|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESPONSE TIMEI just wanted to tell you how much I appreciated your editorial comments on Elizabeth Hill's snide remarks in the Legislative Analyst's Office report to the Legislature addressing the pay and benefits of our hardworking CCPOA members. My wife, Jane Murphree, is a former MTA who had to elect to move over to C.O. after the great federal receiver took over the medical portion, and in his infinite wisdom decied to do away with my wife's MTA position. She performed her duties in an outstanding manner. I say this not only because I'm her husband but because I heard and supported her during her trials and tribulations of work dangers. Toward the end of her MTA stint, an inmate attempted to take her pepper spray. Luckily, she was able to respond quickly and disarm him with a wristlock I taught her with my martial arts background. After she booted up and decided to not take a pay cut and keep her tenure as a Unit Six member, she opted for attending the abbreviated Academy at Galt. I would also like to mention the recent staff assault on the three officers at CCI–Tehachapi. This creates added stress and worry to my wife who puts herself in harm's way daily for her family. I also experience this right along with her. I'm sure this is one of many to a footnote you could add to your article. I thank you for addressing this frankly and to the point. I hope a copy was sent to Elizabeth Hill's office. Dean E. Murphree Casualty Affairs Rep. 95th Force Support Squadron, FSFR USAF Editor's Note: Thanks so much, Dean, for writing and for the kind remarks about the editor's column. I was just telling it like it is. It's an uphill battle, I don't need to tell you or Jane that, but the more we (and by we, I mean you the members and families of members) do to set the record straight and get the facts out there where the public can find them, the wiser and safer we'll all be. Read on for another interesting letter on the same subject. After I read the Legislative Analyst's Office report, I responded via an email, expressing my concerns over only a small number of problems I envisioned regarding the parole portion of the report. Editor's note: Excerpt from Rose's letter to the LAO: “It is obvious that this was written by a scholar, not a practitioner. Having worked in Probation and Parole in California for over 33 years, I can tell you the problems that are present in this proposal are so many that the communities will be devastated if acted upon. ...You have no idea how many people who are on parole for nonviolent commitments in the instant offense, who have prior murders, manslaughters, kidnappings, robberies or sex offenses. In my county, today, a man arrested for bank robbery (multiple), who is on parole for a nonviolent crime and has a history that includes a murder or manslaughter conviction that occurred when he was selling drugs would fall into the group that would be supervised by probation officers — officers who, in my county, are unarmed and unprotected and always will be.” I mentioned that I worked for 16 years as an adult probation division probation officer in my county, followed by 17 years as a parole agent in the same county. Knowing the functions and limitations of both jobs, I felt I had a good perspective, and I did keep the critical assessments limited to only some of the more serious problems. My remarks were acknowledged superficially, and I was told I would be contacted by someone who actually participated in the writing of the report. Several days later, I received a superficial response from one of the authors, who stated that my concerns might or might not be relevant, but those things had not been considered when the report was written. Although I was surprised that areas that could undoubtedly result in law suits regarding constitutional issues such as unequal treatment/enforcement, how obstacles would be faced, etc., had not been considered prior to a report being written, I accepted the statement. I was told that now potential problems areas would be tackled and that a committee/group/work group or gang of experts would be selected to hammer out the answers to the problems. Seeing an opportunity, I sent another email in which I stated that I had experience on both sides of the issues that would face parole and the counties, provided a brief synopsis of my experience—and my awareness of community resources in this county—33 years of involved service gives me some insight—and I asked that I be considered for whatever panel or work group might be assembled. The next email response had no time delay whatsoever. The turnaround time was about 3 seconds for me to receive a thanks but no thanks response. I was told that at some future date I might contact someone to find out what progress was being made with problem resolution. As you mentioned in your letter in the Peacekeeper (April 2008), although the Legislative Analyst's Office could find what the truth is about, what COs and agents actually do, they have no interest in doing so. They would prefer to make proposals with no insight or information. I just wanted to let you know that your editor's letter is right on the money and I share the frustration. Linda Rose Retired Parole Agent Editor's Note: Linda, I so appreciate you writing me and sending the copies of emails between you and the “scholars” at the LAO. I read all with great interest, and will say that you definitely know what you are talking about. There is no way they could dispute that. But, ultimately, I think we both know the story. Like you said, they don't want the truth. That said, I still think it's a good idea to try and enlighten those nay sayers who may be harboring alternative agendas whenever we can—and no one can do that better than the men and women who work it and live it day in and day out. Thanks again for writing.  Print This PageBack to Volume 25, Issue 4 Back to PEACEKeeper Main Page |
