Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 1(FIN) am - "NO FRILLS" PRISON ACT Number 1958 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be CSSB 1(FIN) am, "An Act relating to living and working conditions of prisoners in correctional facilities operated by the state, and authorizing the commissioner of corrections to negotiate with providers of detention and confinement services under contract to apply those conditions and limitations on services to persons held under authority of state law at facilities operated under contract or agreement; relating to services provided to prisoners; amending the definition of `severely medically disabled' applicable to prisoners seeking special medical parole; amending provisions of the correctional industries program; and extending the termination date of the Correctional Industries Commission and the program." SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Prime Sponsor, noted that most of what was in the bill passed out of both the House and the Senate the previous year; however, he would walk members through the proposed legislation. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the proposed legislation was, basically, patterned after federal legislation that limited the types of activities and certain privileges afforded prisoners in the federal prison system. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 2 dealt with the general intent of the legislation, which was that the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections should maintain state prisons only as required by the State's Constitution and the Federal Constitution, unless there was good reason for doing something more than specified within the Constitution, such as fostering rehabilitation programs and rewarding good behavior. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that Section 3 dealt with a question the legislature visited approximately four years ago. He advised members that the state was responsible for the vast majority of an inmate's medical care while incarcerated. Senator Donley pointed out that those inmates who were terminally ill, bed-ridden, or in wheel chairs, which were very expensive situations, that it was not always in the public's interest that those individuals be maintained in a locked up situation with the state being responsible for all their medical expenses. Senator Donley advised members that several years ago, the legislature changed the law to allow furloughs for inmates who were confined to bed and did not pose a threat to society. Senator Donley expressed that it had been hoped to capture approximately 10 prisoners a year under that condition; however, only captured approximately 5 inmates a year. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the language of Section 3 would extend that practice to include prisoners in wheelchairs, or incapacitated by other serious illnesses that would no longer pose a threat to society, and allow those individuals to be furloughed. Senator Donley advised members that the department had a very good record of being very conservative of who they furlough under those provisions, and also sensitive to public sentiment. Senator Donley explained that by releasing those individuals, the medical costs would be shifted back to the Medicaid, Medicare system, which would mean that only 50 percent of the costs would be born by the state in the catastrophic illness situations. He noted that medical bills for those types of situations could range up to a half a million per person, and Section 3 could provide a significant savings to the state, even if only one or two inmates fell into that category. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 4 identified the duties of the commissioner, and referenced particular limitations that appear for the living conditions of prisoners under Section 5. SENATOR DONLEY expressed that Section 5 included the more controversial elements of the bill that dealt with the "frills" that were available. He explained that Section 5 specifically listed some of the limitations placed on living conditions for prisoners that did not currently exist in statutory law. Senator Donley advised members that the bill would require a limit on the per capita expenditures for food for prisoners. He pointed out that the system they arrived at would be based on the food expenditures that the United States Army used for providing food for soldiers in the state of Alaska, and the department could not exceed 90 percent of what the U.S. Army expends. Senator Donley expressed that the 90 percent figure was an arbitrary number, and was slightly over what the current costs for food was in the state; however, placed a cap on the amount the department could spend. SENATOR DONLEY expressed that there was a natural tendency for a conflict to be created between the philosophy of the Department of Corrections and the philosophy, he felt, the general public would have about how people should be treated in prisons. He thought the public saw prisons as being for punishment and rehabilitation, and the department saw prisons, from the point of view of having to manage people while locked up. Senator Donley pointed out that things that make an inmate happier, resulted in easier management of the prisons, and he felt there was a general conflict between the mission of the department and how the public viewed the function of prisons. He explained that the general philosophy of the bill was an attempt to find the middle ground, and set out some guidelines so the two competing, general tendencies, would be moderated and standards applied. Number 2270 SENATOR DONLEY advised members that a provision was included that would not allow for exclusive, private rooms, but allow the prison guards to be able to see into individual rooms. He explained that if the department should obtain an existing building in the future, such as a military base facility, there would not be a large cost in order to comply with the provision of requiring the ability to see in any individual room. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the proposed legislation would specifically limit the types of television and movies available to inmates. Basic cable service, only, would be available in state correctional facilities. Senator Donley noted that there was a discrepancy between the various state facilities as to what types of television cable services were allowed, and that was because it was left up to the discretion of the superintendent of each facility. He noted that some areas in the state were not able to get broadcast, free television, and that was one reason for cable services provided in those areas; however, Senator Donley did not feel HBO, Cinemax, and the Playboy channel should be allowed to prisoners. SENATOR DONLEY advised members the proposed legislation would specifically prohibit prisoners from having cassette tape players, recorders, video cassette recorders, computers, or modem of any type in their cells. He explained that cassette tape players had been a particular problem to the prison system because they could be dismantled for the purpose of hiding contraband in them, easier than a CD player could. TAPE 97-42, SIDE B Number 000 SENATOR DONLEY advised members the proposed legislation would prohibit certain rated movies, such as R-rated movies, and also prohibits pornographic materials. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that the proposed legislation provided for a longer implementation phase, and would not become effective until two years after enacted. He explained that much of what the bill included were actually goals of the Department of Corrections, and the delayed effective date would provide additional time to reach those goals, but at the same time, it would provide a deadline for reaching those goals. SENATOR DONLEY advised members the bill also provided for specific limitations on the types of instructions an inmate could receive and prohibited boxing, wrestling, judo and other martial arts, as well as things the commissioner thought could facilitate violent behavior. SENATOR DONLEY expressed that prisoner access to free weights was prohibited, and pointed out that many other states were banning free weights. The state of Louisiana had just banned free weights and turned them over to the public schools. Free weights were consider dumb bells and weights not attached, such as a universal gym and fixed equipment, which would still be allowed. Number 132 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced page 4, line 28, CSSB 1(FIN) am, which stated "free weights or other equipment for use in the activities listed in (D) of this paragraph", and asked if they were banning free weights generally, or only if they had to do with wrestling, karate or other things. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that free weights would be banned generally, and also equipment that could be used in activities listed in (D), which related to martial arts training equipment. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Subsection (F) limited the types of electronic appliances that could be available to prisoners in individual cells. Subsection (H), page 5, again addressed the use of computers and would be allowed in general areas of the facility, and the use of those would have to be related to the inmate's employment, education or vocational training, and not used for other purposes, such as entertainment. Number 198 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that conversations he had had with prison guards was that they liked having televisions and certain types of diversions available because they provided distinguished pacifiers. He felt that banning the use of certain entertainment items might jeopardize the guards, and asked if that was a concern. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that that was a perfect example of the types of conflicts of interests that were taking place between running the system and what was perceived by the public. He stated that by placing specific restrictions in statute, the pressure would be off the administrators and prison guards, because no options would be available. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was anything that currently prevented a superintendent from establishing prison regulations, or the Department of Corrections from establishing uniform regulations that would have the kind of effect as in the proposed legislation. SENATOR DONLEY felt the department could establish regulations to accomplish much of what was included in the bill; however, the prison structure in the state of Alaska involved the guards belonging to one union, supervisors fell under another union, and the administrators of the prisons fell under another union. He advised members that there was no exempt executive direction over the prisons because everyone was unionized and autonomous as to how they run their separate facilities, which resulted in a lot of inhibitors towards uniform policy. Senator Donley felt that was another advantage of placing things in statute because it provided a statutory benchmark of what is acceptable and what is not. He added that there was yet a lot of flexibility within the proposed legislation for prisoner award purposes. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the language made clear that any expense for providing televisions, in individual cells or the cable services, would be paid for by the individual inmate. He stated that currently, cable charges were being paid for by the prisoners, although he was not sure regarding the remote facilities where there was no broadcast capability. Number 362 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if a prisoner would be allowed to have a television in his/her cell if they were not classified as maximum custody. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that would be correct, and the criteria was set out on page 5. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if that exemption would also apply to having a computer in an individual's cell. SENATOR DONLEY stated that computers would not be allowed in an individual inmate's cell. He felt that the ability of a prisoner to have a personal computer in his/her cell was a much greater luxury than having a television, and added that televisions would only be allowed in individual cells for reward purposes. Senator Donley pointed out that it would also be very difficult to monitor what someone might be doing on a personal computer in a cell as well as questionable programs that could be loaded. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that page 5 included the provision that allowed for individual televisions in cells for incentive purposes. He explained that the commissioner could allow prisoners, other than those in a maximum security facility, to have a television in their cell under certain conditions; i.e., had obtained a high school diploma, or a general education development diploma (GED), or the equivalent; were actively engaged in educational, vocational training or employment programs; had satisfied any court orders, if applicable, and actively engaged in a treatment program. SENATOR DONLEY advised members with respect to violent offenders, or sex offenders in prison, that there was no means to compel them to partake in rehabilitation programs ordered by the courts. He stated that if the individual chose not to go through sex offender treatment programs, or other programs, there was no way to force those programs on the prisoner, and that was where the television incentive could come into play. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that prisoners were subject to administrative sanctions if they did not comply with regulations and rules, and that, in itself, would be an incentive to comply. SENATOR DONLEY was not familiar with any administrative sanctions that could be imposed because of an inmate not wanting to participate in specific programs. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that, as far as he understood it, an inmate could be thrown in the "hole" if he/she refused to participate in programs that had been recommended they take part in. He noted that the loss of privileges was always available, as well as close confinement. SENATOR DONLEY stated that that might be true; however, even if it was true, he felt the television incentive was a powerful motivator. Number 566 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was Senator Donley's intent to allow a prisoner to have a television in his/her cell because of his/her custody classification, or the type of facility the individual was housed in. SENATOR DONLEY advised members it would be by classification of the institution. He stated that in Seward, the state's maximum security prison, he had been told that they did not allow private televisions in the cells there now, that they have common areas where televisions are provided. Senator Donley reiterated that they attempted to deal with that issue by institution. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that the language on page 5, (d), appeared to address the individual's custody level, rather than the type of institution one was housed in. He stated that he knew that periodically, prisoners, other than maximum security prisoners, were placed in maximum security facilities and he would not want to create a conflict for the institution. SENATOR DONLEY stated that he would consider language that would accomplish Representative Porter's concern; although, expressed that it was his thought to give the direction to the Department of Corrections so there would be no variables within an individual institution. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested further consideration of that particular language. Number 638 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the management of prisoners was critical to the Department of Corrections, and it was important to keep the inmates busy. She referenced all the restrictions laid out in the bill and asked if any of those restrictions would take away an inmate's ability to keep busy. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that he did not believe so, and added that clearly, there was a lot of opportunity to do less attractive types of activities, such as read a book, enroll in a type of correspondence course, et cetera, rather than sitting and watching cartoons on television. He stated that one of the purposes behind the bill was that before an inmate is allowed to do certain things, they would have to engage in things that would assist in their rehabilitation. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that on page 6, line 3, the bill sets out a fee for utility services for prisoners. He expressed that one other state had implemented such a provision, and the estimates in the fiscal note reflected that the fees accumulated would amount to the department's cost to administer the program. Senator Donley pointed out that he was not adamant about that section, although thought it would give some sense of responsibility to the inmates. He added that the purpose was to provide some sense of responsibility because individuals were imprisoned for a purpose and should not be entitled to everything, and should have to pay for services used. Number 792 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed that if that provision provided for a "break-even" deal, it would be his suggestion to increase the fee, and pointed out that inmates who had jobs in prison did make a few dollars a day. SENATOR DONLEY responded that a prisoner could not be forced to work in prison, which he felt 90 percent of the public did not realize. He noted that you could encourage the prisoner to work, or ask them to work, but they were not required to. Senator Donley pointed out that there was a provision that addressed the situation of providing for more opportunities for people to work while incarcerated, than currently existed. He noted that if the committee wished to increase the fee, that anything over $2 per month would make it more profitable to the department. Number 850 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the ability to serve different menus would be available as a work incentive. Senator Donley had not heard that thought before, although pointed out that he had been told that food was a huge motivator; however, had not thought about discriminating among the prisoners, as far as the type of food they could receive. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referenced the $2 fee imposed on prisoners for utility service, and felt that those who had achieved the right to have a television in their cell should have to pay that fee. However, if an individual refused to work, and refused to pay their $2 monthly utility bill, how would that be dealt with by the department. SENATOR DONLEY stated that the fee would involve electrical appliances the individual inmate uses, and if they refused to pay the fee, they could be denied the privilege of having access to those appliances in their cells. Number 940 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the language was not clear, with respect to electrical appliances; however, suspected they were talking about multiple electrical appliances. She stated for example, if an inmate had an electric shaver, that would be fairly basic and not require a $2 monthly charge, but if the inmate had multiple electrical appliances the fee would come into play. SENATOR DONLEY advised members what they were really attempting to capture were televisions and other major types of electrical appliances an inmate might have in his/her cell. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would be possible for an inmate to wind enough electrical cords together for the purpose of hanging himself, or herself, because they had access to enough appliances in their cell to accomplish that. SENATOR DONLEY stated that could be possible if enough electrical appliances were allowed in an individual's cell. SENATOR DONLEY continued with his overview and referred to Section 6, which amended the existing laws regarding the responsibility, or ability of the state to recoup costs for specific medical services. He advised members that the added language makes clear that when it was appropriate for the state to seek reimbursement for provided medical services, they could seek reimbursement for a portion of those costs, at least. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what would occur if a person incarcerated had health insurance, and if the state would be able to seek compensation for health care costs from the insurance carrier, or some other program, such as someone eligible for health treatment under ANS. SENATOR DONLEY recalled that question several years ago, and thought the department attempted to recover those funds, if they were available. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that provision would probably depend on whether the person was a felon or misdemeanant. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the department would attempt to pursue third party payments if other insurance was available. He stated that the use of Medicaid, or Native medical assistance was not allowed to be recovered or used to pay for prisoner's medical care under federal statute. Representative Rokeberg asked if there was currently a provision that addressed co-payment of medical services by inmates. SENATOR DONLEY explained that Section 6, AS 33.30.071(c) was existing language and the proposed legislation added more flexibility for the department in the statute. He advised members that there could be times the department would find it was not appropriate, or feasible, to require the prisoner to pay the entire cost, although there could be times when the department felt it would be appropriate to recoup a portion of the cost for medical services. Those cases could include whether it was a preexisting medical condition. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if existing law provided for a token payment or medical co-payment for a visit to the infirmary, for example. SENATOR DONLEY recalled legislation that passed the previous year which adopted a sick-call payment system. Regulations had been promulgated and were sitting in the Lt. Governor's Office, and would require a $4 payment for an inmate to go to sick-call. Senator Donley pointed out that other states had implemented such a system and it had been very effective, and had dramatically reduced the number of inmates showing up for sick-call. SENATOR DONLEY continued, and advised members that Section 7 required that prisoners be productively employed for as many hours each day as feasible, and deleted the "40 hours per week" language because they did not feel there was a need to reflect that in statute. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 8 placed guidelines as to when inmates could file law suits in an effort to curtail recreational litigation. He explained that a lot of prisoners become fairly good jail house lawyers and tend to file a lot of law suits. Section 8 would place some limitations on their access to the legal system, because the vast majority were harassment cases. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members that in 1994, the state of California, in their "No frills" bill, added a provision for legal assistance co-payment, and asked if Senator Donley had considered that. SENATOR DONLEY explained that in the state of Alaska, under the Cleary decision, the state is mandated to provide law libraries at each facility. He advised members that providing up to date law libraries was a very expensive process. Senator Donley noted that some of the private prisons, rather than providing a law library, provide the inmates with lawyers because it was cheaper to have a lawyer available to the prisoners than to provide an up to date law library in the facility. Senator Donley felt it would become a question under Cleary if the department could charge for the use of the law libraries. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 9 addressed a very serious problem of prisoners making unmonitored phone calls from prison. He expressed that an incident took place in the state not too long ago where incarcerated individuals made phone calls and caused very serious crimes to be committed outside. Senator Donley thought the state had a judgment against it as a result of that particular case. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the original legislation mandated that phone calls, by prisoners, be monitored, and the department had said that in order to do that, it would cost approximately $750 thousand to implement a system to accomplish that. Senator Donley advised members that Section 9 was modified in the Senate to no longer mandate the monitoring of all phone calls, but to "spot" monitor, or record inmate's phone calls. He noted that there were a number of senators concerned with prisoner's abilities to make personal phone calls, and had even suggested that it might be worth it for the state to implement its own monitoring system. Senator Donley expressed that it was decided to allow the department time to execute and implement their plan to see how it worked, rather than expending $750 thousand for a telephone monitoring system. Number 1616 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was testimony on the Senate side regarding a prisoner calling outside of the institution in which a recorded message would be heard by the receiver of the call that, in fact, it was a call from a prisoner in a correctional facility, and if the individual did not want to accept the call to hang up. BILL PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections, advised members that policy had been implemented at the Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward, Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 4, line 28, and advised members that he read that language the same as Representative Croft did. It appeared that free weights would be allowed if it was not for the purpose of supporting boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, et cetera, and stated that if they wanted to exclude free weights entirely, members might consider that language. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER also referred to page 5, line 1, and asked what they were precluding the possession of. SENATOR DONLEY advised members it would place into statute limits that the department may adopt within particular correctional facilities, to limit gang identification, and other types of dress or appearance that might tend to be disruptive to prison discipline. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his apologies; however, it was necessary for him to leave at this point. CHAIRMAN GREEN respectfully understood Representative Porter's need to leave the committee meeting. SENATOR DONLEY moved on to explain Section 10, which added to existing law, that in addition to realistic work experience, it would empower the department to provide vocational training for prisoners. He advised members that the department was very supportive of that concept, and felt that language would grant more flexibility to provide for rehabilitative and vocational training programs for incarcerated individuals. CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that would go long way in answering Representative James concern regarding idle time. He asked if the inmate would be charged for the training, or if it would be provided free by the department. SENATOR DONLEY expressed that he had not considered that, although he did not believe anything would prohibit the department from charging for the training. He noted that there was currently a constitutional mandate to provide for rehabilitation programs. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that Section 12 clarified that the commissioner would not be required to establish and administer a vocational training program, because it would require a massive fiscal note on the bill. He noted that they would rather see the department come back, through the budget process, to develop a vocational training program. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 13 was conforming language to the prisoner utility service fee, and Section 14 extended the sunset date for the correctional industries program. Number 1956 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he was supportive of inmates having the opportunity of being gainfully employed because it did relate to rehabilitation; however, he noted that he had received complaints from people regarding competition with the private sector as it related to the prison industries program. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that some people were reluctant to allow vocational training programs for prisoners because they thought that when the individual was released from prison, they would be trained to do jobs and would compete for jobs in the market place. He stated that he was not persuaded that that was the best public policy, and added that the state should give incarcerated individuals the ability to support themselves when they are released. Senator Donley felt that was a higher public policy goal than simply preventing competition for jobs. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed to members he meant to approach the issue in a different perspective, such as the slaughter house, or inmates being involved in a basic industry that competed with the private industry. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that that concern had been expressed with the furniture making, laundry facilities, and the slaughter house where the inmates were actually operating those types of programs and were in direct competition with the private sector. Number 2074 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that was the point she was going to put forth, and pointed out that the prison she remembered when growing up was the Oregon State Penitentiary which was a farm. She suspected that they may have sold some things, but mostly raised farm products for their own use. Representative James advised members there had been a terrible quagmire this year at Mt. McKinley Meats, where people wanted to bring their animals in for slaughter; however, that was not possible because the slaughter house was full, and the reason for that was because the prison could not advertise because they were not allowed to compete. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that it worked both ways, and believed that vocational training of prisoners was important, but it would be important to be careful when setting up a prison business because if they could not compete, they could not sell the product, which was a defeating process in both directions. Number 2180 CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the prison industries program turned out some excellent furniture, but could not undercut the local market. SENATOR DONLEY pointed out with respect to vocational training, that it was the department's belief they could seek federal funds for those programs. CHAIRMAN GREEN undoubtedly agreed with the concept of providing vocational training programs to inmates if the state wanted to establish some break in recidivism, and teaching some sort of skill would be major step forward. TAPE 97-43, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the provision related to a prisoner's living quarters having an un-obstructive view, and asked if currently there were cells that prohibited guards, or whomever, to look into a prison cell. MR. PARKER spoke from the audience and advised members that generally, correctional officers were able to see into individual cells. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how the present bill compared with last years' legislation. SENATOR DONLEY advised members that last years' version, as it came from the Senate, prohibited all weight lifting equipment. Also, last years' version did not include the qualifiers in the types of activities an inmate would have to engage in before they would be entitled to a television as a reward. The present version also provided additional safeguards for inmates who did not have the mental ability, or capabilities to reach certain goals. The previous version did not allow for a payment schedule, but required the inmate to make complete restitution prior to receiving a privilege, or a television in their room. The utility fee was added to the present version. Senator Donley advised members the present version also provided for a two-year delay in the effective date. He pointed out that that had been a big, positive feature with the department, because it would provide a longer period of time to gradually phase in the changes outlined in the proposed legislation. SENATOR DONLEY reiterated that the bill addressed many areas that the department had been moving towards on their own, and the two year delay in the effective date would provide them the time to complete their current motion in that direction, and also provided a deadline for them to reach. SENATOR DONLEY also expressed that the past legislation did not include a total ban on smoking, or use of tobacco, but allowed the use of tobacco in designated areas. He noted that since last year, three or four states had totally banned smoking in their facilities, and advised members he supported the total ban on the use of tobacco in SB 1, which was discussed in the Senate at length. Senator Donley pointed out that smoking, and the use of tobacco products, was linked to health expenses the state is required to pay. Of the four states that had totally banned the use of tobacco products, one state underwent problems and decided not to continue the ban; however, the other states appeared to be working fine. Senator Donley stated that in talking to the state of Texas, where tobacco products were banned totally, their response was that they had some difficulties when first instituted because of some guards that would bring in contraband, and those guards were dismissed. Since then, the state of Texas was not having problems. Senator Donley felt it was a policy call, because while individuals are incarcerated, the state is responsible for their health, and he felt the use of tobacco was clearly a health related issue. CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 3, Section 5, line 23, which related to the use of Alaska farm products and salmon, and asked if they could replace salmon with fish, or fish products, which could include something other than salmon, but still high in protein. Number 456 SENATOR DONLEY stated that there was a reason for specifically designating salmon. He advised members that the Senate discussed that issue extensively and because of the king crab and lobster scandal that occurred several years ago, they did not want to use the word seafood because they did not want to authorize that kind of activity ever again. Senator Donley expressed that the Senate had considered specifying "pink salmon"; however, the department had tried to serve pink salmon in the past and the inmates would not eat it. He noted that because the state had such an abundance on salmon, they decided to focus on salmon and encourage the use of salmon. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the bill was a good piece of legislation. He stated that whether it had any rehabilitative effect, or even punitive effect, or affect on recidivism was quite debatable; however, what was provable was that the bill could have a very positive impact on the ability of the superintendents, within the institutions, to manage the prisons. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4, line 10, which addressed the ratings on movies, and asked why the "NC-17" rate was included in the bill. He advised members that those movies involved any movie that was not rated "R", but almost all of Hollywood's production. SENATOR DONLEY explained that that had not been an issue in the Senate, although he knew it was a concern by one member last year, who was not in the legislature anymore. He did believe there was a very good reason for prohibiting "R" and "X" rated movies, and agreed that the "N-17" rate was a "grey" area. Senator Donley stated that if the committee felt that was an area that ought to be flexible that he had no problem with that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled debating that issue on the floor the previous session. CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that as well. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he had seen some proposed amendments that had the unmistakable finger prints of the aforementioned maker of that amendment the previous session. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the utility services fee that would be imposed on inmates, and advised members he was concerned with that. It was his belief that inmates received some sort of work credit, and asked if that could be utilized as a means of paying the utility service charge, or would it be necessary to include that in statute. Representative Rokeberg's concern was whether the $2 fee would apply to each appliance an inmate might have. He felt the fee needed to be raised, adding that he was all for generating revenue for the Department of Corrections, and asked that members consider raising the utility fee. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what results the Lemon Creek Correctional Center in Juneau, Alaska, had realized after banning smoking in that facility the previous year. SENATOR DONLEY deferred that question to the department. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that because they were running out of time, he could wait for that information, although expressed that there had been some evidence about what had occurred, which he did not dispute. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out with the phone situation, that there had been a $2.6 million settlement in last year's supplemental budget because of a law suit that resulted from inmates use of the telephone while incarcerated. He expressed that the proposed legislation did not reflect a fee, or co-payment by the prisoners for use of the phones. Number 820 SENATOR DONLEY advised members that it was his understanding the department was negotiating towards that possibility; however, he would be happy to approach the department and ask specifically, because he wanted to make the language crystal clear that the department would have the statutory authority to charge for private phone calls if the department wanted to. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 9, and the language relating to reimbursement of utilities fees, and advised members that with all due respect to everyone else in the state, he would like to see that listed as number (1), or (2) on the priority list. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the sponsor would consider accepting an amendment to the title which would speak to any issue under the Cleary decision, by prohibiting some of those issues. He pointed out that currently, before disciplining a prisoner, full due process of the law was required, and asked if the sponsor would consider that a hostile, or a friendly amendment, or would Senator Donley suggest he address that under another piece of legislation. Number 900 SENATOR DONLEY expressed that that was a very important question, and the reason it was not addressed in SB 1 was because Cleary was based on the Alaska State Constitution and an interpretation of the state's due process clause, which was more extensive and offered more protections than the federal due process clause. Senator Donley did not feel they could address those issues with a statutory change; however, advised members that he had a proposed State Constitutional amendment in the Senate Rules Committee that would establish the federal standard as the standard for prisoners in the state of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he would help carry that proposed constitutional amendment in the House. SENATOR DONLEY thanked Chairman Green for bringing the bill before the House Judiciary Committee, and he added that he felt the suggestions provided were very positive.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|