SENATE BILL NO. 137 "An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Parole; and providing for an effective date." 9:40:16 AM SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, SPONSOR, indicated that his bill would extend the termination date of the Alaska Parole Board from June 30, 2020 to June 30, 2025 with an immediate effective date. MICHAEL WILLIS, STAFF, SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, relayed the bill extended the Board's termination date to June 30, 2025, for 5 years. He reviewed the auditor's opinion that the Board was serving in the public's interest by effectively evaluating prisoners' likelihood of recidivism and whether they pose a threat to the public. The auditor recommended that the legislature extend the Board's termination date 5 years instead of the maximum 8 years because of recent changes to the Board's statutes and responsibility revisions. The legislative auditor and the director of the Alaska Parole Board were available for questions. He thanked members for their consideration of the bill. Representative Knopp asked about the personnel services line of the fiscal note in the amount of $1.7 million which equated to approximately $144,000 per individual. He asked if the monies were for full-time staff. Senator Micciche deferred to Jeff Edwards. 9:43:23 AM JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PAROLE BOARD, responded that the board members were considered part-time non-state employees. They received an honorarium. If they worked a half day, they were paid for a half day. If they worked a full day, they were paid for a full day. They were not full-time state employees. Representative Knopp asked if the monies were for support staff rather than the Board. Mr. Edwards responded that himself and his staff were included in the personnel services line. Representative Carpenter asked how many staff Mr. Edwards had. Mr. Edwards responded, "Eleven." Representative Carpenter asked why the Board needed eleven staff plus the director. Mr. Edwards replied that the Board added staff as a result of the passage of SB 91. It was well documented in the audit what occurred in terms of the number of hearings. The review and preparation for hearings was very concentrated and the Parole Board conducted thousands of hearings per year. The Alaska Board of Parole rotated through every correctional facility four times per year. In some of the remote locations hearing were done telephonically. The Board went to each of the prisons on the road system to interview inmates. The workload was intensive. Every review for individual cases was immense. His office had to review an individual essentially since birth until the events of the crime, their institutional conduct, their release plan, and more. Putting all of the information together for the Board to consider was extensive. 9:46:34 AM Representative Wool noted Mr. Edwards comments about thousands of hearings occurring per year and the labor- intensive preparation work. He supposed board members were working close to full-time. Mr. Edwards thought they worked about three-quarters of the time. He indicated board members worked a lot from home reviewing case files. In addition, they did preliminary hearings, which could be equated to a bail hearing, throughout the months. Board members worked close to full-time. Representative Knopp commented that he had an acquaintance on the Board. He sat with the person after the passage of SB 91 and was applaud there was not a full-time workforce. Vice-Chair Ortiz announced that amendments were due by the end of the day at 5:00 p.m. 9:49:00 AM AT EASE 9:49:02 AM RECONVENED KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, indicated the audit could be found in members' packets and was dated May 8, 2019. The statutory changes that happened after May 9, 2019 were not included in the audit. She reported that there was a background information section that described an overview of parole. She drew attention to the bottom of page 8 of the audit report which discussed how SB 91 changed the parole statutes and how it impacted the Board's workload and procedures. She read from the audit report: Senate Bill 91 significantly changed the statutes effective January 2017. First, it expanded discretionary parole for all offenders except for unclassified offenders and for class A sex offenders. Prior to SB 91 offenders who committed their first class B felony and up to their second class C felony were eligible for discretionary parole after serving 25 percent of their sentences. Post SB 91, generally any offenders who committed a number of A, B, or C felonies were eligible for discretionary parole after serving one-quarter of their sentences broadening who was eligible. Secondly, SB 91 removed the discretionary parole application requirement which meant that prior to SB 91 a prisoner initiated the parole process by filing an application. Not all eligible Prisoners would file an application. Post SB 91, the application requirement was removed, and a mandate was established that all eligible prisoners would be subject to consideration of parole and would have a hearing. The changed significantly altered how the Board approached the parole hearings. Thirdly, SB 91 shortened the technical revocation hearing timeline providing less time to conduct the hearings. Ms. Curtis turned to the report conclusions on page 11 of the audit. Legislative Audit concluded that the Board responded in an effective and efficient way to significant changes in the parole laws. The Board conducted meetings, made parole decisions, set parole conditions, and held revocation hearings in accordance with state law. Legislative Audit was recommending a 5-year extension which was 3 years less than the 8 years allowed in statute