Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/19/2019 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| Commissioner, Department of Corrections | |
| HCR4 | |
| HB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 50-ARREST;RELEASE;SENTENCING;PROBATION
[Contains discussion of HB 51.]
3:13:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 50, "An Act relating to pretrial release;
relating to sentencing; relating to treatment program credit
toward service of a sentence of imprisonment; relating to
electronic monitoring; amending Rules 38.2 and 45(d), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
3:14:31 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), relayed that HB 50 and HB 51 represent an ongoing
conversation about criminal justice reform in the State of
Alaska. He stated that the legislature has been considering
reform since 2014; statistics were presented to the legislature
demonstrating Alaska's increasing prison population; the
understanding was that if Alaska continued in the same path, it
would have to build another prison. He said that by the year
2016, the legislature decided that action was urgent; therefore,
it passed sweeping criminal justice reform in order to make
changes and have them be enacted as quickly as possible. He
reported that it is the belief of the [Governor Michael J.
Dunleavy] administration that the action was premature. He
pointed out the following: Alaska's crime rates rose
dramatically in the five-year period - 25 percent overall, 34
percent for violent crime, and 22 percent for property crime;
however, these statistics were only through 2014. After 2014,
there was a decline in Alaska's prison population and a
reduction in recidivism. This happened prior to the changes
enacted by Senate Bill 91 [passed during the Twenty-Ninth Alaska
State Legislature, 2015-2016].
3:17:30 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Skidmore whether he had any
notion or research explaining why there was a decline in
recidivism at that time.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he was not aware of any such research
but being involved in the criminal justice system throughout
that period, he credited former commissioner of the Department
of Corrections (DOC), Ron Taylor, for initiating changes in the
way DOC programs were handled. Some of the concepts discussed
by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) [created under
Senate Bill 64, passed during the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State
Legislature, 2013-2014] already were being implemented by DOC.
He reiterated that there was a decrease both in recidivism and
the jail population prior to the passage and implementation of
Senate Bill 91.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if Mr. Skidmore attributes the
decline in recidivism circa 2014 primarily to DOC related
policies.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he cannot definitively say that the
programmatic changes were the reason the decrease occurred;
however, it represented a change in the system, thus, could be a
potential explanation. He said that he is not aware of any
other changes in the system.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS referred to a 7 percent decline in the
recidivism rates shown on the slide [slide 3 of the PowerPoint
presentation, entitled "Reentry Services: Promoting Safer &
Healthier Communities," presented during the 3/14/19 House State
Affairs Standing Committee meeting]. He explained that on the
slide, the most recent year is 2015; however, the data shown for
[CY2015] on the chart is based on data from 2018, demonstrating
recidivism three years out from 2015.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that Co-Chair Fields explanation is
correct. Regardless of the criteria used to define recidivism -
by arrests or by convictions - when evaluating recidivism, one
must look at additional conduct into the future.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered that currently it can be accurately said
that felony recidivism appears to be declining steadily at least
into 2018, recognizing the three-year look-back.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that he cannot report on recidivism rates
for 2018 for the very reason Co-Chair Fields offered - he cannot
predict what will happened in the future. He said that for
those people released today, he does not know what offenses they
will be committing in the next three years.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that recidivism appears to be continuing
to decline currently.
MR. SKIDMORE answered, "Yes."
3:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that DOC is looking at cohorts with
a three-year look-back; therefore, if there was a decline in
2015, it refers to the recidivism of people released in 2012.
Anyone recidivating in 2018, is from the 2015 cohort.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "Recidivism is going down, but
crime is going up. Does that mean we have a whole new ...
generation of criminals as opposed to the old criminals ...
repeating the stuff that they did in the past?"
MR. SKIDMORE replied that one of three things could be
occurring: 1) a change in what is considered as recidivism, for
example, decriminalizing what was previously considered a crime;
2) new people coming into the correctional system not there
previously; or 3) crime rates calculated based on reports from
victims and not prosecutions. Another explanation is that there
are fewer people prosecuted or arrested, but the greater amount
of crime is based on victim reports. More crime is occurring,
but less people are being held accountable.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned that the report, entitled "Alaska
Recidivism and Reentry," [not included in the committee packet],
makes the distinction between new crimes and technical
violations; there is a steep decline in both.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification: she has heard
testimony both that there is a decline in crimes and an increase
in crimes.
3:24:43 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Public Defender Agency (PDA),
Department of Administration (DOA), responded that the
recidivism data that was presented to ACJC was based upon data
published by DOC. The overall recidivism rate had been hovering
in the upper 60s; in 2013 it was reported to be 67.02 percent.
The cohort with 67.02 percent recidivism was released in 2013;
the recidivism data was measured using the subsequent three
years; therefore, the data overlapped criminal justice reform.
He said that in 2014, the overall recidivism rate dropped to
65.07 percent, and in 2015, it dropped to 61.33 percent. He
relayed that the 2015 cohort was substantially supervised under
the parole and probation reform under Senate Bill 91. He
offered that the indicators are that the decline started under
the early stage of reform and has continued with an even sharper
drop in 2015. He maintained that the next cohort that will be
measured will have been fully supervised under the reform
measures [of Senate Bill 91].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the 2015 rate of 61.33
percent had nothing to do with criminal justice reform unless
there was an element of reform separate from Senate Bill 91.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS maintained that the 2015 rate on the chart
reflects crimes that have or have not occurred through 2018,
because of the three-year cohort period.
MR. SKIDMORE reiterated Mr. Steiner's testimony that in 2015
there was an even sharper decline, and probation and parole
[violations] were counted in the recidivism rate. He said that
HB 51 would alter the circumstances under which a person is
arrested for probation violations; some violations would be
handled through administrative sanctions. He said that the
number of administrative sanctions is significant - 20,000 in
the first two years. He relayed that administrative sanctions
were not counted in the recidivism rates that have shown a
decline, because they were not arrests. Recidivism was defined
as being arrested for a violation. He maintained that there
were many violations, for which there previously would have been
arrests, that now are not arrests; therefore, the recidivism
appears to have declined. He asserted that in order to compare
recidivism rates, the administrative sanctions would need to be
considered along with all the arrests that were made. He
offered that there were reductions in recidivism prior to the
[administrative sanction] changes; therefore, there were changes
made in the system that were effective. He emphasized that
there were some measures under Senate Bill 91 that the
legislature - with all good intentions - rushed to adopt.
3:29:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS clarified that cohort year 2015 (CY2015) on the
chart represents 2015-2018 because of the three-year window;
therefore, it does include activity during criminal justice
reform. He added that CY2012 represents the years 2012-2015.
MR. SKIDMORE continued by saying that to address the concept of
"pretrial release" he will discuss the changes that were made
and the intent of the governor's bill. He mentioned that there
were reports that the pretrial population had increased
dramatically - by as much as 80 percent. He maintained that the
higher rate included the number of bed days used as the pretrial
detainment number. If a trial is delayed for a prisoner and the
number of detainment days doubles, then it appears that the
pretrial population has doubled. He maintained that the 80
percent increase does not signify an increase in individuals,
but only an 80 percent increase in the number of bed days.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what the increase in the number of
people was, separate from the bed day count. He mentioned the
possibility of increased stay due to the courts being closed on
Fridays.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that he did not know. He maintained that
other factors were not considered in the pretrial detainment
numbers. He said that to adjust the number of the pretrial
population, the state decided to release more people from jail;
and to do so, the state tried to adopt the use of a risk
assessment tool.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her desire to know the answer to
Representative Wool's question regarding the increase in the
number of individuals in the pretrial population. She
maintained that she would like to see the statistics backing up
his analysis before considering statutory changes.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the precise numbers would have to be
requested from DOC; it is an excellent question and should be
determined.
3:33:07 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued by saying that the risk assessment tool
that the state wanted to adopt was one that looked at a series
of questions that could be answered from a person's criminal
history to determine his/her risk level. The risk level score
was then tied to what happened with the pretrial release. He
added that the tool had not been developed by the time Senate
Bill 91 passed; therefore, the presumptions for release on bail
returned to the presumptions before Senate Bill 91. The reason
that occurred is because the tool that was developed was flawed
in several ways.
MR. SKIDMORE began with slide 1 of the PowerPoint presentation,
entitled "Alaska Pretrial Risk Assessment," [included in the
committee packet] and relayed that the slides presented are from
a presentation developed by the Crime and Justice Institute
(CJI) at the Community Resources for Justice (CRJ) to describe
the pretrial assessment tool developed in June 2017. He
commented that June 2017 was after Senate Bill 91 was passed.
MR. SKIDMORE turned to slide 2, entitled "New Criminal Arrest
Scale," and said that CJI developed a series of questions
specifically for Alaska using Alaska data. The questions looked
at six risk factors: the age at first arrest; the total number
of prior arrests in the past five years; the total number of
prior convictions in the past three years; the total number of
prior probation sentences; the total number of prior probation
sentences in the past five years; and the total number of prior
incarcerations in the past three years. He pointed out that the
questions were limited because the totality of a person's
criminal history was not considered. He maintained that three
arrests in the past five years was weighted the same as 20-30
arrests in the past five years. He pointed out that two or
three convictions in the past three years was weighted the same
as 20-25 convictions.
MR. SKIDMORE moved on to slide 3, entitled "NCA Rate by Total
Score," and explained that NCA stands for new criminal arrest.
The chart shows that of people with a total risk score of 0, 14
percent had an NCA; of those with a total risk score of 1, the
NCA rate was 23.8 percent; of those with the maximum total risk
score of 10, 58.1 percent were released [and had an NCA].
MR. SKIDMORE referred to slide 4, entitled "NCA Rate by Total
Score Ranges," and stated that under Senate Bill 91, there were
three categories of risk - low, medium, and high; however, after
CJI performed the risk assessment, which was done after the law
passed, it found that Alaska's risk scores fell into five
categories, not three. He turned to slide 5, entitled "NCA
Total Score," and said that because the three risk categories
were already in statute, the assessment results had to be
"crammed" into those three categories created by statute. He
detailed the three categories: those with a very low score of 0
- 3,219 individuals - were combined with those with a low score
of 1-5 - 7,002 individuals - to create a new "low" category;
those with a moderate score of 6-8 - 3,808 individuals - were
combined with those with a moderately high score of 9 - 2,116
individuals - to create a new "moderate" category; the third
category - labeled "high" - consisted of the 3,043 individuals
with the maximum score of 10.
3:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to slide 4 and suggested an
alternate grouping: a 0 score would remain categorized as "very
low"; 1-8 as "moderate"; and 9-10 as "high." She maintained
such a grouping would have made more sense and avoided the
problems that were encountered.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he understood her point, but he is
merely describing how the categorizations were done. He
referred to the chart on slide 3 and pointed out the dotted
lines over the scores of 1 and 8 and the solid lines over the
scores of 5 and 9. He explained that everything below the score
5 solid line is categorized as "low"; everything between the
score 5 and 9 solid lines is categorized as "moderate"; the
dotted lines show the two additional categories - 1-5 and 6-8 -
resulting from the risk assessment. He reiterated that the
assessment tool was developed after Senate Bill 91 was passed
creating three categories; thus, the five categories were forced
into three categories. He maintained that among the studies
cited justifying risk assessments, a 2011 report by the Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA) [entitled "State of the Science of
Pretrial Risk Assessment," by Cynthia A. Mamalian, Ph.D.,
document not provided] discusses pretrial risk assessment tools
and other states that have used them - Kentucky, Virginia, and
Ohio. In each of these states, the assessment tool was
developed, implemented, and tested in one county in order to
validate and adjust it before implementing it statewide.
3:40:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked for a copy of the study validating the
pretrial risk assessment tool.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the study could be made available
through the ACJC.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether having that study would be a
benefit to the committee members for clarification.
MR. SKIDMORE expressed his belief that policy makers should be
looking at as much data as possible when implementing policies.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered to bring Susanne Dipietro [Executive
Director, Alaska Judicial Council (AJC), Alaska Court System
(ACS)] back before the committee to discuss the broader criminal
justice issues. He pointed out the summary of HB 50, included
in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to slide 4 and asked whether his
understanding is correct that the first bar in the chart shows
that 14 percent of the people in the "very low" category - those
with 0 NCAs - will commit a new crime. He gave an example: out
of 100 people, 14 would commit a new crime.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that it would be described as a 14
percent chance that a person being released would commit a new
crime. He agreed that in order to arrive at the 14 percent
chance, out of 100 people, 14 would have had to have been re-
arrested. He reiterated that it would be a "new criminal
arrest" - or NCA.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he understands that people
with different criminal pasts tend to follow certain patterns of
behavior; statistics demonstrate that for someone who hasn't
committed a crime for five or six years after release, the odds
of recidivism is low. He offered that since the range of
weights for the risk factor is small - 0-3 - the total scores of
9 and 10 would be quite similar. He pointed out that the
difference in the [NCA] rates for scores 9 and 10 is only 5
percent; therefore, of all the percentages on the bars in the
chart, those are the two closest, and the scores are the two
closest, as well.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the 9s were grouped in the
"moderate" not "high" category.
3:45:23 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Steiner why he was not at the hearing
in person.
MR. STEINER replied that he requested travel for the hearing,
and the request was denied. He stated, "I've been told that I
traveled enough to Juneau, and that I couldn't travel for the
rest of the session actually, so I'm participating
telephonically."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether Mr. Steiner has been allowed to
travel for other committee hearings on similar bills this year.
MR. STEINER responded that he traveled twice at the expense of
the state - once to attend an ACJC meeting; he also traveled on
behalf of ACJC - and paid for by ACJC - to attend a House
Judiciary Standing Committee hearing.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his belief that it is important for
Mr. Steiner to be present for the hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Steiner, as the head of PDA, who
he must ask for permission to travel and who denied him that
permission.
MR. STEINER answered that he makes his travel requests to the
DOA. He was told that his travel request was forwarded to the
governor's office and denied by [Chief of Staff Tuckerman
Babcock].
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Steiner to offer his comments on any
issues related to the proposed legislation.
MR. STEINER explained the reasoning behind dividing the scores
into the categories shown [on slide 5]: the score groupings
were related to the rates of likelihood of failure; the score
itself does not designate the risk but is associated with the
risk. He offered that the real explanation is much more
complicated than has been presented and suggested committee
members consult professionals for a full explanation. He
offered to provide more information. He stated that attorneys
are reporting that their clients are getting released in greater
numbers and succeeding under Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED)
[DOC] supervision; the data backs that up. He said that the re-
arrest data produced by the University of Alaska (UA) clearly
supports the view that re-arrests are not increasing as a result
of [criminal justice] reform; in fact, the trend is flat; the
number of arrests before reform, during the reform process, and
post-reform has not changed. He maintained that the larger
number of people being released is an indicator that people
being released in greater numbers are low risk and succeed. He
added that although the data meant to verify the validity of the
tool is not complete - and even ambiguous at times - there is
some indications that NCAs are declining. The percentage of the
population in custody is smaller for non-violent cases than
previously. He asserted that all these results indicate that
the tool and the pretrial reforms may be doing what is intended
- releasing low risk people who will not reoffend. He added
that [pretrial] supervision is helping. He suggested that what
is contained in HB 50 undermines those efforts and those
measures. He offered to detail the provisions that would
undermine the stated goals.
3:51:22 PM
MR. STEINER relayed that HB 50 attempts to address a presumption
previously found unconstitutional - "no bail being necessary
depending on the level of offense." He maintained that the new
presumption under HB 50 - "somebody will fail on bail provided
there's a certain charge" - slightly alters the one found
unconstitutional but is almost identical. He continued by
saying that Section 4 eliminates the "clear and convincing"
standard for setting monetary bail for someone; the prior bail
system had a "preponderance" standard, which made it very easy
with any limited showing for the court to set a monetary bail
for individuals. He maintained that reverting to a monetary
bail system would result in people being incarcerated simply
because they are poor. He stated that the ACJC found that the
primary factor for release was monetary, not risk-based; adding
the requirement for a third-party custodian resulted in people -
without a support network and who are poor - finding it
difficult to be released. He asserted that HB 50 would
eliminate the pretrial risk assessment that was aiding in making
the determinations [for release], which appears to have been
successful.
3:55:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS relayed that the fiscal note (FN) analysis for
HB 50 [Identifier: 0030-DOA-PDA-01-18-19, OMB Component Number:
1631] states that elimination of pretrial services will result
in increased litigation, case processing costs, and
incarceration. He expressed his belief that incarcerating low-
risk offenders increases criminality. He asked whether
eliminating pretrial services, rather than reforming the
pretrial risk assessment tool, would increase criminality.
