SB 1-NO MANDATORY PAROLE RELEASE WITHOUT GED SENATOR DONLEY explained the proposed committee substitute addresses SENATOR HALFORD's concern about people who may be unable to attain educational requirements. The bill allows the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections discretion to certify that it is not reasonable for certain people to meet the standard. Those people would then be excused from the requirements. The committee substitute also includes a provision that makes a person ineligible for the program where the program is not offered by the Department. Number 468 SENATOR HALFORD moved the adoption of the committee substitute for SB 1. Without objection, the committee substitute was adopted. MR. BRUCE RICHARDS, representing the Department of Corrections, said the Department has a minor technical amendment to the committee substitute. The Department would also like the committee to consider making the GED a mandatory requirement of parole, rather than a condition for receiving good time. This would remove the burden of providing the program from the Department and put the responsibility and cost of the program on the offender. MR. RICHARDS said the Department would encourage people to start the program while incarcerated and inform them that attaining a GED would be a mandatory condition of parole. This would reduce the Department of Corrections' fiscal note and is likely to also reduce the fiscal note from the Department of Law, while still accomplishing the goal of increasing the educational level of inmates. Number 427 MR. MICHAEL STARK, representing the Department of Law, testified the Department supports MR. RICHARDS' idea as a less costly and problematic way to accomplish the goals of SB 99. MR. STARK suggested on page 2 of the bill, lines 1 and 25, the word "certify" be replaced with the word "determine". He explained certify connotes some kind of official action that does not exist. He also suggested a change on page 3, line 10 and 11: make the effective date apply to "persons whose crimes are committed on or after the effective date. He explained the court now bases its analysis on the date a person's crime is committed, not the date of conviction. Number 400 SENATOR DONLEY moved, as Amendment #1, to insert the word "committed" after the word "crimes" on line 11, page 3. Without objection, Amendment #1 was adopted. SENATOR DONLEY moved, as Amendment #2, replacing the word "certifies" on page 2, lines 1 and 25, with the word "determines". Without objection, Amendment #2 was adopted. Number 393 SENATOR ELLIS asked for an explanation of how the Commissioner would excuse some people from educational requirements without opening the Department to litigation based on unequal treatment of some groups of prisoners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR restated the same question, asking "Is there an equal protection problem here?" MR. STARK replied it is an issue, but he believes a "rational basis" argument can be made against an equal protection challenge. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented, "There would at least be an objective standard . . ." MR. STARK agreed. Number 371 SENATOR HALFORD stated for the record, "This committee believes it is an objective standard and it should be applied in an objective manner . . . the Administration, if they have any problems doing that, they should come back to us, as it is our expectation that it be applied in a manner that is constitutional." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was objection to that statement. SENATOR ELLIS said "We are making an attempt to make it an objective standard, but it is by its nature subjective . . . that may be our opinion, but I don't know that is fact." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR clarified, "It is the intent of this committee . . . this would be an objective standard applied without violating equal protection . . ." MR. STARK assumed the committee had no interest in MR. RICHARDS' proposal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he'd prefer to see inmates attain these educational requirements as early as possible, though he realizes this will increase the cost to the State. Number 346 SENATOR DONLEY noted that, if the bill was changed and an inmate failed to attain their GED, a Public Defender would be required to represent them at a parole revocation hearing. MR. STARK affirmed this is true. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was further testimony on CSSB 1(JUD). There was none. Number 330 SENATOR DONLEY moved CSSB 1(JUD) with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Without objection, CSSB 1(JUD) moved from committee.