Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/29/1997 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 1997
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: Department of Corrections
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARGARET PUGH, Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907)465-4652
ROBERT (Bob) COLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 112000
Juneau, AK 99811-2000
Telephone: (907)465-3342
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3428
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-6, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order by
Chairman Joe Green at 1:00 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Con Bunde, Brian Porter, Eric Croft,
Ethan Berkowitz and Chairman Joe Green.
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN advised members the Department of Corrections
would be providing an overview of their department, adding that
over the past four years legislation had been enacted affecting the
department, as well as a large number of bills the committee would
be addressing during this session that would impact the Department
of Corrections.
OVERVIEW: Department of Corrections
MARGARET PUGH, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, advised
members there were three major divisions within the department;
Division of Institutions, Division of Community Corrections and the
Division of Administrative Services. The two largest divisions,
Institutions and Community Corrections were based in Anchorage, and
the Division of Administrative Services based in Juneau.
COMMISSIONER PUGH pointed out that the Division of Institutions was
the largest division in the department that operates 15
correctional facilities located around the state. The division
consists of approximately 1100 employees who manage a prisoner
population of 3,017, as of January 18th, which was 112 percent of
the emergency rated capacity of 2,691.
COMMISSIONER PUGH explained that major sections that fall within
the Division of Institutions were programs consisting of prisoner
work programs, educational programs, alcohol and substance abuse
treatment programs, chaplaincy, sex offender treatment programs,
life skills, prison industries and an anger management and batterer
program.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the Division of Community
Corrections had 13 regional probation offices throughout the state
who supervise individuals released on probation or parole, which
currently consisted of 4,247 persons. The division also manages
the Point McKenzie Farm which houses 92 offenders, and eight
community residential centers, or halfway houses, in Anchorage,
Juneau, Fairbanks, Bethel and most recently Barrow. In those
locations, the division manages 558 halfway house beds and were
running approximately 93 percent of capacity.
Representatives James and Rokeberg arrived.
Number 795
COMMISSIONER PUGH pointed out that since last year, the department
had fully automated 31 out of 32 sites on the state network, which
allows the department the ability to exchange documents and talk to
one another by use of E-Mail. She noted that they had also built
the hardware network platform for the department's continued
efforts to develop an automated management information system that
would be a part of the integrated project with the other criminal
justice agencies; Public Safety and the Department of Law.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members the department had streamlined
their recruitment examination and training practices for the
purpose of assuring an adequate qualified pool of applicants to
handle staff turnover, and also employees who had or would be
participating in the Retirement Incentive Program (RIP). She noted
that the department had also opened continuous recruitment for
correctional and probation officers, adding that changes had been
made to the application process making it more user friendly.
Number 1621
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the department's training
academy was co-located with the Anchorage Police Department's
training center on Dimond Boulevard and had worked well for the
department.
COMMISSIONER PUGH responded to a question posed by Representative
Rokeberg relating to the implementation of a day reporting center.
She informed members that two years ago the department approached
the legislature with a request to open a day reporting center. The
program would involve persons who had violated their probation or
parole requirements, and rather than put them back in prison, they
would be placed in the day reporting center which was less
expensive and less intense than being incarcerated. She noted that
the individuals would be required to work and attend different
counseling, as appropriate. Commissioner Pugh pointed out,
however, that the legislature cut the department's funding that
year rather than providing funds for a day reporting center, so
that idea was abandoned.
COMMISSIONER PUGH pointed out that the department applied for a
grant through the Burn Grant Fund and with those funds had provided
the probation officers with some additional tools to supervise
parolees and individuals on probation.
COMMISSIONER PUGH stated with regard to expanding the state's
correctional facilities, the city of Delta had requested the
department to consider building a center in that area. Last year
the department introduced a plan that would have expanded the
state's regional correctional facilities and build new facilities
to replace the Sixth Avenue facility in Anchorage, and also a
replacement contract jail in the North Slope Borough. At that
point, Delta was not included in the department's expansion plan.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that she had been working very
closely with the city of Palmer. She expressed that they were very
willing to work with the department in financing and building the
expansion facility planned for that area. The city of Bethel was
also willing to work with the department in financing and
expanding, as well as the North Slope Borough who was further along
in their process than anyone else, but had yet to select the
specific site and financing mechanism.
COMMISSIONER PUGH noted that there were several discreet
populations in need of special housing and security concerns which
included juvenile offenders, mentally ill and geriatric inmates.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referenced the community residential
centers and asked if those populations might qualify for electronic
home monitoring, and if the department had considered that system
as an alternative to actual bed space.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the department had conducted
several pilot programs over the past year with the electronic
monitoring program, pointing out that they were not as successful
as she hoped they would be, although they would continue to explore
those options. Commissioner Pugh noted that what she would like to
see was a person sentenced to an electronic monitoring device
because at this point the department would have to make the
decision as to who would be appropriate for that program.
Number 2414
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked the Commissioner to address the rate
of increase in prison population.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members the department was realizing a 6
percent to 8 percent increase per year in institutional population.
She pointed out that the fastest growing population was female
offenders, which was a national trend as well. She expressed that
there were a good number of mentally ill offenders, and offenders
with developmental disabilities, along with a growing number of
juvenile offenders.
TAPE 97-6, SIDE B
Number 000
COMMISSIONER PUGH informed members that the department's
Retirement Incentive Plan (RIP), had been approved December 13,
1996, which offered the first window to 238 employees for
application between January 13th and February 12th. She noted that
July 1, 1997 would be the end date for taking early retirement.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members the department completed a multi-
year evaluation of the sex offender treatment program at the
Highland Mountain Correctional Center. She expressed that the
results clearly demonstrated that treatment was an important
element in lowering victimization upon a sex offender's release
from prison. Commissioner Pugh noted that the study had received
some international attention, which she felt was probably because
it was one of the few of its kind because it included data on
indigenous people. The department had received inquiries from New
Zealand, Australia, Canada and many states around the country.
Commissioner Pugh pointed out that the study had provided the
department with data that would assist them in what populations
they were realizing success with.
Number 166
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members the department had done two
recent projects that would increase the ability to track and
monitor sex offenders. She noted that they did not have a criminal
justice information system at the present time, and were now in the
midst of cross-referencing the department's data on sex offenders
with the Department of Public Safety's data on sex offenders who
are required to register with the state when released from prison.
The other project involved a stand-alone sex offender data base
which would provide the department a better ability to track and
monitor sex offenders under the department's supervision.
Commissioner Pugh explained that the data compiled on all the sex
offenders out in the communities under supervision would be in that
one stand-alone computer with one person monitoring the program and
would be alerted of any changes that might occur.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the department had qualified
for some federal funds out of the federal violent offender
incarceration bill. She noted that they had received approximately
$2.3 million, adding that the legislature would be getting the
department's plan for expending those dollars. Commissioner Pugh
pointed out that the federal government requires those funds be
spent on capital projects only, to add bed space for violent
offenders. She thought the department might qualify for more of
those funds over the next few years.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members with respect to the Cleary
Settlement that the department would be approaching the legislature
at some point with a supplemental request to pay the fines that had
accrued in the case through June 30, 1997.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that under the budget request unit
(BRU) for institutions the department was requesting the transfer
of $1 million for out of state contracts. He asked if those funds
were for the contract facility in Florence, Arizona, for additional
beds over and above the original 200 beds.
BOB COLE, Director, Administrative Services, Department of
Corrections, stated that Representative Rokeberg was correct, those
funds would increase the bed space to 250. He advised members that
the Division of Institutions had been classifying potential
transferees, with approximately 14 or 15 who could go presently.
Mr. Cole stated that the budget, as presently written, assumes that
the department would exercise their option, during FY 98, to place
the entire additional 44 inmates at the Arizona facility.
MR. COLE noted that an exception to the 'capital cost only'
requirement on the federal bill crime funds was that it could be
used to lease space, out-of-state, from a private entity. Because
of that exception, the department had sent inquiries to the federal
officer regarding the allowable uses of those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Commissioner Pugh if she had a position
on privatizing prisons in the state of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER PUGH explained that the department stood ready to
speak with anyone who had a proposal and were willing to discuss
all available options.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members there was a piece of
legislation that would not allow the state to exceed the federal
standards for state correctional standards, with the intent that it
would provide a better position to reenter the Cleary debate. He
asked Mr. Guaneli if he would concur that that would be a likely
result.
Number 659
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, responded that there were a couple of provisions
of which one involved a proposed Constitutional Amendment which
referred to the federal standard on cruel and unusual punishment,
and the other was Senator Donley's "No Frills Prison" bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER clarified that he was referring only to the
Constitutional Amendment.
