Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1996 01:30 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 1996
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice-Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS HOUSE BILL NO. 229(JUD)
"An Act prohibiting certain amplified sounds from automobiles; and
providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 428
"An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement
for construction and operation of a correctional facility in the
Third Judicial District, and setting conditions and limitations on
the facility's construction and operation."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 429
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Corrections
to contract for facilities for the confinement and care of
prisoners; and annulling a regulation of the Department of
Corrections that limits the purposes for which an agreement with a
private agency may be entered into."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 229
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT LOUD VEHICLE SOUND SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG; Toohey, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 566 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUDICIARY
04/05/95 1039 (H) STA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/13/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/13/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/20/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/20/95 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/21/95 1423 (H) HES RPT 2DP 1DNP 2NR 1AM
04/21/95 1423 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, TOOHEY
04/21/95 1423 (H) DNP: ROBINSON
04/21/95 1423 (H) NR: BUNDE, BRICE
04/21/95 1423 (H) AM: G.DAVIS
01/26/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/26/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/02/96 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 4DP 1DNP 2NR
02/01/96 (H) DP: PORTER, BUNDE, TOOHEY, B.DAVIS
02/01/96 (H) DNP: VEZEY
02/01/96 (H) NR: GREEN, FINKELSTEIN
02/01/96 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/02/96 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
BILL: HB 428
SHORT TITLE: LEASE-PURCHASE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/96 2470 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/96 2470 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/26/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/26/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/02/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 429
SHORT TITLE: CORRECTIONS: PRIVATE CONTRACT FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/96 2470 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/96 2471 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/26/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
01/26/96 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/02/96 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
NORMAN ROKEBERG, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
Room 110
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 229 as sponsor
BILL PARKER
HC 1 Box 934
Kenai, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7677
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 229
SCOTT CALDER
P.O. Box 75011
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 474-0174
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 229
ELDON MULDER, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
Room 411
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 428(JUD) as
sponsor.
JEFF SPOON, Vice President of Development
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
1500 San Remo Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida
Telephone: (800) 922-6488
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
GEORGE VIKALIS, Operations Manager
Municipality of Anchorage
632 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Telephone: (907) 343-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
JOHN CHRISTENSEN, Chairman
Chugach Alaska Corporation
560 East 64th Ave., Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-8866
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
RUSS CLEMENS, Labor Economist
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
1625 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 452-4800 ext. 1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
MARK ANTRIM
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
P.O. Box 240243
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 465-6202
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
BRUCE MASSEY, Food Service Manager
Lemon Creek Correctional Center
Department of Corrections
4425 Poplar Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6142
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
PHIL THINGSTAD, Business Manager
Carpenter's Union
407 Denali Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 226-3533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
GARY SAMPSON, Corrections Representative
Alaska State Employees Association
641 W Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
DON VALESCO, Business Manager
Public Employees, Local 71 AFL-CIO
2510 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 428(JUD)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-10, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting
to order at 1:30 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Bunde, Vezey and Finkelstein. Members initially
absent were Representatives Toohey, Davis and Green. They each
arrived at a later time respectively, 1:37 p.m.; 1:50 p.m. and 1:35
p.m.
HB 229 - PROHIBIT LOUD VEHICLE SOUND SYSTEMS
The first order of business to come before the House Judiciary
Committee was HB 229, "Prohibiting loud vehicle sound systems."
The sponsor of the bill was introduced, Norman Rokeberg.
Number 069
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG briefly reviewed the sponsor
statement related to HB 229 and he added that this bill had already
been heard in the HESS Committee. This legislation gives law
enforcement a number of tools to enforce the peace and tranquility
of neighborhoods. It's primary purpose is to limit the amount of
amplified noise transmitted outside of a vehicle. Secondly, it
reduces the hazards to emergency vehicles traversing through
traffic by drivers unable to hear emergency vehicles warning
signals.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that thirdly, residents should not
be subjected to loud amplified sounds in their neighborhoods.
Fourthly, this legislation allows the law enforcement agencies to
ensure no additional laws are being broken, in other words, this
would allow them to have probable cause to stop a vehicle which was
emanating loud sounds, and help in the administration of other
laws. It would meet constitutional tests for the gathering of
evidence. Lastly, a number of elderly people will no longer have
to be frightened by groups of people who use loud noises to
intimidate them, which Representative Rokeberg said can happen.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that this bill was neighborhood
friendly and would alleviate unwanted noises, while allowing people
a means of recourse. A violation of this provision is an
infraction not limited to a fine of $300, but also not considered
a criminal offense. He also cited recent studies which show an
alarming increase of hearing loss to young people. He noted the
increased use of portable radios with ear phones may be responsible
for this phenomenon as well. More specifically, he stated that the
stereo systems installed in
vehicles are what's being considered by this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the sound emanating from
these vehicles can also be physically felt. In reviewing the
statistics for this bill, he learned that 1000 megahertz of power
can literally be felt. The City of Anchorage has an ordinance on
it's books and in the interim, the City of Fairbanks has adopted a
similar ordinance. It would be a state infraction to be cited for
this offense. Also, Representative Rokeberg said constructive
criticisms about this legislation resulted at the HESS committee
hearing, hence a CS version of 229 was drafted, version C, dated
4/27/95 as referenced by Representative Rokeberg.
Number 375
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved to adopt the CSHB 229, version C as
the working document before the committee. Hearing no objection,
this CS was adopted.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the CS added a provision for
enforcing this law not only on an automobile driver, but also a
parked vehicle along a highway or other public areas. There were
some amendments recommended to the committee, one of which
rectifies the effective date of the CS as inaccurate.
Representative Davis provided the amendments noted. On amendment
number two, Representative Rokeberg recognized it as a friendly
amendment. It merely corrects the affective date. Representative
Rokeberg asked for further discussion on amendment number one and
opened up the floor for related questions.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked if the municipal ordinance
was similar enough that it wouldn't affect HB 229.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said yes. The modifications to the bill
were based on the ordinance in Anchorage and went one step further
by providing the criteria of "a distance of fifty feet or more."
This was consistent with the Anchorage and Fairbanks's ordinances.
This would make it easier to enforce.
Number 538
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that he shared the same feelings
as Representative Rokeberg on this issue, but his concern was that
they shouldn't dictate to the rest of the state, most of which has
local powers already in place to remedy these situations. The
areas that don't have ordinances to remedy this situation are
generally so rural, it's not an issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the areas which are not
heavily urban, namely class A or second class cities, are under the
jurisdiction of the State Troopers. This bill would make this a
state law and a means to provide law enforcement a tool to enforce
these types of infractions. When gathering public testimony, the
North Star Borough said they would be very receptive to this
legislation because their noise ordinance was not being enforced
outside of the borough.
Number 665
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE directed a question to the bill sponsor
about the enforcement clause of the legislation. He thought that
the fifty feet distance outlined in the bill was a very subjective
judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that this language was outlined
in the amendment number two and the portion about "peace and
tranquility" was slated to be deleted. He felt as though the fifty
feet provision would help draw the standard to be completely
empirical with judgment as to a police officer's view of fifty
feet. This would do so without any further clouding of the
language interpretatively as to the peace and tranquility of a
geographic area.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY was sympathetic to the intent of the
legislation, but felt as though it was a poorly crafted bill. He
felt as though sound was a quantifiable energy which can be
measured. He pointed out that the bill was nebulous and asked why
Representative Rokeberg didn't take the approach of what the
permissible sound levels would be. Representative Vezey noted the
allowable levels of sound in the work place as law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he appreciated Representative Vezey's
editorial concerning the craftsmanship of the bill, however, to
speak to the question, he didn't believe that law enforcement
throughout the state should be required to carry a DP (decibels)
meter in their possession, which would add further cost to the
enforcement. This language is consistent with the ordinance
already in effective in Anchorage, other state law and other
jurisdictions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Representative Vezey was correct in
that there are industrial safety standards based on decibel levels.
In the context of a violation to be enforced by law enforcement
personnel, he didn't feel it was appropriate to mandate a more
stringent standard and also give a defendant the ability to
challenge an offense because a law enforcement official was not
carrying a DP meter in their car. He pointed out that it was for
this reason that the legislation was drafted so artfully.
Number 899
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterate his point by stating that the
concept of audibility relates to the human ear and the function of
background noise. If someone is in a neighborhood where the noise
level is already high, an allowable noise level would be much
higher than a rural neighborhood where the background level is much
lower.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this was very true, especially when
compared to a large jet way airport. This is a clear case where
the judgment of a police officer on scene can determine whether the
specific noise is emanating from an automobile as versus the
background noise. He pointed out that certainly if there is other
background noise, plus the noise heard from the car, then there's
a problem exceeding any occupational DB levels that are accepted as
hazardous to a human ear.
Number 972
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if Representative Rokeberg anticipated that
there would have to be a police officer's involvement in hearing
such a violation before a case could be made or could a private
citizen file a claim on their own.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG deferred to Chairman Porter's expertise.
He likened this legislation to a speeding violation and asked if a
citizen could make such an arrest.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that yes, in the instance of a speeding
violation, a citizen could file a citation through a police
officer, as long as that officer thought there was probable cause.
There would be a higher level of proof attached to this citation in
a court of law though.
Number 1059
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked would removing a muffler from a three-
wheel vehicle be considered an amplification device.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded by stating that this bill
specifically relates to sound amplification systems. He also added
a comment to something Representative Vezey had asked earlier by
stating that Juneau does not have an ordinance such as the precepts
outlined in this pending legislation. This would allow the city
and borough, as well as the state to enforce this legislation if
passed.
Number 1184
BILL PARKER, testified against HB 229. He felt as though Alaska
has enough unenforceable laws in Alaska already and that they don't
need anymore. Mr. Parker used the example of the seat belt law.
He knew of no one who had ever been pulled over for this offense,
unless they got into an accident. He also referred to the 50 foot
criteria and used the example of a car with it's top down.
Number 1258
SCOTT CALDER, agreed completely with Mr. Parker. He pointed out
that if this legislation was about safety, a law enforcement
official already has the power to intercede. He also mentioned
disturbance of the peace laws already in effect. Mr. Calder didn't
think it was necessary to create a separate pretext to determine
probable cause. He felt the legislation would create an
environment for harassment.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS then asked the sponsor whether or not
he accepted the amendments as she proposed after the public
testimony was closed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he considered amendment number
two to be a friendly one and in regards to amendment number one, he
pointed out that the provision of the first line of the amendment
where it reads [or the system disturbs the peace and tranquillity
of another person], he felt as though this too was a friendly
change to the bill. However, the portion below outlined under
subsection 3, [; or a motor vehicle engaged in advertising
otherwise permitted by law.], he wished to keep this language
intact. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that this same
language could be found in other similar ordinances as previously
discussed. The intent is not to preclude common practices, such as
advertizing in parades, etc.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS moved to amendment this amendment, to allow
for the language which Representative Rokeberg had requested to
retain.
CHAIRMAN PORTER referenced this language for the record in the text
of the CS as existing on page one, line 9, the removal of the
phrase, [or the system disturbs the peace and tranquillity of
another person].
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move this amendment as
amended to read as follows, "more feet. This subsection does not
apply to (1) a person operating a sound amplification system to
request emergency assistance or to warn of a hazardous condition;
(2) an emergency or police motor vehicle; or (3) a motor vehicle
engaged in advertising otherwise permitted by law." Hearing no
objections, amendment number one was so moved.
