SB 34-PROBATION; PAROLE; SENTENCES; CREDITS  3:33:04 PM ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE announced the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 34 "An Act relating to probation; relating to a program allowing probationers to earn credits for complying with the conditions of probation; relating to early termination of probation; relating to parole; relating to a program allowing parolees to earn credits for complying with the conditions of parole; relating to early termination of parole; relating to eligibility for discretionary parole; relating to good time; and providing for an effective date." He opened public testimony on SB 34. 3:33:47 PM CHRIS EICHENLAUB, representing self, Eagle River, stated that he was generally supportive of any laws that get rid of Senate Bill 91. His three concerns are perverts, thieves, and drug addicts. They cause the majority of the problems in our communities and should be dealt with severely, he said. He reiterated support for measures that get rid of Senate Bill 91 and noted that he was pleased with the proposed chair of the probation board. ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE asked if supports SB 34. MR. EICHENLAUB replied, "I am in support of SB 34." 3:37:17 PM TERRIA VANDENHUERK, representing self, Anchorage, testified that, for a few reasons, she does not support SB 34. She related that while she was incarcerated for an unclassified felony she received treatment, and when she applied for discretionary parole it was granted. During the six years she was on discretionary parole, she did not commit one violation. In April, she will celebrate 14 years drug free. She said she opposes eliminating the opportunity for all prisoners to apply for discretionary parole and returning to the previous approach for sanctioning technical violations. She spoke about the ministry she founded that helps former gang members transition back to their communities and the difficulty she faced when a probation officer tried to have her arrested for violating the condition of no felon-to-felon contact while she was working in the ministry. She opined that peer support specialists with "lived experience" should be partnering with the probation office to help these people get their lives on track. ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE congratulated her on 14 years of success. SENATOR REINBOLD asked the term of her sentence for the unclassified felony and how many years she served before she was released on discretionary parole. MS. VANDENHUERK replied she was sentenced for an unclassified drug conviction to 20 years with 8 years suspended. She served 5 of those 12 years, which was the mandatory minimum. During her time in prison, she availed herself of every opportunity for rehabilitation. The first time she applied for parole it was granted. Her son advocated for her release because he could tell that she had "turned her life around." Reuniting with family is a great benefit and the children of former inmates benefit as well, she said. SENATOR REINBOLD offered her understanding that discretionary parole is available after serving one-quarter of the sentence. VANDENHUERK responded that the requirements are different for other felonies but her mandatory minimum for a 20-year sentence was 5 years. 3:42:56 PM MICHAEL MOORADIAN, representing self, Anchorage, said he was in long-term recovery and that was possible through Wellness Court. He generally favors SB 34 with a few caveats. He opined that it would be helpful to have a better definition of "technical violation" because someone may commit one without any knowledge of having done so. For example, someone may come out of an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting and talk with someone who was also at the meeting and it's a technical violation because both are convicted felons. He said he does not support mandated time limits on early termination of probation and parole, but he believes there should be a process for those on probation and parole to petition for early release without it resting entirely on the probation officer (PO) to be the advocate. He shared that he works in the recovery field and has found that some POs do not believe that treatment works. Also regarding parole eligibility, he said he generally agrees with the recommendations in SB 34 but people with class B and C felonies for possession [of a controlled substance] should be eligible. People in possession who are addicts have a medical issue and are unlikely to get the services they need while incarcerated. He reiterated support for SB 34 with some adjustments in terminology and definitions. 3:46:23 PM KARA NELSON, representing self, Juneau, testified in strong opposition to SB 34. She shared that she is the former director of Haven House Juneau, a faith-based recovery facility for women returning to the community after incarceration. Because she was formerly incarcerated, she has a unique perspective of probation and parole. Based on her personal experience, she believes that probation and parole is one of the most important, yet often neglected, pieces of reforming the legal system. She has seen and advocated [to change] many of the inconsistencies of supervised probation. Working with POs, she was able to be part of the transformation that occurred when Senate Bill 91 became law. She also witnessed some gross misuse of power. She shared her personal experience while on supervised probation and opined that POs generally support having options when they consider technical violations. Prior to passing Senate Bill 91, it wasn't clear how long she would remain in prison for a technical violation. She agreed with prior testimony that some POs do not support a parolee working with a peer in the recovery field if the peer is also a convicted felon. She noted that some POs had a change of attitude about sanctions once they had more tools. She pointed out that the term "technical violation" covers a vast array of behaviors. She reiterated opposition to SB 34 and stated that we were getting somewhere with the existing sanctions instead of someone's life being in the hands of a probation officer who has no tools. ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE suggested she submit a detailed document on her concerns to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov. 3:52:25 PM ROGER BRANSON, representing self, Juneau, said he would like to speak to the topic of "the voice not here." He said the voice of Dan Saddler from his district is missing but he is represented. The voice of Ron Gillam from the Kenai Peninsula is missing, but he and his concerns are well represented here. He asked Senator Kawasaki if he would represent the voice of Kelsey Green. Her voice is missing and she is not well represented today. He thanked the committee for its time. ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE asked if he had any comments on SB 34. MR. BRANSOM replied the committee will do good work on SB 34 with all the voices represented. He added that he finds the bill problematic with the way it is written. "Specifically, we seem to be creating these tools to beat each other up with and I can't see that as being good at the end of the day." He said you speak of community condemnation and that can easily turn into a witch hunt. 3:54:58 PM ACTING CHAIR MICCICHE stated that public testimony would remain open on SB 34 and he would hold the bill in committee. He encouraged the public to submit written testimony to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov.