Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/07/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB176 | |
| Presentation: Department of Corrections (doc) Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 176-BOARD OF PAROLE: MEMBERSHIP
3:32:04 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
176 "An Act relating to the board of parole; and providing for
an effective date."
3:32:45 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN joined the meeting.
3:32:50 PM
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, District I, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, Sponsor for SB 176. She said she perceived a
lack of diverse member representation, citing feedback from the
Board of Parolees. Statute indicates that appointments should be
reflective of regional population. Montana law includes a
provision for a board member from a federally recognized tribe.
SB 176 proposes similar representation to enhance board
diversity. The Board of Parole is utilized to carry out that
representation. She highlighted Oklahoma's requirement for board
members with mental health or social work training and
emphasized the role of parole in facilitating post-incarceration
reintegration. The bill would repeal vague and opaque language
about parole denial to increase transparency and instill hope.
Sponsor statement below:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Senator Löki Gale Tobin
Education Committee Chair
SB 176 Board of Parole Membership
Sponsor Statement
Senate Bill 176 expands the number of seats on the
Alaska Board of Parole from five to seven, establishes
criteria for membership on the board, and applies ten-
year term limits to board members. This expansion will
help address the substantial workload of the board
which presides over hundreds of hearings a year on
discretionary parole, parole revocation, geriatric and
medical parole and preliminary hearings.
SB 176 adds criteria for membership to create a board
that more closely reflects the incarcerated population
in Alaska. Alaska Natives make up 40 percent of the
people incarcerated in Alaska, yet are 15 percent of
the state's population. SB 176 requires one board
member to be a member of a federally recognized tribe.
In Alaska, the total number of Alaska Native people in
prison is almost equal to the number of Caucasian
people in prison. In the 2021 count, of the 4,600
people incarcerated in Alaska prisons 1,895 were
white, and 1,855 were Alaska Natives. Alaska
Native/Native American people made up 31 percent of
parole applicants in 2022, reflecting a yearslong
trend and, like the prison population, is higher than
the general population proportion.
80 percent of all individuals in the state's
correctional system report a substance use disorder.
SB 176 requires that one member of the Parole Board
have drug and alcohol rehabilitation support
experience.
Parole can be granted when the board determines
through the hearing process that a petitioner has
undergone appropriate rehabilitation during
incarceration and is no longer a threat to society. In
numerous cases the board has denied parole to
individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation
relying on a condition in the discretionary parole
statute that "release of the prisoner on parole would
not diminish the seriousness of the crime."
This provision is vague and can be at odds with the
intent of parole and rehabilitation. In deleting this
language, SB 176 helps clarify the focus of the parole
system on rehabilitation. The courts at sentencing
weigh the seriousness of the crime. Deleting "diminish
the seriousness of the crime" language will allow the
board to more clearly and accountably provide their
rationale for authorizing or denying parole.
3:39:06 PM
SENATOR MERRICK acknowledged that SB 176 was referred to the
Labor and Commerce committee with a fiscal note and wondered why
it has not been referred to the Finance committee.
3:39:29 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that she anticipates that SB 176 will
likely be referred to the Finance committee.
3:39:51 PM
SENATOR MERRICK pointed out that SB 176 would incur an annual
fiscal impact by adding two new parole board members, each with
a compensation of $50,000. She inquired whether these additional
members would be considered state of Alaska employees.
3:40:12 PM
SENATOR TOBIN deferred to a representative from the Department
of Corrections (DOC) to explain the fiscal notes and explain the
current five-member board operation.
3:40:51 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Loki Tobi, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, presented on discretionary parole decisions. He
moved to a slide depicting parole decisions from 2013 to 2022,
indicating a rising trend over time despite variability. A
significant number of parole denials have occurred during this
timeline that surpassed historical averages.
3:41:39 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 3 that illustrates a graph representing
the disproportionate number of incarcerated Indigenous people
across six state prison systems. He noted that Alaska's
statistics are comparable to the other Western states.
3:41:58 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 4 and spoke to a graph depicting the
DOC budget. He said while parole may play a small role in
releasing incarcerated individuals, there are significant costs
associated with prolonged incarceration. As the incarcerated
population ages, the cost per day for medical and other care
increases.
