03/13/2003 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2003
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
State Commission for Human Rights
Grace Merkes - Sterling
Lester Charles Lunceford - Whittier
Robert B. Sawyer, Jr. - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to establishing the Alaska No-Call List, a data
base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to
receive telephonic solicitations; providing that the data base
be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring paid
telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring
telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic
solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as
telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and
purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 15(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act expressing legislative intent regarding privately
operated correctional facility space and services; relating to
the development and financing of privately operated correctional
facility space and services; authorizing the Department of
Corrections to enter into an agreement for the confinement and
care of prisoners in privately operated correctional facility
space; authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities to expand existing correctional
facilities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to prohibiting the use of cellular telephones
when operating a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act relating to concealed deadly weapons."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to the limitation on payment of state treasury
warrants; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 132
"An Act relating to the duties of the attorney general;
requiring the attorney general to participate in all actions
affecting the management and jurisdiction of the natural
resources of the state; amending Rule 24(c), Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure; and amending Rule 514, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities for new or expanded public
correctional facilities in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and the Municipality of
Anchorage."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 15
SHORT TITLE:TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0035 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0035 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0035 (H) L&C, STA, FIN
01/29/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
02/07/03 0153 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CHENAULT
02/07/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/03 (H) Moved CSHB 15(L&C) Out of
Committee
02/07/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/10/03 0166 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 4AM
02/10/03 0166 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, ROKEBERG,
ANDERSON;
02/10/03 0166 (H) AM: LYNN, GATTO, GUTTENBERG,
DAHLSTROM
02/10/03 0167 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED)
02/10/03 0167 (H) FN2: (LAW)
02/10/03 0172 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD
02/18/03 0231 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
02/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/25/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/05/03 0450 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 55
SHORT TITLE:CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAWKER, ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0046 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/17/03)
01/21/03 0046 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0046 (H) STA, FIN
02/07/03 0154 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
03/05/03 0395 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/05/03 0395 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0395 (H) STA, FIN
03/13/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
GRACE MERKES, Appointee
to the State Commission for Human Rights
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
LESTER CHARLES LUNCEFORD, Appointee
to the State Commission on Human Rights
Whittier, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
ROBERT B. SAWYER, JR., Appointee
to the State Commission for Human Rights
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the State
Commission for Human Rights.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor
of HB 15, explained proposed amendments to Version I.
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Staff
to Representative Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Clarified proposed amendments to HB 15,
Version I.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 15.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as one of two sponsors of
SSHB 55.
FRANK PRUITT, Consultant
Cornell Companies
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided background information and
answered questions regarding a proposed private prison in
Whittier during the hearing on SSHB 55.
MARVIN WIEBE, Senior Vice-President
Cornell Companies
Ventura, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Described negotiation and planning
processes of a private company in developing a prison facility
and answered questions during the hearing on SSHB 55.
BEN BUTLER, Council Member
City of Whittier
Whittier, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
SSHB 55.
MARY BOWERY
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered her insight regarding a private
prison in Tennessee during the hearing on SSHB 55.
MAKO HAGGERTY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SSHB 55.
FRANK SMITH
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SSHB 55, testified as
a citizen activist to offer examples of failed private prisons
and to recommend certain questions for the committee to ask the
private prison company involved,.
WILLARD DUNHAM, Member
City Council
City of Seward
Seward, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SSHB 55, testified
regarding the Spring Creek Correction Center and possibilities
for expansion there.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the call
to order. Representatives Dahlstrom and Berkowitz arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
State Commission for Human Rights
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would consider the
confirmation of the following appointees to the State Commission
for Human Rights: Grace Merkes; Lester Charles Lunceford; and
Robert B. Sawyer, Jr.
Number 0180
GRACE MERKES, Appointee to the State Commission for Human
Rights, referred to her resume [included in the committee
packet] and told members she is currently a member of the
borough assembly. She said she'd attended the previous day's
meeting and would be proud to be on the commission and work with
that team. She told the committee she has no prejudice
regarding race, creed, sex, or "the things that are required in
our civil rights law" and thus would be a good representative
for this commission. Referring to the assembly and some
commissions she has served on, Ms. Merkes said she is quite
familiar with making difficult decisions and referencing rules,
regulations, and statutes in order to do so. She said she has
the time to serve on the commission and would like to have the
opportunity to make positive decisions for the community members
regarding their civil rights.
Number 0400
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Merkes to bring the committee
up to date on her history since 1995.
MS. MERKES responded that in 1995 she retired as the
administrative assistant for the Division of Family and Youth
Services because she wanted to focus on her volunteer work. For
example, she worked as a volunteer to get the Head Start program
started in Sterling, and that program now has 40 children in it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Merkes if she planned to
remain active with the bid committee for the Arctic Winter
Games.
MS. MERKES answered, "As a volunteer, yes."
Number 0579
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Ms. Merkes to predict what might be
the biggest, most important, or most controversial issues she
might face in the position to which she has been nominated.
MS. MERKES related her understanding that a majority of
complaints seen by the commission relate to employment and race.
Number 0681
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Merkes what the authority of
the State Commission for Human Rights is and how much of a
commitment it requires.
