Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2002 09:12 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 52 am
"An Act relating to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision and the State Council for Interstate Adult
Offender Supervision; amending Rules 4 and 24, Alaska Rules of
Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
CANDACE BROWER, Legislative Liaison, Department of Corrections
testified the purpose of the bill is to repeal the current
Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, enacted in 1937.
She stated efforts have been made to update the current compact,
but have proven impossible. Therefore, the compact is being
rewritten with the proposed compact reflected in this legislation.
Ms. Brower said the existing compact governs the state-to-state
movement of offenders and equates to a "gentleman's agreement"
between states that does not provide enough supervision for
tracking offenders and monitoring their behavior.
Senator Ward asserted, "This needed to be done." He asked if such
an agreement between all 50 states is reached, whether a charge
could be levied by states to house probationers and parolees who
relocate from other states.
Ms. Brower replied the state of Texas currently charges
probationers and parolees who relocate to Texas from other states,
for the cost of supervision.
Senator Ward pointed out that in Alaska, these costs are incurred
by the state.
KERMIT HUMPHRIES, Program Specialist, National Institute of
Corrections told of his past employment with the Alaska Department
of Corrections and current employment with the National Institute
of Corrections, a federal governmental agency. He commented that
the federal agency is unusual because it has "no federal
responsibility" and serves as a training and technical assistance
resource to state and local correctional agencies.
Mr. Humphries informed that for five years, he had worked with the
Compact Administrators Association and that by the year 1990 it was
thought that the original compact was sufficiently updated to
provide a fair system for offenders who move from state to state
while assuring adequate tracking of this population. However, he
stated, there were some "very bad cases" that occurred during the
middle 1990s in which police officers were killed, and it "became
clear that this was a major public safety issue." As a result, he
said, states began to take action through either legislation or
executive order and these actions were inconsistent with the
compact. The situation evolved to where there was no longer a
uniform agreement between states, he informed, and the states that
continued to comply with the compact "effectively were penalized".
He stated there was concern the compact "was ready to collapse" and
there would be no interstate agreement.
Mr. Humphries continued that the National Institute of Corrections
was then approached and assistance was requested for drafting a new
interstate compact. He said public hearings were held and the US
Attorney General appointed a board of directors. He informed that
this board that determined the situation with the current compact
is "a major public safety issue" and is a "toothless tiger that
looks good, it sounds good; there are rules, but there's no
enforcement and people don't follow the rules." The board advised
that a governing structure is needed to allow states to manage the
movement of interstate offenders.
Mr. Humphries noted testimony given at the public hearings by
representatives of state governments indicated that "the states
couldn't manage this and it needed to be turned over to the federal
government." However, the board ruled that this should not occur
and that "this is uniquely a state issue; states are the ones who
really need to manage this process and need to work on the
governing structure." Therefore, he stated the bill before the
Committee establishes this governing structure for managing the
movement of interstate offenders.
Mr. Humphries remarked this proposal "creates a couple of
problems," one being that states do not know the rules at the time
they ratify the compact. This, he explained because the rules are
to be made, after the compact is ratified, by the Interstate
Commission comprised of voting representatives from each state that
chooses to adopt the compact. He qualified that although this is a
concern, it also ensures the process "belongs to the states" as
opposed to an external organization and also allows the compact to
be updated over time.
Mr. Humphries continued that an advisory group, comprised of
representatives from correctional agencies, state legislatures and
the court system, was formed to address the specifics of the
governing structure. This group found that the original 1937
compact is "legally deficient" to address the increased mobility of
present day. He listed a conservative amount of over 250,000 adult
probationers and parolees currently residing in states other the
state where they were sentenced. He surmised this is a "very low
figure." He also informed that across the country, there are over
860 agencies responsible for the management of these probationers
and parolees and over 3,300 separate probation and parole offices.
He reiterated the current system could not effectively operate
without the changes proposed in this legislation.
Mr. Humphries added that the advisory group also determined that
the board may understand corrections issues, but had limited
knowledge of interstate compacts and needed to obtain expertise. As
a result, he said the board requested assistance from the Council
of State Governments and a cooperative agreement was reached to
address this matter.
