Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/11/2002 01:32 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 11, 2002
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Dave Donley, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 242
"An Act relating to concealed handgun permittees."
MOVED SB 242 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 223
"An Act limiting the award of good time and restricting release
on mandatory parole for prisoners serving certain sentences who
fail to attain certain minimum educational standards; providing
that prisoners having attained or attaining those educational
standards receive good time awards and availability of release on
mandatory parole of one-third of the term or terms of
imprisonment rounded off to the nearest day; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSSSSB 223(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Brian Judy
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento, CA 95814
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 242
Pete Roberts
P.O. Box 1134
Homer, AK 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 242
Captain David Hudson
Alaska State Troopers Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 242
Lieutenant Julie Grimes, Supervisor
Concealed Handgun Permit Program, Department of Public Safety
5700 E. Tudor Rd.
Anchorage, AK 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 242
Joe Nava
No address given
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 242
Candace Brower, Program Coordinator
Department of Corrections
431 N. Franklin Ste 400
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 223
Bruce Richards, Special Assistant
Department of Corrections
4500 Diplomacy Ste 109
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 223
Rose Munafo, Criminal Justice Planner
Department of Corrections
4500 Diplomacy Ste 109
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 223
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-03, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present were Senator Donley,
Senator Cowdery, and Chairman Taylor. Senator Therriault arrived
at 1:33 p.m. and Senator Ellis arrived at 1:37 p.m. Chairman
Taylor announced the first order of business would be SB 242.
SB 242-CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITTEES
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR, SB 242 sponsor, explained that the purpose of
initiating the legislation was to give themselves an update on
the current status of the reciprocity agreements that were
supposed to be entered into by the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) with other states on the issue of concealed carry permits.
The Department of Public Safety's website listed seven states
from which Alaska recognizes permits. The website indicated six
of those, Arizona, Florida, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and
Wyoming were by agreement. There are other states, which he
believed had expanded to seven, which currently recognize
Alaska's permits; he listed Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky and Montana.
He understood four of those states were added since the
legislation was filed.
He explained it had been four years since the legislature
instructed, with mandatory language, DPS draft regulations and
get about the business of providing reciprocity for concealed
carry permits with other states. That was primarily so Alaskans,
who meet the highest standards in the nation for a concealed
carry permit, would be granted the opportunity to utilize that
permit in other states to which they traveled. He had hoped that
would be an ongoing process but was concerned that over the last
four years DPS had not taken the action required by the
legislature. That was the purpose for filing this bill.
BRIAN JUDY, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative
Action, gave the following testimony in support of SB 242. In
1994 DPS disseminated a white paper on HB 351, the original right
to carry bill in Alaska. The title of that report was To Conceal
or Not to Conceal, That is the Question. He said that report was
full of a number of alarmist suggestions and predictions, that
there would be guns at grocery stores, on ball fields and
Anchorage fender benders would become shoot outs. In 2000 DPS
acknowledged the outcome was the same as in every other state,
there had been virtually no problem. Law-abiding citizens who
have been issued permits are exercising their constitutional
right to bear arms and their right to self-defense with the
utmost responsibility. Self-defense is a fundamental right and
law-abiding citizens should be able to choose to not only provide
a means for self-protection but also to determine how best to
provide this protection.
MR. JUDY said it is the NRA's belief, as with driver's licenses,
the right-to-carry permits should be honored universally.
Studies have shown that crime rates dropped when law-abiding
citizens have the means to provide for their own self-protection
and when criminals know that their next potential victim might
fight back.
In 1998 SB 141 first recognized permits from other states. In
2000 SB 294 clarified and broadened the number of states Alaska
would recognize and there was no opposition to that bill. He
said DPS has been unable to provide a complete and accurate
listing of all the states Alaska recognizes. The current statute
said Alaska recognized states with similar laws and states that
recognize Alaska's permits. There are states in both of those
categories that Alaska law recognizes that are not listed on the
website. The website posting did not necessarily get the
information out to all law enforcement agencies in the state.
He said SB 242 would recognizing all other states permits and
relieve DPS of the burden of having to evaluate other states
laws. It will notify all the local law enforcement agencies that
any permit from any other state is valid. He felt the State of
Alaska should not have any reservation about welcoming law
abiding citizens of other states and welcoming their permits.
He said their intent with this law is to allow the people who can
carry openly in Alaska to choose to carry concealed. Any law-
abiding tourist right now can carry a firearm openly virtually
anywhere in Alaska. He said it made no sense to allow anybody to
carry openly but deny those who have gone through the licensing
process in their own state the ability to carry concealed. Law
abiding citizens should be able to choose whether to provide for
their own protection and be able to choose the manner in which
they do so. The NRA urged the committee to support SB 242.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many other states have carry permits.
MR. JUDY answered there are 31 states that allow the carrying of
concealed weapons and issue permits to their residents and a lot
of states issue to non-residents as well.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the criteria in other states were
similar to the criteria in Alaska for obtaining a carry permit.
MR. JUDY said the laws differed but were similar. Virtually all
the states require a background check and most of those are
fingerprint based. The majority of states require some type of a
training program but they vary considerably. Regardless of the
differing criteria and the differing standards from state to
state, the one piece of information that is the same out of every
state is that permit holders are not a problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR told of a state employee that had contacted him.
