DOC request three complete - Cannabis Defense Coalition

FW: 380 200 Community Supervision of Offenders
Page 2 of5
From:
Berthon, Ralph M. (DOC)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:04 PM
To: Witten, Dell-Autumn W. (DOC); Meusborn-Marsh, Stefani L. (DOC)
Subject:
FVV: 380 200 Community Supervision of Offenders
Folks,
I really cannot tell you how many times I have seen this policy or who all have sent it to me for review in the.
past year. I am excited (I hope it doesn't show!) to see we are close to putting it to bed. I have read this
version and made one minor change that I can live with or without. ,It has to do with the ten day contact
rule. I added a couple of words in regard to intakes as it is not captured in the intake policy 310.100.
In regard to Autumn's remarks below, I can see adding the KIO$K language because it directly applies to
supervision on a global 'scale.
As for the violations language, we need to take it out and do an Admin Sulleting (AS) to the violations
policy. In this case the violation data can be captured in an AS, the new 380.200 can go out, when the
Violation policy gets a re-write we add the AS data and we are 'all happy. Well almost all of us. And of
course the same logic applies to the Community Supervision of high Risk offender's piece; take it out, put it
into and AB and be done with it. -.
The medical marijuana piece; that too belongs in a violation policy as it related directly to the process for
establishing credibility to violate someone. In that there is an AS already out on marijuana, we could
amend that bulletin and re issue it and tie it to the violation policy.
Two more cents worth:
I do not want to ruffle feathers, and it. may be showing a bit but one area, that ,I feel strongly is ,these are
easy fixes to a difficult process of re-writing poliCies. I will admit that having AS's come out all the time
seems to makes us look a little disjointed and lacking in direction; but it is what it is. From oO~ persons
perspective it is not a good enough reason to have policies constantly changing or in "draft" status for
months/years while stuff is pending a change in another policy; or to issue a policy knowing we will have to
re write it again and then just not getting to it for a year or more. If we are planning any policy change then
let's shoot for making it a singular one time fix to a policy instead of having to re-write one policy every time
we re-write another policy. , ' .
Ralph.
From: Witten, Dell-Autumn W. (DOt)
Sent: yvednesday, April 01, 2009 9:21 AM
To: Serthon, Ralph M. (DOC)
Subject: FW: 380 200. Community Supervision of O~enders
«380200.doc»
Here you gO'. Let me know if you have questions. Thank you!
From: Meusborn-Marsh, Stefani L. (DOC)
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Berthon, Ralph M. (DOC); Witten, Dell-Autumn W, (DOC)
Subject: FVV: 380 200 Community Supervision of Offenders
Ralph- Please take a look and give me some feedback. Thanks.
Stefani .7vleushoY1t
5/13/2009
PDU-6655-3000131