HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works March 9 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
March 9, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara Brenner in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Ward Nelson None
Tom Brown
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
PRESENTATION BY THE WASHINGTON STATE ASSOCIATION OF COURT
APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES (CASA) (AB99 -081A)
Jody Rosentswieg, Washington State Association of Court- Appointed Special Advocates
(CASA), gave a history of the program. CASA is a non - profit membership organization
throughout Washington State. Their mission is to support effective volunteer advocacy for the
best interest of abused and neglected children involved in the court system. The vision is to
ensure that every child has a safe and permanent home. Their services include an annual
statewide conference, technical assistance, annual management training, publications for
volunteers, and other items. Currently, they serve 28 counties and three tribal courts. In 1997,
there were 1,600 CASA volunteers. The program started in 1977. A Seattle judge was
concerned about children in the court system. Child Protective Services (CPS) brought cases
before the court. In a neglect case, the court has to decide on where the child will live,
appropriate services for the family, and whether the child will become a ward of the State. CPS
had too many cases. Children were removed from homes and drifted in foster homes. He came
up with the idea of volunteer guardians ad litem. They focus time and energy on the welfare of
one specific child, then do a case assessment and report to the court. The National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges recognized CASA as a national model. A child with a CASA
volunteer assigned is more likely to have fewer and more appropriate placements, be placed in
permanent homes sooner, spend less time in the social services system, have increased amount of
time to spend on their cases.
Brown asked for clarification on the difference between CASA volunteers and guardians
ad litem (GAL). Rosentswieg stated that the guardians ad litem are paid.
Brenner questioned whether that was the only difference. Rosentswieg stated that there
are supervision issues that are different.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Rosentswieg stated that the GAL represents what is best for the child, not what the child
thinks is best. CASA is a court authorized volunteer program established by the Superior Court
to manage all aspects of guardian ad litem representation for children in the dependency system.
There are three models for CASA programs in the State. All programs are to manage
recruitment, screening, training, supervision, assignment, and discharge of volunteers.
Recruitment, screening, and training meet or exceed the statutory minimums. Their curriculum
is considered an introduction to guardian ad litem work. It is understood that ongoing
supervision by professional CASA program managers will ensure that volunteers are
knowledgeable about issues that arise in each specific case. Local programs also have their own
continuing education requirement to help keep volunteers up -to -date on their research and
practices on child welfare. CASA program supervision includes consultation on case specific
issues, referrals to relevant community resources, and review of court reports prior to
submission. Supervisors may also attend court hearings with volunteers to monitor performance
and provide support. CASA programs also serve as the administrative offices of all volunteers.
CASA programs attempt to match the interests of volunteers to available cases. This allows
volunteers who have expertise in a specific culture or special needs to assist children with those
characteristics throughout the court process. When the assignment is made, the program informs
the court and all the parties. Any party who believes the volunteer is inappropriate or
unqualified may request a review of that appointment to the CASA program or through the court.
CASA performs an internal review and will remove a volunteer for good cause. Discharge
occurs when a volunteer violates the local program code of conduct or is no longer performing
his or her duty satisfactorily. There are statewide standards for member programs. They were
developed collaboratively by the framework for quality program management.
Rosentswieg then discussed the volunteers. They are people from all walks of life. They
all have the same statutorily defined duties, to represent and advocate for the best interest, to
collect relevant information about the child's situation, to monitor all court orders for
compliance, and to bring to the court's attention any change in circumstances that may require a
modification of the court's order, and to report to the court the legal status if in a tribe. When a
volunteer receives a case, they gather firsthand information about the child. They observe the
child in the parents' home, foster home, and school setting. They review records and talk to
relevant people. After the review, the volunteer prepares a report for the court. He or she stays
on the case until the child finds a home. Volunteers spend 13 hours per month per child.
Volunteers are assigned 1 -3 cases. Community professionals involved in child abuse and neglect
cases overwhelmingly preferred that these cases be assigned to CASA over a paid guardian ad
litem.
Rosentswieg discussed starting a CASA program. If it benefits a community depends on
whether the current guardian ad litem service effectively meets the needs of the children in the
current system. Additional start-up materials are available. A handout addresses the difference
between CASA volunteers and paid GALS.
