Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/03/2016 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Fy 17 Budget Overview: Department of Corrections | |
| Fy 17 Budget Overview: Department of Law | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making supplemental appropriations,
and making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 257
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, reappropriations, and other
appropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Co-Chair Neuman reviewed the agenda for the day.
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
1:34:54 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
introduced the PowerPoint Presentation: "FY2017 Department
Overview House Finance February 3, 2016." He indicated that
Ms. Wilkerson would be walking the committee through the
presentation. He encouraged members to ask questions at
their pleasure.
Co-Chair Neuman requested that the commissioner keep his
answers direct to allow for the maximum amount of questions
for the time available.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, began with slide 2:
"Mission":
The Alaska Department of Corrections enhances the
safety of our communities. We provide secure
confinement, reformative programs, and a process of
supervised community reintegration.
Ms. Wilkerson reviewed the organizational chart on slide 3:
"Organizational Structure."
She explained that the department was structured with 5
divisions including: The Division of Institutions, the
Division of Probation and Parole, the Division of Health
and Rehabilitation Services, and the Division of
Administrative Services. The Parole Board was appointed by
the governor and was a part of the department.
Ms. Wilkerson read slide 4: "DOC at a Glance."
· Alaska is one of six states in the nation that
operates a unified correctional system (Alaska,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and
Vermont)
· In FY2015, DOC booked 36,066 offenders into its
facilities - 3,557 were noncriminal Title 47
bookings
· (an increase of 5.4% over last year) - 21,705 were
unique offenders
· As of June 30, 2015 6,044 offenders are in a prison,
community residential center (CRC) or on electronic
monitoring (EM)
· As of June 30, 2015 5,650 offenders are on probation
or parole
Representative Wilson asked if the 3,557 Title 47 bookings
were part of the 36,000 booked offenders. Ms. Wilkerson
responded affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the definition of unified.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the state's correctional
centers housed both pre-trial and sentenced offenders. She
added that jail facilities were typically for those waiting
for pre-trial or had been sentenced to a term of 2 years or
less.
Ms. Wilkerson continued to read from the slide.
1:39:21 PM
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 5: "DOC at a Glance."
· Twelve facilities statewide with a total capacity of
5,352 beds - Includes 128 beds located at Point
Mackenzie Correctional Farm
· Thirteen field probation offices statewide
· Eight contract CRCs with a capacity of 819 beds
· EM operates in six communities (Anchorage, Juneau
Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Kenai, and Palmer) with a
capacity of 450 *EM available through each Regional
& Community Jail contracts at a cost of just over
$21.40 per day.
· Fifteen regional and community jail contracts with a
total capacity of 157 beds. The average daily
placement within the facilities of about 80 at an
average daily cost of about $350.
· Reformative Programming - substance abuse, sex
offender management, education, and vocational
education.
Ms. Wilkerson reported the average daily population was
5,142 at a cost of $141 per day.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the Community
Recreational Centers (CRC)'s. He wondered how often the
contracts were reviewed. He mentioned the frequency of
prisoners fleeing the facility in Fairbanks. Ms. Wilkerson
responded that the state had 5 year contracts with each of
the facilities with specific terms and conditions. The
state was continuing to work with the Fairbanks CRC as well
as one located in Anchorage to firm up and address issues
currently occurring in both locations.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that the fire marshalls
would be getting in touch with the Department of
Corrections because the fire alarm system had numerous
problems that needed to be addressed in one of the
facilities. Another facility did not have sprinklers which
violated code regulations. There were repeated false alarms
of which the fire department had stopped responding. There
was clearly a public safety concern which he suggested Ms.
Wilkerson look into. Ms. Wilkerson stated she would follow
up.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to the map on slide 6: "Secure
Confinement." She explained that the map showed each of the
institutions and the regional community jails and their
locations.
Ms. Wilkerson continued to slide 7: "Supervised Release."
She reported that the map showed each of the department's
probation offices, the CRC's, and the electronic monitoring
(EM) programs. The department also offered EM through the
community and regional jail contracts. However, there were
issues with some of the locations due to GPS availability
in the rural areas.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned a previous conversation
about ankle bracelets. He reported having found an
application on his phone that was as restricted and
controlling as an ankle bracelet. He suggested the use of
an iPhone in lieu of an ankle bracelet which would allow
people to go to work. The application covered several areas
including Prudhoe Bay and on the North Slope. He elaborated
about the benefits of the iPhone application. He thought
the use of the application could be a cost savings to the
state and would keep people working and out of jail. Ms.
Wilkerson thanked Representative Guttenberg for his input.
Commissioner Williams added that although he was new in his
position he would be looking into the improvement of the EM
program. There were several advantages to EM and pre-trial
efforts. He was a proponent of expanding the area of EM and
doing it safely.
1:46:44 PM
Representative Edgmon mentioned that he would be focusing
the subcommittee's attention on SB 91 and all of the
reforms being proposed in the legislation. He hoped there
would be an opportunity to consider the bill in the House
Finance Committee.
Ms. Wilkerson detailed slide 8: "Operating Budget Request
by Core Services." She relayed that the department's budget
was broken out based on its core services. She reviewed the
department's three primary functions: secure confinement,
reformative programing, and supervised release. She
reported that secure confinement consumed the largest
portion of the department's budget at 77 percent.
Reformative programing consumed only 7 percent of the
budget whereas, supervised release consumed 16 percent of
the budget.
Ms. Wilkerson explained the fund sources that made up the
department's budget as depicted on slide 9: "Operating
Budget Request by Fund Source." She believed that the
Department of Corrections was the third largest agency in
the state funded with general funds (GF). The department
was also funded with federal funding through billing a
federal entity for the federal holds placed in the
department's custody. The department's budget had
designated general funds (DGF) totaling just over $20
million associated with the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
criminal funds. A small portion of funding was made up
through the billing of local municipalities for the local
holds placed within the department's custody. Additional
funds came from collections for EM and the collection of
wages through the CRC's for those individuals that were
working.
Co-Chair Neuman indicated that DOC's budget was the fourth
largest budget behind the University of Alaska.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Ms. Wilkerson to review the DGF
again. She had indicated the funds were PFD monies. Ms.
Wilkerson agreed that the funds were PFD monies. She
expounded that DOC received PFD criminal funds for
individuals that were ineligible to collect a PFD. The fund
source helped support the physical health care and medical
services the department provided.
Representative Wilson asked about the DGF. Ms. Wilkerson
reported that the department had just over $20 million
through the PFD criminal funds, about $2.5 million from the
billing of local municipalities, approximately $1.7 million
from EM receipts, and $1.3 million from wage collections
from the CRCs.
Representative Wilson wanted to know how many people were
attached to the core missions of the department. She wanted
to know the number of people in each of the department's
programs to better understand the budget.
Representative Gattis asked about the revenues from ankle
monitoring. She wanted to know about the charges related to
ankle monitoring and whether the state was including an
additional fee. Ms. Wilkerson responded that the
individuals that were placed on electronic monitoring under
the department's program did not pay the vendor directly.
They were paying for the equipment. She thought the cost
was about $14 per day for the equipment and $10 per week
for the urine analyses. The total cost was just over $100
per week paid directly to the department. The department
had the authority to use a sliding scale for those
individuals doing well with the program but who could not
afford to pay for it on their own.
Representative Gattis asked if the state was making money
off of its prisoners or breaking even. Ms. Wilkerson
replied that the EM receipts were just over 46 percent. The
department was not breaking even on the program. The
program was receipt driven but was also appropriated money
from GF. Commissioner Williams thought the state was losing
money. Ms. Wilkerson stated that the alternative of a CRC
was much more costly to the state than being placed on EM.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that he did not think she cared
and he did not think the committee cared just as long as
the costs were covered.
Representative Gattis clarified that in the vein of helping
the state's prisoners with their transition into society
and employment she thought that adding another step would
be a hindrance. She wondered if the state was breaking even
or making money on the designated receipts for ankle
monitoring. Ms. Wilkerson stated that the department tried
to work with individuals that were having a difficult time
to ensure that they were able to stay on electronic
monitoring.
Representative Gattis interrupted, "are we making money or
not?" Commissioner Williams responded that the state was
not making money.
Co-Chair Neuman asked the commissioner if it was his
intention to put policies into place where prisoners with
ankle monitors could deal directly with the businesses that
supplied them as opposed to going through DOC where extra
personnel was necessary to do the monitoring. Commissioner
Williams responded that he wanted the greatest efficiency,
the least cost, and the most sensitive approach to
administering the ankle monitoring program. He was
fundamentally uncomfortable with charging people because it
was proven that keeping people out of jail was cheaper than
them being in jail. It was better for the individual as
long as safety within a community could be assured. He
reiterated that he was looking for the most effective way
to reduce prison populations. He thought EM was a way
forward if done wisely and safely. He hoped the department
would have a plan by the following year.
Co-Chair Neuman understood that it was cheaper to utilize
the EM. He asked the commissioner to come back to the
committee with a plan for people with ankle bracelets to
pay the supplier directly. Commissioner Williams
understood.
Representative Wilson commented that she did not want to
encourage people to go to jail in order for the state to
pay for a bracelet. She mentioned money within Department
of Health and Social Services available to those that could
not afford to pay for an ankle bracelet. She thought it
should be discussed further in subcommittee and noted that
there was a fairness test in the courts as to a person's
ability to pay.
Co-Chair Neuman directed the Finance subcommittee chairman
to wrap up the issue in the subcommittee.
1:57:48 PM
Ms. Wilkerson scrolled to slide 10: "Operating Budget
Request by Line Item." She reported that personal services
was at 59 percent, services at 33 percent, commodities at 7
percent, and travel at 1 percent. Travel was primarily for
point of arrest and prisoner transports.
Ms. Wilkerson detailed slide 11: "Office of the
Commissioner." She relayed that the total budget was $3.2
million in GF within the Office of the Commissioner. The
budget for the Commissioner's Office was $1.3 million with
7 positions. The budget for the training academy was $1.4
million with 7 positions. The Recidivism Reduction Program
was $500 thousand consisting of contracts with the
Department of Health and Social Services.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 12: "Division of
Institutions." She detailed that the Division of
Institutions was made up of inmate classification and
furlough which accounted for $1.5 million of the division
total of $212 million with 9 positions funded 100 percent
with GF. The unit oversaw and classified inmates for
appropriate placements as well as community placements
after a prisoner served his or her term. She highlighted
that the inmate transportation unit, a delegated authority
from the Department of Public Safety (DPS), operated at a
budget of $2.9 million with 11 positions. The department
was reimbursed by DPS for $140 thousand to assist with
prisoner transports. The unit's delegated authority was for
transports between institutions and for medical
appointments. All other transports were handled by DPS. She
relayed that the 12 correctional centers made up the
largest portion of funding allocated within the division in
the amount of $186 million with 1390 positions. The
department had a statutory obligation for returning
prisoners to the point of arrest and consumed $600 thousand
in GF. There was also a unit dealing with education and
vocational education programs within institutions. The
unit's budget was just over $1.6 million. The cost of the
regional and community jails unit was $7 million.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the issue of vocational
education. He noticed that reform programs were part of the
division's mission statement. He asked her to tell the
committee what the department was doing to educate
prisoners for reentry into the workforce. Ms. Wilkerson
answered that the department was providing basic education
along with making sure that all inmates had a General
Education Diploma (GED) or high school diploma. In
addition, the department provided several apprenticeship
programs in construction and other training opportunities
throughout the state. She would provide a full listing to
the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman confirmed that he would like a list of the
cost and location of each of the training programs.
Representative Gattis wanted to know how many inmates
entered into prison without a GED or high school diploma
and how many received their diplomas before being released.
She also wanted to know how many prisoners left with
vocational certifications. She thought that it could be
useful for the prison to issue certificates upon completion
of training as well. She was interested in seeing
graduation rates. Ms. Wilkerson would provide the
information to the committee.
2:02:19 PM
Ms. Wilkerson turned to slide 13: "Division of Health and
Rehabilitation." The budget for the division was just over
$47 million. She reported that the physical health care
unit consumed the largest portion of funds at $30 million
with 141 positions. The unit oversaw all medical services
within the institutions and outside services as identified
and approved including dental care. The behavioral health
unit cost was slightly over $8.4 million with 54 positions.
The unit operated and oversaw all of the mental health
services within the unit. There were also subacute units in
Anchorage and Seward. There was an acute unit in Palmer and
another subacute unit at the female facility in Highland
Mountain. The division budget also paid for the APIC
(Assess, Plan, Identify, Coordinate) Reentry Initiative and
the Institutional Discharge Project Plus (IDP+) for
community placements of mentally ill offenders. The
substance abuse program was within the Division of Health
and Rehabilitation at $4.6 million with 2 positions for
contract services throughout the state. The sex offender
management program was housed within the division as well.
Representative Munoz asked how Medicaid expansion had
affected the bottom line for health care services within
DOC in the current year compared to the previous year.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that there were currently 50
individuals that had been approved for Medicaid expansion.
The invoices and billings would be directly billed by the
provider instead of the department paying them. She
continued that through the unallocated process the
department took a $1.5 million reduction to the physical
health care budget in anticipation of avoiding the
associated costs.
Representative Munoz asked if the amount was an accurate
calculation of cost savings to the department. Ms.
Wilkerson thought that with a full year of operations the
department expected a savings of between $7 million to $7.5
million. She reported the department applying a $1.5
million reduction to the FY 16 unallocated number. The FY
17 numbers reflected an additional reduction of $6 million
for the first full year after working out the bugs.
Co-Chair Neuman added that the department submitted a
budget with a $4 million reduction. There were concerns
about reducing the DOC and DPS budgets when a dramatic
increase in customers was anticipated. Therefore, the
legislature did not reduce the number. Instead, the
committee backfilled the budget with $4 million
unrestricted general funds (UGF) to cover Medicaid
expansion. The bottom line was that DOC basically received
an extra $4 million because of Medicaid expansion being
implemented by the governor. He continued that when the
department took its share of the $30 million of unallocated
reductions for increases in salaries in the prior year the
department used the $4 million to backfill its share of the
unallocated reduction. He asked if he was accurate. Ms.
Wilkerson indicated that Co-Chair Neuman was correct.
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned reading a story about the San
Quinten warden, Clinton Duffy, who had had a significant
amount of substance abuse within his prisoner population
but had no budget. He allowed Alcoholics Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous meetings into his facility and had
great success. He asked if the substance abuse program that
cost $4.6 million was geared around 12 step programs. He
also asked if there was an assessment indicating what was
most effective. Ms. Wilkerson conveyed that he was
referring to short-term and long-term programs. The
Department of Corrections had a 6 month residential
treatment program. The department also had a 90 day program
available in various institutions.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked to what extent the department
allowed inmates to participate in 12 step programs. Ms.
Wilkerson remarked that the non-profit organizations were
within the majority if not all of DOC's institutions which
could be a part of what the department provided to the
committee showing the 12 step programs offered.
2:07:30 PM
Representative Wilson asked if it was true that the state
did not accept private insurance. Ms. Wilkerson responded
that DOC did not. If the department could identify
insurance quickly enough the department would have the
hospitals bill insurance directly. Currently, the state was
unable to do third party billing. The department had hoped
that with the implementation of the new electronic system
it would assist the department in securing reimbursement
for those that had insurance when they entered the
facilities.
Representative Wilson asked if would only be included if
the patient was taken to the hospital. Ms. Wilkerson stated
that she would get back to the committee with an answer.
Representative Wilson commented that she did not understand
why someone with private insurance could not use it.
Representative Gattis remarked that the 90 day programs for
inmates while they were in jail seemed to work. She
wondered if there was evidence that they worked once the
inmates were released from prison. Ms. Wilkerson would need
time to gather the information Representative Gattis was
requesting.
Representative Gattis asked her to compare the 90 day
programs to the non-profit programs such as Alcoholics
Anonymous and other 12 step programs.
Co-Chair Neuman believed that the $500 thousand dollars for
contractual obligations was for the University of Alaska to
follow released inmates to see program effectiveness. He
asked if he was correct. Ms. Wilkerson replied, "Yes."
Representative Gara asked about substance abuse treatments.
He mentioned that there was science confirming that the 12
step program Alcoholics Anonymous worked for some people.
Some people needed 30-day treatment while others needed 90-
day treatment. He asked what DOC did for those inmates that
needed 12 months of treatment. Ms. Wilkerson would need to
get information from the clinician that oversaw the
program. She was aware that the department had previously
had a 12-month program which was reduced to 6 months for
various reasons. The programs were intensive, cognitive,
and evidence-based. She wanted to provide information
showing the reason the department went from a 12 month
program down to a 6 month program.
2:11:14 PM
Representative Gara thought the information would be very
useful. He wondered why the department was not billing
private insurance when it was available. Ms. Wilkerson
relayed that the information was not readily available and
an electronic data base was necessary to tie a person back
to their private insurance. Typically, inmates that came
into custody were not willing to provide insurance
information.
Representative Gara wondered if it was only in the case of
a prisoner refusing to give out the information. He also
wondered if there were cases where an inmate was willing to
provide the information but private insurance was not
billed. Ms. Wilkerson responded that historically the
department had not tried to bill when an inmate had
insurance. If the department was able to find the
information, it encouraged the provider to bill the
insurance company. Otherwise, the provider billed the
department which would then pay the invoice. She could
identify and provide some historical information about the
obstacles the department had encountered previously.
Representative Gara commented that he had a difficult time
advocating for an agency that was not billing available
private insurance. Commissioner Williams agreed with
Representative Gara. He felt the system needed a whole new
look. In terms of health care the department was looking at
all areas. He wanted increased care inside Alaska's prisons
at reduced and efficient costs. He surmised that the more
efficiencies he could implement, the better care he could
provide. He ensured the committee he would be working on
the issue.
Representative Edgmon believed it was true that inmates who
had insurance had it terminated at the time of their
incarceration. Most inmates were not insured. He wanted to
take the opportunity to come to the department's defense.
People in the department had done a great job of setting up
a system where they could track incoming and outgoing
inmates and that saved the state a significant amount of
money in health care costs.
2:15:41 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked about Medicaid for prisoners upon
release. Ms. Wilkerson reported that the department had
hired an administrative assistant to assist with inmate
applications. She reported that the inmate application for
Medicaid was much simpler. The department had also been
working with Department of Health and Social Services.
Currently there were no inmates eligible for Medicaid.
Co-Chair Neuman replied, "Not the right answer." He invited
the commissioner to make a comment. Commissioner Williams
agreed that the job should be done. Co-Chair Neuman
directed the commissioner to get the job done.
Representative Wilson asked whether someone awaiting pre-
trial who was part of the EM program would be eligible for
Medicaid expansion. Ms. Wilkerson stated that the
department did not cover medical for individuals on EM. The
department only covered individuals that were incarcerated.
Their eligibility depended on their income.
Representative Wilson assumed that people out on parole
would be eligible for Medicaid. Ms. Wilkerson responded in
the affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked how many individuals on EM were
signed up for Medicaid. Ms. Wilkerson would provide the
information to the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the issue of incarcerated
individuals not being eligible for Medicaid. The department
had indicated that incarcerated inmates were not eligible
for Medicaid. He indicated that the department's response
was a lie. He provided an example of a woman who had to do
with a complicated pregnancy. If an inmate was outside of
the walls of prison for more than 24 hours Medicaid would
cover the costs. In the instance of his example Medicaid
did cover the costs to the tune of about $268 thousand. He
remarked how Medicaid had been expanded but the department
had not incorporated it. He noted that no recommendations
had been brought to the legislature about reducing costs.
2:20:12 PM
Ms. Wilkerson scrolled to slide 14: "Division of Probation
and Parole." The division's budget was just over $47
million with 176 full time positions. She reported that $17
million was allocated for statewide probation and parole
covering 13 regional locations. A portion of the funding
was for the Probation Accountability with Certain
Enforcement (PACE) Program. The Probation Accountability
with Certain Enforcement Program currently served 377
individuals and was being offered in Anchorage, Bethel,
Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, and Palmer. The pre-sentencing
unit and the inter-state compact units were housed within
the Division of Probation and Parole. She reported that
there was electronic monitoring in 6 locations with a
budget of $3.4 million. The budget for the CRCs was $26
million.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about authorization for individuals
for pre-trial. He wondered how many individuals were
currently on ankle monitoring. Also, he asked how many
folks were eligible to be on EM. Ms. Wilkerson replied that
the department had over 440 individuals on EM - individuals
that were already sentenced. The department did not have
pre-sentenced individuals on EM. She would get back with
the number of individuals currently in a hard bed or in a
CRC that were eligible for EM.
Co-Chair Thompson mentioned hearing comments about several
individuals being eligible but that there had been some
resistance from the department to do EM. He wondered why.
Representative Wilson asked about the success rate of the
PACE program in each location. She wanted to know if the
program was cost effective. Ms. Wilkerson would report
back.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the PACE program was the program
that was instituted that had a zero tolerance for paroles.
For example, if they missed an appointment or did not pass
a urine analysis (UA) they automatically returned to jail.
Commissioner Williams responded that it was an immediate
quick response.
Co-Chair Neuman thought it was the same program that had
been causing problems for other departments and was not
working. Commissioner Williams reported that when he had
done a review he had heard a high degree of strong
criticism from people running the PACE program.
Co-Chair Neuman asked why the program was in the budget.
Commissioner Williams stated that it was still an operating
program. He could not provide a full analysis because of
his short tenure with the department but he would look into
it. If the program needed changing he would make sure
changes were implemented.
Co-Chair Neuman said that the committee needed an answer in
a very short period. The committee would also be asking the
same question to the Department of Law.
Representative Pruitt asked if the deputy commissioner was
available to answer the questions. Commissioner Williams
responded, "Absolutely."
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested in the future including the
cost of the units and number of positions on the
department's charts.
DIANE CASTO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, reported that she oversaw the PACE program.
She reported that there were some controversies regarding
PACE. She explained that PACE was a national program with
some very strong evidence that it worked. However, she
agreed that there were some areas that needed tightening
up. She explained the PACE program in which there was
quick, swift, and consistent consequences for those in the
program. Individuals that enrolled in the program appeared
before a judge, were given a UA and the opportunity to say
if they thought their test might come back positive. If
parolees tested positive in their UA they would be remanded
back to a facility for 3 days. For some people PACE worked,
and for others their addiction overrode them. There needed
to be a conversation about who was appropriate for the
program. The consternation within the department was with
the institution. She explained that when an individual is
brought back for a quick 3 day period the institution had
to do all of the paperwork which caused some concerns. She
had spoken with the institution looking for feedback on how
the department could find a balance to the process.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that it not only caused concern,
it also cost money. Ms. Casto confirmed that it cost money.
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned a story that was relayed to him
by the former acting commissioner, Walt Montague. A fellow
was at a bus stop at a time when a wind storm was in
progress. The fellow stepped inside of a building to try to
warm up, the bus went by, and he missed his bus. He ended
up back in jail. He thought it was crazy and eluded to the
fact that the committee would be looking at the issue
further.
2:28:48 PM
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 15: "Board of Parole." She
reported that the PACE program operated under the Board of
Parole which was currently in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
There were approximately 29 individuals participating in
the program and another 14 that were pending. The board
consisted of 6 budgeted positions and 5 additional
positions appointed by the governor.
Representative Wilson asked if the governor had placed
extra people in the program adding to the budget. Ms.
Wilkerson clarified that the parole board was made up of 6
budgeted positions and 5 board positions that were
appointed positions rather than full time positions.
Representative Wilson asked if they were additional
positions adding to the budget. Ms. Wilkerson replied that
about $200 thousand was appropriated for board members.
They were paid a stipend.
Representative Wilson wondered if an extra $200 thousand
had been appropriated to the parole board in the budget.
Ms. Wilkerson answered in the negative. The only increase
in the budget was associated with the salary increases for
the 6 paid board positions.
Representative Wilson asked about the increases to the
budget. She wondered if money had been taken out. Ms.
Wilkerson responded affirmatively. She indicated that it
was represented in the $2.4 million unallocated dollars
that was being removed from the budget.
Representative Wilson asked if the unallocated funds would
become allocated. Ms. Wilkerson responded, "Correct."
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the ignition interlock
certification devises. He asked for the same information he
requested for the ankle bracelets.
2:31:35 PM
Representative Gattis was interested in the cost to
clients. Co-Chair Neuman noted that the state covered the
costs.
Ms. Wilkerson addressed slide 16: "Division of
Administrative Services." She reported that the budget and
finance unit fell within the Division of Administrative
Services. The division was responsible for inmate banking,
fund receipts, and audits. The human resource section was
responsible for insuring the Alaska Police Standards
Council certification and employee background
investigations. The division had one procurement office in
charge of certifying the ignition interlock devices. The
division also had and information technologies unit
responsible for the Alaska Correction Offender Management
System (ACOMS). The research and records and the facilities
capital units were housed in the division also. The overall
budget for the division was $8.5 million with 61 positions.
Ms. Wilkerson turned to slide 17: "Change in Sentenced
Offender Population by Offense Class: 2013 - 2015." She
explained that the slide showed a breakout of how the
state's offender population compared from 2013 to 2015. She
pointed to the yellow highlighted area which indicated a 6
percent reduction in probation violations. By restructuring
petitions to revoke and prior legislation it resulted in a
decrease.
Ms. Wilkerson turned to a graph on slide 18: "Institutional
Offender Population 2010 - 2025." She pointed out that the
gray line represented where the projections were at about 3
years previously in FY 13. The blue line represented what
the department's capacity including the 128 beds in Point
Mackenzie Correctional Farm. The red line showed the
state's adjusted population calculations based on the past
legislation of HB 15 [Legislation passed in 2015 - Short
Title: Elect Monitoring Credits;Mitigating Fctrs], SB 64
[Legislation passed in 2014 - Short Title: Omnibus
Crime/Corrections/Recidivism Bill], and the internal
adjustments made to the petitions to revoke.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to the 6 percent reduction. He
wondered where it came from. Ms. Wilkerson replied that
probation violations had been reduced. There was a
reduction in the daily population of just over 6 percent.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how many people the percentage
equated to. Ms. Wilkerson replied that it was almost 400
people who were no longer in custody.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if she meant that it was a 6 percent
reduction on 400 people. He wondered if it equaled 24
people. Ms. Wilkerson replied, "No." Almost 400 people were
no longer under custody of the department. The 6 percent
reduction compared 2013 to 2015. Co-Chair Neuman stated,
"So, 24 people."
Representative Wilson asked how many people were no longer
in jail due to HB 15. Ms. Wilkerson responded that all
three components played a part in the reduced population
the department was currently experiencing. Representative
Wilson thought it was one-third of the population. She
referred to the potential significant savings.
Ms. Wilkerson turned to slide 19: "Standing Population &
Crime Type." She relayed that the slide compared the
state's standing population by the type of crime, violent
versus non-violent. The trend was that the higher
percentage of the population committed non-violent crimes.
2:36:04 PM
Ms. Wilkerson addressed slide 20: "Percent of Offenders by
Length of Stay from Admission." The slide was a comparison
from 2002 to 2015 showing the length of stay of the
population make-up.
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 21: "Percent of Incarcerated
Offenders by Gender." She noted the female population was
continuing to outpace the male population. There had been a
slowing down from the previous year's increases.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 22: "Goals." The slide
simply showed the goals of the department:
· Protect the public
· Provide safe and secure care and custody
· Reduce the prison populations
· Reduce recidivism
· Ensure that incarcerated offenders spend their time in
custody productively
· Re-Entry and community supervision
· Work collaboratively with outside stakeholders to
achieve these goals
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 23: "Re-Entry Outcomes:
Successfully increasing the percent of probationers and
parolees who satisfy court ordered conditions of release."
She explained that the slide showed some of the
department's re-entry outcomes that were currently in
place. The department was continuing to see an increased
number of individuals that were successfully completing the
court conditions that were set.
Ms. Wilkerson continued to slide 24: "Re-Entry Outcomes:
Reducing criminal recidivism." She conveyed that the slide
was reflective of efforts by the department to try to
successfully reenter individuals being released.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to slide 23. He observed that the
figure was 15 percent of 6,000. He stated that it was only
around 48 people. He stated that it looked and sounded
good, but was not very good. He wanted to reduce
recidivism. He named off a number of things done to try to
reduce the problem of recidivism. Commissioner Williams
commented that the department's work and the bills that
were passed to reduce probation violations was good work.
The department would be working on items recommended by the
Pew Foundation and on items related to SB 21 [Legislation
passed in 2016 - Short Title: Omnibus Crime Law &
Procedure; Corrections] was good work. The electronic
monitoring work that needed to be completed to make sure to
advance efforts for people was also good work. All of the
efforts under his leadership was the reason he was there.
He wanted substantially safer institutions. He stated that
to the department's credit there had been reductions in
probation offences. He understood and intended to live and
breathe the issues.
2:40:06 PM
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to Representative Edgmon's
involvement. He was confident that he would be following
through with the department on the implementations.
Ms. Wilkerson addressed slide 25: "Reformative Outcomes:
Increasing the number of individuals who complete an
institutional or communitybased substance abuse treatment
program." The department currently had a 90-day program
called the Life Success Substance Abuse Treatment (LSSAT)
program. The department had continued to increase the
number of participants and the number of individuals
completing the program. The department also had the
residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program, a 6
month program offered in three locations: The Highland
Mountain Correctional center, the Palmer Correctional
Center, and the Spring Creek Correctional Center.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how many inmates had a sentence of
less than 90 days. Ms. Wilkerson replied that she would
follow up with the information he was requesting.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for an estimate. Ms. Casto replied
that although she did not have the exact figure she
confirmed that the number of inmates serving less than 90
days was fairly small.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that the point he was trying to
make was that the department had treatment programs of 90
days and 6 months. He suggested that the person arrested on
heroin did not receive a 90 day sentence. He relayed that
90 percent of all of the cases that went through the courts
in Mat-Su were drug related. Offenders did not receive 90
day sentences but were the people that needed treatment.
There were no treatment programs for them.
Representative Gattis asked at what point treatment kicked
in. She wondered if inmates had the option of starting
treatment immediately upon sentencing.
Ms. Casto thought Representative Gattis asked a very good
question. She indicated that she had only been with the
department for a period of 8 months but she had come from
working for the Department of Health and Social Services
for 20 years. She reported that she worked more with
substance abuse than mental health in the Department of
Corrections than she did working for the Division of
Behavioral Health. One of the barriers she identified was
that the department could not force someone into treatment.
The department could request and encourage inmates to go
through treatment. However, it could not mandate that
inmates do treatment. She thought the department should
assess inmates upon entry, build a plan for them, and
incentivize them to accept treatment. She was responsible
for reviewing every furlough termination appeal. In other
words, when a person went on furlough they were often
remanded back for using alcohol and drugs and for technical
violations. The individual then had the ability to appeal.
She relayed that often the person had not had any substance
abuse treatment while in the state's facility. She had
started to deny appeals attaching conditions such as
attending an LSSAT program. Once an offender met the
conditions another furlough would be considered. She
suggested using such tools before someone went out on
furlough. The idea was to encourage inmates to take
advantage of the programs while they were available which
would potentially result in a healthier group of people
moving out.
2:45:56 PM
Representative Gattis agreed with the speaker but asked if
the state provided the treatment on the front or back end
of their stay. Ms. Casto stated that treatment could start
as soon as they were incarcerated and assessed. It did not
typically happen that way but, she believed it was possible
and that it should.
Representative Gattis thought what Ms. Casto was saying was
that the state could do a far better job.
Co-Chair Neuman asked the commissioner to provide a report
on the programs offered, their costs, and an evaluation of
the success rate of those programs.
Ms. Wilkerson reviewed the chart on slide 26: "Reformative
Outcomes: Increasing the number of sex offender
probationers who complete a sex offender management program
and who receive polygraph testing while on probation." She
reported that 494 individuals participated in the program.
There were 812 exams given in 2015 that resulted in 95
petitions to revoke probation.
Representative Wilson would not have included the slide in
the presentation. She questioned the logic of basing
decisions on the polygraph tests of sex offenders. She
thought it was widely known that polygraph testing was
inaccurate. She asked Ms. Wilkerson if she was conveying
that a sex offender who passed a polygraph test was somehow
safer.
Commissioner Williams responded that the theory on
polygraph monitoring of sex offenders was a deterrence. If
the state was conducting polygraph examinations it was more
likely to catch somebody who was starting to head down a
dangerous road associating with children when they were not
allowed. He agreed that there were limits on the deterrent
strategy, as it had its merits but was not full-proof. It
was an attempt to deter offenders from heading in the wrong
direction.
2:49:30 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the ramifications of not
being detected in a lie in a polygraph test. She asked if a
person would be released sooner. She wondered what the
slide was measuring. Commissioner Williams explained that
it was an effort to deter future violations. It was not
full-proof.
Representative Wilson asked for the cost and scientific
data favoring the use of such a tool. Co-Chair Neuman
mentioned that he was the person that initiated the
legislation. He explained that it had been proven that
polygraph testing had dramatically reduced additional
offenses. He continued that the problem with sex offenders
was that they felt that what they did was perfectly
acceptable. He explained that the best way to prevent sex
offenses was to conduct polygraph testing. It was the best
tool at the time he introduced the legislation. It was also
the intent that offenders would have to pay for their own
polygraph tests. He asked if costs were being reimbursed to
the state.
Ms. Wilkerson stated that currently the department was
paying for the costs. The department found that individuals
were skipping the testing and reoffending or being re-
incarcerated because they could not afford to pay for their
polygraph. There were individuals that were paying when
mandated. She would have to get the information from the
state's contractors.
Co-Chair Neuman believed the recidivism rate for a sex
offender was about 92 percent. It was very high. He was
disappointed to hear that the department was not mandating
sex offender participation in the test. He thought it was a
poor excuse on the part of the department. He relayed the
heinousness of such crimes. He continued to relay his
feelings of being disgruntled with the department.
Ms. Wilkerson scrolled to slide 27: "Reformative Outcomes:
Increasing the number of offenders who receive a General
Education Development certificate while incarcerated." The
slide depicted the current number of completed GED
certifications issued. She reported that in January 2014
the department implemented the federal regulation which
greatly reduced the number of individuals completing a GED.
The department also had some technology, equipment, and
infrastructure issues in the previous fiscal year that had
been resolved.
2:53:40 PM
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 28: "Challenges and
Issues." She read directly from the slide:
· Meet 24/7 operational needs while striving to remain
within fiscal parameters
· Connect soon to be released offenders to
· communitybased resources
· Female population growth
· Increasing mentally ill population
Ms. Wilkerson read from slide 29: "Challenges and Issues
(Continued)":
· Anchorage medical care costs have increased by another
3.2% from 2014 to 2015. Alaska medical care costs
increased .8% more than the U.S. National average of
2.4%. (Alaska Economic Trends, July 2015)
· Increases in chronic health issues and an aging inmate
population continue to increase the need for higher
acuity and specialized medical care
Co-Chair Neuman admitted that the commissioner had had a
pretty good work over because the committee was very
concerned about the issues facing the Department of
Corrections.
Commissioner Williams commented that he understood the
committee's concern and was taking his job very seriously.
He asked members for their patience. He heard their
frustrations and wanted things to be better.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that patience was running thin and
encouraged the commissioner to get the job done.
2:55:09 PM
AT EASE
2:56:31 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2:56:31 PM
CRAIG RICHARDS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced the PowerPoint Presentation: "FY 17 Budget
Overview: Department of Law." He started with slide 2:
"Organizational Chart." He outlined the major changes made
in leadership within the Department of Law (DOL) since the
prior year. Rick Svobodny, the longtime head of the
Criminal Division, retired in July. As a budget cutting
measure the department eliminated the position and moved
Jim Cantor, the longtime head of the Civil Division, over
both divisions. So far, he thought the change had been a
success. The other big change was that Nancy Gordon,
director of the Civil Division, also retired and was
replaced by Steven DeVries who had been an attorney for the
department for about 28 years. Mr. DeVries had worked in a
number of different sections bringing experience to the
division.
Co-Chair Neuman asked members to hold their questions until
the end of the presentation.
Attorney General Richards moved to slide 3: "MISSION and
Core Services." He read directly from the slide:
MISSION
The Alaska Department of Law prosecutes crime and
provides legal services to state government for the
protection and benefit of Alaska's citizens.
Core Services
· Protecting the safety and financial well-being of
Alaskans
· Fostering conditions for responsible development
of our natural resources
· Protecting the fiscal integrity of the State of
Alaska
· Promoting good governance
Attorney General Richards turned to slide 4: "Protecting
Alaskans." He highlighted that the state had had a dynamic
growth in the number of Children In Need of Assistance
(CINA) cases - up approximately 55 percent in the previous
year. In addition, the state had a large increase in CINA
appeals. He explained that it might seem that 25 to 34 was
not a huge increase. However, the appeals were very labor
intensive for DOL. From the department's perspective, it
was a particularly inefficient use of resources. It was
very rare for an appellant to win one of these cases. He
continued that because the public defender agency and DOL
represented both sides, effectively, the State of Alaska
was paying both sides of the load. The department was
committed to working with the Office of Child Services
(OCS) and the Office of the Public Defender to have a
better understanding of why the state was seeing the growth
in CINA cases. In an environment of decreased budgets the
department could not handle a 55 percent yearly growth in
CINA cases.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that CINA meant Children in
Need of Assistance.
Attorney General Richards turned the presentation over to
Mr. Skidmore to speak to the following 2 slides.
2:59:39 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), continued to slide 5: "Protecting
Alaskans: Referrals and Accepted in CY13-CY15." He reported
that the slide showed the number of cases referred to the
DOL and the number of cases the department had accepted
during calendar years (CY) CY13-CY15. On the top the graph
listed felonies. The number of felonies referred to the
department had remained fairly constant. The number of
cases the department had declined as felonies had increased
through the years and was a reflection of the department's
budget which was 85 percent personnel. The department had
to cut positions to reduce its budget which meant the
department simply could not do as much work. The point he
wanted to make with the current slide was that in
misdemeanors (on the bottom of the slide), though there had
been a decrease in the referrals provided to the
department, the declination rate had almost doubled from a
7.4 percent to a 13.8 percent. The significance for the
department was that, though the department's resources were
dwindling, it was not declining as many felonies as it was
misdemeanors. He explained that it was because the focus
was on crimes that provided the state the biggest bang for
its buck and on the protection of the public. One of the
things not listed on the slide was conviction rates. He
knew that the information mattered to several members. He
reported that in 2014 the department had a conviction rate
of around 80 percent for felonies and about 73 percent for
misdemeanors. He did not have numbers for 2015 but would
provide them once they were generated from the state's new
case management system.
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 6: "Protecting Alaskans: SA
Referrals and Accepted in CY13-CY15." In the same vein the
department was focusing its resources on the cases that
mattered most. He was well aware that cases of sexual
assault and sexual abuse of minors were cases very
important to many committee members, prosecutors, and many
citizens across the State of Alaska. Though there was a
higher percentage of declinations for cases related to
sexual assault and sexual abuse of minors than for typical
felonies it was unfortunately a result of cases being so
difficult to prosecute. He wanted to drive home that even
at a time when the department had a decrease in the number
of prosecutors available to the department, there was also
a decrease in the number of declinations. In other words,
the department was accepting more cases because the
department was trying to get as aggressive as possible in
prosecuting cases relating to sexual assault and sexual
abuse of minors, as they were the ones that mattered most.
3:02:47 PM
Mr. Skidmore noted the closure of the Dillingham office. He
relayed that there was no one within the criminal division
or within DOL that found it to be an ideal situation. He
had lived and prosecuted in Dillingham for many years
himself and could attest to the value of having someone in
the community. Unfortunately, the economy in the previous
and current years did not leave Alaska in a place where it
could live in ideals. He provided statewide statistics
regarding the number of cases that had been declined. He
shared them because the department's declinations were
statewide. Unfortunately, something had to be cut. The
department's costs consisted of 85 percent personnel, 10
percent fixed costs, and only 5 percent discretionary
costs. When the department made reductions to its budget it
had to cut personnel. The department did not want to simply
cut personnel, it also had to cut fixed costs such as
leases. Barrow was cut in the previous year and Dillingham
would be cut in the current year. Both locations were
chosen because of being satellite offices of larger offices
that could absorb the work from the communities. The cuts
had nothing to do with the communities themselves or no
longer paying them any attention, but to give them the same
attention that all other cases received with an office
capable of absorbing the workload. He noted that the office
in Fairbanks absorbed the work from the Barrow office and
Anchorage would absorb the work from the Dillingham office.
He added that there were information technology challenges
in Dillingham including needing a new phone system and slow
internet service which created additional problems. The
anticipated increase in travel costs would be offset by the
fact that Dillingham grand juries occurred in Anchorage.
The Attorney no longer needed to travel to Anchorage for
grand jury, as they would already be in Anchorage. They
would need to travel to Dillingham. He mentioned that
presently the attorney assigned to Dillingham was there
trying a repeat offender. The department's commitment was
to ensure that its people were sent to Dillingham and
Barrow to battle cases. The department estimated the
difference in the cost of travel to be an increase of about
$27,210. However, it made logical financial sense because
the savings would be over $190 thousand.
Mr. Skidmore continued that the new court house had posed
problems for the department. It moved from its previous
location to across town. It meant more commuting time, the
department's lawyer spent more time out of the office, and
a vehicle would have to be provided in Dillingham. In
addition, the new court house had two courtrooms so that 2
trials could be conducted simultaneously. He remarked that
having a single attorney in Dillingham meant that they
could not do 2 trials.
Co-Chair Neuman interrupted Mr. Skidmore.
Attorney General Richards indicated to Mr. Skidmore that he
thought the chairman wanted to move to the next slide.
Co-Chair Neuman responded, "Please."
Mr. Skidmore replied, "My apologies. By all means please do
so."
Co-Chair Neuman directed members' attention to the bullet
on slide 7 about defending Alaska's right to manage its
resources. He noted that when he had had discussions with
the Department of Law on the subject the discussion steered
to whether it could afford some of the lawsuits it was
involved in. He had asked the commissioner to provide a
report back as to which lawsuits he had been referring to
and their associated costs. His office had also been in
contact with Senator Sullivan's office about making sure
the state could continue to protect the its rights from
federal oversight.
3:07:05 PM
JIM CANTOR, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
reviewed slide 7: "Fostering Economic Development." The
department was looking at new matters as they arose with a
sharp eye that Alaska was going to get the appropriate
pushback against the federal government or other economic
benefit out of a lawsuit. There were some lawsuits
currently going on that the department was carrying forth
quite excitedly. He mentioned that one of the department's
lawyers argued the Sturgeon case in the U.S Supreme Court
in the prior week. He also mentioned the Big Thorn timber
sale case in which the lower court upheld the sale. The
case was currently before the 9th circuit. There was an
RS247 case going on in the Mat-Su. He relayed that the
Environmental Protection Agency, which tried to regulate
utilities nationwide in a way that would have added to
every Alaskan's cost, felt a pushback from Alaska's DOL.
The department argued that the rule was not designed for
Alaska which resulted in the EPA backing away.
Mr. Cantor scrolled to slide 8: "Protecting Fiscal
Integrity." He indicated that Attorney General Richards
would explain the first item on the list.
Attorney General Richards reported that the gasline had a
substantial supplemental budget amendment in the last
special session. Currently, in the fiscal year the
department had appropriated approximately $13 million for
outside council. He reported that of that amount the
department had spent about $5 million with $8 million left.
He expected the spend rate to go up once the department
started making progress in getting some of the necessary
documents negotiated. He reported the previous couple of
weeks had been very encouraging regarding the Alaska
Liquefied Natural Gas (AKLNG) project. He thought that with
$8 million remaining the department should be able to meet
its targets for the current year.
Mr. Cantor continued with slide 8. He mentioned one of the
programs being cut: Child Support Enforcement. The idea
behind the program was that if orders were granted
requiring people to pay their child support then, a family
might not end up landing on the public purse. The federal
program the department was working off of had a bizarre
consequence: People who could otherwise afford a lawyer
could still take advantage of the program. The Department
of Law, Department of Revenue, and the federal government
worked together to aim the program at people who it would
benefit the public purse. Three of the six lawyers were cut
from the program.
Mr. Cantor continued to discuss other items that protected
fiscal integrity. He noted the defensive things like
pushing back when the tax payer was told they owed "x" and
they said they owed "y." He mentioned the example of a case
currently in the Supreme Court regarding Economic Limit
Factor (ELF) taxation days. He provided other examples in
which the state pushed back to protect the public purse.
3:11:05 PM
Mr. Cantor detailed slide 9: "Promoting Good Governance."
The department defended the laws the legislature passed,
defended ballot measures, provided advice to all of the
state agencies, and defended actions against those
agencies.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Cantor to skip to slide 14.
Members had already seen the Legislative Finance Division's
slides contained in slides 10-13.
Attorney General Richards skipped to slide 14: "Potential
Impacts of Client Agency Budgets." He highlighted that half
of the Civil Division was funded by reimbursable services
agreements (RSA)'s rather than through GF. He noted that in
GF expenditures the department had had a 10 percent
decrease.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Attorney General Richards to avoid
the use of acronyms.
Attorney General Richards continued that the point he was
trying to make was that the department's GF budget had
fallen by 10 percent in the previous year and it was
proposing an 8 percent drop in the current year. The
department's total "all funds" budget (excluding the
gasline appropriation) had fallen about 7 percent in the
prior year and it was proposing a 5 percent cut. He
explained that what the numbers demonstrated was that the
department's GF was being reduced faster than its RSA fund.
The general funds were being reduced faster than agencies
were asking for the department's services. He reported that
with RSAs the department was more of a service taker versus
a maker. It provided its clients with services they sought
and asked for billions appropriately. In other words, a
portion of DOL's budget was driven by agency decisions and
policies.
Attorney General Richards furthered that when agencies made
reductions the RSA's were not necessarily reducing right
away. Often times in order to reduce agencies there was
typically an uptick in legal work. The department expected
that the RSA portion of its budgets, if there were
substantial cuts, to roll through two years later as mega
projects and other things were decommissioned.
Attorney General Richards talked about encouraging agency
clients to seek front-end advice on major decisions. He
noted that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of
cure.
3:14:29 PM
Attorney General Richards moved to slide 15: "Strategies
for Tough Times." The slide covered some of the
department's strategies including the closure of the
Dillingham office. One strategy that had been in the news
and was incorporated into its budget was the proposal of
the creation of a public integrity unit within special
prosecutions. The Office of Special Prosecutions was housed
within the Criminal Division. He reported that within the
past 2 years the office had been cut by letting several
lawyers go. He noted that the cuts had been made too
deeply. As the division was adding lawyers back in he had
considered restructuring in order to provide better
services on issues related to officer involved shootings,
correction deaths and allegations of public corruption.
There was a cost of about $700 thousand, of which about
half would be absorbed through internal transfers. Although
not a budget increase, the department did not make the
governor's suggested budget cuts because about $350
thousand was less than the total decrease the Office of
Management and Budget asked for.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked, "We are trying to help you out."
Attorney General Richards stated that unless the committee
wanted to get into the budget detail he was finished with
the presentation.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Attorney General Richards to review
the department's budget. He thought it was important for
the public to see.
Attorney General Richards called Mr. Blaisdell to testify.
DAVE BLAISDELL, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW advanced to slide 17: "FY17 Budget
Development." He discussed that in developing the
department's FY17 budget it started with the FY 16
conference committee numbers. The main changes that
occurred had to do with the unallocated reduction as a
result of the salary increases that came through in the
special session. In order to achieve the reduction the
department closed the Barrow office which included 2
positions with an estimated savings of about $400 thousand.
The department changed the way it did business with the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) by
having them pay for services that used to be covered out of
the department's GF. The services were currently being paid
for with AOGCC receipts. There had also been several
employees within the department that informed him that they
would have some extended absences which were calculated in
the budget and a furlough was also built into the FY16
budget to reach $302 thousands. The total FY 17 budget was
approximately $89 million.
Mr. Blaisdell pointed to slide 18: "FY17 Budget
Development." He pointed to the reduction of $500 thousand
for outside council. The department added the capacity the
attorney general spoke to in the Office of Special
Prosecutions and Appeals for $318 Thousand. The department
had also transferred the tariff work in the Regulatory
Affairs and Public Advocacy section and was able to do a
funds source switch of $600 paid for by Regulatory
Commission of Alaska receipts. The department anticipated
annual mandatory furloughs, and the closure of the
Dillingham office resulting in a savings of $340 thousand.
There were staff reductions in the amount of $564 thousand
and there was the reversal of the cost-of-living
adjustments which was currently unallocated.
3:18:42 PM
Mr. Blaisdell continued to slide 19: "FY15-FY17 Criminal
Division Budget Reduction Elements":
FY15 Budget Reductions
· Deleted uncollectable federal receipts ($841.2)
· Four position deletions ($741.0)
· 3 attorneys, 1 support staff
· Reduced expenditures in OSPA ($430.5)
FY16 Budget Reductions
· Reduce expenditures across division ($671.6)
· Closure of Barrow office (incl. 2 PCNs)($400.0)
· Ten position deletions ($1,608.5)
· 6 attorneys, 4 support staff
FY17 Budget Reductions
· Close Dillingham office ($340.0)
· Unallocated reduction (furloughs) ($92.5)
Mr. Blaisdell discussed slide 20: "FY15-FY17 Civil Division
Budget Reduction Elements":
FY15 Budget Reductions
· Three position deletions ($543.2)
· 3 attorney positions
· Reduced expenditures across division ($285.6)
FY16 Budget Reductions
· Reduced expenditures across division ($788.6)
· 11 position deletions ($1,464.6)
· Reduced outside counsel and gasline ($1,900.0)
FY17 Budget Reductions
· Reduce Outside Counsel for Oil, Gas and Mining issues
($500.0)
· Trial portion of litigation cycle is over; appeals
portion less costly
· Unallocated reduction (deleted positions) ($525.6)
· Unallocated reduction (furloughs) ($143.7)
Mr. Blaisdell elaborated that the department's approach
with some of the reductions was to try to eliminate
positons through attrition. The department had been able to
do so for the most part. In the previous year the
department had some positions that were laid off mainly in
the Criminal Division and one in the Civil Division. The
department's goal was to try and retain positions.
Mr. Blaisdell explained slide 21: "Re-alignment of
Resources (Civil)." The slide showed the merger of the oil,
gas, and mining section with the natural resources section.
Representative Gara asked about the time spent to bill
other agencies for their time. He wondered what the purpose
was for the accounting mechanism. He saw it as a waste of
time. Attorney General Richards responded that he was a
lover of cost accounting. He thought it made a lot of sense
because it provided an incentive to use DOL's services
efficiently when there were known and recognizable costs to
government agencies. He suggested that costs made other
agencies more accountable for and thoughtful of using the
department's services.
Representative Guttenberg redirected attention to the
closure of the Barrow and Dillingham offices. He wondered
why the department did not choose to lay off someone in
Anchorage rather than closing the rural offices. He thought
it would be cheaper to put someone up in a hotel in
Anchorage rather than temporarily putting someone up in
Dillingham or Barrow for an extended period of time. He
wondered if the department intended to do more things
telephonically. Attorney General Richards reported that the
vast majority of cuts that had already been applied, over
20, were from Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. He
furthered that the cuts that occurred in Dillingham and
Barrow had much more proportional impacts. He thought the
department had attempted to balance the relative cuts of
its smaller offices. The department had looked at the
economic impact of closing the rural offices in a robust
analytical manner. The department had worked at trying to
determine the most cost effective way to delivery
prosecutorial legal services. The decisions were not easily
made.
3:23:30 PM
Representative Guttenberg claimed that by having a
prosecutor living and being part of the community helped to
facilitate better justice for the community.
Representative Wilson referred to slide 4 regarding the
Civil Division and the rise in Office of Children's
Services (OCS) cases. She asked if the cases were criminal
cases versus civil cases and whether the type of cases
would change the number of cases. Attorney General Richards
believed the number represented civil cases.
Representative Wilson understood that they were all civil
cases. She wanted to know if the number would be as high if
they were criminal cases. She asked the question because
civil cases had a much lower threshold. Attorney General
Richards suggested they would be much lower if a criminal
standard was applied to CINA cases.
Representative Wilson asked the attorney general if he
thought CINA cases should be classified as criminal rather
than civil cases. Attorney General Richards responded that
he had not considered the idea. His job was to enforce the
laws of the State of Alaska. He would follow whatever the
legislative body chose to do.
Representative Wilson commented that in her opinion the
reason there were not appeals was because the state was
sitting on both sides. She made a comment about the public
defender in Fairbanks. She wondered if the department was
ready for substantial growth if there were more private
attorneys and the number of appeals increased. Attorney
General Richards responded in the negative. He indicated
that the department was cutting its budget rather than
increasing it. If appeals increased it would be a
challenge.
Representative Wilson like the integrity unit idea. She
assumed that individuals unhappy with the OCS process could
file a complaint with the integrity unit and that the unit
would determine whether OCS was using its resources and
doing its job. Attorney General Richards replied that the
Public Integrity Unit as it was thought to be configured
would handle accusations of public corruption, officer
involved shootings, and deaths in correctional facilities.
The only way the unit would be involved in a CINA related
matter would be if there was an allegation of public
corruption.
Representative Wilson looked forward to passing the
information on.
3:26:51 PM
Representative Edgmon complimented the department for its
good work. He mentioned that the department brought in a
significant amount of money to the state. He thought that
the closure of the District Attorney's office in Dillingham
was highly unconscionable given that he lived in the area
and was aware of the impacts. He was also aware that as a
state agency DOL was unable to measure the true impacts on
the region as a result of its decisions. He provided an
example of a major drug dealer in Dillingham who had to
plead down from a felony to a misdemeanor. In December the
dealer was found with $19 thousand in cash. The
representative could not tie the crime directly to the lack
of a local district attorney in the community. He opined
that the cost of services could not always be measured in
dollars and cents. He did not understand the department's
reasoning for removing $191 thousand from a region where
there were approximately 1000 cases per year when the
department had a $54 million UGF budget. The region was
home to one of the largest fisheries in the world in the
summertime. He would continue his argument on the issue and
appreciate the chairman's indulgence.
Co-Chair Neuman looked forward to the conversation.
Vice-Chair Saddler commented that the previous speaker and
Representative Guttenberg had made the arguments about the
value of having a full slate of law enforcement personnel
and resources in a community. They also made the argument
that there was an undefinable (not measured in dollars and
cents) value. He felt that the commissioner and Mr.
Skidmore acknowledging the value. However, the committee's
responsibility was to allocate scarce resources, as it
dealt in dollars and cents. It was the committee's
obligation to everyone that came before members asking for
money for their programs to make the most transparent,
demonstrable, and understandable comparison of the cost and
benefits. There were winners and losers. He believed the
department had made a good faith effort to mitigate impacts
and to have reductions be allocated fairly with a close eye
on its overall mission. He thought the department had been
doing a good job in a difficult process and situation.
Co-Chair Neuman thought there had been a lot of good
questions from members.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY2017 DOC Overview HF 02032016.pdf |
HFIN 2/3/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| LAW_FY17_HFC_Overview_2-3-16.pdf |
HFIN 2/3/2016 1:30:00 PM |