[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6384745,"mediaKeyId","2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27","parentId",2121552,"title","Audit finds tracking and scheduling weaknesses at Board of Executive Clemency; committee votes to continue agency","audioSeconds",7141,"startMs",7141000,"endMs",-1,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27&start=7141&end=0","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27/thumbnail_7141000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6384745/Arizona/Audit-finds-tracking-and-scheduling-weaknesses-at-Board-of-Executive-Clemency-committee-votes-to-continue-agency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6384745-97664d3871bc66db5d59110af5ae2eef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770875799&Signature=SdWxssx5ot4-TrLlis-uTA5XpuiHZCrSnFBMJ3jii8gulewtIggpohP-6u0bi9j3ETYQBdla6Qnib6A-Dr0w7rT091XXPJQNXr~BpM-xcKMcBlAiErJsQGky~FnzSDt4RRBmz54~UDEL4~8Ypi5EKTIfXK20~DeGdDmAlO2mJppYqmaJdnGqseFApfUBDNROSyFrG6Zto17S1yeU28OShw8sA9rwR40-QFXS3aypgUnqcHWSbIfSPhec97WY5~Uvk5QhTs9Yan4bXYezHhBIfzDmyi53DeGybf4AtKivUs5g6G6~jkQVjLeMCNx6uaerJA6dVkGBJIP~5uj77fs3YQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-01-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Arizona House Judiciary Committee recommended that the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency be continued after auditors presented findings that the board had not consistently complied with conflict‑of‑interest disclosure requirements, had gaps in tracking victim notifications, and did not schedule roughly one‑third of revocation hearings within a 60‑day timeframe that case law and board policy consider reasonable.

Nicole Dyer, a director with Sjoberg Evisheng Consulting, presented the results of a performance audit contracted by the Legislature’s Auditor General. Dyer said the audit reviewed statutory duties that include conducting clemency hearings, scheduling revocation hearings, and notifying victims who have elected to receive post‑conviction notice. She told the committee the audit identified three broad problems: an outdated conflict‑of‑interest policy and incomplete disclosure forms; inconsistent tracking of victim notifications; and failure to schedule about one‑third of revocation hearings within 60 days of an arrest or reincarceration.

Dyer said the audit did not identify specific instances of undisclosed substantial interests, but warned that the lack of a compliant disclosure policy and a single publicly accessible file for disclosure forms increases risk. On victim notifications, Dyer reported that for a sample period the board tracked required notifications for most hearings but left gaps in the tracking log; auditors reviewed some untracked files and found notifications had been sent, but noted the missing records could expose the board to legal risk if victims were not timely notified.

The audit also noted that from July 2022 to June 2023 the board scheduled 310 of 933 revocation hearings more than 60 days after arrest or reincarceration. Auditors attributed the delays to the board’s lack of an effective tracking system, inconsistent communications and receipt of arrest warrants from the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR), and the board’s limited staffing. The audit recommended the board adopt a structured decision‑making model for parole and revocation decisions; auditors said the board had not fully implemented prior recommendations on that topic.

Gretchen McClellan Singh, executive director of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, told the committee the board agreed with the audit’s findings and had already taken steps on several recommendations. Singh said the board revised its conflict‑of‑interest policy, implemented an accessible file for disclosure forms and revised recusal language; she told the committee those changes were adopted in August 2024 and became effective September 1, 2024. She also said the board implemented oversight procedures to improve victim‑notification tracking, began receiving electronic warrants from ADCRR and now receives monthly data from ADCRR about warrant timing.

Singh described the board’s workload and resources: the board operates with a general‑fund appropriation of about $1.4 million, 6.25 FTE, and conducts hearings year‑round. For fiscal year 2024 the board reported 330 parole hearings, 199 phase‑1 commutation hearings, 11 phase‑2 commutation hearings, 1,272 community‑supervision revocation hearings, 631 probable‑cause hearings, and 2,468 total hearings; the board also sent 1,159 victim notices to people who had opted in for post‑conviction notification.

On the recommendation to implement structured decision making, Singh told the committee prior assessments had concluded the board lacked sufficient staff and resources to operate a full structured‑decision program and that other jurisdictions that use such models maintain larger staffs and in‑house forensic resources. She said the board will pursue training and smaller tools that might be feasible without major new staff, while noting the board’s FY‑2026 budget submission requests a case‑analyst position to help assemble and summarize case packets and reduce delay.

