SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS  6:33:07 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 34, "An Act relating to probation; relating to a program allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation; relating to early termination of probation; relating to parole; relating to a program allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole; relating to early termination of parole; relating to eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and providing for an effective date." She noted there was a new committee substitute. 6:33:22 PM SENATOR REINBOLD moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 34, labeled 31-GS1031\K, Radford, 4/22/19, Version K, as the working document. CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. 6:33:58 PM At-ease. CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 6:35:11 PM MR. WHITT reviewed the changes in the proposed committee substitute (CS) for SB 34, from Version U to K. 6:35:27 PM REGINA LARGENT, Staff, Senator Shelley Hughes, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, testifying on behalf of the Chair Hughes, introduced herself. MR. WHITT reviewed the first change in the committee substitute for SB 34, Version K. Title Changes: The following has been added to or removed from the title in order to conform to changes and added provisions; ? relating to restoration of a driver's license 6:35:39 PM MR. WHITT reviewed Sections 4 and 5. Sections 4 and 5: Amends AS 28.35.030(o) and AS 28.35.032(q) to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to restore a person's revoked driver's license when 10 years have elapsed since the revocation and the person has not been convicted of any criminal offense during the intervening 10 years. A license revoked pursuant to a conviction of certain crimes against persons will not be eligible for restoration. (Page 3 Line 14 through Page 4, Line 21) MR. WHITT explained that in current law if someone is convicted of a felony DUI and the person's license is revoked, even a minor infraction would result in a lifetime revocation. CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that it was not a small thing to drive without a valid driver's license. She pointed out that this provision would raise the bar since a person convicted of a serious felony not related to driving could have his/her license restored. This provision would expand revocations to all criminal offenses but allow a reset with a 10-year clean record. 6:38:09 PM SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether this would include misdemeanor offenses. MR. WHITT said he did not hear the question. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that this language currently includes misdemeanors and felonies. CHAIR HUGHES directed attention to page 3, line 23 of Version K. MR. SKIDMORE reviewed the language and said that it would broaden it from a driving-related criminal offense to any criminal offense. In further response, he answered that it would include misdemeanors and felonies. SENATOR REINBOLD remarked that she considered this to be a big change since it would remove "driving-related" offenses. She said this causes her pause. She asked whether the administration supports this change. MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure if the administration has a position on this change and that it was not a change the Department of Law requested. 6:42:00 PM CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the "clock gets set once for 10 years," so a person with a driving-related criminal offense cannot obtain a driver's license unless the person goes through the therapeutic court for a subsequent driving under the influence (DUI) offense. She stated that she has a conflict of interest until SB 89, related to legislative ethics passes because she has [a family member who interacts with therapeutic courts]. She highlighted the concern that this remedies. She said that some clinic providers indicated that offenders who attend therapeutic courts can have their licenses restored, but other offenders indicated the only way that they could have their driver's licenses restored would be to commit another DUI and have that offense referred to the therapeutic court. She remarked that is not a good option and this language would remedy it. MR. WHITT emphasized that this would not eliminate the department's discretion. He directed attention to page 3, line 19, which states the department "may" restore a person's driver's license, but the person must meet certain thresholds. When a person's driver's license has been revoked due to a felony DUI or other crime, a ten-year time clock starts. At the end of ten years, the person would be eligible to apply, and the department would review the application, he said. However, the department may or may not restore the person's driver's license, he said. For example, a "bad actor" would not be issued a driver's license, he said. 6:44:44 PM CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 3, line 20, which read "(A) the license has been revoked for a period of at least 10 years;" but on page 3, line 26 it also reads, "shall restore the driver's license if" and lists conditions that must be met. 6:45:26 PM SENATOR MICCICHE related a scenario in which a person lost his/her driver's license and makes it to year nine without any criminal offense, but then shoots a moose whose antlers are just shy of the legal 50-inches. He offered his belief that this provision is a huge change since it does not limit it to felony. He offered his belief that this would be a major obstacle for people who have actually turned their lives around and are successful. He said he did not think he could support this language. In response to Chair Hughes, he offered his belief that it should not include misdemeanors and he would like to consider if some minor felonies should also be excluded. He said he preferred the previous language because it was "driving related" and this language relates to driver's privileges and broadening the range of offenses means it is no longer about driving. Further, the reason licenses are revoked is typically due to driving-related offenses. Although his goal is to never break the law, he could envision that he could accidentally take an under legal size bull moose, he said. 6:47:18 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether vehicle theft was a driving offense. MR. SKIDMORE answered no. 6:47:39 PM MR. WHITT clarified that in the scenario Senator Micciche mentioned related to a fish and wildlife violation, the individual would lose driver's license privileges for life with no recourse under current law. This language would pave the way for an individual to have his/her driving privileges reinstated. He recapped that if an individual's license was revoked for a period of ten years and the person committed a subsequent criminal offense, the person would lose his/her driver's license for life. CHAIR HUGHES pointed out that it is limited to driving-related criminal offenses, which was Senator Micciche's point. MR. WHITT said he understood the distinction. 6:48:31 PM At-ease. 6:54:23 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 6:54:26 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR MICCICHE explained Conceptual Amendment 1. On page 3, line 22, after the word "a" add the language "driving-related criminal offense or felony." CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. SENATOR REINBOLD objected in order to have the Department of Law provide the administration's view. 6:55:33 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said should Conceptual Amendment 1 be adopted, the language on page 3, line 22 would now read: "the person has not been convicted of a driving-related criminal offense or felony in the 10 years preceding the request for restoration [of the license; and ?.] MR. SKIDMORE acknowledged that the proposed wording made sense. He said that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would allow someone to get [his/her] driver's license back more easily. The elimination of the "driving-related" criminal offense made this more restrictive, he said. SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on "easier to get [his/her] license back" and whether it was relative to the bill or to the amended amendment. MR. SKIDMORE explained that under current law, when a person's driver's license is revoked, the driver's license can be restored if at least 10 years has passed, and the person has not been convicted of a criminal-related offense. Conceptual Amendment 1 would add to the "10 years has passed" but the person must not have committed a driving-related offense or a felony offense. He referred to lines 16-18, "unless the revocation was ordered in a case in which the person was also convicted of a crime under AS 11.41.100 - 11.41.210, 11.41.280, 11.41.282, or a similar law in another jurisdiction ?." He said if a person was convicted of crimes listed in the language on lines 16-18, the person could not restore his/her driver's license but could under other circumstances. He explained the conduct that would disqualify a person would be conviction of another felony. It makes it clear restoration occurs after ten years and it also limits the categories of eligibility. 6:58:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON joined the meeting. 6:58:24 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked who would be impacted by this language. MR. SKIDMORE explained that this language would apply to a person who committed a felony DUI that did not harm someone. That person would be eligible to get their driver's license back after ten years as long as they didn't commit another driving- related offense or another felony, he said. He said that this language, [Conceptual Amendment 1], would make it easier for an individual to restore his/her driver's license. This also supports what Chair Hughes mentioned, that some individuals who had committed felony DUIs and had their licenses revoked have had difficulty restoring their driving privileges without going through the therapeutic court process. The language [in Conceptual Amendment 1] would give these individuals the ability to restore their licenses without going through the therapeutic court process. 7:00:15 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the language on line 24 needed to be revised. MR. SKIDMORE said no. SENATOR REINBOLD emphasized that she wanted to be certain this will not impact the license revocation issue addressed during the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee meeting last week. MR. SKIDMORE said that he was not present at the aforementioned meeting, so he was unsure of the effect. 7:01:51 PM KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of Law, Juneau, said that an amendment was passed in another crime bill, SB 32, to recriminalize driving with a license that had been canceled, suspended, or revoked. She answered that it could be considered a driving-related offense, which would make the person ineligible for license restoration and would restart the clock for another ten-year period. 7:02:23 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 would make it more difficult. MS. SCHROEDER responded if the person committed a driving- related offense with a license that had been canceled, suspended, or revoked, the clock would restart. She offered her belief that it would be easier to restore the person's license than under current law. CHAIR HUGHES said that a person entertaining the thought of committing another DUI in order to use the therapeutic court avenue for license restoration would not be a good outcome. She stated that staying clean for 10 years is a pretty good standard. 7:03:16 PM SENATOR MICCICHE commented that he personally knows a pastor who has helped people turn their lives around. He said this license issue is a major problem since people face permanent license revocation. He recapped that [Conceptual Amendment 1] would allow a 10-year reset so people whose records have been clean for a lengthy time can get back to driving. He offered his support for Conceptual Amendment 1. CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. SENATOR REINBOLD objected to ask how many people this would impact and whether it would increase or decrease public safety. MS. SCHROEDER said that she was unsure. She suggested that the Division of Motor Vehicles may have those figures. She said the people affected would not have any driving-related offense or felony offense in 10 years, essentially a ten-year streak of good behavior. It would allow them to restore their driver's licenses. She said the Department of Law (DOL) does not have any concerns, but it would not impact the department. CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that right now a misdemeanor would move them out of the ten-year period. She suggested that this language would make it tougher by adding the felony language. MS. SCHROEDER said that the way she interprets the current statute, people whose licenses have been revoked for a 10-year period without incurring any new offenses would be eligible for license restoration. However, if these individuals commit any new offenses, they would incur a lifetime ban on their driving privileges. This provision would allow these individuals to have a new ten-year license revocation period. If they commit any crime, it would restart the clock for another 10 years, she said. 7:06:11 PM SENATOR REINBOLD highlighted that current law imposes a lifetime ban and this language would reduce it dramatically to ten years. SENATOR MICCICHE acknowledged this is one solution. He pointed out that many of the people whose licenses are revoked drive anyway. He said [Conceptual Amendment 1] would apply to "the best of the best." This language would apply to people who have a "squeaky clean record" who would otherwise be banned for life due to a single driving-related offense. This provision would apply to a small subset of people who had a felony DUI. It would give them a second chance, he said. SENATOR REINBOLD stressed that this is important, emphasizing that she does not want to increase risks to the public. She recalled reading statistics that indicate people typically drive seven times with increased blood alcohol levels before they are charged with a DUI. Further, people are not charged with a felony DUI until their third DUI offense. She expressed concern that this policy change could increase risks to the public. MS. SCHROEDER acknowledged that this type of conduct occurs without people being arrested. However, the department cannot comment on conduct that would not come to the DOL's attention, nor can it estimate how often that conduct occurs, she said. She characterized it as a policy call for the legislature to make. She said the DOL is comfortable with the requirement for a 10- year clean record. She noted that the recidivism rate after 10 years is very low. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the therapeutic court includes treatment and a requirement for ignition interlock devices. She asked whether the 10-year period would create a higher standard or be equivalent. MS. SCHROEDER said that 10 years is a long time. The therapeutic court program allows offenders to obtain a limited license; however, she stated that licensing is not her area of expertise. 7:10:41 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, explained that people with a felony DUI are subject to a permanent license revocation. However, those in the therapeutic court may obtain limited licenses. They must be enrolled in the court, in compliance with all treatment, show proof of insurance, and use an ignition interlock device. If therapeutic court is not available, these individuals can ask the court for a hearing to obtain limited licensure, but they must prove they have been sober for 18 months. She said that under current law, if 10 years has lapsed since sentencing and the offender has not been convicted of any driving-related criminal offense, the offender's driving privileges can be restored. She related her understanding that the issue being addressed is that some people are subsequently charged with driving with license suspended (DWLS), which disqualifies driving privileges for life. She said [Conceptual Amendment 1] would allow a person with a DWLS, as described, to restart the 10-year clock. If the person does not have any driving-related criminal offenses during a 10-year period, the individual could get his/her license restored. She related that usually those with an alcohol problem will have committed another driving-related offense during that timeframe, which would disqualify them. She characterized this as opening an avenue to those who made a mistake early on. 7:13:00 PM CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that the shortest timeframe to obtain a limited license would be for those individuals who spend 18 months in therapeutic court with treatment. MS. MEADE responded that limited licenses could be issued earlier than that since the law only requires them to "participate in therapeutic court." CHAIR HUGHES offered her belief that this language creates a high standard since it requires people to have a clean record for 10 years. 7:13:36 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether a DUI offense would include alcohol, marijuana, and drugs. MS. MEADE answered yes. SENATOR REINBOLD explained that her concern is whether some of the 43 percent of misdemeanors that are dismissed are DUIs. This increases risk to the public, she said. MS. MEADE said a person who has gone 10 years after a felony without incident can provide the state some assurance that he/she is upstanding enough to deserve a driver's license. She added that the language on lines 17 and 18 would disqualify those whose DUIs are affiliated with death or a serious assault. She said that language is stronger than current law. 7:15:21 PM SENATOR MICCICHE offered his belief that the most important change is that it captures non-driving felony offenses. He said this captures many other crimes and makes it stricter. However, "for the best of the best" it resets the clock. SENATOR REINBOLD commented that people might be confused about "incidents" and conviction. She offered her belief that many people who drink and drive are sneaky. She reiterated that 43 percent of misdemeanors are dismissed. She emphasized that the bill says conviction. She stated that she would support Conceptual Amendment 1. SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 7:17:28 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2. CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR MICCICHE directed attention to page 4, line 18, after the word, "a" and before "criminal" add "driving-related." After the word offense, add "or felony." He read the revised language on page 4, line 18: "[(2)] the person has not been convicted of a driving-related criminal offense or a felony in the 10 years preceding ?." CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. SENATOR REINBOLD objected to ask for input from the Department of Law and the Alaska Court System. 7:18:35 PM MR. SKIDMORE said that Conceptual Amendment 2 is a good amendment. It actually makes the law consistent since previously, the law was inconsistent between DUI and refusal. SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification that this language would amend Section 5 on page 4, lines 18-19 of the bill. MR. SKIDMORE answered yes. SENATOR REINBOLD noted that Nancy Meade, Alaska Court System, was agreeing by nodding her head. SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. 7:20:11 PM MR. WHITT reviewed Section 6. Section 6: Amends AS 33.05.020(h) to establish by regulation a program that front-loads earned compliance credits where probationers are presented with the total credits the probationer is eligible to maintain if the probationer is compliant with the conditions of probation. (Page 4 Line 22 through Page 5, Line 13) MR. WHITT said Senator Micciche recommended this change. 7:20:56 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification on Section 6. SENATOR MICCICHE explained that SB 34 would reduce the amount from a one-to-one to one-third of the probation credits. He highlighted that this had strong support. During discussions on incentives, consideration was given to providing incentives for those who are "good for a while" and are fully compliant, and whether those probationers should be allowed to bank that compliance. Section 6 would allow those who are on probation to "bank" some of the credits. He said he learned that if offenders lose all of their compliance credits, they unravel and will exhibit non-compliant behavior. He recapped that this provision would reward offenders for doing "the best they can" and allow them to earn compliance credits if they meet the conditions of probation. He pointed out that the earned compliance credits have been reduced by 66 percent. CHAIR HUGHES recalled one of her teachers once said that students come into class with an "A" and if they complete their assignments, they will keep the grade. In this instance, the person will not earn any more credit, but the individual will get to keep the time since it is front-loaded. SENATOR MICCICHE said the probationers must still earn the credit. He said people learn that they will receive benefits for being compliant, which makes them more likely to exhibit good behavior. 7:23:59 PM JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole, Department of Corrections, Juneau, said that front-loading earned compliance credit as explained by Senator Micciche will work. She said that "front-loading" means it is theirs to lose. She referred to it as similar to the statutory good time in current statute. Those in custody get one-third off for good time but if they have any violations, they lose some of the earned-compliance credits. SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether people would get out of jail sooner under this change. MS. WINKELMAN answered no, since this provision would only apply to those on probation or parole. SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the person would get off probation earlier. MS. WINKELMAN answered yes. SENATOR MICCICHE disagreed. He said that the probationer previously received a day off for every day of compliance. This has been reduced to one-third of a day for each day of compliance. Thus, the person would get out later than before, he said. SENATOR REINBOLD said that is different than front-loading compliance credits. She maintained the person would get out earlier. MS. WINKELMAN responded that the probationer would "front-load" the compliance credit. Currently the probationer would get 30 days off for 30 days of good behavior. Under Section 6, the person would get one-third off, but the person would receive added time for non-compliance. CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that this change would not mean the person gets out a day earlier, by front- loading the credits. She related her understanding that as the days pass, the person would accrue compliance credits, but the person would not be released earlier. MS. WINKELMAN answered yes. 7:27:33 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said that she is frustrated because the bill contains many changes and she wanted to make sure that it does not have unintended consequences. 7:28:30 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked about the mechanics of the credit in Section 6. He asked whether a parolee or probationer who follows all the rules for a year then "messes up severely" could retain any of the front-loaded time. SENATOR MICCICHE related a scenario in which a person was on probation for 90 days. Currently, the probationer would earn 30 days off for earned compliance credit. If the person messes up [and is considered non-compliant] for one day, the person would earn 29 days of earned compliance credit. If the person is non- compliant for 30 days, the person would have zero days of earned compliance credit, he said. He characterized it as an incentive with an expectation that the person will make it 90 days without any noncompliance and thus be off probation in 60 days. He explained that previously any non-compliance would result in a complete loss of earned-compliance credits. He agreed that this front-loads compliance credits, but the person would be off probation or parole in 60 days if compliant. SENATOR KIEHL said that he struggles with the notion. He said he was unsure that people are thrilled with the way that good time currently works. He offered his belief that this would apply the same good time model for probationers, and he was hesitant to do so. He said that the science of behavior modification is to reward the behavior as it happens to build habits and behavioral change. He wondered whether front loading would reflect the best practice in terms of changing people's behavior. CHAIR HUGHES offered that she has discussed good time with Ms. Winkelman, and they plan to review the definition of "good time," primarily for incarceration but it could extend to probation or parole. Currently, inmates earn good time by not doing something wrong, she said. However, she expressed interest in allowing good time to be earned by taking classes, obtaining training, or going through treatment. She indicated that an ongoing discussion will happen for good time. 7:32:07 PM SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that this is a pretty important discussion. She acknowledged that the Department of Law and Department of Corrections seem to be comfortable with this section. CHAIR HUGHES characterized it as an accounting process, but it does not get anyone out earlier. 7:32:58 PM MR. WHITT said Section 7 and Section 20 coincide with one another. Section 7: Amends AS 33.05.020(i) to exclude from eligibility in a program to earn compliance credits probationers who are on probation for felony crimes against a person, sex offense, unclassified felonies or for crimes involving domestic violence. (Page 5, Lines 14-21) SENATOR REINBOLD referred to page 5, line 20, which read, "(4) a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990, that is an offense under AS 11.41." She asked whether this expands the category or if it replicates the language on lines 9-13, that are being deleted. MR. SKIDMORE related his understanding the question is whether the change would alter the statute. He asked for further clarification on the specific cite in the bill. SENATOR REINBOLD referred to the deleted language on page 5, lines 9-13. She said that Section 7, lines 14-21, makes changes. She asked for clarification on the changes. MR. SKIDMORE said the language in the new subsection is inclusive of domestic violence (DV), but it is limited to DV under AS 11.41. In the language [on line 10], the DV is not limited to AS 11.41, he said. SENATOR REINBOLD asked for further clarification since the language on line 10 requires treatment programs be completed. 7:37:08 PM At-ease. 7:42:42 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 7:42:47 PM SENATOR MICCICHE made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, on page 5, line 8, [after AS 33.30.013] to remove ";" and add paragraph (4) to read, "require that a probationer convicted of a crime involving domestic violence as defined in as 18.66.990 complete all treatment programs required as a condition of probation before discharge based on credits earned under this subsection." He said that he is removing "SEX OFFENSES AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR". CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted certainty that probationers will have access to treatment programs as a condition of probation. There being no further objections, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted. 7:44:41 PM MR. WHITT reviewed the language in Section 8, which was brought forth by Senator Shower. Section 8: Amends AS 33.05.040(a) to remove ambiguity with respect to the duties of a probation officer clarifying that there is an affirmative duty to make a recommendation to the court either to revoke or to maintain probation. (Page 5 Line 22 through Page 7, Line 3) MR. WHITT, in response to Chair Hughes, said that the Department of Corrections consulted with Ms. Largent. MS. LARGENT stated that the department did not necessarily share the concern but found the language an appropriate remedy. 7:46:23 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked whether Section 7 was discussed. CHAIR HUGHES said it was wrapped up in an earlier discussion. SENATOR KIEHL asked whether that language was in the original bill. He asked to focus on the reason to remove all crimes against a person and the difference in the types of domestic violence (DV) that would be eligible. MR. WHITT asked for further clarification on the question. SENATOR KIEHL said he understood the rationale used for unclassified felonies and sex offenders. However, he was unsure about removing all felony crimes against a person. He anticipated that a tremendous number of people would be released, and it is imperative to change their behavior once they were out of prison. He asked for further clarification on why DV crimes against a person are treated differently than those that are not, in terms of compliance credits. MR. WHITT said he probably would be unable to answer the question fully. He related his understanding that Senator Reinbold wanted to add unclassified felonies and Senator Shower wanted the rest of the language. He said he could not speak to why Senator Shower wanted that language. He suggested the Department of Law could respond. SENATOR REINBOLD deferred to Mr. Skidmore to explain the language on line 19, "a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990, that is an offense under AS 11.41." She asked whether this was more limited. MR. SKIDMORE turned to page 5, Section 7 to answer Senator Kiehl's question. He explained that the original bill did not limit earned compliance credits in the manner that Version K uses. The original bill limited compliance credits only for sex offenses. That was expanded in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee to include unclassified felonies, in addition to the sex offenses. He said he did not recall the discussion of crimes against a person under AS 11.41. He said that in addition to the sex crimes this would include assault, robbery, and crimes in which a person is injured rather than to property. He recalled that the previous committee did not want earned compliance credits to apply to those types of offenses. He recalled that Senator Reinbold and Senator Kiehl had questions on page 5, line 20 of Version K, related to the crime of DV as it applies to crimes against a person. In addition to the felonies under AS 11.41, the DV crime against a person in [paragraph] (4) would be a low-level offense in the fourth degree. He said that would not include all sorts of other DV crimes such as criminal mischief or other types of DV crimes found throughout the statutes. He explained that this would only apply to those misdemeanor crimes in AS 11.41. The rationale for the distinction was a policy call. He reasoned that assault in the fourth degree, which deals with injury to a person, must have been deemed more significant than damage to property. 7:52:56 PM SENATOR REINBOLD referred to lines 20-21, and read, "(4) a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990, that is an offense under AS 11.41." She said that AS 11.41 is a massive section of law. MR. SKIDMORE said he was unsure whether the Department of Law or the administration took a position on the policy decisions the previous committee made, but the DOL will not take a position on it here. He explained that the only crimes the DOL has taken a position on are sex crimes and unclassified felonies. This is not something the administration has sought or opposed, he said. SENATOR REINBOLD suggested that Senator Shower may wish to weigh in on this provision. 7:54:18 PM CHAIR HUGHES asked whether these crimes were more egregious ones. MR. SKIDMORE explained that when the DOL considers prosecution of crimes, it tries to focus first on the crimes that are felonies and felonies against a person that are categorized in AS 11.41. This includes assault in the first degree and sexual abuse of a minor, which are more serious crimes. 7:55:40 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked for references to the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee CS since he was not finding that language. CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Whitt to explain. She recalled that this was discussed in the previous committee and decided to allow this committee to also address the issue. 7:55:50 PM MR. WHITT pointed out two things. First, he read a request from Senator Shower's office, [not distributed to members]. It read: "a probationer may not be enrolled in the program, established under (h) of this section, if the probationer (1) is on probation or parole for a sex offense, or (2) is on probation or parole for felony crimes against a person or DV assault." He said Senator Shower indicated that this change would make it so that sex offenders, felons, and domestic violence perpetrators will not be eligible for earned credits while on parole or probation. This keeps the most violent people under the supervision of a probation officer longer. He clarified that the change in proposed Section 7(i)(4) is a crime involving domestic violence, as defined in AS 18.66.990, that is an offense under AS 11.41. He emphasized that it does not say it is a felony offense. It would be any crime in AS 11.41, including crimes against a person. It would match up with DV crimes. He said that felony crimes are addressed in paragraph (3). It says: "a felony crime against a person under AS 11.41;" and this language would be for any crime coupled with a DV charge. 7:58:13 PM SENATOR REINBOLD described AS 11.41 as "a pretty significant law." MR. WHITT agreed that all crimes against a person are located in AS 11.41, including rapes, assaults, and murders. In further response to Senator Reinbold, he agreed that this language was not in the State Affairs CS. SENATOR REINBOLD said she was not comfortable with the proposed language without clarification from the sponsor. 7:59:39 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports the language. He explained that this pertains to offenders who have served their prison time and are on probation. The language indicates that certain crimes are not eligible to earn compliance credits. He said that reviewing the types of crimes on the list led him to believe that this was the right way to proceed. Further, he said he thinks it fits well with the changes the committee made to other aspects of earned compliance credits. It basically indicates that offenders are not going to earn compliance credits if convicted of one of these crimes CHAIR HUGHES commented that those offenders will serve 33 percent longer under the proposed language. 8:00:25 PM SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that the point of compliance is to change behavior. He said the containment model is used for sex offenders. He said that DV behaviors need to change. He was unsure the reason the only non-felony domestic violence would fall under misdemeanor assault as opposed to some of the other pretty significant crimes that are considered domestic violence. He said he would like to change the behavior of all of those who are committing abusive offenses so limiting it does not make sense to him. SENATOR MICCICHE explained that the effect would be to essentially create cascading penalties, which was not previously done. He said this language indicates that an earned compliance program would result in a one-third credit unless the person has been convicted of certain crimes. Other discretionary measures also apply. For example, a person could still have his/her probation revoked. The probation system is still conditional. He characterized it as a staged approach. He said he thinks this will drive compliance because very few people want to go back to prison. 8:02:58 PM MR. WHITT clarified that the State Affairs CS addressed AS 33.05.020(i). It reads: "A probationer convicted of a sex offense, as defined in AS 12.63.100, may not be enrolled in the program established under (h) of this section." He said this amendment expands who may not be enrolled in the program. MR. WHITT continued. Section 10: Amends AS 33.16.090(a)(1)(D) & (E) by clarifying that where an offender is serving multiple sentences any consecutive or partially consecutive sentence to the primary crime is eligible for discretionary parole after serving ? of the sentence. (Page 8, Lines 8-17) MR. WHITT said that this language was requested by the DOL. 8:04:37 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked the department for an explanation. MR. SKIDMORE said that Section 10, on page 8 clarifies that when an offender is serving multiple sentences that the consecutive or partially consecutive sentence to the primary crime is eligible for discretionary parole at one-quarter. He said that when the department has a case in which someone is charged with multiple crimes, the one-quarter should apply to the lower crimes instead of applying the same calculus to every crime for which the person is convicted. He said that this would help ensure that the person serves the larger portion of his/her sentence on the primary crime. MR. WHITT deferred to Mr. Edwards to weigh in. 8:06:25 PM JEFF EDWARDS, Director, Parole Board, Department of Corrections, Anchorage, said that Mr. Skidmore covered Section 10 pretty well. He directed attention to page 8, line 8, to subparagraph (D), that would establish the eligibility for discretionary parole. Subparagraph (E) offers some clarifying language that applies to those who do not earn statutory good time. The intention was they would not be eligible for discretionary parole, which seems logical, he said. This language also provides that any consecutive sentence that would disqualify a person for good time would also make them ineligible for discretionary parole. He offered his belief that the intent was to omit the eligibility for early release on mandatory or discretionary parole. 8:07:32 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked for confirmation that the one-fourth reduction does not conflict with the important changes that were made in the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee. MR. SKIDMORE responded that he did not believe any conflict exists. 8:08:31 PM MR. WHITT turned to Section 20, to page 13, lines 21-28 and then reverted to Section 19. He said the conceptual amendment that was offered on page 5, for Section 6 would also be appropriate to offer in this section. It would conform the language in the two sections. Section 6 applies to probation and Section 19 applies to parole. CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification of the cite. MR. WHITT referred to [page 13,] line 15, and suggested it should delete the bracket and semi-colon and on line 16, [after "CONVICTED OF"] delete "A SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR". The language would read, "[3] require that a parolee convicted of a crime involving domestic violence complete all treatment programs required as a condition of parole before discharge based on credits earned under this section." He added that the bracket would be deleted at the end of line 20. 8:10:28 PM At-ease. 8:12:16 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 8:12:21 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, on page 13, lines 15. Delete ";" and on line 16 delete "(3)" which would become paragraph (4). In addition, delete "A SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR". After the phrase "notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013," the language would read: "(4) require that a parolee convicted of a crime involving domestic violence complete all treatment programs required as a condition of parole before discharge based on credits earned under this section." CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion. SENATOR REINBOLD asked for confirmation that this is a conforming amendment similar to ones in the other two sections. CHAIR HUGHES answered yes. CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted. 8:14:07 PM CHAIR HUGHES noted that Senator Reinbold had a question for Mr. Skidmore related to a conflict that may exist regarding the one- fourth provision in Section 10. 8:14:17 PM SENATOR REINBOLD referred to the explanation of changes for the committee substitute (CS) for SB 34 [the sectional analysis], which read: Section 10: Amends AS 33.16.090(a)(1)(D) & (E) by clarifying that where an offender is serving multiple sentences any consecutive or partially consecutive sentence to the primary crime is eligible for discretionary parole after serving [one-fourth] of the sentence. (Page 8, Lines 8-17) She expressed concern with the language "the primary crime is eligible for discretionary parole after serving [one-fourth] of the sentence." She recalled that language was changed [in Section 11] on page 8, line 25 of Version K, "has served the mandatory minimum term under AS 12.55.125(a) or (b), one-half [ONE-THIRD] of the active term of imprisonment ?." She asked whether any conflict exists throughout the bill since several changes have occurred. MR. SKIDMORE said he did not immediately see any conflict in the section, but he would defer to Mr. Edwards. 8:15:44 PM MR. EDWARDS responded that the reference in Section 11 turns to one-half for unclassified offenses and in Section 10 it is one- quarter for class B and class C felonies. He said the types of crimes are differentiated. He noted that Section 11 makes unclassified felonies eligible at one-half [of the active term of imprisonment] for crimes such as murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree. The others would remain at one- quarter. He asked for confirmation that he was comparing the right sections. CHAIR HUGHES agreed. She referred to page 8, lines 8-17, which relates to class B and C felonies whereas Section 11, lines 22- 26, talks about [discretionary parole] for unclassified felonies. MR. EDWARDS clarified the page and line number references were on page 8, lines 8-12 [of Section 10] and line 25 of Section 11. CHAIR HUGHES asked for confirmation that he saw no conflict. MR. EDWARDS said he did not see any conflict. 