Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/24/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB199 | |
| HB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to Department of Public Safety
regulations allowing village public safety officers to
carry firearms."
1:53:39 PM
AT EASE
1:54:10 PM
RECONVENED
1:54:24 PM
Representative Edgmon explained that the bill would insert
language into state statute that would give the Division of
Public Safety the authority to allow public safety
officers, who otherwise met minimum standards in training,
to carrying firearms. He assured the committee that the
training that a Village Protection Safety Officer (VPSO)
would undergo would be identical to that of a municipal
police officer or state trooper. He noted that in Sitka,
VPSOs, troopers and police officers would all have the same
instructor. He offered a brief history of the VPSO program.
He stated that the goal of the program had been to provide
VPSOs in all of the rural communities in the state. In the
early 1990s there were 130 active VPSOs in the state. He
shared that the program had faced challenges with
recruitment, retention, and placement. He stated that the
conditions were improved with the changes including many
capital upgrades, but many rural communities saw increased
violence. He discussed the death of a VPSO in March 2013.
1:58:28 PM
Representative Edgmon introduced the idea of properly
arming VPSO's in environments where they would be facing a
perpetrator armed with a high-powered rifle. He noted that
HB 199 brought the conversation into the committee
environment. He argued that the time had come to take
action regarding VPSOs and rural Alaska. He noted fiscal
element to properly training the VPSOs.
2:00:51 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Co-Chair Austerman and
Representative Gara had joined the committee.
Vice-Chair Neuman offered concerns regarding the VPSO
firearm training. He had heard testimony regarding VPSO and
handgun training. He asked about psychological training
that might accompany the firearm training. He asked how the
state would address penalties for VPSOs that discharged a
gun inappropriately.
Representative Edgmon responded that the training would be
identical to that of state troopers and municipal police
officers. He furthered that the training met the Alaska
Police Standards Council training, as well as Alaska Law
Enforcement training, requirements. He reminded the
committee that the program was a pilot program with the
goal of approximately 20 VPSO being successfully recruited
and trained at the academy. He that the psychological
evaluation would be identical to that of troopers and
police officers, with a complete doctor's physical
examination, full criminal background checks both statewide
and through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
2:05:17 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked whether the same psychological
testing received by an Alaska State Trooper would be
applied to a VPSO. He restated his question regarding
misuse of the firearm by a VPSO.
Representative Edgmon replied that he did not know the
penalties. He relayed that VPSO's would undergo the Use of
Force Continuum Training, which trained officers
brandishing firearms the necessary techniques for avoiding
the use of deadly force. He said that, according to former
Department of Public Safety commissioner Walt Monegan,
instances where a weapon had been used for deadly force by
law enforcement officers were rare. He though the
department could provide further clarity.
2:07:25 PM
Representative Costello believed that the issue of misuse
of firearms by VPSO's was important and had been brought to
her attention by constituents.
Representative Edgmon responded that the implementation of
bringing in the armed VPSO's would follow a similar process
to how current VPSO's were established. He said that the
topic of arming VPSO's had been a significant one for the
people in charge of administering the program.
2:09:40 PM
Representative Gara supported the bill and hoped that there
was committee support to craft the strongest piece of
legislation possible. He wondered where in the bill it was
stated that the trooper academy in Sitka would be used for
VPSO firearm training.
Representative Edgmon replied that VPSO's were currently
trained at the Alaska State Trooper Academy in Sitka, which
he believed had been firmly established for the record.
Representative Gara asked whether VPSO's received the exact
same training as troopers, or was the training different.
Representative Edgmon stated that the training to become a
trooper was more extensive, obviously; but he understood
that the firearm training would be similar.
2:11:44 PM
Representative Gara asked how the training between VPSO's
and troopers differed.
Representative Edgmon deferred the question to the
Department of Public Safety.
2:11:58 PM
Representative Munoz queried the difficulty the department
had faced filling VPSO positions.
Representative Edgmon thought that allowing VPSO's to carry
firearms would make them feel safer on the job. He believed
that if recruits could depend on a certain level of safety
then positions would be easier to fill.
2:14:37 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that collective bargaining
units had shown interest in the legislation.
Representative Edgmon stated that the primary source of
opposition to the bill had been about the concern for
thorough and comprehensive psychological screening. He
shared that there had been discussion surrounding the
adequacy of the fiscal note to get the job done.
Co-Chair Stoltze hoped that opposition would be expressed
in the committee process through open and honest debate.
Representative Edgmon believed that meaningful discussion
would strengthen the effort.
2:18:18 PM
CAPTAIN STEVE ARLOW, STATEWIDE VPSO COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, responded to Vice-Chair Neuman's question
regarding deadly force. He relayed that often the
Department of Public Safety would be tasked with the
investigation of certain agencies. He said that the Alaska
Bureau of Investigations would be brought in and the
situation would be treated like a crime scene, the protocol
would be to treat it like any other investigation. He
shared that once the investigation was written up it would
be reviewed by the Office of Special Prosecutions; if there
was any indication that the officer had used inappropriate
force, that office would evaluate the case and make a
determination as to whether criminal charges should be
filed against the offending officer. He related that if all
indications showed that training skills and situations were
justifiable then the Office of Special Prosecutions would
clear the officer of the use of deadly force. He believed
that the same protocol would apply to VPSOs.
2:21:54 PM
Mr. Arlow spoke to the selection of VPSOs for the pilot
program. He stated that the issue had been under discussion
for some time. He explained that VPSOs would be selected
from particular regions and that it was already known which
regions would be good candidates. He said that the
psychological evaluation would take priority and anyone who
did not pass the evaluation would not continue on to the
training in Sitka.
2:23:21 PM
Representative Costello asked whether a village VPSO that
did not pass the psychological evaluation to carry a
firearm would lose their job altogether.
Mr. Arlow replied that a VPSO would not be dismissed if
they failed to be able to carry a firearm. He clarified
that the VPSO would simply not be able to participate in
the program.
2:24:28 PM
Co-Chair Austerman queried the difference between the
psychological tests for a VPSO versus the test for a VPSO
who would carry a firearm.
Mr. Arlow replied that he did not know the difference
between the two tests. He thought a psychologist could
provide a more accurate understanding of the process.
Co-Chair Austerman asserted that the situation sounded like
a double standard.
2:26:22 PM
Representative Gara asked about the goal of adding 15 VPSOs
each year for the next 10 years. He opined that only 16 had
been added in the past 5 years He wondered why the
screening program was a pilot program.
Representative Edgmon responded that there were currently
29 vacant positions. He thought that the pilot screening
program spoke to the careful steps taken by the department
and non-profits in executing the program. He stated that
candidates would be carefully screened and would most
likely be candidates that had been VPSOs for some time. He
stressed that this would be a fundamental change for the
majority of all VPSOs.
2:28:52 PM
Co-Chair Austerman asked if Captain Arlow was in charge of
the VPSO for the troopers.
Captain Arlow replied yes. He furthered that he had
overseen the statewide VPSO program for the past 8 years.
Representative Munoz queried the current pay to VPSOs and
what the department's intentions were to increase pay with
additional training.
Captain Arlow stated that the VPSO salary was good. He
stated that the department did not plan to increase the
salary with the introduction of firearms.
2:30:17 PM
Captain Arlow stated that the VPSO program was a
longstanding 40 year program without firearms. He furthered
that the department wanted to be diligent that when an
armed VPSO was introduced to a community, the community was
accepting. He said that the program was a pilot program
with the focus of starting off small so that the community
reaction could be evaluated. He noted that VPSOs were often
the only law enforcement presence in rural communities. He
spoke to the Sitka Academy as the primary training
location. He said that the VPSO firearm training would be
the exact same training that any municipal police officer
or state trooper would receive. He pointed out to the
committee that the duties of a state trooper and a VPSO
were different; a VPSO was a public safety servant with
many other components, VPSOs were often first responders to
scenes before troopers. He stressed that more extensive
training went into training a trooper than a VPSO. He
highlighted several of the differences:
· VPSOs received 88 hours of scenario based training,
troopers and municipal officers received 280 hours.
· VPSOs received 8 hours of search and seizure training,
troopers received 16 hours.
· VPSOs studied 36 hours of elements of law, troopers
received 58 hours.
Captain Arlow relayed that both VPSOs and troopers were
trained on the same elements, but troopers were trained
more extensively. He said that this was because VPSOs would
primarily deal with misdemeanor cases and troopers handled
homicide and high profile cases.
2:34:45 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about victim's rights training.
Captain Arlow responded that the topic would be touched on,
but that it would be enhanced during field training.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether he was aware of the
constitutional victims' right amendment. He discussed the
importance of the issue.
Co-Chair Austerman asked about the Sitka training for
VPSOs. He understood that there had been a shortage of
VPSOs. He wondered if the VPSO would automatically receive
firearm training at the academy.
Captain Arlow responded that the department intended to
bring on future applicants that would be able to qualify
for the firearm component.
Representative Gara asked whether VPSO received full
training on how to respond to homicides, rapes, and
assaults.
Captain Arlow clarified that the crimes were not different
in rural areas versus urban areas, but that the VPSO
training would have less training for crimes that were not
traditionally seen in rural Alaska. He said that the crimes
that would be trained on, specific to rural Alaska, were
domestic violence and assault. He relayed that VPSO would
not investigate the more complex crimes.
Representative Gara thought that the disparity in training
was significant.
Captain Arlow thought that the additional hours of training
for VPSOs would be firearms and scenario based training.
2:41:31 PM
Representative Edgmon interjected that if there was a
felony situation the VPSO would secure and protect the
scene and immediately contact the oversight trooper.
Captain Arlow noted from experience that many people in law
enforcement were hoping to use firearms. The program had
been successful. He thought that the firearms would bring
in a different caliber of applicants and alleviate
turnover.
2:43:38 PM
Representative Gara asked whether the VPSO training would
include navigating hostage or suicide situations.
Captain Arlow responded yes. He stated that the current
academy provided training to deescalate those kind of
situations; the courses that were believed to be valuable
to a trooper would be administered to a VPSO.
Representative Gara wondered whether VPSOs would be
informed on the work done by the Violent Crime Compensation
Board.
Captain Arlow replied that VPSOs received training that
included information about the board.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that there was a prepared pamphlet
offered by the Office of Victim's Rights.
2:46:59 PM
JOE MASTERS, FORMER COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, testified in favor of the legislation. He noted
that the sponsors had laid out a simple change that would
require the Department of Public Safety to move forward
with appropriate regulations to assure that VPSOs, if
communities agreed, have the ability to be armed. He did
not believe that the bill diminished the statutory or
regulatory authority held by the commissioner to establish
the minimum training and certification level. He declared
that he had a firm understanding of the job, as it was his
first position with the department. He believed that the
proper tools should be available to VPSO's in order to
defend themselves should the need arise. He stated that
early iterations of the program had allowed for VPSOs in
communities with liability insurance to carry firearms, a
practice that ended in the mid-1980s. He said that most
employers today were inclined to take on the additional
liability to assure that the VPSOs in their communities
were properly armed. He shared that he used to be a trainer
at the academy in Sitka and that one of his duties was to
conduct firearms training. He spoke of a program from the
early 1990s, the VPSO Municipal Police Academy (MPA)
Transition, which provided additional training to selected
VPSOs that met police standard certification levels and
included firearms training. He relayed that in his
experience there was no more difficulty in training VPSOs
in the use of firearms than any other municipal police
officer or trooper.
2:53:46 PM
Mr. Masters relayed that VPSO training should include
training for the task of carrying a firearm so that they
could do it safely, which did not mean that the training
had to be on the same level at a trooper. He noted that
security officers around the state were able to carry
firearms without academy training. He asserted that there
was wide support for the legislation because it was the
right thing to do.
2:55:09 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the department had supported
the legislation when Mr. Masters was commissioner. Mr.
Masters replied yes. Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether Mr.
Masters had changed his mind since becoming a private
citizen. Mr. Masters replied no. Mr. Masters replied that
he endeavored to protect the citizens of Alaska. Co-Chair
Stoltze asked if Mr. Masters had become more assertive in
his support since becoming a private citizen. Mr. Masters
said yes. He noted that during his time as commissioner he
had started the process of a regulations change, which was
currently still underway.
2:57:43 PM
Representative Gara asked whether VPSO's were trained in
preserving evidence.
Mr. Masters replied that the difference was between
immediately responding to an incident that occurred in a
community, and then continuing the initial response into a
prolonged investigative process. He said that in the
situation of a felony crime the VPSO would most likely be
the first responder and were appropriately trained in that
regard. He relayed that VPSOs did not receive all of the
training required to complete the investigative processes.
He stated that VPSOs received training on what level was
the appropriate use of force against individuals that were
a danger to themselves or others. He added that deadly
force training was also administered but did not involve
the use of firearms.
3:01:34 PM
JAMES HOELSCHER, SELF, HOOPER BAY, testified that he
started as a village police officer in 1994, and had since
received his certified police officer certificate. He said
that in 2009 he had applied to be a VPSO and was hired and
stationed in Hooper Bay. He relayed that families worried a
great deal when sending their loved ones out as VPSOs, but
that the worry was lessened when the officer was armed. He
said that the stress that the job puts on families can make
officers wonder if the job is worth the worry, but he
believed that working the job was the best way he could
serve his community. He stated that positions would be more
easily filled by higher caliber applicants, and that
retention and longevity numbers would increase, if VPSOs
could carry guns
3:06:51 PM
Mr. Hoelscher testified that he worked in a community where
law enforcement was what the community expected of him. He
stated that areas more exposed to danger saw higher
turnover rates for VPSOs, Hooper Bay had seen 7 VPSOs in
the past 20 years. He believed that if the bill were to
pass it would result in an increase in scenario based
training for VPSOs. He related that all VPSOs received
training in use of force situations. He communicated that
VPSOs were currently unarmed and that the ability to carry
a firearm would serve as a deterrent to keep larger crimes
from happening.
3:11:44 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Edgmon thanked the chairman for the latitude
given to the discussion. He noted that over the 40 year
history of the program there had been 2 VPSO fatalities,
both in Bristol Bay.
HB 199 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:14:53 PM
AT EASE
3:18:15 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB32 - Business License Counts_2-18-14.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 32 Letter from Bridget Lujan.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 199 2014 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 ADPS Draft Regulation Change to 13 AAC 96.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 House Finance Committee Hearing Request.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Information Hearing BBNA Testimony and Resolutions CEO Ralph Anderson.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Informational Meeting Summary 9.26.2013.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Letters--Informational Hearing--9.26.2013.PDF |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 199 Media-Resolutions-Letters.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |
| HB 32 CS FIN WORKDRAFT R version.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB 199 APOA Letter.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 199 |