Brenner read a memo from Superior Court Clerk N. F. Jackson to Superior Court Judges
and Commissioners and questioned whether it is the court's call whether a CASA or GAL is
used. Rosentswieg stated that ultimately the court makes the appointment of whomever they are
going to appoint. The guardian ad litem serves at the court's behest. A judge has always, in the
past, been an integral part of starting up a CASA program. They work with the court system.
Most judges are interested in a pilot program.
Brenner questioned how much it would cost to explore a CASA program. Rosentswieg
stated that it doesn't cost to have discussions. Start up costs are always the most expensive.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Once a program is up and running, they've found that, in the dependency system, it costs $800
per volunteer per year.
Brenner questioned whether she had ever been contacted by Whatcom County to explore
a program. Rosentswieg stated that community members have contacted her, but the County had
not contacted her.
Brenner read from item #6 in the memo that hidden costs are expensive. Jackson says in
the memo that the total is $100,000 per year, which is conservative. Rosentswieg stated that
costs are dependent on the community. It has been done as a non - profit program, rather than a
County -paid program.
Brenner questioned Rosentswieg about whether she agreed with the statement in item #7
of the memo by Jackson about meeting caseload demands. Rosentswieg stated that the issue is
not recruiting, but funding for staff. They recommend one coordinator to 30 volunteers.
Nelson asked who serves the child if no one is available. Rosentswieg stated that a paid
GAL would be assigned or the child would be put on a waiting list. It depends on the system
that the County creates.
Brenner questioned whether this is normal. Rosentswieg stated that is true in larger
communities. The ombudsman's report gives that information. In Spokane County, they
received funding to hire the support that they needed.
Dawson questioned the average service time for a volunteer. Rosentswieg stated that she
couldn't answer that.
Brown stated that a CASA worker with three cases could be committed to 40 hours per
month of volunteer time. He questioned whether a lot of the investigation would have to be done
during the day. Rosentswieg responded that is not necessarily true. They can interview people
on the weekends or the evenings. Meeting children and families is not done during the work
time. The only time a volunteer would be gone during business hours would be to attend court.
The investigation phase is a heavy load. The commitment of the volunteers is tremendous.
Marge Laidlaw, 1459 Central Road, Everson, spoke as a GAL for Whatcom County and
CASA Volunteer for Snohomish County.
Nelson asked for her insight because she is involved in both programs. Laidlaw stated
that there are three types of GAL cases. There is no conflict among the types. The domestic
cases, such as divorce and custody, are paid cases. Another type is the alleged incapacitated
adult, such as an elderly person. Lastly there are the dependency cases. These are three separate
registries. A person has to qualify for each registry. Historically, Whatcom County went out for
bid for all registries.
Brown questioned whether CASA only works on dependency cases. Laidlaw stated that
generally they do. In this County, she does not do dependency cases, which is why she does
CASA volunteer work in Snohomish County. That is the nearest county with a CASA program.
Brenner asked about the bid requirements. Laidlaw stated that historically one group,
Whatcom Guardian Ad Litem Services, has been the bidder.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenner questioned Laidlaw on why she doesn't do dependency cases. Laidlaw stated
that it is very time consuming and depressing work. She didn't want to do dependency cases to
the exclusion of everything else in her business. It would take additional staffing and she is the
sole person in her business. The largest amount assigned cases is in divorce cases.
Nelson asked her perspective of the current system and the difference between the two
programs. Laidlaw stated that the CASA would have staff in the courthouse, for oversight. It
comes down to the number of children served and the quality of that service. Under the current
contract, all children get served. Under CASA, that may not happen.
Brenner questioned whether CASA would be helpful with dependency cases in Whatcom
County. Laidlaw stated that she didn't know enough about dependency cases in Whatcom
County to address that question. She did research on CASA for Jackson a number of years ago.
Brown questioned what happens to children who have to wait. Laidlaw stated that the
child would be represented by a Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) worker to see
the child through the system. When there is a CASA volunteer involved, then the child gets
placed in a permanent home more quickly and gets out of the dependency system.
Brown asked Laidlaw to compare those results to a non -CASA, paid GAL. Laidlaw
stated that in Whatcom County, only domestic custody cases are assigned a GAL, not the
dependency cases. It depends on the bid dependency cases. They can only compare with other
counties.
Brown stated that a concern is that if there is a lack of a CASA volunteer, then the
assignment reverts to a DSHS He questioned whether there could there be an assignment to a
private paid GAL. Laidlaw stated that the County could; it all comes down to dollars.
Brenner suggested using paid GAL as a backup instead of DSHS. She questioned
whether the County could add the CASA program to the current system. Laidlaw stated that
there is a quality question. As a general rule of thumb, there is a quality vs. quantity issue.
Rosentswieg clarified that the kids don't get sent to DSHS. DSHS is already involved.
The CASA is added additional support for the child.
Nelson stated that the best scenario would be a good combination of GAL and CASA.
The County doesn't have the budget for that option. He questioned the process of looking at the
quality of CASA. There is no perfect system.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Nelson continued to state that the bottom line is that the judge has to make the decision.
If the judge has poor information, then it is up to the attorney to point it out. Rosentswieg stated
that all parties advocate their positions to the judge.
Nelson questioned whether there is a mechanism to hear complaints in the CASA system.
Rosentswieg stated that it is the court appeal process.
Laidlaw stated that people who are not represented by counsel and are in the system have
a right to ask the court for a guardian ad litem. If there is disagreement between the two parties
about who to appoint, they can go through a strike list. There is an elaborate procedure that
seems to work well.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Brenner stated that it should not be CASA versus GAL. This doesn't sound extravagant.
She questioned whether they can use the best of both systems and whether there is a way to set
up a CASA program to work in conjunction with a GAL program. Rosentswieg stated that some
communities have CASA programs in the custody arena, which take narrowly defined cases.
Other cases go to paid GALs. It is up to the participants how it is structured.
Laidlaw stated that it could be done if there is money.
Brenner questioned whether there is a way to have the two work together with the same
pot of money. Laidlaw stated that there are two issues. One is programmatic, such as whether or
not the two programs could be blended. It could happen, but it hasn't happened on a large
enough scale. Another issue is whether it can be funded. Jackson was looking to keep
dependency cases while experimenting with pilot programs to see what would work.
Brenner questioned whether blending the two programs would have to have additional
funding, or could it be done with the same pot of money. Laidlaw stated that it could be worked
like conflict attorneys. It might be separate funds or funds that are transferable instead of
dedicated. That is up to the County.
Brenner questioned whether they could set something up so that one is a pilot program.
Laidlaw stated that it would cost more money to start-up and keep it a pilot program.
Nelson questioned why people don't serve as GALs on a volunteer basis. Laidlaw stated
that there is no program for it.
Nelson questioned whether a CASA worker has ever become a paid GAL. Rosentswieg
stated that hasn't happened.
Laidlaw stated that someone in the legal or social services business and is new to the
community may begin doing this type of work on a volunteer basis, until they get a foothold in
their business. In a divorce case, it is generally 2 -3 months for investigation, then 3 -6 months
before there is a court date.
Brown questioned whether expenses are reimbursed to the volunteer. Rosentswieg stated
that it depends.
Brenner asked if CASA volunteers are ever threatened. Laidlaw stated that it does
happen more than to a GAL. In divorce cases, the presumption is that it is not a permanent
situation. With dependency cases, which CASA works with, the presumption is that the removal
is permanent.
Rosentswieg stated that on the other hand, in dependency cases the State removes the
child and they become the `bad guy.' The volunteer then comes in as a mediator.
Brenner questioned which is more difficult. Laidlaw stated that divorce cases are more
difficult. In dependency cases, something has clearly happened that is negative to a child. Often
times, it isn't an allegation. It is already an established fact. There are safety procedures that all
GALs put into place.
Brenner asked about the volunteer burnout rate and questioned whether CASA can
evaluate and refuse a program. Laidlaw stated that the CASA volunteer gets to pick their case
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
and have a limited number of cases. A paid GAL has to pay attention to overhead. Sometimes a
paid GAL would have to take cases that they wouldn't generally take. Burnout can happen on
both sides for very different reasons.
Rosentswieg stated that the CASA coordinator can screen cases and refuse a case if it is
established as being too dangerous.
