a little bit differently.

You know, I I went and toured uh the operation at the chief judge as well as at the sheriff prior to the consolidation.

Um I know depending on why an individual was assigned to EM, um, you know, sometimes you know w w was there was a bit differences in you know what how severe of a case led him to or them to being placed on EM.

So is there a separation within now under the chief judge, depending on what led this individual to be on EM and how you know how much monitoring an individual would need depending on you know the severity of the crime.

So um the statute requires that people be released on the least restrictive conditions, and there are times that a judge believes that electronic monitoring is the least restrictive condition.

Um there are also parameters within the statute that I require a judge or a judge should identify a particular individual, victim or group before placing someone on EM.

Um there are times that the state attorney may disagree with that and certainly has the right of appeal if they do believe that we have not met that statute.

Um but do your second point is there is no differentiation between someone who's on electronic monitoring for retail theft versus perhaps uh an armed robbery, right?

They they get the same level of monitoring from the track group as well as our probation, our adult probation department.

So we don't differentiate out internally between one or the other.

And uh and that's the case as well in terms of like time that well, some individuals are well, I guess you kind of answer the question.

So it's the same no matter okay.

Yeah, they they get the same treatment across the board.

Now, uh as I said earlier, the sheriff does triage if a warrant was issued for one of those individuals, say they violated the conditions of release, the judge, or excuse me, the sheriff does triage that warrant and make a determination based upon the charge.

I think uh and I don't know his internal system, but our conversation based on the charge, their criminal history, f other factors, and then that helps them determine how they're going to move forward with it.

Very good.

No, I appreciate that.

And then um the youth who was released from the JTDC, I believe that was the individual who was on EM, and then ICE removed the electronic monitoring device, and I believe was that removed when he was already transported to Florida?

Yes.

Um we were able to track him to I think Miami, um, and we were tracking him minute by minute and knew where he was.

Um I was getting updates regularly from Director Hemeter regarding it, and I think it was if I recall, was it about 48 hours later they removed the the band?

So it was almost two days later when they removed the band in Miami.

So and uh if the technology hasn't changed, that means we were able to monitor every place that individual was moved after they left the JDDC and were brought into ICE uh custody.

That is correct.

Um and were did we was that EM device returned to us?

I don't believe so, no.

And is there any recourse we have for the cost of uh of the broken device that the so we lease those devices from the track group?

Um I know where you're going and and it's a interesting idea.

Uh I don't know is the short answer to that, but that's uh an interesting idea and question and suggestion all in one, I think.

So uh but yeah, it was never returned to us.

So um a criminal damage to property charge could exist out there somewhere.

Um definitely worth in uh investigating.

Uh I know that when it comes to our juvenile courts, you know, those are the ones that are not open to the public.

Um we ensure that our youth uh you know, in terms of how those cases are dealt with, there are additional protections because they are under the age of 18.

Um I know you mentioned being in uh you know regular conversations with be it the other separately electeds or appointeds that uh deal with um you know the criminal justice uh aspects of county government.

Um it does seem that when that individual was released, somehow information was shared that allowed ICE to be ready and prepared to detain them.

Um have there been conversations uh you know I I doubt a judge would do this, but other individuals who were in that room, be it you know with the state's attorney, the public defender, the uh um, you know, the sheriff, et cetera.

Are there conversations ongoing to where that leak may have originated?

We did have some conversations internally about that.

I believe we pulled our phone records to make it to see if anyone made any outgoing calls.

Um we did not find any outgoing calls from JTDC.

Um if I was I have, frankly, looked at it like where are the points that that information could come out.

Um it could be at the time of arrest by whatever law enforcement agency, knowing you know they could alert us saying we bring in this individual into JTDC, they're likely to be released because the charge is one that they'd be released on.

So it could happen from the point of inception with contact to law enforcement all the way through to whatever agency.

But I can tell you we have internal policies that say you cannot relate any information out.

Um and if someone calls in, you cannot relate any information that way as well.

Unfortunately, what we can't do is track people's cell phones and every employee's cell phone and the phone calls they make.

But our internal processes and procedures, we investigated it as best we could uh within the bounds.

I'm I'm glad to hear that.

Uh concerning all around, uh, but uh I'm glad that you took it upon yourself to with that due digital diligence to investigate and make sure that it did not originate uh uh within what is under your capacity.