3:42:38 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 5 depicting the current board makeup
for the Alaska Board of Parole:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska Board of Parole - current
• 5 members
• 5-year staggered terms until successor appointed
(no term limit)
• Geographic representation
• Governor to appoint with duo regard of the
ethnic, racial, sexual, and cultural population
of the state
• At least one member must have experience in the
field of criminal justice
3:43:06 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 6 and spoke to the proposed board
makeup under SB 176:
[Original punctuation provided.]
• 7 members
• 5-year terms, two term limit
• Geographic representation
• Board to include five designated seats:
1. a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist
2. a crime victim, family member or a victim,
or a member of a crime victims advocacy
group
3. a person with addiction recovery experience
4. a person with an unconditionally discharged
felony conviction
5. a member of a federally recognized tribe
MR. FLORA said there is geographic representation required based
on judicial districts. SB 176 seeks to expand the parole board
to seven members, establish term limits, and designate seats. He
highlighted concerns raised by DOC and the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) regarding the fourth point, which conflicts with
the state's criminal information database that currently cannot
be accessed by anyone with a historic felony charge. The
database is an important tool used by the parole board. He
suggested that if SB 176 progresses, a committee substitute
could be considered.
3:44:22 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI said various boards have come before the
committee. He acknowledged the difficulty in filling some of
these boards and questioned whether any of the proposed
positions in SB 176 would be particularly difficult to fill with
a designated person.
3:44:52 PM
SENATOR TOBIN replied that it is a fair question. She emphasized
the importance of selecting board members with critical
background experience to ensure fair and judicious hearings.
Senator Tobin noted that many boards have similar requirements
for designated seats and there is a population that could
provide these positions and services. Since SB 176 would
establish two five-year terms, she expressed confidence that
there is ample time to identify suitable candidates to meet the
board's needs or requirements upon reconsideration of positions.
3:45:48 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN questioned the rationale behind limiting board
membership to two terms, particularly if a member enjoys their
work and possesses the appropriate level of experience. He cited
Reverend Patterson as an example, who served on the parole board
for over ten years and brought valuable experience.
3:46:31 PM
SENATOR TOBIN responded by acknowledging the value of
individuals with extensive knowledge and experience in providing
insightful contributions. However, she highlighted shifting
paradigms in restorative justice and rehabilitation services,
emphasizing the importance of creating opportunities for newer
and younger voices who may have been deterred by long-term
incumbency. She opined that turnover and the introduction of new
voices is important. However, an additional term limit or length
of service could be considered.
3:47:36 PM
SENATOR MERRICK referenced slide 2 and asked why there was a
significant spike in discretionary parole decisions between 2017
and 2019.
3:47:52 PM
MR. FLORA replied that he believes it relates to Senate Bill 91,
which included provisions that enabled more incarcerated
individuals to seek discretionary parole.
3:48:05 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if the trend averages around 200 parole
decisions annually, excluding the potential implications of
Senate Bill 91 after 2016.
3:48:31 PM
MR. FLORA replied that the committee was provided with a fact
sheet detailing parole data and confirmed Chair Kawasaki's
observation.
3:48:52 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for the definition of "continued parole."
3:48:59 PM
MR. FLORA explained that 'continued parole' refers to cases
where parole is initially denied, but the applicant can reapply
for consideration in the future. He deferred to a representative
from the parole board for additional clarification.
3:49:29 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 6 and provided a snapshot of specific
member requirements in other states. He noted that different
states have taken various approaches to include different voices
on the board.
3:49:59 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if any other state's statute requires a
person who was discharged from a felony conviction to serve on
the parole board.
3:50:14 PM
MR. FLORA deferred to invited testifiers to respond.
3:50:27 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 7 depicting a change in statute under
AS 33.16.100:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sec. 33.16.100. Granting of Discretionary Parole.
a) The board may authorize the release of a prisoner
on discretionary parole if it determines a
reasonable probability exists that
1) the prisoner will live and remain at liberty
without violating any laws or conditions imposed
by the board;
2) the prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration
into society will be furthered by release on
parole;
3) the prisoner will not pose a threat of harm to
the public if released on parole; and
4) release of the prisoner on parole would not
diminish the seriousness of the crime.
b) If the board finds a change in circumstances in a
prisoner's parole release plan submitted under
AS 33.16.130 (a), or discovers new information
concerning a prisoner who has been granted a
parole release date, the board may rescind or
revise the previously granted parole release
date. In reconsidering the release date, the
procedures set out in AS 33.16.130 (b) and (c)
shall be followed.
