Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/24/1997 08:07 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
April 24, 1997
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 124
"An Act relating to salmon classics and race classics."
- MOVED SB 124 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that
a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided
access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- MOVED HB 245 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to committee meetings; and providing for an
effective date.
- MOVED CSHCR 9(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act relating to authorizing the Department of Corrections to
provide an automated victim notification and prisoner information
system."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act making a special appropriation for an automated victim
notification system; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 124
SHORT TITLE: CHARITABLE GAMING SALMON AND RACE CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/07/97 627 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/07/97 627 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
04/03/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/04/97 983 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
04/04/97 983 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD; NR: DUNCAN
04/04/97 983 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
04/07/97 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/07/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/07/97 1024 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/7/97
04/07/97 1025 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/07/97 1025 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/07/97 1025 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 124
04/07/97 1025 (S) PASSED Y11 N9
04/07/97 1025 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/09/97 1063 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/09/97 1064 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y11 N8 A1
04/09/97 1065 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/97 1052 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/10/97 1052 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
04/22/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE: DOM. VIOL. ASSAULTS;PRISONER CONTACTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DYSON, Berkowitz
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/10/97 1061 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/10/97 1061 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/18/97 1189 (H) BERKOWITZ CHANGED TO COSPONSOR
04/18/97 1189 (H) DYSON CHANGED TO PRIME SPONSOR
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HCR 9
SHORT TITLE: AMEND UN RLS: COMMITTEE ACTION ON BILLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/17/97 373 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/17/97 373 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE, RULES
04/22/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KEMPLEN, Kubina, Croft, Dyson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 40 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/10/97 617 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
03/26/97 862 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
04/03/97 978 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 48
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KEMPLEN, Kubina, Croft, Dyson
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 40 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/10/97 617 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
03/26/97 863 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
04/03/97 978 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 124.
PATRICK FLYNN, Researcher
to Representative Ethan Berkowitz
State Capitol, Room 406
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4919
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 245.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 11120
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 245.
ROBERT COLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
Telephone: (907) 465-3342
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 245, HB 47 and HB 48.
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender
State of Alaska
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 264-4414
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 245.
ETHEL L. BARENZ
P.O. Box 774505
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: (907) 696-3238
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 245, HB 47
and HB 48.
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist
Alaska Women's Lobby; and
Co-Chair
AWARE Shelter
211 4th Street, Suite 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-6744
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 245.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HCR 9.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN J. KEMPLEN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2435
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 47 and HB 48.
SERGEANT BARRY C. ALLEN
Sitka Police Department
305 Lake Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3245
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
CHRISTINE McLEOD, Director
Sitkans Against Family Violence
P.O. Box 6136
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-3370
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
LAURENTIA CHAMBLEE
3776 Lake Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-7712
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
JANICE LIENHART, Executive Director
VICTIMS for Justice
619 East Fifth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-0977
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
SANDY SAMANIEGO, Executive Director
Women In Crisis-Counselling and Assistance
717 Ninth Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2293
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
DEB PEXA, Representative
Advocates for Victims of Violence in Valdez
P.O. Box 524
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2980
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
JOHN RICHARDS
Address not provided
Telephone: not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 47 and 48.
RON MOORE, Account Executive
The VINE Company
332 West Broadway, Suite 1300
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Telephone: (800) 816-0491
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 47 and HB 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan
and Vezey. Members absent were Elton. Representative Kim Elton
arrived at 8:08 a.m.
SB 124 - CHARITABLE GAMING SALMON AND RACE CLASSIC
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was SB 124, "An Act relating to salmon classics
and race classics."
Number 0060
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, Alaska State Legislature, read the
following sponsor statement into the record:
"This legislation amends AS 05.15.100(a) by including race classics
as one of the games of chance which municipalities or qualified
organizations are allowed to conduct. One function of this bill is
to authorize a classic for the Seward Mt. Marathon Race, to be
operated by the Seward Chamber of Commerce Convention & Visitors'
Bureau. The bill therefore includes a definition for "race"
classics.
"The bill also amends AS 05.15.690(40) by extending the definition
of a salmon classic to include the Seward Silver Salmon Derby
Classic and the Sterling Area Senior Citizen's, Inc. Sockeye Salmon
Crossing Classic.
"Both the Seward Chamber of Commerce Convention & Visitors' Bureau
and the Sterling Area Senior Citizen's, Inc., are non-profit
corporations. Both entities provide a valuable community service
and, like many local service organizations, they are searching for
ways to supplement their revenues.
"Providing these potential revenue vehicles will assist these
service organizations in the continuation of the services they
provide for their respective communities."
Number 0159
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES asked Senator Torgerson how did he get the
bill to the House State Affairs Standing Committee without it
becoming a christmas tree?
SENATOR TORGERSON replied he did not know.
Number 0184
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated he appreciated the bill. He had
targeted similar bills before statute by statute. He was sorry
that the state did not have one statute that covered all activities
like this, or that the activities were regulated by the Charitable
Gaming Division, instead of addressing each activity one by one.
Number 0224
SENATOR TORGERSON replied he had tried to work with the division.
His approach was that anything under a certain dollar amount would
not need legislative approval. There must be a happy medium,
however, so that a bill was not needed every time a non-profit
wanted an opportunity to supplement its revenue. The fear was that
anything not created by the legislature could go away by
regulation. Therefore, non-profit organizations did not want to
spend a lot of money initially for a program for fear it would go
away after a couple of years, for example.
Number 0306
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS moved that SB 124 move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There was no objection, SB 124 was so moved from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 245 - DOM. VIOL. ASSAULTS;PRISONER CONTACTS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 245, "An Act relating to minimum
sentences for assault in the fourth degree that is a crime
involving domestic violence; providing that a prisoner may not
contact the victim of the offense when provided access to a
telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and amending
Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Number 0360
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, sponsor of HB 245, explained the bill
tightened the restraints that the state had on domestic violence
perpetrators by setting progressively stiffer penalties; and by
prohibiting the perpetrator from using the mandated phone call to
further harass the victim.
Number 0487
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN applauded the sponsor and announced his support
for the bill because it protected families from domestic violence.
Natives were the minority in the state but the majority in the
prison population.
Number 0520
CHAIR JAMES stated the disparity between the Native and non-Native
incarcerated population was evident. We were all striving to
reduce incarceration as a result of discrimination.
Number 0558
CHAIR JAMES asked how the phone calls would be controlled?
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ replied sometimes law enforcement
dialed the phone number; and, sometimes a sign was posted to
indicate if the phone was monitored or not.
Number 0635
CHAIR JAMES wondered about a victim indicating that the perpetrator
called when in fact he did not. How would that be verified? she
asked.
Number 0668
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied it could be verified by keeping
track of the phone numbers dialed. If it was a false report it
would be a different type of crime created by the victim.
CHAIR JAMES asked, for clarification, if there was a way to monitor
the phone numbers dialed?
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "Yes."
Number 0690
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY applauded the intent of the bill and agreed
with the direction. However, he wondered if the language
"employer" should be included to challenge the department's
authority to investigate a legitimate relationship. He explained
recently he had been the subject of an investigation by the
Department of Corrections due to an employee-employer relationship
with a prisoner.
Number 0802
PATRICK FLYNN, Researcher to Representative Ethan Berkowitz,
explained the term "friend" was considered broad enough to include
employer.
Number 0856
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered why the Department of Corrections
would feel it was necessary to investigate a person who had a
statutory right to visit a prisoner. "We don't make exception here
for the moral standing of this friend or relative."
Number 0891
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that anybody could contact the
lawyer and the lawyer had the right to visit his or her
incarcerated client. The courts would interpret the term "friend"
broadly; it was used more for the purposes of social graces.
Number 0926
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY apologized. He had misread the bill. He
thought it was the friend or relative that had the right to visit,
it was the attorney.
Number 0956
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, explained the council
had not had an opportunity to review the bill but the concepts
introduced were ones that the council supported. The first issue
of prohibiting the perpetrator from contacting the victim, was
brought to the council's attention by a police officer from a small
police department when a prisoner tried to contact the victim
within 15 minutes of his arrest. In regards to the issue of
enforcement, there were a number of smaller jails and facilities
where the officer actually dialed the number. In other cases, the
victims informed law enforcement of the contact which could be
traced and verified. The second issue of increasing penalties for
repeated first degree assault offenses was of concern because there
had not been additional consequences for additional charges. The
new domestic violence law was trying to intervene earlier in the
domestic violence cycle and to hold the offender accountable.
Therefore, the additional consequences sent the right message.
Number 1097
CHAIR JAMES cited a case of a prisoner in Fairbanks who repeatedly
called a young girl on the phone. She wondered about the controls
involved. She did not believe a prisoner should have the benefit
of picking up a phone and calling anybody.
Number 1183
ROBERT COLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, explained telephone use by inmates was
a serious issue a few years ago due to a conspiracy that resulted
in a bombing and murder. As a result, all calls were monitored at
the facility. He would provide to the committee members a detailed
description of the telephone security for the entire set of
institutions.
CHAIR JAMES stated she would appreciate a description. It was a
problem that had yet to be fixed. We were pursuing a "no frills"
bill for prisoners so it seemed an incarcerated prisoner should be
out of touch, except under special conditions.
Number 1246
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained there was a provision in the "no
frills" bill addressing the issue.
Number 1256
MR. COLE stated for the past four years to five years Mr. Allen J.
Cooper, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections, had
tried to get private telephone companies to install a surveillance
system across all of the institutions, but there were problems with
the volume and rate structure.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what the difference was between a third
degree and fourth degree assault?
Number 1329
MS. ANDREEN replied a fourth degree assault was a Class A
misdemeanor while a third degree assault was a Class C felony. The
difference was in the weapon used in the assault.
Number 1348
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if judges in domestic violence cases
tended to assign offenders to attend an anger management program?
Number 1361
MS. ANDREEN replied it varied from community to community; and,
from judge to judge. The new domestic violence law provided for a
batterers program to accept referrals from the court system or the
Department of Corrections as a condition of release. The programs
had to meet standards established by corrections in conjunction
with the council. The standards were now in place but there was no
funding to implement them. However, we currently had a small
reimbursable agreement with the court system so someone was on-line
as of this month to start monitoring.
Number 1411
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, for clarification, that the new
domestic violence law mandated a class for batterers; and, that
many of the courts did not have a service readily available to send
a batterer to but the future was optimistic.
Number 1442
MS. ANDREEN stated it would be interesting to see how it worked.
We were aware of approximately 20 to 25 programs around the state
that were interested in receiving approval. Most were located in
the high population areas - Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. There
were going to be a number of areas in the state that were a long
way from having a batterers intervention program. It was important
to not look at it as an either-or situation because many viewed an
intervention program as an easy out or a way out of jail when there
was not verifiable proof that a batterers program was effective.
Therefore, it was important that the courts used a combination of
options.
Number 1488
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered, if assault in the third degree
involved a weapon, what weapons were involved in a first and second
degree assault. Weapons of mass destruction, or what? he asked.
Number 1505
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied it depended on causal injury. He
read the various provisions of assaults from the statute. They
were each a sliding scale that could be argued either way for the
different portions.
Number 1600
BARBARA BRINK, Acting Public Defender, State of Alaska, was the
next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She noted
the unintended consequences of the bill. Mandatory minimum
sentences removed the ability of any judge to fation an appropriate
punishment. A judge was suppose to consider the seriousness of the
harm, the rehabilitation potential, the deterrent value of a
sentence, the isolation of the defendant, and society's requirement
to reaffirm its norms. She feared a mandatory minimum sentence
would discourage people from admitting their conduct. In addition,
a mandatory minimum sentenced created an anomaly in the overall
scheme of assault charges. Under the bill a person would be
required to receive 30 or 60 days in jail - more time than if he or
she committed a more serious felony offense. She cited last year
the state prosecuted 1,279 domestic assaults. The municipality of
Anchorage prosecuted an additional 1,500 assaults. It was
estimated that about 30 percent to 50 percent of the cases were
repeat offenders. Therefore, if even a small portion of the cases
chose to go to trial instead of pleading out, the financial burden
on the public defender and the court system would be enormous. She
could not predict how many would go to trial, however. She
reiterated a person who had the opportunity to plead his or her
case to a judge was much more likely to go this way. But a person
facing a mandatory jail sentence was more likely to take any avenue
to get off, including a jury trial. Moreover, if was important to
ensure that a prisoner was notified of the prohibition of
contacting the victim. Unless there was a clear posting of the
notification, a prisoner would not know. It was important given
the fact that most called their relatives once incarcerated.
Number 1770
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Brink if the bill would deter repeat
offenses?
Number 1795
MS. BRINK replied she wished there was proof that harsher penalties
and punishments deterred repeat offenses. Domestic violence;
however, by definition, was an emotionally charged situation
usually aggravated by the influence of a substance. She feared it
would discourage some people from calling the police knowing that
the consequences would be an automatic 60 days in jail. Often the
police were called just to remove people from the situation and
whether or not a harsher penalty was appropriate should not be
determined by the victim.
Number 1839
CHAIR JAMES agreed that domestic violence was spontaneous and
aggravated by certain conditions. Therefore, everyone should agree
in addressing the issue in a preventative way.
Number 1910
MS. BRINK stated she understood the need for graduated penalties.
Her experience had shown that it already happened in court,
however. Judges sentenced a repeat offender harsher than a first-
time offender. It simply was a matter of whether or not you wished
to determine the sentence or a judge.
Number 1976
ETHEL L. BARENZ was the first person to testify in Juneau. She
needed this type of bill because her offender had over 18 different
types of assaults on his record. "Even though with that he was not
sentenced severely enough to realize that he needed to leave me and
my children alone for us to be safe." Consequently, he was out
from the assault charge within three months. She, therefore,
supported stiffer penalties.
Number 2010
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Barenz if alcohol was involved
in his offenses?
Number 2017
MS. BARENZ replied most of his offenses were alcohol related. He
had a problem with alcohol and attended many rehabilitation
programs. But, every time he was kicked out of the rehabilitation
program he would stalk and threaten her and her family.
Number 2044
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the assailant of Ms. Barenz was
jailed for 90 days when the bill talked about 30 and 60 day
sentences. He was a little confused.
MS. BARENZ replied her assailant was sentenced to jail for 90 days
after 18 offenses, not a first or second offense. The judge in
court indicated that he was approaching "worse offender status" for
driving under the influence and assault. For him, 30 or 60 days
would not work, but for a lot of people it could be a deterrent.
Progressive terms were needed for the general public as well.
Number 2076
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Barenz if her testimony, therefore,
would not affect his sentence, but it would be a rehabilitative
step towards future offenders?
MS. BARENZ stated that many offenders were released after 10 to 15
days. They were able to pretend all the way through the rehab
program and were able to convince their families to take them back.
"If they had to stay in jail it would have made a difference
because for one thing they would have felt more punished and a lot
of these women would have had a better chance to get out of the
situation to get enough counselling to be able to go on with their
lives." The offender would be out of their lives for enough time
for them to take these further steps.
Number 2142
CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby; and, Co-Chair, AWARE
Shelter, was the next person to testify in Juneau. Both the Alaska
Women's Lobby and AWARE supported the bill. She had over 20 years
experience with domestic violence. It was a crime of a different
stripe than most other types of crimes because of the nature of its
intimacy. However, it should not be individualized too much
because men who batter only batter. "They don't get into bar
fights by enlarge. They don't assault their co-workers. They
don't assault their superiors. They are generally upstanding and
otherwise law abiding members of the community. And the only
people they harm are their families." In her experience both
professionally and personally, by the time an offender came to the
attention of the criminal justice system, he had been a repeat
offender. By the time she got enough courage to have her husband
arrested, within 20 minutes he was out of jail and climbing up the
fire escape. It was a very scary situation to be in.
MS. TIMPONE further stated it was important not to confuse
aggravating factors with causal factors. In her experience, when
a batterer was treated for a substance abuse, you then had a sober
batterer, if the underlying issues of why this person batterers
were not dealt with. In addition, it was crucial for
rehabilitation that a batterer took responsibility for his or her
actions which included time in jail as well as rehabilitation
programs.
Number 2268
CHAIR JAMES stated it was interesting that we always included men
as the batterer which was the case - generally. She knew of cases,
however, where it was the woman who was the batterer.
MS. TIMPONE explained she used the term "man" in the gender neutral
tense. The statistics indicated that men were victims of battering
less than .2 percent of the time.
Number 2293
CHAIR JAMES stated that she always said the same thing for driving
while intoxicated (DWI) - by the time someone was picked up for DWI
it was not their first offense. It was generally the first time
that he or she got caught but not the first offense. In the case
of domestic violence, it was also very unusual that the first case
reported was the actual first case, or else the victim would not
have come to the position to take action. The whole issue of
domestic violence was distressing because it was hard to control.
"We live in a country where our home is our castle and our privacy
should be protected at home." It was very difficult to penetrate
that privacy without violating someone's rights. There was no harm
in trying, however.
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the increased sentence time in
Sec. 3 were small increments. This was just a Band-Aid approach.
He explained the philosophy for corrections was rehabilitation at
the time the Constitution of the State of Alaska was written. The
philosophy now was to protect the public. It was time to come to
grips that sexual predators could not be rehabilitated and that the
only way to protect society was to remove these individuals. The
bill was going in the right direction, but he seriously questioned
if there was a benefit to increase a sentence from 20 days to 30
days. Was 10 days going to provide society anything more than 10
days of protection? he asked.
Number 2426
CHAIR JAMES replied the testimony indicated that 20 days and 90
days were a big difference in the lives of the victims by helping
them feel protected.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the bill did not address 90 days.
Number 2431
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated at 20 days there were no
residential treatment programs. He agreed that alcohol aggravated
the situation. An offender could get "soft bed time" if he went
through an in-patient alcohol treatment program. The programs were
usually 28 days and 40 days. Hence, the 30 days and 60 days in the
bill.
TAPE 97-49, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated the savings would come from
reducing the rate of incidences and removing drugs and alcohol from
the equation. Given the budget restraints, it was a very cost
effective way of addressing the situation.
Number 0023
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated it was tempting to go from 20 days to
200 days. In addition, there were batterer programs in the state
such as the anger management program by Patrick Flynn's mother,
contrary to what Representative Berkowitz indicated.
Number 0051
CHAIR JAMES stated testimony from Ms. Andreen indicated that we
were not absolutely sure how well the programs worked.
Number 0061
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that he said there were no
residential treatment programs, not batterer programs.
Number 0068
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated, in response to Representative
Vezey's comments, sometimes the most difficult thing we did was
take incremental steps rather than fix the whole problem at once.
There was the constant tension of whether or not to take the
incremental step or a comprehensive approach. He felt frustrated
with an incremental step approach but any step in the right
direction indicated success.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that prevention was just as
important as dealing with the consequences. "If prevention worked
10 percent of the time then good. If prevention worked 20 percent
of the time then even better." It was the same as prevention in
health care. "You can take your inoculations and do everything
else and that doesn't necessarily guarantee that you're going to
live a healthy and long life. But it incrementally adds to the
chances that you may."
Number 0183
CHAIR JAMES stated the one unintended consequence that she feared
from a longer sentence was the influence on the person who made the
charge, particularly in cases where the batterer supported the
family financially. She wondered if it would deter reporting. She
was willing to try and move the bill forward, however.
Number 0282
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN announced he supported the bill as written. He
had observed the shelter program in the community of Dillingham
which was working very well. The bill was an additional tool for
the law enforcement community and for the people who assist
victims. He had observed in his community a sibling who protected
a family member by putting the head of household in jail who was
asked to come back by the mother because of her dependence on him
for the survival of the family.
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the mandatory 20 day
sentence for the first offense existed only if the offense occurred
during the existence of a domestic violence restraining order.
There was no mandatory minimum if there was not a restraining order
in effect.
Number 0374
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 245 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There
was no objection, HB 245 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HCR 9 - AMEND UN RLS: COMMITTEE ACTION ON BILLS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HCR 9, Proposing amendments to the Uniform
Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to committee
meetings; and providing for an effective date.
Number 0440
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, explained
the bill proposed amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska
State Legislature that would allow for committees to meet during
the interim and to take action. It would also allow for committee
members to vote and to make a quorum via the teleconference line.
The purpose of the bill was to bring hearings closer to the people
of the state of Alaska by enabling business to be conducted during
the interim; to increase the efficiency of the Alaska State
Legislature; and to possibly shorten the legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further explained he had also introduced
legislation to shorten the legislative session to 90 days.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further stated, currently, committees could
take action during the interim that amounted to a work session, not
substantive action. The bill allowed for substantive committee
work and action within the confines of the committee only. The
action could not be read across the floor of the House of
Representatives. In addition, the resolution called for a zero
fiscal note. Some indicated there would be a fiscal impact to the
budget but he believed there would be a savings. Nevertheless, the
presiding officers had the ability to control the traveling request
and budget for every member.
Number 0545
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Rokeberg if he would object to
amending the resolution to include the language "prior approval of
the leadership before scheduling a meeting"? The amendment was a
request.
Number 0584
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he did not think he would have a
problem with the amendment. He wondered if it would be rude to ask
who requested the amendment.
CHAIR JAMES replied the Speaker of the House of Representative
requested the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he would be very happy in that case
to accept the friendly amendment to the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced he had several amendments that
he would turn into questions. First, he would be concerned if the
committee was either the first or last committee of referral.
Second, he would be concerned if it was the only committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied a bill could not be moved out of a
committee. It could only be acted on and transmitted to the clerk.
It could not be read across the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Number 0605
CHAIR JAMES wondered about amending a bill in committee upon
returning to session.
Number 0614
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied presumably the committee had
already moved to pass the bill out. The intention was not to
expand the scope of the rule change in order to control the flow of
the bill activity.
Number 0626
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he was also concerned about just
being able to pass the bill along.
CHAIR JAMES replied it could not be passed to the next committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated it could not be read across the
floor of the House of Representatives because we would not be in
session.
Number 0649
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he would also like there to be some
kind of notice prior to a meeting such as the 5-day notice.
CHAIR JAMES replied the 5-day notice was in the uniform rules.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered if the 5-day rule applied during
the interim. He deferred the question to Representative Vezey.
Number 0665
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY maintained for years that the legislature had
the authority to do this already but passing a law would salve
everyone's conscious. It was a good idea and long over due. The
internal workings of the legislature were not subject to a court's
jurisdiction even if a law was passed. We would have to be in
session to take official action - the only constitutional
limitation.
Number 0711
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained the reason he asked was that
Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Research and Legal Services,
suggested the issue be looked at.
Number 0719
CHAIR JAMES asked how did we get the uniform rules? Was it passed
as a document?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied the uniform rules had to be adopted
by each legislature. Right now we did not have any uniform rules.
He deferred the question again to Representative Vezey.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the Constitution of the State of Alaska
provided that the legislature adopt rules. As a matter of course,
we had not formally adopted any rules for the Twentieth Alaska
State Legislature. It did not mean we were not operating under any
rules, however.
CHAIR JAMES wondered how it was missed this year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated there was a resolution but it did
not go as far as the former majority leader.
CHAIR JAMES asked what the procedure had been in the past for
amending the rules?
Number 0774
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it required a resolution before the
body to adopt the rules. The controversy was over the adoption of
Mason's Manual.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read Uniform Rule 53 into the record.
Number 0806
CHAIR JAMES stated she liked what the resolution called for. She
was not convinced, however, if this was the right procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the House State Affairs Standing
Committee was the first committee of referral. The resolution also
had two other referrals including the House Rules Standing
Committee - the proper forum to address the resolution. He asked
the indulgence of the committee to move the resolution out of its
way.
CHAIR JAMES moved for a conceptual amendment to include leadership
approval prior to scheduling a meeting.
Number 0869
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. It was very, very redundant. The
presiding officer of the House determined the chair and the House
Committee on Committees determined the members. In addition, we
had provisions to do exactly what you wanted to do without
restating it.
Number 0897
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for a friendly amendment to the
conceptual amendment to ensure that the minority was advised as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. It was not necessary. The
membership of all committees included minority members, therefore,
the minority would be informed.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Berkowitz and Ivan voted in favor of the motion. Representatives
Dyson and Vezey voted against the motion. Representatives Elton
and Hodgins were not present to vote. The conceptual amendment
passed.
Number 0964
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained he would give his amendments and
concerns to Representative Rokeberg in hopes that they would be
considered and discussed at some time down the line.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he would be happy to do so.
Number 0991
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HCR 9, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There was no objection, CSHCR 9(STA) was so moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 47 - TELEPHONE VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
HB 48 - APPROP: VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 47, "An Act relating to authorizing the
Department of Corrections to provide an automated victim
notification and prisoner information system." And, HB 48, "An Act
making a special appropriation for an automated victim notification
system; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES announced the two bills would be taken up together
because they were connected.
Number 1042
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN J. KEMPLEN, Alaska State Legislature, read the
following sponsor statement into the record:
"Each day, over 600 concerned Alaskans call our state institutions
seeking information on inmates. Alaska's prisons and pre-trial
facilities housed 2,990 inmates, 49% of whom are considered violent
in November, 1996. Clearly proper and timely notification to
victims about the release or escape of their attackers can improve
their sense of safety.
"A state-of-the-art computer system, called Victim Information and
Notification Everyday (VINE) was developed to keep crime victims
informed of inmate activity. VINE provides two important services
that enhance that vital link of communication between the justice
system and the victim.
"First: Vine provides automatic notification calls to a crime
victim when an inmate's status changes. If an inmate is released,
transferred, posts bail or escapes, VINE places an automated
telephone call to all registered victims within 10 minutes of the
change in the offender's status. VINE continues to call the victim
for 24 hours or until successful notification is verified by the
victim.
"Second: VINE provides critical inmate information 24 hours a day,
7 days a week through the automated telephone system. VINE allows
confidential exchange of information. Victims may access
information on a prisoner through the use of personal
identification numbers. Victims may easily enter new contact
numbers.
"Kentucky became the first state to implement VINE statewide in
February, 1996. During the first 90 days of operation, over 20,000
phone calls were processed. Over 600 victims were notified through
VINE of impending inmate releases. Three month later, over 3,500
successful notification had been made, with an average of 7 new
registrations a day. Currently, the VINE Company has contracts
with over 150 counties in more than 12 states, including Texas,
California, New Jersey, Georgia and Michigan.
"The goal of this legislation is to meet the need for timely,
efficient and reliable notification to a victim about the
offender's status. This legislation provides for the use of
innovative technology that will assist corrections staff charged
with the responsibility of notifying crime victims who may move.
This legislation gives victims control. The timely notification
will allow victims to prepare for offenders' release and victims
can, in confidence, keep corrections staff informed of their
telephone contact numbers."
Number 1251
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Representative Kemplen if the sum of
$250,000 was targeted for this year or next year in regards to the
budget process?
Number 1263
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied the amount was not forwarded in the
budget process this year. The department had indicated it would
need only $150,000 rather than the $250,000 called for in the bill.
The department had also determined that it could receive grant
money to operate VINE. Several states had installed the system
with grant funding from one of several federal sources.
Number 1328
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered if the cost would be recouped by
people phoning in and through increased efficiency of the
prosecutorial agencies and the Department of Corrections. In other
words, people would be free to do other jobs rather than victim
notification.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied, "Correct."
Number 1368
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN commented the state had a computer system in
place currently. He asked Representative Kemplen if the VINE
system would be a separate service provided by a private company?
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied VINE was a proprietor system. The
price tag included a $45,200 one-time cost to interface and
implement the system. The installation included 13 institutions,
13 probation parole offices, 15 local jails, and 13 community
residential centers in the state. The price tag also included a
$3,000 one-time cost for software.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kemplen where the rest of the
money went? He only accounted for $48,200.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied the price tag also included a $8,000
one-time cost for printing brochures, a $90,000 annual operation
and port fee, and a $3,000 annual cost for standby staff, in the
event of a failure of the hardware or software.
CHAIR JAMES asked, for clarification, if there would be a $93,000
on-going expense every year?
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN replied, "Yes." There was a service charge
of $1.50 for victims calling in about the status of their
offenders. Experience had shown that there was enough revenue
generated from that service to cover the operation cost.
Number 1548
CHAIR JAMES commented getting any money from the 1997 or 1998
budget would be remote. However, if there was an opportunity to
get any money it would be in 1998. It would be wise to appropriate
money from other funding sources - federal or private. It was a
threat to appropriate money from the General fund when the goal was
to reduce it by $60 million.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Chair James, for clarification, if the
suggestion was to list federal receipts or other funds rather than
the General Fund?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "Yes." Thereby authorizing them to look for
other funds. If the language "general fund" was left it would not
pass.
Number 1733
ROBERT COLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Corrections, was the first person to testify in
Juneau. The Department of Corrections; and, other law enforcement,
judicial and prosecutorial agencies were excited about an automatic
means of notifying victims. Presently, the system was cumbersome
and paper driven. There were a number of federal grants and
funding sources for programs like this. He could not guarantee
that the money could be accessed, however. The money needed to be
applied for and awarded.
MR. COLE further said the department received about 600 phone calls
a day now. It was possible if a charge was added the number of
phone calls would go down. Nevertheless, the flow should be able
to help pay for the cost of the system.