He held a concealed carry permit but had never used his permit in
Alaska because he never felt he needed to. He had carried
concealed in Arizona and appreciated the fact that Alaska had a
reciprocity agreement with Arizona that allowed that.
He commented that regulations from DPS required people who held
concealed carry permits from North Dakota be at least 21 years of
age.
MR. JUDY said there were a couple of states that allowed for the
sheriff to issue to people with cause between the ages of 18 and
21.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the purpose of the legislation is to expedite
the process of providing for reciprocity. He asked for some
background on Mr. Judy's working relationship with DPS.
MR. JUDY said it was generally positive but not productive. In
March of 1998 following the passage of SB 141, DPS issued a
memorandum to law enforcement personnel that summarized the
provisions of the new law and included a list of 17 states from
which permits would be recognized by Alaska. In 1999 DPS changed
their policy and were not honoring permits from any state. In
May of 1999 he first contacted Deputy Commissioner Del Smith who
said he would look into it and the problem would be addressed.
MR. JUDY said there is a lack of complete information and posting
it on the website does not meet the requirement of the statute
that DPS provide the information to all local law enforcement
agencies.
SENATOR ELLIS noted that the title of the legislation was broad.
He asked Chairman Taylor if this legislation addressed a concern
in his community that involved an incident where Mr. Timothy
Wagner had been adjudicated mentally ill. He had a concealed
carry permit and there were a number of people concerned about
that being allowed under the law. He asked if he was familiar
with that incident. If that is a problem, was any thought given
to fixing it in this legislation. He wanted Chairman Taylor's
thoughts and also Mr. Judy's comment on the subject of people
adjudicated mentally ill having concealed carry permits.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said his primary concern was the broadness of the
title and would not mind at all narrowing that up a bit if people
thought it would be appropriate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR did not think Mr. Wagner was adjudicated mentally
ill until after the incident. He was concerned that had Mr.
Wagner been standing outside of the same store with his gun in a
holster on his leg he would have been legal in Alaska, he does
not need a permit to do that. He was sighted for failing to
disclose to the officer who approached him the fact that he had a
concealed firearm. Chairman Taylor was not sure how to address
that situation in the legislation but would be happy to give
consideration to it.
SENATOR ELLIS asked Mr. Judy to explain how other states may have
addressed or failed to address the subject of mental illness and
concealed carry.
MR. JUDY said under Federal Law there is a prohibition on
possession of a firearm for anybody who has been adjudicated
mentally incompetent or who has been committed to a mental
institution. The State of Alaska has the same standard for
possession of a firearm. In this incident Mr. Wagner had not
been adjudicated and had no record of any kind of mental
problems. If he had been carrying openly and exhibiting
delusional behavior nothing could have been done except if law
enforcement at the scene or the person at the dive shop who was
observing his behavior could, under Alaska Law Sec 47.30.700,
initiate an involuntary commitment procedure. Had that happened
and Wagner had been committed then he could not under Alaska Law
possess a firearm.
MR. JUDY explained in 1998 SB 141 brought the concealed weapon
permit law into line with the possession law in the State of
Alaska. With that bill if you could legally possess a firearm
then you would qualify for a permit and any place that you could
carry a firearm openly you would be able to carry a firearm
concealed.
He said the law worked perfectly in the Wagner case because law
enforcement was readily able to determine that he had a permit,
he was acting delusional, he had not let law enforcement know
that he was a permit holder and carrying so they were able to
arrest him and charge him. He was ultimately convicted by that
section. As part of his sentence he was given 3 years probation
and as a condition of the probation he was prohibited from
possessing firearms. He said that meant he does not qualify for
a permit for as long as he is subject of that prohibition. Mr.
Judy thought once he completed his probation if he was still
considered to be a danger and to have mental problems then any
one of the people who are working with him in the system could
initiate commitment procedures and there by not only prevent him
from qualifying for a permit but also keep him in the prohibited
class regarding straight possession.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was taken off the street, his gun was
removed and he was convicted of the offense because he had a
concealed carry permit and did not adhere to Alaska Laws. Had he
been carrying the gun openly there would have been no offense.
PETE ROBERTS, Homer resident, asked the committee to vote for
reciprocity on concealed carry permits. He said the statistics
on it are magnificent. If statistics were only so good for
people driving cars people would be a lot safer. He thought
there were some very good reasons for concealed carry permits and
a number of them had occurred recently. Some of the schoolyard
shootings would have been better if there had been some armed
adults. He knew that would not be covered under this bill but in
schools and on airplanes maybe some incidents, such as on
th
September 11, would not have happened if there had been
somebody armed. He supported SB 242. He said there are so many
laws covering guns that only legitimate responsible people can
legally be doing anything with a gun in the United States and
that is as it should be. He concluded an armed society is a
polite society.
CAPTAIN HUDSON, Alaska State Troopers Department of Public
Safety, said Lieutenant Julie Grimes, Supervisor of the Concealed
Handgun Permit Program was with him. He explained in 2000 he
testified on SB 294 and assisted in developing those changes in
the law. At that time their goal was to try to increase
reciprocity around the nation in regards to concealed handgun
permits. He said they were remiss in that their website did not
identify clearly several of the states that they have reciprocity
with. He said Mr. Judy indicated there is a two-part reciprocity
agreement that was developed in Chairman Taylor's last bill.
· To accept anyone's permit from a state that would accept
Alaska's.
· If a state met the minimum criteria of Alaska we would
accept their permit.
He explained that the reason he was adamant at that time in
regards to reciprocity was they wanted to try and make sure
Alaskans had the opportunity to carry firearms as they traveled
from state to state. He believed at that point in time that the
primary impetus was to provide Alaskan citizens the opportunity
to carry their firearms when they traveled to other areas.
CAPTAIN HUDSON noted that Mr. Judy said there were approximately
31 states that currently had forms of handgun permit programs.
Alaska recognized 25 of those states as defined in SB 294 which
Chairman Taylor had worked so hard on in 2000. DPS wanted some
sort of documentation from those state managers that would allow
them to put that agreement on file so they could make sure
Alaskan citizens were safe when they travel. The current website
listed the states which had given them a reciprocity agreement so
when Alaskan citizens travel they had something to back that up.
He said DPS was moving forward and continues to try to move
forward, they want to make sure that Alaskan citizens can carry
their firearms when they travel outside the State of Alaska and
DPS can provide them recent, current and accurate information on
which states will accept their permits. One of their biggest
fears has been that as our state laws have changed since 1994 and
other states also continually change their laws. They try to
maintain a relationship to insure correct information for
Alaskans traveling to another state.
CAPTAIN HUDSON wanted to make sure the committee did not think
DPS had done nothing because they had attacked the issue in
several directions. Alaska accepts several states permits and
those states had yet to tell DPS if they would accept Alaska's.
On the website they showed nine actual reciprocity states. There
was actually fourteen but they were waiting for some written
confirmation from them. Out of the 31 existing states with carry
permits, Alaska would then or very soon accept 25 of those states
and hopefully they can get some of them to accept Alaska's.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many unlawful incidents had occurred in
the State of Alaska caused by a concealed carrier who used his
weapon illegally.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said to his knowledge there had not been any. He
noted Mr. Judy had said the citizen that goes to the trouble of
getting a permit and legally doing so is not likely to be out
committing crimes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if there had been any incident where a
carrier has been a help to law enforcement in Alaska.
CAPTAIN HUDSON did not believe there had been any identified
incidents of that either.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Captain Hudson had stated in his comments
DPS wants to provide good concise, timely information but started
his comments out by saying DPS had been remiss in getting that
information out. He wanted to know where the problem was.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said he would be remiss in telling him that if he
looked at the website that day all 14 states were up there
because they were not. He wanted to make sure that was clear
because he didn't want him to think he was leading him astray.
They had constantly tried to contact other states. It was a
dynamic ongoing process and like anything, it was a matter of
timeliness trying to make it happen. The website was not as up-
to-date on a daily basis as they wished.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the 25 states were states where
Alaska recognized their permits and the list of 13 they had in
front of them or the 14 that Captain Hudson was talking about
were states that recognized Alaska's.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said the list on the website that day under
reciprocity, a total of 14, were states with true reciprocity.
They would take Alaska permits and Alaska would take theirs.
They had identified another 11 states which met the criteria in
the second portion of Alaska's law but had not yet said or
provided any documentation that they would accept Alaska permits.
They were working on that on a regular basis and he thought some
or most of them would accept Alaskan permits. It was a matter of
reaching the right person at the right time.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Judy if we recognize everybody's
permit but have no leverage to get other states to recognize ours
did that put Alaska citizens at a disadvantage.
MR. JUDY said the more states NRA can get to pass laws such as
the one they are considering with SB 242 the more leverage they
would have. He assured him NRA was working with states trying to
get legislation passed where if states were not cooperative those
states would simply recognize permits from all states. He
thought the more states they can get to act, like hopefully
Alaska will act, then it will be like a string of dominoes
eventually all the dominoes are going to fall.
