Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/11/2020 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
HB290 | |
HB287 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS [Contains discussion of HB 221.] 1:39:25 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 287, "An Act requiring background investigations of village public safety officer applicants by the Department of Public Safety; relating to the village public safety officer program; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 287(TRB).] 1:40:25 PM KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State Legislature, offered a PowerPoint presentation CSHB 287(TRB), on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor. He noted that Representative Kopp was presenting a bill in the House Finance Committee at that time. MR. TRUITT stated that the proposed legislation represents the culmination of the Joint Legislative Village Public Safety Officers working group, which was called to explore possible changes and provide recommendations to the legislature on the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program. He explained that the working group was formed by legislative leadership in May 2019, and the working group members were: Senator Click Bishop, Senator Mike Shower, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Representative George Rauscher, and Co-Chairs Senator Donald Olson and Representative Chuck Kopp. 1:42:13 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 4 of the PowerPoint presentation, stated that 9 out of 10 of the grantee organizations that currently run the VPSO program are essentially tribal governments. He said that the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska ("Tlingit & Haida"), is on its own merit a federally recognized tribes, and all of the other groups, except for the Northwest Arctic Borough, are nonprofit organizations that were formed as state chartered nonprofits when the state did not recognize tribes and would not have formal relationships with tribes; therefore, they formed nonprofit corporations in order to apply for, and run, the VPSO program. 1:42:50 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation, said that the assignment of the working group was to coordinate with stakeholders, look at the issues that came forward, and try to find solutions to turn over. He said that the working group was active from August 2019 to December 2019, and it met twice in January to review and adopt the draft report. 1:43:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked, referencing slide 4 of the PowerPoint presentation, how the Northwest Arctic Borough was a tribal government, as mentioned earlier by Mr. Truitt. 1:43:47 PM MR. TRUITT replied that 9 of the 10 groups were tribal governments, in addition to the Northwest Arctic Borough and, in response to a follow up question, confirmed that Tlingit & Haida is a federally recognized tribe. 1:44:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Kodiak Area Native Association is a tribal government. MR. TRUITT answered that it is a consortium of tribal governments, which he said is true of many of the grantee organizations on the list. 1:44:35 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 7 of the PowerPoint presentation, pointed out a rough timeline of how the working group started, adopted the report on January 24, and introduced HB 287 one month later. 1:44:56 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 9 of the PowerPoint presentation, pointed out the timeline of the full working group activities. He stated that the timeline shows that only two of the activities were working group convened and called meetings, and those were the first working group meetings with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and VPSO management personnel, and next was the listening session approximately one month later with the VPSO grantee organizations. He said that work was done with DPS, specifically Kelly Howell, about whether DPS and the commissioner would like to be at the listening session with the VPSO grantee organizations. He said that it was decided that DPS would not participate in the meeting for the sake of candor in the discussion between the working group and the grantee organizations. He pointed out that the rest of the activities of the full working group shown on the slide were invitations by different groups to have members of the working group attend. He said that the Northwest Arctic Borough extended an invitation to the working group to its public safety commission, which many members were able to attend. He stated that the Tribal Unity Caucus invited the working group to its annual meeting in December 2019, in Anchorage. He said that the final two full working group convened meetings were the meetings to review the draft report and adopt the report. 1:46:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the working group met with any past or current VPSOs, to get a boots-on-the-ground perspective. MR. TRUITT replied that if he understood Representative Vances question to mean people who were formerly employed as VPSOs, then the answer would be no. In response to a follow up question regarding whether the working group had met with any current VPSOs, he said that when the working group had met with all 10 of the VPSO grantee organizations, the coordinators who manage the programs within the grantee organizations were present, and many of those personnel are certified VPSOs. 1:47:56 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 11 of the PowerPoint presentation, stated that in addition to the full working group, the co-chairs met with the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) planning committee and were then on a panel during the AFN convention with congressional delegation senators, the U.S. attorney general, and Commissioner Price from DPS. He said that the co- chairs also attended a public safety listening session in Nome with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 1:48:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that she assumed that when Mr. Truitt was referring to co-chairs, he was referring to Representative Kopp and Senator Olson. MR. TRUITT confirmed that is correct. MR. TRUITT remarked that the last activity that the co-chairs participated in was a meeting of the VPSO grantee organizations in January 2020, which included all the leadership from the 10 grantee organizations, as well as the VPSO program personnel who manage the VPSO program within those organizations. He said that the meeting was an invitation extended to the co-chairs. 