Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2016 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 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date."
1:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He relayed that the bill would extend the
termination date of the Board of Parole until 2022, which
was a six-year extension. He relayed that a recent audit
had found various needs for improvements related to
regulation changes and the Department of Corrections (DOC)
system. He communicated that department staff were
available for detailed questions.
Representative Wilson asked if the five members served on
the board were the same as the five staff.
ESTHER MIELKE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, referred to
page one of the legislative audit that listed the members
of the board and the staff.
Representative Wilson asked for verification of the paid
positions.
Ms. Mielke deferred the question to the Division of
Legislative Audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, answered that the report did not discuss
the number of staff support for the board. She stated that
there was an explanation of the personal service budget.
The board was paid a daily fee for reviewing the files for
a part time position with no benefits. She furthered that
there was also an executive with staff.
1:44:11 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note listed
the number of full-time positions as five.
Ms. Curtis replied that the full-time positions would have
to be staff positions because the board was part-time.
Representative Wilson looked at page 16, exhibit 4, there
was the issue of revoke and re-parole. She felt that more
people were revoked and re-paroled between 2011 and 2014
than was done between 2004 and 2007. She interpreted those
figures as a problem.
Ms. Curtis replied that the audit interpreted the
occurrence as a good thing. She elaborated that there was a
high rate of revoking and denying in 2008 was a reflection
of the lack of programs in the community. She remarked that
the current rates of denial was less than prior years,
because there was more opportunity for enrollment into
programs to enhance success in the community.
Representative Wilson wondered if the people were given a
second or third chance.
Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if five positions was
sufficient for the board.
Ms. Curtis replied that the board was operating in an
efficient manner.
Representative Kawasaki asked why the sponsor had elected
to extend the board six years.
Ms. Curtis answered that statues provided for a maximum
extension of eight years. She had recommended six years due
to significant changes taking place in the Department of
Corrections (DOC)
Co-Chair Thompson noted that staff from the board and
department were available for questions.
Representative Kawasaki thought six years seemed lengthy,
especially given that the department was using a new tool.
He was concerned about 7 errors that had been found in the
audit. He noted that it was an 18 percent error rate. He
was concerned by the high number.
1:50:04 PM
Ms. Curtis replied that there were errors with risk
assessment forms, however no errors impacted the risk
categories. She shared that other errors were documentation
issues that could be readily addressed by improved
procedures. The department was approached for corrective
action. The changes would be easy to implement and would
not require oversight.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification about the
executive director and staff.
Ms. Curtis answered that there was an executive director
and several full-time staff.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the number of staff were
necessary.
Ms. Curtis answered that the audit had not used that type
of focus. She relayed that the board established quite a
bit of, and did not feel there was enough evidence to
determine if positions should be cut.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at page 1 of the audit. He asked
which of the positions were part-time versus full-time.
Ms. Curtis answered that in Exhibit 2 were all full-time
positions. She deferred to the department for more
information.
Representative Munoz asked for an explanation of the
terminology.
Ms. Curtis explained "revoke and re-parole."
Representative Munoz asked about reprimand and warn.
Ms. Curtis deferred the question to the department.
Representative Munoz asked how often a person was
successful.
1:55:36 PM
Co-Chair Thompson queried compliance with the audit. He
noted that the audit recommended that the executive
director should improve procedures to ensure required
documentation for parole hearings was accurate and
consistently included in parole files. He queried the
efforts to adhere to the recommendations.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD OF PAROLE,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, answered that there was a fairly
simple fix for the board; it had been able to solidify the
review process and other items in order for the files to
accurately reflect the individuals needed for the board to
make decisions. He furthered that there increased the
scrutiny of the information and if errors were found they
were asked for further information.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed recommendation 2 in the audit.
He read from his notes.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board had done a review and
had located an avenue it had expanded on. The
recommendation was for the board to document the
information it received. He relayed that the board had
expanded the participation of the victim's family in the
parole process. The board recognized that victimization was
one of the most difficult pieces in the process.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for verification that he felt the
board was in compliance
Mr. Edwards replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson read a question. He queried the efforts
to address all statutory requirements as related to duties,
including the identification of a methodology to measure an
offender's suitability for discretionary parole.
2:01:10 PM
Mr. Edwards communicated that the board had recently gone
away from the inaccuracy of the scoring instruments in the
risk assessment. The board had instead gone to a validated
risk assessment tool that was used by the entire
department. The board had committed to working with the
Department of Law on the issue.
Representative Gattis asked about the risk assessment tool.
She wondered if someone was picked up and taken in, was
that when the tool was used. She wondered if the assessment
followed all the way through to parole.
Mr. Edwards responded that the tool was used by the board,
institution, and field agents. He elaborated that the tool
was generated typically by the parole officer; it
identified the needs of the individual and followed the
person through to parole. He continued that it would be
updated once a person was released to a parole officer.
Using the same tool seemed to help with efficiency in the
process.
Representative Gattis wondered what would occur without a
field assessment when attempting to post bail on a weekend.
She asked if it was something that could happen.
2:07:04 PM
Mr. Edwards answered that the tool was not always utilized
for a violation. The offender was not reassessed.
Representative Munoz asked how often individuals were
successful going before the parole board.
Mr. Edwards clarified that it pertained to a situation when
a person was asking for early release, which was different
from mandatory release. The yes vote was about 66 percent
for early release. He stated that revoke and parole
pertained to people who had violated their parole.
Representative Munoz asked about special medical issues in
the parole board.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board received about 2
special medical parole requests per year. He guessed the
board had granted about 3 in the past few years. He relayed
that the requirements were stringent; it typically applied
to individuals who were dying.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the fiscal note. He
pointed to page 1 of the audit, which said that the FY 15
budget expenditures was $897,700. The fiscal note showed a
$1.19 million with five full-time employees. He wondered if
that was due to a vacant parole board officer position in
FY 16.
Ms. Mielke answered that the sponsor had received the
fiscal note the previous day and had not heard back from
the fiscal note drafter, and had not yet heard back about
the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the bill would be before the
committee again in the future. He noted recommendation 4,
which was the Alaska Correctional Officers Offender
Management System. There were deficiencies in the system,
which could affect the security and consistency of data
contained in the system. It was recommended that the DOC
administrative director take steps to ensure the system
complies with state information technology security
standards, and national best practices. He wondered if the
parole board or DOC should address the issue.
Mr. Edwards answered that it had come about as a result of
the audit. He believed the department was moving to fulfill
the requirement and had implemented new security systems
department-wide.
2:13:09 PM
Ms. Curtis cautioned that the details of the recommendation
had been withheld, so they could not be exploited. She
encouraged the answers to be general in assurance, and not
expose details of the finding.
Co-Chair Thompson believed it related to DOC and not the
board.
Vice-Chair Saddler noted no increase in funding over six
years in the fiscal note. He wondered if the board could
continue with the work over the following six year.
Mr. Edwards responded that SB 91 and HB 205 would have a
significant impact on the board, so he wanted to wait to
see how those bills would advance.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked which staff were full time and
which were part time.
Mr. Edwards replied that there were 6 full-time staff and 5
part-time employees.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the $83,000 in travel.
Mr. Edwards answered that the cost was for board meeting
travel. For example, there were representatives throughout
the state who traveled to meet as a group. The board had to
travel to meet with applicants.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that travel was $52,200.
2:16:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the board could get by with one
less staff member.
Mr. Edwards answered that it would be very difficult due to
the volume of work.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the increasing use of
teleconference. He wondered if there could be meetings with
parolees via teleconference.
Mr. Edwards answered that they could use teleconference;
however, it would not be easy. The board was working to
decrease travel costs.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if more training to board and
staff would help address one of the audit recommendations.
Mr. Edwards replied that he had encouraged staff to attend
statewide training for parole officers. He believed the
board members received adequate training. He continued that
the board continued to train officers throughout the state.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at page 22, and noted the
discussion of the clemency advisory committee (CAC). He
wondered whether the CAC be eliminated, and whether the
functions should be incorporated into the parole board.
Mr. Edwards replied that it was a question potentially for
the governor's office. He stated that it could be an option
to review clemency applications that had not been asked of
the board. It would require more time for board members to
conduct hearings.
2:20:06 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler noted that it had not been active for 16
years.
Representative Wilson referred to page 16 of the audit and
requested numbers instead of percentages.
Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson believed the numbers would enable the
committee to ask more pertinent questions.
Representative Edgmon remarked that more offenders were
non-violent in nature. The additional information would
help to paint better picture.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the fiscal note. He
noted that, in FY 15, the total budgeted expenditures were
$896,000. He remarked that the fiscal note showed $1.19
million. He queried the difference in FY 15 and FY 17.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
answered that the difference was related to the FY 15 and
the current fiscal note was associated with the passage of
SB 64 and the PACE parole funding.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the five full time
positions in the fiscal note. He referred to the audit. He
asked about a discrepancy between the two.
Ms. Wilkerson believed the fiscal note was incorrect and
there should show six staff.
Representative Kawasaki noted that the line item for
personal services from FY 16 to FY 22 were the same. He
wondered if there were no anticipated raises or authorized
positions received COLA or merit increases.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the fiscal note was flat funded
based on the sunset allocation in FY 17 appropriations. The
fiscal note did not take into consideration any contractual
negotiated changes for future or changes in current
practices of the parole board.
2:24:18 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the board had the option of
Skyping.
Mr. Edwards answered that it was a possibility but the
board did not currently have the capability. He relayed
that there were remote locations, which did play a role. He
continued that there were 50 to 60 members, so all of the
members on Skype was somewhat challenging.
Representative Wilson stated that it was possible from
Dillingham. She stated that there were other options. She
believed that there were options to save money.
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:27:17 PM
AT EASE
2:28:53 PM
RECONVENED