MR. STEINER opined, "I think that's exactly what the risk is
here." He continued by saying that as you hold low-risk people
in jail for even 24 hours, it increases their recidivism. It is
very easy to sever someone from his/her job and family in a very
short period. A person who works at a job, in which not showing
up once or twice can cause the loss of that job, can lose that
job quickly. He maintained that the fundamental question is
this: "Are you going to hold people in jail because they
[don't] have money or are you going hold people in jail because
they present a risk?" He offered that HB 50 reverts to an old
system that eliminates reevaluation of the bail terms based upon
one's inability to pay. He emphasized, "How much money you have
and how that affects you on bail is part of the bail statute."
He maintained that the theory of monetary bail is that one will
reform his/her behavior because his/her money is at stake. He
said that not being able to reevaluate bail when it is
determined that someone doesn't have enough money to post bail
does not make much sense. He relayed that the data shows no
difference in outcomes between unsecured bail and secured bail,
therefore, poverty does not affect the outcome. He asserted
that a fundamentally fair system does not incarcerate people
because they are poor.
3:55:42 PM
DAVE LOVELL, University of Washington, stated that he endorses
Mr. Steiner's testimony; Mr. Steiner is positioned to know the
details about how pretrial bail and pretrial risk assessment
work in Alaska. He warned against focusing too much on the
pretrial risk assessment instrument and not enough on the
principles behind successful use of pretrial release. He said
that King County [Washington] was able to decrease its [prison]
population by 30 percent without relying on a risk assessment
but by adopting various policies, procedures, and principles,
which he summarized by saying, "Don't lock people up unless you
have a good reason to, unless they fail before unreleased or
they commit a violent offense." He maintained that could be
done with or without relying on the instrument. It is the
process, the procedure, the values, and the communication among
the players that determine a successful or unsuccessful outcome.
He said that whatever risk assessment technique that is used or
purchased, it is the local process that will drive down the
numbers [of prisoners] and maintain community safety at the same
time.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS shared that the FN for HB 50 projects an
increased inmate count of 205 people per day.
3:58:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for an overview of the HB 50 as
proposed before addressing the details.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned that one of the impacts of HB 50 is
increased inmate count; tied to this impact is the proposal to
transfer inmates out of state due to the increased number. He
asked to hear public interest issues associated with sending
inmates out of state to for-profit institutions.
3:59:16 PM
VERI DI SUVERO, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), referred to an opinion editorial (op-
ed) piece co-authored by AKPRIG ["Budget benefits Arduin's
friends, not Alaskans," by Kevin McGee and Veri di Suvero,
Anchorage Daily News, 3/5/19], which focused on the proposed
budget for DOC, stating that most funding allocations for DOC
would be cut or maintained except for the "Out of State
Contractual" budget line, which would be increased from $300,000
to over $17 million - extending the private prison industry in
Alaska to out-of-state private prisons. She said that along
with the governor, the budget was authored by Office of
Management & Budget (OMB) Director Donna Arduin. Ms. Arduin has
very close ties to the private prison industry and to specific
private prisons; the proposal to move incarcerated Alaskans out
of state would serve to benefit her, not Alaskans. Ms. Di
Suvero stated that it is well documented that private prisons
increase recidivism rates, bring gangs back to Alaska, and are
detrimental to Alaska safety. She maintained that increasing
the prison population 205 inmates per day, prompting prisoners
to be moved out of state, would be unfortunate for Alaska
communities, as well as Alaska's budget, since private prisons
have not been shown to decrease costs.
4:03:11 PM
MR. SKIDMORE reviewed the "HB 50 Pretrial Release Highlights,"
[included in the committee packet] and said HB 50 would shift
the time for arraignment; instead of being within 24 hours, the
proposed legislation would provide greater discretion allowing
48 hours in some instances. He explained that this change is
designed for those few cases that are complicated; for cases in
which a person is unavailable or information is still being
gathered; or to give prosecutors more discretion to manage
weekend and holiday arraignments.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that statute now reads "24 hours"
and asked whether the circumstances that Mr. Skidmore cited
would not be included under the "compelling circumstances"
currently in statute [AS 12.25.150(a)].
MR. SKIDMORE replied, "No." He said that "compelling
circumstances" refer to the time for setting bail, not for the
time of arraignment. He explained by giving an example: A
person is arraigned for assault in the fourth degree because
he/she injured someone. The extent of the injury is not yet
known. Additional time could be requested to set bail in this
case because of the presence of compelling circumstances; that
is, injuries are far more extensive than originally believed.
Instead of filing a misdemeanor assault 4, it may be determined
to be a higher level of assault or even a murder charge. He
maintained that the change from 24 hours to 48 hours is
regarding arraignment, not setting bail.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Section 2 of HB 50, [page 1,
line 13, to page 2, line 1] and cited current statute
[AS.25.150(a)] which read in part: "A person arrested shall be
taken before a judge or magistrate without unnecessary delay and
in any event within 24 hours after arrest, absent compelling
circumstances ...." She offered that it appears to be referring
to arraignment, not bail.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that Representative LeDoux is correct;
there appears to be a provision allowing alternate hours in
certain circumstances. He added that the statute also states,
"delay in the transmittal of that report to the parties ...",
which refers to the report that discusses the risk assessment
but does not include the ability to adjust for Sundays or
holidays.
4:07:04 PM
MR. SKIDMORE, in addressing pretrial services, stated that
additional monitoring for defendants pretrial has been widely
regarded as appropriate; having supervision by DOC provided more
tools to the courts. He offered that HB 50 is designed to
provide greater discretion to the courts to identify the
appropriate circumstances. He mentioned that he agreed with Mr.
Steiner's testimony that monetary bail should not be the primary
or only way of setting conditions of release. He said that HB
50 would shift the responsibility for the pretrial services
within DOC, thus, allowing it to better manage its resources.
4:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about the status of monetary bail. He
asked if the ability to pay is still a criterion for pretrial
release.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that under current law, it is possible to
set monetary bail; however, the law also says that if someone
cannot or has not posted bail, he/she is afforded another
hearing in which the court must alter the conditions of release
to give the person greater opportunity to be released from jail.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL cited an article in the Anchorage Daily News
[3/7/19] about a woman who was arrested, and because she
couldn't pay the $500 bail, was held in jail for three months.
He asked whether that occurs.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that he cannot comment on that case, but
in answer to the question about monetary bail, he said, "Yes,
monetary bail can be set." He offered that the woman being held
for three months seems unusual because current law stipulates
that there must be another bail hearing in the event the
defender cannot post bail, and the judge is required to change
the condition to facilitate release from jail.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether currently the second hearing
before the judge must happen within a certain amount of time.
MR. SKIDMORE, after consulting the statutes, confirmed that the
hearing must occur within 48 hours.
4:12:39 PM
MR. SKIDMORE continued reviewing the pretrial release highlights
to address video-teleconference ("video-conference"). He said
that currently by law video-teleconferencing is only used in
very limited circumstances. The proposed legislation would
encourage greater use of video-teleconferencing in all pretrial
court hearings, thus, reducing the amount of transportation
between jail facilities and courthouses. He maintained that
doing so would have multiple beneficial efforts both in costs to
troopers of transporting defendants and in reducing the
likelihood of contraband coming into the facility.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the reason why incentivizing
video-conferencing for pretrial hearings has not been previously
proposed or adopted and why it was not included in Senate Bill
54 [passed during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-
2018] or Senate Bill 91.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he does why know why it had not been
included in previous bills. He said that it is a concept that
has been discussed among criminal justice stakeholders for some
time. He offered that one benefit of an in-person meeting is
that it gives the defense lawyers an opportunity to meet their
clients. He suggested that some may have resisted video-
conferencing because they don't like change. He maintained that
it is DOL's position that encouraging video-teleconferencing is
appropriate, therefore, is included in the proposed legislation.
4:15:16 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), replied that the concept
for using video-conferencing for pretrial hearing is one in
which the Alaska Supreme Court is extremely interested. She
said that ACS has court rules regarding it, which are constantly
being reviewed; the criminal rules committee, which makes
recommendations to the supreme court, has examined this issue
several times; not everyone agrees with the use of video-
conferencing. She stated that there are certain hearings in
which defendants need to see witnesses who are providing
evidence or testifying against them. She offered that there are
many issues in play, and recently the supreme court faced making
the decision of which pretrial hearing would be appropriate for
video-conferencing. Differing arguments were presented, and the
supreme court ultimately adopted a rule requiring certain
pretrial hearings to occur by video-conference. Under HB 50,
DOL has suggested that others may as well. She acknowledged
that there are many logistical, broadband, and equipment issues.
She added that there are issues with DOC facilities having
defendants appear; there must be a correctional officer in a
designated room; and there must be separate phones lines for the
defense attorney to communicate with the defendant. She stated
that ACS has installed the needed equipment in all the jails;
however, there are equipment failures and other logistical
restraints.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether a person has the
constitutional right to appear in person.
MS. MEADE answered that in many cases the answer
is "yes," and in other cases the answer is "not necessarily."
She explained that for trial and for hearings in which evidence
is presented, a defendant has the right to appear in person.
She continued by saying that for the other proceedings, the
court must decide when physical presence is required and when
video presence is enough. She offered that the difference of
opinion on this matter is the reason video-conferencing is not
used "wholesale" for every single pretrial hearing.
4:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "With the advent of the supreme
court now saying that there's certain hearings that the
defendant shall appear by videoconference, do you actually need
this or ..."
MS. MEADE replied that the supreme court stipulated that the
defendant shall appear by video-conference if equipment is in
place and if it is logistically feasible. She expressed her
belief that the proposed legislation states the following: "Not
only shall certain hearings be ... held by video when we have
the logistics in place, but other ones also may ... if the court
orders in specific circumstances."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "Couldn't the court order it in
specific circumstances right now if it wanted to?"
MS. MEADE replied that it is not entirely clear. She explained
that in some instances, the defendant has the right to request
to be physically present.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are arguments
against video-conferencing beyond the logistical concerns.
MS. MEADE answered, "Yes, there are pros and cons." She offered
that Mr. Steiner could articulate them better than she.
MR. STEINER stated that the criminal rules committee discussed
at great length appearance [for hearings] and transportation
costs. He articulated the two competing views: The defendants
could be and should be required to appear by telephone
conference over their objections, thus, cutting cost. It was a
proposal made by the presiding judges. The completing view -
one he shares - was that appearance by telephone or video-
conference should be done only with the consent of the
defendant. That mechanism would more likely result in a
reduction in transport. He said that because of the struggles
regarding communications with clients, transportation becomes a
mechanism by which clients speak with their lawyers and lawyers
speak with their clients. He maintained that most defendants do
not want to appear in court if "nothing's going to happen."
With adequate communication, the need for transportation is cut.
He relayed that there were two proposals under Criminal Rule 38;
the supreme court ultimately adopted the majority view - the one
he favors - which is that it should be the defendant's option.
He reiterated that the criminal rules committee was looking to
cut transportation, and a majority of the committee was
persuaded that this option provided the best method. He added
that the majority included judges and the prosecutor on the
criminal rules committee.