So I'm glad to hear that.

Um that concludes all my questions.

Uh I've got some great colleagues asking questions today, but thank you.

And uh look forward to seeing you uh at our budget hearings uh as we near the end of the year.

Yeah, as as do I, I think.

No, uh it's it's all good.

I'm looking forward to it too.

Good to see you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, uh Chief Judge, for being here today.

Um I just have uh virtually everything I wanted to ask has already been asked.

So I'll try and make it short.

Um the state's attorney was here talking about EM earlier.

Um and uh I I asked a question about uh uh sort of the the what other counties do, whether or not this is governed by state statute, whatever.

Um she did make a comment that that several counties don't have an EM program, which after I thought about it for two seconds, totally made sense because some counties in Illinois probably have fewer people living there than we have in our entire criminal justice system in Cook County.

Um so uh that doesn't surprise me, but I assume that several of them do.

And the question that I have is for you is given that, uh how does how does yours compare how does or how did not yours, but the cook county one compared to other counties.

Are there issues in terms of either state or county ordinance that you think somehow should be addressed in order to more effectively do electronic monitoring in Cook County?

Sure.

So let's start with um this is that there is an organization called the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services.

Um they currently provide electronic monitoring in 84 of the 102 counties in the state of Illinois.

The bulk of the counties are in the OSPS realm.

Um is at the point of transfer from the sheriff to the officer chief judge could have gone to the Office of Statewide Pretrial Services at that time for some reason, and I wasn't sitting in the chair at that time, it did not.

Um so they exist and they do run the bulk of the counties across the state, and they are adding counties constantly.

In fact, they've added two counties in the last six months to their uh repertoire.

Um they operate in very much the same way that we operate.

Um they use the same vendor that we use.

Um so everything in their system operates very similar to ours.

Um in fact, and this is not indicative of a complete copy, but many of the employees of OSPS were sheriff Dart's employees at one time or another.

So they have the knowledge that he was operating under when he did so.

Um I can tell you that I do coordinate with Office of Statewide Pretrial Services.

We do have regular conversations about how we're operating and how they're operating.

And I was recently on a committee with their head as well as other chief judges around the state.

Right now, Kane County operates an independent EM system like we do.

Their system is different, however, they charge their accused a day a fee to go on EM and then a daily rate to be on EM.

I think there's some equity-related issues there, and the concept of that someone is paying their way is troublesome to me.

The statewide OSPS with the 84 counties does not charge a fee.

They operate like we do, where you are not charged to be on electronic monitoring and be home.

So I don't know if that answers your question in totality, but um it maybe gives you a little outline that um the bulk of the counties are all in one system.

There are a few outliers.

Kane is one, we are one.

My understanding is that Kane County will suddenly will soon be under the OSPS realm as well.

Um but the reality is this, and as I said in my remarks, we're the largest EM operator outside of the Federal Government.

So when we go, if we were to go to OSPS, we would essentially double the number of individuals they have on EM, which is a big ask of any organization.

Um we're not there and we're not doing that uh at this structure, but it gives you a context as to how big uh the operation is.

And given that, given that uh Kane County aside, um are there any state laws or county ordinances that might or that you would like to propose?

Or there is there any change to the structure that you would like to see that would make your job on EM easier, more just so you know uh having worked in this area for a while, um, working in first appearance court, I certainly have some thoughts about that.

Um but we as a judiciary speak with one voice through the Supreme Court.

Um and I do know the Supreme Court is evaluating electronic monitoring now.

Again, I referenced that task force, I sit on that task force, and there are, you know, obviously they're gathering information, and at some point the Supreme Court will put a voice to that, I believe, with the legislature and have suggestions or not.

I don't know what they're gonna choose to do.

Um but I would have to defer that to the Supreme Court as as the judiciary speaks with one voice, and the Supreme Court is that voice.

And again, just circling back to the initial quote part of the question, is that I'm interpreting your remarks as EM in Cook County is is currently being run in a similar manner to the bulk of the state of Illinois.

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

In fact, it might be run a little tighter in some circumstances than other parts.

So thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Yep.

It's my turn and it's almost over.

Almost.

It's almost over, Judge.

Good to see you, Commissioner.

Good to see you as well.

Um really quick, how much money are you asking for?

406 million, um, according to Mr.

Brentsky, who just handed me a note.

So 406.

Okay.

I know that's where it costs.

Um God's work cost, I guess.

Um first thing, um, has the court evaluated expanding the use of Cook County public guardian's office sliding scale fees or pro bono appointments for qualifying families so that children receive quality representation without creating an overwhelming financial burden on parents.

I'm speaking directly to some of the exorbitant costs that we heard uh that people are paying to the Guardian at LITMS.

Um I'm just asking, have you investigated that?

Because I'm I'm pretty concerned about that.

And I I also think that um having that kind of I'm not I'm just not comfortable uh that if we're saying we are doing this in the best interest of children, that if we're doing this in the best interest of children, then that there probably shouldn't be such a exorbitant amount of money connected to that work.

So I I just take issue with it.

So I do know that in the in the other office, um, there is a sliding fee scale.

Now I'm concerned about that too because when they had a presentation, briefing hearing, whatever we're calling these things these days, I'm kind of half-brained right now.

But um they were saying that there is a sliding fee scale, but when I said so, you're telling me that you can have a family that's making 60,000 and another family making 160,000 and they're both being treated the same.

And the answer was kind of like yes.

So that's my question.

It's really just kind of geared at uh the issue with the GAL's office.

So just to um understand your question, um, does the guardian, the public guardian that we have who currently charges about 110 an hour, do they have a sliding scale for individuals who would bring that below 110 an hour for guardian work is the well, not only that, although thank you for that.

I'm talking about can their work be expanded so that the private GALs are not getting as much money as they're getting.

I know that there are private GALs that are getting paid $300, $400 an hour in comparison to the $110.

So my question is have you all um explored the idea of expanding that office to relieve some of the financial burden that other families are incurring because they're being asked, made encouraged to um secure these GALs for their children when these custody situations are happening.

And and we have had those conversations.

I'm looking over at Charles uh Goldberg.

Charles, would you like to address like how if there is a sliding scale and further whether you could add people to your staffing and what the cost of it to add people to staffing to to do so?

Sure, I was coming to come over here.

Charles is is our guardian uh for Cook County.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Charles Goldberg.

I have the privilege of serving as the Cook County public guardian.

So one in in terms of expanding our representation um of children in in the um domestic relations cases, the answer is yes.

And in fact, under Chief Judge Beech's leadership, we got five new positions, three of which are attorneys to do just that.

And we're hoping to accept expanded appointments starting very soon, starting in September.

We're right now interviewing and hiring and training the lawyers for that.

So that's the question one.

Um and in terms of the sliding scale at the hearing, um, my chief deputy Ulpa Patel testified that we do discount fees now, but I think that um commissioner, you took issue that it wasn't like a formal transparent sliding scale that was published somewhere.

It was more in the discretion of our office and with court approval.

And so we are looking um to at least pilot that in early starting in early 2027.

We're waiting until after we have our new five people on board in the new expansion going.

Um that is something that uh um we plan to pilot starting in 2027.

This is good news, but I also uh was interested in wanting to know, and it was provided, but it was very confusing, so I needed it to be provided to me and easier to understand or easier to read language, which was I was curious about the the judges that assign GALs, the private ones most often, and who are the GALs that are being assigned, and what is the average that families are paying out for this representation?

Because uh during the hearings for the um the domestic violence, a lot of custody issues or custody related issues uh came up as you could well imagine.

And some of the families even testify that they were they were jailed when they could not pay the money for the guardian at lightem.

And so, how are you being threatened with jail or going to jail for your inability to pay an attorney who is representing your child when this is supposed to be in the best interest of children?

So that's my deal on that.

And I wait with breath abate it.

Okay.

So for a response and documentation.

Okay.

So I do know that we provide, and I reviewed the documentation that we provide you, and what we did see in that documentation is that no one judges favoring any particular guardian at lightem.

Um what the overall fee structure is for each one of those guardians, I did not have access to, and and I don't think the document we provided you had access to it at all.

Um that's a lack of transparency.

Well, I don't know if we're able to track that or whether the clerk codes for that and is capable of tracking that documentation.

So um I'm certainly happy to look into it.

Um if we can get it, I would love to have it as well, um, because it would be informative.

Um, and I think the judges should be aware of it as well.

I think that when a judge appoints a guardian, they should have an idea of what that fee structure looks like and make sure it's appropriate for whoever they're ordering that appointment for.

Um and I do know that there's variance amongst the private bar that is providing guardian services.

Agreed.

And so uh ultimately I I just to be very clear, I totally disagree with there being private attorneys in this environment representing children.

I I just I I just think it it kind of breeds a I think you get my point.

Okay.

Um so earlier I asked um as uh states attorney Burke about it's my understanding that only 57 referrals have been made to RJCC.

So is there any way to increase the numbers without the state's attorney?

Is there any way to really expand this opportunity for people to be in an environment where they can kind of write their worrungs and be cross, you know, enter into a a corrective measure um without the state's attorney?

So in short, the answer is no.

Um the the state's attorney, their lane, and this is a lane I'm not allowed in, or the judiciary is not allowed in is determining prosecution and how it will proceed.

It is purely a state's attorney determination as to whether someone is eligible for an RJCC.

The second question that has to be asked after that is that if the state offers restorative justice as an option, does the attorney, whether it is private or public representing the accused, agree or inform their client that they should agree or not agree?

Ultimately, it's the client's determination, the accused determination if they're accepting the state's offer for an RJCC.

Um in many instances they don't.

So there's really a two-step process.

One is yes, the state's attorney can offer restorative justice as an option more often, and then the uptake that occurs amongst the accused will be the final factor as to how many ultimately go there.

Um I think it's also an interesting point to point out is that a recent statute that went into effect in the juvenile realm allows a judge to have an order and evaluation and use restorative justice as part of the sentencing of that youth.

And that is a brand new provision.

It's the first time it just came out.

So we're educating our judges to that, and hopefully that causes an uptick or more cases going into the restorative justice courts.

Thank you.

That that is good news.

So I think very, very early in your report, you mentioned that you know there was the hire of the director of juvenile uh services and is kind of reimagining of how we're doing juvenile and probation, and I was honored to be a part of that.

Um where do we stand now with the hiring for who's actually going to?

I think you mentioned it.

I think there was someone who was there who was interim.

So uh where do you what is the expected time to hire someone that's going to be running the juvenile and then this other um component?

And I know that I was kind of emphatic about what that representation should look like.

I was kind of encouraging that based on the population or the demographic of the young people who are often the guest of Cook County.

Um so where are we with that?

Because it's my understanding that the PREA audit has happened.

Have you received the the the out the um findings of the PRIA audit?

We have not received the pre-audit findings.

They are due shortly in August, I believe, August 11th, I think is the date they're due.

Um once those come in, uh we have six months to make adjustments.

Um and then from there there will be a final conclusory report thereafter.

Um so that's where the pre-audit currently stands.

As to the hiring of the uh superintendent of the juvenile temporary detention center as well as the um director of juvenile probation, uh, the application period has closed for that, and the search committee hiring committee are now starting the process of interviewing those individuals.

I think with a targeted date of having them hired in the early fall.

And I'm looking at you, Director Hemeter, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Well, I'll be looking for you too in the early fall.

And I guess you know you'll guys will be back in September and you'll maybe have good news.

Hopefully.

Oh, hopefully.

Okay.

Um I think that's it.

Uh you know, I don't I don't have about 30 more questions.

I don't have 30 minutes in me.

Um but this is this is your first time at the bat.

Thank you so much.

I am encouraged by your report.

I read it and some of the um innovative things that that you are attempting in this in this uh role.

So thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner McCask.

Good afternoon, Judge.

I am not going to hold you.

Thank you for um always being an ear, and I appreciate our conversation.

I look forward to whatever we can pilot to make any of your programs work um more efficiently and more effectively the way that you want to see them.

I know it's hard to reimagine when you're coming in new.

Um so we're in the same spot as it relates to the fifth district, and as you know, we have a lot.

We'll grow together.

To do absolutely.

So and with that being said, I am going to do some follow-up with Judge Rice.

And I will also um follow up with the GPS exclusion tracker.

I did try to find it in the Apple store, so I don't know if that's a private Cook County app, but if someone could direct me after this, that would be great.

We'll get to we'll get that taken care of.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I'm ready.

Am I giving you a heads up?

We really are at the end now.

Yes.

You're your first hearing and his first hearing.

Oh, I'm so sorry, Commissioner Naya has a second round.

Um so uh first judge, welcome and thank you for being here and for your patience for sticking around so long.

Um it comes with the job that is 100% correct.

Um thank you for your commitment to support services, both pretrial as well as for um victims.

Um I know that Justice Advisory Council has awarded over $8 million to domestic violence court or to domestic violence organizations within the past few years, and they are working with DV providers to hear about the needs for funding moving forward.

Are you working with the Justice Advisory Council to see what funding they provide?

Yes, so um Avic for better or worse, we have each other's cell phones, so we text on occasion and talk more often than that.

So, yes, I am working with the Justice Advisory Council and in enjoying it, quite frankly.

So uh we did a joint tour of JTDC, and then the next day, 26 in California with CERMAC Health with the intention of looking at how we can bring more health-related services or better health related services to those populations.

Um, and in doing so identified some weak points in those conversations that we're working on correcting.

In fact, one of those weak points was um making sure that individuals get to their appointments.

Um it seemed to be a weak spot, and I've already had conversations with Sheriff Dart about you know buttressing that system so that they're they're making more of their appointments.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then you were uh briefly touching on things that are outside of your control.

So for example, when a prosecutor decides, you know, not to ask for restorative justice court, you know, uh that is something outside of your control.

And it's outside of a judge's control.

Um but what is within the judge's control is whether or not they choose to grant a detention request or whether or not they choose to grant a request for electronic monitoring.

And um the Illinois um network for pretrial justice found that 30 percent of the people they observed were given a low risk assessment score, and 80 percent of those individuals were detained or subject to electronic monitoring.

Um and that's to me in a very alarming data point.

Um so what training do judges receive on risk assessment tools, if any.

If I could, I will defer to Judge Marubio, who is an expert in this area.

You repeat the the the question.

This is from the uh the report that was recently published from court watching.

Yes.

Um and specifically the question is if judges receive any training regarding risk assessment tools.

Sure.

Uh so the answer is yes.

Anyone who's assigned to a first appearance court specifically in the pretrial division will go through at least a two-week onboarding coupled with another few weeks of observing and slowly being moved into that position.

All new judges who come through the Cook County New Judges School and the statewide new judges school have specific training on first appearance hearings and first appearance activities.

The pretrial assessment is one of those pieces of the hearing.

It is one small data point that is heard in a first appearance hearing.

Um and if I understand your question, uh you want to know why a low-risk pretrial score is not given complete or total weight in a determination.

Yes, I I would like to know, and I would like to know if there's, I guess, training that provides guidance around that, yeah.

Yeah, there is.

And so to give you some background, we have a proprietary PSA in Cook County.

Um it was created by Arnold Ventures, and it looks at nine data points.

And those data points have different weights depending on the age of the defendant, which is interesting.

If you're under 21, there is evidence that you're a higher risk and you might have a higher score.

Some of the things that the PSA doesn't take into consideration, though, is any juvenile history.

So if we have an 18 or 19-year-old or anyone under 21 who's before the court, they might still be under a juvenile sentence, a probation, or have multiple adjudications.

That won't be reflected in a PSA.

But it will be reflected in the state's proffer or the defense proffer about how those cases resolved.

So a person can come before the court with a one in a one, but still have a pending case in juvenile court, or still be under court supervision and on pretrial release on probation, under some kind of pretrial order or judge's order, in other words.

Um and that wouldn't be reflected.

So that one in one doesn't give you a complete picture of that person's background or risk.

In addition, the legislature, when they drafted this act, um, very clearly uh states that you cannot use the PSA as a sole determiner.

So again, it's just one small factor.

It can't push a person towards detention or per push towards release.

You have to look at the entire um factual basis for the case in the background.

Thank you.

Uh that's really helpful.

I guess I'm just curious because you know, never in my life did I think I would uh know so much about our court system.

Or go to um court dates for my friends.

This is a new experience.

Um I'm just curious when you said that that's just one piece of a body of work that's evaluated.

Can you just say for the record, like what a judge looks at when they're determining whether or not they're gonna move forward with a detention at the request of the state's attorney's office or not?

