Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:25 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 1997
1:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 150
"An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement
with the City of Seward for the construction and operation of an
addition to the Spring Creek Correctional Center, and setting
conditions and limitations on the facility's construction and
operation."
- MOVED HB 150 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(FIN) am
"An Act relating to living and working conditions of prisoners in
correctional facilities operated by the state, and authorizing the
commissioner of corrections to negotiate with providers of
detention and confinement services under contract to apply those
conditions and limitations on services to persons held under
authority of state law at facilities operated under contract or
agreement; relating to services provided to prisoners; amending the
definition of `severely medically disabled' applicable to prisoners
seeking special medical parole; amending provisions of the
correctional industries program; and extending the termination date
of the Correctional Industries Commission and the program."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 31
"An Act relating to civil liability for certain false allegations
or material misstatements of fact in a civil pleading or
proceeding, for certain improper acts relating to signing a civil
pleading, for certain improper acts relating to civil pleadings or
proceedings, for making an intentional false statement of a
material fact, for acting on a civil claim or defense without
probable cause, or for acting for a purpose other than proper
adjudication of a civil claim; amending Rules 13(e) and 82(b),
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 150
SHORT TITLE: LEASE-PURCHASE SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/97 399 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/19/97 399 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/12/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/14/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 1
SHORT TITLE: "NO FRILLS" PRISON ACT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) DONLEY, Halford, Pearce, Green, Leman,
Taylor, Kelly, Mackie Phillips; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Mulder, Cowdery,
Green, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/03/97 13 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 14 (S) JUD, FIN
01/22/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/22/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/27/97 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/27/97 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/29/97 163 (S) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN, LEMAN
01/30/97 171 (S) JUD RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
01/30/97 171 (S) DP: TAYLOR, MILLER, PARNELL, PEARCE
01/30/97 171 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (DPS)
01/30/97 171 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DPS)
01/30/97 171 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES TO SB & CS
(LAW, DPS)
01/30/97 183 (S) COSPONSOR: TAYLOR
02/05/97 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/06/97 246 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP 1DNP SAME TITLE
02/06/97 246 (S) DP: SHARP, PEARCE, PHILLIPS, PARNELL,
02/06/97 246 (S) TORGERSON, DONLEY; DNP: ADAMS
02/06/97 246 (S) PREVIOUS FN TO CS (COR)
02/06/97 246 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS TO CS (DPS, LAW)
02/11/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/11/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/11/97 283 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 2/11/97
02/11/97 285 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/11/97 285 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/11/97 285 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY ADAMS
02/11/97 285 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
02/11/97 286 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY ADAMS
02/11/97 286 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
02/11/97 287 (S) AM NO 3 MOVED BY GREEN
02/11/97 287 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/11/97 287 (S) AM NO 4 OFFERED BY LINCOLN
02/11/97 287 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y5 N14 E1
02/11/97 287 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/11/97 288 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 1(FIN) AM
02/11/97 288 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 5
UNAN CONSENT
02/11/97 288 (S) AM NO 5 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/11/97 288 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
02/11/97 288 (S) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, MACKIE, PHILLIPS
02/11/97 289 (S) PASSED Y17 N2 E1
02/11/97 289 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/12/97 316 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/12/97 317 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/13/97 330 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/13/97 330 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/13/97 349 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MULDER
02/18/97 388 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): COWDERY
03/07/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/07/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/07/97 594 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/10/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/14/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 150
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 508
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-6595
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor SB 1
BILL PARKER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
4500 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 207
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 269-7397
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on SB 1
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-42, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 1:25 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Con Bunde, Eric Croft, Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman
Joe Green. Representative Norman Rokeberg arrived at 1:30 p.m.,
Representative Jeannette James arrived at 1:31 p.m. and
Representative Brian Ported arrived at 2:00 p.m.
HB 150 - LEASE-PURCHASE SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL
Number 063
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members they would first consider HB 150,
"An Act giving notice of and approving a lease-purchase agreement
with the City of Seward for the construction and operation of an
addition to the Spring Creek Correctional Center, and setting
conditions and limitations on the facility's construction and
operation." He noted that Mayor Louis Bencardino, City of Seward,
and Ron Garzini, the City Manager, would be available via
teleconference for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS advised members that HB 150 was asking to
provide a bond situation for the City of Seward to bond and expand
the existing Spring Creek Correctional facility in Seward, Alaska,
and to enter into a lease agreement with the state of Alaska. He
noted that eventually, the state would pay off the bond and own the
facility. Representative Davis pointed out that the state would
operate the facility, and the bill did not entertain, in any
degree, any privatization.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS advised members that the bill indicated the
estimated cost of the project, and estimated annual payments,
although he pointed out that there were always varying views on a
construction estimate. He noted that testimony had taken place
previously of various estimates on the dollars that it might take
to construct the expansion under the required building codes.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT expressed that during the last hearing on
the proposed legislation, some comparisons had been made regarding
the cost of expanding the Spring Creek Correction Center, to the
cost of the private facility in Arizona, or any private prison. He
stated that Representative Rokeberg had tallied the fiscal notes,
which took into account indirect costs on the fiscal notes, such as
inmate programs and inmate health care. Representative Croft
understood those were not to be part of the Arizona bench marks.
Number 380
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that Margot Knuth come forward to respond to
questions, and announced that it was Ms. Knuth's birthday, and
welcomed her on behalf of the members of the House Judiciary
Committee.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
representing the Department of Corrections, thanked members for the
birthday wish. In response to Representative Croft's concern, Ms.
Knuth advised members that the Arizona price did not include health
care funds, nor inmate programs that would be available at the
Spring Creek Correctional Center. She noted that if members were
to include those costs, they would be comparing apples to apples,
and they would be comparable.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if Ms. Knuth had an estimate of the health
costs and program costs if they were added on to the Arizona
numbers.
MS. KNUTH could not provide an accurate figure, although pointed
out that Deputy Commissioner Bill Parker was available and could
possibly answer that.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt Deputy Commissioner Parker could also address
the issue of how much infrastructure the expansion of the Spring
Creek facility would not have, compared to another piece of
proposed legislation in the House Judiciary Committee.
MS. KNUTH advised members that with the Spring Creek facility,
there would be a need to address some of the infrastructure and
core facilities that need expanding. She advised members that the
Spring Creek facility was a maximum and close custody facility, and
because the state was in particular need for medium beds, that the
Palmer Correction Center was the cheapest place to expand for those
beds. Ms. Knuth advised members they had arrived at a figure of
$59,000 for expansion at the Palmer facility because it simply
added beds and extended the fence around the perimeter.
MS. KNUTH pointed out that one of the other differences between the
cost of the Arizona facility and the Spring Creek Correctional
Center was whether there would be programs provided for inmates,
which costs money; however, a return hoped to be realized was a
reduction in the recidivism rates by providing those programs,
which was definitely a part of the mission of the Department of
Corrections.
Number 642
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that if the state were to enter into an
agreement as laid out in HB 150, would there be a bonding that
would prevail in case a problem arose mid-stride, and the state
would not be held with a partially completed addition.
MS. KNUTH believed that through testimony heard on another matter,
that was something that was usually addressed in the contracting
process. She would expect that to be a condition that the state of
Alaska would address to make sure they were in an appropriate
position in that respect.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked if facilities were, typically, used
longer than 15 years.
MS. KNUTH advised members that the life expectancy of a facility,
as well as an expansion, would exceed 15 years; however, she did
not know if there was a set life expectancy for facilities in
Alaska. She stated that that had been a concern when comparing
construction projects that had been designed by Alaskans, for
Alaska, compared with projects that could be designed for use in
the Lower 48, in trying to bring those blue print plans up to
Alaska because Alaska's conditions were somewhat harsher than some
of the other climates. Ms. Knuth advised members that was one of
the issues that makes the state want to be involved in design
plans, and being a part of the construction at some level, to make
sure that it would have a life expectancy of 30 plus years.
CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed that Representative Porter, who was
generally always at committee early, or on time, may or may not
join the committee as his Step-father passed away that morning.
Number 845
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE pointed out that a criticism that often
arose was that the state was all for locking people up, but once
that was done, there was the lack of a place to put them once
sentenced to prison. He advised members he would be voting in
support of HB 150. Representative Bunde understood that the Spring
Creek Correctional Center was a maximum security facility; however,
while that was not the prime thrust of the state's prison growth,
he was pessimist enough to believe the facility would be used for
some time to come.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he would also like to see more
expansion of the medium security facilities in the state, that
there might be the possibility of Palmer, Alaska, and other areas
within the state, to follow what the city of Seward was doing with
the Spring Creek facility.
Number 953
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved to report HB 150 out of committee with
individual recommendations, and attached fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He advised members that he had
served on the budget subcommittee for the Department of Corrections
for the third year now. He advised members that he understood the
desire of the bill sponsor in bringing the bill forward because he
understood that it would increase the economic activity in the city
of Seward and part of the Kenai Peninsula, and also his commitment
to making sure the state had an adequate system for incarcerating
prisoners, as well as the need for hard beds in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated with that, he very much opposed HB
150 because he felt it would be a detriment to other legislation
before the committee, the private prison bill. And also because he
felt it was a part of a failed idea, on the part of the
administration, to put together a combination bond package of
facility expansion throughout the state. Representative Rokeberg
pointed out that they were talking about expending $150 million,
and he felt there should be more backup support, and additional
thinking put into developing such a plan.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he was also concerned with
the site selection for the expansion of the Spring Creek facility.
He noted the fact that the current facility was built on a flood
plain, and he did not feel the state should be expanding facilities
in areas that clearly had some structural and development
deficiencies. Representative Rokeberg advised members he was also
concerned with what he felt was gross-disinformation provided by
the city of Seward before the Corrections budget subcommittee.
Number 1163
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that he would vote in favor of HB
150 for three reasons. He advised members that it was popular in
its community, it would keep the money in the state, and he felt it
was reasonably priced. Representative Croft pointed out that
during a previous hearing, Representative Rokeberg totalled the
Department of Corrections fiscal notes on the bill, and the
Department of Revenue's lease term, which came to $10 million, or
approximately $110 per inmate, and as he pointed out earlier,
Representative Croft advised members that it included indirect
costs, whereas the Arizona facility did not include those costs.
He stated when backing out those numbers, it equates to $82 per
inmate, per day figure, still a little higher than Arizona numbers,
but much more comparable and defensible, given spending $82 in the
state, rather than $70 outside.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that after the 15 year debt
service was over, the state still had the facility, and at that
point, the cost per inmate, per day, would drop to $54. He stated
that that would be a higher, but reasonable cost, during the lease
life of the facility, but it would be lower once the debt service
was paid off. Representative Croft stated that combined with the
other features; popularity in the community of Seward, and that the
monies would be spent in the state, rather than outside, makes HB
150 close to an ideal solution, and if not ideal, at least
practical.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the grossed out figure, with respect
to Arizona inmates per day, was $72. He disputed the basic
premises about the numbers because he did not feel the expansion
could be built for the price indicated. Representative Rokeberg
noted that even though the state would own the facility after 15
years, it did not assume any kind of maintenance funds, or other
repair and deferred maintenance charges that would normally be
accounted for in a private sector type real estate building
project, which he felt was most prudent.
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS felt the discussion related to finance
questions, and pointed out that there was a crisis situation in the
state with respect to overcrowded prisons, and he felt it was
necessary that something be done. He noted that HB 150 was an
option in the tool box for the Department of Corrections, of all
the things that might be acceptable to the entire legislature.
Representative Davis advised members that HB 150 was an option, and
felt it should remain on the table as an option.
MS. KNUTH did not believe there was any conflict, or inconsistency
between HB 150 and HB 53, as well as several other expansion or
construction concepts that were being put forth. She explained
that there truly was a significant prisoner over-population
problem, and the Spring Creek facility was designed for maximum
security and the facility proposed in HB 53 was for a medium
security facility; however, expressed that the state needed all the
medium beds they could get; 1000 at least.
Number 1453
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed with Representative Rokeberg that there were
flood problems at the Spring Creek facility; however, reminded
members that the Trading Bay facility was built on a flood plain
and had existed there for over 30 years, and had even withstood Mt.
Spur blocking up the river causing all sorts flooding problems, and
in that case, none of the Trading Bay tanks were in jeopardy.
Chairman Green pointed out that construction science had said that
building on a flood plain was not all bad, in fact, the gravel
provides for a very good foundation. Chairman Green felt that the
contract would be the critical issue, and the criteria required as
well as type of operation specified, that it would be in the
contract, and if no one could meet the contract, the issue may have
to be re-visited. Chairman Green stated that if the city of Seward
entered into a contract with the state, they would be held to that
contract, and the bonding would be a part of the contract. He
noted also that Ms. Knuth had alluded to the same problem with HB
53, and consequently from the Cleary decision, the state's prisons
were overcrowded presently, with a predicted escalation in the rate
of incarceration of 8 percent. Chairman Green stated that worse
than that, through feedback he had gotten, judges were reluctant to
assign full sentencing because of the lack of prison space. He
felt that sent the wrong message to the potential offender, and
thought that as a state, they should say, yes, it would be
expensive, but there had been enough crime.
Number 1566
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if it was safe to assume that for the
maximum security facilities, if space were available and the need
existed, that medium or minimum prisoners could be placed in that
facility; however, a medium or minimum security facility could not
house a maximum custody prisoner.
MS. KNUTH advised members that would be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that he spent a week at
the Spring Creek Correctional Center in the past through his law
practice, and he felt that it was a well run facility. He noted
that one of the problems he had encountered during his time as a
state prosecutor was that all too frequently they would have to
structure agreements, not so much for the high-end cases, but for
the low-end cases, which ultimately dismissed B misdemeanors; the
B misdemeanants turn into C felons, et cetera, and if not
corrected, they turn into larger problems. Representative
Berkowitz felt it was important to have a facility of the nature of
the Spring Creek facility, and also it would be flexible, as
pointed out by Representative James; high security areas could be
used to house medium custody prisoners.
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated with respect that there were other
pieces of legislation addressing the prison population problem,
that he did not know that the state would have private prisons;
however, even so, they would not be maximum security prisons.
Representative Bunde stated that from his view, there was the need
for space at various levels, and what was before members, HB 150,
was an available option and he did not believe it interfered with
the legislature considering other options.
Number 1726
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS spoke to the flood plain problem at the Spring
Creek facility, and advised members that initially there were flood
problems in the design of the facility; however, the facility had
functioned adequately after some corrections were made. He noted
that it was obvious where the problems come from, and obvious what
could be done to correct those problems. Representative Davis
pointed out that, as had been testified in committee, the
foundation would be elevated with any expansion of the facility, as
well as other options available to correct the problems that
occurred in the initial construction of the Spring Creek facility.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS advised members that the state would not take
over, or make payments, until the facility was completed and
accepted by the state, and he thought Ms. Knuth could verify that.
MS. KNUTH advised members that would be correct.
Number 1769
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that while speaking with Mr. Garzini
and Mayor Bencardino, one of the plans included deepening the
channel to the point that it could handle a large body of water
without having to spread horizontally. This would also benefit the
site construction phase because they could utilize the dredged out
gravel.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked that members consider the state's
priority needs when considering spending the state's limited amount
of funds for the purpose of expanding the state's prison
facilities. He pointed out that a pre-sentence facility was needed
in the Anchorage area, and he also felt, personally, that a women's
prison facility was needed in the state. Additional medium beds
were especially needed, as well as soft beds, in terms of
priorities to handle the growing prisoner populations within the
state. Representative Rokeberg felt it was necessary to consider
a rational, long range plan, that would consider all constituent
elements of all the state's needs, and prioritize those as to how
to spend state dollars. He stated that if the Governor was not
going to do that, it would be the legislature's responsibility, but
he did not feel HB 150 fit into that plan, adding that it might be
a constituent element of the total plan; however, he felt prior to
authorizing something, it needed to be done in a rational, overall,
well planned out and thought out manner.
Number 1854
CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that the state was experiencing prison
overcrowding in all but three facilities, and it was projected that
within a two year period, or the conclusion of the construction of
a new or expanded facility, the state would be right back where it
started. It was his suggestion that rather than bail out of
Cleary, only to find you would be dealing with the same situation
in the near future, that it would be worth some state dollars.
Chairman Green pointed out that for at least five years that he had
been in the legislature every majority member he had spoken to had
used "fight crime" as a high priority issue which needed to be
addressed.
Number 1920
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection was maintained on the motion
to report HB 150 out of committee. Representative Rokeberg
maintained his objection, so Chairman Green requested a roll call
vote. In favor: Representatives Bunde, James, Croft, Berkowitz
and Chairman Green. Opposed: Representative Rokeberg.
Representative Porter was not present during this roll call vote.
The motion passed 5 to 1. HB 150 was reported out of committee
with the attached fiscal notes.
CSSB 1(FIN) am - "NO FRILLS" PRISON ACT
Number 1958
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business would be CSSB
1(FIN) am, "An Act relating to living and working conditions of
prisoners in correctional facilities operated by the state, and
authorizing the commissioner of corrections to negotiate with
providers of detention and confinement services under contract to
apply those conditions and limitations on services to persons held
under authority of state law at facilities operated under contract
or agreement; relating to services provided to prisoners; amending
the definition of `severely medically disabled' applicable to
prisoners seeking special medical parole; amending provisions of
the correctional industries program; and extending the termination
date of the Correctional Industries Commission and the program."
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Prime Sponsor, noted that most of what was in
the bill passed out of both the House and the Senate the previous
year; however, he would walk members through the proposed
legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the proposed legislation was,
basically, patterned after federal legislation that limited the
types of activities and certain privileges afforded prisoners in
the federal prison system.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 2 dealt with the
general intent of the legislation, which was that the Commissioner
of the Department of Corrections should maintain state prisons only
as required by the State's Constitution and the Federal
Constitution, unless there was good reason for doing something more
than specified within the Constitution, such as fostering
rehabilitation programs and rewarding good behavior.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that Section 3 dealt with a question the
legislature visited approximately four years ago. He advised
members that the state was responsible for the vast majority of an
inmate's medical care while incarcerated. Senator Donley pointed
out that those inmates who were terminally ill, bed-ridden, or in
wheel chairs, which were very expensive situations, that it was not
always in the public's interest that those individuals be
maintained in a locked up situation with the state being
responsible for all their medical expenses. Senator Donley advised
members that several years ago, the legislature changed the law to
allow furloughs for inmates who were confined to bed and did not
pose a threat to society. Senator Donley expressed that it had
been hoped to capture approximately 10 prisoners a year under that
condition; however, only captured approximately 5 inmates a year.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the language of Section 3 would
extend that practice to include prisoners in wheelchairs, or
incapacitated by other serious illnesses that would no longer pose
a threat to society, and allow those individuals to be furloughed.
Senator Donley advised members that the department had a very good
record of being very conservative of who they furlough under those
provisions, and also sensitive to public sentiment. Senator Donley
explained that by releasing those individuals, the medical costs
would be shifted back to the Medicaid, Medicare system, which would
mean that only 50 percent of the costs would be born by the state
in the catastrophic illness situations. He noted that medical
bills for those types of situations could range up to a half a
million per person, and Section 3 could provide a significant
savings to the state, even if only one or two inmates fell into
that category.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 4 identified the duties
of the commissioner, and referenced particular limitations that
appear for the living conditions of prisoners under Section 5.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed that Section 5 included the more
controversial elements of the bill that dealt with the "frills"
that were available. He explained that Section 5 specifically
listed some of the limitations placed on living conditions for
prisoners that did not currently exist in statutory law. Senator
Donley advised members that the bill would require a limit on the
per capita expenditures for food for prisoners. He pointed out
that the system they arrived at would be based on the food
expenditures that the United States Army used for providing food
for soldiers in the state of Alaska, and the department could not
exceed 90 percent of what the U.S. Army expends. Senator Donley
expressed that the 90 percent figure was an arbitrary number, and
was slightly over what the current costs for food was in the state;
however, placed a cap on the amount the department could spend.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed that there was a natural tendency for a
conflict to be created between the philosophy of the Department of
Corrections and the philosophy, he felt, the general public would
have about how people should be treated in prisons. He thought the
public saw prisons as being for punishment and rehabilitation, and
the department saw prisons, from the point of view of having to
manage people while locked up. Senator Donley pointed out that
things that make an inmate happier, resulted in easier management
of the prisons, and he felt there was a general conflict between
the mission of the department and how the public viewed the
function of prisons. He explained that the general philosophy of
the bill was an attempt to find the middle ground, and set out some
guidelines so the two competing, general tendencies, would be
moderated and standards applied.
Number 2270
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that a provision was included that
would not allow for exclusive, private rooms, but allow the prison
guards to be able to see into individual rooms. He explained that
if the department should obtain an existing building in the future,
such as a military base facility, there would not be a large cost
in order to comply with the provision of requiring the ability to
see in any individual room.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the proposed legislation would
specifically limit the types of television and movies available to
inmates. Basic cable service, only, would be available in state
correctional facilities. Senator Donley noted that there was a
discrepancy between the various state facilities as to what types
of television cable services were allowed, and that was because it
was left up to the discretion of the superintendent of each
facility. He noted that some areas in the state were not able to
get broadcast, free television, and that was one reason for cable
services provided in those areas; however, Senator Donley did not
feel HBO, Cinemax, and the Playboy channel should be allowed to
prisoners.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members the proposed legislation would
specifically prohibit prisoners from having cassette tape players,
recorders, video cassette recorders, computers, or modem of any
type in their cells. He explained that cassette tape players had
been a particular problem to the prison system because they could
be dismantled for the purpose of hiding contraband in them, easier
than a CD player could.
TAPE 97-42, SIDE B
Number 000
SENATOR DONLEY advised members the proposed legislation would
prohibit certain rated movies, such as R-rated movies, and also
prohibits pornographic materials.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that the proposed legislation provided
for a longer implementation phase, and would not become effective
until two years after enacted. He explained that much of what the
bill included were actually goals of the Department of Corrections,
and the delayed effective date would provide additional time to
reach those goals, but at the same time, it would provide a
deadline for reaching those goals.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members the bill also provided for specific
limitations on the types of instructions an inmate could receive
and prohibited boxing, wrestling, judo and other martial arts, as
well as things the commissioner thought could facilitate violent
behavior.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed that prisoner access to free weights was
prohibited, and pointed out that many other states were banning
free weights. The state of Louisiana had just banned free weights
and turned them over to the public schools. Free weights were
consider dumb bells and weights not attached, such as a universal
gym and fixed equipment, which would still be allowed.
Number 132
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referenced page 4, line 28, CSSB 1(FIN) am,
which stated "free weights or other equipment for use in the
activities listed in (D) of this paragraph", and asked if they were
banning free weights generally, or only if they had to do with
wrestling, karate or other things.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that free weights would be banned
generally, and also equipment that could be used in activities
listed in (D), which related to martial arts training equipment.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Subsection (F) limited the
types of electronic appliances that could be available to prisoners
in individual cells. Subsection (H), page 5, again addressed the
use of computers and would be allowed in general areas of the
facility, and the use of those would have to be related to the
inmate's employment, education or vocational training, and not used
for other purposes, such as entertainment.
Number 198
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that conversations he had
had with prison guards was that they liked having televisions and
certain types of diversions available because they provided
distinguished pacifiers. He felt that banning the use of certain
entertainment items might jeopardize the guards, and asked if that
was a concern.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that that was a perfect example of the
types of conflicts of interests that were taking place between
running the system and what was perceived by the public. He stated
that by placing specific restrictions in statute, the pressure
would be off the administrators and prison guards, because no
options would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was anything that currently
prevented a superintendent from establishing prison regulations, or
the Department of Corrections from establishing uniform regulations
that would have the kind of effect as in the proposed legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY felt the department could establish regulations to
accomplish much of what was included in the bill; however, the
prison structure in the state of Alaska involved the guards
belonging to one union, supervisors fell under another union, and
the administrators of the prisons fell under another union. He
advised members that there was no exempt executive direction over
the prisons because everyone was unionized and autonomous as to how
they run their separate facilities, which resulted in a lot of
inhibitors towards uniform policy. Senator Donley felt that was
another advantage of placing things in statute because it provided
a statutory benchmark of what is acceptable and what is not. He
added that there was yet a lot of flexibility within the proposed
legislation for prisoner award purposes.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the language made clear that
any expense for providing televisions, in individual cells or the
cable services, would be paid for by the individual inmate. He
stated that currently, cable charges were being paid for by the
prisoners, although he was not sure regarding the remote facilities
where there was no broadcast capability.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if a prisoner would be allowed to
have a television in his/her cell if they were not classified as
maximum custody.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that would be correct, and the
criteria was set out on page 5.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if that exemption would also apply
to having a computer in an individual's cell.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that computers would not be allowed in an
individual inmate's cell. He felt that the ability of a prisoner
to have a personal computer in his/her cell was a much greater
luxury than having a television, and added that televisions would
only be allowed in individual cells for reward purposes. Senator
Donley pointed out that it would also be very difficult to monitor
what someone might be doing on a personal computer in a cell as
well as questionable programs that could be loaded.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that page 5 included the provision
that allowed for individual televisions in cells for incentive
purposes. He explained that the commissioner could allow
prisoners, other than those in a maximum security facility, to have
a television in their cell under certain conditions; i.e., had
obtained a high school diploma, or a general education development
diploma (GED), or the equivalent; were actively engaged in
educational, vocational training or employment programs; had
satisfied any court orders, if applicable, and actively engaged in
a treatment program.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members with respect to violent offenders,
or sex offenders in prison, that there was no means to compel them
to partake in rehabilitation programs ordered by the courts. He
stated that if the individual chose not to go through sex offender
treatment programs, or other programs, there was no way to force
those programs on the prisoner, and that was where the television
incentive could come into play.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that prisoners were subject to
administrative sanctions if they did not comply with regulations
and rules, and that, in itself, would be an incentive to comply.
SENATOR DONLEY was not familiar with any administrative sanctions
that could be imposed because of an inmate not wanting to
participate in specific programs.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ advised members that, as far as he
understood it, an inmate could be thrown in the "hole" if he/she
refused to participate in programs that had been recommended they
take part in. He noted that the loss of privileges was always
available, as well as close confinement.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that that might be true; however, even if it
was true, he felt the television incentive was a powerful
motivator.
Number 566
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was Senator Donley's intent to
allow a prisoner to have a television in his/her cell because of
his/her custody classification, or the type of facility the
individual was housed in.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members it would be by classification of the
institution. He stated that in Seward, the state's maximum
security prison, he had been told that they did not allow private
televisions in the cells there now, that they have common areas
where televisions are provided. Senator Donley reiterated that
they attempted to deal with that issue by institution.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that the language on page 5,
(d), appeared to address the individual's custody level, rather
than the type of institution one was housed in. He stated that he
knew that periodically, prisoners, other than maximum security
prisoners, were placed in maximum security facilities and he would
not want to create a conflict for the institution.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that he would consider language that would
accomplish Representative Porter's concern; although, expressed
that it was his thought to give the direction to the Department of
Corrections so there would be no variables within an individual
institution.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested further consideration of that
particular language.
Number 638
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES understood that the management of prisoners
was critical to the Department of Corrections, and it was important
to keep the inmates busy. She referenced all the restrictions laid
out in the bill and asked if any of those restrictions would take
away an inmate's ability to keep busy.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that he did not believe so, and
added that clearly, there was a lot of opportunity to do less
attractive types of activities, such as read a book, enroll in a
type of correspondence course, et cetera, rather than sitting and
watching cartoons on television. He stated that one of the
purposes behind the bill was that before an inmate is allowed to do
certain things, they would have to engage in things that would
assist in their rehabilitation.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that on page 6, line 3, the bill
sets out a fee for utility services for prisoners. He expressed
that one other state had implemented such a provision, and the
estimates in the fiscal note reflected that the fees accumulated
would amount to the department's cost to administer the program.
Senator Donley pointed out that he was not adamant about that
section, although thought it would give some sense of
responsibility to the inmates. He added that the purpose was to
provide some sense of responsibility because individuals were
imprisoned for a purpose and should not be entitled to everything,
and should have to pay for services used.
Number 792
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed that if that provision provided for
a "break-even" deal, it would be his suggestion to increase the
fee, and pointed out that inmates who had jobs in prison did make
a few dollars a day.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that a prisoner could not be forced to
work in prison, which he felt 90 percent of the public did not
realize. He noted that you could encourage the prisoner to work,
or ask them to work, but they were not required to. Senator Donley
pointed out that there was a provision that addressed the situation
of providing for more opportunities for people to work while
incarcerated, than currently existed. He noted that if the
committee wished to increase the fee, that anything over $2 per
month would make it more profitable to the department.
Number 850
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the ability to serve different menus would
be available as a work incentive. Senator Donley had not heard
that thought before, although pointed out that he had been told
that food was a huge motivator; however, had not thought about
discriminating among the prisoners, as far as the type of food they
could receive.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referenced the $2 fee imposed on prisoners for
utility service, and felt that those who had achieved the right to
have a television in their cell should have to pay that fee.
However, if an individual refused to work, and refused to pay their
$2 monthly utility bill, how would that be dealt with by the
department.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that the fee would involve electrical
appliances the individual inmate uses, and if they refused to pay
the fee, they could be denied the privilege of having access to
those appliances in their cells.
Number 940
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the language was not clear, with
respect to electrical appliances; however, suspected they were
talking about multiple electrical appliances. She stated for
example, if an inmate had an electric shaver, that would be fairly
basic and not require a $2 monthly charge, but if the inmate had
multiple electrical appliances the fee would come into play.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members what they were really attempting to
capture were televisions and other major types of electrical
appliances an inmate might have in his/her cell.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would be possible for an inmate to wind
enough electrical cords together for the purpose of hanging
himself, or herself, because they had access to enough appliances
in their cell to accomplish that.
SENATOR DONLEY stated that could be possible if enough electrical
appliances were allowed in an individual's cell.
SENATOR DONLEY continued with his overview and referred to Section
6, which amended the existing laws regarding the responsibility, or
ability of the state to recoup costs for specific medical services.
He advised members that the added language makes clear that when it
was appropriate for the state to seek reimbursement for provided
medical services, they could seek reimbursement for a portion of
those costs, at least.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what would occur if a person
incarcerated had health insurance, and if the state would be able
to seek compensation for health care costs from the insurance
carrier, or some other program, such as someone eligible for health
treatment under ANS.
SENATOR DONLEY recalled that question several years ago, and
thought the department attempted to recover those funds, if they
were available.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that provision would probably depend on whether
the person was a felon or misdemeanant.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the department would attempt to pursue
third party payments if other insurance was available. He stated
that the use of Medicaid, or Native medical assistance was not
allowed to be recovered or used to pay for prisoner's medical care
under federal statute. Representative Rokeberg asked if there was
currently a provision that addressed co-payment of medical services
by inmates.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that Section 6, AS 33.30.071(c) was
existing language and the proposed legislation added more
flexibility for the department in the statute. He advised members
that there could be times the department would find it was not
appropriate, or feasible, to require the prisoner to pay the entire
cost, although there could be times when the department felt it
would be appropriate to recoup a portion of the cost for medical
services. Those cases could include whether it was a preexisting
medical condition.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if existing law provided for a token
payment or medical co-payment for a visit to the infirmary, for
example.
SENATOR DONLEY recalled legislation that passed the previous year
which adopted a sick-call payment system. Regulations had been
promulgated and were sitting in the Lt. Governor's Office, and
would require a $4 payment for an inmate to go to sick-call.
Senator Donley pointed out that other states had implemented such
a system and it had been very effective, and had dramatically
reduced the number of inmates showing up for sick-call.
SENATOR DONLEY continued, and advised members that Section 7
required that prisoners be productively employed for as many hours
each day as feasible, and deleted the "40 hours per week" language
because they did not feel there was a need to reflect that in
statute.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 8 placed guidelines as
to when inmates could file law suits in an effort to curtail
recreational litigation. He explained that a lot of prisoners
become fairly good jail house lawyers and tend to file a lot of law
suits. Section 8 would place some limitations on their access to
the legal system, because the vast majority were harassment cases.
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members that in 1994, the state of
California, in their "No frills" bill, added a provision for legal
assistance co-payment, and asked if Senator Donley had considered
that.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that in the state of Alaska, under the
Cleary decision, the state is mandated to provide law libraries at
each facility. He advised members that providing up to date law
libraries was a very expensive process. Senator Donley noted that
some of the private prisons, rather than providing a law library,
provide the inmates with lawyers because it was cheaper to have a
lawyer available to the prisoners than to provide an up to date law
library in the facility. Senator Donley felt it would become a
question under Cleary if the department could charge for the use of
the law libraries.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 9 addressed a very
serious problem of prisoners making unmonitored phone calls from
prison. He expressed that an incident took place in the state not
too long ago where incarcerated individuals made phone calls and
caused very serious crimes to be committed outside. Senator Donley
thought the state had a judgment against it as a result of that
particular case.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that the original legislation
mandated that phone calls, by prisoners, be monitored, and the
department had said that in order to do that, it would cost
approximately $750 thousand to implement a system to accomplish
that. Senator Donley advised members that Section 9 was modified
in the Senate to no longer mandate the monitoring of all phone
calls, but to "spot" monitor, or record inmate's phone calls. He
noted that there were a number of senators concerned with
prisoner's abilities to make personal phone calls, and had even
suggested that it might be worth it for the state to implement its
own monitoring system. Senator Donley expressed that it was
decided to allow the department time to execute and implement their
plan to see how it worked, rather than expending $750 thousand for
a telephone monitoring system.
Number 1616
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was testimony on the Senate
side regarding a prisoner calling outside of the institution in
which a recorded message would be heard by the receiver of the call
that, in fact, it was a call from a prisoner in a correctional
facility, and if the individual did not want to accept the call to
hang up.
BILL PARKER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
advised members that policy had been implemented at the Spring
Creek Correctional Center in Seward, Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 4, line 28, and advised
members that he read that language the same as Representative Croft
did. It appeared that free weights would be allowed if it was not
for the purpose of supporting boxing, wrestling, judo, karate, et
cetera, and stated that if they wanted to exclude free weights
entirely, members might consider that language.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER also referred to page 5, line 1, and asked
what they were precluding the possession of.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members it would place into statute limits
that the department may adopt within particular correctional
facilities, to limit gang identification, and other types of dress
or appearance that might tend to be disruptive to prison
discipline.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed his apologies; however, it was
necessary for him to leave at this point.
CHAIRMAN GREEN respectfully understood Representative Porter's need
to leave the committee meeting.
SENATOR DONLEY moved on to explain Section 10, which added to
existing law, that in addition to realistic work experience, it
would empower the department to provide vocational training for
prisoners. He advised members that the department was very
supportive of that concept, and felt that language would grant more
flexibility to provide for rehabilitative and vocational training
programs for incarcerated individuals.
CHAIRMAN GREEN felt that would go long way in answering
Representative James concern regarding idle time. He asked if the
inmate would be charged for the training, or if it would be
provided free by the department.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed that he had not considered that, although
he did not believe anything would prohibit the department from
charging for the training. He noted that there was currently a
constitutional mandate to provide for rehabilitation programs.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that Section 12 clarified that the
commissioner would not be required to establish and administer a
vocational training program, because it would require a massive
fiscal note on the bill. He noted that they would rather see the
department come back, through the budget process, to develop a
vocational training program.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that Section 13 was conforming
language to the prisoner utility service fee, and Section 14
extended the sunset date for the correctional industries program.
Number 1956
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he was supportive of inmates
having the opportunity of being gainfully employed because it did
relate to rehabilitation; however, he noted that he had received
complaints from people regarding competition with the private
sector as it related to the prison industries program.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that some people were reluctant to
allow vocational training programs for prisoners because they
thought that when the individual was released from prison, they
would be trained to do jobs and would compete for jobs in the
market place. He stated that he was not persuaded that that was
the best public policy, and added that the state should give
incarcerated individuals the ability to support themselves when
they are released. Senator Donley felt that was a higher public
policy goal than simply preventing competition for jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed to members he meant to approach the
issue in a different perspective, such as the slaughter house, or
inmates being involved in a basic industry that competed with the
private industry.
CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed that that concern had been expressed with the
furniture making, laundry facilities, and the slaughter house where
the inmates were actually operating those types of programs and
were in direct competition with the private sector.
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES advised members that was the point she was
going to put forth, and pointed out that the prison she remembered
when growing up was the Oregon State Penitentiary which was a farm.
She suspected that they may have sold some things, but mostly
raised farm products for their own use. Representative James
advised members there had been a terrible quagmire this year at Mt.
McKinley Meats, where people wanted to bring their animals in for
slaughter; however, that was not possible because the slaughter
house was full, and the reason for that was because the prison
could not advertise because they were not allowed to compete.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that it worked both ways, and
believed that vocational training of prisoners was important, but
it would be important to be careful when setting up a prison
business because if they could not compete, they could not sell the
product, which was a defeating process in both directions.
Number 2180
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that the prison industries program
turned out some excellent furniture, but could not undercut the
local market.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out with respect to vocational training,
that it was the department's belief they could seek federal funds
for those programs.
CHAIRMAN GREEN undoubtedly agreed with the concept of providing
vocational training programs to inmates if the state wanted to
establish some break in recidivism, and teaching some sort of skill
would be major step forward.
TAPE 97-43, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the provision related to a
prisoner's living quarters having an un-obstructive view, and asked
if currently there were cells that prohibited guards, or whomever,
to look into a prison cell.
MR. PARKER spoke from the audience and advised members that
generally, correctional officers were able to see into individual
cells.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how the present bill compared with last
years' legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that last years' version, as it came
from the Senate, prohibited all weight lifting equipment. Also,
last years' version did not include the qualifiers in the types of
activities an inmate would have to engage in before they would be
entitled to a television as a reward. The present version also
provided additional safeguards for inmates who did not have the
mental ability, or capabilities to reach certain goals. The
previous version did not allow for a payment schedule, but required
the inmate to make complete restitution prior to receiving a
privilege, or a television in their room. The utility fee was
added to the present version. Senator Donley advised members the
present version also provided for a two-year delay in the effective
date. He pointed out that that had been a big, positive feature
with the department, because it would provide a longer period of
time to gradually phase in the changes outlined in the proposed
legislation.
SENATOR DONLEY reiterated that the bill addressed many areas that
the department had been moving towards on their own, and the two
year delay in the effective date would provide them the time to
complete their current motion in that direction, and also provided
a deadline for them to reach.
SENATOR DONLEY also expressed that the past legislation did not
include a total ban on smoking, or use of tobacco, but allowed the
use of tobacco in designated areas. He noted that since last year,
three or four states had totally banned smoking in their
facilities, and advised members he supported the total ban on the
use of tobacco in SB 1, which was discussed in the Senate at
length. Senator Donley pointed out that smoking, and the use of
tobacco products, was linked to health expenses the state is
required to pay. Of the four states that had totally banned the
use of tobacco products, one state underwent problems and decided
not to continue the ban; however, the other states appeared to be
working fine. Senator Donley stated that in talking to the state
of Texas, where tobacco products were banned totally, their
response was that they had some difficulties when first instituted
because of some guards that would bring in contraband, and those
guards were dismissed. Since then, the state of Texas was not
having problems. Senator Donley felt it was a policy call, because
while individuals are incarcerated, the state is responsible for
their health, and he felt the use of tobacco was clearly a health
related issue.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 3, Section 5, line 23, which
related to the use of Alaska farm products and salmon, and asked if
they could replace salmon with fish, or fish products, which could
include something other than salmon, but still high in protein.
Number 456
SENATOR DONLEY stated that there was a reason for specifically
designating salmon. He advised members that the Senate discussed
that issue extensively and because of the king crab and lobster
scandal that occurred several years ago, they did not want to use
the word seafood because they did not want to authorize that kind
of activity ever again. Senator Donley expressed that the Senate
had considered specifying "pink salmon"; however, the department
had tried to serve pink salmon in the past and the inmates would
not eat it. He noted that because the state had such an abundance
on salmon, they decided to focus on salmon and encourage the use of
salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG felt the bill was a good piece of
legislation. He stated that whether it had any rehabilitative
effect, or even punitive effect, or affect on recidivism was quite
debatable; however, what was provable was that the bill could have
a very positive impact on the ability of the superintendents,
within the institutions, to manage the prisons.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 4, line 10, which
addressed the ratings on movies, and asked why the "NC-17" rate was
included in the bill. He advised members that those movies
involved any movie that was not rated "R", but almost all of
Hollywood's production.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that that had not been an issue in the
Senate, although he knew it was a concern by one member last year,
who was not in the legislature anymore. He did believe there was
a very good reason for prohibiting "R" and "X" rated movies, and
agreed that the "N-17" rate was a "grey" area. Senator Donley
stated that if the committee felt that was an area that ought to be
flexible that he had no problem with that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled debating that issue on the floor
the previous session.
CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that as well.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he had seen some proposed
amendments that had the unmistakable finger prints of the
aforementioned maker of that amendment the previous session.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the utility services fee that
would be imposed on inmates, and advised members he was concerned
with that. It was his belief that inmates received some sort of
work credit, and asked if that could be utilized as a means of
paying the utility service charge, or would it be necessary to
include that in statute. Representative Rokeberg's concern was
whether the $2 fee would apply to each appliance an inmate might
have. He felt the fee needed to be raised, adding that he was all
for generating revenue for the Department of Corrections, and asked
that members consider raising the utility fee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what results the Lemon Creek
Correctional Center in Juneau, Alaska, had realized after banning
smoking in that facility the previous year.
SENATOR DONLEY deferred that question to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that because they were running out
of time, he could wait for that information, although expressed
that there had been some evidence about what had occurred, which he
did not dispute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out with the phone situation, that
there had been a $2.6 million settlement in last year's
supplemental budget because of a law suit that resulted from
inmates use of the telephone while incarcerated. He expressed that
the proposed legislation did not reflect a fee, or co-payment by
the prisoners for use of the phones.
Number 820
SENATOR DONLEY advised members that it was his understanding the
department was negotiating towards that possibility; however, he
would be happy to approach the department and ask specifically,
because he wanted to make the language crystal clear that the
department would have the statutory authority to charge for private
phone calls if the department wanted to.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 9, and the language
relating to reimbursement of utilities fees, and advised members
that with all due respect to everyone else in the state, he would
like to see that listed as number (1), or (2) on the priority list.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the sponsor would consider
accepting an amendment to the title which would speak to any issue
under the Cleary decision, by prohibiting some of those issues. He
pointed out that currently, before disciplining a prisoner, full
due process of the law was required, and asked if the sponsor would
consider that a hostile, or a friendly amendment, or would Senator
Donley suggest he address that under another piece of legislation.
Number 900
SENATOR DONLEY expressed that that was a very important question,
and the reason it was not addressed in SB 1 was because Cleary was
based on the Alaska State Constitution and an interpretation of the
state's due process clause, which was more extensive and offered
more protections than the federal due process clause. Senator
Donley did not feel they could address those issues with a
statutory change; however, advised members that he had a proposed
State Constitutional amendment in the Senate Rules Committee that
would establish the federal standard as the standard for prisoners
in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG advised members he would help carry that
proposed constitutional amendment in the House.
SENATOR DONLEY thanked Chairman Green for bringing the bill before
the House Judiciary Committee, and he added that he felt the
suggestions provided were very positive.
Number 980
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further to come before the House Judiciary
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|