MS. MERKES responded that to her knowledge, the authority is
through statute; it gives the commission the power to decide
complaints, with the assistant attorney general acting as the
"overseer." Those on the commission are not state employees,
and the appointments are for a five-year period. She offered
her understanding that the commission meets three times a year,
but reviews cases as they are presented. She indicated that
depending on the subject, the review can be made by one to three
people.
Number 0800
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Merkes if she has any other
experience with human rights issues.
MS. MERKES replied that she considers human rights issues a
"living experience," earned through working with people with
differing races, creeds, and religions, for example. She said
she thinks people know if they have prejudices or not, and
reiterated her belief that she is a good candidate for the
position. Regarding experience, Ms. Merkes noted that when she
worked for the Division of Family and Youth Services she gained
experience with filings, proceedings, hearings, confidentiality,
and subpoenas, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Ms. Merkes' name sounded familiar
and asked if she has been a candidate for office.
MS. MERKES answered yes; twice she has been a candidate for the
state House - once as a Democrat and once as a Republican.
Number 0950
LESTER CHARLES LUNCEFORD, Appointee to the State Commission on
Human Rights, told the committee that during his years in law
enforcement in the state, he has worked almost daily with issues
regarding victims' rights and, in some respects, human rights.
He noted that he has an extensive background in criminal
investigations. He related his belief that the volunteer
commission is important to the state in that it investigates and
makes important decisions regarding discrimination cases
involving race, sex, and religion. He said he attended one of
the first meetings yesterday, and revealed that he has a deeper
respect for the staff of the commission due to the volume of
calls it receives each year regarding discrimination cases. He
concluded, "I believe I would be able to give them an unbiased
opinion and render good, sound decisions."
Number 1143
ROBERT B. SAWYER, JR., Appointee to the State Commission for
Human Rights, told the committee that he is originally from Key
West, Florida, and has lived in Fairbanks since 1981. He said
he has worked 30 years in the U.S. Army, 4 years of that as the
Command Sergeant Major at Fort Wainwright. He stated, "This
position gave me a great deal of authority and responsibility in
the involvement and mediation of the variety of conflicts in the
area of human rights." He said his experience in the Army also
afforded him the opportunity to interact with people of many
cultures, which is why he has an appreciation for diversity.
MR. SAWYER noted that he has served three years as president of
the Fairbanks Homeless Coalition, one year as president of the
local Red Cross chapter, and eight years as the state employment
and training program manager. Furthermore, he has served as a
board member of the school district, the ethics committee, and
"healing racism," for example, and was executive director at the
Fairbanks crisis clinic foundation. He specified that his
reason for serving on the State Commission for Human Rights is
to continue serving the people of Fairbanks and Alaska by
helping to enforce the state's human rights laws.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM commented that Mr. Sawyer's work with the
J.P. Jones Community Center has been a tremendous boon to the
young people [in the Fairbanks area].
MR. SAWYER, in response to questions, explained that the center
offers crisis intervention and tries to reduce the number of
suicides. Noting that in his travels around the world he has
interacted with people of all cultures, he said, "I learned to
appreciate ... differences, and also I've found that we're more
alike than different."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Sawyer for service to his
country.
[Although no formal motion was made, the confirmations of
Ms. Merkes, Mr. Lunceford, and Mr. Sawyer were advanced from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.]
HB 15-TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS
Number 1400
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to establishing the Alaska
No-Call List, a data base of residential telephone customers who
do not wish to receive telephonic solicitations; providing that
the data base be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring
paid telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring
telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic
solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as
telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and
purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date."
[A proposed committee substitute (CS), Version I, labeled 23-
LS0058\I, Craver, 2/28/03, had been adopted as a work draft and
amended on March 11, 2003.]
Number 1455
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor,
noted that there were some new amendments that Representative
Gruenberg would offer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned a subcommittee meeting
yesterday.
Number 1650
MR. POUND brought attention to Amendment 1, labeled 23-
LS0058\I.2, Craver, 3/12/03, which read:
Page 2, lines 15 - 17:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 3, line 11:
Delete "(C)"
Insert "(B)"
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "(i)"
Insert ","
Page 3, lines 17 - 19:
Delete "and
(ii) drop from the program each residential
subscriber who fails to reregister and pay the annual
registration fee;"
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "(B)"
Insert "(A)"
Page 7, line 25:
Delete "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(B)"
Insert "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(A)"
Page 8, line 25:
Delete "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(B)"
Insert "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(A)"
Page 9, line 3:
Delete "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(B)"
Insert "AS 45.50.475(b)(1)(A)"
MR. POUND explained that the section of Amendment 1 on page 2,
lines 15-17, would delete the $5 registration fee; therefore,
the [part of the] deletion on page 3, lines 17-19 [referring to
the fee, is no longer necessary].
MR. POUND suggested a friendly amendment to Amendment 1 such
that page 3, lines 17-19, would read as follows:
and
(ii) drop from the program each residential
subscriber who fails to annually reregister.
MR. POUND explained that people in Alaska tend to be relatively
transient, and telephones "don't necessarily always follow the
people around the state." Thus the friendly amendment to
Amendment 1 would give an automatic annual update to the
contractor, who will know that that phone number is no longer
required to have the no-call list, without getting the telephone
companies involved in it.
Number 1777
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his understanding that the gist
is to drop the annual registration fee for the consumer.
MR. POUND concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG alluded to past discussion and recalled
that it seemed to him most of the committee members hadn't
wanted the customer to have to pay.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the customer would still be
required to register and asked what that would entail.
MR. POUND stated his understanding that the registration would
be handled with a toll-free number or online, "depending on how
their private contractor sets it up." In further response, he
confirmed that the consumer would have to call the toll-free
number annually to ask to be kept off the list, and that
Representative Harry Crawford and [and his staff member] had
taken part [in formulating the amendments].
Number 1819
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text
provided previously]. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned the committee's attention to
Mr. Pound's previously suggested amendment.
Number 1939
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt a conceptual amendment
[subsequently treated as an amendment to Amendment 1] such that
page 3, lines [18-19], would read as follows:
(ii) drop from the program each
residential subscriber who fails to
reregister annually.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1982
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 1, as amended. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2013
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2 "for the
purpose of discussion." Amendment 2 was labeled 23-LS0058\I.3,
Craver, 3/12/03, and read:
Page 5, line 23:
Delete "calls on behalf of the person"
Insert "all calls made on behalf of the person who
employs individuals to engage in telephonic
solicitations"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MR. POUND, regarding Amendment 2, explained, "Even though it's
twice in a 30-day period, it makes that much more of an offense,
and refers to all calls so that it doesn't allow for, 'Let's sit
here on the 31st day of the month, and we'll make our two
illegal phone calls, and then ... tomorrow we'll make our two
more illegal phone calls.'"
Number 2070
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Staff to Representative Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, clarified, "The intent was to make sure that it's
not two phone calls to the same person; it's any two phone calls
made within the state that violate the section." He said
although "who employs individuals" restates that the person is
an employer, he is not sure that language is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that phrase was included to ensure
there is no question who the term "person" refers to. He
offered his belief that it helps because it once again defines
the term "person" in AS 45.50.475 (d), which now is set out at
lines 12-24. "So, the term "person" throughout that subsection
means the person who employs individuals to engage in telephonic
solicitation," he clarified.
Number 2155
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if HB 15 or any of its amendments would
prohibit a Girl Scout who was soliciting a friend to buy
cookies, for example.
MR. POUND responded that two clauses cover that. He noted that
there is an exemption in existing statute for nonprofit
corporations. He also referred to page 6, beginning on line 23,
which read as follows:
(iv) [(v)] a person soliciting business from
prospective purchasers who have, within the last 18
[24] months, purchased from the person making the
solicitation
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks it is clear that the
bill is intended to cover commercial, for-profit telephonic
solicitations, not charitable or nonprofit ones.
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated the motion to adopt
Amendment 2 [text provided previously]. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 3, labeled 23-
LS0058\I.4, Craver, 3/12/03, which read:
Page 2, line 21, following "data base;":
Insert "the attorney general may adjust the
annual data base access fee by regulation to fully
cover the costs of creating and maintaining the Alaska
No-Call List;"
MR. ROBERTS remarked, "The problem with this is that the way
it's been drafted, it restates lines 24-25." However, he said
the intent of the amendment was "to make it so that it's $750,
unless the attorney general determines that that's not enough to
make the program sustainable." He mentioned past discussion to
delete the $750.
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG announced that he wouldn't offer
Amendment 3, but instead would offer Amendment 2b from the
previous meeting. [It was relabeled Amendment 4.]
Number 2339
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 2. AS 45.50.475(b)
1 Page 2, line 18, remove "of $750."
This provision allows the attorney general to set the
access fee.
MR. POUND asked if the words "by regulation" needed to be added
within page 2, lines 24-25.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he'd like to take that as a
separate amendment.
Number 2386
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 4. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2399
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned discussion to what would
become Conceptual Amendment 5. He agreed with Mr. Pound about
adding "by regulation", but pointed out that it may result in a
small fiscal note.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded that he thinks this committee needs to
focus on the policy issues, not the fiscal impacts. He said he
thinks the committee's intent is that the cost of be passed on
to those who would make the calls, not to the consumer or the
public.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested he'd offer an amendment and
submit a letter of intent to the House Finance Committee.
Number 2712
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Conceptual Amendment 5 as
follows:
Page 2, lines 24-25
Delete "the attorney general may annually adjust the
fees received by the designated agent;"
Insert "the attorney general may adjust the annual
data base access fee by regulation to fully cover the
costs of creating and maintaining the Alaska No-Call
List;"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that this is the same language
[originally in Amendment 3], only inserted in a different spot.
Number 2833
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adopting
Conceptual Amendment 5. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 2885
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHB 15, Version 23-
LS0058\I, Craver, 02/28/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he wanted to give someone the
opportunity to testify.
Number 2915
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), said AkPIRG supports HB 15. He said he
is excited to be able to tell the members of the group that soon
there will be a no-call list for which they can register at no
cost.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded members that an additional
amendment had been adopted at the previous hearing.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the motion.
There being no objection, CSHB 15(STA) was reported from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 55-CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
Number 2979
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 55, "An Act expressing
legislative intent regarding privately operated correctional
facility space and services; relating to the development and
financing of privately operated correctional facility space and
services; authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter
into an agreement for the confinement and care of prisoners in
privately operated correctional facility space; authorizing the
Department of Corrections to enter into agreements with
municipalities to expand existing correctional facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
TAPE 03-25, SIDE B
Number 2982
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, one of two
sponsors of SSHB 55, told the committee Alaska has had
inadequate prison bed space for some time, and has found itself
in the position of contracting with a private prison contractor
in Arizona. That facility currently holds 600-700 of Alaska's
inmates, and has held as high as 800. Thus SSHB 55 authorizes
the City of Whittier to contract with the Department of
Corrections (DOC) to provide, staff, and operate eight prison
facilities. Conditions being imposed on the City of Whittier to
provide what an approximately 400-bed facility include that the
city contract with an outside third-party provider "of this sort
of service" and acquire that relationship in compliance with
competitive procurement requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the authorization given in SSHB 55
has further constraints. The most important is that the per-
diem cost of the facility shall not exceed $94 [per inmate a
day]. The largest difference between SSHB 55 and similar bills
in previous sessions is that SSHB 55 makes a firm constraint
upon the City of Whittier - the folks that it elects to do
business with - to present this project.
Number 2827
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER highlighted two matters of public policy
for members to consider: whether to treat Alaskan offenders in
state versus out of state, which is what is currently happening;
and whether to have those corrections services performed by a
private contractor, which can be done at significantly less cost
than government can perform the same services. He asked the
committee to bear with him as the facts regarding the issue are
revealed. Representative Hawker pointed out that whereas other
communities have voted down private prison projects, 80 percent
of Whittier voters support this project. Thus he asked the
committee to keep separate the objections that other communities
may have raised about siting a prison in their own communities.
Number 2679
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated there is a tremendous amount
information in support his position that private prisons cost
less. For example, the Mackinac Center [for] Public Policy in
Michigan looked at a private-contract 450-bed facility for men
under the age of 20; in contrast to the varying facilities
within Michigan, that 450-bed facility resulted in a $2.5 to
$6.9 million annual savings, and the study concluded that those
savings are not uncommon. Representative Hawker said 28
separate studies of private prison facilities have shown that
virtually all these prisons have saved the community money. He
noted that a Harvard Law Review article [Vol. 115, June 2002,
No. 7, included in the committee packet] concluded that savings
were incurred with no decrease in the quality of services; he
asked that anyone desiring to make a thorough evaluation study
this report.
Number 2532
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM read from the first paragraph of the sponsor
statement, which stated [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 55 authorizes the Department of Corrections
to enter into agreement with the City of Whittier for
a 1,200-bed medium security correctional facility and
services for a period of 25 years. The facility shall
be constructed and operated by third-party contractors
procured through a competitive bid process. If the
authorization is granted, the daily per diem costs may
not exceed $94 an inmate a day or 85 percent of the
inmate cost per day to the state for the construction
and operation by the state of equivalent facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked Representative Hawker to explain how
[85 percent] is less than $94 a day.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded as follows:
If we have a total per-diem cost and comparable,
equivalent facilities here that we could determine ...
could be provided by the State of Alaska or, in this
case, that ... in order for this proposal to go
forward, the contractor must be able to provide the
services at no more than 85 percent of that
contractor's rate, or $94 a day -- so ...
hypothetically it's a "lesser than." ... It becomes a
lesser of $94 a day or the 84 percent of inmate cost.
Number 2439
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said one concern is that private
prisons could "cherry pick" the easier, less expensive
prisoners, which would drive up the cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that the proposed facility [for
Whittier] is a medium-low security facility, largely designed to
house the bulk of Alaska's prisoners. A maximum-security
facility is not proposed because the expansion that is needed is
in the medium and lesser-secured facilities. He mentioned the
choice of looking at expanding services out of state, expanding
existing facilities in state, or looking at a large,
concentrated facility "here." He mentioned an option to expand
some of the isolated remote facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said SSHB 55 really attempts to be a more
comprehensive solution to the state's dilemma, and does
authorize the expansion of existing state-owned facilities in
Fairbanks, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Bethel, and Seward,
specifically looking at being able to provide for the variety
and spreading the demographic burden of Alaska's prison base.
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested information as to the current
per-bed costs. Noting that there is no sunset provision, he
asked if that is deliberate or an oversight. In response to a
question by Representative Hawker, he confirmed that he is
referring to a sunset provision which requires that construction
begin within a certain period of time or else the authority
would expire.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that is something he'd be willing to
negotiate.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response to a query by Representative
Gruenberg, noted that there is an executive summary of the
project in the committee packet.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Representative Holm's
previous question. He said he'd read [page 2] lines 27-28 as
saying "whichever is greater." He suggested that the phrase
"whichever is less" be added in order to avoid confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated he'd already considered that
and opined that it is clearest as is.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern about
misinterpretation. He referred to Section 3, which addresses
the authorization [of certain municipalities] and asked if there
is a reason that Anchorage, for example, is not included.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that SSHB 55 resulted from a
merger of two bills last year. The facilities [listed in
SSHB 55] were those identified in the alternate bill that was
merged to create this year's vehicle. He commented that once
constructive involvement is received from DOC, there will
certainly be room to examine whether the facilities listed are,
in fact, the most appropriate ones to accommodate the mission of
the bill, which is to provide a comprehensive solution. He
added, "We're very open to continued dialogue if this bill
progresses."
Number 2124
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, beginning on line 29,
regarding the authorization to lease correctional facility space
with municipalities. He asked whether those are to be operated
by Cornell Companies under this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER answered that they'd continue to be
operated by whatever operator was currently operating them. He
said presumably that would be a continuation of state operation.
Number 2080
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there is no authorization currently
under law for the Department of Corrections to enter into
agreements with municipalities for expanding correctional
facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that is a point of law he isn't
qualified to address.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the City of Whittier had given
any thought to bonding itself and building the prison [on its
own, without the help of the state].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER answered that municipal bonding,
particularly for the City of Whittier, which is in the
"unorganized borough," would ultimately involve a
collateralization with a state lease agreement. He added, "The
strong preference of the folks involved in those things in the
State of Alaska is that the state is involved in the bonding
process." He said the point of SSHB 55 is to authorize DOC and
Whittier to go forward to ascertain if this project can be put
together with the criteria set out. Representative Hawker
opined that legislators sit as the assembly to unorganized
boroughs; therefore, it is appropriate for them to work with the
city and not ask it to approach this as a "free-enterprise,
speculative venture."
Number 1925
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there would be as much need
for state involvement if the City of Whittier were within a
borough.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he didn't know.
Number 1872
FRANK PRUITT, Consultant, Cornell Companies, informed the
committee that he'd been commissioner of DOC under Governor
Hickel; deputy commissioner under Governor Cowper; and legal
counsel under Governor Sheffield. He noted that in the past
seven years he has had the privilege of traveling to Fairbanks,
North Pole, Delta Junction, Nenana, Kenai, Ketchikan, Wrangell,
Eklutna, Nome, and Palmer; on each occasion, he was invited by
public officials, chambers of commerce, and Native corporations,
all interested in the economic development and stable jobs that
are associated with hosting a correctional facility, and he'd
been representing an in-state or out-of-state private
corrections company or a development group.
MR. PRUITT reported that some communities had rejected the idea
immediately; some found the idea economically infeasible in a
remote community; one won overwhelming public support through
two votes and then changed directions; and another "got the
horse of legislation ahead of the cart of public support." All
have the same goal, however, which is economic development. He
continued as follows:
We're here representing a community that saw an
opportunity to deliver these services. They secured
overwhelming public support, they've passed enabling
ordinances, they've gone through procurement process,
and they've secured a highly competent company to
develop this plan. The plan is one of two plans that
are before you ... today. One of the proposals is to
build a 1,200-bed prison in Sutton. The Whittier
proposal is to build a 1,200-bed prison in Whittier.
In my experience, both ... the Sutton proposal and the
Whittier proposal are based on sound correctional
practice. I've analyzed them both, been involved in
both, [and there's] no question in my mind. Both are
located near Alaska's center of population and,
unfortunately, center of crime. Both capture
efficiencies through their design, and through the ...
1,200 beds, rather than 600 beds or 200 beds. Both of
these are located where construction costs are the
lowest in the state. Indeed, Whittier is a deepwater
port, where the construction materials come right to
the site.
Both are located where wages and benefits are the
lowest, and both are located roughly 50 miles from the
most sophisticated, plentiful, fire, life, safety,
program housing, and human resources in the state.
Number 1595
MR. PRUITT continued:
The substantive difference between the two plans is
management and cost. The Whittier prison will be
managed by a private company; Sutton will be state
operated. The total capital and operating cost at
Sutton - that the Department of Corrections has
testified to in the Senate - is $110 per day per
prisoner. The total cost for the Whittier prison is
$94 per day per prisoner, which is a cap that was just
discussed.
And on this point I want to be perfectly clear that
the $94 per diem covers the total projected operating
and capital cost for the prison, including major
medical, including inmate programs, including staff
recruiting, training, equipment, facility maintenance,
and even the liability of failed expectations.
This project will deliver the same quality service as
the State of Alaska does in its own correctional
services, and that quality will be ensured through a
contract with the state. The only cost above the $94
should be the cost of bringing the prisoners to the
door, and the cost of monitoring the contract. Those
are the expenses that we would anticipate above the
$94.
There's a perception that the Whittier bill and the
Sutton bill ... are competing plans, and this
perception's entirely wrong. And what it's doing is
it's diverting attention from the real problems here.
The real problem is that neither one of these bills
standing alone is going to solve the state's prison
bed shortage.
In your packets you have a handout on the Whittier
prison. On the inside cover there's a graph; the
graph goes up. This graph is taken from the
Department of Correction's web site, which has its
demographic materials. The Department of Correction's
inmate population has grown over the last 20 years at
an average rate of 5 percent a year. We're not aware
of any demographic changes that (indisc.) from the
State of Alaska or any legislation that's being
proposed before this body that is likely to stop that
growth rate. The growth rate equates between 160-200
prisoners a year, depending on whether it's a 4
percent year or a 7 percent year.
Number 1403
MR. PRUITT referred to the document labeled "State of Alaska
Projected Prison Bed Demand & Cost Analysis," an independent
analysis [copy in packets] which indicates that by 2006, DOC
will need 1,600 prison beds; by 2,010, another 1,000 to 1,200
beds will be needed. He said although the Whittier prison would
satisfy current needs, there is room in the state for another
project of equal size in order to meet long-term demand. If the
Whittier prison is authorized this year, people would be
employed immediately, construction would begin, and the doors
would open in two years. He said if the Sutton facility is
authorized this year, the state has testified that the doors
will open in four to five years. The two projects wouldn't
compete because Whittier's would be a short-term solution,
whereas Sutton's would satisfy long-term needs of the state.
MR. PRUITT noted that Governor Frank Murkowski has said the
mission of his administration is good-paying jobs and reducing
government spending and growth. Mr. Pruitt opined that the
Whittier prison would accomplish these goals. He added, "I'm
not aware of any project before this legislature that has such
immediate and far-reaching impact in terms of the stimulation of
jobs and economic development."
MR. PRUITT referred to the third tabbed section [of the
analysis], which is titled, "Whittier Prison Project Economic
Impact" and was prepared by David Reaume in the last week; it
says returning prisoners to Alaska is good business because even
though the cost will be more, [the state] will get "the
multiplier effect of stimulating jobs" and the positive impact
of purchasing goods and services in Alaska.
Number 1218
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to Representative Hawker's mention of a
contract with an Arizona company to house 600-800 inmates. The
proposed legislation, he noted, would require construction of a
1,200-bed prison facility. He asked if that is what is
immediately needed, or if that is a projected number.
MR. PRUITT reiterated that the projected demand by 2006 is 1,600
[beds]; Whittier is projected at 1,200, based upon the
"sentenced prison population." Corrections is a unified system
that has facilities that deliver both prison services and jail
services throughout the state. The notion, he explained, is to
provide a larger, centralized facility, and "move those
sentenced prisoners out to make room in the jails for jail-type
offenders." He remarked that there are communities that are
"full to the gills" with pre-sentence and pre-trial offenders,
and it could need expansion.
Number 1117
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Section 2 of SSHB 55,
beginning on line 25. He said it appears that the per-diem
costs are one cost and that there will be another, separate item
[under subparagraph] (B) to cover capital costs.
MR. PRUITT said he hopes a clear reading of SSHB 55 would show
that the $94 per diem includes operating and capital costs
combined.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that it reads as two separate,
parallel [costs].
Number 1019
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said it includes the cost of capital
construction and operation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he'd like to ask for an amendment at
some point to include [the language regarding the capital costs]
under subparagraph (A), instead of having it be listed
separately.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM referred to Mr. Pruitt's previous
statement regarding the only two costs not included [in the per-
diem cost]. She recalled that one was bringing the business to
the door.
MR. PRUITT said the second would be the cost of overseeing the
contract. He explained that DOC should have a monitoring
function.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Pruitt if he could offer
insight regarding the cost of that oversight and who would pay.
MR. PRUITT replied that the question would probably be better
directed to DOC; however, based on what he had seen of [DOC's]
budget, it appears the cost of overseeing that contract,
including transportation, as with [the current facility in]
Arizona, is about $1.89 a day per prisoner.
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked what the prisoner-to-guard ration
would be.
MR. PRUITT deferred to Mr. Wiebe.
Number 0753
MARVIN WIEBE, Senior Vice-President, Cornell Companies, told the
committee [his company] has a basic design concept for the
Whittier prison site, but part of that process is to get input
through dialogue with representatives of DOC. He said an
intergovernmental agreement between DOC and the City of
Whittier, as well as an agreement between the City of Whittier
and Cornell Companies, is anticipated and will help define some
of the specifics. He emphasized that Cornell Companies is
confident it can deliver the project for $94 a day [per inmate].
MARVIN WIEBE reported that there will be a staffing ratio "on
the security side" of 6:1, inmates to staff. He noted that
[Cornell Companies] is proposing more segregated beds than in
the design for Sutton. In the end, there will be a discussion
as to whether that many beds will be needed; after negotiation,
there will be a final design plan that will be firmly adjusted,
and the staffing will have to conform to that requirement.
Regardless, he added, it will not change [Cornell Companies']
commitment to not exceed $94 to do that job.
Number 0619
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to testimony that it takes two
years to build a private prison. He asked why it would take
four to five years to build a public one.
MR. WIEBE said there is no question [Cornell Companies] has a
more flexible approach toward procurement. The company still
has laws to comply with, but internally it can make decisions
quickly because it is a private business. He said the company
is motivated to produce timely results; its drive for efficiency
and to meet its deadlines causes the company to use a
procurement process that's flexible and "just gets things done."
He opined that almost universally agreed upon is this: private
operators are one of the single largest advantages to
privatization of correctional facilities because they have
historically been able to put up facilities more quickly than
government can.
Number 0468
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked why, if statistics show that by a
certain year [Alaska] will need 2,600 beds, a 2,400-bed facility
isn't being built.
MR. WIEBE stated his understanding that, generally, the
government wants to match the cost with the actual need. If a
2,600-bed facility were built now, those beds would be sitting
empty for several years, and yet all the capital expenditure
will have been put in the system.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that he doesn't like short-term
solutions to long-term problems. He asked if the Whittier
prison, for example, would be expandable at some point.
Number 0281
MR. WIEBE responded that every time [the company] designs a
prison, it considers the potential for expansion. He noted that
the current "footprint" [for Whittier] is 15 acres, which sets
some limitations [towards expansion], but doesn't preclude the
company from considering ways to add another 200 to 400 beds to
the site.
Number 0197
BEN BUTLER, Council Member, City of Whittier, noted that he also
the former mayor of Whittier and offered to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the state would have to have
as much involvement if the City of Whittier were in a borough.
MR. BUTLER said he didn't know. He suggested the attorney for
the City of Whittier may be able to answer that.
Number 0104
MR. PRUITT proffered that the structure of SSHB 55 is similar to
the structure that enabled the Kenai Peninsula Borough to
deliver correctional services in Kenai. He said he doesn't see
any distinction between a municipal entity that's in an
unorganized borough or a borough itself; they both use the same
process. In response to a follow-up question by Representative
Gruenberg, he said the City of Whittier is a second-class city.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Pruitt if there is anything
that [the City of Whittier] could do to reduce state
involvement.
MR. PRUITT replied, "Perhaps ... the farming capacity." He
deferred further comment to Mr. Wiebe.
MR. WIEBE responded that he has no expertise in the area of the
issues regarding the classification of cities in Alaska.
However, he indicated he could offer his experience regarding
this kind of a financing structure.
TAPE 03-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. WIEBE indicated a municipality has less expensive ways "to
do that" because of the tax codes and the ability to use some
tax-exempt financing. He said regardless of a city's size, many
times "those kinds of structures" are based essentially on
revenue stream. He said annual appropriation is the major
foundation on which that financing is predicated.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Butler how many bids from private
prison companies the City of Whittier foresees regarding this
project.
MR. BUTLER answered that originally, when the city put out five
requests for proposals (RFPs), three companies responded. He
noted that the law firm of Perkins, Coie, and Ginhart (ph) set
up the procurement methods and followed it through. He
indicated a committee selected one out of the three responses,
which was Cornell Companies. In response to a follow-up
question, he confirmed that the City of Whittier worked on the
drafting of SSHB 55 with the help of [Representative Hawker].
Number 0215
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained that the bill was drafted by his
staff while working with representatives of the City of Whittier
and representatives of Cornell [Companies]. In regard to one of
Chair Weyhrauch's previous questions, he noted that last year
there was expert testimony before both the House and the Senate
that the Whittier procurement process satisfied the competitive
requirements under the State of Alaska procurement code.
[Lieutenant Dan Lowden of the Alaska State Troopers, Department
of Public Safety, representing Judicial Services in Anchorage,
offered to answer questions.]
Number 0457
MARY BOWERY told the committee she is from Tennessee, a state
that was involved officially with private prisons several years
ago; Tennessee had worked with a private prison corporation
other than Cornell Companies. She said the prison she worked in
at that time was involved in a three-year federal study
regarding public-versus-private prisons. One result of that
study showed that the cost difference was only 38 cents per day
per inmate. The company that the State of Tennessee worked with
had in its contract that it wouldn't accept inmates with HIV
[human immunodeficiency virus], AIDS [acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome], cancer, tuberculosis, or hepatitis C. The company
also put a $4,000 medical cap on each inmate per year, which she
said "took us by surprise."
MS. BOWERY reported that some other things learned were that the
state was responsible for the cost of any inmates who escaped
from the private prison because the company didn't have the
legal jurisdiction; that any empty beds which were part of the
private prison could be filled with inmates from other states;
that if an assault or other major crime occurred within the
prison, the State of Tennessee had to bear the cost of the
prosecution as well as pick up the cost for any of its own
inmates who were injured; and that the private prison only
provided minimal programs to meet the contract, and had minimal
work crews. She mentioned a study that showed work crews in
public [prisons] put in over 17 times as much work time as the
private prison crews. Furthermore, private prisons would only
house "medium- or less-custody inmates," whereas the public
prison had to house maximum-security inmates, for example, which
is more expensive.
Number 0687
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his understanding that the private prison
in Arizona will offer additional programs if the State of Alaska
requests them and is willing to pay for them; it is a function
of contract, and not at the discretion of the facility.
MS. BOWERY said her concern is that Alaska get what it pays for.
She went on to say that most correctional standards require a
team that can respond within about a 15-minute time limit in
case of a natural disaster, for example. She voiced concern
that there may not be an adequate workforce in the immediate
area [in Whittier] that could respond. She noted that the
prison where she worked has close to 2,000 inmates, and part of
it had to be evacuated during a flashflood. She said it
concerns her that people may have to travel from Anchorage
during an emergency.
MS. BOWERY mentioned dealing with people's freedom and their
lack of civil rights. She cautioned the state to be careful
about placing that responsibility into the hands of the lowest
bidder. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, she said
she lived in northeast Tennessee, and the prison at which she
worked was fully accredited and recognized as one of the best
prisons in the country. She added, "I'm very proud of it."
Number 0888
MAKO HAGGERTY stated opposition to SSHB 55. He commended
Ms. Bowery for a fine job of representing all the downfalls of
the private prison industry. He said the private prison
experiment has basically failed in every state that has
conducted it. He related his belief that incarceration and
imprisonment of criminals is one of the few real obligations of
the state, and shouldn't be farmed out to the private sector.
Mr. Haggerty told the committee that he has no financial
interest in the issue; he isn't a prisoner and doesn't own stock
in a private prison company. He opined that there must be a lot
of money in the private prison industry, because "these guys
keep coming back." He said the communities that have been
offered the private prison proposal have rejected it. He
reminded the committee that the Kenai Peninsula voted on whether
to have a private prison and the proposal was rejected 3 to 1,
"after being outspent by the proponents of the private prison
industry of about 4 to 1."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Haggerty to provide information to the
committee supporting his previous statement that all the
communities that have been offered the private prison proposal
have rejected it. He also asked if the City of Whittier has
voted on the proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that there has not been a
balloted vote; however, there is a signature petition
representing approximately 80 percent of the registered voters
in the City of Whittier.
MR. HAGGERTY said a private [prison company] took [the State of]
Mississippi to court because the state couldn't keep enough
criminals in the prison to keep its beds full. He said the only
good thing he could see about SSHB 55 is that it acknowledges
the need to expand existing regional facilities.
Number 1218
FRANK SMITH testified that he is a citizen activist who has been
involved in criminal justice research in service provision, and
his education was focused on corrections. He said he has "been
involved for 32 years," and used to provide substance abuse
services at Sutton, at the maximum and pre-trial prisons, on
contract with the state. He noted that he has published works,
including a chapter published in a book regarding Native
Americans inside of prisons. He has visited prisons all over
the world, he said, including the prison where Alaskans are held
in Arizona and the Cornell [Companies] prison in Baker,
California; the latter had been closed at the time of his visit
because the state had pulled the contract.
MR. SMITH noted that the contract being considered now is for $1
billion. He remarked, "People will say and present interesting
things if they're ... trying to hook a billion-dollar fish." He
referred to Mr. Mako's statement that private prisons have been
a failed experiment. He said Charles Campbell, the former
director in DOC, a Cleary monitor and a warden of many federal
prisons, had testified a number of times last year on the
private prison bill. He mentioned Mr. Campbell's work regarding
private prisons in England from the Revolutionary War until
about the 1850s.
MR. SMITH said there are failed prisons. One, he noted, was a
CCA [Corrections Corporation of America] prison built in
Youngstown, Ohio, and closed after enormous tax "give-backs" and
infrastructure provided by a community that was financially
distressed because of the loss of steel-working industries. He
said, "That's kind of the poster child for awful management of
prisons - escapes, murders, things like that." He said CCA has
built a private prison with the clear understanding of everyone
involved in the legislature that it wouldn't import out-of-state
prisoners, and now it is trying to do just that. He listed
other prisons that have been an absolute disaster, including
eight prisons put up by one operator in Texas that failed. The
municipalities had bonded them and, because of the failures,
were left holding the tab. He added that the State of Texas
eventually bought them back at half price.
Number 1436
MR. SMITH said he thinks Whittier is virtually unacceptable for
the proposed project. In the last census [2000], it had a
population of 182, many of them children and retired people. He
said he thinks if the prison were to be built there, they could
expect a maximum of 10 jobs. He noted that there are only eight
families receiving any kind of public assistance there.
MR. SMITH concluded by suggesting that the committee ask about
lawsuits that Cornell Companies has been involved in. He gave
some examples. He also suggested that the committee investigate
regarding the difficulties [Cornell Companies] has had with the
Native corporations. He particularly recommended that the
committee ask Mr. Wiebe about New Morgan, a closed facility
where the contracts were lost to Cornell Companies in a juvenile
facility "for chronic sexual abuse of prisoners."
Number 1639
WILLARD DUNHAM, Member, City Council, City of Seward, testified
that the good part of the bill is that it finally recognizes the
need for the Spring Creek [Correctional Center] ("Spring Creek")
to be expanded. He said he questions why it has taken so long
to do something about finishing Spring Creek, which was started
in 1982 and was supposed to have been a 700-bed facility;
however, the legislature and DOC didn't want it to be that big,
so it was cut back to 320 beds. He noted that the city made the
footprint and perimeter large enough to accommodate the original
plans; therefore, only half the building was built on it.
Because of the preparation work that the city did, Mr. Dunham
estimated that "it has to be cheaper to build than any of the
rest of them." Mentioning a bill proposed last year that
relates to a youth program and an educational program, he said
the youth program is currently in operation, and it is being
studied by other states because of its great success.
MR. DUNHAM stated, "I'm not happy about our bill being tied to a
private prison, I would have ... hoped that maybe the Crawford
bill would have been better suited for the type of expansion of
the rural areas that you have." He said his key point is that
the facility [in Seward] has to be the cheapest to do. He
opined that when there are close to 500 people in a 320- to 350-
bed facility, something's wrong with the system. He added,
"This facility here will be paid off in September 2006 on the
bonds that the City of Seward made to put it in there." He
explained that he just doesn't understand the hesitancy to
complete the facility.
Number 1890
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented, "In the public testimony there
were substantial gratuitous assertions and claims made that
reflect personally on a number of the people involved in this
project, as well as on the corporate reputation of the
participants." He requested that those testifiers submit those
issues in writing, and that the recipients of those assertions
be allowed to respond. [SSHB 55 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:01 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|