So um uh there's not an uh uh a subjective list that I could give you that a judge looks at.

I'm gonna give you the objective list, which is the statute.

And the statute is full of criteria and factors that we have to consider.

Have to, must, shall.

That's the language of the statute.

Uh so we're looking at those three prongs that are required for a detention.

Is the proof evident by clearing convincing evidence that this is the person, meaning there's been an identification of this person who committed the offense charged.

Is it a qualifying offense, first of all?

Second, does this person pose uh a real and present threat to a an individual, a group of people?

Um, and if so, what's the basis?

And again, we look to the statute and the case law.

And the statute lists factors under dangerousness, specifically under the detention portion that directs the judge to consider certain factors.

And again, those can be whether or not there's a weapon, whether it's a sex offense, whether it's violent, uh, whether the person's on any pretrial conditions already are on probation.

We look at the their age and physical condition, we take that into consideration about the victim as well, and then any other relevant factors that may be proffered.

Then finally, we look at the types of conditions that are available and whether or not we can fashion less restrictive conditions to achieve the goals of pretrial release, which are safety of the community and getting to court on time every time.

So we're looking at it through that lens always, and then using statutory factors.

The appellate court constantly redefines that for us and clarifies it for us.

So for example, um, and I know that there is a concern in this report that you're referencing that uh simple possession of a gun uh is being being filed against.

Well, the appellate court and the legislature both have found that mere possession of a weapon is inherently dangerous.

That language is in appellate court opinions as it defines the section of the statute, and the legislature, in at least three different sections of their own legislation, have identified who should and should not possess a gun.

And it's in the interest of public safety that they limit and prohibit who can possess a gun.

So with all of that said, um, those are the things the judge looks at.

Uh thank you for um for explaining all of that.

There I think is also a deal of uh political pressure and perhaps personal bias that is influencing some of these decisions.

So, you know, I I think about how um a couple months ago an officer, you know, was shot by an individual who uh was on electronic monitoring, I think, or was supposed to be an electronic monitoring.

And I feel like there was a lot of um political pressure to, you know, be even tougher on um uh detentions, perhaps.

Um and so I'm just curious, are there what is the office doing to ensure that uh judges are not feeling like they have to move forward with detentions just because they're requested and because the media is, you know, going through a cycle where they're saying, oh, EM doesn't work, or you know, like there's too many people out.

Um what is the office doing to ensure that judges are making these decisions based on all the criteria you listed out, and they're not caving to a media frenzy.

So our judicial ethics rules, we have specific rule that says that we cannot be uh we we can't make our decisions out of uh out of fear, out of political pressure, out of fear of public clamor.

We have to be able to make the unpopular decisions when it's required.

And uh it's hard.

I bet I was in pretrial for eight years.

I was on my share of receiving end of some pretty nasty tweets and thoughts about me in the media.

Um we've all been there now.

We've all been there.

And so is Judge Beach and so is Judge Ortiz.

We've lived really on that front line of it.

Um and here's what I do know.

No one's happy with us.

I'm too strict, I'm too lenient, I let too many people go, I keep too many people in detention.

That tells me I'm doing it right.

It tells me that I'm using my discretion, and it tells me that uh judges aren't afraid to deny a petition and are not afraid to grant it, and that's where we want judges to be.

We want them to be independent thinkers, free from this kind of criticism.

And this idea that there's a magic number of detentions that is acceptable or appropriate, or the number of releases are appropriate.

We have to look at each case on its own and take the time to do that.

Judge Beach just uh requested that uh uh Chief uh Chief Probation Officer Volker and I do a countywide training on EM.

And part of that was to refresh in judges' minds what does the statute say about when you can order EM and what you have to do once EM is ordered, and to make sure that we're still being consistent.

These refresher course courses are very important.

Uh and the chief um is making some changes in our judicial education protocol uh to make sure that we keep up with that.

But the short answer is no one's happy with us, and that means we're doing it right.

I appreciate you.

Well, thank you both for your time.

Thank you.

Any other questions or Commissioner?

I I will wave my second and third round questions.

Um and I will be submitting questions uh in writing.

Chief, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Well, thank you again, Commissioners.

Thank you.

This committee will stand it reach us to nine uh forty-five on September twenty-third.

Nine fifteen, I'm sorry.