He reiterated his doubt that all law enforcement agencies are
aware of those 25 states because he had been attempting on a
regular basis to get information and had never heard that DPS
considers 25 states as being valid in Alaska. He said he would
venture to guess that most law enforcement agencies had no clue
regarding that point as well. One of the comments the NRA made
for proposed regulations for SB 294 was for all law enforcement
in Alaska be notified including those that do not have web
access. He wanted the web to reflect a complete listing of those
states with reciprocity and those states with similar laws.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that was the purpose of the legislation and
for being there. He was shocked to hear that DPS was recognizing
25 states. He asked Captain Hudson and Lieutenant Grimes had he
asked DPS in early December how many states Alaska recognized and
granting reciprocity to what would the number have been then.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said he could not answer that. In the last
several months they had put more emphasis on trying to accomplish
this. He believed Commissioner Del Smith had spoken to Chairman
Taylor and they put some emphasis on it. He knew that the
reciprocity page on the website which had nine states on it were
all there in December. There had been several added since that
time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said when they checked the website on the first
of February it listed seven states which Alaska recognized. From
Captain Hudson's testimony they actually now have 14 which they
have some type of agreement with and 25 that they hope to have
some type of written agreement with in the near future. He asked
if that was correct.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said yes. They had four states they had been in
contact with which indicated they would give DPS some sort of a
written confirmation they will give reciprocity; Georgia,
Alabama, Connecticut and Indiana. When they actually get
something from their program managers in writing they are locked
in on the website. For the top six there are copies of
agreements that citizen can pull up and see. The website is
dynamic and changing. The other states they evaluated for
criteria have been contacted and are pending response from them
and hopefully they will accept Alaska permits. One of the things
New Hampshire indicated was they would honor Alaska except for
the 120-day rule in Alaska law. He said they are trying to
convince them under the second phase of our law, if they will
just accept our permit we will accept theirs, there is no limit
for the 120 days.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said there is dialogue going on between program
managers of these states and they are looking at various websites
and trying to make it work to the best of their ability. It
behooves them to do so because once they can get them locked in
if they don't change their laws then they will be through with
that issue and can move on to other things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was making an assumption but it seemed to
him that they had made very little progress in reciprocity for
almost four years and during that period of time the dialogue was
ongoing. He asked when those letters started flying out of DPS.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said after they passed SB 294 in 2000 he went off
to school for three months in Virginia and then changed positions
in DPS. He was replaced by another Lieutenant, not Lieutenant
Grimes. He came back to the program in July. He did not want to
place blame anywhere or try to lead anybody astray but knew there
had been work done on the program since he had come back and
taken over. He assisted Lieutenant Grimes promotion and she came
onto the program in the fall of last year. There had been
impetus placed on the program since that time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said if he was to go back through the file to
find out when the letters actually left DPS to the other states
most of them would be sometime after last fall.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said that was not quite true. He saw the letters
before he went off to the FBI National Academy in September of
2000. Prior to his departure he saw letters that were being
mailed out to every state that indicated they had state run
concealed handgun programs at that time. He knew letters went
out after the bill was passed into law. How much occurred in the
interim between then and the following July he did not know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the DPS website was the way Alaskans
discover what states give reciprocity.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said that is correct. He said they were waiting
for written confirmation from Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama,
Connecticut and Indiana. They were working with Arkansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New
York, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if their website information and
regulations as they are drafted were in compliance with the law.
He understood that instructors who are certified to give the
training programs for concealed carry were having trouble because
of problems inherent between the regulations and the website.
CAPTAIN HUDSON said he was confused about that because the only
contact he had had from any instructors recently in regard to the
website and statutes was out of Fairbanks. The instructors
indicated they did not have access to the website and asked them
for hardcopies of the regulations.
SENATOR THERRIAULT wanted to touch on the issue of Mr. Wagner
because he had gotten calls from constituents. He asked if Mr.
Wagner had been taken into custody by the police solely on the
fact that he had failed to reveal to them he had a concealed
weapon with him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the charge they brought against him was
failure to disclose, as a permit holder, that he was actually
carrying.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the restriction placed on him for
possessing a firearm was because he was adjudicated to have a
mental condition and while he is getting treatment that
prohibition is put on him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he did not think he had been adjudicated
yet. He noted Mr. Judy testified he was under probation for the
criminal charge he was convicted of. That probation will run for
three years. If he is still exhibiting bazaar behavior it was
hoped that someone would file to have him declared or found to be
mentally incompetent and for that reason not to be able to handle
firearms. That would prevent him under both Federal and State
law from even possession of a firearm.
SENATOR THERRIAULT inquired if the only restriction placed on him
stemmed from the concealed carry law.
TAPE 02-03 SIDE B
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered that he would not be under probation if
he had the gun strapped on his hip and was talking about computer
chips being inserted in his head and standing in the rain hoping
the rain would wash away all the evil chemicals inside him.
There would have been no reason they could have arrested him
other than for some overt or bazaar or dangerous behavior because
he would have been perfectly legal at that point since no one has
adjudicated him or committed him. This law worked very well to
make certain that person was no longer on the street with a gun.
JOE NAVA, Fairbanks firearm safety and marksmanship provider,
said he supported the bill because it was aimed at the good guys
in this country. He agreed with Mr. Judy that the concealed
carry people do not cause problems and he called them the good
guys. He informed the committee he was an instructor in
Fairbanks and trained people for the state and was a course
provider for the DPS. He had been training firearm safety and
marksmanship in Alaska for 40 years and training instructors for
30 years.
MR. NAVA said he worked very closely with the ladies in Anchorage
who administered the program. The program allowed him and other
instructors around the state to bring gun safety training to over
18,000 people who would not have gotten it otherwise. That
reduced firearm accidents. He said if people didn't know that
educational training reduced accidents they would not be in
schools trying to teach children how to behave in their future
life so they won't come to grief.
He said the concealed carry law in Alaska had reduced the crime
rate. He checked the crime rate in the Juneau Library through
the reports sent in by DPS for 1995 through 1998. From 1995
through 1998 all crimes against a person had gone down in double-
digit percentages. He added it may or may not have all been the
result of the concealed carry program but he was certain the
concealed carry program had some effect because you could see the
same statistics in all the other states.
He explained he trained concealed carry applicants and as the
course provider was suppose to have the most up to date
information and he could only get that from the website. He had
a sheet from the website dated the first of February and it
listed seven states and did not say anything about any others.
He said that seven had been there for a long time without change.
