Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/2012 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): || Parole Board | |
| Violent Crimes Compensation Board | |
| Police Standards Council | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| HB80 | |
| SB7 | |
| SB110 | |
| SB151 | |
| SB198 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 6 | ||
| = | SB 200 | ||
| = | HB 80 | ||
| = | SB 110 | ||
| = | SB 151 | ||
| = | SB 210 | ||
| = | SB 198 | ||
| = | SB 7 | ||
SB 198-POLICE OFFICER PROTECTIONS/CERTIFICATION
2:43:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 198.
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SB 198, explained that the
bill provides increased protections and basic due process rights
for police officers faced with potential revocation of their
certificates. Revocations would require a standard of clear and
convincing evidence and follow the Administrative Procedure Act.
The bill also allows the Alaska Police Standards Council to
suspend rather than revoke a certificate when the situation
warrants the lesser punishment. Additional provisions provide
increased protection of personal information and address the
issue of polygraph tests. He noted that the bill packet included
information on a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the
unreliability of polygraph tests.
2:45:36 PM
DAVE SEXTON, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council
(APSC), said the mission statement of APSC is "To produce a
highly trained and positively motivated professional officers,
capable of meeting contemporary law enforcement standards of
performance." He listed the core services provided by APSC and
said SB 198 cuts to the heart of several of these. He
articulated three primary concerns.
MR. SEXTON said the first concern is that SB 198 would inhibit
APSC's ability to decertify an officer. This happens
infrequently, just six times in the last five years. He
explained that APSC staff investigates reported misconduct and
gives the matter to the full council if it is appropriate. The
full council reviews the facts before taking any action, and the
officer has the option of appealing the APSC action through the
court system. Requiring the council to give substantial weight
to prior decisions and to adopt a standard of clear and
convincing evidence singles out the APSC and holds it to a
different standard than the 48 other boards and commissions, he
said.
MR. SEXTON said the second area of concern relates to
restricting the use of polygraphs during a disciplinary
proceeding. Because polygraphs are allowed in both pre-
employment and in investigative situations, the APSC questions
lowering that standard. He said he was not aware of a single
decertification decision that hinged on a polygraph test.
MR. SEXTON said the third area of concern relates to the
requirement to stop providing photographs of officers in action.
The bill would prohibit showing pictures of police officers in
positive situations or hanging officers' pictures in city hall.
This strips APSC of management rights to run progressive,
community-oriented departments. Finally, he asked for a
discussion about a longtime goal of the APSC to remove the words
"full time" from the definition of "police officer." This would
bring part time, seasonal, and reserve officers under APSC
oversight, and protect cities and jurisdictions that try to do
the right thing by hiring additional help only to find that
their employees are operating outside regulations.
He concluded stating that APSC opposes much of SB 198.
2:53:12 PM
CHAIR FRENCH directed attention to Section 7, page 3, lines 28-
29, and asked if he thought that a police officer would object
to having his or her picture hung in city hall, and withhold
authorization.
MR. SEXTON replied that was the concern. If an officer withheld
his or her authorization there would not be a complete picture
of the department.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he really thought a police officer would
object to having his or her picture displayed.
MR. SEXTON questioned why the provision was in the bill if that
was not the purpose.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he would object to keeping a
police officer's home address confidential.
MR. SEXTON said APSC believes that confidentiality is already
covered, but did not objection to restating it in the bill.
2:54:40 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law
(DOL), reviewed his professional credentials. Most recently, he
was in charge of special prosecutions that included conflict
cases dealing with peace officers. In his current position, he
provides legal advice to the Alaska Police Standards Council.
MR. SKIDMORE asked the committee to reconsider two provisions.
The first concern is that Section 3 would bind the APSC in an
employment action taken with an officer. He said the APSC
strives to set minimum standards across the state for all
officers to meet initially and after they become officers. The
APSC wants standards of conduct to be consistent, but this
provision requires the council to give substantial weight to the
significance of prior decisions by individual departments, their
lawyers, and court decisions. He questioned why the committee
would want to bind the council's decision-making about who is a
good, quality officer.
2:59:30 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he believes that the council
should give some weight to prior arbitrations and court appeals
that found in favor of an officer if that officer is the subject
of a subsequent termination case.
MR. SKIDMORE said it is not a problem if the intent is for the
council to consider that something occurred in the past. The
problem is that the legislative intent and meaning of
"substantial weight" is not clear. If the council's decision has
to mirror something that happened in the past, that interferes
with the ability of the council to have consistency across the
state. He said he gets nervous when he does not know the
legislative intent.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded that this was establishing the
legislative intent.
SENATOR PASKVAN opined that nothing in the language would bind
the council. To the contrary, the council would simply have to
explain why the appellate procedure or administrative hearing
officer decision is or is not significant.
MR. SKIDMORE said he was comfortable with that reading. He was
testifying to achieve the legislative intent to ensure that
someone could not come back and argue the opposite. The council
is capable of articulating a difference, he said.
SENATOR PASKVAN reiterated that he did not perceive the language
to include a binding requirement.
3:04:14 PM
MR. SKIDMORE said a second concern relates to Section 2 that
requires the council to use the clear and convincing evidence
standard to prove the alleged conduct. He said he believes that
people in public service and law enforcement ought to be held to
a higher standard, because of their position of trust. This
society trusts that people are not going to break the law. If
they do, society trusts that law enforcement will help hold
those people accountable. When someone breaks the law, there is
a breakdown in some trust, and when it is a law enforcement
officer or someone in that public service the violation of trust
is twofold. The law was broken, and the person who was supposed
to be upholding law is the one who broke it. That is significant
and very offensive because it infringes upon the trust and
credibility that society holds in those institutions that are
supposed to provide protection.
He said he heard the sponsor say that some organizations have a
higher standard of evidence than clear and convincing, but he
did not know which ones.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI relayed that his staff asked Legislative
Research to provide that information, but his understanding is
that the Alaska Bar Association (ABA) uses the clear and
convincing evidence standard. He offered to follow up with
clarifying information.
MR. SKIDMORE pointed out that the ABA was not one of the
organizations listed under AS 44.62.330-44.62.630, the governing
Act set forth in the bill. To increase the burden of proof
indicates that the Legislature does not trust the credibility
and discretion of the council. That seems counterproductive, he
said.
3:09:04 PM
JAKE METCALFE, Executive Director, Public Safety Employees
Association (PSEA) Local 803, said he represents about 800
certified and non-certified police department employees. He
briefly reviewed his legal career and said he wanted to talk
specifically about the burden of proof, consideration of prior
arbitration decisions, and why PSEA supports the bill.
He described three PSEA termination cases where the arbitrators
ruled that the employees should get their jobs back. The state
challenged each ruling in superior court and lost. Two of the
cases went to the state supreme court that upheld both
decisions. Two of the cases went to the Police Standards
Council, and the council revoked one certificate. The hearing
officer challenged the decision because there was not a
preponderance of proof.
MR. METCALFE said that when the facts do not change between the
arbitration hearing and council hearing, it is reasonable to ask
the council to pay attention to those decisions and then require
the same standard that has been followed through the employment
procedure.
3:14:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed a desire to hear different views
on the display of photographs, and weighing the public trust
against the employee's right to due process.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that dialogs could happen in offices and
over the telephone. He held SB 198 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 6 Version Y.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB Explanations of Changes Version Y.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| SB 151 version U.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 151 |
| SB 210 version D.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 200.ACLU Review.2012.03.16.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 210 Support Resolution.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 198 Letter of Support.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 198 |
| SB 200 Version I.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 200 Explanation of Changes Version I.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 200 |
| SB 110 version X.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 110 |
| SB 198 Support Letter APD Employees Association.pdf |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 198 |
| SB 198 Ver.E.PDF |
SJUD 3/21/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 198 |