Wednesday April 1, 2009

Council Chambers, City Hall

2:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Arthur Taylor, Dean Gerondale, Renee Keehan, Ben Heiman

ABSENT: Louis Del Frate

OTHERS PRESENT: Alderman Jerry Wiezbiskie, Alderman Dan Piton, Department of Corrections Field Supervisor Jed Neuman

1. Presentation by Department of Corrections Sex Offender Registry Specialist Tom Smith regarding the State Sex Offender Registry and how it relates to sex offenders who are included in the City of Green Bay Ordinance.

Tom Smith is a Department of Corrections employee who works with the State of Wisconsin Sex Offender Registry. He has worked for the Department of Corrections for 25 years and started with the registry in 2005. His job is to monitor the compliance of registered sex offenders in Wisconsin. He covers 7 counties and approximately 2000 registrants. The number of registrants continues to increase. The total number of registrants today is 20,770 and that number increases by about 100 each month. Tom indicated he believes the registry is working as is the Department of Community Corrections (probation and parole) and Tom also believes educating the public is very important. Originally, in 1997, the registry was handled by the Department of Justice. It was turned over to the Department of Corrections in 1999. All states differ in what department handles the registry; law enforcement, county or local officials often handle it. In Michigan, the county sheriff’s department monitors the sex offenders and registry. Part of the Adam Walsh Act is to ensure that all states coordinate with each other so when an offender moves from one state to another, his/her location is known. Tom’s monitoring of the sex offenders includes verifying the registrant’s physical address, employment information, unemployment and/or school information. There is also a requirement that the offender submit to a photo with an update every other year.

Tom went on to explain who these registrants are. Tom and the DOC want to remove the stigma associated with being a sex offender and educate communities as to who these sex offenders really are. Many times, the community right away thinks that every sex offender is a rapist, pedophile or predator. There is no such thing as a typical sex offender. A true pedophile is an offender that is sexually aroused by a pre-pubescent child and there are not many true, medially diagnosed pedophiles out there. There are also true predators. DOC has a program for the true predators who have been evaluated by psychiatrists in the institution and determined to be a true predator. Also true predators are the Chapter 980 offenders who are evaluated by psychiatrists and determined to be sexually violent offenders. DOC has a program in place to deal with those offenders who have been diagnosed with a mental illness and have been determined sexually violent. Sand Ridge is the facility where those diagnosed sexual predators go under civil commitments. The population in Sand Ridge is approximately 500. Those individuals are held in longer than their original sentence under the civil commitment, if ordered by the circuit court.

The other stigma the DOC tries to remove from the community is their number one fear that their child can be abducted. Tom indicates stranger abductions are extremely rare. In most cases, it’s a long process. The offender often manipulates and grooms a person, often times targeting a single mom; they manipulate and groom a neighborhood, a social organization, youth programs etc. The offender often times uses those avenues to get into the community, having nothing to do with geography and where they are residing. Once a crime is committed, the community often is surprised at who the offender is because he/she has built such a great relationship and trust with the community but in reality, that is the intent of the offender. In the event of a true stranger abduction, Tom works with law enforcement immediately to put together a list of the registered sex offenders who match the abductor’s physical characteristics which are provided by law enforcement.

Dean Gerondale asked if all the information in the registry is public record or if some is confidential. Tom indicated that in addition to the information on the web site, he can provide information regarding the offender’s “target victim” such as age ranges of victims; male/female; acquaintances or family members; complete strangers; consensual or if force was used. Mr. Gerondale indicated he would like a listing of all registered child sex offenders living in the city limits of Green Bay along with the date of their last address change (to exclude those grandfathered in under the ordinance) and compare that list of everyone who has come before the board; exclude those who have been granted permission to reside in Green Bay and have law enforcement go after all the others who do not have permission to live in Green Bay. Tom indicated one problem with that is the registry goes by zip code, which in this area includes municipalities outside the city limits of Green Bay. Another problem is the way the statute is written. Wis. Stats. 301.46, which is the community notification statute, allows Tom to provide that information to law enforcement and law enforcement can subsequently provide the information to the board.

Tom indicated his referrals for non-compliance have doubled. “Referrals” are cases where Tom cannot locate an offender after an exhaustive search, and therefore refers the case to the District Attorney’s office for felony charges of non-compliance with the sex offender registry. Arthur asked if that is because of the ordinance and Tom indicated that in 2007 he had 14 referrals for non-compliance, in 2008 he had 31 and to date in 2009 he has 12 new referrals. Tom indicated he talks to a lot of sex offenders in Green Bay and basically they have told him; “I’m sorry, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t tell you where I’m living, because I have a family. I’m being booted out. I’m being told that I’ll have a $500 fine if I stay here. I can’t do it anymore.” Tom said many people ask, why would the offender call him. Tom indicated the reason he has survived 27 years with the Department of Corrections is because of respect. You have to give respect to get respect. Tom indicated he can understand their feelings. During his career in Probation & Parole, he learned that when offenders come out of the institution, and they do come out of the institution back into our community, Probation & Parole works off of the following success factors: the offender needs a stable residence, stable employment, treatment and a positive support system. The problem is that they have the stigma of that one conviction. Tom indicated he does understand the community sentiment of “not in my back yard” and the concerns that community members and council members have. The problem is, do you want to know where the offenders are or do you not want to know where the offenders are? The Department of Corrections has great programs in place to deal with these offenders and they have a less than 1% recidivism rate. Tom indicated that when he came before the Green Bay Common Council in 2007, he was asked what the recidivism rate was and at that time he did not know. Since then, studies have been done and Tom indicated that for those offenders under supervision, the recidivism rate is less than 1% in the State of Wisconsin for child sex offenders. That is something the DOC is proud of. They also did a 3 year study and after 3 years there was a 3.8% recidivism rate. Dean Gerondale asked Tom, if he encounters the situation where he knows the whereabouts of an offender who is not compliant with the state registry, does Tom file felony charges for failure to comply? Tom indicated he would often make the referral, but he does look at each case individually and may not on some cases. Dean compared that with the board’s ability to look at each offender individually and approve or deny their request to live in Green Bay. Dean indicated he has a problem with the idea that just because people go underground, we should ignore the problem. Dean went on to confirm that Tom indicated his referrals for non compliance have gone up due to this ordinance. Dean believes just because some people don’t like the law doesn’t mean it’s incorrect or should be ignored, or repeal the ordinance because we can’t enforce it. Dean indicated he believes the process in Green Bay is working. Tom indicated that there is a book out called “Criminal Thinking” and it shows that criminals will always take the easiest way out, even if it means facing another felony charge. Tom indicated his numbers are “going through the roof in the City of Green Bay.” State wide, there is a 90.3% compliance rate which leads the nation in compliance ratings. He can’t say that with regard to the City of Green Bay. The registry is used to great extent by everyone including community members and law enforcement. Previously, there was comfort knowing when someone looks at the web site, there is information there and it is accurate information. Tom can’t say that as comfortable as he did a few years back about the City of Green Bay.

Alderman Wiezbiskie indicated that he wanted to clear up the fact that he was never for repealing the sex offender ordinance. He wasn’t for the ordinance to begin with but he thinks it could be sharpened up. Alderman Wiezbiskie indicated the reason he wasn’t for the ordinance to begin with is because he understood that the DOC already had everything in place and he acknowledged the good job that they were doing, however if Mr. Gerondale and other members of the board think there is a place for the sex offender board, maybe we should revisit the “2000 feet” language. Perhaps relax that language to the point it becomes a little more palatable to the sex offender and he/she therefore keeps us informed of his/her whereabouts. Alderman Wiezbiskie believes that the issue of offenders going underground is a nationwide danger; offenders are doing it all over the United States. Alderman Wiezbiskie also wanted to clarify that he is not for sex offenders. He is for a means of control that is workable in the City of Green Bay. Alderman Wiezbiskie recently discussed the issue at the Advisory Committee meeting and further indicated that perhaps they need to revisit the 2000 feet limit. Alderman Wiezbiskie also indicated he believes that it is a fact that sex offenders don’t commit crimes in their own back yards. The alderman also indicated that he believes Wisconsin is known for the fact that it does not provide enough mental health care in the institutions. He believes we need to provide the care necessary to make the offenders contributing members of society. The alderman indicated the City of Green Bay hasn’t given them (offenders) a chance.

Arthur Taylor indicated that when the ordinance was originally passed, Police Chief Arts and DOC Field Supervisor Jed Neuman both told him that they know where all the sex offenders are. It’s wasn’t a problem, but now we’ve made it a problem.

Tom Smith indicated he is confronted with these same issues from every community he visits and all he can do is provide the information and then the community will make a decision. The research is there, the numbers are there to make an educated decision. Education of the community is the key. We have to educate the community about who these sex offenders are and the DOC has offered to provide that education. DOC has offered to come into communities to teach about practicing protective behaviors and teaching the children in schools and daycares.

The issue of the ordinance itself was not the intent of this meeting and Tom got back on task to discuss the state sex offender registry.

