The Public Services Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on Monday, September 8, 2003, @ 6:30p.m. in the Administration Building’s Conference Room East. Chairman Marlene Allen called the meeting to order. Members present were Pat LaVigne, Eric Johnson, Julia Fullerton, Sue Leifheit, Steve Faivre and Richard Osborne. Robert Rosemier was absent. Others present were Ray Bockman, Gary Hanson, Kenneth Johnson, Margi Gilmour, Mary Olson, Margaret Whitwell, Greg Millburg, Jill Olson, Judge Kurt Klein, and Deanna Cada. Ms. Dubin arrived at 7:37p.m.

Moved by Ms. Leifheit, seconded by Ms. LaVigne, and it was carried unanimously to approve the August 2003 minutes.

Chairman Allen said that she wanted to inform the members that last month the ESDA Director stated that at that point in time there were 400 truckloads of trees hauled away in Sandwich. The total amount hauled out of Sandwich at the end was 754 truckloads.

Chairman Allen amended the agenda to reflect item #3a.) Judicial Update on the Intensive Probation Program and how it is working. She also said that she was pulling 7a.) the Senior Services Tax Levy Application Discussion and moving it to the October committee meeting because the schedule is very full for this evening and that evaluations need to be done this evening too. She said that she wanted each discussion item to last about ten minutes each because of this full agenda. Moved by Ms. LaVigne, seconded by Mr. Faivre, and it was carried unanimously to approve the amended agenda.

Judge Klein explained that he wanted to come forward this evening after reading Ms. Dubin’s statement in the local newspaper that Intensive Probation was one year old and that it would be nice to revisit it. Judge Klein said that he felt that it was a wonderful suggestion. He said that, as he told the committee last year when the program began, that if it works like he thought it would work, he would keep the program. He has gathered numbers and facts and would like to report on that this evening. He said that they had 24 minors in the program; 16 are still in the program; 3 have graduated to regular probation and 5 were discharged successfully from the program. He feels that these are excellent results if you compare that to other programs.

What happens now in Probation is that a regular juvenile probation client sees their officer a maximum of three (3) times a month. This is not the norm, it is the maximum. In the Intensive Probation Program the regular juvenile probation client sees their officer a minimum of 4 times a week. From what he can see in the courtroom is that "we are now in these kids’ faces" everyday of their lives. This is because of the contact that the officer has with the child and family, as well as school counseling and police officers of local communities. There is not much that these kids can do that the officers do not know about. They now confront the child because they cut a class, or they had a confrontation with their parents.

What they have seen with respect to criminal violations for people on intensive probation, the worst of the worst, is significantly less now than the criminal violations of the people that are on regular probation, which is very encouraging. The officers are involved in their lives a lot more frequently and therefore, they build relationships with the families. They have not placed anyone in a full Department of Corrections (DOC) commitment. He said that Ms. Margi Gilmour, Director of Court Services, did a wonderful job of quantifying what we can quantify. Judge Klein said that in a supplemental that Ms. Deanna Cada, Juvenile Supervisor, gave to him recently, it points out that in 2001 the County spent $210,826.00 in placement and in 2000 the County spent $137,933.00. He continued by stating that Ms. Cada told him that if they just sent four (4) minors to placement for the year, the County would incur a cost of $170,294.00. What you can see is that the probation officers cost the County $69,000.00 with their benefits. This is a savings to the County for last year of $101,000.00 because we did not place kids.

All in all, Judge Klein said that he feels that the program is working extremely well and should continue to work well for the next year. Next year, he feels, that he may come back to this committee and ask for another officer.

Chairman Allen and the committee thanked Judge Klein for his updated report on the Intensive Probation Program.

Ms. Gilmour said that a report on the Intensive Probation Program will be forthcoming to this committee next month or November.

Ms. Gilmour said that her adult monthly report shows that the numbers are slightly increasing, but it still remains manageable. The CRS are consistent.

In her Juvenile Report, Ms. Gilmour, stated that the minor that was in placement at Norman Sleezer is no longer in placement. That person is now in an Independent Living program in Rockford. Because the minor had a setback at the beginning of summer, Norman Sleezer kept the minor’s "slot" open for the County and when it became apparent that the minor was not returning the County did not get billed for the months of June, July or August. Medicare is paying for the Independent Living Program now.

Ms. Gilmour then updated the committee on the following issues. She reported that she has hired a new adult court services officer and that he will be starting September 22, 2003. He comes from Kane County where he worked as a Juvenile Officer there. She mentioned the Open House Invitation that was sent out to all county board members. She also said that the DNA felony offenders that are required to report to her office for blood tests from August of 2002 to the present are scheduled for the test on September 26, 2003. They have 300 people scheduled, but will be lucky if fifty-percent show up, she said.

