Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
02/26/2019 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 | |
| SB34 | |
| SB23|| SB24 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS
3:36:29 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to probation; relating to a program allowing
probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions
of probation; relating to early termination of probation;
relating to parole; relating to a program allowing parolees to
earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole;
relating to early termination of parole; relating to eligibility
for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and providing
for an effective date."
He noted that SB 34 was sponsored by the Senate Rules Committee
by request of the governor and that representatives from the
Department of Law and Department of Corrections would be
available to answer questions.
3:37:25 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), Anchorage, introduced himself and offered to answer
questions.
JENNIFER WINKELMAN, Director, Division of Probation and Parole,
Department of Corrections (DOC), Juneau, introduced herself and
offered to answer questions.
JEFF EDWARDS, Director, Parole Board, Department of Corrections
(DOC), Anchorage, Alaska, introduced himself and offered to
answer questions.
3:38:12 PM
CHAIR SHOWER said his goal was to bring up any amendments from
committee members on Thursday and move the bill out, if
possible. He noted he was going to handle his questioning of Mr.
Skidmore like a sectional by going through and asking questions
about the sections of concern.
CHAIR SHOWER said that in Section 4, page 3, line 19, the
commissioner is given power to make the regulations about
probationers. He asked Mr. Skidmore if he had any issues with
changing that to allow the Department of Law (DOL), Department
of Corrections (DOC), and the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
to collaborate on establishing the program described in
subsection (h).
3:40:05 PM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that Section 4 deals with earned
compliance credits. It's about how to manage time accounting for
individuals who are committed to the Department of Corrections.
The regulations for managing the earned compliance program are
therefore established by the commissioner of DOC because those
individuals are within that department's control. The Department
of Law does not have a role in the supervision of individuals
committed to DOC. The role of the Department of Law for the
development of any regulations is first to consult with an
agency about any policy objectives they want. There are lawyers
assigned to the Department of Corrections for that purpose.
Second, any regulations proposed by any entity within the state
of Alaska go through a review by DOL attorneys to ensure that
the drafting is consistent with other regulatory or statutory
drafting. The legal review is not about specific management of
those individuals. He is not aware of any role that the
Department of Public Safety plays in the supervision of
individuals committed to DOC or in time accounting. The only
role he is aware of that DPS plays in relation to Corrections is
the transportation of inmates for court hearings.
3:42:09 PM
SENATOR COGHILL recalled discussion about the regulations for
earned compliance credits in Section 4. He referred to the
language that states, "Nothing in this subsection prohibits the
department from recommending to the court the early discharge of
the probationer as provided in AS 12.55 and this chapter." He
asked Mr. Skidmore to remind him of what is in AS 12.55.
MR. SKIDMORE said he'd first point out that Title 33
specifically focuses on the Department of Corrections. AS 12.55
addresses sentencing provisions for criminal conduct and some
statutes in that chapter may address authorized conditions of
probation, but it is mainly about sentencing procedures in
criminal cases.
3:43:32 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked how DOL arrived at 30 percent credit vs
one-for-one in Section 4.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the federal government has used that
ratio in recent legislation. That ratio is also found in some of
the studies on earned compliance credit. He doesn't have a
particular rationale other than it is a common ratio that others
have used. When they examined the ratio of one-for-one, the 50
percent reduction seemed greater than what was necessary. A 30
percent reduction seemed appropriate. Many aspects of the law
look at things in thirds, such as discretionary or mandatory
parole. The natural course is to follow what is consistently
laid out in statutory schemes about how to look at concepts of
how much time should be reviewed when there is some benefit
associated with it.
SENATOR MICCICHE said that with this change, Mr. Skidmore is
saying he supports the concept that compliance should be
rewarded, but one-for-one is too rich.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that is accurate. The administration
concluded that providing incentives or rewards for good behavior
makes sense. To change or encourage behavior can be done in two
ways. One is to provide a reward and the other is to punish
noncompliance. This section of SB 34 attempts to provide a
reward.
SENATOR COGHILL said that for a committee discussion, he would
look at that as an amendment because they are changing several
structures of reward and sanctions. His thinking is that what is
set out is sufficient, given that sanctions have changed, and
who can get access to these benefits has changed. That was a
broad statement, but he wanted the committee to know he would be
looking at that.
3:46:55 PM
CHAIR SHOWER referenced Section 4, AS 33.05.020(h)(2)(A),(B) and
(C) and asked what happens to credits if a probationer violates
conditions.
MR. SKIDMORE replied that the penalties are twofold. First, they
would not be rewarded the three-to-one credit against probation
time. That is addressed in Section 5, subsection (j). Second, if
a court assessed a petition to revoke probation and found there
was a violation of probation, then any accrued credits to that
date would be lost.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Skidmore to speak to the difference
between a violation and a technical violation. For example, if
someone forgot an appointment, something not nefarious, how is
that delineated because the idea is to try to modify bad
behavior but not penalize innocent mistakes.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that the statute itself speaks of a
violation. In this context for violating probation, that means
when a petition is filed with the court and a person is found in
violation of that. There is also a concept of administrative
sanctions. When a probation officer thinks someone has not
followed the conditions set out, the probation officer can take
administrative action, but that is not imposing additional jail
time. That is the intent here. The violation for which someone
would lose accrued credit is a violation found by the court. If
the committee is concerned about that delineation, he suggested
adding language to make it clear that this is only a violation
found by the court and not something addressed administratively.
CHAIR SHOWER replied the committee may do that.
SENATOR MICCICHE said, later in the bill, under parole, Section
16, the words "other than a technical violation under AS
33.16.215" were removed. He asked why it was not clarified for
probation as well.
3:51:34 PM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that technical violation is delineated in
that section of the bill, but not earlier. The reason for
removing the term "technical violation" is that the bill also
eliminates the concept of placing caps for violation of what is
known as technical violations, both in probation and parole.
When those are eliminated, only violation is left, not a
technical or nontechnical violation. Referring to a technical
violation at that point makes it inconsistent or awkward to have
two different terms being used. Throughout the bill, it should
simply say a "violation," something found by the courts or
parole board, not something addressed administratively by
probation officers.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the removal in Section 16 is the
intent of the discussion in probation as well.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that is the intent. In Section 16,
"technical violation" is removed. When talking about what
happens for a probation violation, he would refer to Section 1.
The term technical violation is removed throughout the bill. The
overall intent in the bill, both in probation and parole, is
that violations are found by the court or parole board, such
that there is associated due process and an offender is placed
on notice of the particular condition. If there is a contested
hearing, the individual is entitled to counsel, and there is a
finding of fact by an independent body that the burden of proof
was met, and the violation was found. That entity then
determines the appropriate sanction to impose. That is what is
referred to for the violations throughout the bill, either for
parole or probation.
3:54:32 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if it would cause problems to insert
"technical violation" in Section 4.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that if the intent is to delineate between
a type of conduct that violates a condition but is not a
violation found by the court or parole board, he would recommend
using a term other than "technical violation." He would instead
be referring to a violation found by the court or parole board.
That makes it clear that that due process is associated with it
and who it is who needs to find the violation. Otherwise, you
are moving away from the description of the type of violation
that would be associated with it. Current law delineates
technical from nontechnical by saying a nontechnical is a new
criminal offense. The problem with that has been that the array
of technical violations is vast, ranging from simply being an
hour late reporting to a probation officer to consuming alcohol
or being in the presence of other felons.
Anything that is not a new crime is deemed a technical
violation, he said. That, too, is a vast array of conduct and it
has to be taken into consideration with the underlying offense.
Simply identifying conduct as a technical violation completely
ignores how that particular violation is associated to or
related to the underlying criminal charge for which the person
was convicted. That is one of the primary issues with the way
that this was set up and designed, Mr. Skidmore said.
3:57:38 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD directed attention to Section 1 and advised
that her questions are about the rights of the accused and the
right to a speedy trial in the Constitution. She said she wanted
to motivate defendants to get to trial and was considering a
possible amendment on the credit a defendant earns for jail time
pending their trial. She asked for his input.
MR. SKIDMORE asked for clarification that she was talking about
Section 1 of SB 34.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes, page 2, line 2, which is current
statute.
MR. SKIDMORE said this provision in AS 12.55.025(c) refers to
when an individual is in custody pending trial or sentencing.
This is not about providing credit, for example, for electronic
monitoring, treatment, or any other type of release. This is
when a person is in custody. This provision would not provide an
incentive to delay trial because it is credit for the time spent
in a hard bed, in a facility.
4:00:18 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if anything in SB 34 would help motivate
defendants to get to trial and stop pretrial delays. This would
solve a problem that existed before Senate Bill 91. That is the
ultimate goal, she said.
MR. SKIDMORE advised that SB 33 contains provisions regarding
electronic monitoring, treatment, and limiting credit that can
be earned pretrial. SB 34 is focused on the conduct that occurs
postconviction, after the sentence is imposed, and how they are
managing probation or parole. Neither has an impact on pretrial
delay. The administration and the Department of Law agree with
her goal, but the appropriate place to look for those
opportunities are in SB 33.
4:01:56 PM
CHAIR SHOWER directed attention to subsection (i) in Section 5
and asked for an explanation of why this wasn't expanded to
include individuals convicted of things like violent crime
against another or multiple crimes of the same offense or a
serial offender. It seems narrow to limit this to a probationer
convicted of a sex offense, as defined in AS 12.63.100.
4:02:47 PM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the concept in Section 5, AS
33.05.020(i), is about not reducing the time a sex offender is
on probation. The provision is focused in that area because
Alaska manages and supervises sex offenders on probation with
the containment model. That model has been demonstrated to be
very effective in reducing the risk of sex offenders
reoffending, but it is not designed for someone who commits
murder, arson, drug distribution, or another felony assault. It
is focused on sex offenders.
He said you are asking whether there are certain crimes for
which the legislature or society at large does not believe an
individual should have their period of probation reduced. SB 34
does not address that, but the bill could be amended if that's
something the committee wanted to address. He reiterated that
subsection (i) focuses solely on the containment model of
treatment to ensure it was not reduced in its timeframe because
that could reduce its effectiveness.
4:05:11 PM
SENATOR COGHILL stated support for Section 5, which provides
that probationers forfeit credit if they violate conditions.
That is one reason why he would like to go back to the day-for-
day model because the disincentive becomes as significant as the
incentive. That is something he would be watching.
CHAIR SHOWER referenced the deleted language in Section 6,
paragraph (4) and asked Mr. Skidmore to explain what "give
receipts for money collected and make at least monthly returns
of it" refers to.
MR. SKIDMORE replied the paragraph is talking about
administrative sanctions and records of probation work. He
suggested that Ms. Winkelman may know if probationers are asked
to do some kind of work in the community and under what
circumstances money would be collected.
CHAIR SHOWER, noting that Ms. Winkelman was shaking her head no,
said he'd like an answer on what that means and why the entire
paragraph was deleted.
4:07:56 PM
MR. SKIDMORE responded that paragraph (4) and paragraph (6) in
Section 6 talk about the program of administrative sanctions in
a way that is more formulistic than was used previously. He
continued:
The idea was to allow the Department of Correction
probation officers to use some sort of incentive as
they deemed appropriate, but this eliminating a formal
concept of administrative sanctions was saying,
'You're not required to use administrative sanctions
earlier.' Let me give you an example. And I'll defer
to Ms. Winkelman on this as well if I get any of this
information incorrect. But for example, we know that
under Senate Bill 91, there were approximately between
five and 700 petitions to revoke probation that were
filed each month since January of 2017. And if you
take that and multiply it out over the whole
timeframe, you get approximately 14,000 petitions that
are filed. When you look at the administrative
sanctions, we know that there were over 21,000
administrative sanctions during roughly the same time
span. The idea is that, yes, administrative sanctions
may have a place, but the way in which it is listed
here in statute, and in fact now, the administrative
sanctions happen far more frequently than you are
having to petition to revoke probation. And it makes
it difficult to compare the pre-SB 91 to what happens
in SB 91 because if you simply, for instance, were to
say that the number of petitions filed are reduced,
you've completely ignored those 21,000 administrative
sanctions that were imposed. So, the concept here was
that the way it is written in statute is more robust
than what is necessary, which is why those references
in the statutes are eliminated. And it is left to the
discretion of the Department of Corrections as to
where it's appropriate to utilize those.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if DOC had any follow-up.