Tom reiterated that there is no typical sex offender. They come from all backgrounds, socio-economic groups and ethnicities. There are 31 Wisconsin statutes that mandate the offenders be placed on the registry. Tom provided a hand out which listed all 31 statutes. 5 statutes: 1^st degree sexual assault, 2^nd degree sexual assault, 1^st degree sexual assault of a child, 2^nd degree sexual assault of a child & repeated acts of sexual assault against a child are all convictions which require lifetime registration. The definition of the age of a child for 1^st degree sexual assault primarily is a child under 13 and 2^nd degree sexual assault is primarily a child under 16. The other convictions (outside of Chapter 980 cases) require registration for 15 years from the time the offender comes off of supervision. Military convictions are different. There is no classification for out of state offenders at this time, therefore the statute listed on the web site may be misleading. Tom gave an example of a military conviction involving an internet crime, completely hands off, but the registry lists the kidnapping statute. All offenders with military convictions and those that come from out of state, have a 10 year registration requirement from the date they enter the State of Wisconsin, regardless of the date the initiating state ends the registration requirement. Wis. Stats. 301.45 is the registry statute and it is within that statute the 10 year requirement is found. There are also community notification statutes which are different. For adult convictions, the judge does not have discretion as to whether or not the offender will have to register. Juvenile convictions are different. If the offender is adjudicated as a juvenile, under Cesar G. which is a WI Supreme Court case, the Judge has discretion whether he/she is going to impose and stay the registration. That means there are conditions that the offender has to successfully complete and if done, the registry is stayed. If the juvenile offender doesn’t comply with all of the conditions, the registration requirement can be imposed. Juveniles who have been ordered to register are required to do so for 15 years from the date they come off of supervision, no matter what their adjudication is.

Regarding the “Active” and “Terminated” section of the web site, active means they are currently under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and terminated means they are no longer under DOC supervision. For those no longer under supervision, the only way to monitor them is through the registry.

Regarding the “Compliant” and “Not Compliant” section of the web site, primarily the registry works off of letters. The DOC sends a letter to the registrant, the registrant has to fill it out and return it to the registry. The other way they confirm is through law enforcement. Often times, Tom provides a list of all registrants living in a certain zip code to law enforcement and they in turn go knock on doors to confirm the registrant’s residence. Tom’s primary caseload involves those registrants who are no longer under supervision. The Department of Community Corrections deals with those who are under supervision. If the offender absconds, the agent will often report that information to Tom and Tom will often refer for new felony charges for non compliance. Non Compliance with the registry is a Class H Felony carrying a maximum term of 6 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine based on failing to initially register, going underground, failing to provide an updated photo, failing to report a change or knowingly providing false information. Tom indicated the cases of knowingly providing false information have increased in Green Bay and they are very hard to prove in court. Often family members protect the registrant. The registrant will, for example, say he is living with his parents when he is actually living somewhere else in Green Bay. The family member will get the mail and give it to the registrant.

Ben Heiman asked Tom if he actively attempts to locate individuals who go underground. Tom indicated he does actively look for registrants, the best he can based on the number of missing registrants he is dealing with. He does everything possible to try and find an individual and make them compliant. His investigations can take up to 2 months before he refers for a new felony charge because he has to prove, in court, that the offender knowingly failed to comply with the registry and without proper proof, the case could be dismissed by the court. There are numerous databases available to Tom in order to locate missing registrants. If someone is truly trying to remain undetected, there are many loopholes they can use and the registrants are very adept at not being detected.

Tom explained the “Verified” and “Not Verified” section on the web site. Again, that can be a mail issue or sometimes the registrants may return the letter incomplete. In that case, the registry then sends the letter back requesting completed information and the registrant will show as “compliant” but “not verified”. Tom indicated he is always willing to answer questions.

With regard to the verification letters the registry send to registrants, Tom clarified that there are probably about 500 letters per day mailed from Madison and they are getting close to that many letters back per day. Because of staff shortages and over the holidays they were about a month behind entering the information into the system showing whether or not a registrant is complaint or not. So it is possible that a registrant returned their letter fully completed and in a timely manner but the registry has not yet been updated. In another instance, the registrant may call and report a new address but when the letter is mailed, for whatever reason, the post office doesn’t recognize that person at the address yet and the letter is returned to the registry in Madison. In that case, the registrant is automatically changed to “not compliant” on the system. Tom also clarified there are 2 different types of letters; confirmation letters and annual registration letters. Annual registration letters go out on or around the registrant’s birthday. Confirmation letters are sent based on a change within the year.