1:49:54 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 12 of the PowerPoint presentation, explained that he would be walking the committee through the report that was adopted by the working group. He said that the working group broke the report into long-term and short-term recommendations. He expressed that by his characterization, these recommendations are not comprehensive, but are issues that were presented during the groups work and appeared to be more significant than what could be accomplished in a 90- to 100-day session. He stated that four of the recommendations address having closer and more formal relations with tribal governments. He said that this would result in closer relationships with the federal agencies that fund tribal governments. MR. TRUITT explained that during the listening sessions in Nome, the co-chairs spent time talking to representatives from the BIA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI), and the federal Office of the Attorney General, and it was relayed to the co- chairs that if Alaska had closer formal relationships with tribal governments, then it would increase the opportunity to access federal funds for things like law enforcement training; however, there would not be much interest in investing those federal funds if the state was not in a productive relationship with tribes and tribal governments. MR. TRUITT stated that the second long-term recommendation was to explore the idea of a state version of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act, which is the federal law from which the term compacting and other social service programs are derived in the Lower 48. It was also recommended to take a longer look at the VPSO program itself and how it is structured, potentially creating career ladders within the VPSO program. He explained that as it stands in the VPSO program currently, there is a single VPSO certification. He stated that during the meeting with the VPSO grantee organization leadership in January, it was recognized in general terms what the appropriation is for the VPSO program, but it didnt in any way attempt to capture the true cost of what full-public safety would be in rural Alaska. He said that there needs to be a realization of what that cost would be so that there can be a sense of how much of that cost is being funded to provide services. He summarized that these recommendations seemed to be topics that would take more time than the compressed interim schedule allowed. 1:53:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that one of the catch-22s associated with the VPSO program, and making statutory changes to provide higher levels of training to bring the VPSO levels of training to the equivalent and pay of a state trooper, is VPSOs leaving to take positions in municipal law enforcement or as troopers. He explained that approximately four years prior, the Public Safety Training Academy had increased its training to allow VPSOs to carry weapons, and once that training was in place, it was found that the VPSOs were moving on to municipal police departments and the state troopers. He expressed it is a dilemma that in the VPSO community. He asked whether there was a possible resolution to this issue. MR. TRUITT answered that Representative Shaw made a good observation, and to his knowledge that is something that already happens. He expressed that for that reason, this topic is under the long-term recommendations, because there is an acknowledgement that this will be a potential issue; however, there is no good answer for how to address it at this point in time. He said that the recruitment efforts within the VPSO organizations look locally first, because someone recruited in the community in which he/she lives is more likely to stay, and this could potentially be a solution. He expressed that he was not certain how far that would go as a solution, and answering the question further would just be speculating. 1:56:09 PM MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 13 of the PowerPoint presentation, explained that the short-term recommendations can be found within HB 287, which was the purpose of keeping them as short- term recommendations, as the hope is that they are items that can be moved in one legislative session. He stated that recommendation 1 came from the first meeting the working group had with the commissioner of DPS, which was to take a look at the VPSO statute and update it if the working group found that the current statute was not meeting the expectations of what the legislature might have for the VPSO program. He said that the commissioner and her staff made it very clear, in the appendix of the working group report, that the commissioner and DPS had no vision for the VPSO program, would look exclusively to the legislature to provide the vision for the VPSO program, and would be happy to implement whatever the legislature enacts into statute for the VPSO program. He said that DPS characterized itself as a grant management agency for the VPSO organization, and that it merely implemented statutes and carried out the mission and vision as the legislature put out for the VPSO program. He said that that is why HB 287 was before the committee, because it was inspired from the meeting with the commissioner. MR. TRUITT stated that one of the statements from the meeting with the commissioner and her staff was that the VPSO program is broken and cannot be fixed, and that the VPSO organizations as nonprofits are unable to manage a law enforcement police power. He explained that it was essentially the answer of the working group to say that it was rejecting that position, it does not believe the VPSO program is broken, and it fundamentally believes that operating police forces is not beyond the scope of what these tribal governments and organizations are capable of doing. He said that the scope of the statute is to increase the effectiveness of the VPSO program, rather than say that it cannot be salvaged. 