Mr. Humphries outlined the changes proposed in the new compact,
including the establishment of the Interstate Commission and
establishment of state councils. He explained the necessity for the
five-member state councils is partially to address the declining
importance given to this matter within state governments. He
remarked that most judges are unfamiliar with the specifics of the
compact. He spoke of crime victims, and noted that offenders
relocated to other states are less likely to pay restitution. He
also pointed out that victims' risks are reduced once an offender
has moved away, but when the offender returns, the victim may not
receive notification.
Mr. Humphries assured the intent of the state council is not to
"create a new bureaucracy" but to provide "awareness".
Mr. Humphries next talked about the number of states that would
participate in the proposed compact. He stated that response to an
earlier draft, which stipulated that a minimum of 26 states must
agree to participate before the compact could be enacted, expressed
that a higher number of participating states is necessary. As a
result, he stated the requirement was increased to 35 states.
Mr. Humphries referenced a United States map, [copy on file]
showing the status of similar enabling legislation in other states.
He updated this information noting legislation has passed the House
of Representatives in the states of Mississippi and Alabama. He
said 25 states have passed legislation at present, and "we have
every reason to believe that in the next two or three months we
will be at the 35 states". Once this has occurred, he stated, the
Interstate Commission Meeting would be held to establish the rules
of the compact.
Senator Olson introduced students visiting the Committee from the
Lower Kuskokwim School District as part of the Close-Up Program. At
his request, each student stood and announced their name.
RICK MASTERS, Special Council, The Council of State Governments,
testified that the interstate compacts are as old as the United
State's constitution. In regards to the compacts, he stated, "If
anything they're so old that we've all forgotten about them and the
place that they have in our federal system." He pointed out Alaska
is part of the original compact.
SFC 02 # 8, Side B 10:00 AM
Mr. Masters continued this compact is the one mechanism that
manages parolees and probationers who leave the state where they
served their sentence.
Mr. Masters asserted this compact is an example of federalism
because states are able to maintain control rather than federal
preemption. He relayed concerns have been voiced that the new
Interstate Commission "may cause some problems" for states. He
qualified this would be possible, but stressed that such a
delegation has been recognized by the courts in addition to the US
Constitution as an appropriate way for states to exercise their
sovereignty. He said that when the 1937 compact had been enacted,
it was necessary for each state to give up "an appropriate level"
of control in order for all states to have equal control.
Mr. Masters listed reasons the existing compact must be replaced,
including the increase in interstate travel; especially air travel.
In addition, he noted, administrative law has changed and become
more sophisticated.
Mr. Masters also pointed out the existing compact contains no
enforcement provisions in the event a state refuses to comply with
other provisions; although a US Supreme Court action has ruled
compliance is required.
Mr. Masters stated the proposed new compact attempts to resolve
compliance issues "in a number of ways." He said the assumption is
made that in some cases, noncompliance is the result of ignorance
or neglect as opposed to willful action. Therefore, he remarked the
compact first addresses enforcement "at the lowest level of
coercion necessary to make sure everyone is following the rules" by
providing technical assistance to those "who are having trouble
training and understanding how this should be implemented." "If
reasonable minds differ," he remarked, the compact also contains
provisions for mediation and binding arbitration. For those states
that simply refuse to participate, he informed, the proposed
compact contains stipulations for sanctions in the form of fines or
judicial procedures as a last resort.
Co-Chair Kelly asked what entity would impose these fines.
Mr. Masters answered the Interstate Commission, which would be
created under the compact, would "determine the level of
appropriate enforcement."
Co-Chair Kelly asked what action would occur if a state "neglects"
to sign the compact.
Mr. Masters explained the process of convincing 35 states agree to
the compact. He said a state that did not sign the compact would
have no authority within the Commission and could possibly be
prohibited from sending a prisoner to states that do participate in
the compact.
Co-Chair Kelly asked the disadvantage for not signing the compact.
Mr. Masters told of the possibility of "dumping", whereby a
participating state could allow probationers and parolees to
relocate to the nonparticipating state without an agreement in
place. He stated there could be limitations on which states the
nonparticipating state could send offenders.
Senator Ward commented that Co-Chair Kelly's question is valid
because although participation has advantages, a state becomes
venerable to being sued by the Commission or having fines levied
against it.
Senator Ward asked what efforts have been made to determine the
cost of probation in one state versus another.
Mr. Humphries noted there are cost differences between states and
he said he would provide detailed information. He qualified each
state calculates these costs differently.
Senator Ward asserted the per-person cost is higher in Alaska
because other programs, such as the Permanent Fund Dividend and
Denali KidCare, are available. He opined that a probationer or
parolee has lost the privilege to travel from state to state. He
emphasized there are costs to the state which the probationer or
parolee relocates to. He asked if any consideration has been given
to the additional costs. He understood there are benefits to
"starting over" in a new location, but stressed there are costs to
the state and suggested these offenders should bear these expenses.
Mr. Humphries referenced page 14, line 1 of the bill, which
contains the language from Article 7, Section G of the proposed
compact. This language, he said, stipulates the "rulemaking"
functions of the Interstate Commission in the form of ten items
that the Commission must address within 12 months of the first
meeting. Item 6, he pointed out, relates to collection of
restitution and fees from offenders.
Mr. Masters agreed relocation is a privilege for probationers and
parolees and surmised other states would be in the "same position"
of incurring additional expenses. He stated it was determined the
Commission process would be the best method to address the matter
partially because the specific rules would need to be amended over
time.
Mr. Humphries added that the Commission could establish rules that
apply to how charges would be assessed or it could allow the states
to establish their own guidelines.
Senator Ward was concerned about the cost for each probationer or
parolee and the potential hardship that could result if a large
number of workers relocated to Alaska during construction of a
natural gas pipeline.
Ms. Brower informed, "Alaska is an exporter rather then an importer
of probationers and parolees." She cited the previous year 330
Alaskan offenders were on probation or parole in other states
compared to 220 offenders from other states residing in Alaska.
Senator Ward commented, "I don't see any reason why, if we had a
charge to be on probation or parole, that we couldn't transfer that
cost to the state they went to." He added the state of Texas does
not practice this.
Mr. Masters continued stressing enforcement is the largest
difficulty in the current compact. He reiterated that
administrative law "has become a very well developed body of law"
and that under the existing compact, there is no control over the
"rulemaking". He spoke to the Parole and Probation Compact
Administrators Association, which acts as the administrative body
although it is not specified in the existing compact. The new
compact, he stated, would contain "due process controls" and would
also provide accountability.
Mr. Masters cited that three US Supreme Court rulings issued in
1972 and 1973 "struck down" part of the existing compact, including
Article 3, which was found unconstitutional. He explained it
stipulates officials from a "sending state" could reenter a
"receiving state" and apprehend offenders simply my demonstrating
they are "authorized officers" of the "sending state" and by
identifying the offender. Two of the rulings, he said, determined
that a "due process type hearing" before a "neutral officer" is
required before parole or probation could be revoked. He noted the
proposed compact accommodates these court rulings.
Mr. Masters noted there are issues related to the "institutional
memory within state government". He explained that in explaining
this legislation in different states, many legislators were unaware
that the original compact existed. He stated the new compact
addresses this by instituting state councils; advisory groups in
each state consisting of input from the legislative branch,
governor's office and the judicial branch, to meet on an annual
basis within the state to address various concerns including the
cost issues as raised by Senator Ward.
Mr. Masters next spoke to accountability that has been added in the
proposed compact in the form of annual reports to the state
legislatures, governor's offices and judiciaries. In addition, he
stated the Commission would be audited annually. He pointed out
the existing compact has no reporting or auditing requirements.
Senator Austerman referenced Article 4 of the proposed compact
relating to the annual report to state legislatures. He asked if
the financial audit is included in this report.
Mr. Masters affirmed and elaborated the financial audit would be
included in the annual report.
LINDA WILSON, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, Department
of Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage that
this compact would likely have no fiscal impact on the Public
Defender Agency (PDA). She explained the office occasionally
provides defense services in cases involving offenders relocated
from other states, but she did not anticipate the proposed compact
would increase the amount of these cases.
Ms. Wilson told of people moving to Alaska, committing an offense
and after serving their sentence, returning to the support system
in their home state. She said that if these offenders owe
restitution, "the state is unlikely to send them to another state"
because the current compact contains no provision for enforcement.