MR. COLE further said there were design questions that needed to be
answered such as how VINE would attach itself to the current system
and how it would report the information.
MR. COLE stated the department was enthusiastic about the system.
If the fiscal note was changed a federal funding source was
probably the best one. He did not know if federal sources were
available this year, however.
Number 1920
CHAIR JAMES wondered if Representative Ivan was concerned that the
system would include contract jails around the state.
Number 1945
MR. COLE replied the fiscal note included the prisons, probation
officers, community residential centers, and contract jails.
Number 1975
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole if the release of a prisoner
did not occur until the paper work was in place?
MR. COLE replied, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole if the most important piece of
paper went from the court to the administrator?
Number 2021
MR. COLE replied, "Correct." Most systems were designed as a
prison information system which assumed little change in a
prisoner's status. We were running a system that included jails,
pre-trial felony facilities and prisons. Therefore, the status of
an inmate changed heavily. There was a flow of paper work that was
entered into the system and completed before a prisoner was
released.
Number 2128
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole if the paper work was initiated
by the courts or corrections?
MR. COLE replied sentencing and conviction information was
initiated by the courts.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole who initiated a release?
MR. COLE replied a release was initiated by corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY state, for clarification, it was initiated
from corrections to corrections, not from the courts to
corrections.
MR. COLE stated unless a person went back on an appeal.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered why the information could not be
given to a third party that specialized in giving information to
the public.
MR. COLE replied that was how the VINE system worked.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, yes, but the Department of
Corrections was the service agency. He asked Mr. Cole why a
contractor could not be used to get the information to the public?
Number 2243
MR. COLE replied it could be done that way in theory. It was part
of a larger question, however. Public safety around the country
was trying to put together a criminal history repository.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was interested because it was not the
mission of the Department of Corrections to generate information to
the general public when there were entities in the market that
specialized in that type of service.
MR. COLE replied it was a complex issue. He would be willing to
converse about it further.
TAPE 97-50, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. COLE stated that one of the things that the Department of
Corrections was good at was incapacitating offenders when in our
custody. Therefore, people would not be harming their families
when they resided in correctional facilities.
CHAIR JAMES replied we wanted to have them incapacitated even
stronger.
Number 0109
SERGEANT BARRY C. ALLEN, Sitka Police Department, was the first
person to testify via teleconference in Sitka. He testified today
in support of HB 47 and HB 48. It was a positive step for the
rights of victims. The VINE system would allow victims to prepare
for their assailants release. This would prove to be beneficial in
cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. In addition, VINE
would go hand in hand with the domestic violence protection and
prevention act of 1996. He encouraged its prompt passage.
Number 0212
CHRISTINE McLEOD, Director, Sitkans Against Family Violence, was
the next person to testify via teleconference in Sitka. Her
testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48. Many victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault felt dis-empowered by the
criminal justice system. They either felt superfluous or blamed
for the crime thereby discouraging reporting and to further
traumatize victims. The VINE system was one means of giving
victims control over the process. In 1994 the legislature showed
support for victims by amending the constitution to include a
victims' rights amendment. The VINE system would strengthen the
state's compliance to the amendment. The VINE system would also
help to ensure the safety of women and children.
Number 0342
LAURENTIA CHAMBLEE was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Homer. Her testimony today was in support of HB
47 and HB 48. "Victims of domestic violence live in fear when
they're with the perpetrator and even after when the perpetrator
has been incarcerated." The perpetrator often made threats of harm
if the victim should call the police when they were together and
there were often threats of death. The VINE system would help
alleviate the fear of the victim. It also said to the victim that
the system understood her worries and concerns. It was important
to pass the bill this year; it understated the rights of the
victims to live a life with liberty and the pursuit of happiness as
a goal.
Number 0461
JANICE LIENHART, Executive Director, VICTIMS for Justice, was the
next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. Her
testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48. She often
received calls from victims after a change in status of the
perpetrator. It was devastating because the victims often found
out after the fact. They often tried to call and get information
but to no avail. If the data could be kept accurate it would be a
powerful tool to keep everybody updated.
Number 0535
ETHEL L. BARENZ was the next person to testify in Juneau. She was
from Eagle River and the winner of the "send somebody to Juneau"
contest. She had lived through every one of the statements made
this morning. She had been stalked, threatened, assaulted, and her
parents and children had been assaulted. Her assailant attacked
her parent's tenant which was how she found out he was out of jail.
She did not have any warning and no chance to get her family to
safety. Her elderly parents had been threatened. The VINE program
would help her allow for the safety of her children and parents.
The program would not only help her get her life back but others as
well. She thanked the representatives for signing on as co-
sponsors; it touched her heart.
Number 0656
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Ms. Barenz to share with the committee
members what she had done to protect herself.
Number 0664
MS. BARENZ replied she had to carry a handgun when she was not with
others. She had to stay public, keep another adult with her,
inform the schools that her children attend, contact the state
troopers and the city policy frequently, and attend court on a
regular basis to find out the conditions of his release. Her
assailant continued to get angry at her for attending the court
hearings because he felt she was provoking him. It was terrifying
to face the man but if she tried to call the court she would always
get the same responses: His file is with the judge; The judge is
not available; or We're not sure where his file is right now. She
could not get the information that she needed without waiting a few
weeks to be notified. An automated system would allow for her to
be notified quicker and allow her to call in. She slept with a gun
under her bed when she did not know what was happening with her
assailant because he had threatened to bring his family out with
guns to attack her family.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Barenz for her testimony today and
congratulated her on winning the contest. She asked Ms. Barenz how
her time in Juneau had been?
MS. BARENZ replied wonderful. All of the representatives had been
wonderful and receptive to hear her story.
Number 0794
SANDY SAMANIEGO, Executive Director, Women In Crisis-Counselling
and Assistance, was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Fairbanks. She was testifying today in support of HB 47 and HB
48. It was apparent that the legislature recognized the importance
and severity of the problem with sexual assault and domestic
violence. On-behalf-of the victims of these crimes she thanked the
representatives for their support. She did not know how to put a
price tag on people's lives, but she did know that Alaskans were
killed because of domestic violence and sexual assault every year.
Statistics indicated that more than 10 percent of Alaskan women
were abused by a partner each year, some requiring medical
attention. Victim notification was a critical piece of the state's
plan to keep victims of all violent crimes safe. Agencies had not
been able to timely notify the victims of the changes placing the
lives and well being of the victims in danger. She respectfully
asked the committee members to support HB 47 and HB 48.
Number 0884
DEB PEXA, Representative, Advocates for Victims of Violence in
Valdez, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Valdez. She was testifying today in support of HB 47 and HB 48.
This type of information was a matter of life or death for victims
of violence. The current system did not guarantee that victims
would receive timely and vital information to provide for the
safety of their families and themselves. She urged the committee
members to support the bills.
Number 0929
JOHN RICHARDS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. His testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48.
We prosecuted 1,500 domestic violence cases every year of which
many involved repeat offenders. What we had not been able to do
was comply with AS 12.30.027 passes last year, "Release in domestic
violence cases." The current state law required the correctional
facility to notify the prosecuting authority and for the
prosecuting authority to immediately notify the victim of the
release and the conditions of the release. Most of these cases
occurred between 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., therefore, without an
automated victim notification system there was no way to
meaningfully comply with the statutory requirement. Domestic
violence was about power and control where 75 percent of the
victims recant or minimize the offense over time. Common sense
indicated that victims were heavily influenced by the defendant
through fear and threats. "If you believe this beating was bad
wait until I get out, it'll be worse." The characteristic of the
perpetrator was to blame the victim for all of his problems
including his arrest. The automatic system was cost effective at
$2,800 per month. He could not hire somebody to sit and dial the
telephone all night long for $2,800 per month. It was essential
for a coordinated and effective response to domestic violence. He
urged the committee members to seriously pass the bill and to try
to find the money for it.
Number 1137
RON MOORE, Account Executive, The VINE Company, was the next person
to testify off-net in Kentucky. The VINE system was now in over
350 communities in the United States and Canada with 7 statewide
programs in place. The VINE company had over 40 patens pending for
technology. It was also the only company totally dedicated to
victim notification. There were other software companies that
offered the service but not exclusively. The VINE program was not
about putting in a software program or a computer, for example; it
was about a community awareness program. The total community
campaign included public service announcements, press conferences,
and a 24-hour hot line. In California, the legislature waited as
well pending funding for the program during which time a woman was
killed due to the uninformed release of her perpetrator. The
legislature immediately entered into a contract with company as a
result. "Please don't wait." he declared. The VINE program
usually could be funded through the inmate phone system itself.
Number 1290
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Moore what the charges were based on?
Number 1308
MR. MOORE replied the charges were based on inmate population and
the population of the community.
Number 1332
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Moore what was the fee that would be paid
regularly for the service?
MR. MOORE replied there was a monthly charge that covered the on-
going cost of the program - public service announcements and
handouts for example. In addition, every 10 minutes the call
center in Kentucky would call the Alaska system for changes.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Moore what was the monthly charge?
MR. MOORE replied he did not have the exact figure before him. It
was about $90,000 per annum.
Number 1396
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Moore how often was the monthly charge
reviewed to see if it was too much or too little?
MR. MOORE replied it was based on the length of the contract; it
would not change during the length of it.
Number 1421
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Moore what was the company's
profit-ratio?
MR. MOORE replied the start-up cost for Alaska was about $45,000 -
a break-even number based on the expenses of flying to Alaska to
develop the interface, accommodations, software, and scripts. The
profit would come from the monthly fee.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Moore if Alaska would benefit
from the concept of economies of scale because the company was
nationwide?
MR. MOORE replied, "Exactly." Everybody in the country used the
same call center whether there were 20,000 inmates or 20 inmates.
Any time there were software or technology improvements, for
example, everybody shared. There would not be an increase in the
rates because of the improvements.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bills would be held over until Saturday,
April 26, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1485
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:08 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|