Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)

03/08/2019 01:30 PM JUDICIARY

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:31:56 PM Start
01:33:33 PM SB34
03:14:26 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
Scheduled but Not Heard
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
          SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS                                                                       
1:33:33 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
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."                                                                                               
[Before the committee was CSSB 34(STA), Version U.]                                                                             
1:35:08 PM                                                                                                                    
KACI  SCHROEDER,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Central  Office,                                                               
Criminal  Division,  Department  of  Law,  provided  a  sectional                                                               
analysis of  SB 34, Version  31-GS1031\U, referred to  as Version                                                               
 She turned to Section 7, on pages 5-6 of SB 34.                                                                                
      Section 7 Requires an application for discretionary                                                                       
      parole to be submitted to the parole board before a                                                                       
     person can be considered for discretionary parole.                                                                         
She said  that Senate  Bill 91 eliminated  the requirement  for a                                                               
prisoner to  apply for discretionary parole.  This language would                                                               
revert to the pre-Senate Bill 91 language.                                                                                      
1:35:48 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked for  the  current  processing time  of  the                                                               
1:36:04 PM                                                                                                                    
JENNIFER WINKELMAN,  Director, Division of Probation  and Parole,                                                               
Department  of Corrections,  Juneau,  deferred  to the  executive                                                               
director of the Board of Parole.                                                                                                
1:36:16 PM                                                                                                                    
JEFFREY  EDWARDS, Executive  Director,  Alaska  Board of  Parole,                                                               
Department  of  Corrections,  Anchorage, answered  that  part  of                                                               
Section  7   would  eliminate  some   timelines  in   the  90-day                                                               
requirement prior  to the person's eligibility  for discretionary                                                               
parole. He said that the  Board of Parole procedurally works with                                                               
the institutions, the court, and  prosecutor months in advance of                                                               
the  parole hearing  to give  the institutions  time to  generate                                                               
reports and  documentation on  inmates, but  also to  meet victim                                                               
notification requirements.                                                                                                      
1:37:12 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL said  he appreciates  the  90-day mandatory  start                                                               
date but wondered if any deadlines exist.                                                                                       
MR. EDWARDS  offered to research  and provide the  exact timeline                                                               
later today, but he recalled it was a couple of months.                                                                         
CHAIR HUGHES  asked to  have the information  sent to  her office                                                               
and she would distribute it to committee members.                                                                               
1:38:00 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Sections 8, which read as follows:                                                                      
     Section  8 Clarifies  that a  person who  is ineligible                                                                    
     for a good  time deduction from their  sentence is also                                                                    
     ineligible  for discretionary  parole. Also,  prohibits                                                                    
     certain crimes from  being considered for discretionary                                                                    
     parole. These are the same  crimes that were ineligible                                                                    
     for discretionary parole prior to January 1, 2017:                                                                         
     • Non-sex class A felonies (Robbery 1, Assault 1, Arson                                                                    
     • B felonies if the person had one or more prior felony                                                                    
     • C felonies if the person had two or more prior felony                                                                    
     convictions; and                                                                                                           
     • B and C sex felonies (Sexual Assault 2, Sexual Abuse                                                                     
     of a Minor 2, Distribution of Child Pornography).                                                                          
MS.  SCHROEDER said  that  Section 8  would  return to  pre-                                                                    
Senate Bill 91 law in  terms of parole eligibility. It would                                                                    
make  prisoners  who  were  convicted  of  non-sex  class  A                                                                    
felonies,  class   B  felonies   with  one  or   more  prior                                                                    
convictions, and  class C  felonies with  two or  more prior                                                                    
convictions  ineligible for  discretionary parole.  It would                                                                    
also  make  class  B  and  C  sex  felonies  ineligible  for                                                                    
discretionary parole.                                                                                                           
MS. SCHROEDER referred  to page 7, lines 2-5,  [Section 8], which                                                               
states that  inmates who are  ineligible for good  time deduction                                                               
from  their  sentence  are   also  ineligible  for  discretionary                                                               
parole. This relates to repeat sex offenders, she said.                                                                         
1:39:08 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  whether Section  8 is  a complete  repeal of                                                               
Senate Bill 91 language.                                                                                                        
MS.  SCHROEDER answered  that  Sections 8  and  9 together  would                                                               
represent  a  complete  repeal.  She said  that  Section  9  also                                                               
included  language added  in the  Senate  State Affairs  Standing                                                               
     Section 9 Raises the amount  of time a person sentenced                                                                    
     for  an   unclassified  offense   (murder,  kidnapping)                                                                    
     before they are eligible  for discretionary parole from                                                                    
     one-third   to  one-half   of   the   active  term   of                                                                    
     imprisonment  or  the  mandatory minimum  whichever  is                                                                    
     greater. Also  requires persons  convicted of  B felony                                                                    
     level  drug  distribution  to  serve  one-half  of  the                                                                    
     active  term   of  imprisonment  before  they   can  be                                                                    
     considered for discretionary parole.                                                                                       
1:39:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  asked for clarification on  discretionary parole in                                                               
SB 34 and for examples.                                                                                                         
MS. SCHROEDER deferred to Mr. Edwards.                                                                                          
CHAIR  HUGHES asked  which  crimes would  still  be eligible  for                                                               
discretionary parole.                                                                                                           
MR. EDWARDS answered  that at the lowest level,  first and second                                                               
time class C felonies would  be eligible for discretionary parole                                                               
at one-quarter  of their sentences.  First time class  B felonies                                                               
would  be  eligible for  discretionary  parole  at [one-half]  of                                                               
their sentences. He  said that class A felonies  are not eligible                                                               
for  discretionary parole.  Under  SB  34, unclassified  felonies                                                               
would  be  eligible  at  one-half  of  their  sentences,  or  the                                                               
mandatory minimum, whichever is greater.                                                                                        
1:40:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  asked for  further clarification  on the  reason an                                                               
offender  convicted of  a  class  A felony  is  not eligible  for                                                               
discretionary parole,  since she thinks of  unclassified felonies                                                               
as being more serious.                                                                                                          
MR.   EDWARDS  said   he  was   unsure.   He  acknowledged   that                                                               
unclassified  felonies typically  have a  greater sentence,  such                                                               
that the maximum  sentence is a 99-year  sentence, and presumably                                                               
if  this class  is  not eligible  for  discretionary parole,  the                                                               
inmates would essentially serve a life sentence.                                                                                
1:41:26 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER  said that is  the best information  the department                                                               
could give at the moment. She  said that prior to Senate Bill 91,                                                               
class A felonies were not  eligible for discretionary parole. She                                                               
said that  the department  would need  to review  the legislative                                                               
history to determine  the reasons the legislature  wanted to make                                                               
that whole class ineligible.                                                                                                    
1:41:46 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR REINBOLD  related that the Senate  State Affairs Standing                                                               
Committee wanted  to learn  what other states  were doing  and if                                                               
every  state had  discretionary  parole.  She said  discretionary                                                               
parole  does  not  make  sense, since  it  seems  like  offenders                                                               
receive  big  sentences,  but prisoners  can  be  released  after                                                               
serving one-fourth  of their sentences. She  recalled someone was                                                               
going to do a comparison.                                                                                                       
MS.  SCHROEDER  said that  comparison  would  take a  significant                                                               
amount of  time, since it is  a very detailed analysis.  She said                                                               
that the discretionary  parole statute in Alaska  is difficult to                                                               
understand  and  researching  other  states'  statutes  would  be                                                               
difficult. She  did not think  the department could  provide this                                                               
information in a reasonable timeframe.                                                                                          
SENATOR  REINBOLD  asked  whether  an organization  such  as  the                                                               
Council of State Governments (CSG) could provide a small sample.                                                                
MS. SCHROEDER  said that she was  not aware of anyone  who tracks                                                               
