Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
02/12/2019 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
4:18:18 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting and announced that the
final order of business would be consideration of SENATE BILL
NO. 34 "An Act relating to probation; relating to a program
allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with the
conditions of probation; relating to early termination of
probation; relating to parole; relating to a program allowing
parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of
parole; relating to early termination of parole; relating to
eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and
providing for an effective date."
He asked Mr. Skidmore if he agrees that the repealers deal with
administrative sanctions.
4:21:03 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law,
Anchorage, advised that the primary categories the repealers
address are administrative sanctions and the caps placed on
technical violations.
Responding to a question from the chair, he explained that
administrative sanctions are things a probation or parole
officer within DOC can do without intervention from the court or
the parole board. An officer would need to file a petition for
things like returning a probationer or parolee to jail or adding
conditions.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
were intended to ensure swift action without the need to go
before the court. His understanding from previous testimony is
that those administrative sanctions were never implemented.
MR. SKIDMORE clarified that when he testified during the last
hearing, he said the swiftness for the petitions did not occur.
Whether swiftness was achieved for the sanctions is a question
for the Department of Corrections. He did say that regulations
were not adopted.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked him to walk through what has come to be
and what has not been put in place.
4:25:28 PM
JEN WINKELMAN Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), Juneau, explained that when the
administrative sanctions and incentives became law, DOC
developed a policy to categorize the behavior and determine the
sanction based on a grid. The administrative sanctions and
incentives were developed based on an internal policy, not
through regulations.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked why regulations weren't written, as
directed by the law.
MS. WINKELMAN said she didn't know; she wasn't in this position
at that time.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
were intended to be a tool to accomplish the swift and certain
action. He asked what was done administratively that was
different than what had to happen before the court.
MR. SKIDMORE said there are two levels. The first is the
administrative sanctions and the second level is if a petition
was filed then it was capped at 3, 5 and 10 days. Those 3, 5,
and 10 day caps were intended to be swift. The December 2015
Justice Reinvestment Report specifically talks about the concept
of making the sanction swift. The failure in the way that Senate
Bill 91 presented this and the way it was implemented is there
was no legislative expression of how swift it needed to be. He
recalled that the Court System expressed concerns about being
able to do adjudications that quickly in every single case. It
was possible to do in some cases - those cases where offenders
had opted in the program, but for all the others it was not
possible to do it that quickly. They would try but it still has
not happened very quickly, which is one of the key components to
all the research that said this would be an effective tool, he
said. Without that component it is not an effective tool.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked for the information to be laid out to
show where the failure occurred. He said he continues to think
that swift action is a worthy goal. The principle is good, but
implementation failed as infractions and petitions mounted up.
"There was no certainty because the swiftness didn't happen," he
said.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would be happy to talk more about
maintaining the caps, but he was not involved with the
administrative sanctions. He said it sounds as though you're
interested in maintaining the administrative sanctions and that
discussion should be with the Department of Corrections.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Winkelman, as the policy was
implemented, what was successful and what needed more work.
4:32:30 PM
MS. WINKELMAN opined that implementation of the administrative
sanctions has been swift. She described the process when an
offender is in front of the probation officer due to some sort
of behavior. The officer looks at a grid to determine where the
behavior falls and the appropriate response. She posited that
the lack of swiftness referenced here relates to when the
behavior elicits a court petition. The sanctions and incentives
over which probation and parole officers have purview are
administered swiftly and based on the grid previously described.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked if the administrative sanctions have
increased the workload for probation and parole officers.
MS. WINKELMAN said she did not have supporting data, but she
believes that the grid has trained probation and parole officers
on the options available when responding to violations. What has
increased the workload is trying to apply the grid's structured
responses to individuals who have very different backgrounds and
behaviors. It removes the human element, she said.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL recalled that the administrative sanctions
program intended to focus effort on the most dangerous behavior.
Individuals with less dangerous behavior would receive less
attention. He asked if that has worked.
MS. WINKELMAN said she believes that the individuals that
exhibited the most dangerous behavior, based on the sanction
grid, generally had a petition filed and they became subject to
the 3, 5, and 10-day caps.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL opined that the petition created the
revolving door problem. He asked Mr. Skidmore if that is what he
was describing.
4:37:05 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said the rationale for implementing the caps was
that people didn't think the 0-30 days on a first offense was
appropriate for the wide variety of technical violations. The
decision was to reduce that but, in the process, discretion was
eliminated, and a range was established. The range considers the
underlying offense and the type of violation that has occurred
but setting the caps where they are does not consider the
layering of allegations. Thus it does not allow the system to
appropriately respond to a particular circumstance in a
particular case.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked where he could find data for the last
year about the number of petitions filed, the number of
violations that involved multiple allegations, and whether they
were misdemeanor or felony level infractions. "How would I find
that information to find out how close we hit the mark and how
far we missed the mark?" he asked.
MR. SKIDMORE said it would not be difficult to find how many
petitions were filed, but it would be problematic to get
information on the number of allegations in a petition, the
substance of the allegations, and information on the underlying
crime. The reports he has seen failed to look at those concepts.
What the reports have indicated is that the number of petitions
filed has decreased. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much when
there has been no substantive analysis. That would require going
through every case file looking for particular criteria, which
would be very labor intensive. What he's heard uniformly from
his employees statewide who prosecute these cases is that this
is a problem.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said he understands the provision will be
removed from the statutes, but there was some benefit and he was
looking for a better way to do it.
4:42:19 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked Ms. Winkelman if she was the head of
pretrial, probation, and parole.
MS. WINKELMAN said yes. Responding to another question, she
explained that she had been with the department since 2001 and
in this role since the new administration came into office.
SENATOR REINBOLD described the pretrial risk assessment tool as
"unbelievable." She added, "It's one of those tools that I just
couldn't even imagine that being applied to people in Alaska."
VICE CHAIR COGHILL requested she maintain focus on SB 34,
probation, parole and sentencing. The pretrial matter is
addressed in SB 33.
4:43:57 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted the wave of crime that Alaskans are
experiencing. She asked Ms. Winkelman if she defines parole as
"the temporary release before the completion of a sentence for
good behavior."
MS. WINKELMAN said yes.
SENATOR REINBOLD defined probation as "the release under
supervision before the completion."
MS. WINKELMAN clarified that probation is defined as a term over
which a probation officer supervises an individual based on
their court sentence. For example, a person who is sentenced to
five years with two years suspended and five-years supervised
probation would have the two years suspended term hanging over
his/her head during the five years of probation as a response to
a violations.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if her understanding was correct that
under the prior law a person with one or multiple felony
convictions was not eligible for parole, whereas under the
current law they are eligible for parole.
MS. WINKELMAN deferred questions about the change in parole
eligibility to Mr. Edwards.
4:46:09 PM
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Department of Corrections, Anchorage, explained that Senate Bill
91 provided a discretionary system whereby multiple felons
became eligible for early release on discretionary parole.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if that is for class A, class B, and
class C felonies.
MR. EDWARDS confirmed that is what existing law provides.
Responding to a subsequent question, he said that includes prior
convictions.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked what the requirements are to qualify
for parole.
MR. EDWARDS said the presumption of release statute mandates the
parole board release those individuals on discretionary parole
if they meet requirements such as complying with their case
plan, receiving no write-ups while in prison, and following the
rules. There are provisions for circumventing the presumption of
release statute if the board feels the individual represents an
extreme danger to the public. SB 34 removes that section of law.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said Mr. Skidmore explained the difference
between the directive presumption to release and the
discretionary ability to release based on conditions. He
recalled that the presumption in current law came about to
incentivize the best behavior out of someone on probation and
parole.
4:50:39 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked for an explanation of mandatory minimums.
Her understanding is that for class A, class B, and class C
felonies the mandatory minimum is one-quarter of the sentence.
MR. SKIDMORE asked for clarification that she was talking about
the time served to be eligible for discretional parole.
SENATOR REINBOLD said yes.
4:51:30 PM
MR. EDWARDS explained that unclassified felonies have a
mandatory minimum attached to the sentence that must be served.
Under current law, individuals convicted of class A, class B,
and class C felonies would become eligible after serving one-
quarter of their sentence.
SENATOR REINBOLD called that astonishing.
4:52:14 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI said the fiscal notes are indeterminate and
said he needed to see the number of people who were eligible but
would not be eligible in the future and how that number has
changed over the last couple of years.
He referenced Section 10 relating to the parole board
considering applications. He asked how the process works now and
why a change is necessary.
4:53:18 PM
At ease
4:53:29 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting.
MR. SKIDMORE said Section 10 returns the language to what was in
statute prior to Senate Bill 91. The parole board had the
discretion to evaluate whether or not a person was a good
candidate for discretionary parole immediately or sometime in
the future, whereas current law requires the board to hear those
cases within a year. The latter increases the number of hearings
when someone applies repeatedly when the outcome may already be
known. He described it as a resource issue. He deferred
questions about the operation to Mr. Edwards.
4:56:55 PM
MR. EDWARDS said he agrees with Mr. Skidmore. The bill gives the
board discretion to continue or deny a hearing indefinitely for
those offenders that it has no intention of releasing. The
current internal policy is to review those cases in 10 years at
maximum.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for an example where there has been an
excess of requests.
MR. EDWARDS replied he wouldn't say there have been excessive
applications; it's more about the board controlling when they
would hear a case in the future. The individual may not be a
good candidate now, but they may be after completing some
programs.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if he agrees that a person may "have a
better shot" with a different parole board.
MR. EDWARD agreed that the board can change because one member
comes up for reappointment every year and they may or may not
apply. They are appointed by the governor and as that position
changes the board may as well.
SENATOR KAWASAKI commented that a person who is incarcerated
would be denied asking for parole if a board says no today and
the board switches the next year.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she would post on Facebook the different
felony crimes under discussion today that are eligible for
discretionary parole after the offender has served one-quarter
of their sentence.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL asked for a follow-up discussion on the
change made on good time to see where that failed or could be
made more successful.
MR. SKIDMORE asked for clarification he was referring to earned
compliance credit.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL said that's correct. He noted that no one
signed up to testify on SB 34 today, but he would leave it open
and hopefully take public testimony on both SB 33 and SB 34 on
Thursday.
5:04:57 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said the public was not aware of the public
testimony today and he would like to get the word out to his
constituents if public testimony will in fact be open for both
bills on Thursday.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL replied his intention was to start taking
public testimony but for it to be meaningful, he wanted to hear
the sectional analysis on SB 33.
MR. SKIDMORE estimated that the sectional analysis for SB 33
would take about 45 minutes.
5:06:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI expressed concern about taking public testimony
before the bill is fully vetted and understood. Without all the
facts there may be testimony on things that are not in the bill,
he said.
VICE CHAIR COGHILL replied he was following the chair's
directions.
5:08:17 PM
VICE CHAIR COGHILL held SB 34 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| STA Lieutenant Governor Successor Johnson #3.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Designee Johnson Resume |
| SB0034A.PDF |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 -GOA Bills Matrix 1-30-19.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB0034-1-2-012319-LAW-N.PDF |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-2-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-3-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| Court System Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Court System Fiscal Note |
| SSTA Agenda Week of 02.11.19.pdf |
SSTA 2/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
Agenda |