Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
05/13/2021 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| SB47 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB118 | |
| HB177 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 198 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 118-EXPANDING PRISONER ACCESS TO COMPUTERS
4:24:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 118, "An Act relating to state
identifications and driver's licenses for persons in the custody
of the Department of Corrections; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of corrections; relating to living conditions for
prisoners; and providing for an effective date." [Before the
committee was HB 118 as amended on 4/1/21.]
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted there have been off-line discussions
on the bill between his office, Representative Vance, the
Department of Corrections, and the Department of Law. He
reminded members that currently on the table is Amendment 3,
[offered by Representative Vance on 4/27/21, and labeled 32-
LS0024\B.6, Radford, 4/19/21].
4:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew Amendment 3.
4:25:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved Amendment 4, labeled 32-LS0024\B.7,
Radford, 5/10/21, which read:
Page 6, lines 26 - 27:
Delete "[AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR"
Insert "and may only [NOT] be used in a manner
authorized by the department [FOR"
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:26:16 PM
JEFFREY STEPP, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor of HB 118. He explained Amendment
4 on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins [and amendment co-
sponsor, Representative Vance]. Under the amendment, he said,
Sec. 4. AS 33.30.015(a) would be amended to read: (a) The
commissioner may not ... (3) allow a prisoner held in a state
correctional facility operated by the state to ... (I) use a
computer other than those approved by the correctional facility;
the use of a computer under this subparagraph may be approved to
facilitate the prisoner's rehabilitation or the prisoner's
compliance with a reentry plan or case plan developed under AS
33.30.011, including use related to employment, education,
vocational training, access to legal reference materials,
visitation, or health care and may only be used in a manner
authorized by the department.
MR. STEPP further related that the sponsor has had good faith
conversations with Representative Vance and her staff, as well
as with the Department of Corrections and the Department of Law.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited comment from the Department of
Corrections.
4:28:13 PM
LAURA BROOKS, Division Operations Manager, Health and
Rehabilitation Services, Department of Corrections (DOC), spoke
to Amendment 4. She offered DOC's understanding that there are
concerns about inmate access to technology and safety regarding
inmate use of technology. She said the department has been
listening and shares concern. While this technology is new to
DOC, she continued, the important distinction is that it isn't
new technology. The tablets being looked at and the access
being talked about are designed for correctional use and have a
multi-layered security matrix that lets inmates access approved
content without being able to access the internet at all and
without being able to access the settings to be able to change
that access. This is well tried in systems much larger than
Alaska's DOC and is designed to be tamper proof and to meet
correctional safety standards. The primary mission of DOC is to
protect the public and DOC remains committed to protecting
victims and victims' rights. Safeguards are in place to protect
DOC staff, those in DOC's care, and crime victims, and DOC does
not believe this bill counters or undermines any of those
safeguards. The department will continue to take all necessary
safeguards and utilize appropriate security measures to ensure
that these protections remain.
4:30:01 PM
KACI SCHROEDER, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law (DOL), stated she is speaking from the
prosecutor's perspective and a core concern for a prosecutor is
protecting the victim, which includes after there is an arrest.
She explained that DOL works with its counterparts in law
enforcement and in DOC to ensure that measures are taken to keep
victims safe. As soon as a case is initiated, DOL asks for a no
contact order as a condition of bail and when the person is
remaining in DOC custody. The department continues that request
into sentencing, which would then include any time spent in
custody of DOC serving out the sentence. She noted that DOL
works closely with DOC because DOC can monitor the inmate's
activity and can alert law enforcement for an investigation if
things are seen that are a little off or that are concerning.
She said she doesn't see anything in the bill or in Amendment 4
that would hinder DOL's ability to continue to protect victims
in this way.
4:31:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN brought attention to page 6, line 21,
which states that these computers can only be those approved by
the "correctional facility". He said it seems a distinction is
being drawn there with the amendment because the amendment is
talking about manners that are authorized by the "department".
He asked why there would not be the consistency of requiring the
approval of the "correctional facility" in both places.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in response to Ms. Brooks, clarified
that page 6, line 21 states, "use of a computer other than those
approved by the correctional facility", while Amendment 4 states
limiting the use of these computers to manners that are
"authorized by the department". He said he is asking why the
word "department" was chosen in Amendment 4, the purpose it
serves, and whether that is better or worse than replacing the
word "department" with the phrase "the correctional facility" in
the amendment.
MS. BROOKS replied that the Department of Corrections looks at
those words as interchangeable. She said there may be some
circumstances where a particular facility may or may not have
the infrastructure that could allow some forms of technology
versus others, and so that may be the distinction there. When
looking at a particular type of computer, DOC may need to allow
a particular facility to make that determination, but the
ultimate responsibility still lies with the department.
4:34:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about how something would come
to be authorized by the department as spoken of in Amendment 4,
such as the process and who would have the final say.
MS. BROOKS responded that it would go as the department already
authorizes things. She said there is a process in place, and it
depends on who is initiating the request. Anything that is more
specific than what is used by the entire population, or anything
that falls outside of standard guidelines, must be approved
through the department's central office, through DOC's director
of institutions, and sometimes it goes to the level of deputy
commissioner or even the level of commissioner for approval.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether DOC would object to
changing the word "department" to "correctional facility" in the
amendment, given the earlier statement that "department" and
"correctional facility" are somewhat interchangeable,
MS. BROOKS answered that she doesn't think DOC would have an
objection, and she understands Representative Eastman is looking
for uniformity in the language.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied correct.
4:36:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested Mr. Stepp to respond to
Representative Eastman's question.
MR. STEPP offered his understanding that the department sets the
policy, which is what the amendment is referencing, and the
facilities execute the policy at the local level. He said it
seems to him that having the authorization come from the higher
authority is what would be wanted rather than from the
individual correctional facility. He qualified that he would
defer to DOC and/or DOL in this regard.
MS. BROOKS agreed with Mr. Stepp. She said that if looking for
changes for purposes of uniformity, DOC would prefer that
"department" be used to keep it uniform rather than referring to
the individual correctional facility for that decision.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR agreed with the point made by Ms. Brooks.
4:38:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that that makes sense to him. He
requested Representative Vance's opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated she prefers the language offered by
DOC because it provides the multi-layered oversight that she
wants to have in this. She added that Mr. Stepp explained it
well regarding policy versus implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that how to implement this issue was
discussed in prior hearings and he thinks Amendment 4 does it
very well and he wouldn't change a word.
4:39:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
4, to delete "correctional facility" on page 6, line 21, and
replace it with "department". There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that this changes the language from
"use a computer other than those approved by the 'correctional
facility'" to the language "use a computer other than those
approved by the 'department'". She posed a situation of not
enough computers to go around so that the correctional facility
needs to set up a schedule for use of the computers. She asked
whether, under this language change, the department would have
to approve the schedule set up by the correctional facility,
thereby creating a complicated situation of micro-management.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS replied that he is putting a lot of weight
into the statement by Ms. Brooks that this is the language
preferred by DOC. He asked Ms. Brooks for further comment.
MS. BROOKS answered that DOC's primary concern is making sure
that the computers being provided, and the access, is closely
monitored and the department has oversight on that. She
explained that even when it is said that a correctional facility
can approve use, or can approve a particular item, that still
must come through the department overall. So, DOC would issue
that authority down the line through giving that authority to
that individual facility if there were some technological issues
that required deviation from what DOC has approved for all the
other facilities. She said she therefore thinks the language
"use a computer other than those approved by the department" is
sufficient, will not add additional burden on the department for
management, and will not add any kind of multi-layer system that
would slow down an approval process for the individual facility.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he thinks the department having this
authority is for the best. He surmised that the decisions made
by the department will not be which computer with which serial
number to use, but rather whether to use iPads or touchscreens,
which are appropriate decisions for the department to make.
4:43:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection to Amendment 4.
There being no further objection, Amendment 4, as amended, was
adopted.
4:44:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 118, as amended today and on
4/1/21, was now before the committee. He expressed his support
for the bill and its provisions.
4:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 118, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection CSHB 118(STA) was
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 177 Research RPL History Summary.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 177 |
| SB 47 Letter of Support - Carrothers 5.11.21.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| HB 118 Amendment B.7 - Kreiss-Tomkins and Vance.pdf |
HSTA 5/13/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 118 |