After discussion, Vice Chair Kyle Powell moved that the committee recommend continuation of the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency. The motion passed; the chair announced the committee recommended continuation with seven ayes, one member recorded as absent and one member recorded as present.

—

Sources: Presentation by Nicole Dyer, Sjoberg Evisheng Consulting; testimony by Gretchen McClellan Singh, Executive Director, Arizona Board of Executive Clemency; committee discussion and roll‑call announcement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","01/15/2025 - House Judiciary","oneSentenceSummary","Auditors found the board lacked consistent compliance with conflict‑of‑interest disclosure rules, had incomplete victim‑notification tracking and scheduled roughly one‑third of revocation hearings beyond a 60‑day window; after the audit presentation the committee recommended the board be continued.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6384751,"House Judiciary committee recommends revision of Arizona Criminal Justice Commission after questions on grants and data collection",3059,455000,3514000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27&start=455&end=3514","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27/thumbnail_455000.jpg","/articles/6384751/Arizona/House-Judiciary-committee-recommends-revision-of-Arizona-Criminal-Justice-Commission-after-questions-on-grants-and-data-collection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6384751-1c09e3b9407148a0b9d3f179bea6ffef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770875799&Signature=VgC-4IUQBLWjIMwE2LxMUhM-Wep2uwxm6D8EJ3gWg2QOFZi8WDj2CrqQMjVxz4XRUch~ai7HW-lkGF2rBBpqx1SXc0EpjoEL0ZMU2e-R6gM9qT5EivFHXYNWWY~qpPFamvG10pYI~y7OZ8nX77qa69fjqhlWjprukr20lFtB2KvtD18Ol5MBFlcJLkNRDd-nQ7dSFX19IQt1nrqH8ArIlF0SIz2gmuxav2pTa6TzQHWH~6AdV3j6Kge5u8oo8QQMpXkMg-JNBZWxTP2LZveI7rLTeC-7YL4xHwrlgyKnLow1MRVkfwBFUVpPSmTzDrXk3h-XDQxH1LYu4dSwRRVUBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend that the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission be revised after a Committee of Reference hearing in which lawmakers pressed the commission on grant management, lobbying for a law‑enforcement data bill and privacy risks of proposed databases.

The recommendation followed a presentation by Andrew LaDeaver, executive director of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, who described the agency’s role as a state administering agency for federal criminal justice grants, its emphasis on data and victim services, and performance metrics dating from 2016 to 2024. LaDeaver told the committee roughly $207 million flowed through ACJC during that time, about 87% of which was passed through to local criminal‑justice agencies, and that the commission had reduced staff from 27 FTEs in 2016 to 20 in the current fiscal year.

The commission’s work and accomplishments drew praise and scrutiny. LaDeaver described victim compensation and assistance efforts that provided nearly $32 million in direct payments to more than 22,000 victims and funded services reaching roughly 174,000 people. He highlighted AZPoint, the Arizona Protective Order Initiation and Notification Tool, and told the committee the time to enter protective orders into NCIC had fallen from an average of 23 days to a majority being entered within seven days. He also summarized drug‑task‑force results the commission funds, including seizures the commission reported as “881,000 fentanyl pills, 16,000 of fentanyl, and 113 pounds of meth,” and stated those seizures supported about 266,730 drug prosecutions and roughly 145,000 convictions over the past eight years.

Members focused on operational problems and policy choices. Representative Alexander Collin read from correspondence from the Arizona Sheriffs Association alleging delayed grant distribution and other grievances. Collin said the sheriff’s association told him a $1,000,000 appropriation for a recidivism‑tracking project had lapsed and been returned to the general fund after ACJC did not obligate the funds in time. LaDeaver acknowledged the agency had “dropped the ball” on that item, explaining the appropriation had a one‑year availability period while program planning assumed a longer timeframe: “we did miss the fact that the $1,000,000 had only a 1 year term on it…that was our mistake,” he told the committee.

Committee members also pressed ACJC on delays with the Corrections and Sheriff Assistance Program (COSAP) grant, which members described as a $6,600,000 award for which about $4,000,000 remained undistributed. LaDeaver acknowledged delays in making those funds available and said some portions of the award produced no applications.