The problem he had was with the information given to the people
and the course providers. People get information from the
instructors when they take the class. He has to present what he
can get off the website and if that is not up to date and correct
then he is not giving correct information to his students. He
said he checked the website the first day of February and it said
permits must be renewed in person. That had been on the website
since the law was changed in August of the year 2000. He sent
emails to DPS reminding them of the change but the answer he got
was they were going to update the regulations and then change the
information on the website. He believed the information on the
website should be accurate and updated and it should not take a
year and a half to do it.
He discussed the stack of law papers that DPS gives to every
applicant when they pick up their application and thought that
needed to be rewritten also. He said the first ten pages of that
packet were correct, it quoted the law, but the next ten pages on
regulations had not been updated. He wanted somebody to update
the information and website to comply with the law so he can give
the best information possible to his students.
SENATOR DONLEY requested copies of DPS correspondence with the
other states including the dates to be added to the record for
when this legislation goes to the House.
LIEUTENANT GRIMES believed they could provide most of that. She
thought they had it collected in a notebook.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they would make that part of the background
material that moves with the bill.
SENATOR DONLEY moved SB 242 from committee with individual
recommendations. There being no objection, the motion passed.
SB 223-PRISONERS:PAROLE/GOOD TIME
SENATOR DONLEY, Sponsor SB 223, explained it was a revisit to an
issue. The intent of the legislation is to increase the
percentage of incarcerated individuals in Alaska that at the time
they are released would at least have their General Equivalency
Diploma (GED). The public policy reasoning behind it was that
studies had shown the number one factor in recidivism on the part
of released prisoners from correctional facilities is their
ability to read and write, their educational level, which makes
common sense. The inability to read and write greatly inhibits
their ability to find a job and meaningful employment. People
that come out of the correctional facilities with a GED are going
to have a better chance in the future to sustain themselves and
find jobs and get employment.
He explained the Sponsor Substitute version, in the packet, would
th
allow prisoners, who failed to get their GED, 1/12 of the good
rd
time sentence reduction instead of the current statutory 1/3
sentence reduction available to them. The proposed Committee
th
Substitute (CS) would allow them to get 1/6 of their good time
rdth
sentence reduction as opposed to 1/3. With the 1/6 they would
be eligible for half of their statutory good time sentence
reduction if they failed to get their GED. He said that was
about 17%, which is very close to the national standard of 15%
that had been adopted by 30 states and the federal government as
a minimum time prisoners are suppose to serve. Alaska currently
had a very generous good time law, twice the national standard.
For people who don't get their GED it would be more generous than
the national standard by 2%.
He said with the understanding that is what the proposed CS would
do, he moved the CS be adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the motion was for the committee to adopt
the document 2/5/02, 97/J. Hearing no objection CSSSSB 223 (JUD)
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if two people go to jail, one had not
accomplished his graduation from High School or a GED and the
other one had graduated from High School, how would this effect
them.
SENATOR DONLEY answered anyone who had graduated or had a GED
rd
would still be eligible for the full 1/3 off for good time.
Those people who had not would have to get their GED, unless they
fit the exemption criteria, before they would be eligible for the
rd
full 1/3. If they did not they would only be eligible for
th
1/6.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked for whom he had exemption criteria.
SENATOR DONLEY explained the exemption criteria included people
who are mentally of physically incapable of obtaining a diploma
or its equivalency, they don't speak English as their primary
language, or due to the prisoners age or social background the
commissioner determines the prisoner cannot reasonably be
expected to meet that educational requirement.
CANDACE BROWER, Program Coordinator Department of Corrections
(DOC), said DOC also believes that education is an important
factor in rehabilitation of offenders and they take that mission
very seriously. DOC is opposed to SB 223 primarily because it
would increase costs for the state they do not think necessary.
They have in place educational programs in all of their
facilities. They provide adult basic education, which is
literacy programming as well as GED, Vocational Rehabilitation
and other educational programs. She thought they did a pretty
good job.
She explained at Lemon Creek they have what is called a GED Dorm.
When offenders are incarcerated at Lemon Creek the probation
officer meets with the offender to determine what kind of
schooling they have. If they say they have a GED or a diploma
that is verified, particularly if they are going to get into
taking away good time. If they need to get a GED or diploma they
go into what is called the GED Dorm. In that dorm there is no
television and no extra benefits and during the week they are
required to study and prepare for the GED.
People in this program who are unable, and there are a large
number of offenders who are unable to reach the sixth grade
level, don't go to that dorm because it would not be appropriate
for them to be in that particular group. She gave that as one
example of the things they do to provide education to offenders.
She explained at Spring Creek Correctional Center they have a
youth offender program. They have a separate unit for youthful
offenders and one of the requirements of that program is they
attend school. They are in school everyday. The schooling is
provided by the Kenai School District. They also have had
commencement ceremonies at Highland Mountain Correctional Center
for the women. They celebrate people's successes in education
and take it very seriously.
MS. BROWER explained this would be a more punitive angle toward
receiving education and they believe, as does most of the
educational community, incentive is a better way to go. Most
other correctional places do incentives such as provide
additional visitation, increased telephone calls, payment to
attend school and give additional time off to somebody who
achieves their diploma of GED rather that take away what other
people would ordinarily receive. DOC preferred that method and
she thought that would be less costly with the same result as SB
223.