Mr. Kenneth Johnson, Public Defender, said that there was a slight bump up in the number of appointments and a slight decrease in the number of cases closed last month. He said that he attributes this to the fact that Judge Engel’s position has not been assigned yet. His Hispanic interpreter has been ill for the past two weeks due to appendicitis and so he can’t translate for clients right now that are Hispanic. There has also been a slight increase in his caseload.

His fees line item has increased another $4,256.00.

He also informed the committee that he has filed two appeals to the Administrative Recommendations for the budget relative to his requests.

Mr. Gary Hanson, DeKalb County Deputy Administrator, explained the budget process to the committee briefly and reviewed the items that applied to their committee alone. He informed the committee that even though Mr. Johnson had filed his appeals today, the deadline date is September 18, 2003 and there may be more filed that he is not aware of right now. If this does happen the committee should be prepared to meet again prior to the October 1, 2003 Administrative Services Committee to discuss the appeal(s).

Public Defender’s Appeal. Mr. Johnson said he is asking for a $9,000 increase for one attorney in his office. Over the last three years the juvenile attorney has seen an increase in the severity of the cases in his office. He now has an attorney who has great experience. In 2001 the open caseload for juveniles was at 392 for the year and for this year they have now 680 cases. Due to the increase in all the other areas in the courthouse his juvenile attorney now has to split duties in the domestic courtroom as well. He does all the juvenile cases and a misdemeanor call. The type of cases that he is required to handle is aggravated battery, aggravated domestic battery, armed robbery, attempted burglary, attempted first-degree murder, home invasion, forgery. These are allegations against juveniles that are not something that he can give to someone anymore just out of law school with no trial experience. He needs someone with experience to handle these cases. There was a time when he was able to work side by side with the attorneys, but due to the increase in the numbers of murders and reckless homicides, his time cannot be diverted by going to the juvenile courtroom anymore. He would like to keep an experienced attorney and he is afraid that they will move on if he doesn’t get the request granted. He feels that he will continue to have this position where someone is just going to move up the ranks just a little bit, get enough experience to do an adequate job and then leave.

The reason that he is asking for this increase is because he believes that it will not cost any additional money. Over the last six months his office has generated $27,600.00 more in anticipated revenue from the public defender fees. He feels that even if that figure was cut by one quarter it still would have enough money remaining to cover this increase. The Public Defender Grant will be available again next year. That grant alone saved his office between $5,000 - $15,000 long-term in expert fees. It doesn’t seem that he will be fully using his professional fees as well. He feels that he should be able to put some of that money back into his own office to retain a more experienced staff to handle more complex cases.

Mr. Hanson said that the public defender fees are placed into the General Fund.

Ms. LaVigne said that she felt it would cost the County more to lose this person and then begin all over again as opposed to giving him this increase.

Mr. Eric Johnson said that his biggest fear is that there is no guarantee to how much money is generated from year to year in the public defender’s fees and therefore, the county could fall short of the money needed next year to cover this cost.

Ms. Dubin asked Mr. Johnson if the beginning salary is comfortable to other people out there? Mr. Ken Johnson said that it is less than McHenry and DuPage County. There are different regulations to allow certain attorneys to practice law outside of this office. If the attorney is in a full-time position working for the County, he believes, they cannot work outside of the office.

The committee then discussed the other request that Mr. Johnson asked for in the budget, which is a salary increase for the Administrative Secretary in his office. He is requesting an increase of around $4,000. He is asking for an $1.50 an hour raise for his secretary. He did a comparison between his office and the State’s Attorney’s Office prior to his hire date and afterwards for the committee. It was originally (about 4 years ago) in the State’s Attorney’s Office, 4 legal secretaries, 1 administrative secretary, 1 office coordinator in 2000. The office coordinator was compatible to his administrative secretary in his office. Since he has been here he has had 1 administrative secretary and 1 secretary B. In 2001 it remained the same and in 2002 the legal secretaries in the State’s Attorney’s Office was increased to 6, eliminating the administrative secretary position and the office coordinator position and then bumping up 1 administrative secretary to office manager.

After further discussion, it was Moved by Ms. Leifheit, seconded by Mr. Johnson, and it was carried to deny the request for an increase in salary for the administrative secretary made by the public defender, by a roll call vote. There were seven yes votes to deny, and one no vote. Motion carried.

It was further moved by Mr. Osborne, seconded by Ms. LaVigne and it was carried to deny the request for increase in salary for the juvenile attorney in the public defender ‘s office, by a roll call vote. There were five no votes and three yes votes.

Mr. Faivre asked Mr. Johnson to check into the part-time work for his attorneys. Mr. Johnson said that he would.

Moved by Mr. Faivre, seconded by Ms. LaVigne, and it was carried unanimously to move into closed session to discuss personnel – exempt employee evaluations, by a roll call vote.

Moved by Mr. LaVigne, seconded by Ms. Dubin, and it was carried unanimously to return to open session by a roll call @ 9:00p.m.

Moved by Ms. LaVigne, seconded by Ms. Dubin, and it was carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________
Marlene Allen, Chairman