Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/30/2018 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB293 | |
| HJR29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 293-BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR POLICE & TRAINING
3:03:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 293, "An Act relating to powers of the
Alaska Police Standards Council; and relating to background
checks for admission to police training programs and
certification as a police officer."
3:04:11 PM
ROBERT GRIFFITHS, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council (APSC), Department of Public Safety (DPS), on behalf of
the House Rules Committee, sponsor of HB 293, relayed that APSC
is the police standards and training organization for the State
of Alaska. He mentioned the various positions he has held in
law enforcement and public safety.
MR. GRIFFITHS stated that APSC was created in 1972 by the Alaska
State Legislature; its goal is to professionalize public safety
in Alaska; its mission includes establishing, maintaining, and
enforcing regulations consistent with that goal. He gave
examples of fulfilling that mission: establishing minimum
qualifications for individuals to be hired and appointed as
police officers; regulating required basic training programs for
officers; and certifying officers who have completed the basic
training.
MR. GRIFFITHS relayed that APSC occasionally investigates
allegations of officer misconduct and takes appropriate
administrative action when warranted. It revokes certificates
or denies certification for officers not meeting minimum
requirements.
MR. GRIFFITHS proclaimed that the fundamental essence of APSC's
mission is to support public safety statewide by promoting
professional standards for hiring and training. He explained
that to be hired as a police officer, one must undergo a
fingerprint-based background history check to verify identity
and ensure there is no criminal history. He stated that because
all state agencies and most municipal police departments already
have access to Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), the
fingerprint requirement has never been a problem until recently.
3:07:19 PM
MR. GRIFFITHS offered that CJIS is formally defined in AS
12.62.900, paragraph 13. It is a criminal history and data
repository that includes: the Alaska Public Safety Information
Network (APSIN) operated by DPS; and the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), which links the
state's data to that of other states and to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) National Criminal Information Center
(NCIC). He said that this "system of systems" runs on a
national information backbone that is largely regulated by the
FBI; and it has an advisory steering group composed of two
representatives from each state participating in the NLETS
network. Alaska has two representatives on the steering group.
MR. GRIFFITHS relayed that APSC strives to support and enhance
public safety to the best of its ability, especially in rural
Alaska. Many of the small rural communities do not have access
to CJIS and cannot request a fingerprint-based background check;
yet, APSC mandates that a fingerprint-based background check is
required before hiring a police officer. There are 123 Alaska
rural communities without access to CJIS. He maintained that
when APSC attempted to assist the communities by providing
training for taking fingerprints and submitting the fingerprints
for background checks through APSC, it discovered that federal
regulations would not allow that; Alaska lacked the statutory
authority for APSC to conduct such checks, as required by
federal standards. He referred to his 2/26/18 letter to the
committee chair, which reviews the federal regulations.
MR. GRIFFITHS continued by saying that the federal government
considers APSC and all other state Police Officer Standards and
Training (POST) agencies to be professional licensing bodies.
Even though APSC is within DPS and operates the CJIS system, it
still does not have access to the system. He maintained that
restricting access to the system for the protection of the
security and the privacy of the sensitive criminal information
within the data systems. The federal government requires that
access to the data must be authorized by the state legislature.
He concluded that for APSC to assist the small rural agencies in
performing fingerprint-based background checks, Alaska needs
statutory changes enabling APSC to have that authority.
MR. GRIFFITHS maintained that the intent of HB 293 is to codify
Alaska's existing regulations requiring the fingerprint-based
background checks that are necessary before an individual can
attend the basic police academy or be appointed as a police
officer. It would modify the statutes so that APSC would have
the authority either to take fingerprints itself or to have
fingerprints taken, then submit them for background checks. It
would modify the licensing statutes so that they authorized
fingerprint-based background checks for an individual to attend
a basic academy or be certified as an officer.
3:11:28 PM
MR. GRIFFITHS pointed out that HB 293 has a zero-fiscal note
attached. The APSC expects to use the services of the existing
[Alaska State] Troopers (ASTs) and Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSOs) to train local officials in rural areas to do
fingerprinting, and fingerprint cards would be provided by DPS.
