Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/20/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 20, 2016
1:38 p.m.
1:38:09 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Tracey Wollenberg, Deputy Public Defender,
Appellate Division, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Jorden Shilling, Staff, Senator John
Coghill; Senator John Coghill; Representative Gabrielle
LeDoux.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Skidmore, Director, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Gary Folger, Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety; Josh Mercer, Probation Supervisor, Electronic
Monitoring, Department of Corrections; Jeff Edwards,
Executive Director, Alaska Board of Parole, Department of
Corrections.
SUMMARY
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:38:44 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda. He relayed
that various departments would address impacts of the bill
policies.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
addressed pretrial provisions in the bill, which included
changes that would significantly impact the Alaska Court
System. Primarily the provisions would alter the bail
decision making process. She detailed that after an arrest
the person would be assessed by a newly developed pretrial
services office under the Department of Corrections (DOC).
The pretrial services officers would assess each defendant
for risk and would provide a report to the court and
attorneys within 24 hours; therefore, the attorneys and
judge would have the information when arraignment occurred,
which was within 24 hours of an arrest. Currently bail
decisions were made within 24 hours of an arrest (statute
actually specified 48 hours, but the goal of the court
system and other parties was 24 hours; most arraignments
took place within 24 hours). She furthered that a
prosecuting attorney and defense looked at the facts about
the individual (i.e. the police report, current charge, and
the Alaska Public Safety Information Network data) and the
judge then made a bail decision and could impose bail
conditions. The bill would alter the process to provide
attorneys and the judge with a risk assessment score
supplied by the pretrial services officer.
Ms. Meade continued that the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission learned through reviewing research that having
the risk assessment score (e.g. a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10
that a defendant would show up at hearings and adhere to
bail conditions) was better for decision making and setting
the appropriate amounts of bail. Section 55 of the bill
specified how a judge would set bail. The section was
lengthy and complex and detailed for the court how to put
the risk score on a matrix along with the current charge in
order to make certain things. She expounded that some
things would not be discretionary; the judge would be
required to release certain defendants before trial on
their own recognizance (i.e. releasing a defendant without
any monetary bail conditions). The commission's goal was to
increase the number of people released on their own
recognizance if those individuals were nonviolent. The
number of pretrial detainees was growing and the goal was
to identify individuals who did not need to be in jail
pretrial - to find individuals with low risk scores who
could be released without harm to the community. She
reiterated that Section 55 of the bill told a judge what to
do with each risk assessment level and the current charge.
The provision removed some of the judicial discretion and
gave the judge discretion to impose bail conditions if
there was clear and convincing evidence that nothing else
would protect the community and ensure the defendant would
show up for their hearings. She relayed that the section
had a delayed effective date because the significant change
would take the court system, DOC, and other criminal
justice entities some time to determine how to implement
(e.g. how the risk assessments would get to the judge
within 24 hours). She explained that under Section 117 of
the bill the pretrial services office had to come up with
the risk assessment tool, work with the other agencies to
ensure everyone knew what would happen with the assessment,
and test it on Alaska's population. She believed DOC had
ideas on how they would do the work; there were tools
utilized in other states that could be used as a starting
point with modifications made to fit Alaska's population.
1:45:15 PM
Ms. Mead explained that the bill sponsor had looked to
Kentucky's process as a helpful example. She detailed that
in Kentucky, questions were asked of each defendant via
research (not a personal interview) to determine the
person's risk assessment. The research asked about a
person's pending charge, previous convictions, previous
times they failed to appear, whether they had any violent
prior convictions, whether they were on probation, and
whether there was an active warrant. She reiterated that
Sections 55 and 117 would change how the court did
pretrial. She asked if she should address other sections of
the bill that would impact the court system.
Co-Chair Thompson answered that the committee was currently
focusing only on pretrial. He noted questions would be held
until testimony on pretrial had concluded.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for clarification on which bill
versions testifiers were addressing.
Ms. Mead answered that Section 55 may have had a different
section number in the Senate version of the bill, but the
provisions had not changed substantively through the
process. She noted there had been a redraft with the public
defenders, Department of Law (DOL), and others to clarify
the provisions.
1:47:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted the committee was addressing the
House Judiciary Committee version of the legislation.
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), relayed that there were several
areas in pretrial that would impact DOL. First, Section 47
was a "cite versus arrest" provision addressing an
officer's ability to arrest. The other areas were related
to bail and a pretrial services officer.
Mr. Skidmore addressed the citation versus arrest
provision, which was based on the first recommendation in
the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's report. He
detailed that the initial drafting of the citation versus
arrest provisions had raised concerns for various
individuals in the law enforcement community, which had
resulted in a number of amendments. Section 47 of the bill
accomplished the administration's goal of utilizing the
commission's recommendation for a greater use of citation
and reducing the use of arrests. The section allowed law
enforcement considerable latitude in making decisions about
when they would arrest. He noted there were a number of
exceptions to the provision. He discussed that any time
there was a change in the law it was important for
stakeholders to monitor the change. The section seemed to
achieve the commission's desire to place a greater emphasis
on the use of citations and DOL would have to monitor the
change to see if it impacted other areas. The change left
considerable discretion to law enforcement.
Mr. Skidmore addressed bail and the concept of a risk
assessment tool, which was the primary change. Currently a
prosecutor looked at a defendant's criminal history and
made recommendations to a judge. He detailed that three
prosecutors could look at the same criminal history, but
could come up with three slightly different recommendations
based on their views of the criminal history and what
weight they would apply to any particular conviction. The
concept of the risk assessment tool was to have a single,
unified process for evaluating the weight that should be
applied to a person's previous criminal history or other
factors. The tool had not yet been developed, but the
conversations had focused around something similar to the
process used in Kentucky. He elaborated that Kentucky used
a risk assessment tool that evaluated a person's criminal
history, previous conditions of release, whether a person
was on probation, and other. He noted that the items were
all considered in Alaska's current process, but the goal
was to develop a unified view.
Mr. Skidmore addressed other significant changes related to
bail. Currently law specified that when setting bail a
court may not consider a defendant's ability or inability
to pay. The bill would require the courts to consider a
person's inability to pay. As currently drafted, in order
to issue bail conditions or set bail, the court had to find
by clear and convincing evidence that a lower bail or no
bail would not work. He believed that currently the courts
could make assessments without requiring clear and
convincing evidence. The change was consistent with the
Alaska Criminal Justice Commission's recommendations that
more individuals should be released pretrial and the
analysis of who was kept in jail pretrial should be done on
the basis of a risk assessment.
1:53:07 PM
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the change related to pretrial
services would not directly impact DOL in the way it would
impact DOC. Pretrial services was designed to address that
with more individuals out on bail, the best way to ensure
public safety was to have greater monitoring of the
individuals.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, relayed that he had been a
member of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. From the
perspective of the commission and public defenders there
had been a large number of pretrial individuals held for
very low amounts of monetary bail and under a condition of
a third-party custodian. The two factors were holding
people in custody due to their inability to pay or their
lack of support network, which prevented them from finding
someone to be with them 24 hours a day. He remarked that
monitoring a person 24 hours per day was onerous,
especially for people who worked. The commission
recommended addressing the issue, which had become apparent
and growing over the years; the data suggested strongly
that monetary bail was no more effective than an unsecured
bond at addressing the requirements of bail (i.e. showing
up to court and adhering to bail conditions). He added
there had been grave concerns about whether third-party
custodianships worked at all and that they were being
placed in an arbitrary manner without any objective
assessment or tools in determining whether it was
necessary. Under the legislation, monetary bail and third-
party monitoring remained possible, but with a much higher
standard. Third-party custodians would largely be
unnecessary if there was a pretrial services office
available in a community. There was still possibility for
release in communities without a pretrial office where
third-party custodians could be applied if there was no
other entity available. The provision contained broad
discretion and in rural jurisdictions DOC may be able to
partner with other entities to help supplement; it was one
of the pretrial release items considered in order to bring
fairness statewide even with limited resources.
1:56:27 PM
GARY FOLGER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), stated that the three previous speakers
had provided a thorough overview. He did not have any
additional comments.
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
relayed that pretrial was the biggest part of the bill for
DOC as it involved starting a new unit. He detailed that
the department had been looking at models and worked on the
issue already. The concept was an important part of the
bill and in relation to reform efforts. He detailed the
importance of making sure low risk individuals (who would
otherwise be in jail) would be out of jail. He explained
they would be using a tool to make the decision instead of
providing bail based on a person's ability to pay. He
believed it was a great improvement and was responsible for
reducing some of the prison populations and risk in other
states. He noted the bill contained numerous moving pieces.
The department would take a look at how the assessment tool
had been utilized in other states. He explained that the
topic was a moving target, which the department would
continue to refine in order for assessments to be conducted
quickly and accurately. He explained the tool would get the
right person out of jail and keep the right person in jail
versus basing the issue on professional expertise. He
discussed that individuals with moderate or higher risk who
got out due to a low-level crime (the judge would still
make the final decision on bail) would be monitored. The
lower risk individuals may only require a phone call
reminding them to go to court. He reasoned high supervision
was not needed for low risk individuals. He mentioned that
assessment tools were working in other states such as
Kentucky. He added that Kentucky was doing a presentation
on the item in a couple of weeks that the department was
planning on attending. He noted that other states were also
doing good work and the department did not want to reinvent
the wheel. He reiterated that the topic was a large part of
the bill and reform effort, which he believed was important
for the state going forward.
1:59:54 PM
Representative Gattis referred to the risk assessment
factor. She believed it would be one of the biggest pieces
related how DOC would determine who it would let out, who
it would keep in, and why. She remarked that the issue was
one of the biggest challenges to constituents she had heard
from. She had heard about individuals getting out of jail
the next day after being arrested for burglary and drug use
problems. She wanted to work together to determine what
worked and what was right for the community.
Representative Edgmon asked for the definition of a low
risk offender.
Mr. Steiner replied that the definition of a low risk
offender would be what was specified by the tool. The risk
assessment tool would consider objective factors such as
prior convictions, prior allegations of failure to appear
in court, and the current allegation. The factors would be
used to determine what happened later for individuals who
were released and to determine who was a low risk person.
The tool had to be created and confirmed that it worked for
Alaska. He reasoned that a successful tool in Kentucky
would not necessarily work in Alaska and may need to be
tweaked. A general description of a low risk individual was
a person charged with a low-level misdemeanor who had never
been in custody or trouble before and had no indications of
having failed to appear or adhere to conditions. Those
individuals would most likely be labeled low risk and
released on their own recognizance. Higher level offences,
which may include violence or a prior allegation of failure
to appear started to get into the high risk area. What
qualified as low risk would be determined by the assessment
tool.
2:03:29 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if it was safe to say a low
risk offender would be the product of the process. He asked
if the bill contributed to the process. He referred to
representatives from the court system, DOC, the Public
Defender Agency, and a state trooper who were available for
questions. He surmised there were probably other elements
to the justice system. He wondered if the bill came closer
to defining low-risk offender and in determining what a low
risk offender was not.
Mr. Steiner answered that it was exactly what they wanted
the assessment tool to do; it would be objective across the
state. The idea was the tool would predict the overall
outcomes for the population of the State of Alaska. He
furthered that it would not necessarily apply to an
individual, there would still be a potential hearing for
additional conditions or judicial determinations in order
to consider the individual as well. On the low end the tool
would mandate release if a person was determined low risk,
but it would still be available for a hearing where
additional conditions may be placed. The recommendation's
goal had a strong objective and consistent component.
Representative Edgmon requested Ms. Mead to provide her
comments on the issue.
Ms. Mead agreed the definition of pretrial risk was about
the likelihood of a person appearing at their next court
hearings and the likelihood of new criminal activity
pretrial. The risk assessment tool would identify the
items; it would consider whether a person had committed a
violent crime and could also include many other factors.
Other states included things like employment, student
status, education level, and marital status as well. She
surmised that it could possibly be the case that an
employed person may be more likely to show up for their
hearings and not commit more criminal activity. The items
considered by other states were examples of ideas DOC may
ultimately adopt as the pertinent questions for Alaska's
population. The risk assessment should offer a better
consensus about the risk level to assign a person; the
assessment would be transmitted to the judge and attorneys
in order to make a bail decision.
2:06:36 PM
Representative Guttenberg had heard that the courts would
be given a [risk level] number [which had been assigned to
a defendant]. He questioned whether the number would be in
the single digits or multi-digits if for example, a person
had a prior felony, drug problems, high risk, unemployment,
and other. He referred to methods used by other states and
surmised that the wider the number scale, the more
information it could include. He wondered how it had worked
in other places and how the departments envisioned it
happening.
Ms. Mead replied that it was not necessarily a number. She
noted DOC had not yet determined exactly what the tool
would look like, whether it would assess people on a scale
from 1 to 10; whether it would just assess people in the
low, moderate, and high categories; or some variation or
combination of those. She detailed that other states with
assessment tools did it all different ways. She furthered
that if the court received an assessment specifying a
person was moderate risk, the court would look at what
happens with that category. Likewise, if an assessment
labeled a defendant as a 6 out of 10, the court would have
some translation to determine that the number sounded
moderate. She explained that some of the details were yet
to be worked out.
Commissioner Williams expounded that DOC would not be
developing the tool in isolation. He noted that DOC would
listen to Kentucky's presentation on its risk assessment
method because the department understood the tool had to
make sense across the board. The goal was a uniform
acceptance and understanding and collaborative effort on
developing the tool, which would allow the state to
determine whether the tool was right for Alaska and to make
any tweaks after seeing how it was working after the first
year. Whether the assessment tool specified a high or low
risk number was less important than identifying the things
the state determined were important to ask, that items were
rated accurately, and that the information was valid.
2:09:26 PM
Representative Guttenberg surmised that "it seems like a
single number, but not a single digit." He reasoned if
someone from Kentucky committed a crime in Alaska it would
be helpful to have the ability to contact the State of
Kentucky to obtain the person's [risk assessment] number.
He asked if there was any organization pushing for a
national standard on the issue.
Commissioner Williams answered that significant research on
the issue had been conducted nationally. He referenced his
prior work with the juvenile system and relayed that they
had looked at the issue many years earlier. He detailed
that juvenile facilities had been overcrowded even after
building numerous facilities. He recalled youths sleeping
on the floors due to overcrowding. He relayed the
administrators had looked to risk assessments for juveniles
to make sure they were not locking up kids that did not
need it. He explained that the assessment tool had been one
of the reasons the juvenile counts had dropped. He
characterized the assessment tool as a cornerstone of the
reform effort. He was confident the tool would be solid and
the state would have the ability to tweak it if needed
going forward. He noted that it was probably the best
researched area of the legislation.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the tool was one digit
or five. Alternatively, he wondered if the tool was ranked
by low, medium, and high.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that it sounded like the
departments were still working on it.
Ms. Mead referred to a report from the Arnold Foundation
and the Pretrial Justice Institute, which had both done
significant work in the assessment tool area. She cited the
following language from the Pretrial Justice Institute:
"when a defendant is scored on a pretrial risk tool, the
score places the defendant into one of several - usually
three, four or five - risk categories." She noted there was
a significant amount of literature she believed the state
would review.
Co-Chair Thompson highlighted that Mr. Skidmore had pointed
out Section 47 gave the ability for officers to issue a
citation instead of arrest. He asked if the change would
require more training. He wondered who would assess when to
give a citation versus arrest.
Ms. Mead deferred the question to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS).
Commissioner Folger replied that DPS would have to do some
retraining, but the decision would primarily be based on an
officer's discretion. At the end of the day an officer had
to determine whether their decision was keeping the
potential defendant and the public safe.
Co-Chair Thompson believed public safety would be a big
part of the decision making.
Ms. Mead added that currently officers had discretion to
issue citations for misdemeanors. The bill would create a
presumption an officer would be required to give a citation
for certain misdemeanors (there were definite carve outs
including when the officer felt the person was dangerous)
and for Class C felonies. The provision did not change the
impact on the courts. She detailed that specific citations
would not enable a person to mail in their $500; it was a
merely a new way of starting the case. For example, a
person would be told they had a court hearing in 20 days at
9:00 a.m., which started the process for the court system
the same way that would occur if a person had been
arrested.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised the assessment tool would
provide a substantial amount of good information once
completed. He asked if there were off-the-shelf assessments
that had been used in other locations. He wondered if there
was a risk assessment method that was considered the best
in the country, which could be used and tweaked for
Alaska's population. Alternatively, he wondered if it was
something the state needed to spend time and money
designing. He remarked that the analogy of the state's
educational assessments came to mind.
Commissioner Williams answered that the state could
probably begin with an off-the-shelf assessment. He
detailed that whatever tool the state took off the shelf
would be done in a group process given the state's desire
to start the assessment tool off in the right way. He added
that there were currently off-the-shelf products, which
could be used.
2:15:08 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if there was an estimation of the
cost to obtain, test, and get to a working assessment tool.
Commissioner Williams replied that some of the assessment
tools were copyrighted and had a very small fee. He did not
know whether the state would end up paying for the tool or
not. The assessment tools had been around for a long time
and were non-interview tools based upon historical things,
which could almost be garnished off the crime and any
criminal record a person had. He explained that scoring the
tool was meant to be done very quickly.
Representative Pruitt surmised that the concept would take
a considerable amount of administration. He referred to the
department's pretrial services fiscal note that surmised
that initially the state would need about 29 new positions,
but eventually it would require about 80 full-time
positions. He remarked that the number of positions was
substantial. He asked about the needed structure. He
remarked that the assessment was also supposed to bring
some offsetting reductions in personnel and cost. He asked
about ultimate savings the state expected to see.
Commissioner Williams replied that the real challenge was
getting the assessment correct and determining the
implementation plan. The change would take positions
because it would be necessary to have employees working
around the clock to do the assessments when people came in.
He noted that court cases were happening all over. Part of
putting the plan together would include determining how to
do the work in the most efficient, cost-effective way. The
state's goal was to implement the best plan, which it had
been given a year to determine. He continued that
projections on what the plan would look like came with a
caveat that many states were using an assessment tool quite
efficiently. He specified that Kentucky had reduced its
cost of implementing the plan quite a bit, which was part
of the reason he wanted to attend their upcoming
presentation. The department had made certain assumptions
in its fiscal note going forward. He believed the
assumptions were good, but it was important to realize the
state was not even to first base on developing a plan. He
thought many things would change over the upcoming year in
terms of finding efficiencies. He believed it was necessary
to start with an assumption the positions would be needed
to develop the plan; DOC would need positions. He stressed
that the reinvestment piece of utilizing the assessment
tool pretrial was hugely important. He emphasized that DOC
could not do the work with its current resources, but he
was looking for cost savings going forward.
Commissioner Williams addressed the second part of
Representative Pruitt's question related to offsetting
costs. The point of reducing pretrial numbers was [to
reduce] the workload associated with keeping people [in
jail] pretrial who did not need to be there. He spoke to
the significant work going into moving people back and
forth from court to jail. He referenced a comment about the
cost of moving prisoners to court between Kotzebue and
Nome. He stressed that travel costs statewide were
substantial; if the travel was reduced by even a small
percentage, it would result in substantial savings. He
reasoned that once DOC no longer had 300 to 500 prisoners
in pretrial, it may be possible to close down particular
wings or units in facilities. He added that most
communities would still need a remand area (e.g. the area
in Fairbanks would not be closed down), but savings could
be achieved if the larger pretrial population was reduced.
Even if a facility was not closed, marginal costs on items
such as food, clothing, laundry, and other would be
reduced. He noted that marginal costs were smaller than a
per-bed cost, but they added up and would result in
offsets.
2:21:47 PM
Representative Pruitt asked if there were offsets in terms
of personnel. He remarked on closing wings of facilities.
He asked if personnel savings would result.
Commissioner Williams affirmed that the idea was to offset
personnel and to move employees currently guarding
prisoners into some of the new positions, especially if DOC
needed to hire more people in the second year. The goal was
to put money where it mattered most. He spoke to the
importance of locating personnel cost savings. The caveat
was not knowing the final end result of the bill; if
certain assumptions made at the start of the process
changed, the savings would be impacted.
Co-Chair Thompson reminded the committee they would address
fiscal notes on during the Friday meeting.
Representative Gara believed the risk assessment tool would
be much less accurate if the state chose the low, medium,
high risk version. He detailed [on a scale of 1 to 10] it
would lump 3.5 to 6 as medium risk. He hoped the department
would design the tool in a way that would give the courts
the most information about a person. He believed low,
medium, high seemed like the worst possible option. He
moved to the topic of bail. He discussed that the bill
would require a person to prove with clear and convincing
evidence they were entitled to be released without bail on
their own recognizance. He asked if the standard had been
in the original bill.
Commissioner Williams asked for clarification.
Representative Gara clarified his understanding that under
the bill a person would have to prove with clear and
convincing evidence that they should be released with no
bail. He wondered if he had misheard.
Commissioner Williams believed Representative Gara had
misheard. He explained that under the legislation, if a
person was assessed at low risk with a certain level of
offence they would be released automatically without
discretion. He clarified that nothing would have to be
proven up, but there could be conditions placed on a
person. For the medium to higher risk offenders the burden
would be on the state to prove that bail or a third-party
custodian was necessary, at which point the clear and
convincing standard would be used. He explained that clear
and convincing evidence was different from the current
standard, preponderance of the evidence, which left
potential for disparate results. The bill provision would
ensure the conditions holding people in were actually
necessary to protect the public.
Representative Gara asked for verification that the bill
would not make it more difficult for a person to receive no
bail if they were entitled to it.
Commissioner Williams asked if Representative Gara was
referring to OR [own recognizance] release.
Representative Gara replied in the affirmative.
Commissioner Williams confirmed that the bill would not
make it harder for a person to be released [on their own
recognizance].
Representative Gara spoke to what he felt was the over-use
of third-party custodians. He wondered if the clear and
convincing standard would protect from the over use of
third-party custodians.
Commissioner Williams answered in the affirmative. The
state would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence
and it would have to be in a community in which the
pretrial services was not available to supervise. There had
been concerns about whether or not third-party custodians
worked at all, but the option had been preserved for
communities without pretrial services officers so people in
rural Alaska would not be put at a disadvantage. There
would be latitude for either a third-party custodian in the
community or some other type of supervision (e.g. a local
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) or other community
member).
2:27:12 PM
Representative Gara wanted to ensure that everyone around
the state was treated fairly, which he surmised was the
intent. He did not understand what it meant that there
would not be a pretrial services office in a community and
how it would impact whether someone received a third-party
custodian. He remarked that the use of third-party
custodians was not really liked.
Commissioner Williams answered that addressing how to
create fairness across the state the department had started
with the premise that third-party custodianship was not
preferred because of concerns about whether it worked and
how difficult it was to obtain a third-party custodian. He
clarified that a third-party custodian would not be
permitted in a community where DOC placed a pretrial
services officer. He furthered that the clear and
convincing standard could result in monetary bail or
heightened supervision by the pretrial services officer. He
elaborated that it prevented a high-risk individual in
rural Alaska from getting any release if it was determined
supervision was necessary. In an effort to establish
fairness, DOC had preserved a bit of the third-party
custodianships or other supervision (recommended by the
court and pretrial services office) in rural Alaska. The
goal had been to ensure people were treated fairly across
the state and that individuals would not be disadvantaged
for being in a community without an office.
Representative Gara did not understand how individuals in
smaller communities with no pretrial services office would
not be stuck with additional use of the third-party
custodian process. He noted he was fine with the bill's
current language.
Representative Wilson spoke to a fiscal note number 23 and
remarked the note only showed the cost. She suggested
including the savings as well. She spoke to electronic
monitoring (EM) and believed that DOC was not using the
service even though it had the ability to do so. She wanted
to know what had changed in the bill and whether private
companies could provide electronic monitoring. She wondered
if EM could still be utilized as it had been in HB 15
[electronic monitoring legislation passed in 2015].
Additionally, she asked if the bill would allow DOC to
utilize a contract with private companies versus offering
the service on its own.
Commissioner Williams replied that he was keenly aware of
the issue related to EM. The bill aimed to allow the
ability to provide options that were not currently
available. He detailed that using EM pretrial was a new
approach for the department, which he and the department
embraced. He explained the department wanted the most
options available to keep people out of jail. The
department was looking at going beyond the current model
that only offered EM to people who could afford it; the
goal was to offer it to individuals who could not afford to
pay for the service because it would save the department
and the state money. He stated that the change was a policy
direction that made sense. He had been on the commission
when the debate had taken place, but he believed the
commission had embraced the concept. He reiterated that the
change was embraced by the department because it made risk
and fiscal sense. He believed EM was a good tool for DOC to
have.
Representative Wilson asked if DOC would possibly look at
contracting EM out versus offering the service on its own.
2:31:51 PM
Commissioner Williams answered that Mr. Steiner had spoken
about the options that would look different in rural areas
in terms of who would run EM or who would provide the
supervision; it did not need to be DOC staff. His goal,
especially in rural areas, was to have the local community
get some small support to provide the supervision in areas,
which had previously been done by the state. Part of the
issue was developing the availability and options. He
believed the options to provide supervision post or
pretrial to individuals had been lacking. He explained that
the state would own the decision, but once the decision had
been made there could be different options.
Representative Wilson stated that one of the bill versions
had allowed DOC to work with private companies on EM. She
asked if the language was still in the bill.
Ms. Mead replied in the affirmative and referred to page
74, lines 24 through 26 of the legislation related to the
pretrial services office, which would be supervising people
to different degrees depending on their risk level. The
provision read that "the commissioner may procure and enter
into agreements or contracts for the supervision of
defendants on electronic monitoring."
Representative Wilson remarked there were great companies
that could offer the service privately. She noted it had
been brought to her attention that one company had been a
"bad actor," which she believed was no longer in business.
She recalled when she had worked on HB 15 there had been
discussion about the certification of companies to ensure
some oversight into the issue. She asked for verification
that the bill would enable DOC to contract with a company,
but it did not include language about providing any
oversight of the companies.
Ms. Mead replied that she did not believe the current
version of the bill included DOC oversight of all private
EM companies in Alaska.
Mr. Steiner believed Ms. Mead was correct. He detailed that
the assumption and discussion had been if DOC was going to
contract for EM it would take on the oversight to ensure it
complied with minimum requirements set by the department.
Currently, a court may order a person to go to utilize a
private company and there would be no association with DOC.
2:35:17 PM
Representative Wilson pointed to Section 64, page 37 and 38
of the bill, which had been added in by the prior committee
and addressed treatment and pretrial. She believed in order
for a person to qualify for a Nygren credit they had to
complete an inpatient treatment program. She asked how the
treatment language in Section 64 was different from the
Nygren credit.
Ms. Mead answered that the changes in Section 64 through 66
were substantial from current law and prior versions of the
bill. Currently AS 12.55.027(a) spelled out the
restrictions a program had to have in place in order for a
person going to a treatment program to get credit for the
time against their sentence. She detailed that basically
the program had to resemble prison; a person could not be
free to leave. She specified that the legislature would
determine through statute that because the program was akin
to prison, the person would get credit against their
eventual prison time. Under the current bill version, the
court could grant credit against a sentence of imprisonment
with fewer constraints; it would be up to the court whether
to grant credit if the treatment program "furthers
reformation and rehabilitation" (Section 64). She detailed
that a person would still receive their day-for-day credit,
but Section 66 included a list of factors that the court
shall consider when deciding whether a program should
qualify to give a person credit. The bill loosened the
constraint in former law and allowed much more judicial
discretion. She noted that sometimes much more judicial
discretion was good from the court system's point of view
and other times it was not. She believed the change in
statute would lead to many more hearings and was not as
clear as current law. She explained that the change would
result in numerous court hearings to address whether a
program should or should not qualify for credit.
2:38:11 PM
Mr. Steiner added that the particular sections altering the
Nygren statutes were not part of the commission's
recommendation. He was concerned that the legislation's
proposed structure would lead to arbitrary results. He
detailed that different judges would have diverse feelings
about different programs. He emphasized that the
requirements under current law were very clear and almost
compelled the result that a person received credit. One
concern raised was that the definition of treatment program
was not broad enough, but it had easily been addressed in
what was Section 67, which defined a treatment program and
broadened what would qualify. He believed the section
addressed the concerns. He shared the concern that too much
would lead to arbitrary results and no predictability,
which would undermine the goal of getting consistent
pretrial jail credit for treatment programs addressing the
needs of individuals for the reasons they were going to
jail.
Representative Wilson asked to hear from DPS as well. She
restated her question. She asked if broadening what
qualified as a treatment program would impact the
department.
Commissioner Folger answered that it would not impact the
department.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the bill
language was only related to inpatient treatment programs
and would not impact anyone in an outpatient facility.
Mr. Steiner answered that whether or not a person was in
residential [treatment] was merely one of the factors to be
considered. The changes did not impact the EM sections of
the bill, which permitted jail credit for EM (with passes
to court, appointments with an attorney, and treatment).
The change impacted what was formerly residential
treatment, which became one of many factors. He detailed
that it was one of the factors that may result in arbitrary
application across the state.
Representative Wilson surmised that the section primarily
impacted was on the court system. She surmised that judges
would make a determination on whether a program qualified
for credit. Ms. Mead answered that whether to grant credit
or not would be up to the court system. The language did
not apply to portions of the statute related to EM. The
change could result in more room for argument about whether
a person would receive credit.
2:42:13 PM
Mr. Skidmore spoke to the numerous sentencing changes that
occurred in the bill. He utilized a color coded sectional
analysis "cheat sheet" provided by the bill sponsor (copy
on file). He began with sentencing for misdemeanors and
noted there were three primary areas where associated laws
had changed in SB 91. First, some Class B misdemeanors had
been reduced to violations and included offences like
obstruction of highway and violation of conditions of
release. He elaborated that a person could still be
arrested for the offences under the legislation and it
could be addressed in bail, but there would be no criminal
penalty associated. Second, the bill changed the maximum
sentencing for Class B misdemeanors from 90 days in current
law to 10 days and a maximum of 24 hours for disorderly
conduct. Third, for Class A misdemeanors the bill modelled
the offenses off of felony sentencing and created a
presumptive term. The maximum remained one year in jail,
but for any misdemeanor the presumptive maximum would be 30
days. He detailed in order to exceed the 30-day presumptive
would require one of the aggregating factors included in SB
91. The first aggregating factor dealt with mandatory
minimums of 30 days or greater; the second dealt with a
criminal history with previous similar types of convictions
(felonies and/or misdemeanors), which would enable a judge
to impose more than the 30-day presumptive term; third, if
a crime was considered a worst offense (a worst offence was
currently used in felony aggravators); and the fourth, was
a carve-out applying to domestic violence assault, which
would enable a judge to impose more than the 30-day
presumptive term.
Mr. Skidmore addressed controlled substances. He detailed
that under the legislation possession of most controlled
substances would become a misdemeanor. The bill reduced the
level of the felony offence for most of the rest of
distribution of narcotics. Additionally, the bill added a
second layer of determining whether the distribution fell
into a large or low-level category. Current law contained
aggregators and mitigators, which could be applied to
separate a high-level drug dealer from a low-level drug
dealer. The bill added a second layer by classifying
distribution of up to 2.5 grams as a low-level felony and
anything exceeding the amount as a high-level felony. The
bill increased the threshold for felony theft crimes to
$1,000 and included inflation adjusting, whereas the Senate
version of the bill had contained a $2,000 threshold and
did not reference inflation adjusting. Presumptive ranges
for all felonies were reduced by the bill. He detailed that
in 2005 legislation had tried to address a [U.S.] Supreme
Court case referred to as Blakely [Blakely v. Washington].
He detailed that with the aim of addressing the concerns, a
sentencing range had been created (e.g. three to five
years). He furthered that people believed the change in
felony sentencing had allowed sentences to creep up, which
had not been the intent. Therefore, the bill shifted all of
the ranges down so the previous presumptive range was in
the middle. The last areas dealt with discretionary,
administrative, and geriatric parole as well as sex
offender treatment. He detailed that the areas of the bill
addressed how quickly a person could be released or the
type of sanction that could be imposed in the various
areas.
2:48:51 PM
Mr. Steiner made clarifications regarding possession versus
distribution. He explained a concern had been raised that
possession of large quantities could only be a misdemeanor.
He reminded the committee that someone could be charged
with intent to deliver, which would be a felony for any
amount as long as the state could prove the intent to
distribute or sell the drugs. He furthered that large
quantities would be sufficient to make a case for intent to
distribute and smaller quantities could be as well if
certain circumstances were also there that the state could
prove. He spoke to the adjusted presumptive ranges and
explained that the ranges had not been adjusted down for
sex offences per the commission's recommendation.
Co-Chair Thompson noted Representative LeDoux's presence in
the audience.
Representative Munoz asked Mr. Steiner to speak to the
commission's original recommendations regarding sex
offences. Additionally, she asked what had been carved out
in the Senate and what had been added back by the House
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Steiner explained that regarding sex offenders the
commission members had generally believed it was an area
worth exploring and working on; there had been disagreement
about what measures and recommendations the commission
should make, but it had come to consensus on incentives and
providing incentives for individuals in custody to earn
credit or potentially parole at an earlier date. The
conclusion had been reached because of evidence showing
that treatment reduced recidivism, which was the overriding
goal the commission had focused on (to reduce recidivism
and crime). He deferred the question to a colleague for
further detail.
2:52:13 PM
TRACEY WOLLENBERG, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER, APPELLATE
DIVISION, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION addressed changes in the different bill
versions. One of the commission's recommendations was
earned "good time" credit for sex offenders, which would
allow sex offenders who were currently excluded from
automatically receiving statutory good time credit to earn
back the good time credit by successfully completing sex
offender treatment in custody. The provision had been
included in the original bill, but she believed it had been
stripped out in the Senate, which was still reflected in
the current bill version. The second item related to
expanding eligibility for discretionary parole for sex
offenders. She believed the original recommendation had
been to expand eligibility for discretionary parole for all
sex offenders except Class A and unclassified sex offenders
with prior felony convictions. She detailed that the
eligibility had been scaled back a bit and she believed all
unclassified and Class A sex offenders were ineligible for
discretionary parole.
2:53:39 PM
Representative Munoz asked about the difference between
classified and unclassified.
Ms. Wollenberg replied that an unclassified offence was the
highest level offense in Alaska, which included first and
second degree murder, sexual assault in the first degree,
sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, and other
(highest level sex offences). The classifications went down
from there. For example, Class A was the next highest
offence, followed by Class B, Class C, and misdemeanors.
Representative Munoz asked if the good time credit applied
to Class B and C.
Ms. Wollenberg responded that under current law sex
offenders ineligible for good time credit were those who
had been convicted of an unclassified and Class A sex
felony and all sex offenders with a prior sex offense
conviction. Class B and C felons with no prior convictions
remained eligible for good time credit under existing law.
The current bill would allow individuals who were
ineligible under current law to earn back the good time
credit by completing sex offender treatment.
Representative Munoz had heard from the bill sponsor that
the topic would have further review by the commission in
the future. She wondered if the direction for further
review was included in the legislation.
Mr. Steiner agreed that the commission would welcome the
opportunity to review the topic. He believed the topic
deserved an entire review and was an issue on its own;
there were many different issues relating to the topic. He
noted that the previous day the committee had discussed
individuals who may be in the same high school (e.g. a 14
year-old and 18 year-old). He detailed that the specific
issue had been raised several times in the past month or
so. He believed the direction to the commission to continue
with the review was in the bill. He would welcome the topic
as a stand-alone review with a report back to the
legislature with recommendations.
2:56:19 PM
Representative Gara wondered about the success rate of
treatment for Class A and unclassified sex offenders.
Mr. Steiner did not believe the commission had looked at
success rates for subcategories of individuals. The data
the commission reviewed, showed that individuals convicted
of a sex offense had very low rates of recidivism and that
treatment lowered those rates; from a cost-benefit
perspective the treatment results were positive (the
benefit was greater than the cost, which was based on the
reduction of recidivism). He reiterated that the
information was never broken out between types of offences
or levels.
Representative Gara referred to Mr. Steiner's reference to
low rates of recidivism, which were reduced further by
treatment. He asked if any specific numbers were available.
Mr. Steiner could not recall specifically, but he could
provide the information the commission had relied on.
2:57:43 PM
Representative Gara asked what kind of sentences the
individuals (who had been added into the House Judiciary
Committee bill version) were facing and what percentage of
the sentence would be eligible for good time credit.
Ms. Wollenberg responded that good time credit was usually
the equivalent of about one-third of an individual's
sentence. She detailed that under the current version of
the bill, sex offenders would be eligible to earn back one-
third of their sentence, which was the equivalent to credit
earned back by other prisoners.
Representative Gara had thought the legislation barred good
time for repeat sex offenders but not first-time sex
offenders. He asked for verification that the bill barred
the credit for first-time Class A and unclassified sex
offenders as well.
Ms. Wollenberg replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked about the sentence range for
Class A and unclassified sex offences.
Ms. Wollenberg responded that the ranges varied based on
whether a person had a prior conviction; and for sex
felonies whether a prior conviction was for a sex felony.
For example, if a person was convicted of sexual assault in
the first degree, it was their first felony conviction, and
the victim was less than 13 years of age, the sentencing
range was 25 to 35 years. Under the scenario the range
would be 20 to 30 years if the victim was 13 years of age
or older. She furthered that for second felony convictions
and the prior felony was not a sexual in nature, the
sentencing range was 30 to 40 years. The range would be 35
to 45 years for second felony convictions if the first
offence was a sexual felony. She noted there was a third
felony offender range of 40 to 60 years for high-level
offences.
3:00:15 PM
Representative Wilson asked what data had been used to
determine sentencing should be lowered. She remarked that
the length of time a person was in jail did not necessarily
make them a better person when they got out. She wondered
about services provided to the individuals in jail and
whether the treatment would have to be done quicker due to
decreased sentencing.
Mr. Steiner answered that the data indicated that long
sentences did not reduce recidivism. The data showed that
short sentences for low to moderate risk individuals
increased recidivism. The structure of the recommendations
was to take low to moderate risk individuals to avoid jail
sentences so that recidivism did not increase, but services
were delivered. He detailed that for individuals in jail,
services would need to be delivered while they were in
custody. He stated it was the crux of the need for
reinvestment. The capacity to serve all of those
individuals did not currently exist; even with current
sentencing there was not capacity to serve individuals in a
timely manner. He explained it was part of what needed to
happen to get the maximum benefit from the policy changes.
Representative Wilson remarked that none of the services
got covered in DOC under Medicaid expansion; the services
were only covered outside of DOC. She wondered that given
the lowering of the sentencing, if the legislation
specified that treatment could be included under probation
or parole. She remarked that in some circumstances an
individual would spend 10 days in jail instead of 1 year.
She asked where the treatment portion would be directed.
She believed that between alcohol and drugs the treatment
portion of the bill was more significant than jail
sentencing, fines, or any other portions.
Mr. Steiner agreed that treatment was a critical component.