MR. FLORA explained that the statutory language requiring
someone discharged from a felony conviction on the parole board
dates back to 1985 and was based on a Supreme Court case from
the 1970s. He clarified that SB 176 retains conditions for
prisoners to live lawfully and abide by board-imposed terms upon
release. The other two conditions are forward looking and focus
on rehabilitation. He highlighted issues with the fourth
criterion, which has caused transparency concerns in parole
denials despite meeting all other requirements. SB 176 aims to
address this by omitting the problematic point to better support
rehabilitation-focused parole determinations.
3:52:21 PM
MR. FLORA moved to slide 8 and acknowledged the ongoing
discussion about the Alaska Constitution's provisions regarding
the right to rehabilitation. He emphasized that the whole intent
of SB 176 is to ensure parole decisions align with principles of
rehabilitation and transparency.
3:53:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced invited testimony.
3:54:03 PM
MEGAN EDGE, Prison Project Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU), Anchorage, Alaska, invited testimony for
SB 176. She said she testifies as a lifelong Alaskan, a victim
of violent crime, a former employee of DOC, and in her current
role. She stated that ACLU of Alaska supports SB 176 because it
takes critical steps to ensure fair consideration of
incarcerated individuals by the Alaska Board of Parole. The bill
aims to uphold the board's responsibility in assessing an
individual's potential success upon discretionary parole. She
said her involvement with Alaska's parole system began during
her tenure as a public information officer for DOC, where she
participated in closed parole hearings. Victims are notified and
can provide statements during these hearings, and each applicant
is accompanied by their Institutional Probation Officer (IPO).
IPOs, who develop deep relationships with their caseloads over
years or decades, facilitate access to rehabilitation programs
such as parenting classes, anger management, and vocational
training. They also collaborate with community housing providers
and reentry coalitions to create safe and effective reentry
plans, so people can return to the community safely and
contribute to the economy while also ending cycles of violence,
incarceration, and harm within their own families. In each
hearing, an applicant's IPO makes a recommendation on whether
they believe an inmate could be a successful member of the
community. She recounted an example where an applicant's IPO
strongly recommended parole, but the board, having predetermined
the outcome based on the seriousness of the crime, did not focus
on his extensive rehabilitation efforts or reentry plan. The
board's denial based on the crime's severity effectively
resentences the individual, despite lacking sentencing authority
that rests with the courts. When it denies parole because of the
seriousness of the crime, members effectively resentence the
person before them. Many of the people going before the parole
board are doing so after serving decade's long sentences. The
individual in question could not return to the parole board for
his next hearing for another ten years. Many applicants appear
before the board after serving lengthy sentences, facing
challenges such as age-related employment difficulties and
dwindling support networks over time. If he is eventually
granted parole, employment will be more challenging to obtain
because of his age and diminished support system. The board
effectively retried him. The Parole Board, appointed by the
Executive Branch, does not have sentencing authority.
3:56:51 PM
MS. EDGE said when someone like him is denied parole, it
contributes to an alarming statistic. Over the past decade in
Alaska, there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of
incarcerated individuals over the age of fifty. Commissioner
Winkelman has noted that the aging and fragile population
significantly impact the DOC budget, with daily care costs of
$202 per person not accounting for end-of-life or chronic
disease care common among aging populations. Such denials are
increasingly common, not just in high-profile cases but also for
individuals convicted of lesser offenses, such as failure to
stop. She noted a recent shift within the past three years where
the parole board has denied more than twice as many
discretionary parole applications as it has granted, often
denying parole to individuals who have already served decades in
prison. She underscored that while the legislature and courts
determine sentencing structures, the parole board's role should
not be to revisit these decisions but rather to objectively
assess an individual's potential for success upon returning to
their community. SB 176 would help strike a better balance
between the punitive and rehabilitative purposes of Alaska's
criminal justice system. She clarified that punishment and
rehabilitation are not exclusive of one another. When DOC
efforts to rehabilitate succeed, the parole board should
acknowledge the court's sentence and the contributions of
various professionals who help individuals with felony
convictions become healthier, safer, and more functional members
of society. Examples include IPOs who support clients in
achieving sobriety over years and teachers who provide
educational support.