4:22:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to testimony that Mr. Steiner was
not allowed to appear at the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting in person and pointed out the differences and
advantages of a person appearing in person versus communicating
through technolgy. He maintained that seeing someone live
offers far more impressions and a better "read" of that person.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the second proposal mentioned by Mr.
Steiner was one made by the presiding judges of the four
different judicial districts of Alaska. He said that the four
judges were looking for efficiency within the courthouse. He
said that Mr. Steiner believes that by allowing the defendant to
control whether he/she is transported to the hearings, there
will be a decrease in transportation. He relayed, "That's not
what has been borne out." He maintained that defendants
repeatedly request to be transported for hearings for which
there is not substantive issues being addressed. It has turned
into a way for defense attorneys to meet with their clients at
the expense of the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He
emphasized that no one disputes that attorneys should meet with
their clients, and no one disputes that the best way to
accomplish that is in person; however, putting that burden [of
in-person consultations] on DPS, in turn causes court hearings
to last longer in order to allow attorneys the opportunity to
consult with their clients before the hearing occurs. He
reiterated that everyone agrees that consultation is necessary;
the discussion is about the method for achieving the
consultation. He maintained that HB 50 does not mandate that a
defendant always must appear by video-teleconference; rather it
gives the court the discretion to determine the circumstances
for that to occur. He emphasized that under HB 50, the judge -
not the defendant - would decide when it is appropriate for the
defendant to appear in person. He added that DOL has supported
this provision for many years and advocated for it in the
criminal rules committee; he cannot explain why it has not been
included in previous criminal justice bills; and he cannot
explain the views of the prosecutor on the criminal rules
committee.
MR. SKIDMORE stated that the electronic monitoring (EM)
provision under [HB 50] refers to allowing someone credit
against his/her jail sentence for the length of time he/she has
been on EM pretrial. He said that HB 50 prohibits that
practice. He mentioned the Justin Schneider case [Justin
Schneider was convicted of kidnapping and assault for an August
15, 2017, incident in Anchorage] in which Mr. Schneider had been
on EM for a year by the time his change of plea was made; when
the judge imposed a year in jail, Mr. Schneider was spared
prison time, because he had already served a year under EM.
MR. SKIDMORE said that for anyone sentenced, DOC assesses where
it is appropriate for the person to serve his/her sentence - in
a halfway house, on EM, in a minimum-security prison, or in a
higher security prison. He maintained that the assessment for
where a person serves his/her sentence is very different than
the assessment that determines if the person is a flight risk or
at risk for committing a new crime. He said that currently
under law, the court assesses whether the person needs to be in
jail pretrial because he/she is a risk to the community or a
flight risk; the law is obligated currently to use the risk
assessment tool, which is not yet fully developed, to make this
decision; consequently the results of the risk assessment tool
is applied in determining the ultimate sentence. He maintained
that sentencing thus neither meets the Chaney criteria
[sentencing standards adopted by Alaska as a result of State v.
Chaney] nor the type of risk assessment DOC uses to determine
where someone should serve his/her sentence. He concluded that
HB 50 would eliminate the possibility of pretrial EM being used
as credit towards the ultimate sentence.
4:29:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether granting credit for EM
towards a person's sentence predated Senate Bill 91.
MR. SKIDMORE responded, "That is a concept that has been ...
evolving over the years." He said that he would have to
research the legislative history to answer that question, but he
knows that it is currently in statute.
MR. SKIDMORE moved on to the last bullet point on the document
describing the pretrial release highlights. He said that unlike
EM, there is good reason to provide incentive for treatment even
pretrial. He maintained that EM encourages pretrial delay due
to the hope [of the defender] that whatever sentence is
ultimately imposed, the EM time will be credited towards it. He
added that treatment time is similarly credited; however,
treatment serves a much more beneficial purpose, which is to
help individuals with substance abuse or any other issues
contributing to their criminality. He stated that HB 50 would
cap the amount of jail credit based on treatment at 180 days;
the intent is to find a balance between encouraging treatment
pretrial but still respecting the need for finality in a
criminal case. He offered that victims are also impacted and
want closure. He said that most treatment programs are 180 days
or less; if it is a treatment program requiring more than 180
days, treatment may be received by the defendant after
sentencing. He maintained that six months is an appropriate
length of time for a person to be in treatment before the case
goes to trial and is resolved.
4:31:34 PM
RON WILSON, Chair, Alaska Therapeutic Court Alumni Group
(AKTCA), relayed that the therapeutic court is an alternative to
traditional justice; it allows non-violent offenders to
participate in an 18-month program. He shared that the
therapeutic court allowed him a chance to break his cycle of
crime - which lasted from 1996-2008. Under sentencing
guidelines, he was looking at six years in prison; he opted into
the therapeutic court program, which helped him to receive a
diagnosis of anxiety disorder. Once his disorder was
identified, he completed the [therapeutic court] program. He
could complete the program outside of custody and, therefore,
was able to continue work as an electrician and be home with his
wife and four children. He said that upon completion of the
program, he developed an alumni group and continues to be
involved with that organization offering peer support to
"process" groups. He has seen several dozens of participants of
the program whose lives have changed. He offered that many jobs
require a valid driver's license and obtaining one can be a
barrier for offenders; he maintained that under Senate Bill 91,
a felony limited license was available for graduates of the
therapeutic court, allowing them to secure sustainable
employment. He stated that the cost of the therapeutic court
program for an individual is about one-sixth of the cost for the
same time period - 18 months - [in prison]. He maintained that
the recidivism rate for individuals who have completed the
program is significantly lower than rates for those subject to
the traditional court process. He asked for continued support
for the alternative court program, for housing funds to provide
offenders with housing for the first couple months after
release, and for Medicaid funds to pay for treatment. He
emphasized that therapeutic court was a life-changer for him:
since he entered the therapeutic court program in 2008, he has
not had another arrest; he is currently a business owner; he
remains involved with therapeutic courts through AKTCA helping
individuals navigate the court system.