MR. GUANELI advised members that the Cleary Order had not been
based on any specific finding by the court that the state had
violated the Constitution. To that extent, a change in the
constitutional standard would not specifically give rise to an
argument that the state could get out from under the Cleary
Decision. Mr. Guaneli felt that decision would be with the state,
in some form or another, for a long time.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that it was his understanding that
some provisions within the Cleary Agreement exceeded the federal
standard, and if true, he felt that would be of assistance to the
state if the administration chose to readdress or reenter the
Cleary Decision.
MR. GUANELI stated that to the extent there would be further
litigation, and that the constitutional standards were an issue,
that Representative Porter was correct. He stated that whenever
the Constitution sets a floor for standards or rights, it would be
up to the administration to provide for something above the
constitutional floor.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER advised members that it was his understanding
that the Constitutional Amendment being proposed would not set a
floor, but a ceiling, that the state's Constitution may not be
interpreted to exceed the minimum standards of the federal
requirements.
MR. GUANELI agreed that the amendment appeared to be worded that
way; however, the effect was that it adopts the federal standard as
the floor and would not permit the state to provide anything less
than those standards. He pointed out that Senator Donley's
proposed legislation, more or less, provided for a ceiling by
expressing the philosophy that certain conditions should not be
better than as provided in the federal standards.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that during the press conference it was
expressed that certain space guidelines were established in the
Cleary Decision and the federal guidelines were much lower. He
asked if the state would fall under the 100 percent capacity if the
federal guidelines were followed.
MR. GUANELI thought that anytime one speaks about setting
capacities in a facility that it would depend on a number of
different factors, such as the physical makeup of the facility, the
type of prisoner housed, the custody classification and other
factors. Mr. Guaneli advised members that there was a popular
misconception that the state simply negotiated the Cleary Case
away, when the fact is, the case went to trial in 1984 and the
state lost. He noted that after the trial the Superior Court set
population limits, at the then existing correctional facilities,
that were, in many cases, substantially lower than the state was
able get through negotiations some time later. Mr. Guaneli felt it
was fair to say if the state got back into the litigation mode and
the court applied a constitutional standard and imposed population
limits, that it might very well be less than the population limits
the state was currently operating under in Cleary, which the state
was exceeding anyway.
Number 930
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it was possible for the
legislature, by statute, to repeal one or all provisions of the
Cleary Settlement.
MR. GUANELI advised members that specific provisions were laid out
in Cleary, as well as specific provisions in the court rules that
allow someone who is under a court order, whether negotiated or
not, to go back to the court and ask the court to relieve it from
the provisions of the judgment, however there were certain
standards for doing that. One standard would consist of a material
change in the law underlying the particular area, but would
ultimately become a judicial decision whether or not to allow the
state to get out from under the Cleary decision. Mr. Guaneli
stated that if there was a material change in the law, that it
could provide the state some grounds to go back to the court and
request relief from the effect of the judgment.
MR. GUANELI felt that a problem in pursuing that was that the court
would always look to the underlying intent of the order, which was
to make sure the department was operating its system in a safe,
effective, humane manner consistent with, not only the state and
federal Constitutions, but the laws of the state as well. He
pointed out that the laws of the state require a number of things;
medical care, prison programs, et cetera. Mr. Guaneli advised
members that it was his belief that as long as the state was
operating its prisons substantially in excess of the capacity set
by the court in Cleary, that he did not believe the court would
relieve the state from those standards.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the concept of the separation
of powers, pointing out that he felt it was an extraordinary act of
the court and certain standards within the Clearly Settlement, that
were above any rational standards that the legislature, as the
articulator of public policy, would set.
MR. GUANELI cited, as an example, the Sixth Avenue facility in
Anchorage that was built many years ago. That facility was
designed to house 96 inmates; plumbing, sewage, heating and space
was designed for 96 inmates. He pointed out that the state was
consistently holding approximately 140 inmates at that facility and
the emergency capacity was some where around 108 prisoners. Mr.
Guaneli stated that there was a real question whether that was an
irrational decision by the court to say that a facility designed
for 96 inmates should not hold more than 108 inmates.
MR. GUANELI felt that one could go through each state facility and
arrive at similar conclusions that perhaps the parties who
negotiated the Cleary Settlement had some rational basis for
arriving at the population caps they arrived at.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that there was a school in her
district built for 165 students and there were up to 300 students
attending that school and she had not been able to secure funds for
expansion of that school.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed that there were a lot more
prisoners within the Alaska system than one would like to see;
however, one of the primary directives of the statute was to focus
on rehabilitation for the offenders. He asked what types of
rehabilitation efforts were being made, and the effects those
efforts or programs had on the rate of recidivism.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the department offered work
and education, specific programs in sex offender treatment, anger
management, life skills, chaplaincy and prison industries, which
were the department's basic programs. She noted that the state had
not conducted a recidivism study for a number of years, adding that
if the department had a better management information system they
would be able to better provide ongoing data to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT spoke to the issue of the fines imposed for
prisoner overcrowding, and asked if a fine had been paid, and if
so, who it was paid to.
MR. GUANELI advised members fines had been imposed by the court as
a result of the state being way over capacity for a number of years
and those fines had been accruing. He noted that the court just
recently ordered that the fines be paid to the court and ordered
the court to decide how those funds would be spent. Mr. Guaneli
noted that the state's argument was that if the fines were going to
be paid they should go back into the general, like any other fine,
and be available for appropriation by the legislature. Mr. Guaneli
pointed out that the state got the court to stay that order because
it raised, in the state's view, significant constitutional
questions relating to the separation of powers. He stated that
they had been in further negotiations with the plaintiffs' attorney
regarding ways in which the state could spend a certain amount of
money on things that would assist the overcrowding situation, and
that the plaintiffs would agree that that amount of money be offset
against the fines. Mr. Guaneli stated that because of new
community residential center beds, the state had been able to get
an offset against the fines of several hundred thousand dollars.
No fines had been paid to date, but if the court lifts the stay and
orders the money paid, it was the state's intent to move for a stay
in the Supreme Court and pursue that appeal vigorously.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referenced the escapee situation that took place at
the Arizona facility and asked the commissioner if the size of that
facility and the ability to control the inmates played a role in
the escape that took place.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that the Arizona facility was
currently at a capacity of approximately 1300 inmates. She
explained that when the department first contracted with that
facility it was at 500 capacity and the department bought 200 beds.
Commissioner Pugh stated that since that point in time, Corrections
Corporation of American (CCA) had been in a building mode, and were
up to the 1300 capacity. She noted that they had built fast and
quick, with new staff coming online as they expanded the facility,
which she felt contributed to some of the problems that had taken
place. Commissioner Pugh noted that the larger a prison facility
was, the more opportunity for a disturbance existed, that larger
usually meant increased opportunity for difficulties within a
prison setting.
TAPE 97-7, SIDE A
Number 000
COMMISSIONER PUGH expressed that Alaska was fortunate in conducting
a safe and secure correctional system and had not needed to have a
mega prison, which she felt had contributed to the department's
success, as well as excellent training of staff.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the commissioner to address the difference
between multiple story prisons, versus a single story facility.
COMMISSIONER PUGH noted that there were high-rise urban
correctional centers throughout the United States; however, she
pointed out that those facilities did realize some difficulties
because of the additional security that would be necessary to
protect the public.
COMMISSIONER PUGH responded to a question posed by Representative
James regarding the effect of the prison industries program.
Commissioner Pugh advised members that she was an enthusiastic
supporter of prison industries. She explained that the program
provided the opportunity for meaningful work for inmates which
allowed them to earn a minimal wage, and also provided a means to
keep the prison population as far from idle as possible, which
limited the opportunities for nefarious kinds of behavior as well.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her interest in the Mt. McKinley
meat plant and its effectiveness. Mr. Cole stated that he would
gather and provide more detailed information to Representative
James relating to the Mt. McKinley meat plant and the department's
affiliation with that plant.
CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that while visiting several
correctional facilities in the state he was really impressed with
the quality of workmanship of some of the inmates, furniture in
particular. He noted that the state was receiving negative
feedback from the public because prison industries was in
competition with the private sector. Chairman Green asked if the
department was addressing that situation in a way that would allow
those programs to continue and maintain the ability to sell the
finished product.
COMMISSIONER PUGH advised members that was a continuing challenge.
She explained that part of the statute provides that prison
programs should not compete with the private sector in a harmful
manner. Commissioner Pugh stated that the Correctional Industries
Commission takes under advisement any proposed new industry and
considers them statutorily prior to actual implementation of a
program. She reiterated that it was a continuing challenge and one
the department would continue to deal with because it was important
for inmates to work and important for them to learn life-skills
that come through working, and also important that they contribute
back to the society from which they had taken by committing a
crime. Commissioner Pugh noted that the department would continue
to work with the communities and the private sector so they would
not be competing in a harmful manner.
Number 1483
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other comments or questions of the Department of
Corrections, Chairman Green adjourned the House Judiciary Committee
meeting at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|