HB 93-PROBATION AND PAROLE: WORK, TRAVEL ACCOM.  9:03:08 AM CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of HB 93. [CSHB 93(STA) was before the committee.] 9:03:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE CATHY TILTON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that HB 93 is a piece of ongoing legislation on the reforms on the criminal justice system. She specified that the legislation tells the parole officer to look at the employment of a probationer when considering making their probation appointments. She noted that employment is one of the major things that keeps probationers from recidivating. She added that employment allows probationers to pay restitution to their victims and back to the state. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said Chairman Stoltze asked her at the previous meeting if parole was a qualified privilege or right. She asserted that in no way does she believe parole is a right and insisted that parole is a qualified privilege. She noted that Senator Coghill had questioned the word "diligent," which is used throughout the bill. She noted that she had looked up the word "diligent" in Black's Law Dictionary and it is defined as, "Careful and attentive, being persistent in doing something industrious and assiduous carried out with care and constant effort." She noted that "diligent" is used 29 times in statute. She said the word "active" is used 209 times in statute, but the word is not defined in Black's Law Dictionary. She surmised that "diligent" presumes "active," but "active" does not presume "diligent." 9:06:29 AM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON noted that a question was asked in the previous meeting regarding the use of the word "shall" when used in context with requiring a parole officer to grant a travel pass for a probationer. She revealed that Chairman Stoltze's office received a legal memo from Legal Services; subject: Granting of a Travel Pass, date: April 6, 2015. She summarized that Legal Services was asked whether Section 1 of CSHB 93(STA) on page 2, lines 12-14, could create a situation where the probation officer may be compelled to grant a person on probation a travel pass. She explained Legal Service's "brief answer" as follows: Only if the travel is not inconsistent with other terms of probation set by the court, a probation officer likely maintains the discretion to decline travel in most circumstances, and can always seek the court's guidance to resolve close questions. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that there is a place for tribal entities in the state's justice system, at least on a limited level. He asked how a request is weighed when a village asks that an individual not be allowed to return. 9:08:02 AM COMMISSIONER RONALD TAYLOR, Alaska Department of Corrections, Anchorage, Alaska, replied that the Department of Corrections (DOC) currently weighs all of the factors by looking at the conditions of probation and parole to decide if a person could travel. He said HB 93 will allow the probation officer to give a more careful look at ensuring that an individual's work is not interfering with their duties to fulfill their requirements for probation or parole. He said DOC's goal is to make sure that the person is working, but in those cases where the community has said, "We don't want them to come back to our community," that certainly is going to be taken into account and restrictions will be invoked. He added that the court or the parole boards themselves will add restrictions as part of the travel requirement where the individual will be refrained from going into a community, unless their required treatment has been completed. CHAIR STOLTZE asked if DOC's relationship and procedures with a probationer or parolee is formalized in manuals regarding the discussion and negotiation with where an individual is from. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR answered that the conditions themselves are the formal thing that dictate DOC's authority on whether or not a person will be allowed back into their community. He specified that there are issues when a probation officer has to make a judgement call and the decision has to be articulated. He noted that a probationer or parolee can go to the court or parole board and request that their case be reviewed. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that a group in the Mat-Su Borough called "Stop Valley Thieves" has a website with over 9,000 members. He noted that the group is very active in the pursuit and administration of justice. He added that the group has very active leaders who are very well versed in Article 1, Section 24 on victim's rights. He asked Representative Tilton if she had any interaction with the Stop Valley Thieves group on the issue of probation and restorative justice. 9:10:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE TILTON answered that she has had some discussion with Ms. Wallner, the person that started the group, in regards to HB 93. She reiterated Chair Stoltze's question if parole and probation was a qualified privilege or a right. She asserted that parole and probation are a qualified privilege. She specified that under conditions of probation that are warranted, the intent is to keep probationers employed, have an individual go back into society, and to pay restitution to maybe help victims heal. CHAIR STOLTZE noted that Representative Tilton addressed, "allowing restitution." He asked if restitution should be required. REPRESENTATIVE TILTON replied that "required" would be a better word. 9:12:33 AM At ease. 9:12:53 AM CHAIR STOLTZE called the committee back to order. 9:13:05 AM SENATOR HUGGINS moved to report CSHB 93(STA), from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he wanted to put on the record that the court may look someday for what the Legislature's intent in passing the bill was and noted that his intent is that he is relying on the Legal Service's opinion, dated April 6, 2015, where it says, "A probation officer likely maintains the discretion to decline travel in most circumstances and can always seek the court's guidance to resolve close questions." He specified that his intent in passing HB 93 is that the discretion remains with the probation officer and in close cases there should be due discretion given to the probation officer in determining whether or not he or she thinks the specified case may not necessarily be a good idea to have the probationer travel. 9:14:07 AM CHAIR STOLTZE concurred with Senator Wielechowski that the opinion from Legal Services becomes part of the legislative record for the State Affairs Committee. He announced that seeing no objection, CSHB 93(STA) moves from Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.