Number 1580
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made a motion to move amendment number two as
follows, "Sec. 2 This Act takes effect July 1, 1996." Hearing no
objections, amendment number two was also moved.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN brought up a question which related to
amendment number one. He wondered if this legislation would
preclude someone from using megaphones to advertize from their
vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt as though this issue could be dealt
with on a local level depending on what the local ordinances
allowed. The intention was not to disallow this type of activity.
This was why subsection number 3 was included in this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN questioned the utility of such
legislation since someone who is not allowed to blast music from
the inside of their car could easily mount megaphones on the top of
their car to blast music instead.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out again that this activity would
be covered by permit and additional ordinances as a way to manage
this activity under local jurisdictions. He added that not to
include this language would trample on First Amendment rights.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that these large car sound systems are
more serious than someone just playing their radio too loudly. He
questioned the benefit to the general public related to this
activity as versus the loudness of an airport, for example. An
airport is loud, but it is a required benefit to society.
Number 1807
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out the example of an ice cream truck
as possibly falling under this legislation. Representative
Finkelstein agreed and asked Representative Rokeberg how he could
philosophically justify this bill in the context of ice cream
trucks where the broadcasting of music is clearly allowed. How
could one activity be legislated and not the other.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated this question and that it goes
to the purpose of this bill. He pointed out that this legislation
is directed to automobiles which cruise the streets and urban areas
with fighting gangs.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that the hearing of the young is in
serious jeopardy. He understood that the legislature can't protect
people from themselves, if they choose to destroy their hearing,
but this legislation would help in discouraging this type of
behavior.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 229 as amended,
version (C) from committee with individual recommendations.
Hearing no objection the bill was so moved.
HB 428 - LEASE-PURCHASE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
HB 429 - CORRECTIONS: PRIVATE CONTRACT FACILITIES
Number 1917
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the committee would hear HB 428 and HB
429, which had been combined into a single CS.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt the CSHB 428(JUD) which
in effect combined HB 428 and HB 429 to read as follows: "An Act
relating to the authority of the Department of Corrections to
contract for facilities for the confinement and care of prisoners,
and annulling a regulation of the Department of Corrections that
limits the purpose for which an agreement with a private agency may
be entered into; and giving notice of and approving a lease-
purchase agreement for construction and operation of a correctional
facility in the Third Judicial District, and setting conditions and
limitations on the facility's construction and operation." Hearing
no objection it was so moved.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER as sponsor came forward to present the
premise to this legislation. He stated that it was no secret to
anybody present or as chairman to the Corrections Budget
SubCommittee that Alaska's prisons are bursting at the seams. The
state is presently from 125 to 200 prisoners over capacity. He
also made mention of the 205 Alaska prisoners down in Arizona
presently. Representative Mulder stated that Alaska needs more
prison beds.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER read the sponsor statement as follows:
"HB 428, by the House Finance Committee, allows the Commissioner of
the Department of Corrections to pursue the use of private
facilities for any prisoner as long as security at the facility is
consistent with the classification of the prisoners housed at the
facility. It provides that the department may enter into a lease
purchase agreement with a private party to construct and operate a
prison in the Third Judicial District. A group of employees from
the Department of Corrections could be the private contractor if
they bid competitively for the construction and operation of the
facility.
Legislative Counsel advised us in an October 20, 1995 memorandum,
'while the statutory basis for authorizing use of private
facilities for state prisoners is probably adequate, albeit barely,
the regulations cited -- particularly 22 AAC 05.300(e) -- impose
real obstacles to extensive use of privately-contracted facilities,
whether in state or outside.'"
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER pointed out that originally there were two
bills HB 428 and HB 429 dealing with this legislation. The second
bill 429 statutorily outlined that the Department of Corrections
can contract with a private contractor. There seemed to be some
confusion or conflict with current statute and code in relation to
the state's ability to do this. He went on to note that this
combination of HB 428 and HB 429 was instituted because otherwise
the project would probably be debated in court, which could stall
or delay indefinitely.
"This bill makes clear the legal authority of the Department of
Corrections to house any prisoners in private facilities for
prisoners other than those in furlough status or in correctional
restitution centers. This could be done by administrative action,
but a statute will make legislative intent crystal clear.
The facility authorized by this legislation will include a maximum
of 1000 beds; be designed to allow expansion; include housing for
female prisoners [a need which today is under met and which is
recognized by the department as being very real]; not exceed
construction costs of $100,000,000; be constructed under a project
labor agreement [to ensure maximum Alaska hire]; be accredited if
state facilities are accredited [that is to say currently state
facilities aren't accredited, but if they were going to accredit
state facilities, we would require that this private facility would
be accredited as well]; will have correctional officers with the
same training as state correctional officers."
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER went on to note that the Department of
Corrections reported it was clearly exceeding the maximum emergency
capacity under the Cleary Agreement by over 100 prisoners every
day. He again noted the Arizona prisoners and said this proposal
would address both these needs at a lower cost to the state.
Representative Mulder stated that the Arizona prisoners cost $59 a
day and the average cost in the State of Alaska for a prisoner, per
day is $107. He said that the need for beds can no longer be
ignored and felt as though there were added costs accrued by
shuffling prisoners around.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER pointed out that there had been no negative
experiences with the private Arizona facility, since February 1995,
with the 206 Alaskan prisoners housed there. The savings have been
significant. He added that the figures cited previously for the
Arizona prisoners includes debt amortization figures for
construction costs of a private facility. The Alaskan numbers do
not include this debt amortization.
Number 2265
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that a new contractor can bring new
ideas to the state of Alaska. He added that competition spurns new
ideas and prompts state workers to think of new ways to deal with
old problems, which includes doing so with a less cost amount
consciousness. Representative Mulder reiterated that the private
facility correction officers will be trained to the same standard
as state correction officers and the facility would also become
accredited if required. This legislation is also about jobs, since
six million dollars is being spent a year employing Arizona
citizens, this facility would help keep employment in Alaska.
Number 2387
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked generally about what this proposal would
cost per prisoner, would it be between $60 - $120 per prisoner.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that without having the bid out to
contractors, he was not totally sure, but said these figures were
what's anticipated. He added that representatives from Corrections
Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut and others these figures
would fall between current price paid in Arizona said $70. It was
his understanding that this would include the amortization and the
cost of operation.
Number 2435
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed with Representative Mulder's
point that more prison capacity is needed in the state of Alaska.
He noted that whether the facility is private or public, the bottom
line is that the administration usually comes up with plans to
solve problems such as these. After a plan is proposed by the
administration the legislature is responsible to fund it. He
questioned the need to have these proposals before them today and
said it seemed they weren't yet at this point.
TAPE 96-10, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that he liked to take problems on,
deal with them, solve them and move on. The past administration
and the present one have not dealt with this issue effectively. To
ship prisoners out of state was supposed to be a short term stop-
gap solution, in his opinion, but it doesn't create jobs for
Alaskans. He noted that the budget to build a private facility
would take up the entire capitol budget, as an argument to support
privatization.
JEFF SPOON, Vice-president of Development, Wackenhut Corrections
Corporation, testified by teleconference from Florida. He stated
that his company was one of the oldest companies involved in the
privatization of prisons. The situation of privatizing prisons
should not be seen as adversarial. He reminded those present that
in the constitution it doesn't specify that the government is
suppose to provide these types of services, but should govern the
services. In recent years, especially the sun-belt states,
privatization has proven to be very cost effective, not only from
the construction standpoint, but more importantly with the on-going
operations. He stated that this latter aspect can make up 90
percent of the daily cost of providing correctional services.
MR. SPOON noted that the private correctional operations have
demonstrated their ability to design, build and finance cost
effectively towards a longer term period. Because these costs can
be combined from the start, it is easier to track the increasing
costs of operation by good design, close operation and by
monitoring outgoing costs. He added that a good deal of
individuals employed in private corporations were at one time
employed in the public sector and learned the profession through
the government sector. He noted the bureaucracy of government as
a hinderance and felt as though private interests could bring
services to the tax payers through private sector channels with
cost savings and quality.
Number 284
GEORGE VIKALIS, Operations Manager, Municipality of Anchorage,
testified by teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Vikalis announced
that he was representing Mayor Myerstrom and reiterated that
Anchorage was very concerned about the prison situation. He added
that the municipality felt as though there was a great need for an
additional facility in the Anchorage area. He noted that there is
a shortage of space and this affects the way Anchorage does
business. Mr. Vikalis stated that the municipality does not feel
strongly one way or another in regards to the facility being
private or public. Their main concern is to have a prison built
there to take care of the needs of the city and the state.
MR. VIKALIS expressed a willingness of Anchorage to work and
partner with the state in order to make this project a possibility,
including the role of a conduit for financing. They are also
willing to aid in a location decision, as well as get the word of
support out to the community. He stressed they would support the
project which seemed more economically feasible, whether it be
private or public.
Number 360
JOHN CHRISTENSEN, Chairman, Chugach Alaska Corporation testified by
teleconference from Anchorage. He outlined his points about HB 428
and HB 429 as follows:
"At the table with me today is Roger Endell, a past Commissioner of
Corrections for the State and now Education Services Manager at the
Palmer Job Corps Center, which is managed by Chugach Development
Corporation (CDC), Chugach Alaska's main operation subsidiary.
We are here today to speak in support of HB 428 and HB 429.
The Federal Government made the determination some years ago that
in many areas, the private sector could provide the same quality of
service as government agencies, but at lower cost. For example,
Chugach has been awarded a number of federal contracts to provide
Base Operations Support services at military establishments
including King Salmon AFB, Adak NAS, and Wake Island Army Base.
Recently we have been awarded the contract to provide Base
Operations Support services at one of the Navy's largest facilities
on the West Coast, Whidbey Island NAS.
It is not just the military who look to the private sector for this
type of service. We have contracts with the Department of Labor
(for the management of the Alaska Job Corps Center), the Patent
Office, the Department of Energy, and the Department of
Transportation. The concept of moving from government operated
services to private sector operations is accepted and proven. In
the field of corrections, it has been reported that the five new
prisons being built by the Federal Bureau of Prison will be managed
by the private companies.
Chugach Alaska sees HB 428 and HB 429 as the first of many steps to
be taken by the State of Alaska as we follow the lead of the
Federal Government in reducing the cost of Government. During a
time when the Administration is considering imposing new taxes on
the people of Alaska, it is important that the State be seen to be
exploring all possible ways of reducing cost. It is not just a new
corrections facility that should be considered for privatization.
The Administration and Legislature should examine the entire
bureaucracy, to find areas or even whole departments that could be
operated more efficiently by the private sector.
The only question that has to be asked is 'Can the private sector
provide the required standard of service at a lower cost?' To make
this determination, all costs have to be considered, including
capital and other costs that are often hidden. When all the
information is available, we believe the citizens of Alaska will
see, that in many cases, the private sector can provide equal or
better services at lower cost.
As you are well aware, it is not only cost that is important, but
skills and dedication. Chugach recognized this, and has been
working very closely with Correction Corporation of America (CCA)
to develop a first class team to design, finance, construct and
operate new corrections facilities. The two companies make a very
strong team. CCA has extensive experience and skills in the
corrections industry, while Chugach has considerable experience in
managing complex facilities and providing education services.
It is obvious that some State employees are not too happy with the
concept of the private sector encroaching on their turf. I have
read statements from state employees accusing the private sector of
being anti-union, of sending profits out of state, of employing
people who are unskilled and who lack the devotion to duty of the
state employee.
It is necessary for me to set the record straight as far as Chugach
is concerned, and to correct these deliberate misstatements.
First of all I would point out that Chugach is definitely not anti-
union. Chugach has an excellent working relationship with the
Laborers Union, with the Teamsters and with the Operating
Engineers. All three unions have members working for Chugach
subsidiaries, and they recognize, as do we, that to survive in this
world, we all have to be competitive.
