Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/26/1997 10:10 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 47 - TELEPHONE VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM HB 48 - APPROP: VICTIM NOTIFICATION SYSTEM The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 47, "An Act relating to authorizing the Department of Corrections to provide an automated victim notification and prisoner information system," and HB 48, "An Act making a special appropriation for an automated victim notification system; and providing for an effective date." Number 0079 LAUREE HUGONIN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, was the first person to testify in Juneau. Her testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48. It was especially critical for victims of domestic violence to be notified as soon as possible when there was a change in an offender's status, particularly if the offender was being released. The victim would then have the best chance possible to get herself to a safe space. The domestic violence and victim protection act added five responsibilities to the Department of Corrections when to notify victims. Three were in regards to parole hearings; and two were in regards to pre-release furloughs. In addition, there had been difficulty in notifying victims when action had taken place over the weekend by corrections when the prosecutorial agency was not at work. Therefore, an automated system would help in all regards of notifying the victim. Number 0239 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, was the next person to testify in Juneau. Her testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48 for both the council and the Department of Public Safety. There had been an increased statutory mandate for corrections to notify victims over the years for safety and peace of mind. Corrections was having difficulty notifying victims after they relocated. Therefore, the council had put the word out to the various victims' agencies to remind them to notify corrections of their new location. The VINE system was a 24-hour system so victims could call to determine the status of their offenders relieving anxiety. Number 0406 CARLA TIMPONE, Lobbyist, Alaska Women's Lobby; and, Co-Chair, AWARE Shelter, was the next person to testify in Juneau. Her testimony today was in support of HB 47 and HB 48 for both the lobby and the shelter. She explained two cases in Juneau whereby one woman was notified on the street by a friend that her perpetrator had been released, and the other woman found out by calling the prison herself only to learn after the fact that her perpetrator had been released. In Juneau, she explained, the Department of Corrections notified the district attorney's office by paper of a change in status. The district attorney's office then notified the victim. There were a lot of victims and perpetrators so it was almost impossible to keep up with the system. An automated system would be greatly supported. ROBERT COLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Corrections, was the next person to testify in Juneau. He was here to answer any questions. Number 0543 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated he was concerned that the VINE system would not be updated quick enough by corrections. He asked Mr. Cole how it would work? Number 0588 MR. COLE replied there was a legitimate concern about the flow of information between the courts, the prosecutors, and the Department of Corrections; and then from the Department of Corrections back to the prosecutors. The answer was automation. At present, corrections was not able to talk directly to the court system via E-mail or any other means electronically. The court system was working on receiving E-mail. Corrections was automated last year by using funds carried forward the previous year which meant it could talk to everybody but the courts. In addition, the Department of Corrections was responsible for facilities such as the Cook Inlet Pre-Trial in Anchorage where there was a high volume of status changes which was made more complicated by the fact that there was no automated communication between corrections and the courts. Number 0946 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE system would start to solve the problems of the Department of Corrections? MR. COLE replied, "Correct." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole when someone's time was up was an entry made in a computer or was a piece of paper signed? MR. COLE replied both. If the victim was registered with the Department of Corrections, he or she would receive a notification via paper with the release and disposition status. Number 1031 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole how he would make sure that the information on the paper was entered into the computer concurrently? MR. COLE replied there were record officers that were charged with the responsibility of entering the data. An audit was being conducted right now on the current system to determine if the necessary information was being contained. The preliminary information from the auditor indicated that information was missing rather than inaccurate. The missing information was a result of the traffic in the high volume institutions. For example, a person was either moved or released from the courts before corrections was notified. Number 1106 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if he just said that corrections turned people loose without information from the courts? MR. COLE replied, "No." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who decided to turn somebody loose? MR. COLE replied the supervising superintendent made the final decision. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the supervising superintendent signed a piece of paper? MR. COLE replied he did not know if the superintendent, the time accounting officer, or the record officer actually signed the piece of paper. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole at what point did it trigger the VINE system? Who did the automatic notification? MR. COLE replied the VINE system reached into the current computer system and extracted status change data then automatically notified the registered victims. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who typed the information into the computer? MR. COLE replied the record officers. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole who told the record officers? MR. COLE replied there was a system in place to examine the paper records to calculate the time and release date. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole when would the VINE system be notified of a release? MR. COLE replied it would be done at the time the decision was made to release the prisoner. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, for clarification, at the same time a decision was made an entry would be made into the computer. MR. COLE stated it would have to work something like that or there would not be a timely update to the VINE system. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he was concerned that the piece of paper would sit around for some time before getting to the clerk. Why not eliminate the paper work by having the decision maker enter the change in the computer? he asked. Number 1287 MR. COLE stated next year the department would propose to amend the previous statutes of notification because the VINE system would not free the workers from sending a paper notification to the victim as well. It was not an issue during a transitional year, however. It would be more efficient to do the whole system electronically. Number 1317 MR. COLE further stated that the multi-purpose facilities throughout the state handled many different types of inmates. The VINE system could help sort out the different types of inmates as well. Number 1358 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES asked Mr. Cole if he could pull up the status of an inmate with the current system? MR. COLE replied, "Yes." Number 1381 CHAIR JAMES stated, for clarification, that the VINE system would reach into the current system and update itself. MR. COLE stated only status changes would be looked at by the VINE system - transfers, releases, court dates, paroles and probations. Number 1447 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated that the VINE system would benefit prosecutors as well as the Department of Corrections, because the victim-witness coordinators were not always in the loop. Number 1463 CHAIR JAMES asked if the VINE system would receive information from other sources? Number 1475 MR. COLE replied the fiscal note was just for the Department of Corrections. In order to add the court system and the prosecutorial system, for example, it would cost more money and take more time. He reiterated there was no way - presently - to talk electronically with the court system. Number 1516 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if there was an item in the budget to get that done this year? Number 1523 MR. COLE replied it was not in the budget of the Department of Corrections. Our part was done. Number 1541 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY commented the department already had the capability to do this if it had the resources and the will. Therefore, we should concentrate on putting resources into the transitional phase to implement the victims' rights legislation passed last year. We were making a mistake to try to codify how it should be implemented. In addition, the department would probably prefer to divert the function of victim notification to the private sector; it was not part of its core functions and responsibilities. Number 1674 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE system was a private contractor? MR. COLE replied, "Yes." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE company would be managing the data base? MR. COLE replied the VINE company would be managing the notification system, not the data base. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the state would purchase the software? MR. COLE replied and management. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cole if the VINE company would be doing a portion of the work after being set up with the state system? MR. COLE replied, "Yes." Number 1704 CHAIR JAMES stated the bill called for a request for proposal (RFP) when the VINE Company was the only one that provided this type of service. Number 1764 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON agreed that the Department of Corrections did not need legislation to enter into a contract to expand its system to notify victims. However, money was necessary. He considered it one of the higher priorities this session. Number 1789 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole to address the issue of liability due to errors. MR. COLE replied corrections would be liable if the information was not entered timely or correctly. The courts would be liable if it did not notify corrections of a status change in a timely fashion. According to an audit of the victim notification system, 99.56 percent of all victims were notified timely. Number 1846 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if the estimated revenues shown in the new fiscal note for HB 47 would come through the VINE system? Number 1874 MR. COLE replied the jail link component of the VINE system was a 1-900 phone number to inquire about the status of an inmate. Presently, the department received about 600 calls like that per day. Therefore, $1.25 per phone call equaled about $250,000. The department did not know if the volume would remain at 600 after imposing a charge, however. The department believed it would cost about $93,000 per year to continue the VINE system which could be recouped through the jail link component and program receipts. Number 1939 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole about the federal funds available. Number 1944 MR. COLE replied he knew there had been VINE applications throughout the country financed by federal grants. There were federal grant pockets used for the VINE system. The state of Alaska should be just as eligible as any other entity in the country. Existing grant funds could be gone and used already this year. Therefore, we should attempt to use the funds in the new federal fiscal year. Number 1984 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced he had an amendment to HB 48 to reflect the new fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES explained the committee would deal with HB 47 first to determine if we need HB 48. Number 2006 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated on the contrary we should not do anything with HB 47 because the department did not need legal authority to do this. CHAIR JAMES replied that was the type of discussion we needed to have now. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole if he would be the party primarily involved in implementing the VINE system? MR. COLE replied, "Yes." CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole, if he had the money, did he already have the authority to do what HB 47 said? MR. COLE replied he did have the authority. It was important for the legislature to make a statement and this was not a bad statement to make. It said as a matter of policy that the legislature was concerned about victims' rights. Number 2074 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Cole, if the department received an appropriation to implement a victim notification system, would it be the intent of the department to carry it out? Number 2094 MR. COLE replied, "Yes." We would take it to heart and try to get it done. Number 2101 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Cole, if the system was expanded to connect to the courts; for example, who would be the authorizing agency - the courts, Department of Law, or Department of Public Safety? Number 2131 MR. COLE replied there was a Criminal Justice Information System Advisory Board that worked on the information problems that existed between all of the law enforcement and judicial agencies. Therefore, all the entities would be working together to try to make it work. Number 2127 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 1. There was no objection, Amendment 1 was so adopted. Number 2185 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Chair James, if given the time left in the session, would it be possible to get the money to the conference committee in the next 7 to 10 days for HB 47? He did not want the appropriation aspect of the bill delayed at all. Number 2214 CHAIR JAMES replied the House State Affairs Standing Committee had thoroughly reviewed the bills. She would like that the next committee of referral to look at both bills as well. Or, if the committee members wished we could just move HB 47 to the next committee of referral. Number 2251 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 47; and HB 48, as amended, move from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR JAMES objected. The fiscal note was for HB 47, not HB 48. House Bill 47 with a fiscal note would have the same effect as HB 48 as an appropriation bill. Number 2293 DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and Regulations Section, Department of Law, was the next person to testify in Juneau. A fiscal note attached to a bill would go in the back of the budget and it could be reduced accordingly and sent to the free conference committee. A separate appropriation would not go to the free conference committee and it would not necessarily be lowered. Number 2312 CHAIR JAMES stated she suspected a separate appropriation would mean that it would die. Her recommendation would be to pass HB 47 with a fiscal note. Number 2329 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated HB 47 with a fiscal note would require each department and municipality to cooperate with the Department of Corrections. Number 2350 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON withdrew his motion. Number 2359 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 47 move from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Allen J. Kemplen, sponsor of the bill, if he had any objection? REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN J. KEMPLEN, Alaska State Legislature, replied, "No." CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion. Hearing no objection, HB 47 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|