Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/03/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB310 | |
| HB330 | |
| HB296 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 296
"An Act relating to service of process on prisoners;
relating to the crime of escape; relating to the
definition of 'correctional facility'; amending Rule
4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for
an effective date."
3:49:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to a question about clarity from
the Department of Corrections. He had asked for a letter on
position that had not been provided.
CARMEN GUTIERREZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), commented on the work of
the department with the Department of Law on the definition
of "secure confinement."
3:51:10 PM
AT EASE
3:51:23 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze queried DOC's position on the bill.
Ms. Gutierrez replied that the department had worked with
Department of Law on a definition of secure confinement.
The department was neutral on its position on the bill.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Ms. Gutierrez to proceed.
Ms. Gutierrez continued to explain that the department had
worked with DOL on a definition of secure confinement. She
remarked that the purpose of determining the definition was
to ensure that the statute was in line with the Court of
Appeals recent decision in the Bridge v. State case. She
stated that DOC had no position with regard to the
classification of a misdemeanor offender as a
"misdemeanant" if he or she should walk away from a half-
way house or community residential center. She stressed the
recognition of the cost to the state when individuals are
prosecuted for felony offenses for that kind of conduct.
3:55:39 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked how DOC became involved in the bill.
Ms. Gutierrez explained that the department had become
involved when it had heard about the definition of secure
confinement, so DOC had wanted to ensure that the
definition would do what was intended.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that he department's involvement
was that it ensured that the legal requirements were met.
Representative Gara asked about a case - Bridge v State -
he wondered about the ruling. Ms. Gutierrez replied that if
a misdemeanant walked away from a half-way house, it was a
class A misdemeanor offense.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the term "security guards"
were used in half-way houses.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, requested that Anne
Carpeneti come forward.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the personnel at half-way
houses were considered "security guards." He stated that at
correctional facilities it was pejorative to call
correctional officers "guards."
Ms. Gutierrez replied that the Department of Corrections
staff was referred to as "correctional officers."
Ms. Gutierrez spoke in high regard of the correctional
officers. The goal of the statute was to ensure that the
halfway houses or community residential centers were
distinguished as secured correctional facilities.
4:00:40 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
explained how the issue had evolved. The Department of Law
wanted to ensure that the definition applied only to the
statute.
Representative Wilson asked whether the department believed
that there would not be more prisoners walking away from
the facilities. Ms. Gutierrez believed that prior testimony
had explained it would be a case by case basis. The
department did not know whether the bill would affect a
prisoner's decision to walk away from a half-way house.
Co-Chair Stoltze was frustrated that the Department of
Corrections did not have an official position on the bill.
He remarked that he was not comfortable moving the bill out
of the committee.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes.
Representative Gara moved to make the Department of
Administration fiscal note a zero fiscal not.
Co-Chair Stoltze objected, and felt that an indeterminate
fiscal note was better than a zero fiscal note.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 296(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 296(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law and two previously published fiscal
notes: FN1 (DOC), FN3 (DOA).