Secondly, it has been claimed that a private prison operator will
take Alaska's money Outside. All profits earned by Chugach go to
a Corporation wholly owned by Alaskan Natives. Many Chugach
employees are Chugach shareholders. Others have spend their whole
lives in Alaska. The award of a contract to Chugach will result in
more Alaskans being employed.
As for dedication of service, it is hypocritical to suggest that
people in the private sector do not have the same dedication as
those in government service. The performance of Chugach employees
working on federal contracts demonstrates the inaccuracies of those
statements.
The final charge levied against the private sector by some state
employees is that private companies do not have the necessary
skills. I challenge them to fault the qualifications of the
Chugach/CCA team.
As Roger Endell can tell you, the Job Corps Center in Palmer, was
rated in the top five out of 111 Centers in the US. We are
specialists in providing basic education and teaching work skills.
We provide drug and substance abuse counseling, and we teach social
and life skills to those who missed out on the normal educational
opportunities. We also operate the medical and dental facilities
at the center.
Chugach has received commendations from the Navy and the Air Force
for the quality of its work at bases around the world. This work
consists of maintaining isolated bases in inhospitable
environments. We will operate and maintain correction facilities
in a similar professional manner.
I will let our partners from CCA speak for themselves. However I
do know that many CCA employees came into the private corrections
industry after long careers in the public corrections industry.
In conclusion, we believe all Alaskans will benefit if private
companies are allowed to compete against State Agencies. The
competitive market process will determine whether the private or
public sector is best qualified to design, build and operate a new
correction facility for Alaska.
I urge you to support these bills."
Number 692
RUSS CLEMENS, Labor Economist, Department of Research and
Collective Bargaining Services, American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represents Alaska
State Employee's Association (ASEA), Local 52 in Alaska was next to
testify about HB 428(JUD). Mr. Clemens thanked the committee
members on behalf of the over 1 million of AFSCME and the 75,000
state correctional officers which they represent for the
opportunity to speak on this proposed legislation.
"The issue of prison privatization as you may suspect is one that
concerns us because of its implication for public policy. The
appeal of prison privatization is an alluring, yet beguiling one.
In theory, it is a relatively simple proposition--fill cells, cut
costs, and pass the savings on to government. The reality,
however, belies the simplicity of the theory. The twin imperatives
of cutting costs and filling cells translates most often into
cutting corners in the operation of prisons both of which have
severe consequences that have manifested themselves in several ways
which ought to be of concern to you as members of this committee
and as a legislature as a whole.
Problems with security and escapes have characterized privately-
operated prisons from the beginning. AFSCME has not been the only
one questioning the consequences for prison security of introducing
the profit motive into the management and operation of prisons.
After five men, including one charged with stabbing a woman to
death, escaped from the privately-operated Bay County, Florida
Jail, the editors of the St. Petersburg Times raised these
questions about privately-operated prisons: 'Will a private
company supply adequate staff to maintain institutional security?
Will it have enough manpower to prevent escapes?'
Others have expressed concern about the wisdom of privately-
operated prisons, especially when it comes to security. In fact,
a much awaited audit of the privately-operated South Central
Tennessee Correctional Center (SCCC) comparing it with two state-
operated prisons found that 214 incidents of injuries occurred at
SCCC during a 15 month period whereas 72 such incidents occurred at
the two state operated facilities combined. Actually, security
problems characterized this prison from its beginning. Between
March, 1992 and April 1992 eight escapes occurred at the prison,
which also had other security problems ranging from finding an
inmate with a handgun during a routine search to inmates being
inebriated in their cells. These experiences prompted the Memphis
Commercial Appeal to comment as follows: 'Tennessee's experiment
with a privately operated medium security prison looked lean and
clean when reporters and officials toured the new South Central
Corrections Center. ..The problems arrived with the prisoners.'
In view of the imperatives driving prison privatization, these
problems ought to come as no surprise since among the costs that
private corporations seek to cut are staffing, which accounts for
approximately 60% of the operating costs of a prison. The
Corrections Corporation of America slashed staffing by 17% at the
Hernando County, Florida Jail when it assumed control of the
facility. Inmate escapes in 1990 prompted the County Commission to
request an inspection by the National Institute of Corrections
(NIC), an agency within the United States Department of Justice.
The NIC identified under staffing as a major problem at the jail
and commended that additional correctional officers be hired.
However, the comments of the company's jail administrator, which is
comparable to a warden or superintendent, offer a valuable insight
into a corporation's perspective regarding staffing a prison. 'The
county can agree with (adding the guards) if they want to,' the
administrator asserted, 'but that means the price of poker goes up
as far as you're concerned.'
Viewed from that perspective, it ought not to be surprising when
one of the players folds and walks away from the game. Shortly
after Wackenhut Corrections Corporation assumed control of the
Monroe County, Florida jail in 1990, the county and a state
inspector informed the corporation that the state had previously
ordered 11 security posts staffed. Served with a deficiency
notice, the company increased its manpower, but to a level that
remained below state requirements. The company then billed the
county for an extra $780,000 and demanded it to pay an additional
$2.6 million over the four-year term of its contract. The county
refused, insisting that the corporation should have know about the
state's staffing requirements. Wackenhut then terminated the
contract.
Loss of control is a danger when any public service is privatized.