Another area of sustained concern was ACJC’s role in proposing criminal‑justice data collection bills. Representative Collin said the commission lobbied for legislation he described as requiring law enforcement to collect personally identifiable information on people not convicted of crimes. LaDeaver disputed some characterizations and said commission proposals were intended to give the Legislature access to criminal‑justice data for policymaking and that later amendments limited release of PII: “I don’t think we ever envisioned that would be released, but we’ve made sure it was specifically put forward in the language that that was gonna be the case,” he said. Members repeatedly asked whether the commission had advocated for a CCW (concealed‑carry) registry; LaDeaver said he did not recall ACJC advocating for creation of a CCW database and described the commission’s interest as ensuring an electronic mechanism to verify a CCW permit’s validity at the point of purchase.

After the presentation and questioning, Vice Chairman Kyle Powell moved that the committee recommend ACJC be revised. The motion passed on a recorded voice roll call; the committee chair announced the “ayes have it.” The committee’s recommended action instructs the Legislature to consider modifying the commission’s statutory scope; members stated the precise modifications would be determined in follow‑up work and stakeholder meetings.

The committee’s discussion included both operational critiques (missed procurement timelines and slow grant distribution) and policy worries about data privacy and lobbying. LaDeaver and other ACJC staff also described steps the commission said it has taken to increase efficiency — electronic grants management, DocuSign for agreements, and public data‑visualization tools — and defended the commission’s overall low overhead and high pass‑through rate.

The committee did not adopt specific statutory language at the hearing; members directed staff and chairs to continue conversations about the agency’s scope and to produce recommended statutory changes for future consideration.

Votes at a glance: The committee moved, by voice roll call, to recommend the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission be revised; the chair announced a 6–3 vote for revision.

—

Sources: Testimony and presentation by Andrew LaDeaver, Executive Director, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission; committee Q&A; committee motion and roll‑call announcement.","After a Committee of Reference hearing, the House Judiciary Committee voted 6–3 to recommend revising the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission following member concerns about grant delays, an earlier lapsing appropriation, and proposals to collect personally identifiable information for criminal‑justice research.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6384741,"House Judiciary Committee adopts committee rules",115,321000,436000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27&start=321&end=436","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2121552-4b39eedf90bd10ba6fceb225dcb60c27/thumbnail_321000.jpg","/articles/6384741/Arizona/House-Judiciary-Committee-adopts-committee-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6384741-fe33ac0cde4878ee85bd0f2ad7596321/orig.mp4?Expires=1770875799&Signature=bMLbBqYab3izyvVARdaa2YC4VO2kKtMcSYOW-WKv4cVr86I~2ekX3opoRpGHWLjxxtLRnaJJ9b19hdNqOexoAXx4MpE5QiGNaa5bCiL2O8ISwVJgCW1hppgQSE1dTdb8yKhenpTFALqRQ4DlO4bNyJa53GlCRbY9--C17W-TMMS20Uw84iMjYNo9oE042da~a602RCjb1B90Mh9ItIcE8OM~m5ecegPkdO33GXy3ux5FvHDAEchLCxuXTcVbxu-kFPuj03Epwfi9VPM9w3v~ZfNh-CGWwj1jqG54sacJRJD1WWCnrsHkjMrPEo-qhhDQyz-0VwwExhh2CxSnyG5CMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to adopt its committee rules as printed and distributed.

Vice Chair Kyle Powell moved adoption of the rules. Committee members discussed distribution of the packet and a member asked for a paper copy; the chair confirmed the rules had been distributed by email and directed members to check their email for committee materials. The chair announced the ayes had it and said the rules would be filed with the Office of the Chief Clerk in accordance with House Rule 9(c).

The vote was taken by voice roll call after the motion was made; committee members present verbally responded “aye” and the chair declared the motion approved.

—

Sources: Committee proceedings and roll‑call announcement recorded in the hearing transcript.","The House Judiciary Committee adopted its committee rules as printed and distributed; members were directed to check emailed materials and the chair ordered the rules filed with the Office of the Chief Clerk under House Rule 9(c).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Audit finds tracking and scheduling weaknesses at Board of Executive Clemency; committee votes to continue agency

House Judiciary committee recommends revision of Arizona Criminal Justice Commission after questions on grants and data collection

House Judiciary Committee adopts committee rules