4:36:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Lovell to provide context for Alaska's
criminal justice reform in terms of what other states have done
and the implication of "walking back" some of the reforms.
[The committee was provided with Appendix I of the Board of
State and Community Corrections (BSCC) report, entitled
"Performance Metrics for Community Corrections." Appendix I was
entitled "Functional Model of a Community Corrections System."]
MR. LOVELL relayed that he had a 40-year career in and around
prisons - as a professor, teacher, counselor, and policy
analyzer - in the states of Washington, New York, Connecticut,
and California. He stated that he has a connection with Alaska:
his wife is an Alaska Native who grew up in Southeast Alaska,
and he spent his first year of retirement in Alaska. He
mentioned the move to privatize Alaska prisons and the massive
reversals of the type of reforms that he has observed in
California over a six-year period. He said he finds this action
puzzling. He offered that he is confident that Alaska can
develop its own abilities and solve its own problems regarding
criminal justice; however, it may need advice on modeling from
those who have worked in other states. He gave the example that
Alaska can build its own risk assessment tool using Alaska data.
He expressed that Alaska should resist the temptation to rely on
an outside entity to solve its problems, especially regarding
private prisons. He maintained that criminal justice reform
works; it doesn't work always as expected; and it is not always
easy to measure success. He said that he has observed criminal
justice reform very closely in California over a six-year period
- looking both at the county and state levels. He relayed that
some broad-minded county executives decided that there was a
jail population crisis; instead of expanding the jails, they
tried evidence-based practices as alternatives to incarceration
- ones that Alaska has also considered. He said that counties
began to track who was in jail, length of incarceration, and
reasons for incarceration. The ensuing discussions from that
data resulted in decisions about who should be kept in jail and
who should be released. He offered that the result was a
decline in jail population without any effect on public safety.
He stated that from his observation in Washington and
California, whenever reforms are introduced that will decrease
the number of people incarcerated, the public anticipates that
crime will rise; however, it does not. He offered that Alaska
has a crime problem; however, one can see from the model in the
document that the idea that it would be affected directly by
tinkering with the sanctions is not realistic. He emphasized
that the model is very complicated; there are many points for
intervention; and there are many different factors affecting
outcome. He asserted that in order to find out if recidivism is
working, one must keep records on what is being done and the
outcomes. He said, "If crime is going up, ask "Who is
committing it? Whose crime?" He maintained that it is faulty
thinking to assume that when crime goes up, incarceration must
go up as a response; the connections [between the two] are far
more complicated than that. He reiterated that Alaska needs to
determine who is committing the crimes, why they are committing
the crimes, and whether incarceration is the solution; and
Alaska needs to use its own resources, people, and values, and
not rely upon an outside entity.
4:43:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the 3/7/19 Anchorage Daily
News article mentioned by Representative Wool relating to the
case in which someone was in jail as a result of not being able
to pay the $500 bail amount. She expressed her belief that
Senate Bill 91 had eliminated that possibility. She added that
ultimately all the charges against the woman in the article were
dismissed.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he was not familiar with the case
but would investigate it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that it was a 3/7/19 Anchorage
Daily News article by Michelle Boots.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered that [HB 50], by eliminating credit for
pretrial EM, would add about 14,000 person-days of detention.
He asked for a cost estimate for that.
4:45:32 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
responded that this year the system wide average cost per day
per inmate is $168.74. She said that she could provide more
detailed information on other fiscal impacts upon request.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that for 14,000 person-days, the cost
would be about $2.3 million.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to Mr. Skidmore's testimony that
Alaska is looking for ways to reduce its jail population. Mr.
Skidmore also said that other states might have tested the
pretrial risk assessment tool in a county before implementing it
statewide. Representative Wool offered that a county in
California might have a similar population to the State of
Alaska. He added that for evaluation of programs, one would
need substantial data. He asked the following questions:
Couldn't Alaska learn much from another state's program - one
that has been in place for eight to ten years? How important it
is for Alaska to develop and customize its own risk assessment
tool? How different is Alaska's behavior of criminals and the
criminal justice system from other states?
MR. SKIDMORE summarized the 2011 BJA report, previously
discussed, as follows: States took varying approaches to
implement pretrial risk assessment tools; some used a tool from
another state; his research revealed that using another state's
tool is not the preferred method. The preferred method is for a
state to develop a tool based on its own data. He maintained
that Alaska was attempting to do that. Other states tested and
adjusted their tools using a focused group before implementing
it statewide. He said that every other state offered the tool
as a factor for the court to consider; they did not write the
tool into statute, so that the presumptions that the courts used
were tied to an individual's score on the risk assessment tool.
He gave an example using Class C felonies: "We took a concept
that other states had used, that seemed to be successful, and
got so excited about it, we went further than what anybody else
had done, and then all of a sudden we started to have problems."
He said that Alaska's tool did not take into consideration out-
of-state criminal history; it only took into consideration
limited prior criminal history; it was tied to the statutes,
which restricted the state's ability to respond and give the
courts discretion for adjustment. He stated that currently
Alaska's tool is being validated; many states with risk
assessment tools did not validate or update their tools. He
maintained that validation is "a good thing"; however, Alaska
put it into statute before validation. He reiterated that
research supports starting locally with an adequate research
sample. He asserted that Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Southeast
Alaska would have provided a statistically significant
population. He reiterated the importance of a state having its
own pretrial assessment tool due to the nuances of statutes,
populations, and issues of a state. He agreed that developing a
tool poses challenges for Alaska, because it is so large and
diverse. He maintained that HB 50 is in reaction to Alaska
having implemented criminal justice reform too fast; it does not
propose eliminating criminal justice reform; it proposes slowing
it down. He said that unlike other states that implemented
criminal justice reform and achieved reduced crime rates, Alaska
did not; its rates have increased.
4:51:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether Alaska adopted another state's
[pretrial assessment tool] model or developed its own. He also
asked whether other states use the preassessment tool score as a
factor in the judge's decision and not as a determinant.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that Alaska was unable to gather the data
to be included within the tool; the inclusion of the data should
have occurred; however, it was not possible; and there was no
way the legislature could have anticipated that problem when the
law passed. He continued by saying there were problems with the
implementation of the tool, and there are still issues. He
maintained that HB 50 offers a "reset." He referred to Mr.
Steiner's testimony that the rate of re-offense - before Senate
Bill 91 and currently - is the same. He maintained that the
percentage - not the number - of offenses has remained
unchanged. He gave a hypothetical example: Before Senate Bill
91, 30 percent of the people released were re-offending; after
Senate Bill 91, 30 percent are re-offending; because more people
are being released, a greater number of re-offending people have
been released. Thirty percent of 100 is different than 30
percent of 1,000.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for confirmation of her
understanding that in 2017, Alaska passed the "reform bill to
the reform bill," which gave discretion back to the judges,
allowing them to use the pretrial assessment tool as a tool.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that she is referring to House Bill 312
[passed during the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature, 2017-
2018]. He said that the legislation limited one of the more
damaging aspects of Senate Bill 91, which was removing all
discretion from judges; however, it did not change tying the
presumptions of the courts to the tool. That provision is still
in law today.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that a pilot program would
most likely have been the better path, but since the state did
not implement one, the entire state became the pilot program
three years ago. She asked if information was gleaned from the
state's data.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that Senate Bill 91 passed three years
ago, but the pretrial provisions were not implemented until
2018; therefore, it is about month 15 for those changes. He
acknowledged that more data could be gathered; however, issues
have been identified and it would be negligent to continue with
the provisions knowing that the problems exist that put people
at risk.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that there have substantial changes to
Senate Bill 91.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Steiner to respond to the
question of whether he was referring to rates or absolute
numbers [of re-arrests] when he mentioned they have not changed,
even though more people are being released from jail.
4:57:25 PM
MR. STEINER answered that the data that he referenced was from
UA, which stated that the absolute numbers of re-arrests for
people who have been released has not changed. The number of
individuals who have been released has increased, as well as the
number of people who have been arrested initially. He said that
raises the possibility that the re-arrest rate has dropped since
the tool has been implemented; however, that would have to be
confirmed.
MR. STEINER added that the pretrial risk assessment tool never
eliminated all discretion from judiciary, nor does it eliminate
discretion from the judiciary currently; it changes the nature
of the discretion as far as the burden of proof required. He
explained that in the original version, the court could not set
a monetary bail on a low-risk defendant; it could set
conditions, supervision, or unsecured bonds; it could not force
the defendant to remain in jail due to inability to post bail.
He stated that this provision was changed; the court now, with a
clear and convincing finding may now set monetary bail. This
can result in the outcome described in the article: someone can
stay in jail for lengthy periods of time due to a modest amount
of bail money and later have their case acquitted at trial or
dismissed. He emphasized, "Somebody who sits in jail for that
long loses everything." He asked, "Is the public substantially
protected by a $500 bail?" He said, "The answer to that
question is "No. They're not protected at all." He maintained
that the data informs that setting an unsecured bail and
releasing the person results in the same outcomes. He
reiterated that setting monetary bail [for the low-risk
defendant] results in incarcerating someone who potentially is
innocent; it undermines the person's ability to maintain his/her
pro-social contacts, take care of his/her family, and remain
productive. He asserted that monetary bail also increased
recidivism; people who spend time in jail have higher rates of
recidivism than people who do not. He added that people who
spend time in jail pre-trial have longer sentences than people
who are released. People who are released can make positive
changes, which makes a difference in sentencing.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered that MR. Steiner has provided an
accurate summary of the unintended consequences of HB 50; more
people may be unintentionally entrapped in the criminal justice
system making them more likely to commit crimes in the future
due to losing their jobs and the other consequences.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, in response to Representative Story's questions
about how best to proceed with the proposed legislation, offered
his desire to have more hearings and greater exploration of the
subject.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 50 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR004 ver S 3.18.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR004 Sponsor Statement 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR004 Sectional Analysis ver S 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR004 Additional Documents-Leg Research Background 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR004 Fiscal Note 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR004 Additional Documents-Leg Research Background 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HCR04 Committee on Committees Amendment #1 3.18.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |
| HB050 ver A 2.20.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Pretrial Highlights 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Pretrial Sectional 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Transmittal Letter 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Additional Document - Crime Bill GOA Bills Matrix 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note DPS-PrisTrans 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note DOC-Pretrial 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note LAW-CRM 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note DOA-PDA 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB050 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.19.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB051 ver A 2.20.19.PDF |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Highlights 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Sectional Analysis 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Transmittal Letter 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Additional Document - Crime Bill GOA Bills Matrix 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Fiscal Note DOC-IDO 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Fiscal Note LAW-CRM 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Fiscal Note DOC-DPP 2.20.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB050 Opposing Doucment - Functioning Model of a Community Corrections System 3.19.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM HSTA 4/16/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HCR04 ver U 3.14.19.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2019 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 4 |