solely in recognition that their statutes continued to change. She believed it was prudent to have increased oversight during the period of change. Ms. Curtis continued that there were several tables in the report to help communicate the Board's activities during the audit period. She drew attention to page 12, Exhibit 5. As discussed in the background information section, SB 91 changed eligibility standards and removed the application requirement. She pointed out the impact on the number of discretionary parole hearings conducted. The number ramped up in 2017 and 2018. The increase in discretionary parole hearings included a significant number of hearings that prisoners did not attend, referred to as "no shows." No shows were the result of eliminating the application process and mandating that hearings be held for all eligible prisoners regardless of whether they wanted parole. Ms. Curtis relayed that according to the Board's executive director, a prisoner might not want parole for various reasons including not wanting to sign the parole conditions - wanting to leave the facility with no conditions. Initially, after SB 91 passed, parole officers and the Board held hearings for no shows in a similar manner as for prisoners that attended the hearing. It was not an effective use of resources given that parole was not granted if a prisoner did not attend a hearing. Ms. Curtis reported that the Board recognized the inefficient use of their resources and changed their procedures in November 2017. The new procedures required institutional parole officers to complete condensed parole packets and held abbreviated hearings to facilitate the process. As shown in Exhibit 6, no shows represented 21 percent of discretionary parole hearings in 2017 and 29 percent in 2018. Ms. Curtis conveyed that according to Board staff, the increase in discretionary parole hearings led to an increase in revocation hearings. She referred to page 14, Exhibit 7. She pointed to the jump in 2017 which was partially offset in 2018 by the use of an administrative sanction and an incentive program that allowed probation officers to impose sanctions without a hearing for the most common technical violations based on a guide prepared by Department of Corrections (DOC) management. Ms. Curtis continued that the Board effectively coped with the increase in hearings by traveling to facilities 4 times per year instead of 2 and hired additional staff. Senate Bill 91 authorized 5 additional staff members to cope with the increase. 9:54:24 AM Ms. Curtis referred to the recommendations on page 18. None of the recommendations were significant enough to decrease the auditor's recommended term of extension. The reduced extension was solely because of their changing statutes. Recommendation 1 was for the executive director to improve procedures to ensure final revocation hearings were performed timely. Legislative Audit conducted testing and found that 16 percent were not performed within 120 days after a parolee's arrest. The hearings were late by 5-12 days. Ms. Curtis moved to Recommendation 2. The auditor recommended that the Board's executive director work with the commissioner of DOC to improve the quality of telephonic hearings. The auditor found poor quality telephone systems at 4 of the 13 correctional facilities including Yukon-Kuskokwim, Wildwood, Fairbanks, and Highland Mountain. These facilities accounted for 14 percent of the parole and revocation hearings for calendar years 2015 through 2018. Ms. Curtis reviewed Recommendation 3. The Board should take steps to ensure regulations were properly updated. During the audit she found two regulations that were not correctly updated due to human error. Ms. Curtis moved to the final recommendation on page 20. Recommendation 4 suggested that the director of DOC's Division of Administrative Services should take steps to ensure that the Alaska Correction Offender Management System complied with the Information Securities Standards, a national best practice. She did not include the details of weaknesses to avoid exploit. The information was communicated to management in a separate confidential letter. Ms. Curtis reported that responses to the audit began on page 31 with the governor's response. The governor did not comment on whether to extend the Alaska Parole Board. On page 33, the DOC commissioner agreed with the recommendations and indicated they were moving forward with corrective action within the constraints of their budget. On page 35, the board chair concurred with the 3 recommendations directed to the Board. The report went on to describe the corrective actions.   Representative Wool asked about the changes made with HB 49 [Legislation passed in 2019 related to crimes, sentencing, drugs, thefts, and reports] and whether SB 91 undid much of what was implemented. Ms. Curtis did not know, as the report was dated May 8, 2019 and the bill was passed after the date. Senator Micciche reminded members that the bill was about extending the Board. The finances associated with the 5 new positions resulting from SB 91 because there was no longer a discretionary parole application process which forced the process. Since then, as a result of HB 49, the provision had been removed which might reveal that the positions were no longer needed. He referred to page 1, Exhibit 2 which showed the positions. Five of them were new because of SB 91. After the following year through the budget process it was likely that the costs could be reduced. The issue should be watched through the next budget process. Vice-Chair Ortiz indicated that the amendments were due by 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon of the present day. He reviewed the agenda for the afternoon. He reminded members that the agenda would be fluid.