Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
04/05/2016 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB324 | |
| HB231 | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Department of Corrections | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 324 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 231-EXTEND BOARD OF PAROLE
9:24:09 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE called the committee back to order and announced
the consideration of HB 231.
9:24:51 AM
ESTHER MIELKE, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, read the sponsor statement as
follows:
The Board of Parole currently serves in Alaska as the
authority over parole setting; it is currently set in
statute to be terminated on June 30, 2016. HB 231
originally extended the date to June 30, 2022, but the
most current version of the bill which was passed by
House Finance extends it to June 30, 2021; this is a
5-year extension.
The Division of Audit did an audit on the Board of
Parole last year and the audit includes an examination
of the board's performance in light of the 11-sunset
criteria of points provided within the Alaska statute.
The Division of Audit found the board to be in good
standing, but provided four recommendations to improve
their operations which address:
1. The accuracy and consistency of the information
contained in parole files;
2. Documentation of victim and offender
notifications;
3. Deficiencies in proposed regulation changes
methods;
4. The security of the Department of Corrections'
information system.
In response to the audit, the Board of Parole provided
responses to the identified recommendations; likewise,
the Department of Corrections generally agreed with
the recommendations.
HB 231 fulfills the constitutional requirement that
the state establish a parole system and accordingly
assist in keeping Alaskans safe.
As you can see the bill also has a fiscal note which
covers the board's operating costs which were included
in the recently passed budget.
9:26:36 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Mielke to explain the change in the
extension date.
MS. MIELKE explained that typically the Board of Parole was
extended for eight years, but the Division of Audit suggested a
six-year extension due to the crime bill that was passed. She
noted that the current version of the bill was amended to five
years.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked Ms. Mielke to verify that the change was
made in House Finance.
MS. MIELKE answered yes.
9:28:30 AM
KRIS CURTIS, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the
division looked at whether the Board of Parole was serving the
public's interest and whether it should be extended. She set
forth that the division concluded that the Board of Parole met
the constitutional requirement that the state establish a parole
system in addition to operating in a professional and efficient
manner. She stated that the Legislative Audit Division
recommended a six-year extension and added that four
recommendations were presented for operational improvements.
She specified that the first recommendation was for the
executive director to improve procedures to ensure the required
documentation for parole hearings was accurate and consistently
included parole files. She detailed that the division looked at
38-discretionary parole hearing files and several errors were
found such as risk assessment forms not being tabulated
correctly and parole applications were missing. She pointed out
that the division recommended a general documentation clean-up
because the errors did not impact the risk assessment.
MS. CURTIS explained that the second recommendation was for the
executive director, in coordination with the Department of
Corrections' management, to implement documentation standards to
ensure all offenders' and victims' notifications are made in
accordance to statutory requirements. She revealed that based on
a sample of parole files, the division found a general lack of
documentation that offenders and victims were being notified of
board hearings as required by law. She said the division
believes that notifications were happening because complaints
were not evident, but notifications could not be verified due to
a lack of documentation.
She detailed that the third recommendation was for the board to
ensure proposed regulations and all statutory requirements were
addressed related to its duties. She noted that the
recommendation was a housekeeping type of recommendation. She
explained that a statute requires the board to establish
regulation standards under which the suitability of a prisoner
for parole should be determined. She revealed that the
regulations in place during the audit described the risk
assessment matrix that had been used for many years as the tool;
however, the board implemented a new risk assessment tool in
2014 called the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) tool.
She divulged that when the board went to change the regulations,
the Department of Law recommended that any tool not be included
in order to avoid the trouble of changing regulations in the
future. She remarked that while the Department of Law's
recommendation was reasonable and efficient, the recommendation
does not comply with statute.
She explained that the fourth recommendation was for the
Department of Corrections Administrative Services Division's
director take steps to ensure that their Offender Management
System complied with security best practices. She revealed that
the division withheld details for the security finding to avoid
exploitation. She specified that the Legislative Audit Division
provided details to the Department of Corrections and corrective
action was taken.
She summarized that the Department of Corrections and the Board
of Parole concurred with the Legislative Audit Division's
recommendations.
