Democrats Advance Bills Lifting Parole Requirements, Job Restrictions For Convicted Felons

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Donald Barbati

 

As reported by nj.com, parole requirements would be eased for some prisoners and job restrictions lifted for convicted felons under a package of bills that Democratic sponsors said Monday would redirect State funds from incarceration to rehabilitation.

The measures, introduced last week amid the start of the new legislative session and an address by the governor, were described by State Senators, Raymond Lesniak and Sandra Cunningham, the sponsors, as a way to revamp the criminal justice system by encouraging drug treatment and removing employment barriers.

One bill, S907, would require the State Parole Board to release inmates when they reached their parole eligibility date unless they had committed a serious infraction while in prison or had not participated in rehabilitation programs. As for the others: S881 would give judges and prosecutors greater discretion on who could be tried in a drug court. S876 would repeal the ban on convicted felons working in places where alcohol is sold. S878 would prohibit public and private employers from automatically disqualifying convicted felons from jobs.

The measures differ from the proposal put forward by Governor Chris Christie in his State of the State address, which called from mandatory drug treatment for nonviolent offenders. Lesniak said his legislation would not require drug treatment for those who did not want it because that would be counterproductive and costly.

Lesniak said the changes in parole requirements proposed by him and Cunningham could reduce the prison population by 2,300 inmates a year, saving about $100 million that could instead go toward preparing inmates for release by helping find jobs, housing, counseling, and other services. He also said he would like to see a 50 percent increase in drug court participation by giving judges and prosecutors more latitude in deciding who could be admitted.

Drug courts, started more than a decade ago, divert offenders from prison as long as they complete drug treatment programs. But the current program does not admit people who have committed several offenses even if they are not considered violent.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Appeal of Removal for Failure to Complete PTC Course Dismissed

Posted on June 8, 2009 by Donald Barbati

 

On June 8, 2009, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Tanya Johnson, Docket No.: A-0482-07T2. In the case, Tanya Johnson appealed from a final decision of the Merit System Board (“Board”) terminating her employment as a parole officer recruit.

In her position as a recruit, Johnson was required to complete a Police Training Commission (“PTC”) course. She began the basic course on January 9, 2006. On March 24, 2006, she failed a test for unarmed defensive tactics. She was given remediation training, but on March 29, Johnson failed the test again and was dismissed from the PTC course.

On the same date, March 29, 2006, Johnson was served with a notice of dismissal from her position as a parole officer recruit. On March 31, 2006, she was served with a preliminary notice of disciplinary action for failure to comply with N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(11), which required her to successfully complete all of the instructional areas of the training cycle. She was removed effective April 4, 2006, and a departmental hearing was held on July 19, 2006. The charge was sustained.

Johnson appealed to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) Training Academy on April 20, 2006. The Training Academy, however, was not the proper venue for the appeal and Johnson’s counsel was advised that the appeal had been filed with the wrong party and had to be filed with the PTC. The appeal was not sent to the proper venue until almost a year after her dismissal, however.

Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) and, thereafter, the appointing authority moved to dismiss on the grounds that the appeal was not timely filed with the PTC. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted the motion and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. Johnson appealed to the Board and the Board affirmed the ALJ’s dismissal of the appeal. However, the Board dismissed the appeal without prejudice. This appeal ensued.

Since the dismissal of the appeal was without prejudice, the Appellate Division held the matter was not ripe for appeal because it did not know whether Johnson was ultimately successful in having the PTC accept her untimely appeal. Although Johnson argued that the Court should order a preliminary hearing on the merits, the Court determined it could not do so since Johnson has not complied with the procedural requirements for an administrative hearing. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice because is interlocutory.     

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,