Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/07/1999 06:07 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 1999
6:07 PM
TAPES
SFC-99 # 81, Side A and Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson reconvened the meeting at
approximately 6:07 PM.
PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Senator Randy Phillips, Senator
Dave Donley, Senator Loren Leman, Senator Gary Wilken,
Senator Al Adams, Senator Pete Kelly and Senator Lyda
Green.
Also Attending:
BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections; ROBERT BUTCANE,
Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of Health and Social
Services; DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department
of Labor; AL DWYER, Director, Division of Labor Standards
and Safety, Department of Labor; WENDY REDMOND, Vice
President, University Relations, University of Alaska.
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: BLAIR MCCUNE,
Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency, Department of
Administration.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 8-MINIMUM REQUIRED PLUMBING FACILITIES
The committee heard from the Department of Labor. Amendment
SB 1-NO MANDATORY PAROLE RELEASE WITHOUT GED
The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the
Department of Corrections and the Public Defenders Agency.
The bill was held in committee.
SB 11-PRISON TIME CREDITS FOR MURDERERS
The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the
Department of Corrections and the Public Defenders Agency.
The bill was reported out of committee.
SB 108-PROBATION AND PAROLE FEES
The committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the
Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and
Social Services and the Public Defenders Agency. The bill
was held in committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 8(STA)
"An Act relating to the minimum plumbing fixtures
required for females and males in the state plumbing
code; and providing for an effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the department had put
together the information requested at the last hearing.
Senator Dave Donley said the handout he provided and the
proposed amendment was at the request of the department.
The handout conformed to the amendment. He said Senator
Gary Wilken's map showing the number of toilets that would
be required was correct. However, the facility's capacity
numbers had to be reduced by one-half to consider that half
of the visitors would be women and half men. Therefore, all
the number quoted at the previous meeting should be reduced
by one-half. The largest facility in the State of Alaska
was the Sullivan Arena and held approximately 6,250. That
figure would be reduced by one-half to calculate the number
of toilets required. The Sullivan Arena would need 41
toilets total under these calculations.
He asked the Al Dwyer to explain the amendment.
AL DWYER, Director, Division of Labor Standards and Safety,
Department of Labor recommended the amendment be adopted
and explained that the current language contained the
oversight of including the total capacity rather than one-
half the total capacity. The department wanted to maintain
the criteria from the Uniform Building Code that required
fewer facilities for men.
Senator Dave Donley explained that the amendment would just
adopt a uniform method for establishing the number of
lavatories in relation to the number of toilets, water
closets and urinals.
Senator Dave Donley made a motion to adopt Amendment #3. He
clarified for Co-Chair John Torgerson that this amendment
would not affect that changes made by Amendment #2. Senator
Lyda Green objected to the motion for question.
BREAK 6:13PM / 6:13 PM
Senator Lyda Green asked if the formula would take the
number of occupants and divide that by two to determine the
amount of females who would use the facilities. Al Dwyer
affirmed. Senator Lyda Green asked if that was currently
in state statute. Al Dwyer again affirmed.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about facilities that were
remodeled and did not have to be grandfathered in. Al Dwyer
responded that remodels that did not add to the occupancy
load would be exempt unless the plumbing system was
completely changed. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked were
that was stipulated. Al Dwyer answered it was contained in
the department's regulations. Co-Chair John Torgerson
referred to the issue of deferred maintenance projects and
wanted assurance that this bill would not affect those. Al
Dwyer gave that reassurance.
Amendment #3 was adopted without objection.
Senator Dave Donley offered a motion to move CS SB 8 (FIN)
from committee. Senator Loren Leman objected to comment on
the record research he had did to determine the cost for
each toilet. The architect he spoke to estimated the cost
to be approximately $10,000. He removed his objection.
Without objection, the bill was reported out of committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(JUD)
"An Act conditioning the award of good time and
release on mandatory parole on the attainment of
certain minimum educational standards for prisoners
serving certain sentences."
Senator Dave Donley spoke to this bill. This issue came up
during discussions studying the propensity for prisoners to
reoffend once they were released. Many studies showed that
the number one factor in recidivism among felons was
whether or not they could read and write. It was found that
many states were beginning to adopt standards prisoners
obtain their GED before release that required for good time
credits that shortened sentences that.
He noted that Alaska was one of the few states that did not
comply with the federal standards of serving 85% of
sentences.
SB 1 stated that in order for prisoners to have good time
release, they had to obtain their GED. He felt this would
be an incentive and referenced TV privileges.
The bill was amended in Senate Judiciary to allow for those
prisoners that did not have the capacity to obtain their
GED. He listed the exemptions, language barriers, age and
social circumstances.
The bill only applied when the GED program was available so
an inmate that did not have that program available, they
would not be discriminated against.
He spoke of examples from other states. An example of how
bad the problem was, Alabama tested inmates as they entered
the system and found that the recitism rate mirrored the
education rate.
If a prisoner was released and could not read or write it
would be difficult to get a job and they would be tempted
to return to crime.
He spoke to the fiscal notes. Co-Chair John Torgerson
pointed out that there were new fiscal notes that were not
zero. Senator Dave Donley added that this would apply only
to those serving more than two years.
Senator Al Adams felt the bill was a good concept but
needed some changes. He felt an incentive needed to be
added. He said the amendment was not written correctly but
he hoped Senator Dave Donley would help correct it.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if this would leave the
original good time release in place but only add an
additional sixty days early release. Senator Al Adams
affirmed but added that this amendment was in its early
stage and felt it would reduce the fiscal note.
Senator Al Adams answered it would and explained.
Co-Chair John Torgerson page 1 lines 9-12 said that if the
inmate already had a diploma and - would that amendment
change that section. His point was that if you already had
your diploma when entering,
ROXANNE STEWART, staff to Senator Al Adams, clarified that
the intent was that if you already had your diploma, you
would not get the additional 60 days off.
Senator Dave Donley spoke of the national standards and
said that Alaska was behind. This amendment would move
away from truth in sentencing. It did make progress toward
motivating prisoners to get an education.
Senator Dave Donley asked about the provision for the 99-
year mandatory sentencing. Senator Al Adams said that
portion was a drafting error and should not be included.
Senator Dave Donley commented that it was a policy call.
Senator Al Adams said the problem with the truth in
sentencing issue was that it was difficult to measure
between states. Many states had shorter initial sentences.
He referred to earlier testimony heard in committee
relating to other bills.
Co-Chair John Torgerson had a similar thought based on the
fiscal notes, but also understood Senator Dave Donley's
concerns.
Senator Dave Donley offered another middle ground option to
go halfway. Without the GED prisoners would be eligible for
only half the 33.3%. He believed that many prisoners would
be getting their GED's and would not affect the fiscal
notes as greatly as predicted.
Senator Lyda Green wanted to know if in the attachment to
the PDA fiscal note they brought up a good point. Who
would do the testing to see who would be exempt from the
provision? She speculated it would become expensive if the
department had to pay for the psychologist to analyze the
prisoner's ability to get the GED.
Senator Dave Donley allowed that if a great number of
prisoners challenged they were not capable. The department
would have to find a way to do that. However, he felt the
benefits of the education would outweigh the long run costs
of reoffenders.
Senator Lyda Green commented that some may be able to make
educational advancements but still be unable to earn their
GED. She suggested some allowances be made for those
efforts. Senator Dave Donley said other states set
different standards and that could be done here as well.
Senator Gary Wilken noted fiscal note #5 comments.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarifications of Senator
Dave Donley's suggestion of halving the requirements.
Senator Dave Donley said he would need assistance from the
drafters. The intent was to allow those who did not get
their GED, they would only obtain half of their reduction
rather than not get any early release.
Senator Dave Donley aquested to Senator Al Adams's comments
that different states had different measurements.
BRUCE RICHARDS, Program Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections, testified. Senator
Al Adams explained that they were trying to use the good
time release, as an incentive to get prisoner's to obtain
their GED. He wanted to know if this would affect the
department in the different *.
Bruce explained his understanding of the two amendments.
Senator Al Adams's would reduce the amount of the fiscal
notes because it would not affect the good-time release for
incarceration time. Senator Dave Donley's would affect.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the department anticipated
a negative fiscal note with the adoption of Senator Al
Adams's amendment. Bruce thought it might. He noted that
there could be costs because the burden of proof as to how
had their diplomas would fall on the department. He didn't
think that would be very costly.
Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if it would be
possible to use Senator Al Adams's concept on a sliding
scale. 60 days for a two-year sentence. 90 days for a 5-
year sentence. Bruce commented on the incentive for
inmates receiving less compensation as the next prisoners
did. He also said it could be complicated for the
department to implement.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it would be a big
incentive difference for the inmates if *. Bruce would
have to research. He still felt if would be a zero fiscal
note for either scenario.
Co-Chair John Torgerson said the goal was to get the
prisoners to obtain their GEDs, which offered a better
incentive. Bruce commented that if it were him personally
that he would be motivated by the potential for early
release.
BLAIR MCCUNE, Deputy Director, Public Defenders Agency,
Department of Administration, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. This had been a good discussion. He felt
there would be difficulties for his agency on enforcement.
There would be a zero fiscal note.
He pointed out page 2 line 18-30 he felt it should be clear
that the language of "incapable of obtaining a diploma"
That needed to be clarified. An inmate might be capable
but not have time to bring himself through the diploma.
There was a statute he noted in the analysis section of the
fiscal note relating the treatment programs. He felt these
mechanisms could be one approach.
He commented that prisons were overcrowded and prisoners
were often transferred once they entered into a program.
He was in favor of testing for GED.
Co-Chair John Torgerson wanted to know if Alaskan prisoners
house out of state had access to these programs. Bruce
affirmed they did.
Co-Chair John Torgerson requested Senator Dave Donley to
work on his amendment. Senator Al Adams asked if they
could work to draft one amendment to address.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 11(JUD)
"An Act relating to good time credits for prisoners
serving sentences of imprisonment for certain
murders."
Senator Dave Donley restated that Alaska had liberal good-
time provisions. There was a growing concern among victims
that those serving time for first and second degree could
have inappropriate early release through the good time
release. There was a national movement that sentences be
understandable. It would be too expensive to institute an
across the board change to the state's 33% good time
release so he proposed applying this to those serving fist
and second-degree murder sentences.
He realized that many serving sentences for those crimes
had lengthy terms, but felt that through good time release
programs, the sentences served were greatly reduced.
He noted there would be a substantial fiscal impact in the
future. However, he felt the national 85% standard was
appropriate and should be applied to these crimes. Moving
closer to honesty in sentencing also appropriate.
Early release of murderers sent a bad message to the
community.
He felt there was a logical distinction between those who
committed murder and other crimes.
Tape: SFC - 99 #81, Side B 6:55 PM
Senator Al Adams commented that if every state had the same
sentencing for crimes, this would be appropriate. Because
Alaska had higher sentences, they would be serving too much
time. He discussed the issue of high medical costs for
housing older prisoners.
Blair McClune commented that there could be * challenges to
the original bill. He felt that was less of an issue with
the CS. He hoped the committee would consider the amount
of time it would take a prisoner to reenter the community
after a lengthy prison term. He suggested housing them in
a halfway house or similar facility. He agreed that truth
in sentencing was important.
Bruce Richards commented that Senator Dave Donley covered
the issues of the bill. He noted that the department
submitted a zero fiscal note because the fiscal impact
would be realized beyond the years listed on the notes. He
did a prediction of their current prisoners. He estimated
the first year impact would be $53X,000. It was a policy
call with a significant impact.
The cost would continue to increase with geriatric costs.
He testified that inmates tended to have a higher abuse of
their own bodies and therefore geriatric problems began at
the age of 50.
Senator Al Adams noted that Alaska sent many prisoners to
Arizona, which recently implemented the 85% standard. He
wondered if those prisoners were affected by that. Bruce
said they were not.
Senator Dave Donley commented on the public support of the
death penalty. He felt that was in part due to the
perception that murders served very short sentences. This
bill may be a cheaper alternative than the high cost of the
death penalty.
Senator Al Adams had not seen the survey done by Senator
Randy Phillips and questioned the social make-up of those
questioned.
Senator Dave Donley reiterated his stance on the importance
of the bill despite the fiscal impact.
Senator Dave Donley made a motion to move from committee.
Senator Al Adams objected. The bill was reported out by a
vote of 9-1. Senator Al Adams cast the nay vote.
Break 7:06 PM / 7:16 PM
SENATE BILL NO. 108
"An Act relating to fees for probation and parole."
BEN GRIN, staff to Senator Jerry Ward, would charge
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if he had a chance to review
the fiscal notes. Ben had not and admitted he was
unfamiliar with the bill.
Bruce Richards began by telling the history of the matter.
A bill had been adopted and Senator Al Adams had then
repealed the legislation.
The process was very difficult for the department.
The difference in this bill was that it dictated the
department contract out the bill collection process. They
had been unable to find an agency willing to take on the
process. This group of people tended to be difficult to
work with. This year, the department was able to find a
bank willing to do this. He detailed the proposed
collection process.
He noted earlier testimony on the success of a similar
program in Texas. The reason for that success was that the
judge set the priority above child support and restitution.
The fiscal note provided was based on a ten- percent
collection rate and would not provide a cash flow. The last
time this law was in effect the program only brought in
$12,000.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if the dollar figure was
$1.50. Bruce Richards said it was and that was the national
average. Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the sponsor
statement was from the prior year.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked how many people this would
apply to. Bruce Richards listed the numbers for adults.
Department of Health and Social Services would have numbers
for youth parolees.
Bruce Richards added that it was unclear in the bill that
it was possible to be on probation and parole at the same
time. He suggested an amendment to change that so the
person did not have to pay twice since they had the same
parole officer.
He referred to page 3 saying that if the PFD was over the
amount due, the Department of Corrections would have to
refund the difference. He suggested changing that so the
department did not have the burden of collecting and then
returning a balance. He suggested deleting the language.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if once the assignment was
made by the department, he assumed they could only collect
after other attachments were made. Bruce Richards affirmed
and said that was the reason the department did not
anticipate they would collect much after all the other
obligations were satisfied.
Senator Al Adams observed that this would be a paperwork
nightmare. It created two groups of people, parolees and
those of probation. Was there any chance an inmate could
be both. Bruce Richards said that was his earlier point.
Senator Al Adams asked if the department felt this would
create a greater burden in collection efforts than it would
generate. Bruce Richards said it was and said that was the
reason for the fiscal note.
Blair McCune, spoke to the difficulties of collection. The
PDA would not have a fiscal note if the process was set up
to not include probation hearings in the determination of
collection efforts.
He noted that many of his clients did not have much assets
after they settled their other obligations.
He told the committee which statutes applied to the
Page 2 line31 he understood it to mean this applied only to
situations with close supervision. He had concerns that
the level of supervision was light for those who did well.
He felt the fee would have to be commensurate with the cost
of the supervision.
He also had concerns with the parents of children in
probation. In some situations the parent or a sibling of
the child were the victim.
He referred to language that said the parole board "shall"
revoke parole and felt they should have some discretion.
Senator Al Adams asked if the agency would handle both
parolees and those on probation who were charged with not
paying. Would that increase the workload? Blair said they
represented before the parole board those faced with
returning to jail. They would be impacted because they had
the burden of showing how the non-payment was justified.
ROBERT BUTCANE, Juvenile Probation Officer, Department of
Health and Social Services, testified in opposition to the
bill. He suggested deleting sections from the bill in order
to exempt juvenile offenders from the provisions.
The department would have to have to create a collection
unit that would not serve the mission of the department.
Department of Health and Social Services placed a high
obligation on the parent to participate in the process.
That included financial obligations. Sometimes the other
costs of these youths placed a burden on the family's
finances. He also spoke of instances where the victim is
also a member of the family.
Senator Al Adams noted most of the PFD collected went to
the victims. He asked that percentage. Robert Butcane was
unsure but said most restitution in was beyond the amount
of the PFD so most went to the victim.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked about the victim service
grants listed on the fiscal note. Robert Butcane answered
that when the accounts showed receipts in excess of
expenditures, the balance was intended to go to support
victim services. This would be done by means of grants to
community organizations to benefit those who experienced
the impact of juvenile crime. This presumed the provided
figures were accurate
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked for clarification that the
bill did not stipulate a specific grant program. Robert
Butcane affirmed.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
He announced the next meeting schedule to hear balanced
budget presentations.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 7:49 PM.
SFC-99 (13) 4/7/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|