Tom discussed again that as of today, there are 20,770 registrants in Wisconsin and that number goes up by approximately 100 per month. Part of the reason for that is Wisconsin has 31 statutes that mandate registration, which again Tom indicated is the reason that the public has to be educated that all the registrants are not pedophiles and predators. Tom again discussed the recidivism rates in Wisconsin. Compared to other states, Wisconsin’s recidivism rates are extremely low. Tom clarified the difference between compliance rates and recidivism rates. Wisconsin has a 90% compliance rate (with 10% non compliant). The compliance rate is the percentage of registrants who are compliant with the state registry. Tom explained that the compliance rate could be higher but due to mailing issues, such as when a registrant is in the Brown County Jail and the mail doesn’t get to them, they appear non complaint even though they know where the registrant is. Department of Corrections Field Supervisor Jed Neuman indicated that there are currently 3 non compliant offenders on his unit solely because they are in the Brown County Jail.

Tom indicated that in Brown County right now there are 480 registered sex offenders. It’s difficult to give a specific compliance rate because of the way the computer system was designed and currently operates, but of those on active supervision in Brown County there are 6 that are not compliant. As for those who are not under supervision, there are 14 that are not compliant. However, when Tom enters the information that he is referring a registrant to the District Attorney’s office for felony charges, they are removed from that non complaint list.

Dean Gerondale asked Tom to clarify some statistics. Tom indicated there are currently 480 registered sex offenders in Brown County. In 2008 there were 31 that he referred to the District Attorney’s Office for felony charges for non compliance. Dean wanted to know how many, of that 480, are non compliant. Jed Neuman indicated it is impossible to provide that number because it is not static. Jed also indicated that we have to remember that the average reading level of a man in prison in the United States is 3^rd grade. There are some that are just not cognitively able to complete the letter that is sent to them. In that case, Tom then contacts the probation/parole agent and the agent then assists the registrant in filling out the form, but that registrant would appear non compliant until the agent can assist him/her. There are many reasons that a registrant could be listed as non compliant.

Arthur Taylor indicated that he had a conversation with Jed Neuman earlier and Jed explained the very strict rules that the Department of Community Corrections has in place for sex offenders. Jed indicated that is very true and the Department of Community Corrections changed their policies a couple years ago on how they supervise sex offenders and other states look to Wisconsin to see what Wisconsin is doing. The policies were changed due to the Department’s commitment to protecting the community. Jed also explained that many of the offenders that come before the board have gone back to prison and a board member may question why the offender went back to prison. Jed indicated that there are many technical violations because the offender is supervised so strictly. There are also fewer alternatives to revocation for sex offenders as compared to other non-sexual offenders. There is only one correctional institution, Racine, with appropriate programs for sex offenders and there is a waiting list of 6 months. Sometimes they sit in Brown County Jail until they can get into the program. Jed wanted to make sure that everyone understood that by no means, does the Department of Corrections condone any actions of the people they supervise. What they did is wrong and a crime is a crime, however it’s the responsibility of the DOC to deal with sex offenders and they really try to make a difference. DOC works closely with the community and has a strong commitment to the community. Jed also discussed Minnesota studies that were done regarding locale. They did an extensive number of studies and found that there was no correlation between where the offender lived or proximity to a park, daycare, school etc. and where the assault occurred. Minnesota did subsequent studies on re-offense and found that none of that mattered as well. Jed indicated the average distance that an offender travels to commit an assault is usually quite far. Tom Smith explained that he recently handled the case of an offender who traveled from New York to Chilton based on an internet meeting with a girl. Jed explained each offender has a pattern or “MO” and inevitably, isolation is a trigger and something the DOC tries to avoid. When the offender is isolated, they are in their pattern. Critical factors to success are employment/education, pro-social peer group, treatment and a stable residence. They are less likely to offend if they have all 4 components. When an offender comes out of prison, they have to deal with all 4 of these components at the same time. The offenders are released to the county of conviction so Brown County is getting only those who committed the crime in Brown County, unless special approval is granted by the secretary of the department.

