Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comment Period - BOCC (002)The Grant County Advisory Council (GCAC) was created to advise and assist current Leadership officials in Grant County, WA. The GCAC is a volunteer not-for-profit consisting of community leaders with expertise and domain ifields. experience n various The council's mission is to support and maintain policies that benefit citizens while concurrently updating and advising on potential concerns that can interrupt the present and future prosperity of Grant County. February 2023 Update: 1. Amendment of Bill SB 5163. SB 5163 was signed into law on May 10, 2021. See bill history, text, and status here: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/wa/2021- 2022/bi I Is/WAB00012647/ — Releasing of Level 3 Sex offenders (the most violent sex offenders in WA ST.) to equally distribute and conditionally release sexually violent predators to all counties. This was coined ""fair share principals." The program is designed to protect the violent Sex Offender's Constitutional rights while in the same process ignore the Constitutional rights of both the County and county citizens. As it stands, citizens were not allowed individually to vote on these specifically designed housing units within their respective counties. The Counties at this point have no say as to where these housing units can be housed. Early indications are, private parties are buying homes in residential neighborhoods at their discretion, while getting paid $38,,513.50 per month per Violent Sex Offender. Another disturbing aspect of this Bill to make matters worse, is that the State is adamant about not releasing the names and records, of each Level 3 violent sex offender, to local law enforcement officials. This is a reckless and repugnant violation of the current spirit of the National Institute of Justice's interpretation of full disclosure. From the NIJ website: "Communities have widely adopted sex offender registration,, notification and residency restriction laws to reduce the risk of sex crimes. "Registration and notification laws are meant to help law enforcement monitor convicted offenders and solve crimes, help residents protect themselves and their children, and deter crime." Should this be allowed to take place in Grant County, current Grant County Leadership has then allowed an unintended increase of risk to its citizens - particularly to children of younger ages. Legal Issues,, Constitutional Issues, Empirical Data, Duties of the County and the State: There are numerous court cases that disallow the protection of one party's ) Constitutional/Legal Rights at the expense of another. The 14t" Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The State has provided no evidence that this Bill protects all parties. Obligation of a County: A County has an obligation to the best of it's ability, both financially and application wise, to protect and ensure their citizens" safety. This, if allowed, puts an untenable burden on both the Sheriff's Department and the local Police departments to maintain that. This is not feasible. Financial Responsibility: As it stands there is no guideline as to what the State is legally financially responsible for, if a child or adult gets brutally raped, murdered and/or permanently harmed emotionally or physically. What we do know as it stands is that the Bill specifically states the operators of these House/Facilities CANNOT BE LEGALLY SUED for any claims —Legal Immunity. This then would require an additional burden, financially, by the family to seek remedies and compensation if even allowed.. As it stands, there is no guideline as to whom the injured parties are allowed to litigate for compensation. Qualifications of "The Private Party" for the Housing of the Violent Level 3 Offenders: Currently there is very little information available for the County to review about the qualifications of the Housing provider(s) and what the State is using to qualify them. Having the state grant a license to a private party solely, does not ensure the validation of the ethical, moral and legal due diligence that the County has. This becomes of even greater importance since this is an experimental program. In simple terms —there is no empirical data that the current qualification(s) used to measure the Private Party is valid and won't endanger the lives of the citizens of Grant County. Due Diligence: Each County has to be given the opportunity to conduct a thorough and intensive due diligence of this program, since it puts the health and welfare of the citizen at risk. Concurrently it also opens the door for the County to be liable, for allowing this facility to exist - should it not provide enough protection to its citizens. This is a quagmire for the County because this experimental program has no past court law to establish a precedent. Separation of State and County: This is a serious concerning pattern that has developed over the last 5 years. State law established that each County is responsible for Law Enforcement. The State has the right to set guidelines for Law Enforcement but as long as.... it does not increase illegal activity or endangers the county citizens with its Reach. An example of this is busing individuals that have the characteristic of being "homeless," to other Counties while providing State Vouchers for them. The State has misdiagnosed and created a program based on a Characteristic instead of correctly addressing the problem. The Problem for this Demographic, is that 95% of the demographic has either (or all) a Mental Health issue, a Drug/Alcohol addiction or a consistent Criminal record that prohibits them from qualifying for housing. As a result, of this State overreach, cities and counties are now burdened with new criminal activity and have no recourse. (while the Rehabilitation of these individuals is near zero if at all.) This new Level 3 Violent Sex Offender program fits into the same analysis. However what makes this even more troublesome is that this program is not even designed to REHABILATE the violent Sex Offender— it's designed solely to protect their alleged Constitutional Rights. To "NOT Violently Sex Offend" is not the primary purpose and as a result — every Grant County citizen would need to have full documented disclosure of this. Responsibility of the County fora "State Problem" :This bill opens a Pandora's box of legal inconsistency and principle. These violent sex offenders already had housing on an island and away from the public. Yet the State declares it has a new theoretical problem (whether real or not — it has yet to be proven in a court of law) of Constitutional Rights. The State then declares the solution of "Burden" and to "redistribute the problem" to all the Counties. There are glaring flaws with this intellectually dishonest machination. Firstly, with any problem in any situation, the goal is to isolate the problem and prevent the propagation and spreading of the problem. The State is doing precisely just the opposite —its spreading and endangering each County and costing the tax payers more. This is clearly the definition of Malfeasance. Malfeasance under any well intended program is still Malfeasance. Secondly, under any duplicity of law or a logical, fair and responsible definition of County -State relationship, the ability of the State to burden any County of Its Responsibility is by any definition - IRRESPONSIBLE. This would be an act of admission of a malfunctioning Government. Conversely, would it be fair for a County following this same demonstration of "fair and responsible", or to use their new term creation "fair share principals", to burden the state with a crime problem and demand 50 million dollars to hire more police, firemen, and build a jail ? This we know is not feasible and thus this Progra m is not feasible on any legal, ethical, or moral basis, Track Record: In any beginning stage of analysis one would look at existing Empirical Data. Because this is an experimental program, there is no data or track record for this type of program that indicates successful transition into family oriented and community based cities and counties. Nor at this time does this concept align with the majority of psychological recommendations over the last few decades. GCAC has also researched to see if there were any peer reviewed studies that showed that this concept program wou ld be successful — we have not found any at this point. Key factor here is peer reviewed. Recommendation: We recommend that the County Commissioners advise legal counsel to initiate a Cease and Desist Statement on any attempt to execute this program in Grant County. If needed, have legal counsel obtain a legal injunction applying to any application of this program. Additionally, we ask that the County Commissioners,, Legal Counsel,, County Sheriff, Police Heads request an answer to the questions provided below so that further legitimate and thorough due diligence evaluation can be achieved. It would also behoove Grant County Commissioners to set up a meeting with other nearby County Commissioners to discuss these matters and have a joint response in the event these Violent Sex offenders move from County to County without proper supervision. Requests for Information 1. Documentation and Studies indicating that this program has a successful track record. 2. Documentation and Studies that this program has improved the quality of life for the neighborhood, city and county. 3. Copy of the Qualification guidelines and handbook for the hiring of Staff and Ownership of the Housing Units. 4. Breakdown and analysis how the State concluded the per monthly payment per Level 3 Sex Offender. 5. Guidelines for the Safety Protocols. Examples: Fencing, Alarm systems, monitoring, etc. 6. Names and records of the Violent Level 3 Sex Offenders. 7. Demonstration that the Licenses issued to Owners/Operators were an Arms Length Transaction. (IE: Campaign Contributions, Family Members, previous business relationships etc) Questions 1. How does the State measure the success and failure of the Program? 2. Is there a minimal duration for this program? 3. If the Program is deemed to be a failure how does the State plan on terminating the Program? 4. How does the State plan on working with existing Zoning in each City and County? 5. How does the State plan on providing Financial Compensation for any Liability caused by the Owners/Providers and Staff of these units ? 6. How and By Whom is the State funding this program? 7. Once the Program is terminated who is responsible for the Costs and possible damages .7 8. What guidelines does the State have for the County to mitigate should one of these housing units be the center of Environmental damage or the cause of an action that damages nearby residents. homes ? 9. What are the guidelines for local law enforcement wanting to investigate possible illegal activities.? lO.What jurisdiction do these Units fall under if illegal activity is determined to exist?