4:10:35 PM
MS. WINKELMAN agreed with Mr. Skidmore. She said the idea is
that SB 34 is returning the discretion to probation officers to
be able to react to a violation based on the person's risk needs
and not by being bound by something in statute.
4:10:59 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if she saw any unintended consequences that
would limit the PO's ability to take appropriate action.
MS. WINKELMAN answered no.
SENATOR COGHILL said that is a policy call. The bill is trying
to set up a series of administrative actions to allow
individuals to work and be productive because they are going to
be required to start paying restitution. This is lifted from AS
33.05.020(g) and he intended to look and see if that is the
operative part. He recalled that that was the intention of the
sanctions.
4:12:24 PM
CHAIR SHOWER, noting that "temporary" is not defined in Section
7, page 5, line 28, asked if a limit should be set. He also
asked if victims should be notified if a probation officer's
caseload is greater than 75. He subsequently ascertained that
Mr. Skidmore was not looking at the CS, version M, and asked if
DOC could offer an explanation.
MS. WINKELMAN said that giving an example of a temporary
situation might be helpful. In some of their rural areas, one
probation officer is assigned to a unit. For example, there is
one probation officer in Kotzebue. From time to time, not only
is the officer supervising a caseload of felons, but the officer
will also be writing presentencing reports on folks that are in
the system for a short period of time. The officer writes a
presentencing report for the court. They are sentenced based on
that and then go into custody, so they are on the officer's
caseload for a temporary amount of time. She could see some
staffing issues with regard to that. Whether or not to define
"temporary" would be a policy call. The second question about
notifying victims and courts would be a policy call.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the average probation caseload is
currently.
MS. WINKELMAN said it depends on the area and staffing levels,
but she guessed between 50 and 60.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that another bill will give new duties. He
asked if this limitation is going to create temporary and
extraordinary circumstances under pretrial. The bill puts a cap
on it here but adding new duties in another bill is something to
think about, he said.
MS. WINKELMAN said DOC has been thinking about that with SB 33,
the pretrial functions, and their caseloads.
SENATOR COGHILL said that would create a roadblock for him.
4:17:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER mentioned the concern about victims not being
notified and asked if in Section 10, it would be advisable to
add the term "victim" to AS 33.16.090(b)(3)(B)(ii), because
there have been cases of victims not being notified.
MS. WINKELMAN answered that she believes that adding the term
"victim" there would be sufficient. Because this is a parole
matter, she wondered if Mr. Edwards had anything to add.
4:19:28 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if DOC is making sure mechanisms are in place
so that victims know when parole and probation is happening.
MR. EDWARDS said the department does have a new, strict policy
about victim notification requirements specifically related to
parole notifications. Adding that language to that section of
the statute is a policy decision.
CHAIR SHOWER asked DOC to make the committee aware of any
loopholes they bill is missing.
MS. WINKELMAN echoed Mr. Edwards. DOC does have a relatively new
and robust victim notification policy, driven by Senate Bill 91.
She opined that it does a good job of ensuring that victims are
notified.
CHAIR SHOWER replied fair enough, but he wanted to make sure
because of the stories that have come up.
4:21:24 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE reminded the committee that SB 34 removes
serious crimes from discretionary parole, which was allowed
under Senate Bill 91. This is a return to pre-Senate Bill 91
law. Crimes that would not be eligible for discretionary parole
include: non-sex class A felonies, Robbery I, Assault I, Arson
I; B felonies if the person had one or more prior felony
convictions; C felonies if the person had two or more prior
felony convictions; B and C felonies, Sexual Assault II, Sexual
Abuse of a Minor II, distribution of child pornography. The
foregoing victim-rich crimes are ineligible for discretionary
parole.
CHAIR SHOWER said he just wanted to make sure nothing is missed
and it's on the record. He read the provision in Section 10, AS
33.16.090(b)(5), on page 8, lines 15-18, regarding when somebody
can be considered for release on discretionary parole. He asked
if release after one-fourth of the active term of imprisonment
was too light, and why one-third or one-half was not considered.