She said the committee was aware DOC facilities suffered from
overcrowding and there were over 700 inmates in Arizona. When
DOC met in 2002 in front of the House Finance Committee they had
300 more offenders incarcerated than the previous year. She
thought some increase in numbers had to do with legislation
enacted that increased misdemeanor offenses to felony offenses
and lengthened sentences. She thought the bill would increase
sentences for people who would not be committing further crimes.
DOC simply did not have room for an increased population and they
were doing a good job.
MS. BROWER discussed another problem. On January 1, 2002 the GED
testing had been completely overhauled. Tests taken before
January 1 would not count towards a GED unless they had completed
st
their GED by December 31. Everyone as of January 1 had to
start over again. They were not sure of the effect of the new
test because it is a more rigorous program and battery. They did
not know what kind of an effect that is going to have on the
offenders and how well they are going to be able to succeed.
She was concerned about litigation. If there was a liberty
interest involved, offenders who are violated for not getting
their GED or diploma would likely go before the Parole Board for
a revocation hearing which would require the use of a Public
Defender and cause other problems.
She was concerned that many of their offenders are subject to
court ordered treatment programs such as substance abuse
treatment, sex offender treatment, and batterers programs. Some
of the programs are full time and require the complete attention
of the offender. She asked if this legislation would interfere
with their court ordered treatment. For example if someone is
court ordered to do sex offender treatment and they also have
this legislation hanging over their head would they have to
choose sex offender treatment over getting their education. Or
if they were court ordered into substance abuse treatment would
they have to choose getting sober or getting an education. She
was not sure how that would affect people who already had court
orders for other important treatment.
She appreciated Senator Donley's Committee Substitute that would
th
increase the percentage of good time to 1/6. She said when
somebody is on mandatory parole often times that is the only
supervision they have when they are released. With reduced good
time they would not be on supervision as long as they would have
otherwise. With the problem of overcrowding if there is a way
that offenders can get back into the community safely on
supervision she thought that was a preferred method.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said DOC was using all the different carrot
devises as incentives to get their GED.
MS. BROWER said they do encourage people to get their GED but
they certainly do not give them extra privileges or extra time
off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said they were not using any of the carrot
devises or very few of them that other states are using such as
paying people to get their GEDs, giving them extra time off once
they get one, giving them additional privileges that they might
not have in the institution because they have accomplished that.
He asked what incentives were DOC using, just saying it is a good
idea to get their GED and they would provide some help.
MS. BROWER answered she was not sure what everybody does in each
institution but it is required at Spring Creek in the youthful
offender program to be in school or they can not be in that
program.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said that was only for people under a certain
age.
MS. BROWER believed it was twenty-two. At Lemon Creek it is a
requirement that they be in the GED Dorm if they are capable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he knew it was required but it was like
prison work programs. There is no requirement to work, it is
provided for them and many choose to do it because it gives them
some activity during the day.
MS. BROWER said one of the things they do get if they get a GED
is television, whether that is a good incentive or not.
Sometimes people are encouraged to do better just because it is
better for them. They actually do want to get better.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they had any negative incentive right
now. He asked if failure to get their GED had absolutely no
impact one way or the other on the amount of time they are going
to serve, when they are going to get out, or their conditions of
probation.
MS. BROWER said no although conditions of probation generally
have an educational requirement if the judge deems that necessary
as do conditions of parole.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked the percentage of people currently released
from our institutions that did not have a GED.
MS. BROWER said she was not sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if she knew whether DOC was measuring or
keeping track of educational levels, whether they were achieving
something within the institution, and how many they were
releasing that did not avail themselves of these program.
MS. BROWER said not availing themselves of the program is
probably a difficult question to answer. She had some statistics
for how many people were enrolled in GED programming in 2000,
2001 and the first six months of 2002.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said some take advantage of it and the
legislature had put money into the program to make certain there
were funds available so people could get learning opportunities
while incarcerated. He asked of those released what percentage
did not have their GED other than the excused group. He asked
what percentage of the group of people Senator Donley had
targeted with the bill were not entering into the programs and
probably would not without some additional incentive.
MS. BROWER said she was not sure they had an answer to that
question. She was not sure whether or not they track.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the new GED testing requirement related
in anyway to the testing requirements imposed by the legislature
on high school students.
MS. BROWER answered GED testing is nationwide.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it was terrific they had an institution in
the state that was using a national test that could be verified
and validated.
He noted she had said litigation might be a problem. He said
this legislation would only apply to people being sentenced after
it takes effect. So it would be some years out before there
would be a significant fiscal impact. He noted the DOC fiscal
note was $60,000 going to $708,000. He said the $60,000 was
contractual and in 2007 there would be a very large impact. He
said that would be people who refused to go through the program
and DOC would have to keep them longer.
SENATOR DONLEY said a new fiscal note on the Committee Substitute
had not been done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the increased cost was because DOC
sensed they would be keeping some people in prison longer and it
would be more expensive than having them on probation.
MS. BROWER said that was right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if they had higher recidivism rates because
inmates did not have a GED. He asked if DOC wouldn't want to
keep them longer because they are the ones that are more likely
to offend if turned loose.
MS. BROWER said she supposed they would want to keep them longer
she just did not know how affective punishment was as opposed to
positive reinforcement.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said Ms. Brower was concerned if they kept them
longer there would be a shorter period of parole. He asked if
that was a cost concern or a rehabilitation concern.
MS. BROWER said it was a rehabilitation concern.
SENATOR THERRIAULT wanted to know if Senator Donley had
information on why those that have a GED have a lower recidivism
rate. Was it because they got an education or are those people
who naturally move up into the GED already less inclined to be
repeat offenders.
SENATOR DONLEY said he did not know. He explained in national
studies it is very clear that the number one correlating fact of
a person's recidivism is whether they can read and write. It
could be when they were first incarcerated they were a better
candidate for rehabilitation in the first place. It could be
that when they get out they can actually get a job because they
can read and write or it might be a combination of all those
things. It was nationally recognized that education is the
number one factor in success of not committing another crime when
released from a correctional institution.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted Ms. Brower said the bill designated who
would check the prisoner's high school or GED records but had
indicated DOC already does that.
MS. BROWER said the Lemon Creek Correctional Center did but was
not sure if they did Department wide. If they require a prisoner
to prove they have their GED or diploma DOC will be doing that.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Senator Donley, since the fiscal note
was written to the original bill, did he have an idea how the
Committee Substitute would impact those numbers.
SENATOR DONLEY said the number as far as time of incarceration
would be halved so the $341,300 would be $170,000. The first
$5,500 was contractual services to administer the test of basic
education. This legislation puts the burden on the inmate to
come forward and show proof they already have their GED. They
could wipe that cost out by placing the burden on the inmate. He
said it sounded like they were already doing that at Spring Creek
and wanted to know what they were doing at the other facilities.
They would have to see how Spring Creek does it and how much it
cost them there.
He said there was an estimated $46,800 in contractual service for
additional teaching and tutoring services in addition to current
expenditures. He said that might be a legitimate cost and
probably worth it because there is nothing in the fiscal note
anticipating the savings on the back end for the decreased
recidivism.
He addressed the issues brought up by Ms. Brower. He said the
st
January 1 GED testing did not have anything to do with the bill
other than it might be a little bit tougher to get a GED in the
future in Alaska.
He said the issue of being violated for not getting a GED was
reverse thinking. The bill said they get 1/6 unless they get
rd
their GED then they get 1/3 off. The Department was in the
mentality that somehow it is the right of prisoners to have the
rd
1/3 good time. He thought that was reverse thinking. Good
time should be a reward for good behavior and this is part of the
good behavior so it is not taking it away from them it is what
they didn't get.
He said the issue of conflict with other court orders, they have
24 hours locked up in prison, so unless they are all consuming,
not being able to take sex offender or alcohol treatment and go
to school seemed inconsistent and not a very persuasive argument.
He said a lot of people do it on the Internet and don't have to
have special classes to do it.
SENATOR DONLEY addressed the idea that they would be cutting down
on time in the community for assessment and transition. He said
good time was never intended for that function. That is what
parole is intended to do and that is up to judges who can issue
mandatory parole. If the judges know that getting a GED may
affect the total amount of good time they should be sentencing
people to a certain amount of parole to give them transition time
into the community. He said it is really bad public policy to
assume good time is given to everybody so the only way we can
have a supervised period to go back in society is if they give
them good time. He thought good time should be given as a reward
for good behavior and not because they want an integration period
back into society. Mandatory parole should be part of the
judicial function and require a period of supervision.
SENATOR COWDERY thought education helped the parolees to adjust
to the outside environment. The prisons are already overcrowded.
He asked if they had any figures on what percentage return in
connection with their education level.
MS. BROWER said she did not have any numbers on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if DOC did not track any of that.
MS. BROWER said they are implementing a new data gathering system
that will track information much better than they have been able
to do in the past. They hoped to be able to track those things
more closely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the question was based on the statistic that
nationally those who cannot read or write have a greater
propensity to repeat and return to institutions. Senator Cowdery
was asking how many of these folks are coming back and at what
levels over a given period of time. He thought they needed to
find and utilize every technique they could to make certain that
a person having once been in an institution never wanted to come
back again and maybe modified their life style and life choices
so they did not come back again.
MS. BROWER said how many come back because they don't have their
education is a complicated question. How many come back because
they have a substance abuse problem or other issues that have not
been dealt with may be more critical in Alaska because that is a
tremendous problem they try to address on a regular basis.
BRUCE RICHARDS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner
DOC, said Senator Donley mentioned what is known around the
country as "truth in sentencing" where DOC in Alaska is required
to provide a 33% mandatory parole. Some states have a 15%. Even
though Alaska is more generous in their good time the sentences
here are longer. Last August when the Department of Justice came
out with their statistics most of the states in the country
actually had a decline in their prisoner population and Alaska
was one of five that had an increase. They had 300 more people
than at that time last year.
He pointed out that in the testimony on SB 242, Concealed
Handguns people were talking about crime reduction. If that was
the case the populations were still rising in DOC. There are
some things that are different in Alaska and he believed it was
sentencing.