Laidlaw stated that a CASA volunteer can discuss issues with and get support from the
CASA coordinator. A privately paid GAL has confidentiality issues and can't talk to anyone.
Brown stated that he wanted to analyze all of this information and get more feedback
from judges.
Nelson questioned whether dependency case training is similar between CASA and GAL.
Rosentswieg stated that it is a State mandated curriculum.
Laidlaw stated that the oversight is the difference.
Ann McBride, 5572 Guide Meridian, Bellingham, asked the Council to remember why
they came forward in the first place. The existing program does not serve many people in the
County. There are not many GALs. It is a huge amount of money that clients have to pay. It is
the system where the only way to bring forward a complaint is if there is a case in the system.
Everyone has to get paid. Indigent people have their GALS paid for. Private paid clients pay
$100 - $150 per hour. It takes much longer. GALS string out cases for almost a year. If a GAL
has a problem, the client doesn't have a choice. With the CASA program, there are grievance
procedures. It is a fallacy that all clients, which don't prevail in a case, are losers. It doesn't take
long to figure out of there is a poor GAL on the case. She asked the Council to take a look at the
lack of the oversight of the current program. The CASA program can be interjected into the
County and bring to light the fact that a GAL can have serious allegations placed against him,
and nothing happened. The current program is not a good program.
Brenner stated that the committee should have talked about discussion between courts,
CASA, and other interested people.
McBride stated that a lot of counties don't want CASA because of the money factor.
Money shouldn't be a factor. The child's life should be the deciding factor.
Brenner suggested that they bring this up to full Council and send a letter to the judges
and the Superior Court Clerk to see if they would like to explore this issue.
Brown suggested responding to Jackson's memo and recreating the documents and
budget allocations. Council can look at his
Brenner moved to re- submit to Council and also include the research that Laidlaw did
several years ago.
Motion carried unanimously.
Laidlaw stated that it is important to remember that there needs to be a credible grievance
procedure. It needs to be a local grievance procedure. It is not inherent that the CASA grievance
procedure is ideal.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Brenner questioned what kind of systems are in place elsewhere. Laidlaw responded that
it is primarily established by local rule. There isn't an overall system that has been shown to
work, other than that there be a review and general parameters. The specifics need to be
established by local court rule that works for that jurisdiction.
Brenner stated that judges are involved with knowing the GALs. It seems like, once
people make decisions, they may be uncomfortable if something happens that makes their
decision look bad. She questioned whether there is a way to set up an independent review
process. Laidlaw stated that she has not seen that happen in this County. The citizens'
committee under the family law re- visioning process dealt with GAL standards. All of those
recommendations that the committee suggested to the courts were adopted by the courts. Some
of the recommendations have not been implemented due to cost. It came down to money. There
were not enough people willing to do it on a volunteer basis because of the time commitment.
People expressed issues of concern that would not make it worth it to them if they were
attempting to volunteer.
Brenner stated that she would contact Laidlaw if she had more questions.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 9.32
UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS (AB99 -040)
Dave Wareing, Deputy Administrator, submitted a substitute ordinance and stated that
this version of the ordinance will work. It breaks down a number of elements, is far more
defined, and preserves the right to keep and bear arms for protection. It also protects individuals
in the park from being alarmed about the presence and discharge of weapons in the park. He read
the changes.
Brenner stated that it is excellent.
Brown questioned whether an ax would be considered a weapon. Wareing stated that
they would be focusing on devices whose primary purpose is as a weapon. The primary purpose
of an ax is as a tool.
Brenner suggested the following amendment, `B. The following are affirmative defenses
to a violation of this section, whieh the defendant must prove by a prnder-a ee of the
evidence" This language covers what needs to be covered.
Nelson stated that the removal of that section removes a hunter's protection from not
being charged with a crime for carrying a weapon.
Brenner stated that she was not taking out the entire section and questioned whether it
was okay to only take out the last part of that sentence.
Wareing stated that will hurt the intent. That language requires someone to prove that
they really had a reason that fits within the defense. All they have to prove is that it was likely
than not that they were legal.
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Brenner questioned whether they would have to show a hunting license anyway, if the
wording were removed. Wareing stated that they would not.
Nelson moved to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects, 3/9/99, Page 8