Consequently, there would be no added expense for APSC.
3:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification as to why a
community could not get federal authority for itself to request
a background check. She requested to know what would be
involved to do that.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied that a local community can require that an
applicant for a city position have a background check; however,
to petition DPS for the background check, the position must be
on the list of circumstances for which background checks have
been approved. A person in a rural community would have to
travel to a DPS facility to have his/her fingerprints taken. He
maintained that 90 percent of the problem is that the
communities lack the resources to pay for travel and no one
locally can take the fingerprints. He said that even if someone
locally took the fingerprints and sent them to APSC, it does not
have the authority to submit them for the background check,
because of the federal regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether local people in the rural
communities could get the authority to submit fingerprints
themselves if they were trained to take fingerprints.
MR. GRIFFITHS expressed his belief that the State of Alaska
would not allow them access to the information system unless
permitted by statute, and they do not have that authority
currently. He mentioned that would be a licensing issue, and
APSC is focused on law enforcement issues. He offered that the
legislation has been introduced to solve two problems: 1) the
local communities do not have the resources or training to do
fingerprinting, and 2) they do not have the ability to submit
fingerprints for a background check. He stated that through the
proposed legislation, APSC is requesting the legislature to give
it the authority to submit the fingerprints on behalf of the
local communities, which would be one way for APSC to support
public safety enhancement in those communities.
3:16:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the proposed legislation does
not request statutory authority for the communities to submit
fingerprints for background checks instead of requesting
authority for the state to submit fingerprints in the
communities' behalf.
MR. GRIFFITHS responded that APSC's intent was to request
authority with the narrowest scope possible to accomplish the
task rather than extend the authority to communities across the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that giving the communities the
authority to submit fingerprints would be a narrower scope for
APSC. The APSC would only need the authority to train local
people in the communities, and the communities could submit the
fingerprints themselves. She maintained that if Anchorage and
Fairbanks can submit fingerprints, Kwethluk or any other
community should also have that authority.
3:17:57 PM
MR. GRIFFITHS clarified that the communities who currently can
submit fingerprints have access to the CJIS system; they
purchased it and are participants in the system. He mentioned
that Kwethluk and the other small communities don't have the
foundation, economic base, or enough need for the system to
justify being members of the CJIS system, which is expensive.
3:19:15 PM
ERIC GAFFNEY, Records and Licensing Supervisor, Division of
Statewide Services (DSS), Department of Public Safety (DPS),
explained that a request for an FBI background check must be
made under existing state or federal law that has been approved
by the U.S. attorney general for the purpose the check is
requested. He stated that currently some of the applicants that
APSC wishes to certify and for whom APSC has requested
background checks do not fall under any state or federal law
that the U.S. attorney general has recognized for that purpose.
He mentioned that he could not comment on whether the proposed
legislation should include allowing local communities to
directly request background checks. He offered that even if
with that statutory authority, the communities would still have
to submit fingerprints through DPS to the FBI, and since the
[criminal history report] would be returned to the communities,
APSC would still have a certification issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the communities would have to
submit fingerprints through DPS if they had statutory authority
to request background checks and were trained to take
fingerprints. She questioned why the communities would not
submit the fingerprints directly to the FBI in that case.
MR. GAFFNEY replied that the federal government does not deal
with individual communities on that basis; the process is
centralized in each state within an agency such as DPS.
3:24:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if Anchorage and Fairbanks submit
requests for background checks through DPS, and not directly to
the federal government.
MR. GAFFNEY replied, "That is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why the smaller communities couldn't
submit requests for background checks through DPS just like
Anchorage and Fairbanks, if someone in the community had
fingerprinting training.
MR. GAFFNEY expressed his understanding that the police agencies
of some smaller communities do not qualify under the existing
law because of infrastructure issues and lack of access to
criminal justice information systems; the existing law extends
to Anchorage Police Department (APD) and similar agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that she understands that the
smaller communities do not qualify under existing law but wants
to know why the proposed legislation doesn't give the local
communities the authority to request background checks rather
than giving the authority solely to DPS.
3:26:54 PM
MR. GAFFNEY responded that he cannot answer the question as to
the proper scope of the proposed legislation. He mentioned that
the mission of APSC is to certify applicants. If background
checks are being made by local communities, the results would go
back to those communities, but that would not help APSC to
certify applicants; it would need to conduct its own background
checks.
3:27:46 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if there are two options, as
described by Representative LeDoux.
MR. GRIFFITHS expressed his belief that the small communities do
not have the capacity to set up and implement the complex
information-sharing agreements that would be needed for them to
be members of CJIS so that they could submit fingerprints
directly to DPS and on to the FBI. The proposed legislation
would provide the smaller communities with a way to avoid having
to do that.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS conceded that there are capacity restraints
for the police departments of small communities; he asked if
there are any statutory barriers for them.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied yes. He said that they must be authorized
in statute, and currently statute does not authorize it. He
relayed that the prohibition exists due to federal law [28 U.S.
Code 534 and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 28 Part 20] and
state law, AS 12.62.
3:30:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that the proposed legislation offers
a balanced approach for rural areas [needing to fill positions].
He maintained that there is risk associated with widespread
access to very secure and critically important data. He asked
for the number of jurisdictions with APSC certified employees
and whether VPSOs would be included among those employees.
MR. GRIFFITHS responded that there are at least 123 communities
that meet APSC criteria - off the road system, population of
under 1,000, incorporated city, and no active police department
- and would be potential customers [of the service APSC could
offer under the proposed legislation]. He said that APSC does
not know how many of those communities currently have police
officers, because the agencies are not complying with APSC's
reporting requirements. He stated that under HB 293, APSC hopes
to make a concerted effort to reach out to these communities,
provide education on submitting fingerprints for background
checks, encourage the reporting of law enforcement personnel
hires to APSC, and ensure training of new hires. He offered
that about 50-60 of the communities have VPSOs, and APSC has
information on only about 20 VPSOs.
3:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to police officers that are
trained in Alaska and leave for better employment opportunities.
He asked if Mr. Griffiths has data on the number of APSC
certified officers in Alaska who have left the state.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that there are currently a little over
1,300 active officers in the state; APSC is supposed to be
notified when officers separate from an agency and receives
notice for about 99 percent of them; and unless a separating
officer goes to another Alaska agency, APSC does not know where
he/she goes unless he/she returns back to Alaska, files
paperwork with APSC, and goes through the steps necessary to
reactivate his/her certification.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for information on the change in the
number of officers over the years.
MR. GRIFFITHS agreed to provide that information.
3:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP mentioned that there are private
contractors who take fingerprints, but he does not know to whom
the fingerprints are submitted. He stated that many of the
rural communities have not adopted police powers: therefore,
their officers work under DPS. He suggested that the
communities referred to by Mr. Griffiths are those that have
adopted police powers. Since statute clearly states that
organized boroughs and municipalities may utilize those powers
unless prohibited by state law, they could adopt an ordinance
requiring fingerprinting and background checks. He said that he
supports advocating for communities to request their own
background checks.
MR. GRIFFITHS stated that private contractors who take
fingerprints return the fingerprint card to the applicant, who
then submits it to the government agency to which he/she is
applying. For example: for someone applying for a hazardous
material ("hazmat") [endorsement], the fingerprint card would go
to the federal government, and the federal government would
perform the fingerprint background check; for someone applying
for a real estate license, the card would go to the State of
Alaska DPS to perform the check, and the results would go to the
licensing agency.
3:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP pointed out that when he renewed his hazmat
endorsement, he did not mail a fingerprint card to anyone; it
was all done in his behalf.
3:39:15 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Chief, Criminal Records & Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services (DSS), Department of
Public Safety (DPS), responded to the question about
municipalities submitting fingerprints for a background check
without going through APSC, as follows: An incorporated village
with a functioning government body could submit fingerprints
directly to DPS, such as is done by Fairbanks and Anchorage.
The proposed legislation is to assist villages without a form of
government that could process the prints.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked, "Are we not providing public safety
to the rural communities through DPS?"
MS. MONFREDA answered yes. The VPSOs in the villages are vetted
through the DPS AST VPSO program; however, the proposed
legislation relates to communities with village police officers
(VPOs), whose fingerprint background checks must go through a
government entity, because under federal law, DSP cannot release
a national criminal history to a non-governmental entity.
3:41:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the purpose of bill is to do
background checks on VPSOs.
MS. MONFREDA replied not the VPSOs, the VPOs.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the number of VPOs currently in
Alaska.
MS. MONFREDA responded that she did not know.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that he did not know either, but the
number of VPOs that APSC has certified is just a few, with a few
more working to be certified. He said that the rest are not
reported to APSC.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether there are other types of law
enforcement personnel for whom the proposed legislation would
assist in getting background checks.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied no.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized by saying that the proposed
legislation would help villages with VPOs do background checks
on prospective officers.
3:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the number of villages that have
VPOs and whether all of them are without a form of government.
MR. GRIFFITHS relayed that most of the villages with VPOs are
incorporated; they must be incorporated to hire VPOs. He
offered that based on Ms. Monfreda's testimony, these
communities probably could do background checks if they enact
the appropriate ordinances and procedures. He maintained that
APSC has not been successful in convincing the communities to do
so; therefore, it is offering an alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she would like to hear
testimony by someone from one of the villages for his/her
opinion. She offered that the proposed legislation would assist
about 12 villages.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied that he does not know the number of
agencies that would be interested in pursuing that capacity;
APSC has been getting an increasing number of applications
because of outreach efforts for the VPO training program; there
are 10-12 participating communities for each training session,
which occurs once per year. He reiterated that it is difficult
to know the number of agencies, because different villages come
to the training programs from year to year and village personnel
change.
3:46:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to the zero-fiscal note and
suggested that giving overworked public safety officers
additional duties would result in additional cost. She said,
"Legislation actually costs."
3:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL gave as an example the procedures involved
for massage therapists to get a background check: a massage
therapist gets fingerprinted periodically; the fingerprints are
sent in to the FBI for the background check; the results are
sent back to the [Board of Massage Therapists]; and the board
reviews the report for infractions. He suggested that for
massage therapists, background checks can be done because the
fingerprints are being submitted through a state agency. He
asked for the reason someone in a village could not follow that
same protocol.
MR. GRIFFITHS responded that the reason is that APSC is not on
the list of agencies [who may submit fingerprints through DPS to
the FBI to obtain a national criminal history record check to
evaluate a person's qualifications]; the agencies on the list
[in AS 12.62.400] include those that license massage therapists,
real estate agents, and psychoanalysts; the submission of
fingerprints for a background check is allowed for everyone on
the list.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that if the intent of the proposed
legislation is to add APSC to the list and allow many rural
communities to background-check prospective VPOs through APSC,
then it makes perfect sense.
MR. GRIFFITHS stated, "Yes, that was the intent."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 293 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB293 Sponsor Statement- Introductory Letter Representative Kreiss-Tomkins 01.26.2018.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 Sectional Analysis version A 1.19.2018.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 ver A 01.19.18.PDF |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 Fiscal Note-DPS-APSC-01-19-18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HB293 Supporting Document- Transmittal Letter Speaker Edgmon - Background Checks 01.17.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/15/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 293 |
| HJR29 Sponsor Statement 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 ver A 01.22.18.PDF |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 Fiscal Note- LEG 01.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 Additional Document- SRS Payments FY 16 and FY 17 01.26.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 Additional Document- Congress HR 2340 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 HR2340 |
| HJR29 Additional Document- Congress HR 2340 Co-Sponsors 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 HR2340 |
| HJR29 Additional Document - Congress S 1027 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |
| HJR29 Additional Document- Congress S 1027 Co-Sponsors 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 1/30/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/1/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 29 |