3:58:46 PM
MS. EDGE said that despite the commissioner's supportive role in
reentry coalitions, the parole board faces an incredibly
challenging task. Members are tasked with evaluating parole
applications from individuals with complex backgrounds,
including those with limited education, mental health issues,
disabilities, and non-native English speakers and people who
hurt other people. The board must balance these considerations
with its responsibility to protect the community, despite
lacking specialized education, expertise, or law degrees
required for such assessments. This places an unfair burden on
parole board members. Denying parole to rehabilitated
individuals fails to recognize the efforts of incarcerated
individuals and many DOC employees. SB 176 represents a step
toward correcting these issues. The bill proposes two major
changes to the current system: diversifying board membership and
removing vague and subjective criteria from parole eligibility
determinations. Currently, membership requirements do not ensure
sufficient diversity on the board, including professionals and
individuals with lived experience who can effectively assess an
applicant's growth and prospects for success upon release.
Designating these roles would ensure that all perspectives are
considered when making parole decisions. She highlighted
successful models from other states, such as Oklahoma, which
mandates two rural board members to have five years of expertise
in mental health, substance abuse services, or social work.
Similarly, several other states explicitly require board
representation from fields outside law enforcement, ensuring
comprehensive perspectives in parole decision-making.
4:00:32 PM
MS. EDGE said SB 176 creates clear roles and expectations for
the parole board by defining its purpose and outlining specific
member responsibilities. She clarified that the board's role has
never been to impose sentences, and there should be no
expectation for board members to fulfill this judicial function.
Ms. Edge asserted that regardless of background or felony
status, everyone desires meaningful work, fair employment
opportunities, and the ability to help others. She expressed her
belief that Alaskans seek healing, growth opportunities, and
safety. SB 176 addresses these goals while also saving state
funds and ensuring Alaska is a safe place to build a life.
4:01:36 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked what the incentive is behind SB 176.
4:01:46 PM
MS. EDGE replied that she receives hundreds of letters from
incarcerated individuals, noting a prevalent sense of
hopelessness due to prolonged confinement preventing their
return home. She recounted the story of a friend who may never
leave prison, leading him to initially feel uninspired to engage
in rehabilitation programs. However, after witnessing a younger
inmate view him as a mentor, he initiated programming efforts.
As a result, the young man is set to return home in June after
completing anger management classes, gaining job skills, and
receiving treatment for behavioral health issues, which she
believes enhance safety within the prison system and the broader
community.
4:03:29 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked why more applicants were denied than
granted parole after 2017. He also wondered whether many
individuals are unable to be considered for discretionary
parole.
4:04:12 PM
MS. EDGE deferred to DOC to respond to avoid speculating.
4:04:31 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI introduced Sylvester Byrd Jr. He said Mr. Byrd
was incarcerated for 27 years in the Alaskan correctional system
and was released on parole three years ago in May.
4:05:08 PM
SLYVESTER BYRD Jr., representing self, Anchorage, Alaska,
testimony. He shared his personal experience of being
incarcerated for murder as a young man, one of 35 that year. He
described the emotional process of appearing before the parole
board, acknowledging the weight of their responsibilities and
highlighting that board members are also individuals. He
credited prison programs with teaching him valuable skills,
fostering accountability, and addressing his behaviors. He said
he obtained certifications in welding, carpentry, and cabinetry
during his incarceration. After receiving guidance from
institutional parole officers (IPOs), he shifted his attitude
from apathy to actively seeking positive change. He emphasized
his commitment to distancing himself from those who are not
working to better themselves and said nobody is worth going back
to prison for. He expressed daily reflection on the life he
took, drawing a poignant analogy to an experience with a Bonsai
club in Seward where pruning halted a tree's growth permanently.
Parole applicants are simply asking for those in power to uphold
their end of the bargain. Parole is not a get out of jail card
but an opportunity to plant positive roots in the community one
may have negatively impacted. He acknowledged the stigma of a
felony conviction while appreciating his personal support
network's impact. However, not all parole applicants have access
to such supportive networks.
4:11:58 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how many times he went before the parole
board.
4:12:07 PM
MR. BYRD replied that he only went before the board once.
4:12:33 PM
SENATOR MERRICK asked how much time the board deliberated after
the hearing before granting his release.
4:12:46 PM
MR. BYRD replied that it took approximately 30 minutes to an
hour before granting his release, describing the experience as
nerve-wracking. He added that the total deliberation time may
have been around two hours.
4:13:18 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked how long his total sentence was and the
length of his parole.
4:13:30 PM
MR. BYRD replied that his sentence was for 123 years with 63
years suspended, setting his official release date for 2035. He
expressed his belief that he considers himself on parole for
life, regardless of the official decision.
