SENATE BILL NO. 137 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole; and providing for an effective date." 9:06:41 AM Co-Chair Johnston OPENED and CLOSED public testimony. Co-Chair Johnston asked for a brief reintroduction of the bill. SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, the bill would extend the Board of Parole from 2020 to 2025. He highlighted the importance of the bill, given the need for a Board of Parole. He asked his staff to provide additional detail. MICHAEL WILLIS, INTERN, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, shared that the bill would extend the Board of Parole from June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2025. He detailed that the board was serving the public's interest by effectively evaluating prisoners' likelihood of recidivism and whether a prisoner poses a threat to the public. He relayed that Kris Curtis with the Division of Legislative Audit was available for additional questions. 9:08:42 AM Representative Knopp asked if the fiscal note showed an increased or decreased cost from prior fiscal notes. Mr. Willis answered that he had not looked at prior fiscal notes. He deferred the question to the legislative auditor. Senator Micciche answered that he had reviewed prior fiscal notes. He highlighted that the auditor's report (copy on file) showed that the cost had increased because SB 91 [crime reform legislation passed in 2016] had added five positions. He believed there may be an opportunity to reduce the members on the board the following year once the impacts of HB 49 [crime reform legislation passed in 2019] were understood. He explained that a reduction in board members would bring the cost down somewhat. Representative Carpenter directed a question to the legislative auditor. He asked about the board's ability to effectively evaluate the likelihood of recidivism. He asked if it was something the audit was able to evaluate with statistics the Department of Corrections or board kept on hand. KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, replied that what the sunset audit reviewed was dictated by statute (the 11 various statutes were included in the appendix of the audit report). The audit did not look at the quality of a board's decisions in terms of whether they were making the right decisions. The background information sections of the audit explained how a board went about making decisions and the tools it used. When Legislative Audit did its testing, it made sure a board was using the tools described in regulation, but it did not reaffirm a board's decision. 9:11:04 AM Representative Wool stated that the renewal date had been pushed back due to HB 49. He thought the board extension had been reduced from eight to five years. He asked if the extension was too long considering that SB 91 and HB 49 had taken place during a short timeframe. He knew that numerous staff had been added as a result of SB 91. He thought a reduction may occur sooner than five years. Ms. Curtis answered that HB 49 had not been considered [in the audit]. She elaborated that when the audit report had been written, Legislative Audit did not know what legislation would pass; therefore, she had recommended a five-year extension. The last time the board had been extended was three years earlier. At that time, she had recommended a six-year extension, which had been cut down to three years due to uncertainty. The length of the extension was solely up to policy makers. She reported that the Board of Parole was very well run and had done an amazing job with the change they had gone through. Senator Micciche answered that there would be a parole board whether or not the extension was made. He elaborated that whether the board was extended for 3, 5, or 8 years, the things the legislature would have to adjust were independent of the board extension. He noted he was on the Department of Corrections finance subcommittee. He referenced exhibit 3 on page 2 [of the audit] and considered whether the legislature had over capitalized the board with positions now that there was no longer a requirement for a Board of Parole hearing. He believed the legislature would have to work through the issue in the budget process. He explained that the board would still need to be extended and he did not see the five years as being a factor in how the legislature adjusted the board's budget in the next five years. 9:13:30 AM Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT SB 137 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SB 137 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (COR).