Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/27/2021 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 | |
| HB163 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB157 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
3:56:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to state
identifications and driver's licenses for persons in the custody
of the Department of Corrections; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to living conditions for
prisoners; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, prime sponsor of HB 118, reminded the
committee that the proposed legislation had been amended in the
previous hearing [4/1/21]; however, after conversations with
committee members and additional collaboration between his and
Representative Vance's offices, he would be reopening the
amendment process.
3:57:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 32-
LS0024\B.6, Radford, 4/19/21, which read:
Page 6, line 26, following "care":
Insert "but may not be used to directly access
the Internet by computer terminal or other automated
means not requiring the assistance of or intervention
by another person"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:58:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the chair for accommodating her
questions and concerns. She conveyed that she had spoken with
the Department of Corrections (DOC) about its intention for
providing access to computers. She explained that the proposed
amendment specified that inmates may not directly access the
Internet, indicating that the computers would only be utilized
for rehabilitation and the purposes specifically outlined in the
bill.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS attested to Representative Vance's work
with the department on Amendment 3.
3:59:27 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:59:40 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the department would be
available shortly. He said he could relay both written and
verbal correspondence that confirmed that the department was
aware of Amendment 3 and had no objection to it.
4:00:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to Section 4,
subparagraph (I), on page 6 of HB 118, which addressed
prisoners' access to computers and specified the rules of
compliance. He asked why that subsection needed further
clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE indicated that the goal of Amendment 3 was
to establish consistency across every correctional agency rather
than each facility abiding by different criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed concern that different
facilities would have different needs and that the proposed
language would restrict their ability to make reasonable
decisions regarding the appropriate access for each facility.
4:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that the language in Amendment 3
was written by [DOC] to capture their intent for providing
computer access, such as employment, and education. She
understood that the proposed language would not prohibit "the
activities that they feel that they need moving forward."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS inquired about the agency's position on
Amendment 3.
4:03:24 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Division Operations Manager, Division of Health
and Rehab Services, DOC, explained that concerns had been raised
about how inmates might access the internet; therefore, the
language in Amendment 3 was intending to clarify that there may
be occasions in which an offender could access the internet, but
only with staff supervision. She considered the example of the
electronic Medicaid application process, adding that an inmate
would only be eligible to do that under the direct supervision
of a staff member. Otherwise, the computers/tablets would be
channeled through a secure platform that would not allow direct
access to the Internet.
4:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN understood that the existing language in
subparagraph (I) provided DOC with the authority to regulate the
allowable access. He asked whether Ms. Brooks agreed.
MS. BROOKS said, "That's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN concluded that in the past, the goal was
to limit computer access in prisons; however, as time went on,
the lack of computer access in prisons hurt the inmates' ability
to engage in reform programs. He maintained his concern that
the language in the proposed amendment regarding staff
supervision may not be necessary in the future due to advances
in technology. He said he could understand some of the interest
in this precaution today but given the slowness with which the
legislature made adaptations to realities on the ground, he
believed the language in Amendment 3 would be overly restrictive
going forward. He opined that presently, staff supervision was
an appropriate inclusion under subparagraph (I); however, by
requiring it in statute, DOC would not be able to easily
dispense with it.
MS. BROOKS acknowledged his concern about tying the department's
hands. However, she said she could not foresee a time when DOC
would provide inmates with access to the Internet due to the
potential of them accessing victims. She believed that given
the anticipated programming, the language in Amendment 3 was
appropriate because it would allow the department to provide
supervision when an inmate needed access to something that
required internet access.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned what would happen if an
application for benefits required internet access. He surmised
that the language in Amendment 3 would require that the inmate
be supervised while filling out the application.
MS. BROOKS confirmed that it would require that level of
supervision.
4:08:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why DOC would object to an inmate
having access to the internet aside from the concern about
contacting victims.
MS. BROOKS said there were many security concerns that she did
not want to mention publicly. She conveyed that primarily,
allowing internet access would be a serious breach of security
due to the massive amount of information available online.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the department was
concerned that in five years, inmates would have increased tools
and techniques for hacking and could misuse the internet access
should they ever achieve it.
MS. BROOKS replied, "That's probably always a concern." She
reiterated that the department wanted to ensure that if the
tablets were used for accessing the Internet, the access would
be well supervised.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about "the intervention," which
was referenced in Amendment 3.
MS. BROOKS stated that the intervention would be a "side-by-side
review," meaning that a medical social worker or institutional
probation officer would sit with the inmate while he/she
completed the paperwork.
4:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether the language "intervention
by another person" was too broad.
MS. BROOKS acknowledged that possibility. She reiterated that
the department's goal was to make the proposed legislation safe;
therefore, if the committee felt that the wording needed to be
adjusted, DOC would not object. She explained that the
department wanted to ensure that the use [of tablets] would be
available for the intended purpose of rehabilitation and that
they would be protected and confined to only that purpose.
4:12:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his surprise that there seemed to
be a sense that DOC did not recognize the obvious: that no one
wanted inmates contacting victims. He assured the committee
that if a victim were to be contacted, the commissioner would be
replaced, as it would be a career-ending public relations (PR)
story. He emphasized that Ms. Brooks and Commissioner Dahlstrom
knew that, and the committee should know that too. He pointed
out that the verbiage could be endlessly litigated, but the
commonsense understanding should be the accepted assumption that
there would be no circumstance in which DOC would allow
prisoners to freely communicate with victims or anyone else via
the Internet.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he had no distrust in his heart. He
explained that he had wanted to know whether additional wording
would clarify the amendment.
4:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referenced a letter from the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska [included in the committee
packet], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Providing meaningful access to technology is arguably
more important than establishing statutory permission
to do so. There is, for instance, nothing in HB 118
to require DOC to meet certain standards for computer
access, and nothing to permit DOC from arbitrarily
restricting access to computers.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR highlighted the importance of reentry
services for successful reintegration in the community; further,
she said [reentry services] were deeply meaningful for the
continuation of addiction treatment, for example. She shared
her understanding that the proposed legislation would provide a
critical service. She believed that on one end, access should
be restricted to protect victims, while on the other end, there
should be meaningful access to allow for the provision of
services and the best opportunity for success upon release into
the community.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS concurred.
4:15:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked DOC for collaborating on the
language in Amendment 3. She explained that her goal was to
clarify the statutory intent for legal matters and to "maintain
the public trust." She believed that the legislature's primary
obligation was to ensure the public's safety and that providing
rehabilitation came second to that; further, she said that the
legislature lived in the middle ground of providing both. She
stated that she wanted to make it clear to the public that the
intent was not to allow unbridled access to the internet and
that computer access would be specific to reentry needs.
4:17:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opposed the language in Amendment 3. He
believed that the intent was well-taken but that the language
was confusing. He said he had great confidence that DOC would
only approve what was appropriate and that the existing language
in HB 118 provided all the necessary direction. He added that
he completely agreed with the chair's comments and believed that
it would be a mistake to include restrictions that would hinder
the already challenging efforts of rehabilitation. He
reiterated that he did not support Amendment 3 because DOC had
all the necessary authority to restrict access; further, that
the department already did that exceptionally well. He further
noted that under the Constitution of the State of Alaska, one
purpose for criminal justice administration was not higher than
other. He added that rehabilitation was one of several goals,
all of which were to be balanced equally or appropriately
depending on the circumstances of the person, victim, or crime.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS considered the scenario posed by
Representative Claman in which the platform would only allow
access to one URL, such as the Medicaid enrollment website, and
there would be zero percent chance of contacting a victim or
performing other nefarious activity. He asked Ms. Brooks
whether an inmate would be directly supervised in that scenario
if accessing that one URL was in was in the best interest of
his/her rehabilitation or reform.
MS. BROOKS believed that it was the department's first duty to
protect the public and that rehabilitation and reentry fell
below that. She said if the committee wanted to make changes to
the wording it would be a policy call. She reemphasized that
DOC would protect the public to the best of its ability while
providing this computer access.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that in the aforementioned
scenario there would be a zero percent chance of jeopardizing
public safety because of the technical platform being utilized.
He asked whether direct supervision would be ideal if the
inmates were doing something for their reform or rehabilitation
and the risk was mitigated to zero.
MS. BROOKS said having staff supervise that type of access would
be the safest route. She said she did not know if there could
ever be a zero percent chance [of risk]; therefore, staff
supervision would be required to mitigate as much risk as
possible.
4:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, recalling his previous experience in law
enforcement, said he didn't know that there would ever be a
warden or prison supervisor who would be able to make an
affirmation of zero percent risk. He said that level of
certainty was not realistic with today's technology.
4:23:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKIN believed that ultimately, it came down to
how much [the legislature] trusted DOC to do its job well. He
added that he trusted the department's personnel to evaluate
those risks. He announced that HB 118 was held over.