The new compact, she pointed out, would contain provisions for
enforcing restitution payments. Because of this, she stated the PDA
supports the legislation. She stated this would facilitate
successful rehabilitation of offenders on probation and parole by
allowing them to relocate to areas where they have a strong support
system and have the ability to earn money to pay restitution.
Senator Austerman had a question regarding the fiscal note and
whether the amount projected has been expended in prior years for
probationers and parolees relocation efforts.
Ms. Brower spoke to fees of $400, which were increased several
years ago to $2000. She listed the reason for the increase is to
"pay for oversight, tracking, data systems, annual meetings of the
commission and other expenses necessary to oversee a huge program
such as this."
Senator Austerman clarified the fiscal note proposes spending
$24,000 annually versus the $2,000 that is spent currently.
Senator Leman asked if there would be any offset to the state for
this increased expenditure.
Mr. Masters responded the $2000 expense would be phased out. He
stated the new compact would provide an agency staff of six to
eight positions to actively administer the program, including the
information system. He stressed the information system is a
significant part of the new compact. He informed the current
tracking systems are outmoded and that hard copies of reports take
up to six months to reach other states. He said that in some
instances, the offender "is long gone" when the report reaches its
destination. He described the new encrypted electronic system.
Senator Ward noted the real problem with interstate movement of
offenders is that these citizens are not law abiding and at times
fail to register in the state they have relocated to. He emphasized
not every state imposes a penalty for this and that the burden
falls to the new state.
Mr. Humphries replied the new compact addresses this concern by
instituting the process using existing technology through a web-
based system. He said the fiscal note reflects the cost of staff to
maintain this system. Until this time, he pointed out no
organization has been willing to invest in such a system because
there are no requirements for participation.
Mr. Masters spoke to the offenders who "fall through the cracks"
and "simply walk away from the system" once they have received
permission to visit another state. He stated this is because the
current process is not always enforced or information is outdated.
Ms. Brower also pointed out that not all states comply with all the
provisions in the existing compact and the new compact would
require all states comply. She qualified that Alaska has a good
compliance record.
Mr. Humphries told of his experiences as a probation officer and
the process of notifying another state that a probationer from that
state is in violation of the terms of their probation. He informed
that often, the other state determines that transporting the
offender back to that state is too expensive and instead terminates
supervision. He commented, "The geography really plays into the
inequity of the system when everyone isn't required to operate
under the same set of standards."
Senator Leman referenced language on page 16, lines 19-21 of the
bill, which stipulates amendments to the compact are not effective
or binding unless enacted by unanimous consent. He noted this is a
"high standard" and asked if this is a "work-able" standard in
other compacts.
Mr. Masters replied that amending the compact would be possible and
stressed a high standard is the intent to limit the number of
amendments in the same manner as limited amendments are made to the
US Constitution. He explained this method was chosen because, "a
lot of the day-to-day operational details will be subsumed within
the rulemaking so it won't be necessary to come back and amend
this."
Senator Ward understood that thousands of people on probation and
parole are not United States citizens and asked how the proposed
compact applies to them. He questioned whether they should be
allowed to relocate to Alaska during their probation or parole
period.
Mr. Humphries responded these offenders are subject to the terms of
interstate compact agreement unless the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) is involved.
Mr. Masters noted the INS could be included as a non-voting
representation on the Commission.
Senator Ward stated there are some offenders who entered the
country illegally and have requested to relocate to Alaska to work
in canneries. He stressed that Alaska could possibly be fined for
not allowing entry for these probationers and parolees, whether
Alaska ratifies the compact or not.
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to amend the Department of
Corrections fiscal note to delete the $6,800 allocated for travel
expenses and reduce the appropriation accordingly. He suggested the
department should instead cover the travel costs within the
existing budget.
Co-Chair Kelly noted Co-Chair Donley would serve as chair of the
Conference Committee assigned to make final determinations for the
FY 03 budget and could readdress this funding if necessary.
Therefore, Co-Chair Kelly supported the amendment.
There was no objection and the fiscal note was AMENDED.
Senator Ward stated that he would not oppose this bill, but wanted
consideration for charging parolees and probationers who relocate
from other states to Alaska as Texas currently does.
Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to report HB 52 am, from Committee
with the amended fiscal note.
The bill MOVED from Committee without objection.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|