Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/24/2016 09:30 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB222 | |
| HB77 | |
| HB247 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date."
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 231 (FIN), Work Draft (29-LS1138\H).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained that the change in the bill shortened the
extension date from 2022 to 2019 providing 3 years before
the termination came before the legislature again. The
parole was a board that might go through changes if the
state changed its criminal statutes.
Representative Wilson asked if an audit would be required
as a result of changing the date. Ms. Pierson responded
affirmatively.
Representative Wilson asked about the cost of the current
year's audit. Ms. Pierson deferred to Kris Curtis in the
audience.
Representative Wilson requested getting the answer from
whomever was appropriate.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Pruitt had
joined the meeting.
ESTER MIELKE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, had no
further comments.
9:36:47 AM
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, responded to Representative Wilson's
question. She explained that the audit took approximately
700 hours and the cost per hour was about $70 for FY 15.
The total cost of the audit was approximately $50 thousand.
Representative Wilson asked whether a change in dates would
have made a difference to the audit. She thought that
changes to the parole board could still be made and the
sunset could be extended in the normal process for statute.
Ms. Curtis concurred that changes could be made to the
parole board outside of the sunset process. The office of
Legislative Audit had no opinion concerning the sunset
date. It would be up to the policy makers to decide whether
it was worth the extra cost.
Representative Wilson wondered if the time between audits
influenced their costs. She remarked that the last sunset
was much longer than the current audit being discussed. She
wondered if the cost would be $50 thousand no matter the
sunset.
Ms. Curtis responded that if the time between audits was a
shorter period the cost would be less because it would be
completed more quickly. However, due to the dramatic
changes to the landscape it could be a longer audit.
Several factors impacted the length of an audit. She
relayed that if everything stayed the same typically an
audit took less time.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated Representative Gara had joined
the committee.
9:39:12 AM
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that there were four
recommendations from the audit but expressed concern
regarding the report. The findings included: Parole board
files did not consistently contain all required
information, notifications to offenders and victims were
not sufficiently documented, changes to regulations did not
address statutory requirements, and the audit contained
several deficiencies that could affect security and
consistency of data. He asked about the severity of the
findings in terms of the functioning of the parole board.
He asked how far out of alignment these findings were from
normal practices.
Ms. Curtis responded that none of the recommendations
impacted the auditor's recommendation for extension. She
furthered that the auditor would have recommended the full
8 years, the maximum allowed in statute, had there not been
a concern for the need for oversight. The reason had to do
with the change in the risk assessment tool towards the end
of the audit. The auditors were not able to see and
evaluate its impact. The auditors did not consider SB 91 in
the audit recommended. The board was operating fairly well
and professionally. She explained that whenever Legislative
Audit conducts an audit it considered documentation and
procedures.
9:41:28 AM
Representative Guttenberg asked if the office was lacking a
filing clerk position which could be affecting the
efficiency of operations.
Ms. Curtis answered that it was the interaction between the
board and the department. Some of the documentation issues
had to do with the interactions with institutional
correctional officers and to what degree they documented.
It also had to do with what degree they were effectively
using the management system to document. It was not about
missing a staff person, but about the coordination between
the board and the department.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if it was for training.
Ms. Curtis replied that it was just being aware of where
they were at and a willingness to improve.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Wilson was not going to stop the bill from
moving forward. However, she was comfortable with the date
currently on the bill. She did not see any red flags that
would constitute a date change to 3 years. She understood
there were several moving pieces but believed all could be
completed and the checks and balances could be performed
without adding more work for the auditors. She preferred
not to change the date.
Co-Chair Thompson had taken pending legislation into
consideration that could alter what the state would be
doing in the future.
9:44:03 AM
Representative Gara agreed with Representative Wilson. He
thought it took time and money to have the auditors come
before the committee. He suggested a 5-year board
extension.
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment:
Extend the Board of Parole to 2021, a 5 year extension [as
opposed to the committee substitute's proposal to 2019, a 3
year proposal] in Section 1, page 1 of the bill. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that HB 231 had a single fiscal
note from the Department of Corrections. It called for
$1,017,500 from undesignated general funds and $1,019,400
from interagency receipts. There was a total ongoing
expense of $1,019,400 which was a continuation of the
existing funding.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to report CSHB 231(FIN) as amended
out of Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 231 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Corrections.
9:47:03 AM
AT EASE
9:48:57 AM
RECONVENED