Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/22/1997 01:38 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 1 "NO FRILLS" PRISON ACT
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY , sponsor of the measure, gave the following
overview. SB 1 is almost identical to the "No Frills Prison Act"
that passed the Senate last session. It contains two additional
sections: one section adds a fee (approximately $2) to cover the
electricity costs of using personal appliances in cells; and the
other section fixes into statute a fee for sick calls. Senator
Donley recommended deleting that section because the Department of
Corrections (DOC) recently adopted a regulation requiring a sick
call fee.
SENATOR DONLEY explained SB 1 limits frills that prisoners
currently enjoy in our prisons. The limitations contained in SB 1
fall under the community condemnation provision added to the Alaska
Constitution in 1994 by voters. SB 1 prohibits premium cable TV in
individual prisoners' rooms. To get a private TV in one's room,
prisoners would have to: obtain a high school or GED diploma; be
actively engaged in an educational, vocational training or
employment program; have satisfied all restitution orders entered
by the court; participate in treatment or rehabilitation programs
ordered by the court; and pay for television and cable service.
SENATOR DONLEY described an amendment proposed by DOC which would
waive the GED requirement for prisoners who have developmental or
other mental disabilities. That waiver was contained in the House
version of the "No Frills Prison Act" that passed last session.
Those prisoners would have to meet all other requirements and would
have to be making an effort to get some type of education or
training. Senator Donley believes the privilege of having a
private television in a prison cell can be used as an effective
incentive to get prisoners to comply with court orders to attend
training, treatment or rehabilitation programs.
SENATOR DONLEY reviewed other proposed amendments. The first
amendment allows compact disc players in prisons but prohibits
audio cassette players. Prison guards originally believed compact
disc players in prison cells could pose a danger, however that has
not been the case. Instead, prisoners have become adept at using
audio cassettes and players to smuggle contraband or make other
types of tools. Another amendment incorporates a Department of Law
(DOL) request to use a more standard definition of pornographic
materials. A third amendment shifts some of the costs for
terminally ill prisoners from the state to the federal government.
Currently, the state is obligated to pay all health care costs of
prisoners in the state system. The federal government picks up at
least 50 percent of medical costs for other prisoners. Several
years ago the legislature made an attempt to give DOC the
discretion to furlough terminally ill prisoners who pose no
physical danger to anyone so that the federal government would
share the medical costs, however because of the way that provision
was written, prisoners have to be completely incapacitated to be
eligible for furlough. The amendment liberalizes the definition
with the intent of including a few more cases per year. Although
the incidences of these cases are few, the medical costs are
significant.
SENATOR DONLEY continued. SB 1 contains a provision to enhance the
authority of the DOC to provide vocational training to reduce the
recidivism rate by providing prisoners with skills to earn a living
without committing crimes.
Number 217
SENATOR PEARCE asked how the restrictions in SB 1 would apply to
CRC beds in contracted facilities in other states or in a federal
facility, if one existed in Alaska. SENATOR DONLEY replied the
bill gives the Commissioner the discretion to apply the
restrictions to prisons outside the state system. He supports this
method because most of these restrictions already exist in the
Arizona prison and it allows private institutions to use creative
solutions. For example, Alaska prisons must contain an extensive
law library under the Cleary decision; the Arizona prison contracts
with an attorney to advise prisoners, which is less expensive.
Number 245
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented Arizona is unique in that all prisons are
located in one town, therefore one attorney could provide services
to all prisons in that area. He felt DOC could enter into small
contracts with attorneys in the communities with prisons to provide
legal services.
SENATOR DONLEY clarified the Cleary decision specifically requires
a law library be provided in prisons in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned how the Cleary decision could be
revisited. SENATOR DONLEY responded that subject was discussed by
the Senate Finance Committee during the DOC overview. One attorney
believed a statutory or constitutional change would be necessary,
thus creating a condition that was not anticipated at the time of
the Cleary decision. The Cleary decision has unusual language in
that it prohibits renegotiation unless a substantial change in the
subject matter exists. If actual statutes changed, as SB 1 would
do, or constitutional questions changed, those changes would be
substantial enough to qualify for renegotiation.
Number 270
SENATOR PEARCE stated during the DOC overview before the Senate
Finance Committee it came to light the Attorney General for the
current and previous Governor made a personal decision to not
request the Court System to review, and perhaps renegotiate, the
Cleary settlement.
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out approximately two years ago the Supreme
Court addressed the issue of state agreements of this type. The
decision set up criteria requiring a substantial change in the
subject matter. If there is a substantial change, another state
would be allowed to renegotiate the terms.
Number 299
SENATOR PARNELL asked whether committee members can request that
witnesses return before the committee for later questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR responded affirmatively, as long as the request is
made in good faith.
SENATOR PARNELL asked Senator Donley what prompted him to introduce
the bill. SENATOR DONLEY replied he got the idea from a federal
bill which contains more draconian restrictions than SB 1.
Additionally, media stories have exposed incidental services
provided in prisons and created public tension. Over the years,
due to budget cutbacks, DOC has attempted to decrease problems with
prisoners by being generous when possible. He believed that to be
a reasonable course of action by prison administrators who are
trying to minimize problems within prisons, however it is not a
reasonable course of action from the general public's point of
view. SB 1 was designed to strike a balance between the two views.
The public resents prisoners receiving services, such as premium
cable, in prison, when they cannot afford it themselves.
Number 339
SENATOR PARNELL asked who pays for cable television. SENATOR
DONLEY noted the state does not pay for premium cable television,
but does allow it. He felt the problem is the vast majority of
prisoners, other than drug offenders, committed a violent crime.
The question becomes whether current prison conditions provide an
appropriate punishment for those types of offenses.
SENATOR PARNELL agreed a balance needs to be found, but was
concerned that the committee make sure to address reality rather
than perception. He referred to page 4, lines 12-17, which
prohibits prisoners from engaging in boxing, wrestling, judo,
karate, or other martial arts, and bodybuilding, and questioned
Senator Donley's opposition to prisoners doing push-ups as a
bodybuilding exercise. SENATOR DONLEY responded he has offered a
proposal to the committee to delete the bodybuilding reference in
the bill. His main concern is that martial arts activities in
prisons are not used to foster self confidence and self esteem, but
are used to improve one's predatory abilities.
Number 367
SENATOR PARNELL asked Senator Donley whether he also planned to
propose the removal of the prohibition on free weights. SENATOR
DONLEY felt free weights should be banned because they can be used
as weapons, but stationary exercise equipment should be permitted.
SENATOR PARNELL questioned the need to ban coffee pots and other
cooking appliances in cells. SENATOR DONLEY responded those
appliances pose a danger when used in confined areas, and prisoners
tend to find other creative uses for those appliances. Once
prisoners have such appliances, it is difficult to remove them
through any method other than the statutory process.
SENATOR PARNELL referred to page 5, line 3, which allows the
Commissioner to prohibit a maximum custody prisoner to have a
television in his/her cell, and asked what types of offenders are
in maximum custody. SENATOR DONLEY answered the prison system has
three levels of custody: minimum, medium, and maximum security. A
prisoner who was incarcerated for a relatively minor offense can be
transferred to a higher level of security if that prisoner has hurt
other prisoners or has tried to escape. The security level is not
always based on the original offense, but on the perceived risk the
prisoner presents.
Number 400
SENATOR PARNELL asked whether maximum custody prisoners circulate
among prisoners at other security levels. SENATOR DONLEY replied
they do circulate among other security level prisoners in common
areas, which is where entertainment facilities are located.
SENATOR PARNELL asked whether Senator Donley planned to remove the
fee for medical services. SENATOR DONLEY replied affirmatively,
because the DOC regulation was well crafted.
Number 420
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR discussed a different approach used by the warden
of an Arizona prison. The warden purchased, under court order,
three television sets for prisoners and three videos of classic
stories. A federal judge then required the prison to provide live
television, therefore the warden allowed prisoners to watch the
news, an educational channel, and the Phoenix City Council
televised meetings. The warden also banned cigarettes and coffee.
He asked why Alaska does not impose similar restrictions on coffee
and tobacco products, and the types of television programs made
available.
SENATOR DONLEY clarified SB 1 bans the use of tobacco products.
DOC has banned tobacco in eight facilities and is moving toward a
ban in all facilities. At least two states that have imposed a
tobacco ban have had positive results. The State of Georgia banned
tobacco products but lifted the ban because of difficulties. SB 1
gives DOC a couple of years to implement the ban. Because the
state is responsible for prisoners' medical costs, it is difficult
to justify the use of harmful products.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the cable television policy. SENATOR
DONLEY stated the policy varies by institution and referred to a
chart of services available in each prison provided by DOC. Where
premium cable is available, prisoners pool their money to pay for
it.
Number 477
SENATOR PARNELL questioned whether banning tobacco products would
encourage corruption among prison guards. SENATOR DONLEY
confirmed the deputy commissioner of the Texas prison system
reported 11 disciplinary problems with guards at the outset of the
ban on tobacco products in Texas prisons, however after
disciplinary action was taken, the problem was resolved. He was
unsure why the response was different in the State of Georgia.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned why Senator Donley was now in support of
the bodybuilding provision. SENATOR DONLEY indicated the goal is
not to prevent people from maintaining health, but to prevent them
from using prison time to become more dangerous individuals.
MR. FRANK SAUSER , Director of the Division of Institutions, DOC,
testified in support of the proposed amendments. He requested the
bill allow prisoners who are actively seeking a GED, or who are
actively engaged in making restitution payments, to possess a
television in individual cells. Many prisoners are required to
make restitution after release, not while incarcerated; this
provision would provide a powerful incentive to get prisoners to
make voluntary payments while incarcerated. In addition, he
requested the same provisions apply to those prisoners incapable of
obtaining a GED, listed in lines 4-12 on page 6. Mr. Sauser
invited committee members to tour the local prison facility (Lemon
Creek) or other state facilities, as convenient.
Number 544
SENATOR PARNELL asked Mr. Sauser to provide committee members with
a description of conditions at Highland Mountain. MR. SAUSER
stated Highland Mountain houses approximately 230-235 men, and 60-
65 women. He estimated there are televisions and computers in 10
percent of the cells, but that percentage is quite a bit higher
than in other facilities. Some facilities have cells with no
electrical outlets, some are designed for short term holding of
prisoners, while others are designed for long term holding. He
discussed the philosophy of controlling the behavior of short term
prisoners with the incentive of early release, and controlling the
behavior of long term prisoners with the incentive of obtaining
privileges. In response to Senator Parnell's inquiry, Mr. Sauser
stated DOC generally supports SB 1, but deferred the definition of
Section 4(2)(A) to the Department of Law.
Number 582
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned whether Section 4(2)(A) changes the
standard upon which decisions about conditions are made from the
standards set out in the Cleary decision to the standards set out
in the state and federal constitutions. MR. SAUSER was unsure.
TAPE 97-2, SIDE B
Number 000
SENATOR PARNELL asked whether any legal problems exist regarding
the provision that gives the Commissioner the discretion to apply
the same restrictions to prisoners in out-of-state facilities.
DEAN GUANELI , Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, felt
that question would fall under the Equal Protection Clause, and the
answer would depend on the terms of the contract with the out-of-
state facility and the comparison of conditions at out-of-state and
in-state facilities. It is possible the state would be in
violation if the Commissioner applied all of the restrictions to
in-state facilities, and none to out-of-state facilities. The
question would lie in how that provision is implemented and whether
it is done in a reasonable manner. In the case of in-state halfway
houses, which the restrictions in SB 1 would not apply to, the
class of prisoners is different: those prisoners are in halfway
houses because they are closer to their release dates and can be
trusted with a greater level of freedom and "frills."
Number 560
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved the adoption of amendment #1, (0-LS0024\H.4).
SENATOR PEARCE objected for the purpose of discussion and
questioned whether prisoners with idle time would find ways to use
compact disc players to make weapons if they do so with audio
cassette players.
SENATOR DONLEY stated he would prefer to ban both. He explained
prisoners used the components of audio cassette players to make
tattoo guns. DOC believes the audio cassette players and cassettes
are the bigger hazard at this time because of their smuggling
capability.
Number 535
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was further objection to the motion
to adopt amendment #1. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned why amendment #2 (0-LS0024\H.4) changes
the effective date of the bill to two years after passage, moved
adoption of amendment #2, and noted objection. SENATOR DONLEY
indicated in an attempt to avoid retaliation, SB 1 gives DOC the
ability to phase in the changes gradually. SB 1 provides DOC with
a statutory deadline to implement the restrictions and minimizes
prisoner wrath toward DOC and prison guards by making the
restrictions a statutory requirement.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted there was no further objection to amendment
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved adoption of amendment #3 (0-LS0024\H.2) which
deletes the restriction on bodybuilding. There being no objection
to the motion, amendment #3 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved adoption of amendment #4 (0-LS0024\H.1).
SENATOR DONLEY explained this amendment removes the statutory
requirement for medical fees since DOC has adopted a similar
regulation. There was no objection to amendment #4, therefore it
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved adoption of amendment #5 (page 4, line 26,
after "employment" insert ",education"). SENATOR DONLEY reiterated
amendment #5 applies to the appropriate utilization of computers
outside individual cells. Several facilities have computer labs
for training purposes. DOC has requested the word "education" be
specified in statute. There being no objection to the motion,
amendment #5, was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR inquired whether any computers in individual cells
have modems so that prisoners can obtain access to e-mail and the
internet. SENATOR DONLEY did not believe any modems were allowed
in Alaska prisons, and noted federal prisons allowed modems at one
time but have since banned all computers because the program was a
disaster.
MR. SAUSER confirmed no modems are allowed to prisoners in Alaska.
Number 490
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment #6 (0-LS0024\H.6).
JERRY LUCKHAUPT , legislative counsel, Division of Legal Services,
informed committee members of an inadvertent omission in amendment
the end of the amendment:
Page 4, line 12: Delete "or printed".
He explained the amendment already contains all necessary
references to printed material.
There being no further questions from committee members, CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR moved adoption of amendment #6 as amended. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
Number 450
SENATOR DONLEY asked James Armstrong, legislative aide, to present
amendment #7 to committee members. MR. ARMSTRONG explained
amendment #7 deletes lines 4-5 on page 4, because those lines
conflict with Section 9 of the bill. SENATOR DONLEY stated Section
9 of the bill was added by the Senate Finance Committee last
session. It is a more extensive way to deal with the problem of
prisoner phone calls. When that section was added, the reference
on lines 4-5 of page 4 inadvertently remained in the bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to delete lines 4-5 on page 4 and reletter
the sequential subsections. There being no objection to the
motion, amendment #7 was adopted.
Number 432
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced his intention to hold SB 1 in committee
until a committee substitute is prepared, and to take action on the
legislation at that time.
MR. ARMSTRONG discussed the DOC fiscal note which reflects a cost
of $725,000. Amendment #7 eliminates the need for $705,000 of that
cost. SENATOR DONLEY commented the cost saving is due to the fact
DOC can conduct random monitoring rather than full-time monitoring
of all phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how the attorney-client privilege is handled
under random phone monitoring. MR. SAUSER explained at present
Spring Creek is the only facility with phone monitoring
capabilities. A separate private phone line is provided for
attorney-client phone calls. He noted the cost of $705,000 was an
estimate to purchase a phone monitoring system for all facilities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern that phone monitoring does not
occur at any facility other than Spring Creek, and questioned why
the cost of monitoring would be so high. MR. SAUSER responded DOC
has attempted, over the last several years, to obtain a contract
with a phone company in which the company would provide the
services free of charge in return for the revenues generated by the
phone calls. The difficulty has been with the regulatory agencies
who are unable to keep up with the rapid changes in communications
technology. Other states are experiencing similar problems, and in
some instances, regulatory agencies have shut down existing
monitoring systems that are inadequate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR referred to the pipe bomb incidence in which
prisoners used phones to relay instructions, and emphasized the
need for monitoring.
SENATOR DONLEY stated prison officials in Arizona actually place
phone calls for prisoners to attorneys.
Number 364
SENATOR PEARCE asked whether the presence of a prison guard in a
room with a prisoner when the prisoner places a call would be
considered monitoring. SENATOR DONLEY replied the Cleary decision
specifically prohibits a guard from being present during an
attorney-client phone call. In Arizona, once the guard places the
call, he/she leaves the room.
SENATOR PEARCE commented she has received numerous phone messages
from prisoners on voice mail. MR. SAUSER noted prisoners are not
allowed to make long distance phone calls. DOC owns the phone
system at Spring Creek, but the phone systems in other prisons are
owned by different companies. At most facilities, prison officials
can tell when a phone line is live, and when the conversation is
over. When DOC establishes that a prisoner is abusing phone
privileges, a prison official places all phone calls for that
prisoner.
Number 323
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how prisoners get access to telephones. MR.
SAUSER said the phones are in day rooms and common areas accessible
to prisoners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR questioned how many lines are
available to prisoners. MR. SAUSER responded there are generally
two lines in each dormitory. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR expressed concern
that DOC does not know when phones are being misused until a member
of the public who is being harassed contacts DOC.
BRUCE RICHARDS , program coordinator, DOC, described the phone
system DOC hopes to purchase. It is a computerized system which can
be programmed to contain the phone numbers prisoners can call and
record those calls, and attorney phone numbers, that would not be
recorded. Calls to numbers not in the computer would be terminated
by the computer. Such a system would minimize staff time for
monitoring. The cost of $705,000 was provided by one vendor,
however if that vendor provided such a system for all state
prisons, the cost would decrease to $575,000. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
added there would be incidental costs for tapes and to have the
tapes checked occasionally. He expressed concern about the
conspiratorial opportunities available to prisoners through open
access to telephones.
Number 256
SENATOR PEARCE asked whether prisoners can make long distance phone
calls to family members who live elsewhere. MR. SAUSER believed
those situations were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. She
questioned whether any of the private phone companies in the state
would be willing to participate if a surcharge was placed on local
calls, similar to a pay phone, however she questioned whether a
company would be willing to terminate or tape calls. MR. SAUSER
stated one of the phone companies DOC deals with will tell prison
officials the number called and the length of the call. At Spring
Creek, the phone carrier will actually record calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR suggested removing the phones altogether, except
for one secure line for attorney-client calls, and allowing an
occasional phone call, placed by a guard, for good behavior.
SENATOR DONLEY noted SB 1 does not mandate DOC to monitor all phone
calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR reiterated his intention to bring the committee
substitute before the committee Friday or Monday, and adjourned the
meeting at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|