that  information. She  suggested that  the Legislative  Research                                                               
Services,  Legislative Affairs  Agency might  be able  to provide                                                               
MR. EDWARDS said that he was  not aware either, but he offered to                                                               
do  a  general  research  over   the  Internet  to  provide  some                                                               
CHAIR  HUGHES answered  that  it  might be  worthwhile  to do  an                                                               
inquiry  via   the  CSG   or  the   National  Council   of  State                                                               
Legislatures (NCSL). She noted the  provisions in SB 34 for class                                                               
B  and C  felonies and  unclassified  felonies, but  not class  A                                                               
felonies. She asked whether the  Department of Law would consider                                                               
making an adjustment to this.                                                                                                   
MS. SCHROEDER agreed to do so.                                                                                                  
1:45:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked for the  impact these changes would  have on                                                               
the number of cases  that go to trial and the  length of time the                                                               
department  spends in  preparation. He  said the  availability of                                                               
parole  or  lack  thereof  is  something  that  both  sides  must                                                               
consider. He  asked for  an estimate  of the  impact this  has on                                                               
workloads for the Department of Law or the public defenders.                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER answered that she does  not have an estimate of the                                                               
impacts. She  agreed that discretionary  parole is  considered by                                                               
the  prosecutor   and  the  defense  when   plea  agreements  are                                                               
discussed.  She  said  she  was  unsure  if  it  would  create  a                                                               
significant amount of workload that  would trigger a fiscal note.                                                               
She  further  agreed that  any  changes  to discretionary  parole                                                               
would  have a  direct  impact on  the  Department of  Corrections                                                               
SENATOR KIEHL  said it  would help  to have  a response  from the                                                               
public  defenders  on the  changes  to  discretionary parole.  He                                                               
wondered if DOC  would be spending a lot more  time and resources                                                               
in court  opposite the DOL on  behalf of their clients.  He asked                                                               
whether the  department would anticipate additional  requests for                                                               
the lengthy  pre-sentence reports that  used to consume a  lot of                                                               
resources but are not done very often.                                                                                          
1:46:54 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WINKELMAN  responded that the  pre-sentence reports  are done                                                               
at the pre-sentence stage. However, it  is not part of the parole                                                               
process, she said.  She deferred to the DOL to  weigh in. She did                                                               
not envision that the provisions would  impact the DOC in term of                                                               
CHAIR HUGHES  said perhaps that could  be a discussion in  SB 33,                                                               
the pre-trial bill.                                                                                                             
MS. SCHROEDER  remarked that pre-sentence reports  are ordered in                                                               
every felony  case before sentencing,  unless it is  a first-time                                                               
felony. It  would be  very rare to  waive a  pre-sentence report.                                                               
She offered to further discuss this.                                                                                            
1:48:04 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER said  that Section 9 is the  heart of discretionary                                                               
parole.  There  were a  few  changes  made  in the  Senate  State                                                               
Affairs   Standing  Committee.   The   first   change  was   that                                                               
unclassified  felonies  would  be  eligible at  one-half  or  the                                                               
mandatory minimum,  as Mr. Edwards  mentioned. The prior  law was                                                               
at one-third, so the Senate  State Affairs Standing Committee did                                                               
increase that discretionary parole.                                                                                             
MS. SCHROEDER directed attention  to pages 8-9, [AS 33.16.090(b)]                                                               
to a change made in  the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                               
That  change  related  to  class B  felony  drug  dealing.  Those                                                               
offenders  would  be  eligible  at one-half  of  their  sentence,                                                               
previously eligible at one-quarter, she said.                                                                                   
1:48:49 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER  turned to  Section 10,  which pertains  to factors                                                               
the board should consider when releasing an offender.                                                                           
     Section  10 Eliminates  a  presumption  of release  and                                                                    
     thereby  returns discretion  back to  the parole  board                                                                    
     when determining release on discretionary parole.                                                                          
She said  that Senate Bill  91 created a presumption  of release,                                                               
that the board shall release unless  the board found by clear and                                                               
convincing evidence that the person  released would create a harm                                                               
to the  public. This bill  would repeal  that section of  law and                                                               
return  the factors  to pre-Senate  Bill 91  law. It  would state                                                               
"may" instead of "shall."                                                                                                       
MS. SCHROEDER explained Section 11:                                                                                             
     Section 11  Allows the parole  board to make  a person,                                                                    
     who  does   not  meet  the   factors  in   section  10,                                                                    
     ineligible for  further consideration  of discretionary                                                                    
     parole  or to  have  the person  serve additional  time                                                                    
     before they  can be considered again  for discretionary                                                                    
She said that when the board denies someone for                                                                                 
discretionary parole, it can set out a hearing and require                                                                      
certain stipulations prior to another hearing.                                                                                  
1:49:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked Mr.  Edwards  to  explain the  reasons  that                                                               
providing  discretion  to  the  board  is  important  for  public                                                               
MR. EDWARDS  said that  the word  that is  most commonly  used in                                                               
this  provision is  "discretion."  He explained  that giving  the                                                               
[parole]  board  the  authority   to  analyze  and  evaluate  the                                                               
specifics of an individualized plan  allows the board to evaluate                                                               
the  individual  candidate,  rather   than  lumping  or  grouping                                                               
prisoners into a "must release"  status if they have done certain                                                               
things   outlined  in   the  law.   He  characterized   returning                                                               
discretion  as of  the  utmost importance  to  avoid "tying"  the                                                               
[parole] board's hands with a mandated release.                                                                                 
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked  Mr.  Edwards  whether  he  has  encountered                                                               
mandated releases that made him  uncomfortable. She further asked                                                               
if he  was aware of instances  in which the [parole]  board would                                                               
not have released individuals if it had the discretion to do so.                                                                
MR.   EDWARDS  answered   that  he   does  not   always  actively                                                               
participate at  parole board  hearings since he  is not  a voting                                                               
member.  However,  he  offered  to   ask  the  board  to  provide                                                               
feedback.  He  recalled  that  revocation  rates  have  increased                                                               
slightly, which might relate to  mandated releases. He reiterated                                                               
that it is important to recognize  the value of discretion to the                                                               
[parole] board.                                                                                                                 
CHAIR  HUGHES agreed  that  discretion is  a  valuable tool.  She                                                               
asked  if  he could  look  into  the  revocations to  assess  any                                                               
correlation  since that  would be  helpful for  the committee  to                                                               
understand the  importance of returning the  discretion. She said                                                               
that   formulas  do   not  always   match  up   with  real   life                                                               
circumstances. She  offered her belief  that this section  of the                                                               
bill is important and should be addressed.                                                                                      
1:52:07 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  said  this  bill  changes  the  terminology  from                                                               
"shall"  release  to "may"  release  unless  there is  clear  and                                                               
convincing evidence that  the person presents a  danger. He asked                                                               
for the  rationale for  using this  approach instead  of changing                                                               
the  standard, which  would give  the board  more discretion.  He                                                               
suggested adopting a standard lower  than clear and convincing to                                                               
make  it easier  for the  board to  do its  job if  they think  a                                                               
person might  be a danger but  retain the notion that  if someone                                                               
is not  dangerous it is  time to put  them on supervision  in the                                                               
community  to  start  reentry  rather  than  keeping  them  in  a                                                               
MR. EDWARDS pointed to the four  factors listed in Section 10. In                                                               
addition, the department also uses  the risk assessment tool that                                                               
identifies  certain risk  factors. The  changes in  SB 34  do not                                                               
restrict   the  ability   of  the   [parole]  board   to  release                                                               
individuals. In fact,  post Senate Bill 91  resulted in "granting                                                               
decisions" or  release decisions  being cut  in half.  This means                                                               
the board  authorized about half  as many as pre-Senate  Bill 91.                                                               
He offered his  belief that these provisions do  not restrict the                                                               
board from  releasing good candidates.  He said Senator  Kiehl is                                                               
quite right  that occupying prison space  with low-risk, low-need                                                               
individuals to serve  time does not make much sense.  A number of                                                               
considerations  were put  into the  risk  assessment tool  [LSIR]                                                               
that touches on those risk  factors. If the determination is made                                                               
that  the individual  is ready  for early  release, the  [parole]                                                               
board would make that ruling.                                                                                                   
SENATOR KIEHL said  he appreciates the approach  described and it                                                               
shows  that the  state has  a  good parole  board. However,  when                                                               
considering how the  legislature writes the law,  he wondered why                                                               
not allow the  risk assessment tool [LSIR]  and the professionals                                                               
a little more  wiggle room, but not  to go so far as  to say that                                                               
even if the person poses low  risk to the public, that the parole                                                               
board does not have to let them out.                                                                                            
MR. EDWARDS responded  that he would like to see  the language in                                                               
an  amendment  form  to more  fully  understand  Senator  Kiehl's                                                               
CHAIR  HUGHES said  that  the  bar of  the  clear and  convincing                                                               
standard or  a lower bar  could still be somewhat  formulaic. She                                                               
said that she  would be concerned about going back  to a formula,                                                               
stating that the board has been  considering the four items in AS                                                               
33.16.100 and it seems to be  working. She asked Ms. Winkelman if                                                               
she had comments.                                                                                                               
1:56:31 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. WINKELMAN said that she did not.                                                                                            
1:56:46 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 12, which read as follows:                                                                      
    Section   12   Conforming    language   regarding   the                                                                     
     requirement that a person fill out an application for                                                                      
     discretionary parole.                                                                                                      
MS.  SCHROEDER  explained  that  when  the  prisoner  submits  an                                                               
application  for a  release plan,  which provides  information on                                                               
where the person intends to  live and prospective employment as a                                                               
plan, the board can assist.                                                                                                     
1:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER continued.                                                                                                        
    Section   13    Outlines   application    process   for                                                                     
       discretionary parole. Ensures that the prisoner is                                                                       
     furnished with a copy of the prepare report.                                                                               
She said  that this  provision means  that everyone  is informed.                                                               
She  characterized  this  as  "discovery"  for  the  prisoner  on                                                               
discretionary parole.  In a criminal  case the  prosecution needs                                                               
to turn  things over to the  defense during discovery and  when a                                                               
prisoner  applies  for  discretionary   parole  the  prisoner  is                                                               
allowed to review what the  board will be considering when making                                                               
discretionary parole decisions.                                                                                                 
1:57:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES recalled  an  instance where  an  inmate was  being                                                               
released that required  a 30-day plan, which was  increased to 90                                                               
days  in  Senate  Bill  91.  She said  the  Commissioner  of  the                                                               
Department of Labor and Workforce  Development suggested that the                                                               
timeframe should  be increased to  a minimum of  a year or  up to                                                               
two years. She asked how  the 90-day plan requirement would apply                                                               
to people who  will be let out on parole  or probation. She asked                                                               
whether  the   Department  of  Corrections   would  be   open  to                                                               
lengthening  the  time to  achieve  a  greater chance  of  public                                                               
safety for communities.                                                                                                         
MS.  WINKELMAN stated  that when  offenders  are sentenced;  they                                                               
receive  timesheets  that indicate  their  date  of release.  The                                                               
institutional  probation   officer  works  with  them   on  their                                                               
release,  she said.  When inmates  apply for  parole, the  90-day                                                               
plan provides  a planning window  as part of the  application and                                                               
release  plan.  Although  the  parole  board  has  released  some                                                               
inmates  earlier  than  the  90-day  plan,  the  preparation  the                                                               
institutional  probation officer  uses to  assist inmates  starts                                                               
the release planning  process that is used when  they come before                                                               
the parole board.                                                                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN said that the  commissioner constantly works toward                                                               
the goal of releasing prisoners  in "better shape" than when they                                                               
came into the system. The department  wants to do it right and is                                                               
open   to  suggestions   to   move   inmates  successfully   from                                                               
supervision  back  into the  community.  She  was unsure  of  the                                                               
source of  the specific 90-day  timeframe, but the  department is                                                               
open to considering whether the timeframe needs to be expanded.                                                                 
2:01:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  whether the 90-day plan is  considered at the                                                               
point  of intake  to focus  prisoners on  the concept  of turning                                                               
their  lives around  at  the beginning  of  their sentences.  She                                                               
asked  whether the  department would  consider shifting  the plan                                                               
instead of waiting until the end of the sentence.                                                                               
MS.  WINKELMAN   said  than  an   offender  management   plan  is                                                               
established for  individual inmates  at the  time they  enter the                                                               
facility. She  acknowledged that  some offenders are  in pretrial                                                               
status,  so those  inmates  are handled  a  bit differently.  She                                                               
explained  that  the  plan  is implemented  once  the  inmate  is                                                               
2:03:15 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.                                                                                            
2:03:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  whether the management plan is  in statute or                                                               
regulation. She asked for further  clarification on whether it is                                                               
a plan  to manage inmates  for reentry or if  it is about  how to                                                               
manage them while they are incarcerated.                                                                                        
She expressed an  interest in having the  reentry piece addressed                                                               
upfront. She  said a constituent  used the phrase, "An  idle mind                                                               
is the devil's playground." She  asked whether the plan should be                                                               
shored  up  on the  front  end  to  avoid churning  out  habitual                                                               
offenders,  which has  made communities  very dangerous.  She did                                                               
not  think that  30-90 days  is  a sufficient  timeframe, so  she                                                               
would like to continue to work on this issue.                                                                                   
2:05:44 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER continued.                                                                                                        
     Section  14 Gives  a parole  officer the  discretion to                                                                    
     make  a  recommendation  to the  parole  board  that  a                                                                    
     person's  parole be  terminated. Maintains  requirement                                                                    
     that  the  probationer  is  in  compliance  with  their                                                                    
     conditions of  probation and has  completed all  of the                                                                    
     required   treatment  programs.   Also  maintains   the                                                                    
     prohibition on unclassified  felony, sexual felony, and                                                                    
     domestic violence offenders  from being recommended for                                                                    
     early termination.                                                                                                         
MS. SCHROEDER  said that Senate  Bill 91 law required  the parole                                                               
officer to  make a recommendation  to the parole board  for early                                                               
termination.  She  explained  that   some  requirements  in  that                                                               
legislation were kept since it  is important that the probationer                                                               
be  in compliance  with all  of  the conditions  of parole.  This                                                               
provision   also  excludes   those   convicted  of   unclassified                                                               
felonies, sexual  felonies, and  domestic violence  offenses. She                                                               
explained that this  decision was made in Senate Bill  91 law and                                                               
is being carried  forward. She directed attention to  line 11, to                                                               
AS   33.16.210(c),  to   the  timeframe   difference  for   early                                                               
termination  of  probation and  parole.  She  explained that  the                                                               
inmate must  have completed  one year  on parole  before becoming                                                               
eligible for early termination.                                                                                                 
2:06:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  said that  he has  read lines  11-14 [on  page 10]                                                               
several  times.   The  new  language  [AS   33.16.210(c)(3)  also                                                               
requires  parolees to  be currently  in compliance,  he said.  He                                                               
asked  for  further  clarification  on  this  provision  since  a                                                               
parolee out of compliance would be in violation of parole.                                                                      
MS. WINKELMAN said she was uncertain.                                                                                           
MS.  SCHROEDER  offered that  would  apply  to someone  found  in                                                               
violation by  the parole officer  and the parole board.  She said                                                               
that this language  is a stylistic change and is  not meant to be                                                               
a substantive change.                                                                                                           
2:08:12 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  if the new language refers to  the gap period                                                               
between being found  in violation by the parole  officer and been                                                               
found in violation by the parole board.                                                                                         
MS. SCHROEDER agreed. She was uncertain of the frequency.                                                                       
MS. WINKELMAN  responded that  a parolee  may commit  a violation                                                               
that  potentially does  not rise  to  the level  of bringing  the                                                               
person before the  board. For example, a parolee  may be required                                                               
to report  to his/her parole  officer next week, but  instead may                                                               
report a week  later. That type of violation may  not rise to the                                                               
level necessary  to come before  the parole board,  unless timely                                                               
reporting was a repetitive issue.                                                                                               
CHAIR  HUGHES   asked  how   long  it  would   take  to   make  a                                                               
determination that a parolee had violated the terms of parole.                                                                  
MR.  EDWARDS answered  that typically  pending early  termination                                                               
requests would not necessarily come  before the board for pending                                                               
violations.  In terms  of compliance,  the  violation would  fall                                                               
under the  sanctions and  incentive grid,  he said.  For example,                                                               
the parolee  might be  given a verbal  warning. For  example, the                                                               
individual might not  be employed. Although that  alone might not                                                               
rise to  the level of arrest  or require an appearance,  it would                                                               
show a lack of compliance with the parole conditions.                                                                           
2:10:25 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE said  the language  related to  compliance with                                                               
conditions of parole  for one year previously was  "shall" and is                                                               
now "may".  He related  his understanding  that this  would allow                                                               
more flexibility.                                                                                                               
MS.  SCHROEDER responded  that some  of  the change  was made  in                                                               
reference to the  "one year." That language had to  be changed to                                                               
allow parole  officers more flexibility to  make a recommendation                                                               
on early  discharge after  the person  has been  on parole  for a                                                               
year.  She said  that if  the  committee decides  to change  this                                                               
language, she would ask members  to be cognizant of this one-year                                                               
timeframe. She said  that paragraphs (1) and (3)  of the previous                                                               
language would require  a parolee to be on parole  for two years,                                                               
which was not the administration's intent.                                                                                      
2:11:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged that  previously the department was                                                               
required [to  recommend early discharge  if the parolees  had not                                                               
been found in  violation of parole for one  year]. He interpreted                                                               
the  change to  mean  that the  department  could consider  minor                                                               
issues  if  the  person  is currently  in  compliance  and  still                                                               
recommend early discharge, which made sense to him.                                                                             
2:12:35 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER continued.                                                                                                        
      Section 15 Eliminates language referencing technical                                                                      
     violations of parole under AS 33.16.215.                                                                                   
MS. SCHROEDER  related this is  clean up language.  She explained                                                               
that this  statute refers to  revocation of parole.  The language                                                               
would  remove  the references  to  the  three, five,  and  10-day                                                               
technical caps in this section, she said.                                                                                       
2:13:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER continued.                                                                                                        
     Section 16 Allows  the parole board to  toll time while                                                                    
     the parolee is in violation  status. This is similar to                                                                    
     how probation works when a  probationer is in violation                                                                    
     status.  Under  this  provision, the  parolee's  parole                                                                    
     time  will  not  continue  to   run  while  the  parole                                                                    
     violation is under consideration by the parole board.                                                                      
MS.  SCHROEDER stated  that Section  16 does  not revert  to pre-                                                               
Senate Bill  91 law. This would  give the board the  authority to                                                               
toll  time, she  said. She  explained  that toll  time means  the                                                               
clock stops  and the parolee's  parole time will not  continue to                                                               
run if the parolee is in violation status.                                                                                      
She  said  that  Senate  Bill   91  law  allowed  toll  time  for                                                               
absconding, which  is expanded  in this section  to apply  to all                                                               
violations. When a person is in  violation status and it has been                                                               
filed  with the  board,  the board  can stop  the  clock, so  the                                                               
parole time  does not  continue to  run. If  they were  unable to                                                               
stop the clock, the parole time  would continue to run, and it is                                                               
possible that the  parolee would be in violation  status and time                                                               
would run out.                                                                                                                  
MS. SCHROEDER said  that the process in Section 16  is similar to                                                               
how probation operates, that case  law allows judges to toll time                                                               
for probation. She  said that this is something  the parole board                                                               
did  not previously  have authority  to do  but Section  16 would                                                               
provide it.                                                                                                                     
CHAIR HUGHES  asked whether tolling  was allowed  pre-Senate Bill                                                               
91 law.                                                                                                                         
MS. SCHROEDER  responded that  in practice  the parole  board was                                                               
tolling time,  but this provides  the actual authority to  do so.                                                               
She said  that under the  court context for probation,  the court                                                               
derives  its authority  from case  law;  however, that  authority                                                               
does not extend to parole.                                                                                                      
2:14:42 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked how long it  takes to process toll  time. He                                                               
said he could  understand if the clock is paused  for a couple of                                                               
weeks, but  not if it  is paused for six  months. He asked  for a                                                               
sense of how  long it takes to  process toll time and  get to the                                                               
final revocation hearing to better  understand the impact of this                                                               
MS. WINKELMAN said that Mr.  Edwards could clarify the timeframe.                                                               
However,  she related  her understanding  that from  the date  of                                                               
violation until  the parolee appears  before the full  board must                                                               
happen  within 120  days. Essentially,  a preliminary  hearing is                                                               
held  when  parolees  are  placed in  violation  status.  At  the                                                               
preliminary  hearing,   the  board  will  determine   whether  to                                                               
sanction the parolee or to hold  a full hearing on the violation.                                                               
She reiterated that the full board  must hear the case within 120                                                               
days, and it cannot just come before a hearing officer.                                                                         
MR. EDWARDS acknowledged that Ms.  Winkelman was correct. He said                                                               
this provision  would place  the parole  board under  the 120-day                                                               
rule.  The only  exception  would  be if  an  individual has  new                                                               
charges  pending. If  so, the  120  days would  be extended  upon                                                               
resolution of those  new criminal charges. He  explained that the                                                               
reason to  do so is because  the [parole] board does  not want to                                                               
get involved in  the prosecutorial work of  new criminal charges.                                                               
He added that the 120-day period is the maximum time limit.                                                                     
2:17:01 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL said that he  presumed a parole officer would write                                                               
up  a parolee  who  committed  a violation.  He  referred to  the                                                               
phrase  used,  which  was  "in  violation  status."  However,  he                                                               
assumed the  parolee would not  be allowed  to continue to  be in                                                               
violation status for the entire 120  days. He asked the reason to                                                               
pause the clock for the entire processing time.                                                                                 
MR. EDWARDS explained  the timeline, such that when  a parolee is                                                               
arrested and incarcerated for a  parole violation, the individual                                                               
would appear at a preliminary  hearing within 15 working days. He                                                               
characterized the process as being  similar to a bail hearing. At                                                               
the preliminary hearing an evaluation  would be made to determine                                                               
if probable cause existed for  the arrest. Once probable cause is                                                               
determined, a  final revocation hearing is  held. Pre-Senate Bill                                                               
91 law,  the hearing  must be  held within  120 days.  The person                                                               
would be limited  to serve three, five, or ten  days for a single                                                               
violation, he  said. Certain sections  of SB 34 would  repeal the                                                               
technical violations and revert to the previous method.                                                                         
He  explained  that  at  the  original  preliminary  hearing  the                                                               
hearing  officer has  the authority  to  release the  individual,                                                               
similar to a court hearing when  someone is released on bail. The                                                               
[parole officer]  would resume supervision  while the  parolee is                                                               
in violation  status, pending the  final hearing. If  the parolee                                                               
subsequently  incurred an  additional  violation, the  individual                                                               
would be incarcerated.                                                                                                          
SENATOR KIEHL  related his understanding  that while  the parolee                                                               
is in  supervised status in  the community, the clock  is paused.                                                               
He  suggested that  from the  offender's perspective  this action                                                               
would not provide an incentive for  the parolee to stay clean. He                                                               
characterized it  as setting up  the classic  hopeless, helpless,                                                               
criminal thinking  errors that  often lead  to more  offenses and                                                               
additional victims.                                                                                                             
MR. EDWARDS said he was not sure  he had a great answer, but this                                                               
process mirrors  the current court process.  It provides fairness                                                               
and consistency between the court process and parole process.                                                                   
2:20:38 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked whether stopping  the clock is a deterrent for                                                               
the parolee to not violate.                                                                                                     
MR. EDWARDS  offered his  belief that  without this  provision in                                                               
law,  a parolee's  supervision would  expire while  the violation                                                               
was still pending. He explained  that it would create a situation                                                               
that has  been problematic for  the supervision of  the offender.                                                               
In fact, supervisory conditions would  no longer be in place, yet                                                               
the parole  violation is still  pending. He remarked  that parole                                                               
violations  can sometimes  be quite  serious. The  board believes                                                               
this  mechanism will  provide an  avenue to  maintain the  parole                                                               
officer's  authority over  the  individual  during the  violation                                                               
pending period. He said  he was not sure how to  avoid a lapse in                                                               
supervision unless  supervision was restarted during  the pending                                                               
status.  However, he  was unsure  of how  to accomplish  it under                                                               
current law.                                                                                                                    
CHAIR  HUGHES  asked for  further  clarification  that a  parolee                                                               
could  complete parole  and be  released into  the community  but                                                               
still  have a  parole violation  pending. She  suggested that  it                                                               
might  require the  person's parole  to  be extended  or for  the                                                               
individual to be incarcerated.                                                                                                  
MR. EDWARDS responded  that under current law the  board does not                                                               
have any authority to extend  the parolee's maximum release date,                                                               
which is also referred to as the parole expiration date.                                                                        
MS. SCHROEDER  said that Mr.  Edwards has highlighted  the issue.                                                               
She said the Department of  Law's concern is the possibility that                                                               
a parolee  would not  have supervision  while still  in violation                                                               
CHAIR HUGHES emphasized that the goal is to close that loophole.                                                                
2:22:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to page 11 and Section 17.                                                                                 
      Section 17 Reduces amount of time that a parolee may                                                                      
      decrease their length of parole for good behavior to                                                                      
     one day for every three days without a violation.                                                                          
MS.  SCHROEDER  said  that  the  committee  previously  discussed                                                               
earned  compliance credits  for  probation, and  this applies  to                                                               
earned  compliance  credits  for parole.  The  earned  compliance                                                               
program was created  by passage of Senate Bill  91, which created                                                               
a credit that  was "half," such that for every  30 days a parolee                                                               
did not incur  a violation, the individual would  receive 30 days                                                               
of credit against  the person's total parole  time. Under Section                                                               
17, parole  credit would be  reduced to  one day for  every three                                                               
2:23:29 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER reviewed Section 18.                                                                                              
     Section  18  Prohibits  a  sex  offender  from  earning                                                                    
     credit  against  their  period  of  parole.  [It]  also                                                                    
     mandates that  [parolees] lose all of  the credits they                                                                    
     have accrued if they are found in violation of parole,                                                                     
     requiring the accrual to start over.                                                                                       
MS. SCHROEDER said  that sex offenders cannot  participate in the                                                               
program  for parole  and probation.  She explained  that for  the                                                               
same  reasons discussed  for probation,  the standards  are being                                                               
applied  to parole.  The reason  to have  sex offenders  complete                                                               
their probation  is because the containment  model the Department                                                               
of  Corrections  (DOC)  uses  has proven  to  be  effective.  She                                                               
characterized it as  the "carrot and stick"  approach because the                                                               
longer  parolees  go  without incurring  a  violation,  the  more                                                               
credits  they will  accrue. That  means parolees  have a  greater                                                               
risk of losing everything if they commit a parole violation.                                                                    
2:24:21 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  related a  scenario in  which a  model prisoner                                                               
has two  years to serve.  However, the prisoner has  never gotten                                                               
along  with  his/her parole  officer,  which  can happen  because                                                               
different  personalities  exist.  The  model  prisoner  may  have                                                               
satisfied  nearly   two  years  of   parole  but  because   of  a                                                               
personality conflict  and a minor infraction,  the prisoner could                                                               
lose everything.  He suggested  some way  should exist  to secure                                                               
some earned  compliance credit because under  this provision "the                                                               
carrot"  would  be eliminated.  Perhaps  some  segments could  be                                                               
secured that would drive the same positive behavior, he said.                                                                   
MS. WINKELMAN  agreed that this  has been a topic  of discussion.                                                               
She  said that  this language  represents a  policy call  by this                                                               
administration.  However, the  DOC  is open  to suggestions.  She                                                               
stressed  that  she  has  faith in  her  probation  officers  and                                                               
supervisors  to make  good decisions,  but she  also acknowledged                                                               
that personality conflicts can happen.                                                                                          
2:26:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  asked to shift to  the victim. She asked  whether a                                                               
victim can obtain  a copy of the parolee's  conditions of release                                                               
and if it is public information.                                                                                                
MS.  WINKELMAN   answered  that  the  probation   conditions  and                                                               
judgment are open to the victim and the public.                                                                                 
MR. EDWARDS  clarified that the  parole conditions  are available                                                               
to  the  public  upon  written  request,  but  that  victims  are                                                               
automatically provided a copy.                                                                                                  
CHAIR HUGHES  asked for  confirmation that  victims automatically                                                               
get a copy of probation conditions.                                                                                             
MS.  WINKELMAN  answered  that  victims receive  a  copy  of  the                                                               
probation    conditions   through    the   department's    victim                                                               
notification policy.                                                                                                            
2:27:55 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  shared Ms.  Winkelman's  faith  in the  probation                                                               
officers but  he said he  also shares Senator  Micciche's concern                                                               
about driving the  change in behavior. He commented  that what is                                                               
being  seen in  psychology,  weight loss,  and smoking  cessation                                                               
accomplishments is  that "the carrot"  along with "the  stick" is                                                               
the most effective way to change behavior.                                                                                      
2:28:27 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 19.                                                                                             
      Section 19 Prohibits a person from earning good time                                                                      
     for time spent on electronic monitoring post-sentence.                                                                     
MS. SCHROEDER said  that Section 19 is a complete  return to pre-                                                               
Senate Bill  91 law. This  provision would prohibit the  award of                                                               
good time credit against a  prisoner's sentence for time spent in                                                               
a private  residence on electronic  monitoring or in  a treatment                                                               
program. She  noted that the  treatment listed in  this provision                                                               
is for treatment that the DOC  has ordered. However, it would not                                                               
apply  to pretrial  treatment  that an  offender  has elected  to                                                               
attend.  Further,  the  electronic monitoring  is  post-sentence,                                                               
that the  offender is  already in  custody, and  the DOC  makes a                                                               
determination to put the person on electronic monitoring.                                                                       
CHAIR HUGHES said  part of this as a "math  problem." She related                                                               
a  scenario  that  the  offender  is  in  a  six-month  treatment                                                               
program,  which  would  apply   to  the  sentence.  However,  the                                                               
offender  would  not  get  good  time  credit  of  the  one-third                                                               
sentence  reduction or  two months.  She  asked for  confirmation                                                               
that the  individual cannot  double dip  and obtain  eight months                                                               
for a six-month treatment program.                                                                                              
MS. WINKELMAN agreed  that in the scenario if the  court or judge                                                               
ordered credit for  treatment, the offender would  obtain day for                                                               
day credit  or six months,  but not  an additional two  months of                                                               
2:30:53 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE   suggested  this  language  might   be  worded                                                               
strangely. He related his understanding  that a judge could still                                                               
sentence someone  who is  guilty of a  minor crime  to electronic                                                               
MS. SCHROEDER responded that Section  19 relates to post-sentence                                                               
placement decisions made by the  Department of Corrections (DOC).                                                               
In  this  context,   a  judge  may  not   sentence  offenders  to                                                               
electronic monitoring, she said.                                                                                                
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked  whether   the  sentence  could  require                                                               
electronic  monitoring. He  related his  understanding that  once                                                               
sentencing  has   occurred  the   DOC  cannot  convert   time  in                                                               
incarceration or probation to time on an electronic monitor.                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER  explained that there  are two types  of electronic                                                               
monitoring.   First,  someone   can  be   placed  on   electronic                                                               
monitoring during the pretrial phase,  while the defendant is out                                                               
on bail.  The individual can  get jail credit under  current law.                                                               
For  example,  a  judge  could determine  the  defendant  was  on                                                               
electronic monitoring for  100 days and allow 100  days of credit                                                               
against  the individual's  sentence, which  would be  included in                                                               
the  judgement. Second,  once the  person was  sentenced to  five                                                               
years, for example, the DOC could  make the decision to place the                                                               
prisoner on  electronic monitoring.  This decision would  be made                                                               
outside the court since the  court cannot order the Department of                                                               
Corrections  on placement,  she  said. This  is  a separation  of                                                               
powers issue, she said.                                                                                                         
SENATOR MICCICHE  related his understanding  that a  judge cannot                                                               
sentence  an offender  to  five  years, with  three  years in  an                                                               
institution  and  two on  electronic  monitor.  However, the  DOC                                                               
could decide after three years  to place the person on electronic                                                               
monitoring for two years.                                                                                                       
2:33:28 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES asked  for clarification that the last  two years in                                                               
that  scenario would  be  considered probation  since  it is  not                                                               
early release.                                                                                                                  
MS. WINKELMAN  responded that the  two years would  be considered                                                               
part of  the original  sentence. In the  prior scenario,  the DOC                                                               
would make  the determination on  where to house  the individual.                                                               
For  example,  the department  could  determine  that the  person                                                               
would serve  three years in  custody and two years  on electronic                                                               
monitoring. Once the person is  released, the individual would be                                                               
on probation for the length of time the judge imposed.                                                                          
2:34:43 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  asked for further  clarification if  the treatment                                                               
program   would  also   include  programs   offered  within   the                                                               
MS. SCHROEDER  answered that the  treatment programs  in question                                                               
are  ones provided  outside of  the facilities.  She offered  her                                                               
belief  that  this  would  relate   to  a  small  cohort  of  the                                                               
2:34:52 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL  asked  whether these  are  residential  treatment                                                               
programs in which  the prisoner is not free to  leave and that it                                                               
would not apply to visits to a substance-abuse counselor.                                                                       
MS.  WINKELMAN  agreed.  She  said   that  this  would  apply  to                                                               
residential  treatment  programs  that  the  DOC  has  furloughed                                                               
someone to,  which is  similar to a  halfway house.  The prisoner                                                               
would  have  reached a  certain  level  of his/her  sentence  and                                                               
demonstrated a  need for a  placement into a  treatment facility.                                                               
The  prisoner would  serve  the  remainder of  the  jail time  in                                                               
treatment. Further, the  person would not earn any  good time for                                                               
the  period  of  time  spent   outside  the  facility  undergoing                                                               
2:36:09 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether prisoners  spending time in a halfway                                                               
house earn good time.                                                                                                           
MS. WINKELMAN answered yes.                                                                                                     
SENATOR KIEHL  said it was  not clear to  him why a  person would                                                               
obtain good time in  a halfway house but not for  time spent in a                                                               
treatment program.  He thought they  were similar, yet  one would                                                               
not receive the incentive.                                                                                                      
MS.  WINKELMAN responded  that  this  was a  policy  call by  the                                                               
administration. She informed  members that this refers  to a very                                                               
small population of  prisoners going outside of  the facility for                                                               
treatment. She explained  that a treatment center  is a different                                                               
setting than  a halfway house.  For instance, she  explained that                                                               
halfway house  personnel are similar to  correctional officers in                                                               
2:37:26 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  asked for  further  clarification  that if  an                                                               
individual is  out on  electronic monitoring,  the credit  is one                                                               
for one and not one for three.                                                                                                  
MS.  SCHROEDER  answered  yes,  that  these  individuals  do  not                                                               
receive good time, so it would be one for one.                                                                                  
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding  in the previous scenario,                                                               
that the judge could impose three  years in jail and two years of                                                               
probation. She  asked whether the department  could place someone                                                               
on  electronic   monitoring  on  an  ankle   monitor  during  the                                                               
individual's probation time. She  asked for further clarification                                                               
whether the DOC uses ankle  monitors for individuals on probation                                                               
or parole.                                                                                                                      
MS.  WINKELMAN  explained that  when  a  violation occurs  during                                                               
probation, the individual  would go back to court.  The court may                                                               
revoke time  and place the  individual on  electronic monitoring.                                                               
She said  it is still considered  serving time, which is  part of                                                               
the revocation process.  As part of the  sanctions and incentives                                                               
grid created under  Senate Bill 91 law, when  a violation occurs,                                                               
the court may  use electronic monitoring to  ensure sobriety, she                                                               
2:38:59 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Section 20.                                                                                             
MS.  SCHROEDER explained  that Section  20 is  clean-up language.                                                               
She explained  that the  DOC is  required to  report a  number of                                                               
things to the Alaska Criminal  Justice Commission. Since the caps                                                               
and  administrative  sanctions  imposed  under  the  program  are                                                               
repealed  in  this  bill,  this  section  removes  the  reporting                                                               
     Section   20  Eliminates   the  requirement   that  the                                                                    
     Department  of  Corrections  submit  a  report  to  the                                                                    
     Alaska  Criminal   Justice  Commission   regarding  the                                                                    
     sanctions  imposed under  the administrative  sanctions                                                                    
     program which is repealed in this bill.                                                                                    
MS.  SCHROEDER explained  that Section  20 is  clean-up language.                                                               
She explained  that the  DOC is  required to  report a  number of                                                               
things to the Alaska Criminal  Justice Commission. Since the caps                                                               
and  administrative  sanctions  imposed  under  the  program  are                                                               
repealed  in  this  bill,  this  section  removes  the  reporting                                                               
requirement. Since the caps  and administrative sanctions imposed                                                               
under  the  program  are  repealed in  this  bill,  this  section                                                               
removes the reporting requirement.                                                                                              
2:39:34 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER turned to Sections 21-23.                                                                                         
     Section 21 Repealed section.                                                                                               
     Section 22 Applicability.                                                                                                  
      Section 23 Effective date. This bill takes effect on                                                                      
     July 1, 2019                                                                                                               
2:40:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 34.                                                                                  
2:40:45 PM                                                                                                                    
DARCEY PERRY,  Board Member, Public Safety  Employees Association                                                               
(PSEA),  Anchorage, spoke  in support  of  SB 34.  She said  that                                                               
everything is not  black or white and one solution  does not work                                                               
for all,  and from her prior  work as a law  enforcement officer,                                                               
that  pertains  to  people  who  commit  crimes.  She  said  that                                                               
returning  discretion back  to  judges and  the  parole board  is                                                               
important since they  understand the clients and  cases, and this                                                               
will lead to a better outcome and a safer Alaska moving forward.                                                                
2:41:58 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE  COONS, President,  Greater Alaska  Chapter, Association  of                                                               
Mature Citizens  (AMAC), Wasilla, stated  his support for  SB 34.                                                               
He said  he especially likes  the changes to credit  and changing                                                               
"shall"  to "may"  for parole  officers related  to parolees.  He                                                               
wondered what  happens when a  parolee commits another  crime and                                                               
has additional  time on pending  probation. He asked  whether the                                                               
full amount  of the original sentence  is added to the  new crime                                                               
sentencing upon conviction. It  seemed like previously sentencing                                                               
time minus time served for  those still on probation upon release                                                               
disappears. If so,  that would need to be corrected  because if a                                                               
criminal has  five years pending  but commits another  crime, the                                                               
offender should serve all five years  plus a new sentence for the                                                               
additional  crime  committed.  He suggested  that  judges  should                                                               
issue a no parole order for repeat criminals on both sentences.                                                                 
CHAIR HUGHES suggested that he  submit his comments in writing to                                                               
MR. COONS said he sent an e-mail with his suggestions.                                                                          
2:43:45 PM                                                                                                                    
MARTY KINCAID, representing herself,  Palmer, referred to Section                                                               
2, related to  defendant defaults in the payment of  a crime. She                                                               
said that the  new language in Section 2 [Version  U] states that                                                               
the court may  order the defendant imprisoned until  the order of                                                               
the court  is satisfied.  She asked whether  that is  the current                                                               
CHAIR HUGHES answered yes.                                                                                                      
MS. KINCAID  asked how the person  would satisfy the debt  if the                                                               
defendant is  in prison and  what would  happen to the  family if                                                               
the  person  is  the  breadwinner.  She  said  that  historically                                                               
imprisonment has  not been a  successful deterrent to  crime. She                                                               
said the debtor's  prison was eliminated in 1833 and  in 1983 the                                                               
U.S. Supreme  Court said it  was unconstitutional as  a violation                                                               
of  the  14th  amendment.  She expressed  concern  that  this  is                                                               
prejudiced against the poor.                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES said  that the public can submit  their questions to                                                               
the committee, and she will obtain responses.                                                                                   
2:45:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CHRISTY ANN  ALLISON, representing herself, Wasilla,  referred to                                                               
Section 2  and echoed  Ms. Kincaid's  comments. She  thought that                                                               
the language "until the order  of the court is satisfied" circles                                                               
around to the concept of  the debtor's prison and invalidates the                                                               
language that  recognizes the defendant's  inability to  pay. The                                                               
defendant  would be  perpetually  held in  the  system until  the                                                               
court releases them.                                                                                                            
She  turned to  Section  7. She  said that  it  was important  to                                                               
remove the language  that required a person to  apply for parole.                                                               
She said  it is important to  provide due process to  ensure that                                                               
everyone is  meeting all  of the stages  for the  possibility for                                                               
discretionary or  mandatory parole based  on a set  of procedures                                                               
and not  on the  prisoner's application  for [parole]  since they                                                               
should be  eligible. She  offered her  belief that  this language                                                               
would  disproportionately affect  the uneducated,  the poor,  and                                                               
the  mentally ill.  It means  they are  responsible to  apply and                                                               
those are the  people who do not have access  to or cannot afford                                                               
an attorney to track their cases  while they are in prison. These                                                               
people  cannot fill  out the  forms because  they cannot  read or                                                               
write on  their own. Further,  the mentally  ill do not  have the                                                               
faculties to track deadlines and  apply timely. She said that the                                                               
parole  officers  are overburdened.  She  said  she is  a  family                                                               
member of  an individual who  was wrongfully convicted.  She said                                                               
the way things  are on paper is  not the way it  occurs inside of                                                               
prisons.  For example,  the committee  held a  discussion on  the                                                               
management plan for inmates. She  said that inmates are typically                                                               
ignored until the  end of the incarceration. She  said that there                                                               
is not any  comprehensive plan that is discussed  with the inmate                                                               
until a year or less of their sentence remains.                                                                                 
2:49:10 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES reiterated  that the public can  submit testimony to                                                               
2:49:29 PM                                                                                                                    
GRACIE  PRENTICE,  representing  herself, Kenai,  said  that  she                                                               
supports replacing Senate Bill 91 with SB 34.                                                                                   
2:49:55 PM                                                                                                                    
JACQUELINE  BOCK, representing  herself,  Sterling, testified  in                                                               
support of SB  34. She said she believes Senate  Bill 91 needs to                                                               
be repealed and  replaced. She said her family has  been a victim                                                               
more than once.  She expressed concern that  law enforcement does                                                               
not have  the tools to keep  law abiding citizens safe.  She said                                                               
her  family  is afraid  to  leave  their  home because  of  crime                                                               
associated  with a  drug house  in her  neighborhood. She  thinks                                                               
something needs to  be done for Alaskans. She said  crime takes a                                                               
long-term toll  on youth and  has an adverse financial  impact on                                                               
the state.                                                                                                                      
2:52:00 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR MICCICHE  thanked her  for her activism  and work  on the                                                               
local crime  panel. He  stated that many  suggestions are  in the                                                               
crime bills.                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  said that  she hoped that  the legislature  will be                                                               
able to make changes to make her feel safer.                                                                                    
2:52:46 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN  ROZZLI, Chief  Executive Officer,  Valley Charities,  Inc.,                                                               
Wasilla,  spoke in  favor of  retaining Senate  Bill 91,  perhaps                                                               
making  some  modifications to  it.  He  said  that it  has  been                                                               
successful in terms of reentry.  He said that the recidivism rate                                                               
is about  seven percent  with one of  their reentry  programs. He                                                               
said the organization has a  workforce readiness program that has                                                               
helped  offenders   get  back  into  the   community  and  become                                                               
successful. As  a third-party employer,  he has  found reentrants                                                               
are more successful  at finding work, that  unemployment and lack                                                               
of housing is  one of the big reasons why  recidivism occurs. The                                                               
organization has  succeeded in helping inmates  be successful. He                                                               
stated he is  opposed to repeal of Senate  Bill 91, acknowledging                                                               
that some things needed to be tweaked.                                                                                          
2:54:15 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR HUGHES  advised the public  that this bill does  not repeal                                                               
the reentry program that he mentioned.                                                                                          
2:54:29 PM                                                                                                                    
LISA  ELLANNA, representing  herself, Nome,  said that  the great                                                               
number  of those  incarcerated  for felony  crimes  are for  non-                                                               
violent crimes.  Before the  state makes  it too  restrictive for                                                               
people who are  trying to get back into their  communities. It is                                                               
important  for  them  to  contribute   to  their  communities  in                                                               
meaningful ways and reestablish their  lives. She echoed what Ms.                                                               
Kincaid, Ms. Allison,  and Mr. Rozzli stated. She  agreed that it                                                               
is  important  not  to make  laws  that  will  disproportionately                                                               
affect people  that are experiencing  poverty or  other protected                                                               
populations  in  the state.  She  expressed  gratitude that  some                                                               
people   question   the  constitutionality   of   [incarcerating]                                                               
debtors.  She agreed  with  a  lot of  Senate  Bill  91 since  it                                                               
contains many good elements and  a lot of community feedback went                                                               
into making  that law.  She characterized  the process  as rubber                                                               
banding  back and  forth between  providing  treatment and  being                                                               
restrictive. She  said that  she hopes  the legislature  can find                                                               
the middle ground.                                                                                                              