MS. WINKELMAN said one-fourth was pre Senate Bill 91 law. She
deferred further comment to Mr. Edwards or Mr. Skidmore.
MR. EDWARDS said he did not have that information. It's the way
it has been since he's been around, almost 20 years.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Skidmore if he had anything to add.
MR. SKIDMORE said one-fourth has been in statute for quite some
time, but he doesn't know how that number was originally chosen.
Referring to victim notification, he said AS 33.013(a) requires
notification of victims when an individual is discharged from
parole. That was added in 2017. He encouraged Chair Showers to
verify whether the stories he has heard occurred pre or post the
2017 law.
CHAIR SHOWER said fair point. This is just making sure the
committee isn't missing any holes.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she too questioned consideration of
discretionary parole after one-quarter of the active term of
imprisonment. She asked what other states do on average because
one-quarter seemed.
MR. SKIDMORE said he did not know about other states' use in
that regard. It's been in statute in Alaska for more than 20
years.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked him to follow up with information about
whether discretionary parole is common and if consideration for
discretionary parole is common after just one-fourth of the
prison term.
CHAIR SHOWER said there was a similar law passed at the federal
level, and he didn't want to run into a problem with anything
regarding federal supremacy.
4:26:05 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked, referring to what he said earlier about
eliminating certain crimes for discretionary parole, what types
of crime remain eligible for discretionary parole. That might
help the committee with the one-quarter consideration.
MR. SKIDMORE agreed with Senator Micciche's earlier description
of the crimes that would not be eligible for discretionary
parole. The larger concepts of what would be eligible would
include robbery and assault which are in Title 11, Chapter 41,
and considered person crimes. Arson is classified as a property
crime but is included here because of its serious nature and the
harm to others. Theft and criminal mischief are the sort of
things that immediately come to mind, he said. Escape I and
misconduct involving weapons in the first degree are not
eligible for discretionary parole, but lower levels of escape
and lower levels of misconduct involving weapons are. This would
leave most of the drug trafficking offenses eligible for
discretionary parole. The limitation for repeat offenders means
this is focused on the first-time felony offenders, not repeat
felony offenders. He said a first-time property offender would
be the generic description he would provide.
SENATOR MICCICHE clarified that even a relatively serious drug
trafficking, first-time offender would still be eligible for
parole.
MR. SKIDMORE answered yes; as currently drafted those
individuals would be eligible for discretionary parole. As
currently drafted, property and drug offenses are not included
in the statute.
4:28:50 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE requested some detail on what those drug
trafficking crimes might look like so the committee could
consider whether or not to include them in crimes not eligible
for discretionary parole.
MR. SKIDMORE said he would provide that information to the
chair.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she did not get an affirmative or not
about whether he would investigate whether other states have
discretionary parole and what the standard is for time served.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Skidmore if his staff could report that
information.
MR. SKIDMORE said he'd try.
SENATOR COGHILL mentioned the roll-back in the number of
offenders who would be eligible for discretionary parole. He
said he would need to know how many had been eligible under the
old law who will not be under the new law and how many were
failures at whatever level. "The 'Why do we do this?' as we went
into it, we were incentivizing a lot of behavior. We've changed
that behavior modification," he said. He said he wanted to know
what the effect of that behavior modification had been. He asked
how many failures there were for those on discretionary parole
and what were the failures.
MR. SKIDMORE said the administration will work on that with all
the departments.
4:31:34 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if this is a total repeal of Senate Bill
91 on discretionary parole.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that he would need to review all of that
bill to see if there are sections that are not changed by
discretionary parole. The primary parole components of Senate
Bill 91 are repealed by SB 34, but he couldn't say if it was 100
percent. Geriatric parole is not changed. Administrative parole
has been revoked. SB 34 repeals who is eligible for
discretionary parole. The factors are repealed. The eligibility
for it is repealed. The early termination of parole for
recommendation is repealed. The earned compliance credit is not
a 100 percent repeal. It changes it from 30 days violation free
for 30 days credit to one day violation free to three days
credit. The sanctions that can be imposed for parole violations,
the good time calculations, all of those things, are repealed.