With a function as essential to public safety as the corrections
system, the consequences are potentially ominous. Yet the drive to
fill cells, which is the other imperative by which private
corporations make money, can have such consequences. A few years
after having been awarded a contract to manage and operate the
Hamilton County, Tennessee penal farm, the Corrections Corporation
of America notified county officials that, because of overcrowding
at the facility, it would no longer indemnify (or insure) the
county against lawsuits. 'We must speculate,' the County Attorney
responded, 'that your action is a ploy to coerce Hamilton County
officials into constructing additional facilities for the housing
of the overflowing state prison population so that CCA may continue
to reap monies for housing these prisoners. If this position of
the company is not reversed or clarified without exception, we will
have no recourse but to consider this an act of default and
consider remedies, including contract termination.' Neither the
Santa Fe County Commission nor the County Sheriff were notified
when the corporation operating the county jail imported 54 inmates
from the State of Oregon to fill cells at the facility. As things
turned out, their backgrounds were not what the community had been
led to believe. None of the inmates were supposed to have been
convicted of a crime more serious than armed robbery. In reality,
the group included 11 murderers, 17 rapists, and 2 kidnappers.
County officials asked that the inmates be returned to Oregon, but
only when threatened with the loss of its contract did the company
operating the prison agree do so.
I would be remiss in my responsibilities as a representative of
AFSCME if I did not address the impact of prison privatization upon
employees. Available information indicates that corporations pay
wages that are 6%-19% lower and provide fewer benefits to
correctional officers than public jurisdictions. But isn't this a
good idea you may wonder, since it means lower costs and thus
savings for taxpayers? Not necessarily, for at least a few
reasons. John Donahue, who has been a professor of public policy
at Harvard University notes in Prisons for Profit: Public Justice,
Private Interests that low wages compromise the quality of the
correctional officer labor force: 'Public (correctional officers)
Donahue writes, are more likely to be high school graduates, to
work full-time and year-round at their jobs, and to be of prime
working age. Employers who hire the private-guard labor pool pay
less mostly because they get less; lower labor costs mean a lower
quality workforce.' A study by the Urban Institute comparing a
privately-operated and publicly-operated prison in the State of
Kentucky confirms that staff of the state-directed institution were
significantly older, better educated, had worked at the facility
longer, and had wider correctional experience than the personnel at
the privately-managed prison. Staff qualifications, the report
concluded, '...favor better performance from the publicly managed
facility.' And perhaps you might wish to consider this. Public
employees are also citizens and taxpayers. We spend our earnings
in the communities where we work: we purchase homes there, we bank
there providing a pool of money with which to lend to others; we
buy our cars there; and we support the numerous small businesses
that constitute the fabric of community life throughout Alaska.
Put another way, our money stays in the community. It doesn't go
out of state to contribute toward the profits of others.
Secondly, after all is said and done, after corners have been cut,
staff reduced, accountability jeopardized, and paying lower wages
and fewer benefits, has prison privatization really saved money for
public jurisdictions? After reviewing the literature on the issue,
the U.S. Government General Accounting Office (GAO), an independent
agency that analyzes federal programs for Congress, found that the
evidence is inconclusive--hardly a resounding endorsement. In
fact, the 1995 Tennessee audit comparing the privately-operated
medium security prison with two of the state's publicly-operated
prisons found negligible savings. Impartial observers have begun
to question whether privately-operated prisons actually save money.
'It's not easy to make a profit in that business, so they've got to
cut corners any way they can,' writes Dennis Palumbo, a criminal
justice professor at Arizona State University. 'Private prisons may
well cost more in the long run, not only in terms of taxpayer
money, but also in the health and safety of prison staff and other
law enforcement officers.'
At the very least, the serious doubts regarding the efficacy of
privately-operated prisons ought to be of sufficient concern to
require a feasibility study pertaining to the applicability of this
idea to Alaska. Such a study, it seems, would be essential before
a policy decision is made to privatize a prison. Yet, the proposed
legislature that you have before you contains no provision for such
a study.
The failure to privatize does not necessarily preclude the state
from addressing its problems regarding overcrowding. The
construction of a mega-facility as proposed in the bill may not
necessarily meet the needs of the entire state in this regard. As
some of our members will probably tell you, when they have the
opportunities to speak before you this afternoon, in view of a
system that has been developed around the idea of regionalization,
it may make more sense to consider the expansion of existing
facilities, which may also prove less expensive."
Number 1205
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Mr. Clemens if he had a choice, would
he send prisoners out of state due to overcrowding or build a
private prison, supposing these are the only two issues.
MR. CLEMENS said there are some possible alternatives between
either of the extremes Representative Toohey outlined, one of which
would be to add on to already existing facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY responded that this was not what she had
asked. Mr. Clemens said he knew that, but could not accept the two
extremes by which she stated her question.
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about Mr. Clemen's comments regarding
expanding already existing facilities in light of Alaska's
prisoners costing so much because of economy of scale. He thought
that what Mr. Clemen's was suggesting would be in opposition to
this concept of expansion.
MR. CLEMENS said that this could possibly be in opposition, but
they would be willing to work with the committee on the numbers.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked Mr. Clemens that when he is required to
testify on this subject before other bodies of government and such,
does he testify on existing legislation that's pending or is it in
the context of helping states decide whether to privatize or not.
She asked about a time line for negotiating such issues.
MR. CLEMENS offered that he is usually asked to testify on proposed
legislation and in the process of doing this, he suggests
alternatives rather than privatization. He suggested that
privatization is often a knee-jerk reaction. Mr. Clemens said
there is an entire range of alternatives, including that if the
decision is made to build an additional facility they should try to
keep it public. He pointed out that efficiency and cost-savings
are the sole prerogative of the private sector, public management
can be just as innovative and creative.
Number 1419
MARK ANTRIM, a Correction Officer III, a Sergeant at Lemon Creek
Correctional Center and also a member of ASFCME testified that the
correctional officers across the state applaud the efforts of the
legislature in passing stronger laws with stiffer sentences.
Generally, the correction officers see HB 428 and HB 429 as a
mistake.
MR. ANTRIM stated that this bill encapsulates a collision of two
basic values in society, these being private enterprise and public
safety. He noted that the most prominent value in the private
sector is the bottom line. Unfortunately, when looking at public
safety, the bottom line is very hard to determine.
MR. ANTRIM agreed with Representative Mulder's number of $107 per
day, per prisoner in Alaska. He noted that the facility outlined
in HB 428(JUD) will only hold classified male and female prisoners.
He further stated that this is what the state of Alaska will not
get for their $100 million the cost outlined in the pending
legislation: the prison won't be a booking facility, something
Anchorage is screaming for and also a facility such as this one has
a lot of hidden costs, such as fingerprinting, drug addicted
prisoners, diseases and fighting. These types of things affect the
bottom line in a very big way. The private contractors, CCA or
Wackenhut will not want to accommodate these types of special
needs.
MR. ANTRIM offered that this new prison will not remotely deal with
pre-trial operations, such as Cook Inlet for example. Pre-trial
people are breaking into the system and need special services.
They need more visiting time with attorneys and families. After
such visits the prisoner needs to be strip searched, which is a
very work intense procedure. Again, he noted that the private
contractors will not be able or willing to accommodate these types
of needs because it affects the bottom line.
MR. ANTRIM stated that the facility outlined in the legislation
would not house maximum security prisoners. He said this was
probably because maximum security prisoners break a lot of things
and are dangerous to be around. Normally these prisoners are
housed in a separate cell. He also noted a wing at the Cook Inlet
facility that accommodates mentally ill prisoners. This is another
service which will not be provided in a private facility because of
expense. Mr. Antrim was skeptical that the private facility would
be able to house female offenders as specified.
Number 1700
MR. ANTRIM pointed out that some of the prisoners housed in Arizona
had to be shipped back to Alaska because they became unmanageable
and the state had to pick up the travel costs. How would the
prisoner transports say, to and from a hospital be affected. These
types of costs would need to be absorbed and in the context of a
1000 bed facility, this would appear to cause problems.
Comparatively, with a facility this large, they would probably have
to transport any where from 50 to 100 prisoners per day. He
guessed that all these services as listed previously would
eventually be absorbed by the public sector, since eventually the
private companies would not be able to deliver. This would also
affect the price per day, per prisoner figure.
MR. ANTRIM stated that the correction officers propose instead of
a 1000 bed facility, smaller capitol construction projects slated
for already existing facilities around the state. This way the
beds would be in locations where they're needed, which would cut
down on prisoner transport costs. He also noted the benefits to
adding onto existing facilities, such as kitchens and other in-
house services already established.
MR. ANTRIM said that the facilities are really secondary to a good
staff. A good staff working inside prisons keep things from
getting out of hand and prevent escapes. Mr. Antrim was skeptical
about how private security guards would meet the same standards as
correction officers. He made mention of present correction officer
positions which can't be filled, due to the fact that a work force
doesn't exist. It's not because they don't want to fill these
positions.
MR. ANTRIM outlined for the committee, the various stages that
prospective correction officers must complete. He used as an
example 150 recruits signing up in an academy. Out of this number
maybe 25 qualified people graduate. The same standards which apply
to a police officer also apply to a corrections officer. They must
submit to extensive background checks, mental health screening, an
interview, and then an enrollment in the academy. After six weeks
of academy training, they are sent to a prison facility and while
there complete a three month field training officers program.
After this, they endure a one year probationary period.
MR. ANTRIM stressed that states assumes all the liability of these
private prison facilities. After some initial research Mr. Antrim
found out that these facilities are not currently underwritten by
a major insurance company. They're all self-insured using their
own assets or the government entity of the state assumes liability.
He pointed out that if you pay less, you get less. Would these
security guards be willing to prevent fights or escapes? Would they
be willing to shoot someone going over the fence? Would they be
willing to do this for eight bucks an hour, or ten bucks an hour?
MR. ANTRIM appealed to the committee that they research this
privatization concept further. He asked that they look through
periodical indices of towns where these private CCA and Wackenhut
facilities exist. Generally his impression is that these towns are
concerned about the staffing at these facilities and about escapes.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if he understood that Mr. Antrim working
as a state employee within a state facility which didn't book for
pre-trial or accommodate female prisoners, that the overall cost
would come down.
MR. ANTRIM responded by saying absolutely, because the $107 figure
as noted is an average of what the cost is for all Alaskan
facilities, including medical costs, transportation, etc., but he
pointed out that these numbers are static. The $59 spent in
Arizona does not cover these costs.
Number 2237
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what amount of wage would the department
need to offer in order to fill correction officer positions.
MR. ANTRIM answered that the offer would have to be enough to
attract people of caliber. He said he'd have to look to the people
they turn down to fill the positions open now. He pointed out that
if the public prisons are such white elephants and the employees
are grossly over-paid, he asked why there are so many open
positions for correctional officers. Mr. Antrim stressed that
these jobs should be filled by competent people.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked again how much of a wage increase would
be necessary to fill the gap.
MR. ANTRIM answered he did not know.
Number 2388
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked what a level entry correction officer
would make at Lemon Creek after training.
MR. ANTRIM answered that it was a range 13, based on an 84 hour
work week, maybe 13 or 14 dollars an hour. Mr. Antrim said he
would provide the committee with this exact information.
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the information presented by Mr.
Antrim concerning the difference of incarceration costs of out-of-
state prisoners now, including medical and transportation costs.
He asked what a rational number would be for the cost of such a
prisoner.
MR. ANTRIM said he would get this information for the committee.
Number 184
BRUCE MASSEY, Food Service Manager, Lemon Creek Correctional
Facility, was next to testify. Initially, Mr. Massey said he had
doubts about this legislation. The State of Alaska stands alone in
regards to zero incidences of staff members or inmate killed by
another inmate. The department has accomplished this because they
employ professional people. He pointed out that Lemon Creek is a
hostile environment. Mr. Massey takes a great deal of pride in his
work as a professional chef.
