Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/05/2001 01:38 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
February 5, 2001
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chair
Senator Dave Donley, Vice Chair
Senator John Cowdery
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 23
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
Supervision and the State Council for Interstate Adult Offender
Supervision; amending Rules 4 and 24, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Larry Jones, Executive Director
Parole Board
PO Box 112000
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 23
Ms. Lynda Zaugg, Director
Division of Community Corrections
Department of Corrections
4500 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 109
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-5918
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 25
Mr. Blair McCune
Alaska Public Defender Agency
900 West 5th Avenue, #200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 25
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-3, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 1:38 p.m. Present were Chairman Taylor, Senator
Donley, Senator Cowdery and Senator Therriault. Senator Ellis
arrived at 1:55 p.m.
SB 23-EXTEND TERMINATION DATE FOR BD OF PAROLE
MR. LARRY JONES, Executive Director, Board of Parole, said the
board acts under the sunset rule for boards and commissions. The
Board of Parole is up for reinstatement June 30, 2001 and SB 23
extends the date to 2006. The extension is usually three years but
SB 23 allows for a five year extension. There is a constitutional
mandate in Alaska for a parole system and the parole board meets
that constitutional mandate. The board is autonomous, it is not
officially part of the Department of Corrections (DOC) but it is
integrated into DOC.
MR. JONES said the board consists of five members. Each board
member is appointed for five years. The appointments are staggered
with some members having served for many years.
MR. JONES said the board meets for face-to-face hearings and also
face-to-face parole hearings. The board feels strongly that the
face-to-face, eye contact, body language part of the hearings are
very important for proper decision-making.
MR. JONES commented that the board is please with their decision-
making, with statistics showing that less than five percent of the
discretionary parolees have revocations and these are usually
technical revocations. The greatest role of the board, in terms of
time consumption, is revocation hearings - 95 percent of the
revocation hearings are for mandatory parolees. Mandatory parole
is when a prisoner has served his time and is being released
without consideration by the parole board.
MR. JONES noted that public safety is the primary consideration for
a release. Extension is also a considerable factor in inmate
population control. It costs $100.00 a day for an inmate in a
"hard bed" (prison), and less than $10.00 a day for being released
to community corrections supervision on the street. The state
saves $8 to $10 million dollars by releasing prisoners to the
street. The parole board budget is less than $500,000.
Number 352
SENATOR DONLEY requested copies of the legislative budget and audit
report for the board of parole and said there should not be a
sunset bill until the audit has been released and is available for
public comment.
Number 434
SENATOR COWDERY asked for the location of the parole board
hearings.
MR. JONES responded that there are hearings at every prison site in
the state. There is a general policy that if there are fewer than
five people up for a hearing, the board will not go to that prison.
For equity though, if there is an in-person hearing, a
teleconference can be used to hear from other prisoners. There are
even hearings at the contracted private facility in Arizona.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the average pay is for a board member.
MR. JONES answered that the governor establishes compensation for
the board. The rate is $150 a day and $75 for half a day when
conducting business for the board. Yearly pay is $15,000 to
$30,000, depending on the amount of time a member puts in. This
figure has not been changed since 1984.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if this amount is adequate.
MR. JONES replied that what was equitable in 1984 does not meet
inflation and other factors today. The audit speaks to this
matter.
Number 570
SENATOR COWDERY asked if a five-member board is adequate for a
quorum.
MR. JONES responded that five members are adequate. This is a
working board, traveling two full weeks a month. Having more than
five members could make the decision process more complex.
Number 610
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
(LB&A) reviewed the parole board audit in its last meeting. The
audit is now with the Department of Corrections for their review.
The final audit will be out at the next LB&A meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked when that would be.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that has not been determined yet. It may
depend on whether the Administration has any revised program-
legislative (RPL) for the committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Jones how long he has been on the parole
board.
MR. JONES said he has been on the board for five years.
Number 690
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there has been any political pressure put
on the board to expedite people out of prison.
MR. JONES replied no. The parole board is a quasi-judicial board
and it does not receive this type of pressure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked about the recidivism rate. What is the
percentage mandated by law?
MR. JONES said of all the revocation hearings the board holds,
about four percent are for people who are allowed out on
discretionary parole. 96 percent of revocations are for people who
are released because their sentence was over.
CHAIRMAN TYALOR asked about people who have done a certain amount
of time and are then released on mandatory probation.
MR. JONES replied that after a revocation hearing, the board sets
conditions for all mandatory parolees prior to their release.
There are conditions of parole the parolee has to abide by. If
they fail to abide by the conditions, parole is revoked. The board
can then decide to put them back in prison, let them out, or revoke
a portion of the time.
Number 800
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the violations of parole are just
technical violations?
MR. JONES said the vast majority of the offenses are technical
violations. If the person commits a new criminal offense, the
board does not see them until there is a resolution in the court
system for the new offense. The parolee then goes into "limbo," in
terms of the board seeing them, until the court resolves what will
happen. Sometimes the parolee will spend a lot more time in prison
for the new crime than the board has time to control them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the parolee would be on the street during
this "limbo" time.
MR. JONES said no, but in some cases they could be bailed out. The
board is notified of the offense and depending on the crime, such
as rape, the board is very likely to keep them in prison so they
cannot be released on bail.
MR. JONES gave the committee copies of the parole board's annual
report and said the report is also on the board's web page.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said SB 23 would be held until the committee can
see the budget and audit report.
SB 25-COMPACT FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION
Number 1075
MS. LYNDA ZAUGG, Director of the Division of Community Corrections
(DCC), Department of Corrections (DOC), provided a brief history on
SB 25. In the supervision of probation parolees that travel across
state lines, there is an Interstate Compact Act, which has been in
existence since 1937. The compact has virtually been a gentleman's
agreement - if someone were sent to Alaska, Alaska would supervise
him or her in exchange for that state supervising an offender from
Alaska. This agreement is no longer working well. The parolee
population has increased significantly and people are moving across
state lines at a greater rate than in 1937. There are a number of
states putting in individual laws trying to deal with the problems
that are occurring. The Council on State Government and the
National Institute of Corrections joined forces to see if they
could revise the current interstate compact act to fit with what is
going on in today's society. SB 25 is what the two groups came up
with to deal with today's problems. SB 25 is an effort on the part
of states to be in agreement on how they deal with people who are
on probation and parole moving across state lines. 35 states have
to ratify the compact before it will go into effect. DCC would
like Alaska to be one of the 35 states because the first 35 states
will be involved in establishing the regulations that govern the
interstate compact act across the nation. Because Alaska is small,
it needs to worry about having provisions imposed on it by larger
states. Therefore DCC would like to be part of the ratification so
it can have a representative to speak on behalf of Alaska.
Number 1178
SENATOR COWDERY asked how DCC tracks people coming and going from
Alaska.
MS. ZAUGG replied that DCC has a computer system for tracking and
every state has an interstate office. Anyone leaving Alaska files
a written formal request that goes to the Alaska interstate office.
This request is forwarded to the interstate office of the state the
parolee wants to go to. The proposed state looks at the request to
determine if it is an appropriate request. It is then sent to the
local area for a determination of the offender's plan. The local
area then decides whether or not they will allow that person to
enter their state.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what happens if people do not play by the
rules. Would Alaska know if someone has come to the state without
permission?
MS. ZAUGG said that sometimes DCC does not know. One of the
proposals in the new compact is a method whereby states can handle
grievances between each other over the inappropriate sending of
offenders from one point to another. The new proposal allows for a
way to mediate problems of extradition and supervision.
MS. ZAUGG said Alaska has 344 offenders in other states and there
are 220 people from other states in Alaska. Traditionally, there
are more people leaving Alaska than coming in.
Number 1328
SENATOR COWDERY asked what the anticipated costs are.
MS. ZAUGG said the fiscal note shows $31,700 the first year and
$23,700 for the following four years. The cost to Alaska for
participating in the interstate compact is expected to be about
$18,000 annually - this is built into the $31,700.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if any of the costs are shared.
MS. ZAUGG said no, but Alaska has more people placed out of state
than people coming in.
Number 1386
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he is concerned with details that will not be
established until after the commission comes up with the rules and
regulations. He is concerned that Alaska could become a dumping
ground for people that other states do not want, such as sex
offenders. There need to be methods for tracking and notification.
MS ZAUGG said this is an area that people are paying particular
attention to. DCC does not allow sexual offenders to leave Alaska
on a travel permit until the request has gone to the other state
and they have investigated the plan and gotten back to DCC. This
has come into being because so many states have put in different
requirements for registering. Because sex offenders are high risk,
DCC will not send someone to another state without their approval.
Of the 220 people who are in Alaska under interstate supervision,
12 are sex offenders. DCC is careful in their review of sex
offender files before even allowing a field review.
Number 1550
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there is "state shopping" for getting a
parolee out of a state. Is Alaska an attractive state?
MS. ZAUGG said no, in terms of sex offender registration. There
are not many states that do not have registration for sex
offenders.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Alaska "state shops." What happens when a
parolee is turned down by another state?
MS. ZAUGG replied it depends on why someone is turned down. Under
the current compact, people need to be accepted if they have a home
in the area or family members that will be responsible for them or
if they have a job. Not meeting one of these conditions is grounds
for a legitimate turndown. But if there is a turn down when all
the conditions are met, it needs to be made clear what else the
person has to do to secure placement.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the passage of SB 25 would mean that only
those people coming in will meet Alaska standards and only the
people leaving will meet other states standards.
MS. ZAUGG said that with this legislation, states would be able to
enforce the standards they set.
Number 1715
SENATOR DONLEY asked why a council is needed.
MS. ZAUGG said that right now, under the current interstate
compact, there is an informal gathering of interstate compact
administrators, one from each state, and there is no mechanism for
anyone to make a decision or establish regulations.
SENATOR DONLEY asked why a state committee is needed.
MS. ZAUGG responded that the people involved with the Council on
State Government and the National Institute of Corrections, wanted
to be sure that states had a board or commission that could
regulate the interstate compact within each state.
SENATOR DONLEY asked why.
MS. ZAUGG said it was probably because a council within the state
would set their own regulations for what they are willing to deal
with.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the anticipated board, created by this
legislation, would be empowered to adopt regulations.
MS ZAUGG said this is not her understanding but the council would
be in a position to make recommendations for what will be done
within Alaska.
SENATOR DONLEY asked if this would be an advisory board to DOC.
MS. ZAUGG said her understanding is that if any problems were to
develop with people DOC was sending in or out of the state, it
would be run through the board. The board would be designed to
handle problems involving rules on how to go about getting people
through the interstate process.
SENATOR DONLEY said he needs an answer about whether or not the
board has regulatory authority. He also asked if there would be
legislative confirmation for the board.
MS. ZAUGG said she does not believe this is in SB 25. The governor
approves the two community members and the person from the
Department of Law. The commissioner of DOC would designate the
other people.
Number 1819
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there would be a requirement for a victims
advocate on the board.
MS. ZAUGG replied yes. One of the two citizen members appointed
would be a victims' representative.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what type of victim would be represented.
MS. ZAUGG said the legislation does not specify what type of
victim.
SENATOR DONLEY said there is a huge difference in the different
victim classes. This is another question he would like answered.
SENATOR DONLEY asked how victim rights are protected in the
compact.
MS. ZAUGG answered that the compact makes sure that victim rights
are addressed. Once the compact is ratified, the Alaska
representative will be part of the group establishing the
regulations that will apply nationwide. One of the things they are
tasked with doing during the first twelve months is to address the
victim notification issues across the country.
SENATOR DONLEY asked how the compact insures victim notification
requirements are complied with.
MS. ZAUGG said this has not been specified yet. There has not been
a meeting to establish how this would be done and how each state
would comply with the notification requirements of other states.
SENATOR DONLEY said SB 25 is asking Alaska to authorize a specific
interstate compact before it has been decided how the compact will
deal with victim notification.
MS. ZAUGG read from SB 25, page 13:
(g) Subjects to be addressed within 12 months after the first
meeting must at a minimum include the following:
(1) Notice to victims and opportunity to be heard;
Number 1906
SENATOR DONLEY said, "This was kind of a pig in a poke." He would
rather see specific provisions in the compact regarding victim
notification before he votes to enter into an interstate compact.
He does not want this option decided at a later date.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was trying to understand what the council
had done - he read from page 20 of SB 25:
Sec. 33.36.140. State council. (a) There is created the
State Council for Interstate Adult Offender Supervision to
implement the provisions of the compact set out in AS 33.36.110.
The state council shall meet as frequently as necessary to carry
out its responsibilities.
(b) The state council consists of seven members as follows:
(1) the commissioner of corrections; the commissioner of
corrections may name a designee to serve in this capacity;
(2) the compact administrator appointed under AS
33.36.130;
(3) an attorney employed in the Department of Law,
appointed by the governor;
(4) two members appointed by the governor from among the
citizens of the state, at least one of whom must be a
representative from victims' groups;
(5) one ex officio nonvoting member from the legislative
branch selected by the legislature and one ex officio nonvoting
member from the judicial branch selected by the judiciary.
(c) The commissioner of corrections or the commissioner's
designee shall serve as chair of the state council.
(e) Voting members of the state council who are not state
employees receive no salary for their work on the council, but are
entitled to per diem and travel expenses authorized for other
boards and commissions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it looks like SB 25 has been set up as a
shell. In response to Senator Donley's question about the council
being able to make regulations and pass policy, Chairman Taylor
read from page 21, line 23:
(4) make recommendations to the legislature to facilitate the
implementation of the compact and the rules and bylaws adopted by
the Interstate Commission.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said SB 25 appears to be advisory only.
Number 2013
SENATOR DONLEY said that Alaska has constitutional provisions to
protect victim rights and if the state agrees to this compact
without knowing what victim rights will be in the future, how will
the state know it has complied with Alaska's constitutional
protections? There is no guarantee that victim rights will be
protected. Senator Donley said he is reluctant to vote for an
interstate compact that does not specifically insure that Alaska's
constitutional rights are protected.
Number 2092
MS. ZAUGG said the compact would not reduce the victim notification
obligations that DOC currently has. Across the nation, victim
rights are a top priority. But under the current compact, there is
no requirement for victim notification. There is a concerted
effort in Alaska to notify victims, but every state has a different
policy for notification, which makes it hard to track. An overview
group is needed to closely track this information and help with
compliance.
SENATOR DONLEY said Alaska should be diligent in making sure victim
rights are protected in a compact that could possibly supersede
Alaska's constitution. Senator Donley is concerned with only one
victim advocate being on the committee. State bureaucratic
interests that are not sympathetic to making sure that Alaska's
constitution on victim rights are preserved could dominate the
committee.
Number 2150
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he was fascinated by the language on page 21
which says:
INDIRECT COURT RULE AMENDMENT. (a) Article VIII (a)(2),
contained in AS 33.36.110 as repealed and reenacted by
sec. 2 of this Act, has the effect of amending Rule 4,
Rules of Civil Procedure, by entitling the Interstate
Commission for Adult Offender Supervision to receive
service of process of a judicial proceeding in this state
that pertains to the Interstate Compact for Adult
Offender Supervision and that may affect the powers,
responsibilities, or actions of that commission.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he thinks Article (a)(2) refers to a
constitutional article or a subsection within the Alaska statute.
For this legislation to pass and have the desired effect, the
legislature will have to achieve a two-thirds majority vote from
each house to amend this court rule. Chairman Taylor asked that
DOC have someone come to the committee and clarify this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked how quickly this compact is moving through
other states.
MS. ZAUGG, looking at information she had from the web page, said
seven states ratified the compact last year, and 23 states have
legislation in before their appropriate bodies this year.
Number 2293
SENATOR DONLEY said he would find it helpful if the people who are
asking the committee to hear bills included a packet with statutes
or court rules they are proposing to amend. Senator Donley would
like this adopted as a general operating procedure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed, and asked Ms. Zaugg to call on the
Department of Law to provide the committee with a copy of the
statute and rules that are to be amended.
Number 2336
Side B
MR. BLAIR MCCUNE, Public Defender's Office (PD), testifying via
teleconference from Anchorage, said the PD feels this compact,
unlike the current compact, does require victim notification and
that Alaska statutes would supersede anything. There are many
people who come to Alaska and get into trouble and their family and
contacts are out-or-state. The PD thinks that a structured system
where people can be sent back to their support system quickly and
with a solid plan in place is a good thing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the committee would hold SB 25 until they have
further information on the questions that were raised during the
meeting.
With no further business to come before the committee, CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 2:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|