Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
01/28/2020 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 | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB187 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 187-RESTRICT OUT-OF-STATE CORRECTIONAL FACIL.
3:23:11 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 187, "An Act relating to
correctional facilities; relating to the authority of the
commissioner of corrections to designate the correctional
facility to which a prisoner is to be committed; and providing
for an effective date."
3:23:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS1253\E.6, Radford, 1/28/20, which read:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "or private"
Insert "[OR PRIVATE]"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "or private"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "an"
Insert "a public"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "or"
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "[OR SECURITY]"
Insert "or security"
Page 2, line 9, following "prisoner":
Insert "; or
(3) to reduce the cost of housing a
prisoner who
(A) is not a resident of the state; or
(B) has been sentenced to a term or
aggregate term of imprisonment of 99 years or more,
and, if the prisoner is a parent, the prisoner
(i) does not have a child under 18 years of
age residing in the state; or
(ii) has a child under 18 years of age
residing in the state, but the prisoner's parental
rights to the child have been terminated"
Page 2, lines 17 - 19:
Delete "state. Notwithstanding AS 36.30.300, an
agreement with a private agency to provide necessary
facilities outside the state under (a) of this section
must be based on competitive bids."
Insert "state or outside the state.
[NOTWITHSTANDING AS 36.30.300, AN AGREEMENT WITH A
PRIVATE AGENCY TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FACILITIES UNDER
(a) OF THIS SECTION MUST BE BASED ON COMPETITIVE
BIDS.]"
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "or"
Page 3, line 3, following "health":
Insert "or security"
Page 3, line 4, following "considerations":
Insert "; or
(C) would reduce the cost of housing a
prisoner who is not a resident of the state or has
been sentenced to a term or aggregate term of
imprisonment of 99 years or more, and, if the prisoner
is a parent, the prisoner
(i) does not have a child under 18 years of
age residing in the state; or
(ii) has a child under 18 years of age
residing in the state, but the prisoner's parental
rights to the child have been terminated"
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned that he worked with Representative
Jackson's office to incorporate her suggestions into the
proposed amendment. He explained that the intent of Amendment 1
is that if it is cheaper to house a prisoner out of state, in
the case of a prisoner sentenced to serve 99 years or longer -
essentially a life sentence - who does not have family for whom
family visitation is important for the emotional development of
a child who lives in Alaska, then the Department of Corrections
(DOC) would have the option of housing that prisoner out of
state. He added that the prisoners in this category number 20
or fewer. He noted that there are a few prisoners currently
incarcerated out of state. As an example, a police officer who
commits an offense is incarcerated out of state for security
reasons. Nothing in the proposed amendment or the proposed
legislation would inhibit the ability of DOC to house a limited
population of prisoners out of state consistent with the
Interstate Corrections Compact.
3:26:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON referred to page 2, line 27, of
Amendment 1, which read in part, "... imprisonment of 99 years
or more ..." He asked how long a prisoner sentenced to 99 years
with [the possibility of] parole must serve before being
eligible for parole.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that the intent of the amendment was
that it apply to those incarcerated for life. He suggested
getting an opinion from Legislative Legal Services.
3:28:00 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), responded that there are many considerations for
calculating time served; however, in general, it is possible for
an inmate to reduce his/her sentence by one-third for good
behavior. She stated that Alaska does not give life sentences;
sentences are given in years. She offered that the age of the
individual and the average lifespan would determine whether a
sentence constitutes a life imprisonment, and DOC considers 78
years of age to be an average lifespan for a male.
3:29:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether someone sentenced to 99-
plus years would be transferred automatically out of state under
HB 187.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied no. The proposed legislation would give
the commissioner of DOC the option of doing so if it is cost
effective.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether it would be based on cost
alone and not the type of crime.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS reiterated that HB 187 would give the
commissioner the option if it is cheaper. The commissioner may
take other factors into account, which are not specified in the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether those other factors would
be at the digression of the commissioner on an individual basis.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a person, who has his/her
sentence reduced, would be transferred back to an Alaska
facility.
MS. GOODE replied that as HB 187 reads, the [exemption] would
not be applicable at that point and DOC would have to review the
case.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Amendment 1, [page 1, line
22], which read, "... is not a resident of the state ...", and
asked, "Do we currently have anybody housed in Alaska who is not
a resident of the state?"
MS. GOODE answered that there are people who travel to Alaska
and commit crimes, and they may be incarcerated by Alaska DOC.
She said she would provide that number but does not expect it to
be very large.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether criminals serve their time
where they commit their crimes.
MS. GOODE replied, "For the most part, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for the variables [that would
determine the location of incarceration].
MS. GOODE responded, "In general, we sentence the folks up here,
except for the 11 people right now that we have in different
locations due to extenuating circumstances."
3:32:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the current policy for sending
inmates Outside.
MS. GOODE stated that currently there is a classification unit
that looks at the best housing options for inmates. For
example, if a former police officer has committed a crime and is
incarcerated, DOC is notified internally of that individual.
The classification unit will review that case because of the
security issues associated with housing that person in state due
to his/her prior profession. The department works with other
states through the compact - as described in statute - to find a
suitable placement.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Goode for her recommendation on
statutory wording to reflect Representative Jackson's intent as
it relates to life-long inmates who will not be released.
MS. GOODE responded that she understands the representative's
intent, and mathematically the "99 years or more" is a close
approximation. She said that, broadly speaking, if someone
commits a crime at 20 years old, earned all the "good time"
available to him/her, the remaining 60 years to be served would
exceed the anticipated average lifespan of 78 years. She said
policy is the legislature's purview, but according to the
mathematics, the proposed amendment approaches Representative
Jackson's intent. She added that DOC estimates that there are
about 200 people who fall into the category of people not likely
to be released, and the wording in the amendment encompasses
most of them. She offered to work with the sponsor to achieve
the goal behind the amendment.
3:37:07 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Sharon Jackson, on behalf
of Representative Jackson, acknowledged that the "99 years" may
not be ideal language and confirmed that Representative
Jackson's intent is to not send prisoners out of state who will
be released into Alaska. He mentioned alternate wording,
drafted by Legislative Legal Services, to encompass the group of
prisoners not likely to be released, but it was not ready by the
amendment deadline.
3:39:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:39 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.
3:41:30 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS made comments on process.
3:42:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected to Amendment 1 for
clarification purposes.
3:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how DOC would determine which out-
of-state facilities will afford Alaska lower costs.
MS. GOODE reminded the committee that the proposed amendment was
not submitted by DOC. She opined that DOC would need to develop
guidelines for making these determinations. She mentioned that
the cost of one inmate per day in Alaska is $168.74; the
classification unit has relationships with other states and
knows the costs associated with other states' public prisons.
In this way DOC would ensure that cost savings were realized as
required by statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether all people sentenced to 99
years or longer committed violent crimes, or whether there are
other crimes resulting in incarceration for 99 years, such as
extensive drug dealing crimes.
MS. GOODE answered that she cannot answer that question. She
relayed that unclassified felonies do result in incarceration
for that length of time, and perhaps conspiracy is an
unclassified felony. She offered to provide that information.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said, in summary, that Amendment 1 would allow
DOC the option of housing a very limited subsection of prisoners
- those with extremely long sentences of 99 years or more - out
of state in the event that such out-of-state placement would
save money based on a reasonably comprehensive analysis. It
does not mandate that the commissioner place prisoners out of
state; it does not prescribe certain groups to be placed out of
state; it does not alter the department's existing authority
under the Interstate Corrections Compact.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, it was so ordered.
3:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the exclusion of parents [with
children living in Alaska] among the categories of inmates that
may be sent out of state, [page 2, line 25 - page 3, line 2],
and asked whether adult children of Alaska residents should be
excluded as well, in view of DOC's concern for family ties. She
offered another point - a parent is listed for exclusion but in
some cases a guardian of a child under 18 may be involved, not a
parent. She added that in some cultures other relatives raise a
child. She asked that these additional circumstances be
considered to protect the family unit.
3:49:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that she supports keeping Alaska
prisoners in state; it is vital for the rehabilitation of
inmates to become productive members of the community. She
referred to the fiscal note (FN) analysis, which read:
If this legislation were passed, these prisoners would
be required to remain within an Alaska prison and
could jeopardize the safety and security of the staff,
prisoners, and facility. ... If this legislation were
passed, it is unknown the full financial impacts that
could result from; facility overcrowding, increased
staffing overtime, potential litigation, facility
renovations and repairs, as well as other costs
associated with identifying increased bed capacity;
therefore, an indeterminate fiscal note is being
submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that this portion of the analysis
is concerning and asked for further explanation.
MS. GOODE replied that two questions are being asked. The first
- about security issues - was addressed by Amendment 1; DOC will
be able to take those security risks and work with other states;
therefore, that portion of the FN will be modified. The second
portion of the analysis reflects the department's view of having
the available tools to manage the prison population when the
tools are needed. Regarding facility overcrowding, she offered
the following: Having the ability to send inmates out of state
- although not the desired option - is a "population tool" to
manage prison overcapacity, avoid being sued, and address
security issues. The department cannot anticipate all the
consequences of overcrowding but wants as many tools as possible
to manage it.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that there are
many halfway house beds available at $90 per day. She asked
whether DOC has the flexibility to put unsentenced prisoners
into the halfway houses to accommodate capacity and funding
concerns.
MS. GOODE replied that DOC fully supports placing inmates into
community residential centers (CRCs) - halfway houses - as well
as on electronic monitoring (EM). She said that there are many
restrictions that guide DOC, both municipal ordinances and state
statutes. She relayed that one minimum custody inmate may
qualify for both housing options, but there are not many inmates
who qualify for either. She said that DOC has been reviewing
inmates constantly since the legislative session [of 2019] in
response to the pressure to release prisoners when it is safe to
do so. The caveat for DOC is finding appropriate inmates for
release. She stated that by statute, DOC cannot put someone
with the charge of domestic violence (DV) out on EM; therefore,
that group of inmates is not eligible for release. She added
that there are ordinances that preclude putting someone charged
as a sex offender into a CRC. Some locations allow someone
charged with a felony crime to be released, some do not. Being
sentenced versus unsentenced can make a difference for release.
She maintained that the classification unit is constantly
looking at options for inmates. The bed charge for CRCs is
less, DOC would like to take advantage of that, but it is a
matter of finding the right inmate at the right time with the
right amount of time left on his/her sentence. She mentioned
that a halfway house is transitional housing for reintegration
back into society; it would be inappropriate to put someone with
five years left on his/her sentence into a halfway house.
3:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 2, lines 15-17, which
read:
The commissioner may not enter into an agreement with
a private agency to establish, maintain, operate,
control, or provide necessary facilities located in
this state.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether DOC has agreements with
private agencies that HB 187 would limit.
MS. GOODE expressed her belief that HB 187 refers to private
prison facilities; Alaska does not have such agreements. She
stated that Alaska's CRCs are through private contracts; she
offered her understanding that HB 187 does not apply to CRCs.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS agreed that the intent of the proposed
legislation is not to limit CRCs operated by private entities.
He said, "That would be disruptive."
3:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that an inmate would not serve
as a guardian; she expressed her concern that close relatives be
considered under the proposed legislation.
3:58:07 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public and invited testimony on
HB 187.
3:58:28 PM
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Owner, Restorative and Reentry Services
LLC, testified that she supports HB 187 but cautioned the
committee to be careful about the language in Amendment 1. As
the former director of the Partners Reentry Center [Anchorage],
she attested to there being many 99-year sentence people
released from prison on parole - so many that the center created
a group specifically for these people, because they have
different reentry plans than people who are short termers. She
maintained that in her experience, the assumption that inmates
sentenced for 99 years will serve at least 60-plus years was
just not true. Prisoners were applying for and getting parole
after 25-30 years.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN offered five points supportive of HB 187: 1) The
displacement of inmates into areas outside of Alaska discourages
rehabilitation. She emphasized the importance of an inmate
being a family member and having a support group in the
community in which that inmate lives. 2) Without HB 187,
healthy communities that have been created within the walls of
the correctional facilities are disassembled. She maintained
that there are currently restorative programs in Spring Creek
Correctional Center (SCCC) [Seward], Wildwood Correctional
Center (WCC) [Kenai], and Hiland Mountain Correctional Center
(HMCC) [Eagle River] with active participants and mentors. The
long termers help run programs and model behavior. She said
SCCC has a long termer who is now teaching a morals and ethics
class that is highly popular, because he was able to model the
behavior of a professor who came into the prison to teach non-
violent conflict resolution. She asserted that long termers can
be assets inside prison walls, if they are provided an
opportunity to participate in restorative programming. 3)
Communities need to meet their soon-to-be neighbors before
release. The DOC historically - in the past five years - has
allowed community-based reentry centers, faith-based groups, and
mentors to go into prisons to develop healthy relationships with
the inmates, so that when the inmates are released, they have
some place "to land." It would be difficult to continue to grow
those kinds of programs when individuals with whom one is trying
to build relationships are not in Alaska. It is especially
important for the Alaska Native population who are incarcerated.
She offered that 38 percent of the prison population is Alaska
Native and only 18-19 percent of the Alaska population is Alaska
Native. Not allowing these prisoners community access to help
them grow with community members is not a healthy choice for the
state. 4) For-profit prisons monetize punishment; they
encourage more punitive approaches than rehabilitative and
restorative approaches. Research demonstrates that there is an
increase in technical violations and lack of incentive programs
in private prisons, because the incarcerated individual is not a
person but a product, and private prisons look for the lowest
cost alternative. The reason it is a low-cost alternative is
because it is a "containment" model and not a "restorative"
model. The national trend is to steer away from for-profit
prisons. She recommended that Alaska follow that trend. 5) HB
187 would provide Alaskans a guarantee that there will not be a
change in policy every four years that changes cultures within
the institutions - cultures that have grown over time. It is
important for restorative programs to have continuity, and not
be subject to changes in Alaska's political structure. She
encouraged the state to "grow" what is working [within the
correctional system] and eliminate what is not. She maintained
that culture changes within institutions require time; behavior
does not improve "at the flip of a switch"; the culture must be
grown so that the people inside view the institution as a place
of safety and participation. She added that she is a strong
advocate for DOC having control over choices that need to be
made. When you send people to non-profit centers out of state,
Alaskans lose the local accountability that comes with housing
prisoners locally.
4:06:41 PM
MIKE COONS paraphrased from the following prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
[First], from what I read in this legislation, the DOC
Commissioner is being denied the ability to use sound
management practices in putting prisoners where they
will cost us the least amount of money, specifically
for those with a long record of crime and no attempts
to correct criminal behavior. I can see keeping and
housing first term prisoners here, with strong
programs to help them reintegrate back into the
community and not return to a life of crime. Moving
hardened criminals out of State or into more
appropriate max security prisons keeps the first timer
away from the hardened criminal. That increases the
safety for the first timer and keeps them from
learning the crime trade even more.
[Second] and something that I have yet to see done
here and very few other States. When a crime is
committed that is not just a State of Alaska crime,
but a Federal crime, we need to turn that suspect over
to the US Attorney General's office for prosecution.
This saves Alaska costs at trial and prison costs.
This gets that convicted criminal out of Alaska, into
a Federal prison at the cost of the Federal prison
system. Sure, we the taxpayers pay for that, but we
do that already. These are serious crimes and most
likely not something that a person with no criminal
history would commit, thus they are the problem
criminals that have a very poor recidivism rate to
begin with.
This [second] idea may be out of the scope of the
Commissioner of DOC, but why can't this bill be a path
towards reducing prison overcrowding, prison costs as
well as a means to realistically reduce the recidivism
rate in our prisons.
4:09:21 PM
DAVID NEES offered that HB 187 is a good conversation starter
for housing prisoners in Alaska. The reason for SCCC was due to
a judge's decision that Alaska could not house prisoners Outside
because of the absence of rehabilitation and closeness to
family. It was a very expensive lawsuit to lose and cost the
state several million dollars. He maintained that under HB 187,
it would be difficult for the commissioner of DOC to comply with
a judge's order; if a judge says the prisons are overcrowded,
the commissioner would not have the option under HB 187 to send
inmates out of state.
MR. NEES said that, as an education researcher for many years,
there is very little data on the inmates and their histories.
He maintained that the proposed legislation needs more work,
which could possibly be done in the next committee of referral.
4:11:46 PM
KATIE BOTZ testified that she supports keeping family members
close and inmates in Alaska. She expressed her understanding
that sending inmates out of Alaska would cost the state more
than keeping them in state. Since Alaska is low on revenue, it
makes sense to reopen Palmer Correctional Center (PCC). She
referred to her written testimony (included in the committee
packet). She mentioned that she does not want Alaska to be
viewed as a weak state which cannot take care of its own crimes
and inmates. Alaska is a strong state and should take care of
its own problems.
4:13:54 PM
LAURA BONNER testified that she remembers the fiasco of private
prisons in Alaska and the discussions to bring Alaska prisoners
back. She said she remembers the corruption and inefficiencies
of that time and expressed that Alaska should never "go back to
that." She said that she personally knows four prisoners who
were incarcerated in out-of-state prisons; most of their crimes
were fueled by trying to finance substance abuse. She relayed
that she corresponded with all of them: they reported that they
were isolated, pressured to become involved with gangs for their
protection, had no access to rehabilitation programs or
substance abuse recovery programs; and had no visitors while out
of state. She asserted that the state could do a better job
with them in state; Alaska does not need to contribute to gang
recruitment; and while there still are not enough programs for
reentry into the community, Alaska has made progress in that
direction. She stated that it is important to continue this
progress rather than utilize private prisons or send prisoners
out of state. Reopening PCC is a step in the right direction.
4:16:10 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 187.
4:16:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS thanked the many legislators who assisted with
HB 187.
4:17:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked that action on HB 187 be postponed.
She offered that there are many issues yet to be resolved and
the committee should "get it right." She opined that there is
ample time to move the proposed legislation in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested that a House Finance Standing
Committee member could make changes to HB 187 in committee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he does not have concerns about
moving HB 187 through the House; his concerns are with getting
it to the Senate on time to deliberate it and vote on it before
the end of the session. It is very difficult to schedule a bill
in the Senate toward the end of session; there are many more
steps before HB 187 can become law.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that she wishes to amend the
proposed legislation in the current committee to get it right.
4:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to table HB 187 until a later date in
order to get legal advice on the amendments.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected to the motion.
4:21:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:21:38 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Hopkins, and
Thompson voted in favor of tabling HB 187. Representatives
Shaw, Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it.
Therefore, tabling HB 187 failed by a vote of 3-5.
4:22:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HB 187, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and an indeterminant
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Hopkins,
Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB
187, as amended, out of committee. Representatives Thompson and
Vance voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 187(STA) was reported
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-
2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR015 DRAFT Fiscal Note OG-DOE-1-17-20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB187 DRAFT Fiscal Note DOC-IDO-1-17-2020.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Public Testimony 1.28.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Amendment #1.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Supporting Doucment - Committee Testimony 1.28.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Letter of Support - Public Testimony 1.23.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Letter of Support - Public Testimony 1.27.20.20 |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HJR 15 Letter of Support - Testimony 1.30.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |