Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/02/1995 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 2, 1995
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HJR 5:Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to terms of legislators
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 81:"An Act relating to the preservation of public
facilities and to appropriations for annual maintenance
and repair, periodic renewal and replacement, and
construction of public facilities.
HEARD AND HELD
* HB 47:An Act relating to the crime of unlawful evasion.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
GENE THERRIAULT, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statementfor HJR 5
KAY BROWN, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 517
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-4998
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 47
GERALD W. BAILEY, Director
Gastineau Human Services
5597 Aisek St.,
Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182
Telephone: 780-4338
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered support for HB 47
KATHERINE BOGS GRAY, Vice President of Operations
Allvest, Inc.
600 Barrow Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska, 99501
Telephone:
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered support for HB 47
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: LIMITING TERMS OF STATE LEGISLATORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Rokeberg, Porter,
Green, Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/18/95 73 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
01/19/95 86 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/02/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: UNLAWFUL EVASIONS CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,Robinson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 33 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 33 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 33 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/02/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 42 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 42 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 42 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION,
FINANCE
01/24/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/24/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/31/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/02/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-7 SIDE A
Number 000
The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was
called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:04 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ogan,
Willis, Robinson, Ivan and Porter. Members absent were
Representative Green.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES stated there was a quorum present. The
meeting was being teleconferenced with Anchorage. She announced
that we would be hearing the bills in the order of HJR 5, HB 81,
and HB 47, as there would be a teleconference on HB 47, starting
at 9:30 a.m. She called Representative Gene Therriault to
testify as the sponsor of HJR 5.
HSTA - 02/02/95
HJR 5 - LIMITING TERMS OF STATE LEGISLATORS
Number 010
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, SPONSOR OF HJR 5, stated he had a
short sponsor statement to read into the record, and then he
would be pleased to answer questions. He said that since the
resolution had been introduced, he had had somewhat of a change
of heart, and he would like to speak about his proposed committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that the blank CS #9-LS0226/F,
dated 1-24-95, proposes to limit the terms of legislators in
relation to regular sessions, as opposed to limiting them in
relation to calendar years, as suggested by the original draft of
HJR 5, as prefiled. He said the work draft proposes that a
legislator may not serve more than 12 full consecutive regular
sessions. He stated that a person may not again serve in the
legislature, either by election or appointment, until at least
two consecutive regular sessions have elapsed. He said that
special session would not count, or would time served filling a
vacancy by appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated that Alaska's voters have
overwhelmingly chosen to support term limits with regards to the
U.S. Congress with 1994s ballot measure #4, which passed with 62
percent of the votes. He further stated that Alaskans have
demonstrated their support for term limits on the municipal
level, with several communities adopting some form of term limits
for local elected officials. He said HJR 5 will give voters the
chance to change the state Constitution, to limit the terms of
state legislators. He said that term limits are a positive
legislative reform, guaranteeing a flow of new legislators and
new ideas. He said the popularity of term limits demonstrates
that career politicians are not desirable. He said term limits
will also level the playing field for challengers facing
incumbents whose power is derived mainly from seniority. He said
that placing a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of
state legislators on the ballot was long overdue in his judgment.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said the changes proposed in the
committee substitute are an attempt to try and go from limiting
the number of calendar years that you can serve, to something
more clear, the number of sessions that a legislator can serve.
He said that going with calendar years created a problem, because
the first year of legislative service is not a full calendar
year, as legislators are sworn into office after the first of the
year. With this in mind, the question arose as to when to start
counting years in office. Did the first year count or not? He
said that was why he decided to count sessions, as that was the
time that legislators spent in the capital drafting legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he didn't count special sessions,
because legislators could end up expiring their terms faster, if
we had more than one session per year.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that if a legislator is
appointed to fill a vacant seat, this does not count as one of
the allowed twelve sessions. He said that according to this
resolution, if a legislator switches from the House of
Representatives to the Senate and is in the middle of his/her
Senate term upon reaching the twelve session limit, then they
would have to leave office at the end of that term. He said that
by putting the limit on the number of terms served, it prevented
a legislator from bouncing back and forth between the House and
Senate, and to thus avoid expiring their term in either body. He
said any combination that adds up to twelve consecutive sessions,
would be the limit allowed. Once reaching that limit, a
legislator would only have to step out for two consecutive terms
before being allowed to run again. He said his main purpose in
proposing this resolution, was to break the incumbent's advantage
by showing the public that other people could do the job
effectively. He said if the incumbent sits out for the required
two sessions, runs for office again and gets elected, then that
was fine.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked for verification that what
was considered a full regular session was just that 120 day
period, and not the 19th legislature, as an example. She further
asked if he thought it was good idea for someone who had run some
combination of House and Senate seats, be required to quit in the
middle of a term. She said she thought that it would place a
disadvantage on this legislator to be able to get elected, as the
public would know that they would not be able to complete their
term.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said he had picked 12 years, because it
was divisible by both two years and four years. He said a person
who is elected to the Senate or the House and serves their career
in the same body, will not experience any difficulty with this
legislation. He said that a legislator, who chooses to switch
between the House and the Senate will know that this could lead
to a situation where they might end up only being able to serve a
partial Senate term. He further stated he didn't believe that it
would end up being that much of a disadvantage, as a person who
runs for the House knows they are only going to serve for two
years. He said that a person who runs for the Senate and knows
they will only serve for two years, will not be any worse off
than if he ran for the House. He also stated that the Senate is
reorganized every two years anyway, and so it really would not be
a disadvantage to a Senator who was only serving two years.
CHAIR JAMES stated she assumed that someone else would run for
the remaining time of the term, and that it would be in a
different legislature, and so not be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated that it would be the same as if
someone was appointed to serve the remainder of a Senate term.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she was not opposed to this bill,
but she was curious if there really was a problem with turnover
in the legislature. She explained that a few days earlier,
former Senator Arliss Sturgelewski, while speaking to the
legislature, had said that she hardly recognized any one of the
current legislators. Thus, Representative Robinson was
questioning whether there really was a problem. She said she was
curious if he had done any research on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that he had looked at how
others were handling this issue, and had found that it was
actually very mixed. He said that some of them allowed 8 years
in the House and 8 years in the Senate, for a total of 16 years.
Others only allowed a total of 8 years, and that there was
considerable controversy over whether 8 or 16 years was more
desirable. Thus, he had opted to go with 12 years, which was
divisible by both 2 and 4, as a compromise between 8 years and 12
years. He also said this would affect very few Alaskan
legislators, as most of them leave elected office before they
serve 12 years. He said when he had gotten elected,
approximately 50 percent of the House was brand new. He said
that it was designed mainly for the exception to the rule. He
said he felt this was good public policy because it allowed the
constituents to see that someone else could fill the position and
do an adequate job. He also thought that elected officials
should step out of office, because it was easy to lose your focus
after serving too long.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON verified that Representative Therriault
had not done any research as to whether there was an Alaskan
problem with term limits.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied that he had not.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if this created a disadvantage to
minority groups.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied that he hadn't done any
research on this question, but he couldn't see how it would be.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if someone who ran for the
Senate, and because of term-limits was unable to finish their
term, whether this vacancy would be filled by appointment or
election.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that he had envisioned an
election, but he really was not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied he thought that legally, this
vacancy would have to be filled by appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained that currently, if a Senator
leaves office, then this seat is filled by election.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that technically this seat would be
retained by the Senator until their term expired at the end of
the year, which would be after the election.
CHAIR JAMES said that currently we hold an election for an
office, which continues to be held by its former occupant after
the election, until their term expires at the end of the year.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed, but said he thought that they might
have to specifically say that this was the intent of this bill.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS stated that he agreed with the concept
of term limits, and this was a strong desire of his constituents.
He said he had made a campaign promise to support legislation for
term limits. He said though, that he was concerned with the idea
of eliminating someone from office before they had finished their
term. He thought that this could really disadvantage this person
at election time, as his opponent could use it against him. He
also wondered how Representative Therriault felt about having it
apply to those who were already in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded that the problem with that
concept was there could be a situation where someone might get
elected on the same ballot where this was approved, and then be
ineligible to serve. Because of this, he felt it was cleaner to
start from scratch.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS commented at least one state makes an
exception for someone who gets elected as a write-in candidate.
He wondered whether it would be possible to make that exception
if this passed.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that it was not, because this bill
required a legislator to sit out for two consecutive sessions,
upon reaching the 12-year limit.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she was concerned whether the
benefits of term limits would outweigh the loss of institutional
memory that would occur as legislators were forced to retire.
She also stated that sometimes she thought that the legislature
wrote laws and changed the constitution when there really was not
a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied there had just been a poll on
that issue, in that in the last election, the voters voted 62
percent in favor of term limits, even though that placed the
state of Alaska at a distinct disadvantage due to our loss of
seniority.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what other states had experienced,
as they lost there more seasoned legislators, due to term limits.
She said that all new legislators turn to their more senior
members for advice.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT responded he also was concerned about
this, and that was one of the reasons he had settled on 12 years.
He said he agreed that the learning curve of new legislators was
steep and long. He said though, he thought that with as much
rotation as there was in the legislature over 12 years, he didn't
think there would be that much loss of institutional knowledge.
He further pointed out that a legislator was only required to sit
out for two years, and he didn't think there would be that much
problem over such a short period of time.
Number 394
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN thought this was a very good bill, and
he thought that a legislator who wished to switch from the House
to the Senate would plan their strategy to be able to serve a
full term in the Senate by sitting out at an earlier time.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said this was a good point, that any
time a legislator sits out for two years, the clock is reset,
allowing them another 12 years to expire.
CHAIR JAMES said she has some reservations about term limits as
to their effectiveness, but the people were really in support of
the concept. She said the question was whether legislators were
there to serve the will of the people or their own personal
agenda, and she thought they should serve the will of the people.
She said her biggest concern was that when she was a freshman
legislator, she looked for support from those longer term
legislators for historical knowledge. She pointed out though,
that the Legislative Research agency was there to answer those
types of questions, and the legislature was thus able to overcome
this loss of institutional knowledge. She said she thought that
12 years was plenty long enough for anyone to serve in the
legislature, and she planned to support this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT pointed out there was a revised fiscal
note on this resolution which recognized that this would take
effect in 1997, not 1996. He also said this had additional
referrals to the Judiciary and Finance committees.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass this
resolution unanimously, with individual recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT asked whether the committee had
officially adopted the workdraft for the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his previous motion and asked that
the committee adopt the committee substitute for HJR 5, version
F, dated 1-24-95, as the working document.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Hearing no
objection, the motion carried.
Number 452
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass the committee substitute for
HJR 5, version F, with individual recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Hearing none, CS
HJR 5 moved out of committee.
HSTA - 02/02/95
HB 81 - PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
CHAIR JAMES announced that the next bill for discussion was HB
81. She asked if there was anyone present who wished to testify
on this bill. As there was no one who wished to testify, she
said she had not planned to move this bill out of committee
without further testimony, but she was not totally opposed. She
said she would accept comment from the committee on this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she also was not opposed to moving
this bill out of committee, but she would like more explanation
as to the fiscal note of this bill.
CHAIR JAMES said that was another reason why this bill couldn't
move out of committee yet, as they did not yet have a current
fiscal note. She said the fiscal note would amount to the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities calculating
the cost of deferred maintenance, divided into 15 years, to
spread the way that would be funded by a capital appropriation.
She said the other part of the bill that she considered equally
important, was the life-cost basis of the ongoing repair and
maintenance that would be required as an operating expense to not
get in a delinquent maintenance situation again. She said the
life-cost basis of calculating was based on the current value of
the building. She said there was a rule of thumb on how much
money was to be spent on maintaining the building each year, and
also in setting money aside for replacement and renewal. For
example, heating systems, which only have a certain lifetime,
which may be less than the lifetime of the building. She said
the main purpose of this bill was to get people to recognize this
needed maintenance, as they could not force a future legislature
to make an appropriation for this expense. She said that
dedicated funds were not allowed. She said this bill would make
the information available.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if there was any requirement that a
certain percentage be set aside each year, as currently many
facilities were allowed to independently decide this for
themselves, and there was no consistency. She said this was why
different facilities were in various states of needed
maintenance.
Number 543
CHAIR JAMES said this bill specifically specifies a cost-life
analysis and this was a pretty common method. She further stated
that Representative Robinson's comments were absolutely right.
She said different facilities had different maintenance programs
and they each had different levels of success with the
maintenance of their buildings. She said she would like to make
sure that our facilities are maintained and that would be
determined by a very scientific method. She said one of the
reasons the university has such a large backlog of maintenance is
that the legislature funds the university, but they are allowed
to spend the monies as they see fit. She said that over a period
of time, they have opted to spend their monies on programs and
other things, as opposed to maintenance. She said the state
needed to protect its assets and make them last as long as
possible, even though this may not be very fun or exciting. She
said that her biggest goal of this legislation was to make the
information available, so that people understood what the needs
were.
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was any prohibition against
creating a law which required that any capital project must be
funded proportionately to account for ongoing repair and
maintenance.
CHAIR JAMES said this was not possible, because the legislature
was prohibited from setting aside dedicated funds. She said the
reason against dedicated funds was that the legislature preferred
to fund things that were more popular than maintenance. She said
the other thing to consider was that the state had a
health-safety issue with employees who were working in unsafe
buildings. She said this forced the state to fund a large
capital project which usually costs more than if they had set
money aside for maintenance. She said she assumed that if they
followed this plan, they would set aside funds for maintenance in
the operating budget, but the amount for renewal and replacement
would probably be a capital appropriation. She said if the money
was set aside each year, the money would be there when something
major needed to be replaced. She said she would like to hold
this bill until a later date so the people who would be involved
could give testimony. She announced that on February 17, 1995,
she would be attending the facilities maintenance conference.
Number 608
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked what type of restrictions this
would place on the rural areas. He asked if it would place any
further limitations on rural areas who need to build an
increasing number of structures for their growing population.
CHAIR JAMES explained that this bill would only apply to specific
agencies who may or may not be delinquent in their maintenance
responsibilities. If an agency or community was not delinquent
in their maintenance, then this bill would not have any affect on
them.
Number 630
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that sometimes it was cheaper to
build a new building than to renovate the old one because of
changes in code requirements and other factors.
CHAIR JAMES explained that this would be part of the evaluation
process of those who would be charged with evaluating the status
of the building. She said if it was found that the building was
so deficient that it was cheaper to build new construction, then
this would be part of the recommendation. She said she thought
that if we were keeping closer track of the maintenance, then we
would have less of these types of situations occurring. She
further stated she thought that it was somewhat premature to try
and push this bill through at this time as they needed more
testimony from the public and the Administration, and she would
like to hold it over until after February 17,1995.
HSTA - 02/02/95
HB 47 - UNLAWFUL EVASIONS CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
Number 658
CHAIR JAMES called for Representative Brown to come up and
testify on HB 47, as she was the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN, SPONSOR OF HB 47, said she introduced
this bill in response to concerns about halfway houses in her
district in downtown Anchorage. She said in her district, they
had the majority of these types of facilities for the entire
state concentrated in a rather small area. She said a few
instances had occurred that had raised concerns as to whether the
penalty was harsh enough to deter people from walking away from
these facilities. She said that right now we have the crime of
unlawful evasion which has two degrees. She said the higher
degree applies to people serving for a felony offense. The lower
degree, which carries a Class B misdemeanor classification, is
for the people who are serving time for a misdemeanor offense.
She said she had been told that a Class B misdemeanor charge for
unlawful evasion in the second degree is not considered a serious
enough offense for law enforcement to want to prosecute on that
basis. She stated that typically, even if a conviction was
gotten, there would probably not be any jail time assigned, as it
is considered the lowest of offenses. She said this bill would
combine the two degrees of unlawful evasion into a single crime
of unlawful evasion, carrying the Class A misdemeanor, which
could carry a penalty of up to a year's assigned jail time. She
further stated there were two amendments to HB 47. She said
amendment 1 would correct a drafting omission in the concealed
weapons permit law. Under the current statute, AS 18.65.705(4),
the citation is made to AS 11.56.350, which is the statute for
unlawful evasion in the second degree, the Class B misdemeanor,
but not to 11.56.340, which is unlawful evasion in the first
degree. She said HB 47 would include unlawful evasion as one of
the misdemeanor crimes that would cause ineligibility for a
concealed weapon permit. People convicted for this offense would
not be able to get a concealed weapon permit for five years. She
said amendment two would be included in page 2, line 17, and
would add the crime of unlawful evasion to the list of crimes for
which there is a mandatory minimum sentence. She said the
mandatory minimum for unlawful evasion, Class A misdemeanor,
would be 180 days of jail time. She said she had been told that
even if there was a separate penalty for Class A misdemeanor, it
still wouldn't be as much of a deterrent as HB 47 to know that
there is the possibility of an automatic sentence. She said that
with HB 47, law enforcement would still have to go to court and
get a conviction, but that at least it would be an automatic
sentence of 180 days. She said this bill would make the law of
the state of Alaska the same as the law of the municipality of
Anchorage. She said this amendment was made at the request of
some citizens of Anchorage. She said in summary, there should be
stronger deterrents to prevent people from walking away from
halfway houses.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN further noted that the fiscal notes on HB 47
were zero fiscal notes.
GERALD W. BAILEY, DIRECTOR OF GASTINEAU HUMAN SERVICES, said he
would urge the committee to support and pass HB 47. He said the
halfway house in Juneau contained both the state halfway house
and also the city misdemeanor jail facility. He said they had
more problems with their misdemeanor prisoners than they did with
their state felony prisoners. He said over the past few years,
they had had five or six walkaways. He said that misdemeanors
don't have as long of a sentence to start with and so they see
that much of a deterrent to walking away from the facility. He
said that prosecutors were very reluctant to prosecute for
unlawful evasion. He said his point was that misdemeanors do not
see the threat of sanctions for walking away and it would be a
bigger deterrent if they did know that they would be prosecuted
and that there was a mandatory sentence.
Number 865
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the people primarily walking away
were misdemeanors or felons.
MR. BAILEY stated they were primarily felons. He said they had
had two state probationer felons who had walked away.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if he was satisfied with the
classification of prisoners that he was receiving at his
facility.
MR. BAILEY replied that he was. He said he knew that there was
some concern with the higher risk offenders that were being
assigned to halfway houses, but the reality was that the felons
assigned to them were much less of a behavior problem for them
because they had more to lose. He said they were aware of this
and knew the difference between the halfway house and the prison.
He said they would rather be in the halfway house. Thus, they
were, in general, more cooperative.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if his facility had problems with
overpopulation.
MR. BAILEY said that because of the way the contracts were
written, they didn't have a population problem with the state
inmates, but they sometimes reached capacity prisoners from the
city. He said they tried to schedule the prisoners time to avoid
this problem.
TAPE 95-7, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what type of misdemeanor inmates
they had in these facilities. What type of crimes were they
committing?
MR. BAILEY said it could be basically anything from domestic
violence to assaults. He said the very violent offenders were
not usually assigned to the halfway house.
Number 025
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked whose responsibility it was to
retrieve inmates who had walked away from the facility.
MR. BAILEY said they work with the Juneau Police Department and
the prosecutor, but they don't restrain inmates trying to walk
away.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if a prisoner who had walked away
was in for domestic violence, if they notified the victim.
MR. BAILEY replied that in many cases they did not know who the
victim was.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what the procedure was for dealing
with a prisoner who had walked away after they were caught.
MR. BAILEY replied they do not go back to the halfway house, but
are sent to the Lemon Creek prison.
Number 065
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the bill would move the Class B
misdemeanor up to a Class A misdemeanor. He asked if the
existing penalty for violation of the Class A misdemeanor was a
mandatory 180-day sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN stated the existing penalty was the same as
the penalties for Class A misdemeanors, in general. She said
this could be a maximum of up to one year in jail and a possible
fine of $5,000. The current Class B misdemeanor was up to 90
days in jail and up to a possible fine of $1,000. She said there
was not enough deterrent for the Class B misdemeanor.
CHAIR JAMES announced that the teleconference was ready. She
asked if Katherine Bogs Gray was on the line.
KATHERINE BOGS GRAY, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, ALLVEST, INC.,
announced by teleconference that she supervised that operation of
the state's four largest community residential centers. She said
these centers contained both felons and misdemeanor offenders.
She said she strongly believed that in order for these programs
to be effective and for the communities in which these facilities
are located to support them, there must be stronger sanctions for
a prisoner who walks away. She said the Department of
Corrections considered someone a walk away if they left either
the facility or their place of assigned employment. She said
that enforcement of a standard was imperative to the effective
control of this type of facility. She said that during fiscal
year 1992, there were 49 walk away prisoners from Allvest Inc.,
out of 45,351 inmates. In 1993, there were 23 out of over 63,000
inmates. In 1994, there were 68 out of 89,531 inmates. She said
that for the first half of this year, there were 38 walk away
prisoners out of 59,633 inmates. These represent both
misdemeanor and felony offenders. She said it had been her
experience that misdemeanors were more likely to walk away from
these facilities than felons. She said these programs were based
on the premise that privileges are awarded for responsible
behavior and inmates taking responsibility for their actions.
She said that for these programs to be truly effective, there
must be appropriate sanctions for walking away.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was anyone else in Anchorage who
wanted to testify. There was no one else at that time. She
asked if anyone wanted to make a motion regarding amendment #1.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS moved to adopt amendment number 1.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any discussion regarding amendment
number 1.
Number 155
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wanted to remind the committee that this
was the amendment which would prevent an individual who had
violated the unlawful evasion law from obtaining or retaining a
concealed carry permit.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the passage of
amendment number 1. Hearing, the amendment passed. She asked if
anyone wanted to move to adopt amendment number 2.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said that he would move to adopt amendment
number 2.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any discussion regarding amendment
number 2.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he would object to amendment
number 2. He said he had to wonder about the proportionate
reality of sentencing someone to a mandatory 180 days that might
have only been in the facility originally for a lesser amount,
such as 72 hours. He said that right now, the law provides the
option of sentencing an individual up to 90 days for a
misdemeanor who walks away. He said he would suspect that the
misdemeanors who walk away are the newer prisoners who do not yet
have an appreciation for the system, or people who regardless of
the deterrent, just don't get the message anyway. He said that
today one of the most serious problems of correctional facilities
was overcrowding. He was concerned that an analysis of the
benefits would show that they would be overshadowed by the
problem of prison overcrowding. He said he just could not
support this amendment.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN stated that she shared some of those same
thoughts that Representative Porter expressed. She said she
would have to ask how these types of facilities fit into our
overall prison management system. She said she represented an
area of downtown Anchorage where there was an enormous
concentration of these types of facilities. She said the people
in this area are reaching the level of tolerance, and there was
an increasing level of concern among people that she represented.
She said she felt that if you could give some type of tool to the
people who were running these facilities, that this was where
this would have the most value of a deterrent. She said where
she lived, people were just not feeling safe anymore. She said
we just needed to find the right balance of where these
facilities fit into our overall corrections system, because they
do alleviate some of the prison overcrowding. She said she would
leave it to the discretion of the committee to decide where that
balance needed to be.
CHAIR JAMES asked if this amendment would alter the zero fiscal
note of this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said she did not know if this would raise
the level of prosecution to warrant a new fiscal note, but it was
meant to be more of a deterrent and a management tool for the
manager of the facility. She thought that we might defer this
question to the Department of Law as they had developed the
fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES asked if she was saying that even if there was a
mandatory sentence, and that if prosecutors still did not
prosecute, then this amendment would have very little fiscal
impact.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN thought that with this scenario, they would
just send the prisoner to prison to finish their original
sentence.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was not a difference in price between
housing prisoners in prison verses the halfway house.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN agreed, saying that the average price of
housing prisoners in prison amounted to about $110.00 per day,
whereas the average cost of housing them in a halfway house was
between $50 and $60 a day. She said where an extra cost might
come in was when you had a prisoner who had an extra 180 days
added to his sentence because he had walked away. She said he
was told that morning, that that would probably be a consecutive
sentence. She said a judge might have the discretion to make it
a concurrent sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER disagreed, saying he thought that it would
probably have to be a consecutive sentence, and so cost more.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she thought that even if it was
concurrent, they would still be required to go to prison and that
would still be a deterrent.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON emphasized that this was meant to be a
tool to help deter walkaways, and a help to more effectively
manage the facility.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said his problem with this was that because
of the lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting these offenses, all
that a halfway house could say was that it was a chance they
could be sent to jail for 180 days. He said they could already
say there was a chance they would be sent to jail for 90 days.
He said he thought that it was inappropriate to create a law that
would not be enforced. He said this message gets out to the
prisoners, and that was worse than not having the law in the
first place.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if this would not have been a
remedy to a situation that had occurred in Anchorage, where an
escapee got a car and killed someone. She thought this might
have been a deterrent to them escaping in the first place.
CHAIR JAMES announced that amendment number 2 was on the floor
for a vote. She asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll-call vote.
Representative Ogan voted no, Representative Ivan voted no,
Representative Porter voted no, Representative Robinson voted
yes, Representative Willis voted yes, Chair James voted no.
The vote was four to two in opposition to this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if they should consult with the
Department of Law to try and come up with a lower mandatory
sentence time.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would certainly consider any
alternative solution to crime problems, either here or in the
Judiciary committee. He said the problem though was that the
most frequent misdemeanor visitor to the facility would be
charged with Driving Under the Influence, who usually have the
lowest amount of recidivism. He said this showed that the
current system was working. He said though that unfortunately
now, because of prison overcrowding, these prisoners have to wait
to serve their sentence. He said this ruins the deterrent effect
and the more of these types of laws that we enact, the worse the
situation is getting.
Number 339
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said she was comfortable with the
committee's decision on this amendment. She said she had brought
it forward at the request of the halfway house in Anchorage, but
had some reservations herself.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON requested that the bill be passed with
individual recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Hearing none, HB
47 was passed.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 9:34 am.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|