8:17:19 PM SENATOR REINBOLD said she wanted assurance because these sections were definitely strengthened after multiple hours of discussion in terms of one-third versus one-half credit. She said that she still has pause with discretionary parole and she is thrilled with truth in sentencing in courts to be sure that people understand the eight ways people can get out of jail. 8:18:35 PM MR. WHITT continued: Section 24: Adds a new section of uncodified law requiring the Department of Corrections to develop a needs assessment of all rehabilitative services for each institution including but not limited to education, treatment, vocational education, secular and faith based, and pro social programs and provide a written report to the legislature by January 31, 2020. 8:19:04 PM CHAIR HUGHES remarked that the needs assessment report is necessary as the committee and department work to possibly redefine good time. Further, it can help [with the goal] to incentivize those who are incarcerated to get up out of bed and not watch television or play cards but start applying themselves. It will help the legislature have a sense of the type of services available in the institutions throughout the state. This section would ask the Department of Corrections (DOC) for their wish list to help those incarcerated become productive and improve themselves before they are let out of jail. This report would be available for that purpose, she said. 8:19:59 PM SENATOR REINBOLD recalled that Chair Hughes mentioned she wanted to be sure that prisoners are active. She said this request appears to be a needs assessment and report. She said she has no idea whether this language ensures that prisoners obtain treatment. She said she was hoping that best practices were being used on the best programs available. However, this appears to develop an assessment of rehabilitative services. CHAIR HUGHES responded that the DOC helped develop this language. She added that SB 33 has a provision that asks DOC to develop a matrix based on evidence-based best practices so the legislature can correlate inmate participation and lower recidivism. She acknowledged that [Section 24] is an assessment so the legislature can decide next year about ensuring the options are available. This changes the definition of good time to ensure that inmates must do things to improve themselves. The legislature wants to know what options are available at institutions. For example, she said that treatment programs are available at some institutions and not others. She pointed out that with the drug problem and associated crime, it is important to make treatment available to inmates to the greatest extent possible. The purpose here is to find out what is available at the institutions and address it further next year. 8:22:25 PM SENATOR MICCICHE expressed an interest in continuing to take up the additional amendments in members' packets. 8:22:37 PM SENATOR REINBOLD related her understanding that the DOC would develop an assessment of rehabilitation services available in each institution and to assess education, treatment, vocational education, secular and faith based, and pro social programs in the state by January 31, 2020. She asked whether this report would identify what is available or if it will identify what the DOC needs. CHAIR HUGHES answered that the report would identify both what institutions have and what the department feels is appropriate at the various institutions. She mentioned that the department was already working on this, but this provision would make certain that it will be ready for the legislature. 8:23:44 PM At-ease. 8:27:13 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 8:27:23 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1. He related that his amendments were prepared for a different version of the bill. He asked members to make two changes. On page 5, line 16, after, "for," add "unclassified" and on Page 13, line 23, after "for," to add "unclassified." Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 read as follows: Page 4, line 23, through page 5, line 13: Delete all material and insert: "(h) The commissioner shall establish by regulation a program allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation. The credits earned reduce the period of probation. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the department from recommending to the court the early discharge of the probationer as provided in AS 33.30. At a minimum, the regulations must (1) require that a probationer earn credit  against the term of probation for compliance [A CREDIT OF 30 DAYS FOR EACH 30-DAY PERIOD SERVED IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT COMPLIED] with the conditions of probation and lose earned credit for violation of the conditions  of probation; (2) include policies and procedures for (A) calculating and tracking credits earned by probationers; (B) reducing the probationer's period of probation based on credits earned by the probationer; and (C) notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013; (3) require that a probationer convicted of a [SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR A] crime involving domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990 complete all treatment programs required as a condition of probation before discharge based on credits earned under this subsection." Page 5, line 16, following "for unclassified felony offenses": Insert "a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100." Page 5, lines 17 - 21: Delete all material. Page 12, line 29, through page 13, line 20: Delete all material and insert: "Sec. 33.16.270. Earned compliance credits. The commissioner shall establish by regulation a program allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole. The earned compliance credits reduce the period of parole. Nothing in this section prohibits the department from recommending to the board the early discharge of the parolee as provided in this chapter. At a minimum, the regulations must (1) require that a parolee earn credit  against the period of parole for compliance [A CREDIT OF 30 DAYS FOR EACH 30-DAY PERIOD SERVED IN WHICH THE PAROLEE COMPLIED] with the conditions of parole and  lose earned credit for violation of the conditions of  probation; (2) include policies and procedures for (A) calculating and tracking credits earned by parolees; (B) reducing the parolee's period of parole based on credits earned by the parolee; and  (C) notifying a victim under AS 33.30.013; (3) require that a parolee convicted of a [SEX OFFENSE AS DEFINED IN AS 12.63.100 OR A] crime involving domestic violence complete all treatment programs required as a condition of parole before discharge based on credits earned under this section." Page 13, line 23, following "for unclassified felony offenses": Insert "a sex offense as defined in AS 12.63.100." Page 13, lines 24 - 28: Delete all material. SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes. 8:28:19 PM SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 would take a different approach to the compliance credits. He offered his belief that the system of compliance credits could use fine tuning and the expertise of the department. He said this conceptual amendment would instruct the department to create a program for compliance credits by regulation. He surmised that the DOC would use best practices and it would give the department the flexibility to tailor the compliance credits where they will do the most good. For example, if it is most important to focus on the first few months outside the institution, the DOC could front-load the credits. However, if it is most important to provide a steady stream of credits over time, the department could do that. He said that this would apply to probation and parole. The exclusions from eligibility would go back to unclassified felons and sex offenders. This would give the department the ability to work on behavior modification to get offenders back on the path to become successful members of society and not reoffending across the broadest range of people where it makes sense. CHAIR HUGHES paused to removed her objection. Finding no further objection, the committee substitute (CS) for SB 34, work order 31-GS1031\K, Version K was adopted. CHAIR HUGHES returned attention to Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 and asked Mr. Skidmore if the Department of Law supports it. 8:30:58 PM MR. SKIDMORE said DOL does not support Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 because it provides for earned compliance credits to unclassified felonies. SENATOR KIEHL clarified that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 was adjusted to make "unclassified" felonies ineligible for earned compliance credits. 8:32:08 PM SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection. 8:32:10 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment Kiel 1 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 1 failed by a 1:3 vote. 8:32:40 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2 that reads as follows: Page 5, line 20, through page 7, line 1: Delete all material and insert:  "* Sec. 8. AS 33.05.040(a) is amended to read: (a) A probation officer shall (1) furnish to each probationer under the supervision of the officer a written statement of the conditions of probation and shall instruct the probationer regarding the same; (2) keep informed concerning the conduct and condition of each probationer under the supervision of the officer and shall report on the probationer to the court placing that person on probation; (3) use all suitable methods, not inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the court, to aid probationers and to bring about improvements in their conduct and condition; (4) keep records of the probation work, including administrative sanctions and incentives the probation officer imposes under AS 33.05.020(g), keep accurate and complete accounts of all money collected from persons under the supervision of the officer, give receipts for money collected and make at least monthly returns of it, make the reports to the court and the commissioner required by them, and perform other duties the court may direct; (5) perform duties with respect to persons on parole as the commissioner shall request, and in that service shall be termed a parole officer; (6) use administrative sanctions and incentives developed under AS 33.05.020(g) to respond to a probationer's negative and positive behavior, including responses to technical violations of conditions of probation, in a way that is intended to interrupt negative behavior in a swift, certain, and proportional manner and support progress with a recognition of positive behavior; (7) upon determining that a probationer under the supervision of the officer meets the requirements of AS 12.55.090(g), consider recommending [RECOMMEND] to the court [AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE] that probation be terminated, and the probationer be discharged from probation; (8) for each probationer who owes restitution and who is under the supervision of the officer, create a restitution payment schedule based on the probationer's income and ability to pay if the court has not already set a restitution payment schedule; (9) accommodate the diligent efforts of each probationer to secure and maintain steady employment or to participate in educational courses or training programs when prescribing the times at which a probationer shall report; (10) permit each probationer to travel in the state to make diligent efforts to secure and maintain steady employment or to participate in educational courses or training programs if the travel is not inconsistent with other terms and conditions of probation." Page 14, line 30, through page 15, line 1: Delete "[THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF SANCTIONS ISSUED UNDER AS 33.05.020(g) BEFORE A PETITION TO REVOKE PROBATION OR PAROLE IS FILED;]" Insert "the average number of sanctions issued under AS 33.05.020(g) before a petition to revoke probation or parole is filed;" Page 15, line 9: Delete "12.55.100(a)(2)(H)," Page 15, line 10: Delete "AS 33.05.020(g), 33.05.080(1);" Page 15, line 11: Delete "33.16.180(8)," Page 15, line 12: Delete ", 33.16.900(2)" SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR KIEHL explained that this relates to the system of administrative sanctions and incentives, so the department has swift "carrots and sticks" available. This administrative sanction and incentive program would regularize what testimony indicated was inconsistent across the state. This would provide quick, certain punishments for minor violations and still provide incentives and benefits for those who are doing the good things that they need to do to get their lives turned around. They are not just marking time. He said the department could implement this by regulation in order to fine tune the system of administrative sanctions and incentives to provide the most effective tool to assist inmates in turning their lives around, so they do not commit new crimes and create new victims. CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore whether the Department of Law supports or opposes the amendment. MR. SKIDMORE responded that administrative sanctions are handled by the Department of Corrections. 8:34:39 PM MS. WINKELMAN said that the DOC does not want "a cookie cutter approach" to deal with offenders. Rather, they want to tailor the response to an offender's needs. Thus, the DOC opposes [Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2]. 8:34:59 PM SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection. 8:35:02 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of adopting Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 2 failed by a 1:3 vote. 8:35:22 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3: Page 1, line 5, through page 2, line 4: Delete all material. Page 2, line 5: Delete "Sec. 2" Insert "Section 1" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 2, line 10: Delete "[SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS SET OUT IN AS 12.55.110]" Insert "subject to the limits set out in AS 12.55.110" Page 2, line 19: Delete "[SUBJECT TO THE LIMITS SET OUT IN AS 12.55.110]" Insert "subject to the limits set out in AS 12.55.110" Page 12, lines 4 - 27: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 15, lines 9 - 10: Delete "[PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES ADMITTED SOLELY FOR A TECHNICAL VIOLATION;]" Insert "probationers and parolees admitted solely for a technical violation;" Page 15, lines 13 - 16: Delete all material and insert: "AS 12.55.100(a)(2)(H), 12.55.110(f); AS 33.05.020(g), 33.05.080(1); AS 33.16.090(b)(2), 33.16.100(f), 33.16.180(8), 33.16.210(b), and 33.16.900(2) are repealed." Page 15, line 30: Delete all material. Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly. Page 15, line 31: Delete "sec. 2" Insert "sec. 1" Page 16, line 1: Delete "sec. 10" Insert "sec. 9" Page 16, line 2: Delete "sec. 11" Insert "sec. 10" Page 16, line 5: Delete "sec. 3" Insert "sec. 2" Page 16, line 6: Delete "sec. 6" Insert "sec. 5" Page 16, line 7: Delete "sec. 7" Insert "sec. 6" Page 16, line 8: Delete "sec. 8" Insert "sec. 7" Page 16, line 11: Delete "sec. 9" Insert "sec. 8" Page 16, line 12: Delete "sec. 13" Insert "sec. 12" Page 16, line 13: Delete "sec. 14" Insert "sec. 13" Page 16, line 14: Delete "sec. 15" Insert "sec. 14" Page 16, line 15: Delete "sec. 16" Insert "sec. 15" Page 16, lines 16 - 17: Delete all material. Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly. Page 16, line 18: Delete "sec. 19" Insert "sec. 16" Page 16, line 19: Delete "sec. 20" Insert "sec. 17" Page 16, line 20: Delete "sec. 21" Insert "sec. 18" Page 16, line 21: Delete "sec. 12" Insert "sec. 11" Page 16, line 22: Delete "sec. 12" Insert "sec. 11" Page 16, line 24: Delete "sec. 4" Insert "sec. 3" Page 16, line 25: Delete "sec. 5" Insert "sec. 4" SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes. 8:35:40 PM SENATOR KIEHL said that this returns the technical violations. He explained that these are for the comparatively small violations by probationers and parolees that help ensure the effective and efficient administration of justice for those in under supervision. He said this would mean that the same level of resources would not be used for those who are late for an appointment as for ones who skip out on their supervision. He said this give the department the ability to scale what it does with technical violations. CHAIR HUGHES asked Mr. Skidmore whether the Department of Law supports the amendment. 8:37:19 PM MR. SKIDMORE responded that the department is vehemently opposed to this amendment. He said that technical violations for 3, 5, and 10-day caps did not end up being swift nor do they end up being proportional. It is a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach that line prosecutors resoundingly said was one of the most ineffective provisions in Senate Bill 91. SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection. 8:38:04 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3 and Senators Reinbold (via teleconference), Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 3 failed by a 1:3 vote. 8:38:25 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4: Page 13, line 29 - page 14, line 1: Delete all material and insert: "* Sec. 21. AS 33.20.010(c) is amended to read: (c) A prisoner is entitled to a good time deduction under (a) of this section for any time spent [UNDER ELECTRONIC MONITORING OR] in a residential program for treatment of alcohol or drug abuse under a prerelease furlough as provided in AS 33.30.101. A  prisoner may not be awarded a good time deduction  under (a) of this section for any period spent in a  private residence or on electronic monitoring.  SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR KIEHL explained that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4 would apply to inpatient drug and alcohol abuse treatment. It is written such that no one can receive good time for going to their weekly appointment for drug and alcohol abuse treatment. This is limited to inpatient residential settings where freedom is restricted. This is an opportunity to create more incentives for people in such treatment programs. He pointed out specific language on line 7, "A prisoner may not be awarded a good time deduction ? in a private residence or on electronic monitoring." This language would ensure that this is specifically about inpatient treatment and the more intensive work to get people off of drugs and alcohol. He said that treatment can be critical in turning people around. He offered his belief that not providing a good time deduction makes it much more difficult to get people to be sober and productive members of society instead of addicted and much more likely to commit crimes. MR. SKIDMORE said the DOL is opposed to Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4 While he understands the sponsor's position, the administration has been opposed to offering good time except for anything other than a "hard bed." SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection. 8:40:27 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment Kiel 4 and Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 4 failed by a 1:3 vote. 8:40:54 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5. Page 15, line 10: Delete "12.55.110(f)," SENATOR MICCICHE objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR KIEHL explained that this relates to a petition to revoke when someone has not completed treatment. He said that this would remove a section from the repealers and return an affirmative defense when someone cannot afford treatment or cannot get into a free treatment program despite good faith effort. He said that if someone is doing what they can to get into a treatment program but cannot afford it, it is imperative to make treatment available. He clarified that this amendment is not meant for someone who is slacking. He said that showing good faith is an affirmative defense and this language would restore that affirmative defense when someone faces a petition to revoke. MR. SKIDMORE stated that the department does not have a position. He said that if someone is not able to pay, the DOL would not seek to revoke his/her probation. SENATOR MICCICHE maintained his objection. 8:42:55 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5 and Senators Reinbold (via teleconference), Micciche, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 5 failed by a 1:3 vote. 8:43:28 PM SENATOR KIEHL said that Conceptual Amendment Kiehl 6 would not be offered since it was addressed in earlier discussions. 8:43:56 PM At-ease. 8:44:55 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. She moved to adopt Amendment 7, work order 31-GS1031\K.4, Radford, 4/22/19. AMENDMENT 7 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES TO: CSSB 34(JUD), Draft Version "K" Page 8, line 13: Delete "notwithstanding (b)(7)(C) of this  section, a sentence" Insert "a prisoner sentenced to a single  sentence, including a consecutive or partially  consecutive sentence," SENATOR REINBOLD objected for discussion purposes. MR. WHITT explained that Amendment 7 pertains to Section 10 and was requested by the Department of Law. It addresses the potential confusion that can arise from the "notwithstanding" language and clarifies that this specific bar to discretionary parole applies to sentences which include consecutive sentences. 8:46:38 PM MS. SCHROEDER explained this change would clarify the language in Section 10, page 8, lines 13-17. The department originally requested this language because of a potential conflict between the language in subsection (b)(7)(C) and Section 10. However, the DOL recognized it might add more confusion and decided to instead insert the language, "consecutive or partially consecutive sentence." SENATOR REINBOLD removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted. 8:47:59 PM CHAIR HUGHES stated that SB 34, Version K as amended, was before the committee. 8:48:04 PM At-ease. 8:49:42 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. 8:49:48 PM SENATOR REINBOLD commented that the bill has moved a little faster than she had envisioned. However, she said she was a strong believer in the crime bills as a crime package to improve public safety in the state. This bill would also help to ensure that the departments are working together to coordinate efforts to improve public safety. She said that Alaska is one of the most dangerous states in the nation. She said that she is a little uncomfortable moving the committee substitute at this pace. However, she heard the bill in the prior committee [Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee], so she is very comfortable with the overall bill. She offered her belief that this bill is a critical step in the right direction for law enforcement and to the DOL and DOC. She offered her support for the bill. 8:51:17 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said that he supports the changes. He was uncomfortable with one section on the license return issue, but the committee worked together and fixed some minor issues in the drafting. He said that he is a "do pass." 8:51:54 PM SENATOR KIEHL said that he appreciated the work on the DUI section, which was an issue he felt needed to be addressed. He said that on the whole, the bill has a lot of fiscal impact. He said it returns a lot of inconsistent administration of justice, which he believes is a recipe for bad administration. He offered his belief that it will be all fiscal note and no crime reduction. He said that he will object to moving the bill. CHAIR HUGHES remarked that the public has expressed concern about offenders on the street, but when offenders are incarcerated the public does not have to be concerned about them committing crimes. She said when offenders are on probation or parole that it is incumbent to tighten the reins for the sake of the public. She said she will be a "yes" vote. She thinks that the state can achieve some of the things that people who supported Senate Bill 91 wanted to achieve and also improve public safety. She emphasized that the crime bills are a comprehensive package and the pieces fit together. She thinks that as work continues in the coming year that improvements in public safety will occur. She said that the pre-2014 data, prior to Senate Bill 91 showed that recidivism was dropping. She said she hoped that recidivism would continue to drop. 8:54:36 PM SENATOR REINBOLD moved to report the committee substitute (CS) for SB 34, work order 31GS1031\K as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). SENATOR KIEHL objected. 8:55:04 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senators Reinbold, Micciche, and Hughes voted in favor of reporting the CSSB 34(JUD) from committee and Senator Kiehl voted against it. Therefore, the CSSB 34(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee by a 3:1 vote. CHAIR HUGHES asked the record to reflect that Legislative Legal Services has permission to make any technical and conforming changes necessary to implement the adopted amendments.