Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 211
03/09/2009 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB51 | |
| SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 19-COMPLAINTS AGAINST PEACE OFFICERS/VPSOS
2:06:59 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 19. [Before the
committee was CSSB 19(CRA).] Speaking as sponsor, he said the
bill is about making the complaint process regarding state
troopers more transparent because the current system allows
almost no feedback to the citizen who has lodged a complaint
against a trooper. The bill has two provisions. The first would
allow the citizen to receive status reports to provide
reassurance that the complaint is progressing through the
system. The second provision, on page 2, allows the citizen to
receive feedback once the complaint is finished so they would
know whether or not the complainant was found to be valid.
He has had numerous conversations with public safety employees
and he recognizes their concerns with the bill. He has also
spoken with Anchorage Police Department (APD) officers about how
they handle this process and they have some interesting ideas.
He noted that the administration is also working on the issue to
institute [transparency] administratively, with or without
passage of SB 19. He recognizes there are pitfalls and benefits
to each approach and he intends to proceed cautiously.
At-ease from 2:10:03 PM to 2:11:15 PM.
2:11:20 PM
JOE MASTERS, Commissioner Designee, Department of Public Safety,
said he would primarily comment on what the department is doing
that goes along with the intent and spirit of SB 19. The primary
intent is to ensure public trust when the department is dealing
with internal discipline issues or investigating improper
conduct of employees. Early in his tenure he identified the need
to change some internal policies and procedures and internal
structure on how the department addresses citizen complaints
about the conduct of department employees. In the past there
wasn't a good mechanism to track or manage complaints and often
the investigations were conducted by employees who were not in
the area where the complaint was filed. These practices created
inconsistency and provided too little feedback to the citizen
who filed the complaint.
In early 2009 he started the process to open the Office of
Professional Standards for the purpose of addressing these
issues. Initially the office will be staffed by two
investigators who will be responsible for investigating
misconduct of officers within the Alaska State Troopers, Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, and other divisions within DPS. They also
will be responsible for tracking all complaints of employee
conduct, regardless of whether that unit investigates the
complaint or not.
2:15:00 PM
COMMISSIONER MASTERS said they're in the process of identifying
software that will allow the unit to track and manage complaints
as they come in. It will also provide department supervisors and
managers an early warning mechanism identify an employee who is
a potential future problem. This will allow conduct and training
issues to be dealt with early-on and potentially save employees
who are worth holding on to.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what he sees the Office of Professional
Standards doing with respect to the issues of telling the
complainant the status of the investigation and providing
feedback to the complainant about the result of the
investigation.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he believes those issues can be
handled within a policy structure of the unit. A project manager
currently is working to stand up the unit and soon will start to
write new and rewrite existing policies to address the issues of
complaints coming in and reporting back to the complainant.
2:17:49 PM
CHAIR FRENCH noted that an issue that's come to his attention
from the perspective of the troopers, the PSEA union, and APD
officers is that if feedback on a complaint is too clear and
specific, it may have negative repercussions to the officer
through the defense and prosecution process. He asked if that's
been a concern as he's developed internal policies.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS said that is a concern he has, particularly
when a mistake was made early in an officer's career and that
behavior was corrected. He's also concerned about the potential
for the public to be misinformed if a complainant is found to be
only partially valid.
2:20:50 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he anticipates that the internal policies
of the Office of Professional Standards will be reduced to a
written policy document.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked when the policies will be in writing.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he anticipates a draft policy
manual will be available within three months.
2:22:06 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there will be any provision for the
complainant to find out what remedy was assessed in cases where
their complaint has been found to be valid.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS explained that all discipline or action
taken against an employee is currently part of their
confidential personnel record. The policies that the
professional standards unit puts forth will conform to the law.
Complainants won't be informed of the specific action that was
taken against an employee. The generic response will be that an
investigation was undertaken and appropriate action was taken.
2:23:26 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that level of protection is provided
only to police officer or to all state employees.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he understands that is a general
protection afforded to all state employees.
SENATOR THERRIAULT mused about whether the public will be
satisfied with the generic response that the complaint was found
to be valid and appropriate action was taken.
CHAIR FRENCH said it's also easy to see the morass you wade into
if more information is given and the complainant doesn't like
the remedy.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS said he has two additional concerns. One
relates to a complainant trying to escalate an action if they
don't like the discipline that's been given. The other concern
is that if the process is opened to allow complainants to appeal
a decision, it potentially puts every complaint into a more
formal process. It could be counterproductive to ensuring the
public trust.
2:25:50 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he doesn't see anything in the bill that
would lead the complainant to believe he or she would have a
right of appeal.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's a fair observation. His point is that
there is a balance between making certain that the public has
confidence in the disciplinary process that's levied against
individuals who are empowered to arrest and use force against
citizens. "It's an awesome grant of power and it has to be used
very very carefully," he said. The citizens who are subject to
that power have to know that "bad apples" are disciplined.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the caution about a complaint
following an officer throughout his or her career and asked if
you wouldn't want to know about a so called bad apple.
CHAIR FRENCH replied that is the balance. There are officers you
might want to cross examine if you're the subject of an arrest.
On the other hand, having every disciplinary process be part of
the public record may go farther than is desirable. He said he
will hold the bill to look at what other states do and to allow
the commissioner time to work out policy for running the
department. "I have a strong desire to see something like this
become law; on the other hand I want to be very careful about
how we go about it," he said.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there's anyway of knowing what the
recommendation was for an officer who was investigated versus
the final reprimand. Is it state law or personnel rules that led
to that or something the union negotiated?
2:28:34 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said that's outside the confines of the bill and he
would suggest he discuss the process with PSEA.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked the commissioner if the union
negotiates the final reprimand or if it's a statutory or
regulatory process.
COMMISSIONER MASTERS clarified that he isn't giving a legal
answer. He said there are statutes that cover what they can and
can't say and there is language in employee contracts pertaining
to what the processes can be.
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 19 in committee for
further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|