9:32:06 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE noted that Ms. Curtis' audit gave a short shrift
to victims' rights. He opined that an abridgement of prisoners'
rights would have received a bigger section in the audit. He
pointed out that victims' rights was a prominent part of the
state's constitution. He added that he was not sure if the audit
reflected the seriousness of the violation.
MS. CURTIS replied that the notifications would have been worded
very strongly if the Legislative Audit Division really felt that
notifications were not happening. She specified that the
recommendation boiled down to a problem with the Department of
Corrections not using the management system for documentation on
the officer or institutional levels. She said the Legislative
Audit Division believed that notifications were happening, but
people were not taking the time to document how and when the
notifications were happening. She summarized that the
Legislative Audit Division thought that notifications
recommendation was a procedural issue as opposed to a victim or
offender issue.
CHAIR STOLTZE asked if the Legislative Audit Division had
contact with the Alaska Office of Victims' Rights on the
notification issue.
MS. CURTIS answered no. She specified that the Legislative Audit
Division kept its interactions with the board and the Department
of Corrections.
SENATOR MCGUIRE requested to address the executive director for
the Alaska Board of Parole. She asked that Mr. Edwards address
the four recommendations from the Legislative Audit Division.
She specified that the two areas that caused her the most
consternation were recommendations 1 and 2.
She addressed Recommendation 1 and asked what Mr. Edwards was
doing to respond to the audit in the area of risk assessment
forms. She stated that she was concerned that SB 91 would expand
the work the Board of Parole would do with notifications and
pointed out that errors were currently occurring. She remarked
that SB 91 would also increase reliance on risk assessment as a
tool as opposed to a simple financial requirement.
She stated that she shared Chair Stoltze's concern regarding
Recommendation 2 on notifying both parolees and victims. She
remarked that in many cases notifications were not occurring or
at a minimum were not occurring in less than 30 days in advance.
9:34:19 AM
JEFF EDWARDS, Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole,
Anchorage, Alaska, addressed Recommendation 1 and noted that the
audit occurred when the board used an old risk-assessment tool
that was developed in the late 70s. He revealed that the board
brought in an expert and decided to change to the LSI-R
evaluation tool that was used by the Department of Corrections.
He remarked that LSI-R was a dynamic, data-driven tool that
analyzed up-to-date and accurate information.
9:39:47 AM
He concurred that SB 91 will have a significant impact on the
Board of Parole. He opined that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission attempted to recognize that the Board of Parole has
an active role in corrections and criminal justice. He pointed
out that the Board of Parole was one of the only agencies that
can actually release inmates early from prison.
He set forth that the board was happy with its process. He noted
that the board's recidivism rate was only 5 percent on
discretionary parole or early release. He disclosed that the
board has been trying to move in the directions that SB 91 has
outlined. He remarked that SB 91 solidifies legislatively the
direction the board will be moving into.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked that Mr. Edwards address Recommendation 2
and respond to the many errors made in the victim and offender
notifications as well as why parole was not granted.
9:42:48 AM
MR. EDWARDS replied that the audit mentioned that the victim
notifications were not documented along with the prisoner
notification of granting or not granting parole. He said the
board acknowledges that documentation should have occurred. He
set forth that victims were included and the board was very open
and transparent during the victim process.
He stated that staff has been directed to conduct an exhaustive
review of every parole-applicant information packet to ensure
notifications are going out. He added that the board has worked
with the Division of Institutions for the Department of
Corrections in opening and expanding a knowledge base for a
specific area in the Offender Management System that includes
victim notification, dates when paperwork was sent out, and
officer commentary. He revealed that the officer commentary was
included in the board's parole information packets as well as
comments made by each victim.
MR. EDWARDS stated that victims have an impact on the parole
system. He said the board highly encourages victims to either
comment in-person, telephonically, or in writing. He said the
board makes every attempt to be inclusive and transparent. He
pointed out that the board has a pretty good relationship with
the Alaska Office of Victims' Rights. He asserted that the board
takes victims' statements very seriously. He admitted that
victims that testify before the board was an emotional event at
times and the board tries to be as sensitive as it can. He
voiced that the board feels that the documentation system has
been improved to makes sure there is a paperwork trail of dates,
times, and any comments made.