1:59:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether the direction the BIA might have gone in upgrading training and police powers, with Native organizations outside of Alaska, was being taken into consideration. MR. TRUITT replied that this was an excellent observation, and that essentially that is who the co-chairs were talking to on the trip to Nome with the BIA, U.S. Department of the Interior. He said that it was this training specifically which was mentioned, and which could be brought to Alaska; however, as long as Alaska held an antagonistic stance and did not recognize tribes, it would not be inclined to invest in that training. 2:00:14 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that during the previous administration there were significant efforts taken to recognize tribes, which the current administration has not embraced with the same efforts. He asked whether the BIA had indicated that the earlier efforts would have been sufficient to bring the training to Alaska or whether it was a more ambiguous discussion. MR. TRUITT answered that he was not present at the meeting and had not heard either Senator Olson or Representative Kopp comment to that detail, but he said that he thinks that the fact an administration could walk away from those efforts was probably what was referred to when the co-chairs were informed of ways that the BIA would be interested in having those partnerships and offering that training. CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that based on Mr. Truitts testimony, the response of the commissioner was that DPS had no vision for the VPSO program and was looking for the legislature to provide the vision. He asked how the committee should view a DPS commissioner who says she has no vision for the program when the BIA suggests there may be a way to get assistance in training officers if there is recognition of tribes. He asked whether it should be concluded that DPS is not interested in partnering with the BIA, for purposes of training police officers, or at least that DPS does not have a vision for that and is depending on the legislature to provide that vision. MR. TRUITT replied that DPS made these statements about the VPSO program during the first working group meeting, and the meeting in Nome that the co-chairs attended occurred six weeks later. He expressed that he could not answer what DPS may or may not be interested in doing, but he pointed out that there was a long period of time between those two concepts occurring. 2:02:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that she had just recently begun learning about the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and some specific differences between Alaska Natives and tribes in the Lower 48, and she said that her understanding is that Alaska Natives do not have the same legal land jurisdictions as tribes in the Lower 48. She expressed that this might be something that needs to be considered when ensuring that whatever is done with the VPSO program does not counter agreements that have been made. She said her understanding of what is allowed is not clear; she thinks the tribes in the Lower 48 have complete, legal, and lawful jurisdiction over their land, which is not the same for Alaska Natives. She expressed that she thinks this is a sticky issue when it comes to the VPSOs authority, and she asked whether it is accurate to say that the only authority the VPSOs have comes from the state, not from the tribes. MR. TRUITT answered that that is correct on nearly all accounts. He explained that the topic was parked in the long-term recommendations because issues of jurisdiction, even in the Lower 48 where there are defined borders for reservations, have different jurisdictions for the level of crimes and civil actions committed. He explained that the U.S. government takes jurisdiction over all major crimes in Indian country in the Lower 48, and states are left with either no jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction for misdemeanor offenses. He said that is the same for tribes that would have a reservation; they would not have jurisdiction over major crimes within their reservation borders and would have misdemeanor jurisdiction over their members, but not necessarily over nontribal members who might be committing crimes in Indian country. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the only Indian country in Alaska is Metlakatla. MR. Truitt replied that that is the only reservation in Alaska, but Indian country is a broader term that includes land that is in trust, and there are over 1 million acres of allotment land that are held in trust by the U.S. government for individual tribal citizens. 2:05:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that one of the things he appreciates about Representative Vance is that she is inquisitive and well versed on most of the discussed subjects, and he expressed that it is good to listen to what she has to say and follow up on it. He stated that the VPSO program came about in the late 1970s, and he started working at DPS in 1983, when the VPSO program was still relatively new. He said that one of the major issues DPS has had since the implementation of the VPSO program is jurisdiction. He explained that it has always come down to the VPSOs having limited jurisdiction because they do not have a border or city limits, unlike Indian country or reservations. He said that when he was at the Public Safety Training Academy, approximately half a dozen VPSO training programs were sent out to villages. He expressed that he thinks the jurisdictional hardship will continue to be an issue until the tribal organizations, or the state, decide how to establish tribal jurisdiction or a reservation of some kind. He said that this has been an issue for 30 years and he is still hopeful for some resolution. 2:07:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, [referencing HB 221], remarked that a bill was coming up on Friday that would propose the state recognize tribes recognized by the federal government. She asked whether all the problems focused around jurisdiction would go away if the proposed legislation were to pass and be enacted into law. 2:08:43 PM MR. TRUITT answered that he liked Representative LeDouxs optimism. He stated that it is not an accident that the [HB 221] precedes HB 287, but it would not resolve jurisdiction questions. Referencing a comment made earlier by Representative Vance, he said that it was established in a case that the ANCSA reserve lands, or the lands given to the ANCSA corporation, were not Indian country. He said that basically closed the door on the question of whether those lands would be Indian country and have tribal jurisdiction over Indian country. He said that it was the Baker v. John case that established that tribes, even without a land base, still have jurisdiction over their tribal citizens. He said that it might be beyond what he is prepared to comment on authoritatively, but it will be state jurisdiction, as the VPSO program is a state program. He said that some of the changes in the proposed legislation are being recommended to remove any clarity that a VPSO might be authorized to enforce any tribal law. He explained that there is no intent in the proposed legislation for the VPSOs themselves to be enforcing tribal law, not that it might not be something proposed in the future, but it does not exist in HB 287. He reiterated that these were parked in the long-term recommendations, as it will take longer to sort through. MR. TRUITT stated that he could not imagine a scenario, since there is no land base for tribes where the complexities that exist on reservations in the Lower 48 would be presented in Alaska. He explained that in the Lower 48 a reservation might have land that is not owned by a tribe, and there is no tribal jurisdiction over those lots of land within the reservation. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how the proposed legislation would change anything, when certain communities currently have determined to banish someone, or if someone lands there in a plane, and they think that that person is up to not good things, they basically physically put them back on the plane. She asked whether the VPSOs have anything to do with that currently and, if the proposed legislation were to pass, what the VPSOs role would be. 2:12:39 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks they were now talking about the bill that would be on the floor that coming Friday [HB 221], as opposed to HB 287. MR. TRUITT answered that [HB 221] was drawn very carefully to ensure that it preserved the current status of the law regarding tribes in Alaska. He expressed that it would not create or expand any new powers for tribes, diminish state jurisdiction, or reduce the states authority over natural resources; it would simply acknowledge the status of the law as declared by the Alaska Supreme Court and acknowledged by the attorney general of the state. He explained that it would not affect the plane situation referred to earlier by Representative LeDoux. He said that he thinks activities such as banishment occur because of an overall lack of law enforcement presence, whether that be VPSOs or troopers. He said that he thinks those kinds of things have happened in Alaska for a long time, but he said that he thinks the vastness of the state and lack of law enforcement in that space allow for that kind of activity to occur. He said that if HB 287 were to pass with expanded VPSO powers and duties, and it was possible to bring on more VPSOs, then that kind of presence might have a positive effect on those kinds of activities. 2:15:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for clarification on slide 12 of the PowerPoint presentation, and she asked Mr. Truitt to describe what the federal Public Law 280 (PL-280) state is and what it means about concurrent criminal jurisdiction. 2:15:33 PM MR. TRUITT replied that PL-280 was passed in the 1950s by Congress and gave six different states concurrent criminal jurisdiction. He said that he had mentioned earlier that in non-PL-280 states, the federal government retains jurisdiction for major crimes, and states and tribes share concurrent jurisdiction depending on who the actor and victim are for misdemeanor crimes. He said that PL-280 gave the PL-280 states full criminal jurisdiction; therefore, Alaska does not hold exclusive jurisdiction for major crimes, which are basically felonies against a person. He said that Alaska does not have a federal presence in Indian country for any crimes that occur. 2:16:39 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Truitt to identify a state in which the federal government has retained that jurisdiction for major crimes. MR. TRUITT answered that Arizona is one of those states. CHAIR CLAMAN commented that if a major crime occurred on a reservation in Arizona, then the state could not prosecute that crime; it would have to be prosecuted federally. In Alaska, a crime in a village on trust land would have to be prosecuted by the state and the federal government could not prosecute. MR. TRUITT confirmed that is correct. 2:17:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Mr. Truitt thinks this could be why the BIA is reluctant to help with the federal training for VPSOs. MR. TRUITT replied that he thinks that is possible but could not speak exactly to what the BIAs reluctance would be. Based on the trainings he attended on the federal budget during his time as a tribal administrator, he said the BIA does not request law enforcement or tribal court money in PL-280 states because it views PL-280 as absolving it from any responsibility towards law enforcement and court systems. He said that tribes take a different view on that topic. 2:18:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that in states that have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with a tribe, the federal government is not involved, and she asked whether the tribes have criminal jurisdiction MR. TRUITT replied that concurrent jurisdiction would be for misdemeanor offenses; therefore, a PL-280 state has jurisdiction for major crimes, and, by federal statute, tribes do not have jurisdiction for major crimes; therefore, reservation police forces would have misdemeanor criminal jurisdiction for offenses that occurred within their borders. He said that a PL-280 state has concurrent misdemeanor jurisdiction and major crime jurisdiction with the tribe in that state. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a tribe would have to adopt some laws in order to have jurisdiction for misdemeanor matters. MR. TRUITT answered that's correct. He stated, Tribes that have a land base in the Lower 48 will have their own criminal code, just like the state has its criminal code. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Alaskas tribes do not have a land base, except for Metlakatla. MR. TRUITT replied that is correct, and he said it is complicated. In response to a follow-up question, he reiterated that this topic is parked in the long-term recommendations and, further, with the state having ignored tribes for so many years, these issues have not been confronted. He said that with a case saying that ANCSA lands are not Indian country, the situation is simpler and more complicated at the same time; simpler because if there is no land base then most of the tribes, except for Metlakatla, are not going to have criminal jurisdiction, because there are no borders for that. He reiterated that this was one of the holdings from Baker v. John, and he said it becomes jurisdiction for tribes, civil in nature, regarding relationships that tribal members have amongst themselves for domestic relations, child custody, child protection, adoption, and other similar things. 2:21:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that she was being bold and was asking the following question with respect and sensitivity. She said that it had been said several times that the state has ignored the tribes over the years. She said that, regarding federal law, the state doesnt necessarily need to recognize the tribes in the sense that the federal government already has. She said that the tribes exist as tribal governments because of a working relationship with the federal government and the trust, and the state has a different relationship in which it just needs to respect that the tribal governments exist in a government to government relationship with the federal government and work to bring that respect to the forefront. She asked Mr. Truitt what he means, in terms of legality, when he says the tribes have been ignored by the state. MR. TRUITT answered that by ignored he means ignored, denied the existence of, claimed as having no existence in that form, and having no standing in that form. He explained that when he started working in the Office of the Attorney General during former Governor Tony Knowles administration, the word tribe could not be written on a state letterhead, because tribes did not exist, and by putting the word on state letterhead it might suggest that tribes actually exist in the state. He said that there are quotes from the attorneys who gave presentations on the history of federal Indian law and policy in Alaska, pertaining to HB 221, in the House Tribal Affairs Special Committee, pointing out that there are Alaska Supreme Court opinions stating that tribes do not exist in this state. He reiterated that that is what he means by ignored. 2:25:08 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the Baker v. John case changes some of that. MR. TRUITT replied that he believes so. CHAIR CLAMAN asked what the Baker v. John case said about state recognition of tribes and whether the supreme court had said what the constitution says about recognizing tribes. MR. TRUITT answered yes, and he said that he thinks that that is the acknowledgement proposed by HB 221, that while it is the supreme courts role to declare what the law is, the legislature has a role in declaring what the policy of the state is. He said that while the executive branch has agreed with the legal reasoning of the Baker v. John case, it is not the branch that sets policy for the state, it is the legislature that does that. He said that if HB 221 were enacted, as predicted by Representative LeDoux, it would be an acknowledgment of the legislature taking its policy powers under the constitution and declaring it the policy of the state. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was some level at which, when legislators swear to uphold the constitution, in recognition of separation of powers, they are acknowledging the power of the supreme court to tell them what the law is. He asked whether they should be able to follow it if the supreme court has said that this is what the constitution says, without needing to pass a statute saying, We believe you. MR. TRUITT responded that he thinks that is one very plausible interpretation of Alaskas constitutional government. 2:27:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the discussion had turned towards HB 221, which would be heard on that coming Friday, and asked whether its passage would help to get Alaska more federal money. MR. TRUITT answered that when he was working in the tribal health systems tribal health compact, up until 2012, the annual value of the federal health compact was just under $1 billion. He said that was $1 billion dollars of healthcare spending in Alaska that the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) and the legislature did not have to appropriate for. He expressed that this is probably one of the most advanced and developed compacts in the entire country, when it comes to the Self-Determination Act in compacting, and it is without question the largest in terms of dollars, having grown to twice what it was in 2012 with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. He stated that the purpose of HB 221 was not to acquire more federal funds for the state, but it could be an outcome of it. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the exact purpose of HB 221 is. MR. TRUITT answered that Representative Kopp could speak to the purpose better, as it is his bill, but he thinks the heart of the proposed legislation is that it is known that there are issues of brokenness throughout Alaska; they can be seen in suicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence rates. He said that when a sovereign fundamentally looks to a group of people and says that it doesnt exist, or the peoples preferred form of identity has no form of existence, authority, standing, or value, it can only help to contribute to the brokenness seen throughout the state and in rural Alaska. He expressed that maybe, by telling people that their preferred form of identity is valuable, changes will be seen; maybe there will be fewer suicides and sexual assaults. He summarized that he thinks that is the purpose of the legislation proposed under HB 221. 2:30:42 PM MR. TRUITT, returning discussion to agenda item HB 287, referenced slide 13 of the PowerPoint presentation. He stated that recommendation 2 was to find a way to create more flexibility for the grantee organizations. He stated that recommendation 3 was to restore VPSO funding levels to fiscal year 2018 (FY 18) levels. He said that FY 18 was an easy fiscal year to point to, because there had been a $3 million decrement, the legislature added it back in, and it was then vetoed again. He said that everyone acknowledges that the current fiscal year will be different than what FY 18 was, but the working groups perception was that if it could create more flexibility and less bureaucracy in the management of the VPSO program, then there would not be lapsed funding and the money could get out to create better circumstances for law enforcement in rural Alaska. He said that recommendation 4 was the concept to fund unfunded mandates. He noted that it started out in the draft report as an elimination of the unfunded mandates but turned into a funding of the unfunded mandates. He explained that there are several unfunded mandates, one of which relates to recommendation 5 as well. He said that there was an artificial cap for several years on what the grant would pay on the indirect rate for the organizations, as well as restrictions on allowed use of the grant money. He said that recommendation 4 was to try to create as much flexibility for those mandates. 2:32:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that recommendation 5 looks like a good idea in theory, but she is not sure how it would turn out in practice. She stated that her recollection is that some of the grantee organizations have indirect costs which seemed reasonable, but there were some indirect costs that were astronomical. 2:34:07 PM MR. TRUITT remarked that HB 287 proposes a 35 percent cap on the indirect rate, so it would fund up to 35 percent. He stated that he thinks the average for the different grantee organizations was between 32 and 33 percent, which is standard considering overhead expenses for organizations. MR. TRUITT continued that recommendation 6 was to move the financial grant management to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). He said that this was something that staff on the House Finance Committee mentioned to him had been looked at the previous year as something that might be done. He said that recommendation 7 was to maintain operational advisory, training, and experience requirement oversight at DPS; in other words, to keep the operational part of this a DPS program. He stated that recommendation 8 was to create a consultation process for negotiating rule-making changes in the VPSO program. He said that recommendation 9 was to make use of the current VPSO program regulations as a starting point for the new legislation. He expressed that there are several reasons for that, one of which was that it seems to be the easiest path forward with staff rather than creating a brand new program. Another reason was that it was the intent of the working group to not upend the VPSO program. He summarized that the short-term recommendations would update the statutes to provide a clearer law enforcement vision and mission for the program, create more flexibility in getting funding to the organizations, move the money management to DCCED, and keep things working as they had been, but hopefully better and more efficiently. 2:36:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW referenced recommendation 6 [regarding the moving of grant management to DCCED] and recommendation 9 [regarding the operationalization of the VPSO program and facilitation of grant management within DCCED]. He questioned why the grant management would be put under DCCED and not DPS, when the program at hand pertains to public safety. MR. TRUITT pointed to recommendation 7, which pertains to the operational aspect [of the VPSO program] being within DPS, and he indicated that recommendations 7 and 9 "are to work together." 2:38:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what the indirect costs are for the organizations that require 35 percent, considering that DPS is doing the training and things like that. MR. TRUITT replied that indirect cost is a concept that federal grantees have, which includes anyone who receives a grant from the federal government, and this is negotiated with the agency providing the grant; for tribal governments it is typically between one or two different agencies. He explained that the indirect rate represents the fact that when the U.S. government delivers a service or program, there are centralized agencies within the federal government for Information Technology (IT) services, Human Resources (HR) services, payroll, retirement and health care benefits, and other services that are required to deliver a federal program with federal employees, and they are not absorbed by the agency that is delivering the service. He said that if those services are contracted out to a different entity that is not the federal government, that entity will incur centralized services for payroll, finance, management of benefits, legal services, insurance services, and other costs in the management of delivery of the services. He summarized that that is what an indirect rate represents, and Alaska does not get the benefit of the Department of Administration (DOA) managing payroll and benefits. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether one of the proposed changes to CSHB 287(TRB) was to acquire separate insurance coverage for the VPSOs. MR. TRUITT confirmed that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, regarding the previous question from Representative Shaw, proffered that she had asked Representative Kopp why DCCED should manage the grants, and he had explained that DCCED is equipped to handle and distribute grants, whereas DPS is best equipped to handle operations. 2:42:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she thinks when the VPSO program started, long ago, it was not administered through grants and the VPSOs were state employees. She asked why the VPSOs would not be made employees of the state as state troopers are, considering that public safety is a mandatory state function. 2:43:17 PM MR. TRUITT replied that he thinks some of the people who are online for testimony could address that question, but he thinks that part of the answer is that the troopers would never staff the way that the VPSO programs are staffed. He explained that there could be one VPSO in a village, or two VPSOs for eight villages, and getting to the metric for staffing law enforcement in most municipalities for 24/7/365 coverage would require 5 personal control members (PCMs) for 24-hour staffing. He said that he thinks that the short answer is that the VPSOs are a good deal, as it would take five troopers to take the place of one VPSO. 2:44:34 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks Representative LeDoux was correct that the VPSOs were originally state employees. He said that he thinks another part of the decision to try to create the grant functions was based on the thought that the state is less efficient; therefore, if the program is contracted out, then it would be more efficient and effective. He remarked that he is not sure whether history supports that analysis, looking back. 2:45:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the VPSOs would have to be troopers if they went back to being state employees. 2:45:21 PM MR. TRUITT answered that taking a deeper look at the VPSO programs operations is under the long-term recommendations, because of the reasons that Representative LeDoux had just raised. He said that HB 287, and the nine short-term recommendations, is just an acknowledgment that some of the issues are going to take more than one interim to take on and answer in depth. 2:45:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether there was a VPSO coordinator online, because if so he/she might be able to answer several of the committee's questions. 2:46:07 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 287. 2:46:34 PM MELANIE BAHNKE, President, Kawerak, Inc., offered testimony in support of HB 287. She stated that Kawerak, Inc. is one of the contractors for the VPSO program and is also part of a group called the Alaska Regional Coalition, which is a group of four Native tribal regional nonprofits and one regional tribe that represent 65,000 Alaskans and 100 rural communities, from Ketchikan to Kotzebue. She said that the coalition provides services to everyone in its communities, not just Alaska Natives. She said that one of the top coalition priorities is regional equity in budgeting and policy, and the VPSO rural justice issue is a prime example of what regional equity in budgeting means, as Alaska residents are equal to one another and state services should be available to residents regardless of where they reside. She stated that several services are already provided through state grants and contracting with DHSS, DPS, the Department of Law (DOL), the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). She stated that the coalition is a proven partner with the state for delivery of services in rural Alaska where the state has no presence. She expressed that HB 287 would: create a new path forward; create opportunity for more effective rural public safety; embrace innovation and localization of public safety services; uphold the expanded role of todays VPSO compared to the beginnings of the program 40 years ago; and codify existing best practices so everyone could get back to focusing on the mission. She restated her support of the proposed legislation. 2:48:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that Ms. Bahnkes presence throughout state government is noted and appreciated. She asked how many VPSOs Kawerak, Inc. supports and how many villages are in its region. 2:49:15 PM MS. BAHNKE answered that it currently has 7 VPSOs and serves 15 villages; therefore, fewer than half of the villages have a VPSO in place. She expressed that this a reason HB 287 is necessary, and flexibility is needed to offer structure for the program that could afford itinerant traveling VPSOs for communities that need a stop-gap situation or the ability to have two-weeks- on/two-weeks-off schedules. She stated that the current statute is interpreted by the administration as limiting expenditure of state resources on personnel and fringe, so no equipment; therefore, if there is a VPSO with a flat tire, then resources from the state grant cannot be spent to replace the tire. She said that communities are expected to provide their own holding cells and flexibility is needed to deliver the VPSO program in a way that will allow it to succeed and provide equal protection to rural residents, in terms of public safety. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether those seven VPSOs are all that Kawerak, Inc. is authorized or funded for, or whether it has vacancies. MS. BAHNKE answered that Kawerak, Inc. is currently funded for five VPSOs; two new VPSOs, who are training at the academy, are being funded with a supplemental grant from the state. In response to a follow-up question, she stated that Kawerak, Inc. is based in Nome, Alaska. 2:51:29 PM WILLARD MAYO, Tanana Chiefs Conference, offered testimony in support of HB 287. He stated that he has been the chair of the VPSO Tribal Grantee Caucus, which is comprised of 10 organizations that are current grantees of the VPSO program. He said that he is the executive director for the Alaska Tribal Unity Caucus, which is the statewide inter-tribal advocacy organization, and he is employed at the Tanana Chiefs Conference overseeing a department that includes the VPSO program. He said that he is a tribal citizen of the Native village of Tanana and had worked in the village corporation in the past on the tribal council, served as a volunteer firefighter and search and rescue pilot, and often acted in a role of a public safety pinch hitter. MR. MAYO stated that the current law made sense initially, and the idea was to hire local recruits in villages who lived there already and knew the area, culture, and people. He said that he could remember that there were 15 or 16 VPSOs early in the contract for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, and they were nearly all local to their villages. He said that initially recruits were available, but that is no longer the case, and it is very difficult to find VPSOs. He said that many of the initial VPSOs burned out quickly due to the stresses related to the 24/7 schedule, arresting relatives and friends in the villages, a lack of holding cells, and operating equipment in the extreme cold. He summarized that the proposed legislation is really needed, and the provisions under it would provide the flexibility needed to operate a successful program. 2:54:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how many VPSOs the Tanana Chiefs Conference employs and in how many villages they are deployed. MR. MAYO replied that the Tanana Chiefs Conference currently has [37] communities to cover and 4 VPSOs stationed in 4 villages. He said that there is one VPSO in the academy. He stated that the 4 current VPSOs are in villages that happen to have housing that they can provide and holding cells and offices. He explained that all the other communities do not have office space or housing. He stated that of the other communities, 28 villages have no available housing for an officer, 10 have office space but 24 do not, and 10 have holding cells but 14 do not. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether any of those villages are road accessible. MR. MAYO replied that 25 percent of the 37 villages are road accessible, which is 7 or 8 villages. He said that the officers are in a mixture of remote and road villages. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the troopers provide service to those villages that are accessible on the road system or whether those villages still need VPSOs. MR. MAYO answered that there is an instance of a trooper in a sub-regional area, stationed in Tok, and he/she will move around several villages. He said there is a VPSO in one of those villages who helps with locals and can occasionally assist other villages. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked how many citizens are served in all the villages by the Tanana Chiefs Council. MR. MAYO replied that the four officers currently employed serve an average of approximately 500 to 700 people. REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND clarified that she was asking how many people are represented in all the communities of the Tanana Chiefs Council. MR. MAYO responded that there are approximately 10,000 people in the 37 communities. 2:58:37 PM CHAIR CLAMAN closed public testimony on HB 287. 2:58:46 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 287 would be held over for further review.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
Public Defender Appointment - Samantha Cherot Resume 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
Public Defender Appointment - Samantha Cherot Letters of Support Receieved by 3.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
Commission on Judicial Conduct Appointment - Todd Fletcher Resume 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
HB 290 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. K 3.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 ver. S 2.24.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Sponsor Statement v. S 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Sectional Analysis v. S 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Supporting Document - Mat-Su Health Foundation Letter 3.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Supporting Document - Crisis Now Alaska Consultation Report 12.13.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Mental Health Continuum of Care (Individuals 18 Years and Older) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Substance Use Disorder Continuum of Care (Individuals 12 Years and Older) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Mental Health Continuum of Care (At-Risk Children & Adolescents Ages 0-21) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Fiscal Note DHSS-HFLC 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Fiscal Note DHSS-MS 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 290 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
HB 287 v. O 3.11.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
HB 287 Sponsor Statement v. K 3.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM HTRB 3/3/2020 8:00:00 AM HTRB 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
HB 287 Sectional Analysis v. O 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
HB 287 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |