Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/26/2015 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB35 | |
| SJR15 | |
| SCR4 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| HB 93 | |||
| += | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 93-PROBATION AND PAROLE: WORK, TRAVEL ACCOM.
9:38:25 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of HB 93. [CSHB
93(STA) was before the committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, introduced HB 93 speaking to the following sponsor
statement:
Before you today, I bring HB 93 which is a piece of a
continuing legislation on our ongoing reforms of
Alaska's criminal justice and corrections systems. If
I may, I would like to thank Senator Coghill for
letting me work with him last year on SB 64 and for
allowing me to carry this bill this session.
As we all know, Alaska has held one of the highest
rates of recidivism and the cost of keeping a prisoner
in jail is over $150 per day with the cost continuing
to rise; it is a fact with our budget climate today,
our state cannot afford to build another prison. HB 93
builds on the bipartisan efforts of the legislature
that we have started to move the needle on recidivism.
In 2011, 52 percent of probationers did not complete
their court orders of release and returned back to
prison; those reforms that we've been putting in place
has helped to lower that number to 45 percent in 2014.
9:40:07 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Representative Tilton to repeat what
percentage of probationers did not complete their orders.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON replied that 52 percent in 2011 did not
complete their court ordered conditions. She asserted that some
of the reforms that the Legislature has put into place from 2011
to 2014 has lowered the number to 45 percent.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that probationers are essentially doing
their full sentences in installments.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON answered yes. She continued her overview
as follows:
Those who work with probationers, such as Partners In
Progress, have identified employment as being one of
the three largest components, but employment being
number one, the other two are housing and social
services to help them through their transitioning;
but, what we do know is that few employers are willing
to hire somebody with a record, so we have a little
challenge there. As a matter of fact, there is a study
with the Urban Institute that showed just 12.5 percent
of employers said that they would definitely accept an
applicant with a criminal record.
What HB 93 does is it encourages employment by making
it clear to probation officers that when they are
scheduling the probation appointments that they use
diligent effort to schedule around the person's
employment, thereby allowing the probationer to be
successful in their employment. This bill also allows
the probationers reasonable travel within the state to
work as long as it is not in conflict with the terms
of the conditioners of their probation; it is a
building block and another tool in our toolbox.
By keeping probationers employed, we give them the
opportunity to give back to the system, they reduce
the draw on our health and social services budget, and
the cost to our state when a prisoner recidivates, so
ultimately and potentially saving a lot of dollars to
our state.
9:42:03 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked for comments from the Alaska Department of
Corrections.
9:43:42 AM
CARRIE BELDEN, Director, Probation & Parole, Alaska Department
of Corrections, Anchorage, Alaska, announced that the department
supports HB 93 and noted that the department has worked with the
sponsor on the bill. She said the department believes that work
is a very important to keep the state's population of
probationers and paroles on the straight-and-narrow and out of
trouble. She stated that the department thinks that work and
employment is a very vital part of the reentry process.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he liked HB 93. He asked how
the department deals with an issue where parolees in Anchorage
or Fairbanks work on the Slope or rural Alaska.
MS. BELDEN answered that the department deals with the situation
Senator Wielechowski noted quite often. She detailed that the
department's probation and parole officers do value employment
and the department tries to schedule meetings when the person is
in town. She said the department does telephonic meetings and
very much tries to accommodate schedules.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that Senator Coghill is doing a good
bill which seeks to have more electronic monitoring. He asked if
the department has an issue with electronic monitoring in rural
communities or on the Slope.
9:45:29 AM
MS. BELDEN replied that the department can and does monitoring
in the areas that Senator Wielechowski noted.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the word "diligent" was used as a term
of art in the phrase, "Diligent efforts to secure and maintain
steady employment." He asked if "active efforts" should be used
rather than "diligent efforts." He opined that "diligent" has
more flexibility, but also could be very subjective.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON replied that Senator Coghill's reference
in the use of the word "diligent" had been the first time. She
remarked that consideration in the use of "diligent" should be
discussed with the department.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that "diligent" must mean something due to
its use in the sponsor statement.
9:47:52 AM
SHERRIE DAIGLE, Special Assistant to Commissioner Taylor, Alaska
Department of Corrections, commented that the use of "diligent
efforts" probably comes from the diligent efforts of the
probation officers who are constantly working with the
probationers to help and assist them in obtaining employment.
She commented that she did not know why the word "active" was
not used. She added that the department would review the use of
"diligent efforts" in the bill.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that accountability and flexibility
are big things to parole officers. He reiterated that "diligent"
was very subjective compared to "active."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what happens when a probation officer
believes that a probationer is "gaming the system." He noted
that the bill places requirements on a probation officer that
they "shall permit" each probationer travel.
MS. DAIGLE answered that the probation officers are very keen to
some of the tactics that some people use. She specified that
most people on probation are going to comply by seeking
employment and going through the right avenues to stay employed.
She said probation officers closely monitor individuals that
Senator Wielechowski was referencing.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that because the bill does say
"Shall permit each probationer to travel in the state to make
different efforts," there could be a situation where a parole
officer does not allow travel and the probationer challenges the
decision by saying the law says he or she can go. He asked who
solves the situation that he previously noted.