9:45:57 AM
SENATOR MCGUIRE stated that she appreciated Mr. Edward's
explanation on Recommendation 2. She said she encouraged her
colleagues to follow up prior to the sunset. She set forth that
victim notification should have a zero-failure rate. She noted
that one victim was not provided with an offender-release
notification. She pointed out that the state has very high rates
of domestic violence and assault. She remarked that she could
not imagine if the victim was a member of her family and they
were not notified.
CHAIR STOLTZE asserted that correctional officers did not
provide enough input on the issues of parole, probation, and
furloughs. He opined that correctional officers know the inmates
the best and asked how their input might be augmented in a
formal or informal fashion.
MR. EDWARDS revealed that he was a correctional officer at a
maximum-security prison 16 years ago. He detailed that he lived
with the inmates and recognized their challenges. He explained
that a correctional officer gains a certain knowledge and
respect through professional interaction with inmates. He
revealed that the board currently accepted written testimony or
statements from correctional staff on behalf of particular
inmates. He said including inmate input was not necessarily
mandated, but the board would be happy to look at having
correctional officers as part of the process. He disclosed that
the board consisted of two former correctional officers that
share the same interests and ideology as he does. He set forth
that the board was inclusive and welcomed expanding its
inclusiveness to the correctional staff because he agreed that
they offer insight as to day-to-day operations.
9:48:50 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE specified that guard input would provide both
positive and negative input. He stated that guards probably know
which prisoners were very redeemable and rehabilitable.
SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked Mr. Edwards for his comments on SB 91
and his work towards making the Board of Parole better. She
shared that the Legislature was looking into the high-cost
category of parole revocations and denials. She asked that Mr.
Edward think about Recommendation 1 regarding the lack of
communication regarding parole violations and the category's
high cost impact to the state.
MR. EDWARDS replied that he appreciated Senator McGuire's
comments and would adhere to her recommendation.
9:51:00 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE closed public testimony on HB 231.
SENATOR COGHILL asked when an audit commences prior to a sunset
date.
MS. CURTIS explained that audit timelines differ between boards,
commission and entities with sunset dates. She specified that
the audit for the Board of Parole was conducted the year before
the 2016 sunset date.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the Board of Parole was making
changes as well as possible changes from pending legislation. He
asked if a 2021 sunset date would trigger an audit in 2020.
MS. CURTIS answered that work would start in 2021. She noted
that she was approached with a one-year termination date and
remarked that she did not know if the Legislative Audit Division
currently had the resources to do an audit in one year. She
revealed that in order to evaluate a board there has to be a
certain number of years which the board can accomplish what was
in SB 91 to actually be able to review the bill's impact on the
board. She disclosed that she advocated for a three-year minimum
before the Legislative Audit Division goes back in. She pointed
out that the audit's six-year recommendation was not reflective
of SB 91 because the bill was not in play during the audit, but
the Legislative Audit Division thought legislative oversight
earlier than the maximum eight years was prudent and with the
implementation of the new risk assessment tool, the division
settled on six years; however, an earlier audit in light of SB
91 made a lot of sense.
CHAIR STOLTZE stated that he favored a shorter timeline, but
noted that the committee was not making a final decision because
the finance committee was a safety in changing if necessary.
9:54:56 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced HB 231 would be held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 324 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Backup Document - VCCB Annual Report 2015.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 324 Supporting Document - Letter - Violent Crimes Compensation Board 3-3-2016.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 324 |
| HB 231 Summary of Changes ver A to ver E.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| HB 231 Division of Legislative Audit Sunset Review of DOC Board of Parole - 20-20092-15.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| HB 231 Legislative Audit Memo to HFIN - Parole Revocation Decisions - 03-22-2016.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| HB 231 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 231 |
| Confirmation Hearing - RESUME -Department of Corrections Commissioner - Dean Williams.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
Appointment |
| SCR 16 Backup Document - LAA 4-1-16 Memo RE Seismic Retrofit & Life Safety Improvement Timeline.pdf |
SSTA 4/5/2016 9:00:00 AM |
SCR 16 |