The bill and recommendations did not specify where
treatment should land. He believed the fiscal notes had
included information about where the treatment money would
be focused. From the commission's perspective it was
necessary to fund a prevention effort with pretrial access
to treatment in jail and in the community and transitional
services to go from jail to the community to ensure a
seamless transition. The recommendations did not specify
how much to put in any one of the areas. The commission had
broadly recommended that all of the services needed to be
provided.
Representative Wilson had looked into the issue for an
earlier bill and had heard studies from Kentucky and Texas.
She had asked why a significant number of inmates did not
currently use EM despite their eligibility and ability to
request the service. She had heard the primary reason was
due to housing issues. She addressed lowering sentencing
and letting individuals out of prison. She asked if the
state had studied why some of the current programs were not
being utilized. She reasoned that the bill would "shrink
that down and those issues will still be here."
Mr. Steiner asked if Representative Wilson was asking about
underutilization of transitional services from in custody
to out of custody.
Representative Wilson replied that a person could be
transitioned, but she wondered how to solve the lack of
places for a person to transition to in order to utilize
EM. She wondered how to solve the issue without spending
more money.
Mr. Steiner believed part of the bill allowed DOC to
contract with nonprofit private providers to assist with
the transition. He detailed that an entity in Anchorage was
currently providing the service and facilitated helping
people get jobs, find a place to live, and other;
transitional services was a critical component to maintain.
In addition to treatment, the transitional efforts were
important. He referred to discussion about food stamps and
added that having access to food was also critical to a
person's rehabilitation. He explained that the bill
contained some latitude on the issues.
3:05:30 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted the committee would address the in
prison treatment portions of the legislation.
Commissioner Williams asked for verification that the
committee was addressing treatment and credit for treatment
section of the legislation.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that the committee would address
drug and alcohol treatment individuals could receive in
prison.
Representative Wilson assumed they were addressing the
"blue" section on the sectional analysis color coded sheet
[community supervision]. She provided a scenario of a
person receiving a three-year sentence, who would receive
one of the three years on parole or probation due to good
time credit. She had heard from individuals wanting to
finish their three years in prison because they believed
they would end up serving four or five years because of the
way the system worked. She asked about capping the
technical violations. She believed the bill broke the time
down into 30 days. She thought once a person received a
technical violation they may lose all of their good time
accrued. She asked what happened with good time when a
person was released and how the bill would change the
current system.
Commissioner Williams answered that the probation cap for
technical violations was a policy change under the
legislation. Currently DOC could revoke up to the entire
amount of a person's good time if a person had a technical
violation (i.e. failure to show up for an appointment,
missing a bail requirement, and other). The bill would cap
the amount with the concept that technical violations were
generally concerned low risk and it was preferable to have
people back quickly versus having a long-term probation
violation. One of the bill versions excluded sex offenders
from the category. He was not certain about the change in
the bill before the committee. He commented on current
policy related to a person violating parole. The other
issue addressed by Representative Wilson was related to
credit for EM. Currently a prisoner did not receive credit
for their EM time, which was a lack of incentive. The bill
contemplated credit for good time on EM. He deferred to a
colleague for further detail.
JOSH MERCER, PROBATION SUPERVISOR, ELECTRONIC MONITORING,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), asked
Representative Wilson to repeat the question.
Representative Wilson restated her question. She believed
that an individual out on good time probation could end up
with an extended sentence of four or five years due to
technical violations. She asked if anything in the bill
helped address the issue, which would make EM advantageous.
3:11:43 PM
Mr. Mercer replied that there had been testimony from
offenders, probationers, and parolees where the scenario
provided by Representative Wilson was true. He specified
that it was contingent upon the poor choices the
individuals made with the technical and formal violations
that could extend their period on field supervision. With
regard to EM and statutory good time, he believed DOC EM
would not be adverse to rewarding good time for offenders
who had demonstrated progress while enrolled in the program
and housed in the community. He believed the state should
support an offender's effort by awarding statutory good
time once they had successfully established gainful
employment, engaged in and/or completed substance abuse
treatment and restitution, and able to put food on the
table for their families.
Representative Wilson clarified that she was not speaking
to good time. She was referring to "straight-time" only.
She did not understand how a person who received a three-
year sentence could ever end up with serving four years.
She believed under the bill a person received credit for
every 30 days if they had no violations. She asked if it
was different from current policy.
Mr. Mercer answered that currently with DOC EM it day-for-
day; statutory good time was not afforded. He deferred the
question for further detail.
3:13:40 PM
JORDEN SHILLING, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, answered that
the credit afforded to a defendant on EM pretrial was still
applicable under the bill. The bill did not remove the
credit whatsoever.
Representative Wilson was interested in scenarios after
pretrial. She provided a scenario where a person had served
two years of a three-year sentence and was out on probation
for the third year until their sentence was complete. She
had heard from more than one source that due to violations
a person could end up serving two more years instead of
just staying in jail for the last year of their three-year
sentence.
Mr. Shilling restated his understanding of the question. He
believed she was speaking about an individual who could be
reparoled. He deferred the question to DOC.
Mr. Steiner answered that an individual could be sentenced
to three years (flat-time, with no suspended time), out
after two years with good time, and on parole for one year.
During that time, if the individual committed a violation
the Parole Board had the authority to do a "revoke and
reparole." A person may be in custody for a short period of
time right before the end of their year; if the person was
revoked and reparoled they would have to serve the year on
parole over again. The scenario could effectively extend a
person's supervision or custody beyond the ultimate three-
year sentence. He believed the current version of the bill
maintained a section addressing the issue.
Representative Wilson asked how the issue would be
addressed if the bill passed.
Mr. Steiner answered that under the current version of the
bill if a person served their two years their parole time
would run for the entire third year of their sentence. If a
person was to violate their parole at any point during the
year the period they were in custody would toll (the time
would stop running), but once the person was out of jail
again the time would pick up where it left off before the
person went back to prison [note: Mr. Steiner made a
correction to this statement at the end of his current
response]. The change would extend a person's sentence some
beyond the three-year sentence, but it would not have the
ability to extend the parole time indefinitely; it would
put a decided end to a person's parole time. He corrected
that an individual would receive credit while in custody.
He clarified that the period a person was in custody would
toll if a person absconded.
Representative Wilson remarked that the bill capped how
long a person could be in jail for technical violations.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative. He detailed that
the first technical violation carried a jail sentence of 3
days, the second violation was 5 days, and the third was 10
days. On the fourth violation a person's entire parole
period was up for revocation.
3:18:03 PM
Representative Gara spoke to the probation component. He
asked for verification that the bill addressed technical
violations of probation. Mr. Steiner answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Gara stated that in all areas of law there
were some portion of attorneys who just tried to win and
win as big as possible. He asked if the rules under the
bill would guarantee a district attorney could not decide
to throw the book at a defendant. Alternatively, he
wondered if cooperation from the district attorneys and
parole officers would still be required.