2:57:19 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL BERGER, representing  self, Anchorage, said he  is not in                                                               
favor  of the  changes in  SB 34.  He said  that this  bill would                                                               
repeal  caps on  sanctions  for violations,  which are  currently                                                               
three, five, and 10 days. He  said that violators may spend up to                                                               
three months  or a year  prior to going  to court. He  was unsure                                                               
how this bill would reduce  spending or overcrowding. In terms of                                                               
discretionary parole,  he acknowledged that Senate  Bill 91 makes                                                               
more people eligible,  but the parole board  still has discretion                                                               
who is  approved or denied.  He said he  has served more  than 20                                                               
years inside institutions and job  preparation is very little. He                                                               
said that  people need to  learn basics, including  self-care and                                                               
how  to make  a  bed.  He acknowledged  that  some programs  make                                                               
sense,  such  as  custodial and  construction  programs,  but  it                                                               
should  be extended.  He  offered  his belief  that  it could  be                                                               
extended through  the reentry program. He  advocated for training                                                               
early  on to  better run  their  lives. In  his experience,  once                                                               
people get  to the point  that they  feel useless, they  will use                                                               
drugs  or do  whatever  they have  done that  led  to them  being                                                               
3:00:14 PM                                                                                                                    
VINCENT LIBERTINO,  representing himself,  Juneau, said he  is in                                                               
long-term  recovery and  would not  be here  if it  were not  for                                                               
Senate  Bill  91. He  said  he  is  on discretionary  parole.  He                                                               
commended  his  probation officer,  who  works  with him  and  he                                                               
learns. He said  he is part of the reentry  program and will take                                                               
a three-week drug and alcohol  certification course. He said that                                                               
he has gained from Senate Bill  91. He expressed concern that the                                                               
committee would [repeal] it since it would go backwards.                                                                        
He  stressed  the  need  to   address  the  underlying  cause  of                                                               
addiction. He  said that 90 percent  of the people in  the prison                                                               
system  are  there  due  to  addiction.  He  said  that  addicts,                                                               
alcoholics,  and  convicts  do  not read  the  bill  before  they                                                               
offend.  What does  work is  a  true carrot  and stick  approach,                                                               
which is  what his probation officer  does with him. If  he is in                                                               
violation, he abides by Senate  Bill 91. He acknowledged that his                                                               
recovery  has  not  been  linear.  He  works  as  a  peer-to-peer                                                               
recovery coach  with NAMI [National  Alliance on  Mental Illness]                                                               
Juneau. He  highlighted his tourism  work and success as  a small                                                               
business  owner. He  said he  would be  in prison  without Senate                                                               
Bill  91, that  he received  a 14-year  prison sentence  for drug                                                               
sales in Anchorage.                                                                                                             
MR. LIBERTINO  said he  served 5-6  years in  prison. He  said he                                                               
completed  an offender  management program  (OMP), which  was not                                                               
discussed  today.  He explained  that  he  received a  three-year                                                               
furlough.  While he  was at  the  halfway house,  Senate Bill  91                                                               
passed  the  legislature. His  parole  officer  met with  him  to                                                               
develop his  discretionary parole  packet. He  said that  was two                                                               
years ago. He  said that probation deals with  suspended time and                                                               
parole deals  with good time.  He emphasized  his desire to  be a                                                               
productive member of society.                                                                                                   
3:04:49 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  MICCICHE  said  that  the committee  is  looking  for  a                                                               
balance and  for people to  pay a price  to society but  to still                                                               
succeed. He  asked him to  present the  rest of his  testimony in                                                               
writing and provide more detail about the programs he has used.                                                                 
CHAIR HUGHES  said a  lot of  people do  not understand  that the                                                               
intent of Senate  Bill 91 was to allow people  the ability to get                                                               
on the  right path.  She emphasized that  the legislature  is not                                                               
taking that  away. The  goal is  to increase  treatment programs.                                                               
Justice  needs  to  be  served  but people  need  to  have  every                                                               
opportunity to  better themselves and live  productive lives. She                                                               
said that passing these bills is not going backward.                                                                            
3:06:30 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  highlighted that some disincentives  for treatment                                                               
have been identified in the  bill. He expressed concern that some                                                               
proposed changes  in the  bill will make  it much  more difficult                                                               
for  those  trying  to  reenter  the  community  to  succeed.  He                                                               
directed attention  to the repealers  since one does not  seem to                                                               
be a conforming change.                                                                                                         
CHAIR HUGHES mentioned that public testimony is open on SB 34.                                                                  
3:08:16 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR KIEHL  directed attention to AS  12.55.110(f), revoking a                                                               
suspended sentence.  He read  part of  the language,  which read,                                                               
"If the court  does not find that the  noncompletion of treatment                                                               
was attributable to  the defendant's inability to  pay, the court                                                               
may  order  the  defendant  imprisoned   subject  to  the  limits                                                               
established in this section." He  asked for further clarification                                                               
on the reason to repeal it.                                                                                                     
MS.  SCHROEDER explained  that  series  includes other  repealers                                                               
that relate  to the technical  violation caps. This  was codified                                                               
in Senate  Bill 91 and  is current practice.  She said it  is not                                                               
necessary to codify  it, but she does not see  a problem in doing                                                               
so. She said  that the Department of Law started  with an initial                                                               
sweep and  if the committee  wants to  add the language  back in,                                                               
the department would not object.                                                                                                
SENATOR MICCICHE explained  that some people who  have broken the                                                               
cycle of  addiction have  talked to him  about a  natural process                                                               
that occurs.  Parents and friends  are initially willing  to bail                                                               
the person out.  That group of people willing to  bail the person                                                               
out shrinks  the more the  person offends, until the  person runs                                                               
out  of friends.  He  said  that made  it  serious  for them.  He                                                               
acknowledged that  sitting in prison  short circuits  the process                                                               
and causes  them to take  rehabilitation more seriously.  He said                                                               
it is  also compounded by the  bail schedule from the  courts. He                                                               
said  that  the  legislature  signaled  in  Senate  Bill  91  the                                                               
inability to pay as  a reason to keep people in  jail. He said he                                                               
supports this change.                                                                                                           
3:11:38 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  KIEHL acknowledged  the  goal of  making more  treatment                                                               
available. He said there are  a few no-cost treatment options and                                                               
some treatment  for inmates is  available in facilities.  He said                                                               
that  DOC tries  to get  court-ordered offenders  the ability  to                                                               
obtain   treatment.  However,   there  is   not  much   treatment                                                               
available. He  said this is  about continuing good  faith effort.                                                               
He  said  he does  not  think  this  relates  to running  out  of                                                               
friends. He said that repealing  this language takes the criminal                                                               
justice system  in the  wrong direction in  terms of  a suspended                                                               
portion of their sentence.                                                                                                      
3:12:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MS. SCHROEDER offered  a point of clarification.  She referred to                                                               
AS 12.55.110(f).  She said  that it  has never  been the  case to                                                               
send  someone  to  jail  because  they  are  unable  to  complete                                                               
treatment  for the  inability to  pay. The  issue with  Section 2                                                               
relates to not  paying a fine and potentially going  to jail. She                                                               
said that  if the defendant was  unable to pay after  having made                                                               
continuing good  faith efforts, they  are not sent to  jail. This                                                               
language  pertains  to  and  targets  people  who  are  willfully                                                               
refusing to  pay their  fines. In terms  of AS  12.55.110(f), the                                                               
department would address someone  who violates their probation if                                                               
they  are willfully  refusing to  go  to treatment.  This is  not                                                               
targeted at people who cannot pay for treatment.                                                                                
SENATOR   KIEHL   acknowledged    the   two   sections   function                                                               
SENATOR MICCICHE said that he did  not have a means to review the                                                               
repealer. He said that he stands corrected on the bail issue.                                                                   
[SB 34 was held in committee.]                                                                                                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SJUD Agenda 3.8.19.pdf SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SB0034A.PDF SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf SFIN 4/30/2019 1:30:00 PM
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34
SB 34 Highlights.pdf SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM
SB 34