HB 35-PRISONERS: ELECTRONIC DEVICE ACCESS/USE  3:51:21 PM CHAIR CARRICK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 35, "An Act relating to the use and possession of electronic devices by prisoners." [Before the committee was CSHB 35(CRA).] 3:51:58 PM CHAIR CARRICK moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 35(CRA), labeled 34-LS0355\G.2, C. Radford, 3/31/25, which read as follows: Page 3, line 17: Delete "[AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE]" Insert "and may not be used for any other purpose or as a substitution for in-person visitation,  receiving mail, receiving medical services, or other  in-person communication" Page 3, lines 21 - 23: Delete all material. Renumber the following bill section accordingly. CHAIR CARRICK objected for the purpose of discussion. She said HB 35 pertains to new opportunities for inmates in Alaska's correctional system by receiving certain services on tablets. She talked about touring the Lemon Creek Facility; it is noteworthy that in aging facilities there are portions of the facility being built but not utilized for various reasons. She said one of her concerns with the current legislation is that devices could be substituted for in-person services. The amendment specifies that tablets cannot be used as a substitute for in-person visitation, receiving mail, receiving medical services, or other in-person communication. 3:54:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she understands the intent, but she had questions regarding the wording. She asked if Amendment 1 would prohibit someone from having visitation from across the state via the tablet. CHAIR CARRICK replied no, it would not. She said if service is not available, then it's possible to use the tablet. She explained options and selected preferred form of visitation. Currently, the Department of Corrections (DOC) cannot fly out individuals for visitation, so this doesn't open the door. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said that she appreciates putting this on the record and wanted to make sure that the intent is clear that it would allow options. She asked whether the commissioner would still have the flexibility for security reasons to allow visitation only via tablet, like during the COVID-19 pandemic. She thinks DOC extended it longer than needed. She asked, "Does the way it is written allow the Commissioner flexibility?" 3:58:56 PM APRIL WILKERSON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections, stated that the intent is to not prohibit and eliminate in- person visitation. The understanding is if in-person visitation was not available for various reasons, then the tablets would be a viable option. These tablets would be a substitution on a case-by-case basis. CHAIR CARRICK said that is her understanding of the language and intent. 4:00:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT stated this amendment was discussed with DOC. These tablets are to supplement not supplant services. 4:01:15 PM CHAIR CARRICK removed her objection to Amendment 1 to CSHB 35(CRA). There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 4:01:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB 35(CRA), as amended, labeled 34-LS0355\G.3, C. Radford, 4/7/25, which read as follows: Page 1, line 1, following "prisoners": Insert "; and relating to service of sentence by  electronic monitoring" Page 3, following line 23: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Sec. 3. AS 33.30.065(d) is amended to read: (d) Other than a prisoner for whom payment is  required under (e) of this section, the [THE] commissioner may require a prisoner designated to serve a term of imprisonment or a period of temporary confinement by electronic monitoring to pay all or a portion of the costs of the electronic monitoring. The  commissioner may require payment under this subsection [, BUT] only if the prisoner has sufficient financial resources to pay the costs or a portion of the costs.  * Sec. 4. AS 33.30.065 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (e) The commissioner shall designate a prisoner to serve the prisoner's term of imprisonment or period of temporary commitment, or a part of the term or period, by electronic monitoring provided by a private contractor if (1) the prisoner resides outside of an area where electronic monitoring is provided by the department; (2) after considering the criteria listed in (b) of this section, the commissioner determines the prisoner is eligible for electronic monitoring; and (3) the prisoner pays all costs associated with the electronic monitoring." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. 4:01:41 PM CHAIR CARRICK objected for purpose of discussion. 4:01:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said this is about addressing a gap. She talked about this issue in her district with a constituent in rehabilitation. He was well on the path to becoming a success story. The department told him that he must move up to Kenai to be in a service zone. Amendment 2 just clarifies that this constituent would still be able to live in area and would not need to uproot to a Department of Corrections service area. This situation is impacting more than one individual, and she is looking for a solution. She noted that the constituent appeared in front of a judge to settle this situation, but the department maintained that he needs to be in the service area. He must get a new job, new place to live, and not be in his support network. She said the proposed language would provide a solution for people doing all the right things to become rehabilitated. 4:05:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE indicated that serving on a finance subcommittee has shown him that electronic monitoring is a huge cost for the Department of Corrections. He asked Ms. Wilkerson why ankle monitoring is allowed in Kenai but not in Homer. He added that he wondered if this decision pertains to the ability to monitor or addresses the ability to enforce. MS. WILKERSON responded that monitoring used to be available in Homer but was eliminated because of a lack of resources to respond timely and efficiently. The department is reevaluating the electronic monitoring program with private monitoring and is re-evaluating the situation and considering how to account for time served on a private program. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about a private contractor, such as Life Alert, and whether this is what was being talked about with private monitoring. MS. WILKERSON replied that that is her understanding. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented on payment responsibility and asked if there is a contractor in place. MS. WILKERSON replied there were a few private providers that offer this service. 4:09:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND pointed to language regarding a "private contractor" in [subsection (e)] on line 16 [as numbered in Amendment 2], and he said that it sounds like there are already private contractors in place. He questioned what Amendment 2 would add. He then asked whether there are existing controls in place for who can be a private contractor. 4:11:04 PM BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed that [private contracting] is already an option. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to do this if certain requirements are met. To a follow-up question, he confirmed the criteria is in place for approval by DOC. 4:13:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said this is straying away from what the bill does. She questioned, if all of this is possible right now, what would happen if someone were not where they are supposed to be. MR. BALLINGER replied that currently the constituent is being monitored. He said he wanted to attend church. If they see him somewhere he isn't supposed to be, it may be a parole violation. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether the local police department will get involved if he gets picked up for violating geographical restriction. MR. BALLINGER replied it depends on the kind of violation. He offered his understanding that a report would go to the parole officer. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said that different places have different levels of concern. Just reporting might not be adequate. She said she wants to see this as an actual bill but not an amendment. She said although this is conceptually good, she cannot support Amendment 2. 4:16:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked how current law addresses a monitored person who steps outside allowed boundaries. MS. WILKERSON said that depending on the violation, there would be coordination with local law enforcement. In response to a follow-up question, she confirmed that whether in Kenai or Homer, if there were a private contractor, there would still be police involvement for someone out of bounds. 4:17:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she understands this is to help with re-entry, but she was confused regarding the language. She asked what would happen if prisoners don't have the resources to pay for it. MR. BALLINGER, in response to Representative Story, said the cost [of private monitoring] would be covered if someone were not able to pay for it. MS. WILKERSON added that currently DOC does waive some of fees for electronic monitoring. It is limited to only the area with resources that have been budgeted. REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked what the cost might be. She said it doesn't seem right that DOC would not try to provide this service. MS. WILKERSON replied that the current cost is about $66-$70 per day per offender. He said he does not know the cost for private contractors. 4:21:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND said that he understands that electronic monitoring is already allowed, this just says it shall be done. Second, the prisoner will pay the costs, but without financial resources they would not have to. Amendment 2 would allow prisoners to live anywhere they want and the commissioner would be required to provide them with a private monitoring service wherever they reside. He said the required payment makes him uncomfortable because it takes away the ability of the commissioner to make decisions. MR. BALLINGER said that under the amendment, when monitoring is required, then the individual would pay for it themselves. He said this is outlined in "the code section." 4:24:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what the Department of Corrections thinks of Amendment 2. MS. WILKERSON said that the Department of Corrections is neutral on Amendment 2. The department understands the circumstances, but commissioner is adamant that partnerships are needed. In response to a follow-up question, she went over the different types of monitoring, including global positioning system (GPS) and breathalyzers. 4:26:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked how many offenders are on electronic monitoring (EM). MS. WILKERSON replied that currently there are about 400 offenders. There are six locations for electronic monitoring. To a follow-up question, she said currently there is one vendor that rents equipment and provides monitoring services. 4:27:59 PM CHAIR CARRICK asked if there was additional discussion. She maintained her objection and said she would like to see the subject of Amendment 2 addressed as a standalone bill. 4:28:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she appreciates the conversation. The scope of bill is helping those after incarceration to have successful re-entry. Amendment 2 would help expand outside the Railbelt. She wants to help people who live outside the main communities succeed. The commissioner has discretion. She said making this consideration now is in scope of the bill. 4:33:08 PM The committee took an at-ease at 4:33 p.m. 4:34:04 PM CHAIR CARRICK said she appreciated the intent of the amendment and hopes to explore the concept further. She maintained her objection. 4:34:26 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Moore, Vance, and McCabe voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Holland, Himschoot, Story, and Carrick voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4. 4:35:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY moved to report CSHB 35(CRA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and to authorizes Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary or conforming changes. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected. 4:36:08 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Holland, Himschoot, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to report CSHB 35(CRA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and to authorizes Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary or conforming changes. Representatives Moore, McCabe and Vance voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 35(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.