Mr. Steiner answered that there would be no discretion
under the current version of the bill. The maximum period
of time for the first three technical violations would be
3, 5, and 10 days respectively. The assumption had been
that immediate sanction in jail and slowly progressing
would be the most effective at changing behavior. He stated
that after that it was wide open.
Representative Gara asked for clarification on the
statement "after that it's wide open." Mr. Steiner answered
that after an individual's fourth violation the court could
impose all of their parole time. At that point, it would
operate as it did under current law.
Representative Gara asked for verification Mr. Steiner was
speaking about an individual's fourth technical violation.
Mr. Steiner answered in the affirmative.
3:20:27 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed the committee would hear about
parole sections of the bill.
Commissioner Williams communicated that much of the issue
had been covered already.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA BOARD OF PAROLE,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), discussed
how the bill impacted the Parole Board. Under the bill
administrative parole would afford an inmate with early
release opportunities for some low-level crimes (i.e.
mostly Class B and C offences); individuals would be
afforded the opportunity of early release if they complied
with several requirements, which would be mostly outlined
in the case plan. He furthered that if an inmate was
following the rules within the institution and complied
with their case plan (particularly treatment) they would be
released after serving a quarter of their sentence. The
majority of the time the board members would not meet to
make a ruling on individual cases; inmates would be
automatically released. He noted that if a victim of a
specific crime requested a hearing the Parole Board would
convene. He explained that it would be a new function for
the board; he was interested to see and study the outcomes
if the change came to fruition.
Mr. Edwards addressed the significant reduction in
timelines and length of stay in hard beds for technical
violations. He relayed that currently the board's timeline
extended out to 120 days to deal with technical violations;
the time would be significantly reduced to 15 working days
under the legislation. He noted that the first technical
violation carried a jail sentence of 3 days, the second
violation was 5 days, and the third was 10 days. He
discussed that the significant reduction to the time frame
the board had to dispose of the violations would have a
substantial effect on the board.
Mr. Edwards discussed the bill's expansion of eligible
inmates for discretionary parole. He explained
discretionary parole was the avenue for inmates to apply
for early release from incarceration. The bill would
increase the number of inmates eligible for discretionary
parole, which would mean a whole new group of inmates the
board would have to interview and hold hearings for. He
detailed that the change eliminated the ability for the
individual inmate to waive the option, meaning the
individual would be required to appear before the board;
there would not be an optional application requirement.
Mr. Edwards spoke to the implementation of geriatric parole
for individuals age 55 or older who had served a minimum of
10 years in prison. The individuals would be eligible to
apply to the board for early release. The bill included no
mandate to grant parole, but it granted the individuals
with the ability to have a hearing before the board.
Presumably, the reason for the policy change was due to the
increase in medical expenses for the specific age category.
Additionally, data and experience showed that the category
of inmates posed a very low risk of recidivism. The board's
policies did not currently enable it to grant geriatric
parole.
3:26:10 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked how many days Parole Board
members usually worked. Mr. Edwards answered that the board
was gearing up for a meeting the following week and would
address just over 50 hearings. The board would begin at
Goose Creek Correctional Center (the state's largest
prison) where it would hold two or three days of
discretionary hearings. The board would also hold hearings
at the Palmer Correctional Center, the women's Hiland
Mountain Correctional Center in Eagle River, and in
Anchorage. The board typically met one to two weeks per
month. He offered to follow up with the precise number of
days the board worked and hearings it convened.
Representative Kawasaki always thought commissioners were a
part-time job. He surmised that the board sounded pretty
full-time. He reasoned that the board appeared to be a
minimum of part-time if not more. Mr. Edwards answered that
the positions were listed as part-time, but they were
really three-quarter to full-time when it came to reviewing
files, conducting hearings, and convening for one to two
weeks per month.
Representative Kawasaki had a bit of trouble with the
automatic administrative parole, which would be completely
new. He asked if first-time Class B or C felons serving
one-quarter of their time plus other minimum conditions
would automatically get bumped to discretionary parole if
they did not go through the administrative parole hearing
because a victim came forward.
Mr. Edwards replied that the individuals would still
progress through the administrative function. The only
difference was that the board would need to convene with
the victim and inmate present to conduct and make a
decision on the case. The bill removed the automatic
release portion and mandated a hearing [if a victim
requested a hearing].
3:29:25 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked how much work time the
streamlined discretionary parole and administrative parole
would add to the Parole Board.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board's fiscal note included
funding for hearing officers needed to expedite the hearing
process to resolve violations. He detailed that many states
utilized hearing officers due to the amount of violations
coming through the system and the timeframe in which they
needed to be resolved. He furthered that it would move the
revocation hearings for technical violations from the
function of the Parole Board to the hearing officer. He
elaborated that the board did not have the availability of
time to move the cases. Additionally, the hearing officers
had been included due to the increase in discretionary
hearings under the legislation. He explained that the board
members would quickly turn into full-time state employees,
which DOC was not willing to do at present.
3:31:00 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about the notification for
victims. He asked about the current process and how it
would change in the current bill.
Mr. Edwards answered that the victim notification
requirement came down to the DOC institutional parole
officers. Once identified and an inmate was choosing to go
before the board, the board was required to send out a
written letter to notify the victim of the process. To open
the dialogue of communication, the board allowed victims to
either participate telephonically, via written
correspondence, or in the actual hearing. The department
was charged with notifying the victims, who then
corresponded with the board office and staff to ensure the
correspondence was seamless. The victim was given the
opportunity to testify before the board to provide their
story and impact of the crime; board members weighed
heavily on the testimony. Additionally, the notification
was documented in the ACOMS [Alaska Corrections Offender
Management System] or the Defender Data Tracking System
used by DOC.
Representative Wilson asked if the board had to meet before
a person could serve their three days [jail time] for a
technical violation. She noted the committee had heard the
more immediate the jail time, the more impact it had on an
individual.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board hearing did not need to
occur. He explained the individual would be released from
prison after the three-day period (for a first technical
violation) regardless of whether the board had convened or
not. The board wanted to be responsive in the violations.
He believed the vested interest in the bill was to resolve
violations in a swift and certain proportionate manner. The
cap limits were not negotiable, but the board would convene
for the hearings to ensure they were resolved quickly and
efficiently, and the person would go back out on parole
supervision to try again.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that amendments to SB 91 were due
by Friday at 5:00 p.m. He discussed the meetings for the
following day. He recessed the meeting to a call of the
chair [note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
3:35:32 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|