A last-minute effort by a House Democrat against a proposal that requires only the worst sex offenders to wear a GPS monitor — but still allows authorities to place one on other offenders — has succeeded.
Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed S1228 on April 16, saying she is “not prepared to narrow the category of child predators subject to GPS monitoring until the work of this Committee is complete and I am presented with more compelling evidence that doing so will not harm Arizona children.”
She was referring to a joint legislative study group tasked to look into issues regarding the monitoring of persons convicted of dangerous crimes against children.
Sen. Jim Waring, R-7, author of S1228, was angered at the veto. He blasted critics, hinting that they had not fully done their homework before coming out against it and specifically directing his ire at Rep. Linda Lopez, D-29.
1 press conference: 2 views
Waring said two of the people who stood behind Lopez during a conference on April 11 had not been “authorized to be there by their boss.” A third one, he said, even “repudiated” the media event, where Lopez raised concerns that the bill might have unintended consequences, including releasing back into communities dangerous sex offenders and thereby potentially placing children in harm’s way.
To prove his point, Waring provided the ~Arizona Capitol Times~ with communication from the chief probation officer of the Pima County Adult Probation Department. He also provided copies of e-mails from other stakeholders that spelled out support for the bill.
In an e-mail, the Senate information office quoted David Sanders of the Probation Department as saying that “representations made this morning by people who worked for me were not consistent with my department as far as I know.”
All 15 counties fully supported S1228, according to Sanders.
“Our policies were not followed today and representation of opposition to the bill was not consistent with our department and my personal position. It appears they were acting in an official capacity without my authorization,” he said.
But Lopez had a different version of what happened.
She said the two probation officers who were with her that day were cleared by their boss to be there. The third official, Barbara Johnson, supervisor of the department’s sex offender unit, also fully knew what the press conference was about, Lopez said.
One of the people who told her about the unintended consequences of the bill was in communication with Johnson before the conference, she said. “Barbara knew exactly what the media conference was about,” Lopez said.
Lopez said she told them that they did not have to take a position on the bill and that she would be the one to do that. They only had to talk about the mechanics of the monitoring program.
“Of course they got up here and she got stifled by the superiors here in Phoenix. That was what happened,” she said.
Johnson confirmed to the Capitol Times what Waring had said — that she was “hoodwinked” into attending the conference.
“The only reason I was there was I thought that we were being called in support of (the bill),” she said. “I didn’t know what was going down until all of the sudden I was, like, ‘Wait the minute.’ ”
Johnson said she only answered questions regarding aspects of community notification with the aim of educating those present.
Asked if she knew that Lopez was going to speak against the bill, she said, “No.”
“I’m always asked to come in support of things because that’s what I do. So I didn’t even give it a second thought. I was hoodwinked,” she said.
In an interview, Waring criticized Napolitano for listening to only a handful of lawmakers, pointing out that his bill got the approval of 79 lawmakers and that only seven representatives voted against it.
Waring: Bill be come back next session
“I don’t know what Linda Lopez knows. I don’t know if she understood the bill. Nobody is taking anybody off these devices, unless there is evidence to the satisfaction of experts in the field that these people will not be a public safety risk. And if they decide that every one of the people currently under the device should still be at it, then nothing will change,” he said. Waring suggested he is unlikely to try to revive the bill this session.
The senator, author of the law that places a GPS monitor on people who have committed dangerous crimes against children, said the vetoed bill was designed “to save money so that the device can be applied to other people who may be worse.”
He pointed out that the Arizona Department of Corrections director was part of a study committee that recommended the change sought in the bill. “She (Napolitano) is vetoing a bill that was created in part by her own ADC director,” he said.
Waring posed one rhetorical question to Napolitano: How will she fund the program?
“I expect to hear from the governor soon about how she intends to fund it because every month, we’re going to get more and more people released. And every month, we’re going to want more and more people on this program. And it’s fine but eventually we are going to run out of money so I say governor, where is the extra money going to come from? You didn’t mention any of this in your veto message.”
Waring said neither Napolitano nor Lopez were around when he had to “fight and claw” for the dollars that the program received. “It was my S1371 that created it. The governor never helped me with this. Linda Lopez never helped me with it,” he said.
When asked April 18 at her weekly press briefing if she was influenced by Lopez to veto Waring’s sex offender bill, the governor said, “She asked me to veto it. If that’s an influence then that’s an influence…”
Napolitano said she looked at the bill and wanted more solid information.
The bill was aimed at rectifying a problem that arose out of the GPS monitoring law passed last year, according to supporters.
Original legislation questioned
In a letter to Napolitano, a court official said the original legislation “inadvertently included crimes that were not sex offenses.”
“Senate Bill 1228 rectifies that problem. In addition, Senate Bill 1228 requires that all ‘Level 3’ sex offenders, who are at the highest risk of re-offending, be placed on constant and permanent GPS monitoring, while on probation,” said Dave Byers, director of the Administrative Office of the Courts of the Arizona Supreme Court.
“It continues to allow judges to place other (‘Level 1’, ‘Level 2’) sex offenders on GPS monitoring as well,” he said, adding there was confusion over this. “A few legislators had the idea that the bill prohibited judges from placing Level 1 and 2 offenders on GPS. This is not correct.”
The bill exempts from GPS monitoring a Level 3 sex offender who has received a term of probation but is confined in a detention facility or residential treatment center.
Lopez said she was not concerned about the bill until after its potential unintended consequences were pointed out to her, she said. It was then when she looked at the current statute and the language of the bill.
Lopez opposed the bill because it was going to make it discretionary to tag an offender under Level 1 or Level 2 with a GPS monitor.
“The problem with that is — and I’m concerned — that somebody is going to fall through the cracks,” she said, pointing out that the assessment paper used to determine the offense level is based, to a large extent, on self-reporting.
“I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust sex offenders to be completely honest with their background,” she said.