4:14:06 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI introduced Trevor Stefano, who was incarcerated
for 15 years and is currently out on parole. Mr. Stefano is a
practicing paralegal and Eagle River resident. He took a case
related to his parole to the Alaska Supreme Court and won on
appeal.
4:14:36 PM
TREVOR STEFANO, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, invited
testimony for SB 176. He shared that he was convicted of felony
murder at 19 years old and served approximately 15 years in
prison. During his incarceration, he pursued education
extensively, earning degrees through correspondence with UAF,
and completing apprenticeships in various technologies and
advanced paralegal studies, which he currently practices. His
case was brought to the Supreme Court. He referenced art.III,
sec.21 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which
mandates a parole system, and art.I, sec.12, emphasizing the
principles of reformation in criminal administration. He
highlighted the Alaska Supreme Court's consistent interpretation
that rehabilitation is integral to the parole process, citing AS
33.16.102, which mandates the parole board to consider
rehabilitation and societal reintegration as key factors. This
is one of four statutory factors that the board must find prior
to granting an application for discretionary parole. Oftentimes,
the parole board will grant someone's discretionary parole but
effectively deny or delay it for several years. He stated
despite meeting all requirements and completing court-ordered
treatments and program recommendations from institutional
probation officers, his parole was granted but delayed for five
years into the future. He expressed frustration with the board's
decision, questioning the need for continued incarceration when
no additional rehabilitation programs were available to him that
he hadn't already completed. He highlighted the psychological
impact on prisoners who perceive lengthy delays in parole
eligibility as discouraging efforts towards self-improvement and
posing risks to institutional security. He noted that he housed
with others who weren't actively seeking rehabilitation and
change. SB 176 offers hope by addressing discretionary parole
issues. He urged legislative support to align the parole system
with rehabilitation principles and ensure fair treatment for
incarcerated individuals striving for positive change. He noted
that incarcerated prisoners denied any hope of fair parole often
would revert to fatalism and dangerous behavior, the opposite of
what the system is designed to foster. He then referenced his
legal challenge regarding DOC's regulation changes affecting
release dates, which he argued violated administrative
procedures. The case reached the Supreme Court, which found
violations of the Administrative Procedures Act. He critiqued
the board's discretion in denying parole applications,
particularly when releases are delayed without justification
related to institutional conduct or program non-compliance. He
stated when someone has completed all required steps and
programs, it should be a defacto decision that they qualify for
parole. And he added that delaying discretionary parole due to
the severity of the crime only second guesses the original
sentencing, which is not the Board's function.
4:26:48 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked for confirmation that his sentence was for
15 years beginning at age 19. He also asked whether he received
his education while in the correctional system.
4:27:07 PM
MR. STEFANO replied that he funded his education and completed
print-based correspondence and exams facilitated by educational
coordinators, which he found time-consuming.
4:27:32 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if the continuance was being granted parole
five years into the future.
4:27:46 PM
MR. STEFANO replied that during his appearance before the parole
board, he had already obtained his degree and had received only
one disciplinary write-up over his ten years of incarceration.
Despite completing all required programs, the board scheduled
his release for 5.5 years into the future.
4:29:30 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked the Chair of the Board of Parole whether he
operates as a state employee and how much he is compensated.
4:30:06 PM
LEITONI TUPOU, Chair, Alaska Board of Parole, Anchorage, Alaska,
invited testimony for SB 176. He confirmed that parole board
members are compensated. The Chairman receives $375 and board
members receive $200 daily.
4:30:42 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if compensation is only provided for days
when the board meets.
4:30:53 PM
MR. TUPOU responded that the chairman and members of the Board
of Parole will be compensated for their work today, following a
morning hearing.
4:31:23 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the board would be compensated for
days without hearings.
4:31:27 PM
MR. TOPOU replied that there are generally hearings for one week
out of the month.
4:31:47 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for a further explanation of continued
parole.
4:32:08 PM
MR. TUPOU explained that decisions regarding continuous parole
are made on a case-by-case basis by the board. Depending on the
offense, the board may decide that a prisoner must serve
additional time or complete a specific program before being
considered for parole.
4:32:49 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired whether prisoners eligible for release
would need to appear before the board again if their release is
continued, assuming no infractions occurred during their time in
the facility.
4:33:19 PM
MR. TUPOU responded that in certain situations, prisoners may be
required to return to the board or meet with their IPO if their
release is continued. Once the specified program or requirement
is fulfilled, the prisoner may then be eligible for release.
4:33:57 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how he interprets the concept of
'diminishment of the seriousness of the crime' as outlined in AS
33.16.100(a)(4).
4:34:43 PM
MR. TUPOU replied that the seriousness of an offense is assessed
based on its nature and severity. He emphasized that the
committee should consider the contrast between offenses such as
murder, which may carry a 100-year sentence, compared to less
severe offenses like driving under the influence (DUI) or
shoplifting.
4:35:30 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how the Board of Parole distinguishes
between the seriousness of the same crime that carries different
sentence lengths.
4:35:56 PM
MR. TUPOU reiterated that the Board of Parole assesses the
seriousness of offenses based on the nature of the crime. He
emphasized that planned murder, for example, is considered more
serious than an altercation between siblings resulting in
injury. He underscored the gravity of taking a life, describing
it as a particularly horrific act.
4:36:59 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked about the typical procedures at
sentencing regarding parole, specifically inquiring whether
judges prescribe in their sentence when parole will become
available as part of the sentencing conditions and how often
individuals become eligible for parole upon sentencing.
4:37:37 PM
MR. TUPOU replied that eligibility for parole can vary;
sometimes it's clearly defined by law, while other times it's
determined by the Department of Corrections (DOC). Once
eligibility criteria are met, the case file is forwarded to the
parole office for further consideration.
4:38:36 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked whether the next time a prisoner is
eligible for an additional board hearing is dictated by a judge
or statute.
4:38:50 PM
MR. TUPOU asked if the question is regarding the initial parole
board hearing.
4:38:52 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN clarified that he is wondering about any
hearings following the first one.
4:38:53 PM
MR. TUPOU replied that it is determined during the first
hearing.
4:38:55 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked for confirmation that the parole board
makes that decision.
4:38:58 PM
MR. TUPOU replied that is correct.
4:39:18 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked how much weight the PO recommendation
carries when the board of parole meets to make a decision.
4:39:54 PM
MR. TUPOU responded that the board takes the IPO or probation
officer recommendation seriously, but it does not dictate the
decision. He provided an example of a young man with criminal
history and said the board decided against the parole officer in
this case.
4:43:01 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether section 3 of SB 176, proposing to
add a member with a felony conviction in the state for which
they have been unconditionally discharged, creates problems with
the information system run by DPS.
4:43:24 PM
LISA PURINGTON, Legislative Liaison, Department of Public
Safety, Alaska, responded to questions related to SB 176. She
said under statute, criminal justice information includes
conviction data, arrest data, and other sentencing information
that is not publicly available. All conviction and arrest data
are stored in the database and access to that information is
protected. There is no appeal process or time limit to the
felony conviction.
4:44:50 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if someone being discharged would be
prevented from disclosing information to a person even with an
unconditional discharge.
4:45:01 PM
MS. PURINGTON replied that is correct.
4:45:02 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if there would be an exception, without
requiring statute change, for a member of the board of parole
who was unconditionally discharged.
4:45:24 PM
MS. PURINGTON replied that is correct.
4:46:15 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony and left it open.
4:46:45 PM
MR. FLORA expressed the belief that the Board of Parole is not a
jury and does not determine an incarcerated person's sentence.
He said it is up to the board to enact an incarcerated person's
right to rehabilitation and determine one's ability for success
in that regard.
4:47:17 PM
MR. BYRD thanked the committee for allowing him to be among the
committee today. He said programming provides incarcerated
individuals with a sense of hope. However, prisoners with a long
sentence are overlooked. He expressed gratitude for his support
network and the ability to successfully participate in the
workforce. The acknowledgment from the committee demanded a
large amount of trust.
4:50:29 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 176 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB0176A.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Board of Parole Membership Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Parole Quick Facts 2023.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Discretionary Hearings 2022.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Background Article .pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Support Letters.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| DOC Overview - (S) State Affairs 3.7.24.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
Department of Corrections Overview |
| SB 176 Support letter6.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Support letter5.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Support letter4.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Support letter3.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Suport letter2.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Support letter1.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| SB 176 Parole time line. Walker.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| ACLU of AK Letter of Support - SB 176.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 |
| DOC Response to S-STA 03.07.2024.pdf |
SSTA 3/7/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 176 DOC response |