SJR 3 PRISONER RIGHTS LIMITED TO FEDERAL RIGHTS  SENATOR DAVE DONLEY , sponsor of SJR 3, discussed changes made to a proposed committee substitute. CSSJR 3(JUD) was broadened to encompass all rights currently provided to prisoners in Alaska. Traditionally, prisoners rights in the U.S. have stemmed from the federal cruel and unusual punishment clause. Under the Alaska Constitution, Alaska courts might extend due process clause rights to prisoners. CSSJR 3(JUD) now reads, "The rights and protections and the extent of those rights and protections afforded to prisoners by this constitution shall be limited to those rights and protections and the extent of those rights and protections afforded to prisoners under the Constitution of the United States" to encompass Alaska's due process rights that have been interpreted differently from those under the U.S. Constitution. TAPE 97-9, SIDE B Number 568 SENATOR PARNELL asked what other prisoners' rights might change under CSSJR 3(JUD). SENATOR DONLEY replied Alaska is required to provide and maintain a law library and photocopier, among other specific things, according to the Cleary settlement. The federal Constitution allows for less expensive, alternative means to guarantee prisoners access to the courts and other areas. Under CSSJR 3 (JUD), Alaska would still have to provide the means to legal access approved by federal courts, but would not have to maintain an updated law library in every institution. Another distinguishable feature of prisoners' rights is the provision of rehabilitation programs, mandated by the Alaska Constitution. SENATOR PARNELL moved to adopt CSSJR 3 (0-LSO268\E) as the working draft of the committee. There being no objection, CSSJR 3 was adopted. SENATOR PARNELL asked Senator Donley to elaborate on the purpose of SJR 3, because he finds it ironic that Alaska would want to be subject to the federal Constitution instead of our own state's Constitution. He noted he is troubled by the implications of taking this action related to other federal issues, such as the state sovereignty issue. SENATOR DONLEY replied there are two reasons. Alaska's Constitution provides its citizens with more individual rights than those under the U.S. Constitution. We think of those rights as applying to law-abiding citizens in the general population. When those rights are extended into the prison system they create a different standard than that provided under the federal constitution. While Alaska courts may interpret the Alaska Constitution to extend those individual rights to prisoners, that extension may not be the wisest public policy. Second, the Cleary settlement can only be revisited if significant changes occur. SJR 3 would create a significant enough change to allow renegotiation. Number 437 SENATOR PARNELL asked if SJR 3 would apply only to convicted, and not pre-trial, prisoners. SENATOR DONLEY said the federal standard prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment only applies to people who have been convicted and incarcerated but Alaska Courts could extend due process rights to those prisoners as well. His intent, when drafting SJR 3, was that it only apply to people who have been convicted and incarcerated. He was unsure whether Alaska has any distinct rights for pre-trial prisoners separate from federal constitutional rights. SENATOR PARNELL noted Alaska's right against self incrimination is much broader than the federal right; the Legislature passed a discovery bill during the previous session in an attempt to get the Supreme Court to narrow the scope. SENATOR DONLEY believed that is not an element of one's incarceration, but is a separate issue. Number 409 SENATOR PARNELL suggested including a definition of "prisoners" in the resolution to clarify it applies to convicted prisoners, not pre-trial prisoners. SENATOR DONLEY believed the court would have difficulty applying it to anyone other than prisoners who are incarcerated after conviction because otherwise there would be a dual system of rules for pre-trial prisoners: those who could make bail, and those who could not. BRUCE RICHARDS , Special Assistant to the Commissioner at the Department of Corrections, did not state a position on SJR 3, but submitted the following testimony for the record on behalf of Commissioner Pugh. I understand that discussion in the last hearing included some thought that if the Department did not have to abide by the caps set by the Court that we could put more prisoners in existing correctional facilities. I wanted to take the opportunity to go into that premise a little deeper. From a correctional management standpoint, overcrowding is not solely created by the Court caps. I welcome the opportunity to discuss with the committee the other issues that limit the number of inmates that can be housed in a facility. 1. Inmate management, security, and programs are impacted negatively. I am firmly on record regarding the dangers of increased violence, not enough work or treatment programs to keep inmates busy, and the dangers inherent in inmate idleness in a correctional institution. In addition to idleness, the ability to deliver rehabilitative programs decreases. And on top of it all, the staff are stretched too thinly to provide a safe level of oversight. I could speak at great length about these conditions. I've spent the better part of the last 26 years of my career in and around institutions in Alaska - as a Superintendent and as a line worker - so I believe I can attest to what I tell you, not just from a theoretical or philosophical standpoint, but from actual hands-on experience in Alaska. 2. The other issue involved in placing more prisoners in an institution needs to be discussed. That is that each facility was designed to support a specified prisoner population. There is a limited capability to absorb increases in population. What I'm talking about is design capacity of physical plants. -There are fire, life safety, and building codes to consider. There is the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards, the Uniform Plumbing Code, not to mention DEC, EPA considerations, OSHA and ADA. -Someone said to me the other day that it is like an elevator that is rated for X pounds. That doesn't mean that you can't put more pounds in it, but that you tempt system failure with potentially disastrous results if you exceed the rating -- and the problem is exacerbated if you exceed the rating every single time the elevator is called into service. -I want to give you a few examples of just what I mean. HMCC in Eagle River is rated for x gallons of effluence handled by the sewer system and draining into Eagle River. That translates into 285 inmates. We run the sewer treatment system and measure the outfall and report to DEC. We're right at 285. So even if we could put more bunks in cells there, we would not be able to handle the sewage problem. -One other comment about sewer discharge: too much sewer discharge in undersized lines can back up badly. UPC requirements aren't to be taken lightly. Just last month at Spring Creek the sewer system backed up into the kitchen, we had raw sewage in the kitchen area which had to be closed, system unclogged, kitchen sanitized and the sandwiches bought from AVTec. At Palmer Correctional Center in Sutton we have 2 wells. And the water system and well capacity are at maximum capacity. We are double bunked at Palmer. Even if we could triple bunk, which we can't, we would need to put in a new well. We included the cost of a new well in our bond bill last year which included an expansion at Palmer. -In the supplemental budget bill we're asking for more than $600,000 to replace a boiler in Fairbanks. Putting more bodies in a building increases the load on a boiler to carry the heat and hot water. At the very least, this decreases the life cycle of the boiler. -KCC is double bunked, it was built for single, but now has doubles. There is literally no space for a third bunk. The dayroom is rated for the number of inmates for a single bunk. Half of the inmates are locked down while the other half are in the dayroom. The dining room is actually the multi-purpose room where many other of the activities take place. Inmates eat in shifts. If another shift is added, for example, the multi-purpose dining room is not available for scheduled afternoon activities. -The Fire Marshall has established exiting criteria, so that if one would propose housing inmates in areas not designed as housing, there would be problems with managing exits. If exits are internal, etc. -There are standards for minimum ventilation requirements, typically based on minimum air flows and air changes per hour. Substantial overcrowding would violate these code requirements. And while mentioning ventilation codes, I should point out that prison populations have a relatively high incidence of TB and hepatitis and other airborne pathogen diseases. Overcrowding in poorly-ventilated housing units subject staff and other prisoners to the diseases. Financial claims and costly litigation often precede expensive facility modification. -One last example ... security control systems have switches and other moving parts. Most mechanical devices are rated for x number of uses before failure. If you double or triple the number of uses the switches or parts wear out ... their life cycle is shorter. -And from here we could get into a discussion of existing deferred maintenance needs. I will spare you that, except to say, we have over $13 million in deferred maintenance and another $9 in equipment. Over-use of systems just exacerbates the deferred maintenance problem. I hope I have answered some questions and given you a broader glimpse into a day in the life of a correctional manager. It's not simple and not just a matter of how many people can fit in an elevator. SENATOR MILLER moved CSSJR 3(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected and asked about Senator Parnell's drafting concern. After a brief discussion, SENATOR MILLER withdrew his motion so that a definition of "prisoner" could be included in CSSJR 3(JUD). Number 351 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted he would be willing to reschedule CSSJR 3(JUD) at any future hearing, and informed committee members of testimony from Mr. Paul Sweet who was unable to be connected via teleconference. Mr. Sweet supports SJR 3 and believes prisoners should work 12-hour rotating shifts.