HOUSE BILL NO. 183 "An Act renaming the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to the membership of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; extending the termination date of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission; relating to the duties of the Judicial Council; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of secs. 41 and 73, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017; and providing for an effective date by repealing the effective date of sec. 74, ch. 1, 4SSLA 2017." 1:32:25 PM Co-Chair Merrick relayed the bill had previously been heard on April 27, 2022. The committee would consider two amendments. She asked the bill sponsor's staff if she had any opening statements. LIZZIE KUBITZ, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, introduced herself and was happy to answer any questions and speak to the amendments. Co-Chair Merrick moved to invited testimony. 1:33:30 PM AT EASE 1:33:51 PM RECONVENED SUSANNE DIPIETRO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA JUDICIAL COUNCIL (via teleconference), shared that the Judicial Council had served as staff to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission. She intended to speak about staffing under the legislation. She explained that the Judicial Council would continue to staff the new entity, the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission. She shared that Article IV of the state's constitution one of the council's constitutional duties was to conduct studies for improvement of the administration of justice. She informed committee members that the council had been engaged in studies of the criminal and civil justice systems for the past 50 years, including studies on criminal recidivism, sex offences, felony sentences, domestic violence treatment programs, therapeutic courts, and other topics. Ms. DiPietro noted at the previous hearing on the bill there had been discussion about the role the Alaska Justice Information Center (AJIC) would play in the work of the data commission as envisioned in HB 183. She detailed that AJIC also did discrete research projects for the commission. The Judicial Council had found in its research that the roles of the council and AJIC had very complimentary skill sets that were not overlapping. She reported that the current structure was working quite well from her perspective. She explained that the data commission would have a critical function of collecting and analyzing criminal justice data supplied by the Department of Corrections (DOC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the Court System. Ms. DiPietro stated that while each of the agencies currently had their own data sources they analyzed for their own purposes, the role of the commission would be to collect data from all of the criminal justice entities to form a more complete picture of how the criminal justice system was functioning. She highlighted that it was a unique ability that had not been previously available to any entity. She explained it would be the primary purpose of the Criminal Justice Data Commission and would be the value added to have a view of the big picture. She expounded that under the bill, the data commission would be entitled to receive quarterly data from the criminal justice agencies. She noted it would not be statutorily possible without the authority in the legislation. Ms. DiPietro discussed what the commission had been able to accomplish by weaving together data from all of the various sources. She highlighted the commission's report on impaired driving offences from 2016 as an example. She believed at the previous meeting the committee had been made aware of reports on sex offences and domestic violence compiled by the commission in collaboration with AJIC and the University of Alaska. She stated that most importantly, the reports used data from the Court System, DPS, and DOC. Ms. DiPietro highlighted a final potential benefit of creating a data analysis commission: the ability to document changes over time in the criminal justice system. She explained it would include documenting changes in the laws in addition to variations in patterns of offending, incarceration, charging, and convictions. She pointed out it was something that no agency or entity had previously been in the position to do. The creation of the data commission, the legislature could ensure that work done over the last five or six years was not lost and was built upon going forward. Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. DiPietro for her testimony. 1:39:08 PM BRENDA STANFILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, spoke to the importance of creating the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission from a victim advocate perspective. She shared she had been honored to participate on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission from the beginning of its formation through two terms for a total of six years. She detailed it had been a time of determining what needed to be done differently in the system. Her time with the commission had ended in July 2020. As a victim's rights advocate, the knowledge she had gained while serving on the commission was transformative in how she performed her work. She believed that often victim's rights advocates saw their piece of the work, but not the larger picture of the criminal justice system. Ms. Stanfill shared that a unique feature of the commission and its proposed transformation into the criminal justice data workgroup was its inclusion of judges who could share insight and information regarding the court system. She highlighted the involvement of the head of the Public Defender Agency and the attorney general or their designee. She explained it was the only group she knew of that included the Court System perspective while discussing the criminal justice system. She pointed out the structure was also unique because most often those who support individuals who harm Alaska's communities work together in a group and those who support individuals who have been harmed work together in a group. The working group brought both groups together to try to find a balance in providing supports to those doing harm so they could make better choices in life going forward, while also recognizing the harm caused to the victim to ensure the system provided the supports victims needed to be made whole over an event that was not their choice. Ms. Stanfill discussed that while AJIC (operated through the University of Alaska Anchorage) collected and analyzed data, they did not have the story behind the data. She recalled from a statistics class that a direct connection had been made between an increase in sexual assault and consumption of ice cream based on the numbers only. She stressed the importance of the story behind the numbers. She explained that the group at the table was where the story got told to understand things like the reason for a "blip" one year or what was going on in the system that may have created something different. Ms. Stanfill stated that while the group may no longer be making formal recommendations, it could compile meaningful reports that legislators could use to bring forward meaningful legislation. She spoke to the importance of having a strong victim's rights advocate in a seat on the working group. She detailed that in a survey of victims offered over the internet and in a series of hearings conducted by the current Criminal Justice Commission in four locations across Alaska, the commission had heard overwhelmingly that victims did not feel the criminal justice process was their process. She elaborated victims shared that their story had been taken and then it was no longer their story or about them, but about a system that often seemed to be about winning or losing by a defense or prosecution. 1:43:16 PM Ms. Stanfill continued that victims had indicated they did not feel heard, were not included in decisions, and often times they were not believed. She explained that having a victim's rights representative appointed by the groups working with victims would allow victim's rights advocates to have a free voice to say what they need at the table, regardless of whether it may be in line with what others would like for them to say. The criminal justice system had a huge job in its attempt to accomplish the goals of holding offenders accountable, imposing the correct sentence reflecting the seriousness of the offence, and deterring future criminal conduct, while at the same time, supporting the victims and their needs. She relayed that the balancing act of needs required continual review and analyzation to determine if it was performing the way it should. She strongly supported the creation of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission where the state could keep a group coming together to talk about an issue that was way too prevalent in Alaska. Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Stanfill for her testimony. Representative Johnson asked if there would be time to speak to the bill. Co-Chair Merrick replied affirmatively. Representative LeBon asked Ms. Stanfill if she had an opinion regarding adding a person who had been convicted of a felony offense to the commission. Ms. Stanfill replied that the bill specified that in order to serve on the commission, a person convicted of a felony could no longer be "on paper," meaning they had to have fulfilled their sentence and be off probation. While serving on the commission, she had found listening to stories told by individuals who had been incarcerated to be impactful. She elaborated that people forget about the impact trauma had in growing up. She expounded on hearing about the challenge people had coming out of a long prison sentence for kids who got into trouble early on in life. She felt strongly the person serving on the commission needed to be past the event, where they could meaningfully participate in the conversation without looking for an outcome that could assist them in some way. She believed as long as there was a screening process by the public defender and Department of Law (DOL), the person would be a good addition to the group. Representative LeBon wondered about asking Ms. Stanfill about a yet to be proposed amendment. Co-Chair Merrick replied that the committee could hear from Ms. Stanfill once the amendment process was underway. 1:46:47 PM TRAVIS WELCH, PROGRAM OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation with a prepared statement: Trust beneficiaries account for approximately 40 percent of the annual incarcerations in DOC facilities. Beneficiaries include Alaskans who experience mental illness, intellectual developmental disabilities, substance use disorders, Alzheimer's, dementia, and other cognitive impairments like traumatic brain injury. Available data indicates that unsentenced and sentenced trust beneficiaries remain incarcerated longer than non-trust beneficiaries. Trust beneficiaries are also over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of crime. Alaska is currently facing high rates of violent crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault, high recidivism rates, and a prison population that is disproportionately represented by trust beneficiaries. The Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission established by HB 183 includes appropriate criminal justice representation as well as the opportunity for the public to engage. HB 183 establishes a body that represented the key stakeholders of the criminal justice system including victims of crime, a member of the Alaska Native community, and a person with lived criminal justice involvement, among others. This body would maintain and prioritize data collection and analysis functions as recommended in the sunset review of the ACJC by the legislative auditor. The collection, research, and reporting of criminal justice data to such a representative body is critical to understanding criminal justice in Alaska and analyzing where the current system is functioning effectively or ineffectively, in order to find solutions for the serious problems I just described. There are other important reasons for a body like this commission. For example, improved interdepartmental communication; executive, legislative, judicial branch communication; and direct meaningful dialogue with the public to produce results such as small problems get identified and solved, public awareness of how the criminal justice system functions, opportunities for the public to share their experiences with the system, positive or negative. I recognize and appreciate that there may be some concerns in establishing this new commission; however, I believe the benefits of data-driven, informed public policy that can result from this commission outweigh any concerns. Our criminal justice system is far from perfect, and we must continue efforts to make investments based on sound information. Requiring the body to continue to collect, analyze, and report on data is paramount to making Alaska's criminal justice system fair, efficient, and protective of the public. As a program officer with the Alaska Mental Health Trust whose mission is to improve the lives of vulnerable Alaskans and as a former chief of police in Alaska, I urge the committee to support HB 183. Thank you. 1:49:41 PM Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Welch for his testimony. Representative LeBon asked what Mr. Welch thought about the fact that the proposed commission did not include a member from the private sector. He asked it if was an omission that should be considered. Mr. Welch replied that it was an interesting question that should be discussed. He had not looked at that particular aspect. He believed a diverse group was important and that many of the desired stakeholders were represented in the legislation. Representative LeBon highlighted the hope of finding employment opportunities for individuals coming out of the prison system. He asked if it would be valuable to have a private sector perspective in the process. Mr. Welch answered that he could see value in the idea. 1:51:17 PM Representative Johnson had a number of concerns and questions. She stated her concern that there was already an AJIC steering committee. She read from the audit conducted by the Division of Legislative Audit (copy on file): Although we recommend sunsetting the commission, we do not recommend terminating the data collection and the analysis functions. Objective evidence regarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and laws governing the system are critical to future policy decisions. Representative Johnson stated that the bill did not create another objective group, but people who may influence or give opinions on what the data should or may be. She highlighted the makeup of the AJIC steering committee that included a member of the Alaska Native Justice Center, a member from the Alaska Court System, DOL, AMHTA, DOC, the Department of Health and Social Services, DPS, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA). She compared the existing steering committee to the proposed commission makeup. The proposed commission included a member from the Native community nominated by the Alaska Native Justice Center, a member from the Alaska Court System, DOL, AMHTA, DOC, the Department of Health and Social Services, DPS, a legislator (non-voting), two peace officers selected by the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police (also in the realm of public safety), a public defender, victim's rights advocate, and a person formerly convicted of a felony offence. Representative Johnson stated the bill set up a board that was very similar to an existing group established in 1975. She considered perhaps people forgot about the existing group. She believed the bill went above and beyond the audit's recommendation to sunset the commission and keep the data collection and analysis in an objective way. She stated there was already something in place set up by the legislature. She asked if it was efficient to create another group with similar people. Ms. Kubitz deferred the question to Ms. DiPietro to speak to the differences between the AJIC and the commission she had staffed for many years. Ms. DiPietro responded it was a question that the commission, AJIC, and the Judicial Council spent quite a bit of time discussing and working on when the commission received the audit results and was contemplating what would be a good successor. At the time it had been acknowledged that the Judicial Council and AJIC had complementary but not overlapping research expertise. She elaborated that AJIC had its own research agenda, which was independent from the criminal justice agencies and Judicial Council. She shared that the discussion had been that AJIC was not really in a position to create a research agenda driven completely by the data commission and to make a commitment to supporting the research agenda and to commit to reporting back regularly to the legislature on the research agenda. 1:57:35 PM Ms. DiPietro continued to answer the question by Representative Johnson. She explained that AJIC had its own research projects and functions and had collaborated well and assisted with the work of the outgoing commission. She believed AJIC would be happy to assist with the proposed data commission and to share the data. She relayed that the last time the Judicial Council spoke with the director of AJIC and the commission, AJIC was not really in a position to take on the full staffing of the data commission. 1:58:27 PM Representative Edgmon spoke about the battles through SB 64, SB 91, SB 54, HB 49 and a slew of other pieces of legislation that dealt with the criminal justice system sometimes in a singular way and other times in a comprehensive way. He stated that historically the agencies including AMHTA, Court System all came forward in earnest, but in a very separate manner. He stated there was no comprehensive approach. He observed the fiscal notes attached to the bill had zero fiscal impact. He wondered why the legislature would not implement the bill. He did not see any persuasive argument against it. He stated the committee had spent a significant amount of time with AJIC over the years and he recalled the agency's role was more from an academic standpoint. He stated AJIC's role was not to take retired judges, defenders, prosecutors, or law enforcement to give a well-rounded perspective. Representative Edgmon underscored that the state's criminal justice system cost at least $500 million on paper. He stressed there were a whole range of costs that were not on paper. He wondered why they should not implement the commission. He wanted to hear if there was a credible argument against it. He stated that if there was a credible argument, he wanted to hear what, in lieu of the commission, would bring forward policy recommendations and needed interpretations from a multidisciplinary standpoint that would serve legislators' functions as appropriators. He asked Ms. DiPietro to address the question. Ms. DiPietro answered that she did not understand "why we would not move forward with this." She served on the AJIC steering committee and as staff to the Criminal Justice Commission. She relayed that the entities had two very different roles that were important and complimentary to each other. She relayed that the Judicial Council was not requesting any additional funding to staff the data commission. She pointed out that the council was proposing a decrement because the work of the data commission would be smaller in scope than the work of the Criminal Justice Commission. 2:02:19 PM Representative Johnson spoke to her concerns about the data commission. She stated she did not believe anyone in the room did not want to see the criminal justice system improved. She believed policy makers wanted to see better things come forward and they all wanted to find the right answers to things. She pointed out that the committee was looking at a board extension. She highlighted that the audit's recommendation was to sunset the board. She did not believe her stance was "way out there" to want to follow the auditor's recommendation. She remarked that some components had been noted to be valuable; however, it included the data analysis component and not the policy component. Representative Johnson believed that in a simple board extension the bill was getting carried away with many different policy changes. She remarked that the bill changed the name of the commission and established a board with nearly the same members serving on another board established by the legislature in 1975. The proposal did not seem efficient to her. She wanted to see "this kind of thing" come forward as a new board and new discussion. She stated there had been many recommendations that came from the existing board, which had contributed to SB 91. She suggested starting fresh with new discussion and setting up a board where the legislature was descriptive about the policy it wanted to see brought forward instead of trying to put it in a board extension the legislature had been recommended to sunset. 2:04:58 PM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. 2:05:17 PM Co-Chair Merrick asked the Department of Corrections to review the first fiscal note. APRIL WILKERSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), spoke to the department's zero fiscal note within the research and records allocation component. She explained that the department was currently providing portions of the data request that were identified in HB 183; however, if there was a change or expansion of the data in the future, the department would seek an additional position. 2:06:22 PM Co-Chair Merrick asked the Judicial Council to review the Fiscal Note 3. Ms. DiPietro reviewed the Judicial Council's fiscal note showing a decrement. She explained that the scope and function of the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission would be less than that of the [outgoing] Criminal Justice Commission. The council believed it could support the work of the new commission with fewer resources than before. 2:07:19 PM Co-Chair Merrick asked the Department of Health and Social Services to review the next fiscal note. ALYSA WOODEN, DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), reviewed the department's zero fiscal note. The division believed it could accomplish all of the requests within the bill and did not anticipate a fiscal impact. Co-Chair Merrick asked the Court System to review the last fiscal note. NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, discussed the Court System's zero fiscal note. She relayed that the Court System already submitted much of the data to the Criminal Justice Commission. The Court System provide the data to the new commission as required, without any fiscal impact. 2:08:47 PM Representative Edgmon asked where the Court System would send the data if the bill did not pass. Ms. Mead answered replied that the current law required the Court System to send a whole slew of data to the Criminal Justice Commission. She explained that if the commission sunset and was removed from statute, the Court System would no longer gather or send the data unless someone else requested it. Representative Edgmon considered that in theory the information could be sent to the legislature or executive branch. He clarified that he was advocating for the current bill. He remarked that although the data could be provided, there would no longer be an ability for someone on the other end to interpret the data in absence of a data commission. He was perplexed "about all of this." 2:10:24 PM Ms. Mead responded that the Court System was neutral on the bill. She relayed that the Court System provided data to anyone who asked within reason. She noted there was readily available data that was sort of easy to provide. There was a different rule with respect to people requesting the Court System to compile information, which depended on resources. The Court System could provide the data called for in the legislation to the legislature, DOC, or others. The Court System entered into agreements to exchange data with other entities sometimes. She understood Representative Edgmon's point about who would do what with the data and perhaps it would not make its way to policy makers. She did not take a position on the issue. She relayed that if AJIC or others sought data, the Court System was typically cooperative to the extent it could be. Representative Edgmon stated he believed she had answered the question that there was no definitive response to [inaudible]. Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Carpenter had joined the meeting at 2:06 p.m. Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Mead was familiar with the reports or data produced by the commission. He asked if the data was received by the Court System. Ms. Mead replied affirmatively. She had personally attended all of the Criminal Justice Commission meetings. Representative LeBon asked for verification that the commission collected and analyzed data and offered recommendations for action to be taken by the legislature. Ms. Mead relayed that the description reflected the operations of the Criminal Justice Commission under current law. She explained that the bill would modify the duties and change the name of the commission and she expected it would analyze data and prepare reports. She clarified that the bill stopped short of requiring the proposed commission to provide recommendations to the legislature on bills and policy. She believed it was also limited to providing recommendations on how to spend funds to assist in issues regarding criminal justice. 2:13:16 PM Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Mead had an opinion on the addition of a person who had a previous felony and had been cleared [by serving out their sentence and probation]. Ms. Mead replied that she would not offer an opinion on the policy call. She echoed a prior testifier who had stated that formerly incarcerated individuals occasionally attended the meetings to offer perspective, which she believed voting members of the commission had found valuable. She reiterated that she did not have a personal or Court System opinion on whether it was a good addition. Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Mead and moved to the amendment process. 2:14:16 PM Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32- LS0645\G.1 (Radford, 4/28/22) (copy on file): Page 3, line 11: Delete "16" Insert "17" Page 4, line 15: Delete "and" Page 4, line 21, following "AS 12.55.185": Insert "; and (16) one person who has an immediate family member incarcerated in the state, designated jointly by the deputy attorney general for the division of the Department of Law that has responsibility for criminal cases and the public defender for a three-year term" Representative LeBon OBJECTED. Representative Wool explained the amendment that would add another member on the proposed commission. He noted there were currently 15 members on the commission including three judges, a member from the Native community, deputy attorney general, public defender, commissioners from DPS, DHSS, and DOC, AMHTA, two police officers, a victim's rights advocate, a person who had been incarcerated and was no longer in state custody. He believed including a person who had been in jail was of the utmost importance. He stated that lawmakers did not know what it was like to serve time or be in state custody. He stated that an increasing number of places require individuals released from prison to comply with a list of things including drug and alcohol testing and numerous appointments. He remarked that some had said that the system was setting people up for failure and increased the recidivism rate. Representative Wool explained that the amendment would add a family member of an incarcerated person to the commission. He reviewed the makeup of the commission members and noted there were numerous individuals on the law enforcement and corrections side. He pointed out that if a father was incarcerated it impacted his entire family. He elaborated that families had to deal with a loss of income and had to help the person once they were released on parole or probation. He believed the experience of having a family member in prison was valuable as well. He referenced adverse childhood experiences (ACES) scores; one of the experiences was an incarcerated family member. He remarked that prison populations were increasing in Alaska. He thought eventually the state would have to build another prison or send prisoners outside of state. He believed having the perspective of a family member of someone incarcerated completed one of the pieces that was not included. 2:19:38 PM Co-Chair Merrick referenced Representative Wool's mention that sometimes incarcerated individuals were sent out-of- state. She provided a scenario where a person serving a three-year term on the commission had a loved one sent to prison out-of-state. She asked if the commission member would be replaced under the circumstances. Representative Wool replied in the negative. He thought it could be an indicative experience of what could happen more and more. He stated his understanding that the state was not using outside prisons with the exception of a handful of federal prisoners and other. Representative Rasmussen requested to hear Ms. Stanfill's opinion on the proposed amendment. She asked about the potential impact on victims. Ms. Stanfill referenced her prior experience on the commission and relayed there was a lot of conversation at the table and those at the table had a voice. She thought that having people involved in the system who could provide real life experiences was important. She stated that having the voice of someone who understood what it was like to have a family member serving time out-of-state could be impactful. She noted that when a person was going through something at the present moment, it was hard to be objective. She noted it happened in victims' circles also. She pointed out that often times when conversations arose, a person thought about how it may impact them and/or their family member. She encouraged the committee to consider a family member of a person who had previously been in the correctional system. She did not believe it was a bad idea to have a voice at the table who could really talk about the experience. 2:22:34 PM Representative LeBon asked Ms. Stanfill if it was redundant to have a person who was once convicted of a felony on the commission in addition to a family member of a person currently serving prison time in Alaska. He wondered if it tilted the balance of the commission. He wondered if it helped with the commission's intended purpose to reduce crime in addition to gathering and analyzing data. Ms. Stanfill replied it was not really a tilt when thinking about the different people represented on the commission including law enforcement, public defender, and DOL. She reasoned that because it would be a data commission that would not put recommendations forward, it would be okay to add another person. She added that the person had to be agreed on by DOL and the public defender, which she believed was a way of ensuring the person would be looking out for the best interest of the State of Alaska. She highlighted the importance of a balanced approach on the commission. She explained that as a victim advocate, she was not necessarily thinking about the trauma the person going to jail would experience, what they had experienced, and what their family would experience. She was thinking about the victim and their pain. She stated the commission was a way of bringing a group together that could share in all of the experiences and come up with the right balance. Representative LeBon asked if Ms. Stanfill was familiar with how a parole board was set up in Alaska. Ms. Stanfill replied that she was not. Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Wilkerson to reply. Ms. Wilkerson asked to hear the question restated. Representative LeBon was interested in the typical composition of a parole board. He wondered about the number of individuals on the board and the background of the members. Ms. Wilkerson answered that she could respond in writing. She noted there were five board members. Representative LeBon noted that she did not need to respond in writing. He believed the parole board sought diversity in its membership as well. He wondered if there was representation from the private business sector on the parole board. He thought the absence was as much of an absence as the suggestion of adding someone with a criminal background or a family member of someone currently serving time in prison. 2:26:55 PM Representative Carpenter asked if the commission was currently allowed to bring a family member on in pertinent situations as invited testimony to help with perspective. Ms. Stanfill replied that public comment time was available at all of the commission meetings. She detailed that public comment time allowed time for individuals (i.e., victims, incarcerated individuals, and family members) to share the story. She relayed that the commission had heard from a substantial number of family members talking about the impact of the sex offender registry. The commission had also heard family members talk about the impact on their kids with a change in financial status. She clarified that the commission meetings were specific to the members of the commission in terms of having a voice at the table. She explained that if the person [under the proposed amendment] was not on the commission, they would not have an equal voice, but they would have a time to speak. Representative Carpenter asked if the issues included in the data and analysis performed by the commission impacted families. He was trying to get more information on the commission's workload and what it did. Ms. Stanfill replied that she had not been on the commission for the past two years. She deferred to a current member. Ms. DiPietro replied that currently the commission's policy work was informed by the members of the public with experience of the criminal justice system who came in to tell their stories. She suspected that if the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission became a successor entity, although people's perspectives would still be welcome, the commission would be looking at the data and adding context to the data and would not be making policy recommendations; therefore, the input may be a little less relevant. 2:30:34 PM Representative Carpenter was trying to understand the value of having a family member of an incarcerated person as a member of the board versus having the board hear from public comment when necessary. He considered that if the new commission was focused on data, it seemed to be a role for professionals who understood the system. Ms. DiPietro replied it was difficult to predict how the discussions would go. From the perspective of the entity that would be staffing the commission, there would be no logistical or fiscal problem for the council to include such a person as a member. She noted it was hard to predict the value of their comments and observations, but it was also difficult to say there would be no value. 2:32:32 PM Representative Johnson thought it opened up an interesting idea. She asked if there was value in having a family member of a victim on the board. Ms. Stanfill replied affirmatively. When considering a balance, she had debated the question in her mind. She elaborated that currently there was a position that would be appointed by groups that worked with victims but there was not a position for a victim or family member of a victim. She would not discourage the idea and believed the perspective would be a good addition. Representative Josephson referenced AS 33.16.020 pertaining to the board of parole, which was composed of geographic spread by judicial district and required the governor to use due regard for representation of the board based on ethnic, racial, sexual, and cultural populations. Representative Edgmon asked for verification that the idea presented in Amendment 1 had been presented or considered in the past. 2:34:44 PM Ms. DiPietro replied that when the commission had first been contemplated there had been robust discussion on the composition its composition. She believed the idea had been discussed; however, she had not been a part of the discussion. Representative Edgmon stated it aligned with his recollection of SB 64 that created the commission. Representative Johnson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to include an immediate family member of a victim of a felony crime. Representative Wool explained the reason he had offered the amendment to include a family member of an incarcerated individual was because they had a different experience from the incarcerated individual. He believed the family member of a victim also had a different experience than the victim. He considered the idea and did not know whether the distinction between the victim and a family member was a pronounced. He stated there was a victim of a crime on the commission already. He referenced Representative LeBon's comment about redundancy because there was one formerly convicted person on the commission out of a total of 16 members. He remarked that the other 15 members included law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and commissioners. He did not believe adding the position proposed under Amendment 1 would create a tilt in the board composition. He believed a victim of the crime would be more on the side of law enforcement. His goal was to have a different perspective. He the sponsor of the conceptual amendment to discuss the different perspective the family member of a victim would offer. 2:38:52 PM Representative LeBon stated there were two directions the commission could go: 1) data collection as a process and 2) interpretation of the data into a recommendation to take action by the legislature. He wondered if the commission was about more than data collection, whether the goal was to get as many voices at the table as possible. If so, he noted the conceptual amendment would add another voice to the table. He added that he would need to offer a subsequent conceptual amendment to add a banker to the table. Representative Carpenter was opposed to heading in the direction of Amendment 1 if its intent of adding additional members to the commission for different perspective was to steer results or outcomes that were more friendly to incarcerated individuals or their family members. One of the things people should think about before committing a crime was about how the crime would impact their family. He did not want to see it made easier for people committing a crime. He stated it was a consequence of committing a crime. 2:41:09 PM Co-Chair Foster surmised that Representative Wool did not support Representative Johnson's conceptual amendment. Representative Wool stated that under the bill, the commission included a victim's rights advocate. He commented on Representative Carpenter's remarks that a person should think about how committing a crime would impact their family. He did not think it was always that clear. He noted there was mental illness and substance abuse that contributed to crimes. He was not defending criminals, but there was more than one reason to commit a crime. He stated there were many problems in society and the solution was not as simple as locking people up and for longer. He recognized it reduced crime, but it produced other problems. He stated the family bore the brunt of much of it and they were innocent. He considered why corrections was a growing section of the state's budget. He remarked that there was opposition to adding to schools, but they were adding to corrections, police, and courts. He stated the problem needed to be addressed holistically. He opposed the conceptual amendment. Representative Rasmussen asked to hear what each respective family member would bring to the commission from the proposed amendments. 2:44:18 PM Representative Johnson replied that a family member of a victim had a unique perspective [poor audio quality]. She suggested adding the individual to add to the balance of the commission's membership. She believed the individual could bring a very different perspective to a situation than someone speaking about something academically. Representative Thompson thought the commission was sounding more and more like the group that worked on SB 91. He elaborated that the working group had included the same list of individuals as the proposed commission in addition to several more. He relayed the group had come up with ways to reduce the cost associated with crime. He cautioned the need to be careful. Representative Edgmon noted that SB 91 had passed in 2016 and done away with in 2019. He remarked that he and Representative Thompson had both served on the House Finance Committee at the time. He recalled extensive testimony on reform measures taking a period of time to be effective. He believed Representative Johnson's point on having the victim perspective was well taken. He noted the proposed commission already included a victim's rights advocate. He thought there seemed to be a nuance involved. He understood that the bill sponsor had been on the Criminal Justice Commission for a period of time. He asked to hear the bill sponsor's perspective. 2:48:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that Ms. Stanfill had served on the commission for several years and when her term ended, the governor appointed a man from Kotzebue whose daughter had been brutally murdered. The man was a member of a victim's rights group in Kotzebue. He explained that the individual had attended several meetings but there was a level of policy detail involved on the commission and Representative Claman believed it had been a hard place for the individual to be. He explained that Ms. Stanfill worked with victims daily and in working with domestic violence groups, the bill specified the groups would work together to select a person to serve on the proposed commission. He believed it was important to include someone who was in the business of working with victims. He pointed out that the notion of hearing from a victim on the commission may make it harder on the individual. He considered the amendment proposed by Representative Wool and thought it was an interesting discussion; however, in his experience as commission membership grew in size it became more unwieldly and complicated. He advised maintaining the current size and membership proposed in the bill. Representative Rasmussen appreciated Representative Claman's comments about the size of the council growing too large. She agreed it could be a concern. She asked if he thought there was a difference in the level of competency that the relative of an incarcerated person had versus the relative of a victim. She asked if the two would experience parity in their policy knowledge. Representative Claman answered that the knowledge of someone from the Network on Domestic Violence and their understanding of policy issues was much more in depth than the average family member of an incarcerated individual or the average family member of a victim. He believed the latter two would be very focused on the specific incident or events of their personal family experience. He believed it was incredibly important, which was the reason committees heard public testimony. He stated that in terms of policy expertise, people working with the issues more regularly brought a level of understanding that was hard to bring just from families. He was not in any way meaning to diminish the importance of families' participation. Representative Wool referred to Representative Claman's mention of perspective of a professional advocate for victim's rights that was less emotionally attached in their professional experience in dealing with many victims and not only a family member. He noted that the commission included a formerly convicted individual, which he believed was a good perspective to have. He did not believe an advocate could have that same perspective. He discussed people who advocated for rights of families or incarcerated individuals. For example, the state's prison system had not allowed any visitors for over a year [due to the COVID-19 pandemic]. He remarked it was traumatic for families when they could not see a loved one for over a year. He asked if there was an advocacy group for families of incarcerated individuals. Representative Claman replied that in serving on the commission for the last several years, the most frequent advocate for incarcerated individuals was the reentry coalitions. The commission had occasionally heard from families of incarcerated individuals. He relayed that the reentry coalitions did not have members on the commission, but they routinely attended meetings, provided public comment, and wrote to the commission with comments. He stated that lack of presence on the commission did not prevent people from getting information. He noted the issue about visitation had been discussed in recent commission meetings. He elaborated that DOC presented to the commission a couple of times to present on how the department was dealing with visitation in light of the pandemic. The fact that someone did not have a seat on the commission did not mean the concerns would not be brought forward. 2:56:24 PM Representative Wool referenced Ms. Stanfill's recommendation to have a family member of a formerly incarcerated individual in order to avoid having a person on the commission with a personal agenda. He understood the commission was not for that purpose. He wanted to have the perspective of a person with an incarcerated family member. He would not be opposed to inserting the word "formerly" into the amendment. Representative Wool WITHDREW Amendment 1. 2:58:01 PM AT EASE 3:02:41 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster noted Amendment 1 and the conceptual amendment and had been withdrawn. Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32- LS0645\G.2 (Radford, 5/3/22) (copy on file): Page 3, line 10, following "AS 44.19.642(a)": Insert ", as amended by sec. 135(23) of Executive Order 121," Page 4, line 14: Delete "and social services" Page 13, lines 19 - 20: Delete "and Social Services" Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion. Representative LeBon explained that the amendment was a cleanup amendment required in the wake of the split of the Department of Health and Social Services into two departments by Executive Order 121. The amendment clarified that one of the members of the commission would be the commissioner of the Department of Health or the commissioner's designee. Representative Wool WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED. Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 183(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Johnson OBJECTED. She believed the bill established something that was outside the scope recommended by the audit. The audit recommended the sunset of the commission and maintaining the data and analysis component to help the legislature make more informed policy decisions. She did not support the creation of a new council that would be similar to the Criminal Justice Commission that had brought forth SB 91. She noted the data did not lead the legislature in the right direction. She did not favor making policy changes within a board extension. She thought the commission was redundant. She pointed out that the University of Alaska's Justice Center had been established in 1975 to do the same work. She stated there were numerous groups to address the issues the commission would address. She thought setting up a commission deserved a more detailed policy discussion on how to address issues related to incarceration and recidivism in Alaska. 3:06:40 PM A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Merrick, Foster OPPOSED: Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 183(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass" recommendations, four "do not pass" recommendations, and four "no recommendation" recommendations and with one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Corrections; one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Health and Social Services for the Department of Health; one previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (AJS); and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN3 (AJS). 3:07:34 PM AT EASE 3:08:46 PM RECONVENED