MR. MASSEY stated that when he changed over from the private to the
public sector he was astounded at the tethers which were placed on
him when he tried coming up with work related innovate ideas. He's
been given a lot more leigh way lately in being able to cut their
price per meal from $2.17 in FY 91 to $1.37 which is the current
average. This translates to a savings of $170 per month and an
annual savings of $163,500.
MR. MASSEY wondered where the real savings was going to take place
with a private prison facility. He cited the job experience he and
his staff bring to Lemon Creek. He also noted that 90 percentage
of disturbances in prison facilities revolve around the food and
the kitchen staff create the peace by feeding the population good
meals. Mr. Massey asked that the committee require sound
accountability for the private corporation's numbers, especially
when it comes to their food service.
MR. MASSEY noted that the participants all wouldn't be present at
this meeting if the legislature thought the department of
corrections was providing an adequate service, but he also noted
again how his hands are tied when trying to institute progressive
changes in policy. He cited specific examples of prices for goods
which were over-priced and of deficient quality, in relation to the
lack of a level playing field when it comes to the food service
industry. He noted that the public sector is more tied to buying
particular goods because of contract relationships, rather than the
private sector which has more freedom to be flexible.
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said she enjoyed Mr. Massey's testimony and
realized there were conditions which kept him from doing his job,
regulations which need to be done away with or statutes that need
to be changed. She said she didn't want to necessarily speak for
the sponsor, but said she didn't believe this bill was introduced
to point out that state workers weren't doing their jobs properly
or that someone can do their job better. There is no evidence or
studies which say this.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS also noted that there are more than likely
hidden costs in the dollar amount for the prisoners housed in
Arizona.
Number 737
PHIL THINGSTAD, Business Agent, Carpenter's Union, initially
testified that he represented the majority of the Western Alaska
building trades in support of HB 428 and HB 429 given the following
conditions: firstly, that under a level playing field, if the state
can truly save money, then they support this legislation.
Secondly, that if the individuals involved with the construction
and management of the facility are Alaskan hires, then they could
support the project as well. If these two things can be
guaranteed, as well as there being no displacement of the current
correctional employees, then they could support HB 428(JUD).
Number 835
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked about the suggestion of adding on
to existing facilities. Would the building trades support this.
MR. THINGSTAD said they were not against any other alternatives to
be explored, however, he pointed out how not too long ago the
legislature was going to look for a stable 300 million capital
budget and as the operating budget continues to grow, the capital
budget continues to shrink. He pointed out how when the
infrastructure grows, this prompts new business into the private
sector. If the capital budget grows too much, there will be no
private sector construction companies left.
Number 955
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN pointed out how the situation with
corrections is different than other items of the capital budget,
number one is that it's very prone to bonding and secondly, the
legislature is under court order to budget the necessary money for
operations.
Number 1017
GARY SAMPSON, Corrections Representative, Alaska State Employees
Association testified by teleconference from Seward. He stated
that the introduction of this legislation has caused great alarm to
the association. He cited that there are no quick, cheap fixes to
the corrections problem. The desire to cut costs should not be the
primary concern of corrections. The quality of service, safety and
security must be of primary concern.
MR. SAMPSON stated that after his travels around the country he is
confident that the quality of service provided by the Alaska
Department of Corrections is the best in the country. They operate
a safe, secure prison system which is free of corruption and treats
prisoners humanely. He said it was doubtful that this standard
could be matched by any private company. He said it was necessary
to look at private facility incidences beyond the "pie in the sky"
sales pitches of private corporations. Mr. Sampson said the facts
need to be observed.
MR. SAMPSON noted the private run facilities are frequently
compromised on security in order to maximize profits, since 60
percent of the operational costs of a facility is made up of labor,
reducing staff and limiting training seems to be a vital part of
the strategy instituted by private corporations which operate
prisons. He cited the increased incidences of assaults and escapes
in privately run facilities. In an effort to reduce costs inmate
services are cut, often in violation of their contracts which have
been made with the state. These programs are often essential for
the reclamation of prisoners.
MR. SAMPSON broadly pointed out that there is little evidence that
a privately run facility saves any money over a publicly run
facility. Numerous studies by the National Institute of Justice,
the National Institute of Corrections, the General Accounting
Office, among others, have concluded there were no significant
savings with the private facilities. In fact, many private
facilities in the long run may actually cost more fiscally, as well
as compromising the health and safety of prison staff and other law
enforcement officers.
MR. SAMPSON summed up his comments by stating that the primary
purpose of corrections is to provide a public service and provide
for the public security. The primary purpose of a private company
is to make a profit and these two purposes are contradictory. The
one has served our citizens well, the other will put our society in
jeopardy. He indicated Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA)
and AFSCME would be happy to work with the committee to come up
with viable alternatives to the solution of this problem, rather
than support the ushering in of private prison facilities.
Number 1242
DON VALESCO, Business Manager, Public Employees, Local 71 AFL-CIO,
testified by teleconference from Homer on behalf of the cooks,
building maintenance people and the warehouse people in the
correctional facilities of Alaska. He noted that these public
employees are concerned about providing the best service for the
least cost. Mr. Valesco's main concern about this legislation is
that it's a major policy change for Alaska. He asked that the
legislature take their time to review this proposition and talk
with their constituents. He stated that many people question the
concept of privatization.
MR. VALESCO referred to publications which have dealt with this
concept of privatization and the problems with it. He asked the
committee members to read and research these periodicals. He
questioned the whole concept of turning corrections over to private
companies in order that they make money off of the tax payers. He
noted other methods which are much more cost effective, one being
the expansion of existing facilities. With the exception of the
Ketchikan facility, all of the prisons around the state can
accommodate expansion at a much lesser cost than building a new
facility, which no less, would need to be staffed and furnished as
well.
MR. VALESCO used the example of Spring Creek as a facility which
could actually be doubled in size. He agreed that more beds are
needed, but not necessarily in one location only.
Number 11628
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would continue the public
hearing related to HB 428(JUD) until 1:00 p.m. on Friday, February
2, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|