9:50:20 AM
MS. DAIGLE answered that the department does not know. She noted
that the department has had discussion on the scenario that
Senator Wielechowski described, but the department was not sure.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the bill should be fixed to avoid
the situation he previously described.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the scenario Senator Wielechowski
described has never been litigated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI guaranteed that the scenario he described
would occur if the current bill passes.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that Section 2 in the bill talks
about what the parolee is responsible to do. He said the bill
falls into the category of why the government does that; for
example, the parole officer sometimes is more concerned about
what they are doing than what the parolee is doing and the
scenario Senator Wielechowski described is an assertion where
the parolee must be accommodated if work is the issue. He
conceded that consideration must also be given to the "gaming of
the system." He said he is open to further discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON concurred with Senator Coghill that the
parolee would have to be accommodated.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he understood probation and parole. He
asked if probation and parole was entirely an administrative
procedure within the parole board or does it get kicked up to
the courts.
MS. DAIGLE answered that courts are involved in probation and
parole.
9:53:20 AM
MS. BELDEN detailed that a parolee or the probationer and the
probation officer would sit down and have their office visit
where work schedules are discussed. She asserted that parole
officers try and be fair about work schedules because they do
want them employed. She specified that courts and parole boards
come into play when there are violations. She said when the
parole officer has tried to work with probationers and parolees
informally, but the violations are too big or the parole officer
is just not getting anywhere with the probationer or parolee,
the probation officer will file a petition to revoke probation
or parole violation and bring the probationer or parolee before
the court or before the board.
9:54:50 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked what is the condition for the consumption of
alcohol and if the condition has been tested in the courts.
MS. BELDEN answered that no alcohol to excess is a general
condition that all of the probationer or parolees get. She
detailed that the no alcohol consumption means zero tolerance is
a case-by-case basis and that depends on the individual's
history and crime that is specific to them.
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that marijuana is supposed to be regulated
like alcohol. He asked if there should be parole conditions on
marijuana.
MS. BELDEN replied that if the parole board or court does not
want a probationer or parolee to ingest marijuana, then the
parole board or court can put a specific condition on that says
no marijuana consumption.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked even under the new paradigm where marijuana
is legal.
MS. BELDEN answered that just like alcohol is legal for most, a
prohibition condition can be placed on an individual. She said
marijuana would be legal for most, but a parole board or court
can invoke a marijuana prohibition if they chose.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted two scenarios as follows:
Number one, a probation officer says "No, I don't
think you should go to travel," and then the
probationer gets an attorney and they go to court, and
the attorney says "Well, the law says you shall permit
them." So explain what is likely to happen and maybe
we need Legislative Legal Services to come in and
weigh in on this, explain what is likely to happen in
that situation.
The other situation is the person goes and then the
probation officer wants to get them back and then it
goes before a judge as well, maybe just talk about how
the courts you expect would deal with that situation.
9:57:13 AM
MS. BELDEN replied that the department shared Senator
Wielechowski's concern. She said by placing "shall" in the bill
removes the discretion of the parole officer and Legislative
Legal Services may indicate how big the issue was. She said the
department will try to work things out internally to get a happy
middle, but a worst case scenario could occur where a person
ends up before the court or parole board.
SENATOR COGHILL stated that the parole board still has
significant leeway by setting other conditions. He said the bill
orders travel to be taken into account, but consistency is also
mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON specified that, "When not in conflict with
the other terms and concerns of their probation" was clearly
stated in the bill. She noted that previous discussions with
Legislative Legal Services occurred in a previous committee that
tried to address other verbiage, but there was not another work-
around. She said the decision was to go ahead with the bill as
it was with the understanding that the bill is not in conflict
with conditions of probation terms.
9:59:34 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if probation should be viewed as a qualified
privilege or a right.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON answered that probation was a qualified
privilege.
MS. DAIGLE answered that the department would agree that
probations was a qualified privilege.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he understood the reformation
provision in the state's constitution as well. He remarked that
he just wanted to make sure in the zeal to try to empty the
state's prisons that the "wrong ones" were not let out.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the bill has a Judiciary Committee
referral.
CHAIR STOLTZE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON confirmed that the bill does has a Senate
Judiciary Committee referral.
CHAIR STOLTZE commented that having two committee referrals for
the bill was advantageous in order to address a few issues. He
opined that HB 93 looks more right for passing than the bill
that was just dropped.
10:01:24 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that HB 93 would be held in committee
with a sincere intent to readdress it as quickly as possible. He
added that the committee would like to have Commissioner Taylor
of the Department of Corrections on the record as well. He noted
that Commission Taylor began his career in probation and added
that the committee would deprive itself of a strong voice with a
lot of authority if the commissioner did not address the
committee.
MS. DAIGLE replied that the department would make Chair
Stoltze's request happen.
10:02:26 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee hearing at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB93 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| HB93 Sectional Analysis (sponsor).pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| HB93 Sponsor Statement for SSTA.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| HB93 Support Document - Email Kyle Brown 2-3-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 93 |
| SJR15 Opposition Document - Email Terry Russell 3-18-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 15 |
| SJR15 Support Document - Email Mike Coons 3-26-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 15 |
| SJR15 Support Document - Fax Stuart Thompson 3-25-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SJR 15 |
| SCR4 Support Document - Email Mike Coons 3-25-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SCR 4 |
| HB35 Support Document - Prepared Testimony Chuck Volanti 3-26-15.pdf |
SSTA 3/26/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 35 |