01/28/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR15 | |
| HB187 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 2020
3:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins
Representative Andi Story
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Laddie Shaw
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to actions upon veto.
- MOVED HJR 15 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 187
"An Act relating to correctional facilities; relating to the
authority of the commissioner of corrections to designate the
correctional facility to which a prisoner is to be committed;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 187(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 15
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KREISS-TOMKINS
04/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/19 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/23/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/23/20 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/28/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 187
SHORT TITLE: RESTRICT OUT-OF-STATE CORRECTIONAL FACIL.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
01/21/20 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/20
01/21/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/20 (H) STA, FIN
01/23/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/23/20 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/20 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/28/20 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL BRADNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 15 as former
Speaker of the House.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 15.
ADAM HYKES
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 15.
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
187.
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Sharon Jackson
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
187, on behalf of Representative Jackson.
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Owner
Restorative and Reentry Services LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 187.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 187.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 187.
KATIE BOTZ
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 187.
LAURA BONNER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 187.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:01:33 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. Representatives Story,
Thompson, Vance, Shaw, Hopkins, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins were
present at the call to order.
HJR 15-CONST. AM: VOTES NEEDED FOR VETO OVERRIDE
3:02:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to actions upon
veto.
3:02:24 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, as prime sponsor of HJR 15, offered to
answer any questions from the committee.
3:02:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that there were no questions
for Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, opened public and invited
testimony on HJR 15.
3:03:03 PM
MICHAEL BRADNER, as the former Speaker of the House, relayed
that he interacted and served with many of the state's
constitutional founders. He expressed his belief that few of
them would have ever imagined that the veto could be used in the
manner it has been - reaching back in time and eliminating
entire programs. Generally, over the years, the veto has been
exercised to deal with issues in the current legislature and
only occasionally reaching back in time. He opined that Alaska
has a constitutional crisis that reaches beyond this legislature
and is bipartisan in nature; what this governor [Governor
Michael J. Dunleavy] could do, any governor could do; and it
could lead to problems in the future. The flavor of politics
changes; the governor could veto, for example, Alaska's oil tax
credits. As time changes, the spending for social programs and
for development changes. He offered that the future is unknown;
Alaska will be under a great deal of pressure with climate
change and other issues.
MR. BRADNER suggested that his concern is not just about the
three-fourths vote, but the three-fourths vote burdened by very
small legislative bodies. He said, "It requires only securing
16 votes to override." He maintained, "If you can't secure the
votes for an override, you ought not to be governor, because
you're no politician." He referred to the campaign contribution
limit that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and was sent back to
the appeals court; Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg attached a
statement citing small legislative bodies and the possibility of
corruption given a narrow voter base. He said this should be a
concern for Alaska. It is not just the three-fourths vote but
the three-fourths vote in Alaska's small legislative bodies and
the regional spread of Alaska's legislative bodies. It is very
easy to intimidate different regions and put legislators in
difficult situations while exercising their prerogatives to
override.
MR. BRADNER stressed that the legislature is the "people's
branch." He referred to an expression in legal literature -
"tyrannical aggrandizement of power by one branch over another."
He stated that the founders of the U.S. Constitution used that
term when trying to convince the various colonial assemblies
that separation of powers protects them from their president
being a substitute for the tyrant they had overthrown. He
offered that although [in his writing as a journalist] he has
referred to the governor as a tyrant in the context he just
mentioned, he, himself, shares that title: In the mid-'70s, he
was Speaker of the House and the legislature was young. The
legislators questioned many of the lines of authority between
the legislature and the governor - one being the extent of
confirmation power. The legislature passed a statute, then sued
the governor. [Then] Justice [Jay] Rabinowitz informed the
legislature that the legislature may not encroach "one inch" and
used the term "tyrant" in his opinion.
MR. BRADNER expressed that Alaska must consider the invasion of
the prerogatives of the legislature. He opined that the
governor, being a new governor, was influenced by certain people
to act as he did; it appears he is now trying to moderate that
intensity. He expressed his hope that HJR 15 would be a
bipartisan resolution; it reaches far beyond the acute
partisanship that Alaska faces; it involves both parties and
many issues for both parties over time. He relayed that Alaska
is facing some issues in the next decade which will require
unity.
3:10:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that she is looking for good
governance, and any changes to the Alaska State Constitution
needs to work for the next 50, 100, 200 years; the constitution
is the state's guidebook. She expressed her belief that Mr.
Bradner spoke to the politics, and she is looking for good
governance. She relayed the following:
While you speak to the tyranny and certain positions
on one side of this issue and this particular
governor, there is another side. And if we're
supposed to work together for the good policy, doesn't
that come through better communication, rather than
lowering the voting threshold, because that would be
by a lower majority guiding the conversation? So, I'm
asking you, what do you feel is good governance,
without looking at this current political climate?
MR. BRADNER opined that this political climate only demonstrates
the difficulty in governance. He expressed the following:
Your prerogatives have been invaded by the governor.
We can argue about that and have differences of
opinion about that, but ... most states have a two-
thirds override. And I think the original intent of
separation of powers was that the executive branch
could not intimidate the legislative branch. And I
think a three-quarters vote, with our regionalism and
so on - absent whether it's today's politics or
tomorrow's politics - really is invasive of ... the
legislature's ability to legislate. And you're the
people's body politic - and it's messy at times. I've
often called the legislature sort of the 'garbage can'
because that's where the public brings their issues,
and you fight it out, and the public sometimes gets
frustrated because you're really not one legislature,
you're two. You're a House; you're a Senate; you're
many committees. ... The public hears this kind of
commotion and ... the legislature gets criticism
perhaps it isn't due. I absolutely think that good
governance requires that the legislature have
reasonable opportunity to override a governor's veto.
In this case, I think it's almost impossible.
3:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW referred to the comment about intimidation
from the governor. He asked, "If we lower the standards, don't
we have a majority that intimidates the minority?"
MR. BRADNER replied that [the two-thirds veto override vote
threshold] is the standard in most states. The executive branch
oversees administrating the statutes and is not entitled - in
any fashion - to intimidate the legislative process. He said
that the legislative process belongs to the legislature; it is
through that process the legislature responds to the public. He
answered, "No ... I think ... we're sort of at a point here
where we've got to make some decisions."
3:14:00 PM
MIKE COONS testified that 36 states require a two-thirds vote to
override a veto; 7 states require three-fifths; 6 require a
simple majority; and Alaska requires three-fourths. He said
that 22 states, as of November 2018, have veto-proof majorities.
He continued with the following testimony:
Yes, Alaska is the only one with three-quarters vote,
and I'm glad our founding fathers, in writing the
state constitution, did so. Obviously, the founding
fathers did not look upon the governor as a tyrant or
call the Office of the Governor an office of a tyrant;
it is an insult to our republic. Remember, we are a
republic, not a democracy. What this boils down to in
my opinion - this is nothing more than an attempt to
make it easier to override a strong governor who is
keeping spending or attempting to keep spending under
control. These last attempts at overriding Governor
Dunleavy's line-item vetoes were a failure. Even this
last attempt would have failed by one vote if two
legislators were ... and if two legislators were
there, it would have failed by three. The person that
is testifying for this is making this about this
governor by a bill that would impact decades - if not
longer - of other governors. The governor has
constitutional amendments that this committee has
refused to bring forward that would have far better
impact on the people of Alaska. I call on
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins to bring forward those
bills and stop trying to undo what was and is the best
way to stop overspending.
3:16:22 PM
ADAM HYKES offered the following testimony:
I voted for the governor in the past election, and
it's really hard to see this as a way to not cover for
the attempt last session to override his vetoes when
there weren't enough legislators present at an
unauthorized special session in Juneau when the
governor had clearly called the [legislature]
constitutionally within his powers to the Valley up
here in the Interior. It's hard not to view this any
other way, especially since the [legislature] has
consistently fought against the governor. I see this
resolution as a dangerous advance towards muddying the
waters as far as separation of powers go in our state.
[Public testimony was treated as closed.]
3:17:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HJR 15 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Thompson, Hopkins,
Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting
HJR 15 out of committee. Representatives Vance and Shaw voted
against it. Therefore, HJR 15 was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
3:18:26 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:18 p.m. to 3:23 p.m.
HB 187-RESTRICT OUT-OF-STATE CORRECTIONAL FACIL.
3:23:11 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 187, "An Act relating to
correctional facilities; relating to the authority of the
commissioner of corrections to designate the correctional
facility to which a prisoner is to be committed; and providing
for an effective date."
3:23:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS1253\E.6, Radford, 1/28/20, which read:
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "or private"
Insert "[OR PRIVATE]"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "or private"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "an"
Insert "a public"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "or"
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "[OR SECURITY]"
Insert "or security"
Page 2, line 9, following "prisoner":
Insert "; or
(3) to reduce the cost of housing a
prisoner who
(A) is not a resident of the state; or
(B) has been sentenced to a term or
aggregate term of imprisonment of 99 years or more,
and, if the prisoner is a parent, the prisoner
(i) does not have a child under 18 years of
age residing in the state; or
(ii) has a child under 18 years of age
residing in the state, but the prisoner's parental
rights to the child have been terminated"
Page 2, lines 17 - 19:
Delete "state. Notwithstanding AS 36.30.300, an
agreement with a private agency to provide necessary
facilities outside the state under (a) of this section
must be based on competitive bids."
Insert "state or outside the state.
[NOTWITHSTANDING AS 36.30.300, AN AGREEMENT WITH A
PRIVATE AGENCY TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FACILITIES UNDER
(a) OF THIS SECTION MUST BE BASED ON COMPETITIVE
BIDS.]"
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "or"
Page 3, line 3, following "health":
Insert "or security"
Page 3, line 4, following "considerations":
Insert "; or
(C) would reduce the cost of housing a
prisoner who is not a resident of the state or has
been sentenced to a term or aggregate term of
imprisonment of 99 years or more, and, if the prisoner
is a parent, the prisoner
(i) does not have a child under 18 years of
age residing in the state; or
(ii) has a child under 18 years of age
residing in the state, but the prisoner's parental
rights to the child have been terminated"
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS mentioned that he worked with Representative
Jackson's office to incorporate her suggestions into the
proposed amendment. He explained that the intent of Amendment 1
is that if it is cheaper to house a prisoner out of state, in
the case of a prisoner sentenced to serve 99 years or longer -
essentially a life sentence - who does not have family for whom
family visitation is important for the emotional development of
a child who lives in Alaska, then the Department of Corrections
(DOC) would have the option of housing that prisoner out of
state. He added that the prisoners in this category number 20
or fewer. He noted that there are a few prisoners currently
incarcerated out of state. As an example, a police officer who
commits an offense is incarcerated out of state for security
reasons. Nothing in the proposed amendment or the proposed
legislation would inhibit the ability of DOC to house a limited
population of prisoners out of state consistent with the
Interstate Corrections Compact.
3:26:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON referred to page 2, line 27, of
Amendment 1, which read in part, "... imprisonment of 99 years
or more ..." He asked how long a prisoner sentenced to 99 years
with [the possibility of] parole must serve before being
eligible for parole.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that the intent of the amendment was
that it apply to those incarcerated for life. He suggested
getting an opinion from Legislative Legal Services.
3:28:00 PM
KELLY GOODE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections
(DOC), responded that there are many considerations for
calculating time served; however, in general, it is possible for
an inmate to reduce his/her sentence by one-third for good
behavior. She stated that Alaska does not give life sentences;
sentences are given in years. She offered that the age of the
individual and the average lifespan would determine whether a
sentence constitutes a life imprisonment, and DOC considers 78
years of age to be an average lifespan for a male.
3:29:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether someone sentenced to 99-
plus years would be transferred automatically out of state under
HB 187.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied no. The proposed legislation would give
the commissioner of DOC the option of doing so if it is cost
effective.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether it would be based on cost
alone and not the type of crime.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS reiterated that HB 187 would give the
commissioner the option if it is cheaper. The commissioner may
take other factors into account, which are not specified in the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether those other factors would
be at the digression of the commissioner on an individual basis.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a person, who has his/her
sentence reduced, would be transferred back to an Alaska
facility.
MS. GOODE replied that as HB 187 reads, the [exemption] would
not be applicable at that point and DOC would have to review the
case.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to Amendment 1, [page 1, line
22], which read, "... is not a resident of the state ...", and
asked, "Do we currently have anybody housed in Alaska who is not
a resident of the state?"
MS. GOODE answered that there are people who travel to Alaska
and commit crimes, and they may be incarcerated by Alaska DOC.
She said she would provide that number but does not expect it to
be very large.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether criminals serve their time
where they commit their crimes.
MS. GOODE replied, "For the most part, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for the variables [that would
determine the location of incarceration].
MS. GOODE responded, "In general, we sentence the folks up here,
except for the 11 people right now that we have in different
locations due to extenuating circumstances."
3:32:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for the current policy for sending
inmates Outside.
MS. GOODE stated that currently there is a classification unit
that looks at the best housing options for inmates. For
example, if a former police officer has committed a crime and is
incarcerated, DOC is notified internally of that individual.
The classification unit will review that case because of the
security issues associated with housing that person in state due
to his/her prior profession. The department works with other
states through the compact - as described in statute - to find a
suitable placement.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Goode for her recommendation on
statutory wording to reflect Representative Jackson's intent as
it relates to life-long inmates who will not be released.
MS. GOODE responded that she understands the representative's
intent, and mathematically the "99 years or more" is a close
approximation. She said that, broadly speaking, if someone
commits a crime at 20 years old, earned all the "good time"
available to him/her, the remaining 60 years to be served would
exceed the anticipated average lifespan of 78 years. She said
policy is the legislature's purview, but according to the
mathematics, the proposed amendment approaches Representative
Jackson's intent. She added that DOC estimates that there are
about 200 people who fall into the category of people not likely
to be released, and the wording in the amendment encompasses
most of them. She offered to work with the sponsor to achieve
the goal behind the amendment.
3:37:07 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Sharon Jackson, on behalf
of Representative Jackson, acknowledged that the "99 years" may
not be ideal language and confirmed that Representative
Jackson's intent is to not send prisoners out of state who will
be released into Alaska. He mentioned alternate wording,
drafted by Legislative Legal Services, to encompass the group of
prisoners not likely to be released, but it was not ready by the
amendment deadline.
3:39:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:39 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.
3:41:30 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS made comments on process.
3:42:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected to Amendment 1 for
clarification purposes.
3:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how DOC would determine which out-
of-state facilities will afford Alaska lower costs.
MS. GOODE reminded the committee that the proposed amendment was
not submitted by DOC. She opined that DOC would need to develop
guidelines for making these determinations. She mentioned that
the cost of one inmate per day in Alaska is $168.74; the
classification unit has relationships with other states and
knows the costs associated with other states' public prisons.
In this way DOC would ensure that cost savings were realized as
required by statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether all people sentenced to 99
years or longer committed violent crimes, or whether there are
other crimes resulting in incarceration for 99 years, such as
extensive drug dealing crimes.
MS. GOODE answered that she cannot answer that question. She
relayed that unclassified felonies do result in incarceration
for that length of time, and perhaps conspiracy is an
unclassified felony. She offered to provide that information.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said, in summary, that Amendment 1 would allow
DOC the option of housing a very limited subsection of prisoners
- those with extremely long sentences of 99 years or more - out
of state in the event that such out-of-state placement would
save money based on a reasonably comprehensive analysis. It
does not mandate that the commissioner place prisoners out of
state; it does not prescribe certain groups to be placed out of
state; it does not alter the department's existing authority
under the Interstate Corrections Compact.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, it was so ordered.
3:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the exclusion of parents [with
children living in Alaska] among the categories of inmates that
may be sent out of state, [page 2, line 25 - page 3, line 2],
and asked whether adult children of Alaska residents should be
excluded as well, in view of DOC's concern for family ties. She
offered another point - a parent is listed for exclusion but in
some cases a guardian of a child under 18 may be involved, not a
parent. She added that in some cultures other relatives raise a
child. She asked that these additional circumstances be
considered to protect the family unit.
3:49:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE relayed that she supports keeping Alaska
prisoners in state; it is vital for the rehabilitation of
inmates to become productive members of the community. She
referred to the fiscal note (FN) analysis, which read:
If this legislation were passed, these prisoners would
be required to remain within an Alaska prison and
could jeopardize the safety and security of the staff,
prisoners, and facility. ... If this legislation were
passed, it is unknown the full financial impacts that
could result from; facility overcrowding, increased
staffing overtime, potential litigation, facility
renovations and repairs, as well as other costs
associated with identifying increased bed capacity;
therefore, an indeterminate fiscal note is being
submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that this portion of the analysis
is concerning and asked for further explanation.
MS. GOODE replied that two questions are being asked. The first
- about security issues - was addressed by Amendment 1; DOC will
be able to take those security risks and work with other states;
therefore, that portion of the FN will be modified. The second
portion of the analysis reflects the department's view of having
the available tools to manage the prison population when the
tools are needed. Regarding facility overcrowding, she offered
the following: Having the ability to send inmates out of state
- although not the desired option - is a "population tool" to
manage prison overcapacity, avoid being sued, and address
security issues. The department cannot anticipate all the
consequences of overcrowding but wants as many tools as possible
to manage it.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE offered her understanding that there are
many halfway house beds available at $90 per day. She asked
whether DOC has the flexibility to put unsentenced prisoners
into the halfway houses to accommodate capacity and funding
concerns.
MS. GOODE replied that DOC fully supports placing inmates into
community residential centers (CRCs) - halfway houses - as well
as on electronic monitoring (EM). She said that there are many
restrictions that guide DOC, both municipal ordinances and state
statutes. She relayed that one minimum custody inmate may
qualify for both housing options, but there are not many inmates
who qualify for either. She said that DOC has been reviewing
inmates constantly since the legislative session [of 2019] in
response to the pressure to release prisoners when it is safe to
do so. The caveat for DOC is finding appropriate inmates for
release. She stated that by statute, DOC cannot put someone
with the charge of domestic violence (DV) out on EM; therefore,
that group of inmates is not eligible for release. She added
that there are ordinances that preclude putting someone charged
as a sex offender into a CRC. Some locations allow someone
charged with a felony crime to be released, some do not. Being
sentenced versus unsentenced can make a difference for release.
She maintained that the classification unit is constantly
looking at options for inmates. The bed charge for CRCs is
less, DOC would like to take advantage of that, but it is a
matter of finding the right inmate at the right time with the
right amount of time left on his/her sentence. She mentioned
that a halfway house is transitional housing for reintegration
back into society; it would be inappropriate to put someone with
five years left on his/her sentence into a halfway house.
3:55:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to page 2, lines 15-17, which
read:
The commissioner may not enter into an agreement with
a private agency to establish, maintain, operate,
control, or provide necessary facilities located in
this state.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether DOC has agreements with
private agencies that HB 187 would limit.
MS. GOODE expressed her belief that HB 187 refers to private
prison facilities; Alaska does not have such agreements. She
stated that Alaska's CRCs are through private contracts; she
offered her understanding that HB 187 does not apply to CRCs.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS agreed that the intent of the proposed
legislation is not to limit CRCs operated by private entities.
He said, "That would be disruptive."
3:57:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY acknowledged that an inmate would not serve
as a guardian; she expressed her concern that close relatives be
considered under the proposed legislation.
3:58:07 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public and invited testimony on
HB 187.
3:58:28 PM
CATHLEEN MCLAUGHLIN, Owner, Restorative and Reentry Services
LLC, testified that she supports HB 187 but cautioned the
committee to be careful about the language in Amendment 1. As
the former director of the Partners Reentry Center [Anchorage],
she attested to there being many 99-year sentence people
released from prison on parole - so many that the center created
a group specifically for these people, because they have
different reentry plans than people who are short termers. She
maintained that in her experience, the assumption that inmates
sentenced for 99 years will serve at least 60-plus years was
just not true. Prisoners were applying for and getting parole
after 25-30 years.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN offered five points supportive of HB 187: 1) The
displacement of inmates into areas outside of Alaska discourages
rehabilitation. She emphasized the importance of an inmate
being a family member and having a support group in the
community in which that inmate lives. 2) Without HB 187,
healthy communities that have been created within the walls of
the correctional facilities are disassembled. She maintained
that there are currently restorative programs in Spring Creek
Correctional Center (SCCC) [Seward], Wildwood Correctional
Center (WCC) [Kenai], and Hiland Mountain Correctional Center
(HMCC) [Eagle River] with active participants and mentors. The
long termers help run programs and model behavior. She said
SCCC has a long termer who is now teaching a morals and ethics
class that is highly popular, because he was able to model the
behavior of a professor who came into the prison to teach non-
violent conflict resolution. She asserted that long termers can
be assets inside prison walls, if they are provided an
opportunity to participate in restorative programming. 3)
Communities need to meet their soon-to-be neighbors before
release. The DOC historically - in the past five years - has
allowed community-based reentry centers, faith-based groups, and
mentors to go into prisons to develop healthy relationships with
the inmates, so that when the inmates are released, they have
some place "to land." It would be difficult to continue to grow
those kinds of programs when individuals with whom one is trying
to build relationships are not in Alaska. It is especially
important for the Alaska Native population who are incarcerated.
She offered that 38 percent of the prison population is Alaska
Native and only 18-19 percent of the Alaska population is Alaska
Native. Not allowing these prisoners community access to help
them grow with community members is not a healthy choice for the
state. 4) For-profit prisons monetize punishment; they
encourage more punitive approaches than rehabilitative and
restorative approaches. Research demonstrates that there is an
increase in technical violations and lack of incentive programs
in private prisons, because the incarcerated individual is not a
person but a product, and private prisons look for the lowest
cost alternative. The reason it is a low-cost alternative is
because it is a "containment" model and not a "restorative"
model. The national trend is to steer away from for-profit
prisons. She recommended that Alaska follow that trend. 5) HB
187 would provide Alaskans a guarantee that there will not be a
change in policy every four years that changes cultures within
the institutions - cultures that have grown over time. It is
important for restorative programs to have continuity, and not
be subject to changes in Alaska's political structure. She
encouraged the state to "grow" what is working [within the
correctional system] and eliminate what is not. She maintained
that culture changes within institutions require time; behavior
does not improve "at the flip of a switch"; the culture must be
grown so that the people inside view the institution as a place
of safety and participation. She added that she is a strong
advocate for DOC having control over choices that need to be
made. When you send people to non-profit centers out of state,
Alaskans lose the local accountability that comes with housing
prisoners locally.
4:06:41 PM
MIKE COONS paraphrased from the following prepared statement
[original punctuation provided]:
[First], from what I read in this legislation, the DOC
Commissioner is being denied the ability to use sound
management practices in putting prisoners where they
will cost us the least amount of money, specifically
for those with a long record of crime and no attempts
to correct criminal behavior. I can see keeping and
housing first term prisoners here, with strong
programs to help them reintegrate back into the
community and not return to a life of crime. Moving
hardened criminals out of State or into more
appropriate max security prisons keeps the first timer
away from the hardened criminal. That increases the
safety for the first timer and keeps them from
learning the crime trade even more.
[Second] and something that I have yet to see done
here and very few other States. When a crime is
committed that is not just a State of Alaska crime,
but a Federal crime, we need to turn that suspect over
to the US Attorney General's office for prosecution.
This saves Alaska costs at trial and prison costs.
This gets that convicted criminal out of Alaska, into
a Federal prison at the cost of the Federal prison
system. Sure, we the taxpayers pay for that, but we
do that already. These are serious crimes and most
likely not something that a person with no criminal
history would commit, thus they are the problem
criminals that have a very poor recidivism rate to
begin with.
This [second] idea may be out of the scope of the
Commissioner of DOC, but why can't this bill be a path
towards reducing prison overcrowding, prison costs as
well as a means to realistically reduce the recidivism
rate in our prisons.
4:09:21 PM
DAVID NEES offered that HB 187 is a good conversation starter
for housing prisoners in Alaska. The reason for SCCC was due to
a judge's decision that Alaska could not house prisoners Outside
because of the absence of rehabilitation and closeness to
family. It was a very expensive lawsuit to lose and cost the
state several million dollars. He maintained that under HB 187,
it would be difficult for the commissioner of DOC to comply with
a judge's order; if a judge says the prisons are overcrowded,
the commissioner would not have the option under HB 187 to send
inmates out of state.
MR. NEES said that, as an education researcher for many years,
there is very little data on the inmates and their histories.
He maintained that the proposed legislation needs more work,
which could possibly be done in the next committee of referral.
4:11:46 PM
KATIE BOTZ testified that she supports keeping family members
close and inmates in Alaska. She expressed her understanding
that sending inmates out of Alaska would cost the state more
than keeping them in state. Since Alaska is low on revenue, it
makes sense to reopen Palmer Correctional Center (PCC). She
referred to her written testimony (included in the committee
packet). She mentioned that she does not want Alaska to be
viewed as a weak state which cannot take care of its own crimes
and inmates. Alaska is a strong state and should take care of
its own problems.
4:13:54 PM
LAURA BONNER testified that she remembers the fiasco of private
prisons in Alaska and the discussions to bring Alaska prisoners
back. She said she remembers the corruption and inefficiencies
of that time and expressed that Alaska should never "go back to
that." She said that she personally knows four prisoners who
were incarcerated in out-of-state prisons; most of their crimes
were fueled by trying to finance substance abuse. She relayed
that she corresponded with all of them: they reported that they
were isolated, pressured to become involved with gangs for their
protection, had no access to rehabilitation programs or
substance abuse recovery programs; and had no visitors while out
of state. She asserted that the state could do a better job
with them in state; Alaska does not need to contribute to gang
recruitment; and while there still are not enough programs for
reentry into the community, Alaska has made progress in that
direction. She stated that it is important to continue this
progress rather than utilize private prisons or send prisoners
out of state. Reopening PCC is a step in the right direction.
4:16:10 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 187.
4:16:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS thanked the many legislators who assisted with
HB 187.
4:17:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked that action on HB 187 be postponed.
She offered that there are many issues yet to be resolved and
the committee should "get it right." She opined that there is
ample time to move the proposed legislation in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY suggested that a House Finance Standing
Committee member could make changes to HB 187 in committee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he does not have concerns about
moving HB 187 through the House; his concerns are with getting
it to the Senate on time to deliberate it and vote on it before
the end of the session. It is very difficult to schedule a bill
in the Senate toward the end of session; there are many more
steps before HB 187 can become law.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed that she wishes to amend the
proposed legislation in the current committee to get it right.
4:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to table HB 187 until a later date in
order to get legal advice on the amendments.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected to the motion.
4:21:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:21:38 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Hopkins, and
Thompson voted in favor of tabling HB 187. Representatives
Shaw, Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it.
Therefore, tabling HB 187 failed by a vote of 3-5.
4:22:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HB 187, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and an indeterminant
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, Hopkins,
Story, Fields, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of reporting HB
187, as amended, out of committee. Representatives Thompson and
Vance voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 187(STA) was reported
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-
2.
4:24:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:24
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR015 DRAFT Fiscal Note OG-DOE-1-17-20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |
| HB187 DRAFT Fiscal Note DOC-IDO-1-17-2020.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Public Testimony 1.28.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Amendment #1.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Supporting Doucment - Committee Testimony 1.28.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Letter of Support - Public Testimony 1.23.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HB 187 Letter of Support - Public Testimony 1.27.20.20 |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 187 |
| HJR 15 Letter of Support - Testimony 1.30.20.pdf |
HSTA 1/28/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 15 |