Arthur Taylor asked Tom Smith and Jed Neuman the following question: “Is this board useful?” Dean Gerondale added: “Under the premise that the ordinance exists.” Jed Neuman answered the question by citing a book by Eric S. Janus tilted Failure to Protect that sites that ordinances are not effective in dealing with sexual assaults. Jed further indicated it is not their place to give an opinion. Tom Smith indicated that they are looking at the research and data that has been gathered over many years and continue to look at new information that they are continually getting in regards to these ordinances; Tom said they are “feel good ordinances”. Tom agreed that bottom line, the ordinance is driving people underground. Jed Neuman indicated you can look at Iowa that was the first state to pass the law, and their compliance rate plummeted to 50%. Jed indicated that one of the devices they have to protect the community is knowledge. Jed also indicated that they are being forced to utilize the Brown County Jail for placement of offenders because they can’t find places for them to live (due to the ordinance restrictions) and that is very expensive and the jail is also overcrowded.

Alderman Wiezbiskie asked if in fact the city decreased the 2000 feet limit, would that make the work the board is doing more valuable. Tom Smith indicated that some of the outlying communities are enacting things such as “safety zones” which are basically ordinances which restrict offenders from being in certain areas. Jed Neuman indicated the Department of Corrections already has that rule in effect. Tom discussed the Town of Humboldt which created a new ordinance with regard to neighborhood watch; Manitowoc is also reviewing the safety zone and neighborhood watch issue.

Alderman Wiezbiskie asked Tom Smith if Green Bay eliminates the ordinance, would that make his job easier and also, would Tom be in favor or oppose elimination of the ordinance. Tom indicated he is very much in favor of elimination. Last week he was in Brown County Circuit Court 3 days in preliminary hearings and one jury trial due to registrants going underground and therefore being charged with non compliance.

Dean Gerondale proposed the question, why don’t they just eliminate the state law requiring registration. Jed Neuman indicated the state law was designed to protect the public so the public can go on line and look up a certain person’s name or look up an area by zip code. Dean indicated the same argument (forcing offenders to go underground) was made when the state law was being implemented, but the law still went into effect. Jed indicated that is true, but pointed out Wisconsin’s law held up in Supreme Court challenges whereas other states laws failed. Tom Smith indicated that there are laws in place which ensure true predators are not released back into the community.

Jed Neuman indicated that if there was no ordinance, the Department of Community Corrections agents would be better able to supervise the offenders instead of driving around looking for “for rent” signs; or going to the jail in the morning, getting the person out of custody and driving around looking for a place to live and work, then driving them back to the jail. That is a huge amount of time when their responsibility is to be going to the offender’s employer and checking how he/she is doing, checking with treatment programs, having the offender report to their office, checking with other collaterals. That is the responsibility of the agent.

Alderman Wiezbiskie asked if there are any statistics as to re-offense for those offenders who go underground as compared to those who don’t. Jed indicated he is not aware of any studies regarding that.

Upon questioning from Dean Gerondale, Tom Smith clarified that for those offenders under supervision, the recidivism rate is 1%. The Department of Corrections study found that with regard to the recidivism rate for a sex offender convicted of an initial sexual assault and then convicted again of a sexual assault is: for those offenders who have been off supervision for 3 years the rate is 3.8%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 5 years the rate is 8.4%; for those offenders who have been off supervision for 11 years the rate is 11%. Dean Gerondale thought that was very high but Tom Smith indicated that is actually very low compared to other states. Tom also indicated a Department of Justice study indicated that in 93% of cases, the victim knew the sex offender. Out of that 93%, in 34.8% of the cases, the perpetrator was a family member, the other 58% are acquaintances, i.e. friends, people they knew, people they trusted, coaches, clergy, etc. To prevent that, education of the public is the key.

Tom Smith indicated that he is invested in this community. He works hand in hand with law enforcement in Green Bay and the surrounding communities. They are doing good things in this community. They are doing everything that needs to be done in order to do their job. It is getting more difficult, but they are still doing their job.

Tom indicated that when the Green Bay City Council was discussing enacting this ordinance, Tom spoke to Council and told them they would be creating a ripple effect and that is what has happened. The DOC has been talking to many communities regarding these types of ordinances. Tom reiterated that the studies have been done and the fact is that these types of ordinances do not work. If there is data in existence that proves these types of ordinances work, Tom would strongly support them, but there is no such data.

Tom indicated that Department of Community Corrections has rules in place for these offenders; the recidivism rate in Wisconsin is low; the compliance rates with the registry are high. That is the important part about where the sex offenders are. The sex offenders are not going away. That is why Tom feels they have to continue to educate the community about who these sex offenders are. Arthur Taylor asked if there has been resistance to community education. Tom indicated the sad part is that he has found that people aren’t interested in education. When the DOC has tried to hold educational meetings with the community, they don’t get any turnout.

Dean Gerondale indicated Tom provided some very good information. The board members thanked Tom for his time and all the information he provided.

Respectfully submitted,

LB – Recording Secretary