MR. RICHARDS said with the Committee Substitute the incarceration
costs under FY 06, 07 and 08 would change. The $341,000 would
become $175,000 and the $648,000 would also be $175,000. There
was a holding over of people on the second year that would no
th
longer exist under the 1/6. The total number in FY 06 would be
$235,300 and hold the rest of the way out.
He wanted to respond to Senator Taylor's question about what DOC
does for incentives. Television was called an incentive but it
actually was something that everybody had. Senator Donley's No
Frills Prison Bill removed that portion so now in order for an
inmate to have television they would have to obtain a GED or
diploma.
SENATOR DONLEY said everybody in Alaska correctional facilities
had access to common area television. The provision was whether
or not they have a television in their own cell.
MR. RICHARDS discussed spitting time between court ordered
programming and getting a GED on the Internet. A piece of the No
Frills Bill specified inmates are not allowed to have a
connection to the Internet.
SENATOR DONLEY said that was a connection to the Internet in
their own cell and they still have access to computers in common
areas.
MR. RICHARDS said they do not provide Internet at all.
SENATOR DONLEY said they could access computers and have a
program like a CD Rom that had what they needed to get their GED
in a common teaching area.
MR. RICHARDS said they could do that in places where they had
computers. He thought they did that in some places.
He said because of overcrowding people are transported and moved
all the time just to keep the facilities at their caps as much as
they can. They are not able to do that everyday but everything
is interrupted all the time. He noticed the bill allowed, under
section (A) page 2 lines 12 & 13 "if the program is made
available". One of their big problems was the constant moving of
prisoners to maintain the population at different facilities.
SENATOR TAYLOR said most people who go out on their own and get
their GED do it while they are feeding their kids, doing the
laundry and going to work everyday. They get a couple of books,
take them home, work on them in the house and they cannot afford
a computer. He said for somebody to suggest to the committee
that some poor prisoner, who had a sex violation, might not be
able to do his entire sex violators treatment program and still
be able to get a GED too was kind of tough to swallow.
He commented on the current policy within DOC attempting to
comply with Judge Hunt's order on housing. He said it is a
standard higher than most any other state had. He could not
believe the level of travel and transportation and how many hours
of State Trooper time was being wasted as they bounced prisoners
from one facility to another based upon how many came in the
night before. He said it was a bazaar situation and he had yet
to see the Administration put in one single bill to build a
prison.
TAPE 02-04 SIDE A
MR. RICHARDS said Senator Taylor's comment, that there had been
no leadership by the governor and no bill had been put forward,
there actually had been Regional Correction Expansion bills
introduced by the governor in the past. Some of those turned
out, they have a new Anchorage jail opening up this year.
MR. RICHARDS pointed out that the majority of business in DOC
takes place in the Anchorage bowl area. Most of those people are
pre-trial inmates and they only have a limited number of bed
spaces for those people. In order to get people through the
judicial system and through the process they need to be in that
location. Some of those people don't stay where they are because
their court dates may be far enough down the road that they can
move them out to Palmer or down to Wildwood because there are new
people coming in.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he understood that. He appreciated the
clarification of it because he had painted with too broad a brush
on that. He understood that is the biggest part of the
population that has to keep moving.
ROSE MUNAFO, Criminal Justice Planner Department of Corrections,
said Senator Donley had mentioned they might not need to do the
test of adult basic education. She believed he felt the inmates
would be required to provide them with documentation of their
educational level but the reason they do that test is because it
is a requirement by the GED testing service. When they enroll
anyone in Adult Basic Education classes they have to do a base
line evaluation of their educational level.
SENATOR DONLEY said the fiscal note assumes there are 200 new
inmates, 8% are incapable and 35% already have their GEDs so they
are going to have 111 to test. DOC is already testing some of
those so why would they have to have the full $5500 for 111 if
they are already doing that process, for example, at Spring Creek
for all of them.
MR. RICHARDS said they are anticipating increased participation
in the GED program because of this legislation for people who are
rd
going to want to get the full 1/3 good time. Which would
result in an additional test that they probably would not be
providing.
MS. MUNAFO said it costs roughly $50 per person.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that made good sense because there may very
well be a resident body of people within the institutions that
would then want to participate.
He asked if the population in their institutions was, 3500 or
4000.
MR. RICHARDS said there were approximately 4600 people in
custody.
SENATOR DONLEY said he was all for them applying for a GED and
getting an education but this bill would not be an incentive
towards people already in just for new people. If it inspired
the existing people, that would be wonderful.
MS. MUNAFO said she did the program management for inmate
education and a few other programs so that is why she was there.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked her and said he believed one of the
greatest aspects of rehabilitation they can offer to people who
are incarcerated is to get them some education and get them the
ability to read and write and maybe they will be able to handle
their lives a little better when they get out. He appreciated
what the people with DOC were doing.
SENATOR DONLEY told Ms. Munafo his staff would be in contact with
her to try and work out a new fiscal note based on the new
Committee Substitute.
SENATOR DONLEY made the motion to move CSSSSB 223 (JUD), the
newly adopted J version from committee with individual
recommendations.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the record should note Senator Ellis had left
but they still had a quorum.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that is with a new fiscal note.
SENATOR TAYLOR hearing no objection moved CSSSSB 223 (JUD) from
committee with individual recommendations and with a new fiscal
note as testified to. Meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|