HOUSE BILL NO. 296 "An Act relating to service of process on prisoners; relating to the crime of escape; relating to the definition of 'correctional facility'; amending Rule 4, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date." 3:49:25 PM Co-Chair Stoltze referred to a question about clarity from the Department of Corrections. He had asked for a letter on position that had not been provided. CARMEN GUTIERREZ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), commented on the work of the department with the Department of Law on the definition of "secure confinement." 3:51:10 PM AT EASE 3:51:23 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Stoltze queried DOC's position on the bill. Ms. Gutierrez replied that the department had worked with Department of Law on a definition of secure confinement. The department was neutral on its position on the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Ms. Gutierrez to proceed. Ms. Gutierrez continued to explain that the department had worked with DOL on a definition of secure confinement. She remarked that the purpose of determining the definition was to ensure that the statute was in line with the Court of Appeals recent decision in the Bridge v. State case. She stated that DOC had no position with regard to the classification of a misdemeanor offender as a "misdemeanant" if he or she should walk away from a half- way house or community residential center. She stressed the recognition of the cost to the state when individuals are prosecuted for felony offenses for that kind of conduct. 3:55:39 PM Co-Chair Stoltze asked how DOC became involved in the bill. Ms. Gutierrez explained that the department had become involved when it had heard about the definition of secure confinement, so DOC had wanted to ensure that the definition would do what was intended. Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that he department's involvement was that it ensured that the legal requirements were met. Representative Gara asked about a case - Bridge v State - he wondered about the ruling. Ms. Gutierrez replied that if a misdemeanant walked away from a half-way house, it was a class A misdemeanor offense. Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the term "security guards" were used in half-way houses. REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, SPONSOR, requested that Anne Carpeneti come forward. Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the personnel at half-way houses were considered "security guards." He stated that at correctional facilities it was pejorative to call correctional officers "guards." Ms. Gutierrez replied that the Department of Corrections staff was referred to as "correctional officers." Ms. Gutierrez spoke in high regard of the correctional officers. The goal of the statute was to ensure that the halfway houses or community residential centers were distinguished as secured correctional facilities. 4:00:40 PM ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained how the issue had evolved. The Department of Law wanted to ensure that the definition applied only to the statute. Representative Wilson asked whether the department believed that there would not be more prisoners walking away from the facilities. Ms. Gutierrez believed that prior testimony had explained it would be a case by case basis. The department did not know whether the bill would affect a prisoner's decision to walk away from a half-way house. Co-Chair Stoltze was frustrated that the Department of Corrections did not have an official position on the bill. He remarked that he was not comfortable moving the bill out of the committee. Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes. Representative Gara moved to make the Department of Administration fiscal note a zero fiscal not. Co-Chair Stoltze objected, and felt that an indeterminate fiscal note was better than a zero fiscal note. Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 296(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 296(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with "no recommendation" and with one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Law and two previously published fiscal notes: FN1 (DOC), FN3 (DOA).