He said his quick review suggests that about 95 percent of it is
repealed.
4:33:25 PM
CHAIR SHOWER read the language in Section 21, AS 44.19.645(g)(3)
and asked if anyone had the definition of "risk level."
MR. SKIDMORE deferred to the Department of Corrections to define
risk level in the context of admitting and placing individuals
in DOC.
MS. WINKELMAN explained that DOC does a risk-needs assessment on
all offenders that come into the system. There is a
classification risk level to determine where an inmate will be
housed in the facility. There is also a risk-needs done for
supervision, which drives how often the probation officer (PO)
sees the person in the field. A risk-level assessment is
attached to every offender in the system.
4:34:52 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said:
This is a reporting mechanism. What we're trying to do
is figure how many people have come and gone, what
were the issues. So this takes the one-day snapshot.
We've actually given them risk-level requirements
which are now being repealed. We're changing the
pretrial and some of the probation issues. So it will
be interesting to me to see how that all fits into it.
This is all probation/parole, but it is the Department
of Corrections that is supposed to report these things
on these different outcomes on pretrial, on
probation/parole. For example, they are deleting the
requirement to take the precase and postcase
resolution on the probationers/parolees submitted
solely for technical violations. So we're saying we
don't want to know that. Well, I don't know. Because
of technical violation changes in here, I don't know
what that all is going to mean. This is a report so
that we will have information based on what they've
been doing. So as I've looked at this section, I'm not
100 percent sure that we're helping ourselves.
CHAIR SHOWER asked DOC what the change in the law would cause
them to do as far as reporting.
MS. WINKELMAN replied that the risk level will still be in place
for any inmate in their facility, as well as an offender on
supervision, probation or parole. They did risk levels pre-
Senate Bill 91 and will continue to do so. The pretrial risk
assessment is different. That was a risk assessment given to the
courts to determine whether they were going to be released. SB
33 repeals the pretrial assessment.
4:37:29 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD referenced Section 21 and asked if the working
group the Department of Corrections is directed to report
quarterly to is the Criminal Justice Working Group.
MS. WINKELMAN said yes; she understands that the working group
is the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission and DOC is providing
the commission this information.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if this information is available to
legislators. She noted that Senator Costello continues to ask
and not receive certain data on arrests. She identified someone
in the audience who knew what she was referring to.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Goode to put herself on the record.
4:38:46 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), Anchorage, advised that she had been to Senator
Reinbold's office and explained that the data she has requested
is protected because of the information it contains. It went to
the university under an agreement, but it cannot be distributed.
DOC wants to work with legislators and when there is data they
can share, they will.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed frustration that legislators aren't
getting the data they need to show that crime is still a very
serious issue.
MS. GOODE said she understands the committee wants numbers and
data, and she'll see what can be found that will help.
SENATOR REINBOLD said that if the working group gets it, then
they as legislators should get it, even if they have to
eliminate names or whatever they have to do. If it is public
information, there are some rules there too.
MS. GOODE restated that she would do some research that and get
back to the committee.
CHAIR SHOWER echoed Senator Reinbold's sentiment. The committee
needs information if it is going to make decisions about which
direction to go. "Crime up, crime down. Recidivism up,
recidivism down. How do we know?" he said.
4:41:24 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 34 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 34 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| M.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 SB 34 Version m sb34 version m |
| SB 34 - Probation and Parole Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB 34 Highlights.pdf |
SJUD 3/8/2019 1:30:00 PM SSTA 2/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-1-2-012319-LAW-N.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-2-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB0034-3-2-012319-COR-Y.PDF |
SSTA 2/21/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 34 |
| SB91-GOA Bills Matrix 1-30-19.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 23 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB0023A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB23 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 |
| SB 24 TL - Senate President.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB0024A.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB24 Sectional.pdf |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 24 Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 24 |
| SB 23 and 24 presentation.pptx |
SSTA 2/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 2/28/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/5/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/7/2019 3:30:00 PM SSTA 3/12/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 23 SB 24 |
| DOR S STA Letter.2.26.2019.pdf |
SSTA 2/26/2019 3:30:00 PM |
DOR committee response questions |