Lapas attēli

lice, a citizen. I represent the prosecuting attorneys. This is the composition of the executive committee.

When we started granting these moneys, we adopted certain procedures that would isolate us from pressures. For example, we permit no one to come to our executive committee meetings when we are considering applications, to address us, to come personally. I have never seen a communications salesman. I have never seen anyone who would want to have a particular grant approved by our commission. We adopted a procedure that would disqualify a member of the executive committee if a grant involved his particular field of responsibility. For example, if a State police application came up, the man from the State police disqualified himself from the proceedings.

We also adopted procedures that would further isolate us from political pressure. I was appointed by Governor Rockefeller and was reappointed by Governor Bumpers, and I can say to you that we have never received any political pressure for the use of these funds. It has never come up in discussions and, to my knowledge, it never has in fact happened, which I think is a commendable thing and it should reflect credit on both the Governors that have had control of the program under their office.

We have relied upon the quality of the executive committee and the personnel on there to determine the priorities as to what would be funded.

I think our October 31, 1971, report will reflect that the emphasis in the previous years on communications equipment will no longer receive the same emphasis, because we have almost completely funded the needs of the local people for communications equipment. We have 75 counties, and we have funded 72. Most of the local people have already received what I call the hardware.

We have no soft-match. We allow no soft-match in the communications equipment, all hard cash.

So, our first year's use of the money has been to meet the requests of the local people for hardware and communications equipment. We are now in a transition period where we are using the moneys that have come from the Congress in a manner that I think will materially affect and improve the quality of the criminal justice system. I think the moneys are being used now for programs that not only improve the capability of the law enforcement officer, but improve the quality of the judicial system so the accused will also have the benefit of the moneys coming from Congress. I think that is one of the legitimate uses of the funds under this act.

For example, let me point out some of the programs that I think are materially improving the quality of the criminal justice system in Arkansas and are not the hardware emphasis that perhaps your inquiry may reveal as to the first years. We have now funded through the Supreme Court of Arkansas a criminal revision code committee which will undertake to completely revise procedurally and substantively the criminal code in Arkansas.

We have funded through the Supreme Court of Arkansas a committee to draft model jury instructions which I, as a prosecuting attorney, think is most important, because in some areas of the State you might find a judge instructing in a manner that might be termed favorable to the prosecution, and another judge instructing the jury perhaps more favorable to the defendant.

So, you might get a different quality trial in different areas of the State. Hopefully, this model criminal jury instructions will alleviate that so everyone will have the same fair instructions and will avoid reversals and time and expense.

We have used our funds through the State to meet current problems. For example, the Federal Court in Little Rock declared the Pulaski County Jail unconstitutional. It did not meet the constitutional standards. One of the things the Federal judge objected to was the lack of security personnel. We used our funds to provide the security personnel for that county jail that would bring it up to minimum constitutional standards.

I think that is an illustration of the ability of the State to meet the probems that arise right there with swiftness, which we did.

We have also found that there was a significant backlog of criminal cases in Pulaski County. As you know, Arkansas is mostly a rural State, but we have the metropolitan city of Little Rock, and they had a large backlog of criminal cases. We funded, through the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, moneys that permitted him to appoint judges from the rural areas of Arkansas to come to Little Rock and to clean up the backlog. That has now been done, with these results: It not only has cleaned the docket of criminal cases, but has reduced the inmate population in the Pulaski County Jail, which the Federal judge criticized and held unconstitutional, from 110 to 38.

We are a rural State, as I have said. We found that 50 percent of the local law enforcement people in Arkansas did not have basic education or training. We funded a mobile training unit that was a mobile home converted into a classroom. That goes to the rural areas of Arkansas to give instruction to the local law enforcement officials.

We have funded workshops. We will have a workshop tomorrow and Friday in Hot Springs to consider and discuss the model criminal standards adopted by the American Bar Association. I am sorry Mr. Fascell has gone, but Florida was the leader in that. They were the first State to consider the American Bar Association's model criminal standards. Perhaps we are the second in this country.

As I say, we already have had one conference where we had circuit judges and prosecutors and defense counsel to discuss the possible implementation for Arkansas of these standards. I think that is a commendable undertaking.

We have comprehensive juvenile programs that have, we think, met some of the needs in that area of Arkansas.

I, as prosecuting attorney, had the experience in a murder case of being unable to have an autopsy performed on the deceased's body because the county judge was required to approve and give you the money to have an autopsy. In previous days in Arkansas, some county judges said, “We don't think autopsies are important," and prosecutors sometimes would have a deficient case because of the lack of money.

We funded the State medical examiner's office and provided funds that now allow us to have a scientific and comprehensive State medical examiner's office.

Under part E of the amendment to the act, we originally received a grant of $1,630,000 for the improvement of corrections in Arkansas. I am sure that all of you are aware that is one area that we need to work on in Arkansas. Those funds will do this for Arkansas: They will pro

vide a minimum security for 300 inmates and construct a new women's reformatory. In 1967 I toured the facilities, and you would not believe the women's reformatory that we had. We are going to build a new one with those funds. For the first time we are going to give, through the use of those funds, training to parole and correctional officers.

The Federal court ruled the sanitation facilities in our Cummings Prison were unconstitutional. We have applied and through funds from LEAA we are going to reconstruct and have constitutionally acceptable dining and sanitation facilities in Arkansas.

We will have a new inmate records system through civilian personnel through the use of the money. As prosecuting attorney I used to know of instances where an inmate would go down and take the “hold” off another inmate so when he came up for parole they would not know that some other jurisdiction wanted him. That will be alleviated under this act.

In our communications system we have attempted to develop not just the funding of radios and things of that sort, but the overall development of a computer-type system. I was interested in the last witness comments about the fears of the computer. When we brought this up, we went to the State legislature and asked for enabling legislation to set up the computer criminal justice information system. I remember one night they defeated the bill, and we had to go down and revise that so as to make sure that this information would not be available to outside people.

We anticipate our system being the first in this country, perhaps, to serve not just the law enforcement police. The courts, the correction facilities, and even defense attorneys would be permitted under that act to use the computer information, but only the restricted people who would be enumerated in the act.

The thing that I think really will affect perhaps the quality of the system in Arkansas is that we anticipate funding in the near future possible model public defender programs. In the past, the public defender system in Arkansas has been defeated by the legislature because, I think, they have been unaware of what it would involve. We hope to use these funds from LEAA to set up a model public defender program to use as an illustration to the State so perhaps eventually the State will take this obligation, and not have it be a burden on the Federal Government forever.

Certainly, I must say that we have not been completely successful in avoiding all of the problems of a new agency.

We acknowledge that there are certain bidding procedures that can be improved, and we are going to improve those at our October 13 meeting

We have required the local jurisdictions to comply with State law concerning bidding. I think Mr. Intriago found out that in Arkansas the bidding requirements are on the State and counties, but not on municipalities. So, in our procedures we have required them to obey the State law.

As a result of inquiries made by your staff, perhaps we should strengthen that, and we anticipate doing that at our October 13 meeting.

We also think that perhaps there is a greater need for dissemination of information and exchange of information between the State planning agencies and LEAA. We hope that your efforts in their behalf will be successful.

We also think perhaps further guidelines from LEAA and perhaps the Congress would be helpful to us in properly using these funds.

I speak very strongly about these things because I am not a paid employee. I am just a part of the criminal justice system there. But I have seen the great use of this money in improving the quality of our system. So, I want to present an optimistic note, yet one with the understanding that we can improve and perhaps your suggestions will allow us to improve. I would say if you will permit us to submit a letter with more detailed information on some of the subjects I have covered when we get home, and perhaps the public defender program becomes enacted, we can give you that information by supplementary letter.

I would say we appreciate the opportunity to be here. We respect the responsibility of the States to properly use these funds. We hope to illustrate to you that we are making a positive impact on the criminal justice system in Arkansas, realizing that there are some areas that we can improve in.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Monagan. Thank you very much, Mr. Hodges. I might say that we appreciate your presence here, and that of Mr. Biggerstaff, and also the cooperation of Governor Bumpers in acceding to our request that a representative come and discuss these matters with the subcommittee.

Comparably to the previous witness, your testimony is a basis for satisfaction that some of the practices which have been followed will be changed, and that there is an alteration in the policy approach to some of these matters. You say 36 percent of the Arkansas funds awarded by the State during the three years of the program were for communications equipment. I could not help but think of the fact that at least up to this time, in view of the acute corrections problem that you have in your State, some 7 percent have gone to that area as compared with 37 percent to communications hardware. Only 2 percent has gone to fighting organized crime.

Mr. Hodges. Mr. Chairman, recently we had a meeting of our commission with Governor Bumpers, and I asked him to attend so as to give us his views as to the priorities that we should take. He illustrated the priorities in Arkansas as being, No. 1, corrections; No. 2, juvenile delinquency; and No. 3, drug abuse. We are going to follow his suggestions and recommendations. I think in our revised plan in 1972, those areas will be heavily reflected in terms of the moneys that will be spent.

I hope that the thrust of my comments is that we are past the purchasing of hardware, and now are getting into the substantive improvements with the funds from LEAA. Hopefully, the programs that I mentioned will illustrate that point, and that there will be a shift from the physical hardware allocation to what I call the substantive heart of the criminal justice system, which is really the trial and the right of the accused to defense counsel, and the right of the State to have adequate preparation, and things of that sort.

Mr. Monagan. With reference to procurement and the bidding to which you referred, there was a letter which Mr. Hickey, your predecessor, sent out in July of 1969, which said the crime commission does not require that bids be taken.

Mr. Hodges. If he said that, you certainly cannot say the legislature should not have the right to determine what shall be done. We have Act 52 of 1965 which is the county purchasing procedure which must be followed. If that was the statement he made, it certainly was in error. I think perhaps that may refer to the fact that we do not require bids prior to the time that we consider the applications. Our procedure is that we attach to grants certain requirements as to the local agencies accepting the money. One of them is that they comply with all local and State rules and regulations of whatever character, and particularly bidding.

Mr. Hickey is no longer the director. I have seen that letter, and I think perhaps the language may be misinterpreted as saying we do not require them to follow the law, which of course certainly we do. I think perhaps he is saying we do not require bids prior to the acceptance of the grant before the commission.

Mr. Monagan. I do not want to spend too much time on this, and I will put that letter and other correspondence in the record, without objection.

Mr. Hickey says:

The Crime Commission does not require that bids be taken. We only require that you determine the cost of the equipment that you desire and request the necessary funding. (The letter and other correspondence follow :)


Little Rock, Ark., June 5, 1969. To: All Arkansas sheriffs.

GENTLEMEN: Sheriff Robert Moore has invited this office to attend the law enforcement meeting to be held in Hot Springs on June 10, 1969, for the purpose of discussing with you the communication problems of this State.

I want to take this opportunity to urge that you attend this meeting, if at all possible, as this question of the communication problems you now have is a most vital question.

Many of you have already submitted applications to this office for purchase of communication equipment and our consideration of these applications will be influenced by the decisions to be reached at this meeting on June 10. Very truly yours,

JOHN H. HICKEY, Director.


Little Rock, Ark., June 17, 1969.
RUBEN O. Goss,
Chief of Police,
Conway, Ark.

DEAR CHIEF Goss: Reference is made to the number of preliminary project proposals, as listed below, submitted by you at which time we forwarded to you, on the date indicated below, applications for submission to this office. These applications have not been received to date. In some instances a number of projects were listed on one proposal. In order for the executive committee to examine each one of these separately, it would be wise to submit a separate application for each proposal so that these may be considered separately; some of which may be funded at one date and some held up for funding at a later date. In view of the limited funds available, we desire to fund as many projects as possible to improve law enforcement in Arkansas as quickly as possible.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »