Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/15/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB77 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 2016
1:38 p.m.
1:38:32 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Sponsor; Esther Mielke, Staff,
Representative Bob Lynn; Kris Curtis, Legislative Auditor,
Alaska Division of Legislative Audit; Jeff Edwards,
Executive Director, Board of Parole, Department of
Corrections; Jane Pierson, Staff, Representative Steve
Thompson; Sarah Hieb, Alaska Police Standards Council,
Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
April Wilkerson, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Corrections; Amy Erickson,
Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of
Administration; Juanita Webb, Wallbusters, Fox; Rick Webb,
Wallbusters, Fox; Cathy Gerby, Access Alaska, Anchorage;
Art Delaune, Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
Education; and Wallbusters, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 77 DISABILITY:ID/LICENSE AND TRAINING RQMTS.
HB 77 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 231 EXTEND BOARD OF PAROLE
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date."
1:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He relayed that the bill would extend the
termination date of the Board of Parole until 2022, which
was a six-year extension. He relayed that a recent audit
had found various needs for improvements related to
regulation changes and the Department of Corrections (DOC)
system. He communicated that department staff were
available for detailed questions.
Representative Wilson asked if the five members served on
the board were the same as the five staff.
ESTHER MIELKE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, referred to
page one of the legislative audit that listed the members
of the board and the staff.
Representative Wilson asked for verification of the paid
positions.
Ms. Mielke deferred the question to the Division of
Legislative Audit.
KRIS CURTIS, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT, answered that the report did not discuss
the number of staff support for the board. She stated that
there was an explanation of the personal service budget.
The board was paid a daily fee for reviewing the files for
a part time position with no benefits. She furthered that
there was also an executive with staff.
1:44:11 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the fiscal note listed
the number of full-time positions as five.
Ms. Curtis replied that the full-time positions would have
to be staff positions because the board was part-time.
Representative Wilson looked at page 16, exhibit 4, there
was the issue of revoke and re-parole. She felt that more
people were revoked and re-paroled between 2011 and 2014
than was done between 2004 and 2007. She interpreted those
figures as a problem.
Ms. Curtis replied that the audit interpreted the
occurrence as a good thing. She elaborated that there was a
high rate of revoking and denying in 2008 was a reflection
of the lack of programs in the community. She remarked that
the current rates of denial was less than prior years,
because there was more opportunity for enrollment into
programs to enhance success in the community.
Representative Wilson wondered if the people were given a
second or third chance.
Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if five positions was
sufficient for the board.
Ms. Curtis replied that the board was operating in an
efficient manner.
Representative Kawasaki asked why the sponsor had elected
to extend the board six years.
Ms. Curtis answered that statues provided for a maximum
extension of eight years. She had recommended six years due
to significant changes taking place in the Department of
Corrections (DOC)
Co-Chair Thompson noted that staff from the board and
department were available for questions.
Representative Kawasaki thought six years seemed lengthy,
especially given that the department was using a new tool.
He was concerned about 7 errors that had been found in the
audit. He noted that it was an 18 percent error rate. He
was concerned by the high number.
1:50:04 PM
Ms. Curtis replied that there were errors with risk
assessment forms, however no errors impacted the risk
categories. She shared that other errors were documentation
issues that could be readily addressed by improved
procedures. The department was approached for corrective
action. The changes would be easy to implement and would
not require oversight.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification about the
executive director and staff.
Ms. Curtis answered that there was an executive director
and several full-time staff.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the number of staff were
necessary.
Ms. Curtis answered that the audit had not used that type
of focus. She relayed that the board established quite a
bit of, and did not feel there was enough evidence to
determine if positions should be cut.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at page 1 of the audit. He asked
which of the positions were part-time versus full-time.
Ms. Curtis answered that in Exhibit 2 were all full-time
positions. She deferred to the department for more
information.
Representative Munoz asked for an explanation of the
terminology.
Ms. Curtis explained "revoke and re-parole."
Representative Munoz asked about reprimand and warn.
Ms. Curtis deferred the question to the department.
Representative Munoz asked how often a person was
successful.
1:55:36 PM
Co-Chair Thompson queried compliance with the audit. He
noted that the audit recommended that the executive
director should improve procedures to ensure required
documentation for parole hearings was accurate and
consistently included in parole files. He queried the
efforts to adhere to the recommendations.
JEFF EDWARDS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD OF PAROLE,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, answered that there was a fairly
simple fix for the board; it had been able to solidify the
review process and other items in order for the files to
accurately reflect the individuals needed for the board to
make decisions. He furthered that there increased the
scrutiny of the information and if errors were found they
were asked for further information.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed recommendation 2 in the audit.
He read from his notes.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board had done a review and
had located an avenue it had expanded on. The
recommendation was for the board to document the
information it received. He relayed that the board had
expanded the participation of the victim's family in the
parole process. The board recognized that victimization was
one of the most difficult pieces in the process.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for verification that he felt the
board was in compliance
Mr. Edwards replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson read a question. He queried the efforts
to address all statutory requirements as related to duties,
including the identification of a methodology to measure an
offender's suitability for discretionary parole.
2:01:10 PM
Mr. Edwards communicated that the board had recently gone
away from the inaccuracy of the scoring instruments in the
risk assessment. The board had instead gone to a validated
risk assessment tool that was used by the entire
department. The board had committed to working with the
Department of Law on the issue.
Representative Gattis asked about the risk assessment tool.
She wondered if someone was picked up and taken in, was
that when the tool was used. She wondered if the assessment
followed all the way through to parole.
Mr. Edwards responded that the tool was used by the board,
institution, and field agents. He elaborated that the tool
was generated typically by the parole officer; it
identified the needs of the individual and followed the
person through to parole. He continued that it would be
updated once a person was released to a parole officer.
Using the same tool seemed to help with efficiency in the
process.
Representative Gattis wondered what would occur without a
field assessment when attempting to post bail on a weekend.
She asked if it was something that could happen.
2:07:04 PM
Mr. Edwards answered that the tool was not always utilized
for a violation. The offender was not reassessed.
Representative Munoz asked how often individuals were
successful going before the parole board.
Mr. Edwards clarified that it pertained to a situation when
a person was asking for early release, which was different
from mandatory release. The yes vote was about 66 percent
for early release. He stated that revoke and parole
pertained to people who had violated their parole.
Representative Munoz asked about special medical issues in
the parole board.
Mr. Edwards answered that the board received about 2
special medical parole requests per year. He guessed the
board had granted about 3 in the past few years. He relayed
that the requirements were stringent; it typically applied
to individuals who were dying.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the fiscal note. He
pointed to page 1 of the audit, which said that the FY 15
budget expenditures was $897,700. The fiscal note showed a
$1.19 million with five full-time employees. He wondered if
that was due to a vacant parole board officer position in
FY 16.
Ms. Mielke answered that the sponsor had received the
fiscal note the previous day and had not heard back from
the fiscal note drafter, and had not yet heard back about
the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the bill would be before the
committee again in the future. He noted recommendation 4,
which was the Alaska Correctional Officers Offender
Management System. There were deficiencies in the system,
which could affect the security and consistency of data
contained in the system. It was recommended that the DOC
administrative director take steps to ensure the system
complies with state information technology security
standards, and national best practices. He wondered if the
parole board or DOC should address the issue.
Mr. Edwards answered that it had come about as a result of
the audit. He believed the department was moving to fulfill
the requirement and had implemented new security systems
department-wide.
2:13:09 PM
Ms. Curtis cautioned that the details of the recommendation
had been withheld, so they could not be exploited. She
encouraged the answers to be general in assurance, and not
expose details of the finding.
Co-Chair Thompson believed it related to DOC and not the
board.
Vice-Chair Saddler noted no increase in funding over six
years in the fiscal note. He wondered if the board could
continue with the work over the following six year.
Mr. Edwards responded that SB 91 and HB 205 would have a
significant impact on the board, so he wanted to wait to
see how those bills would advance.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked which staff were full time and
which were part time.
Mr. Edwards replied that there were 6 full-time staff and 5
part-time employees.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the $83,000 in travel.
Mr. Edwards answered that the cost was for board meeting
travel. For example, there were representatives throughout
the state who traveled to meet as a group. The board had to
travel to meet with applicants.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that travel was $52,200.
2:16:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the board could get by with one
less staff member.
Mr. Edwards answered that it would be very difficult due to
the volume of work.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the increasing use of
teleconference. He wondered if there could be meetings with
parolees via teleconference.
Mr. Edwards answered that they could use teleconference;
however, it would not be easy. The board was working to
decrease travel costs.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if more training to board and
staff would help address one of the audit recommendations.
Mr. Edwards replied that he had encouraged staff to attend
statewide training for parole officers. He believed the
board members received adequate training. He continued that
the board continued to train officers throughout the state.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at page 22, and noted the
discussion of the clemency advisory committee (CAC). He
wondered whether the CAC be eliminated, and whether the
functions should be incorporated into the parole board.
Mr. Edwards replied that it was a question potentially for
the governor's office. He stated that it could be an option
to review clemency applications that had not been asked of
the board. It would require more time for board members to
conduct hearings.
2:20:06 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler noted that it had not been active for 16
years.
Representative Wilson referred to page 16 of the audit and
requested numbers instead of percentages.
Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson believed the numbers would enable the
committee to ask more pertinent questions.
Representative Edgmon remarked that more offenders were
non-violent in nature. The additional information would
help to paint better picture.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the fiscal note. He
noted that, in FY 15, the total budgeted expenditures were
$896,000. He remarked that the fiscal note showed $1.19
million. He queried the difference in FY 15 and FY 17.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference),
answered that the difference was related to the FY 15 and
the current fiscal note was associated with the passage of
SB 64 and the PACE parole funding.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the five full time
positions in the fiscal note. He referred to the audit. He
asked about a discrepancy between the two.
Ms. Wilkerson believed the fiscal note was incorrect and
there should show six staff.
Representative Kawasaki noted that the line item for
personal services from FY 16 to FY 22 were the same. He
wondered if there were no anticipated raises or authorized
positions received COLA or merit increases.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the fiscal note was flat funded
based on the sunset allocation in FY 17 appropriations. The
fiscal note did not take into consideration any contractual
negotiated changes for future or changes in current
practices of the parole board.
2:24:18 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the board had the option of
Skyping.
Mr. Edwards answered that it was a possibility but the
board did not currently have the capability. He relayed
that there were remote locations, which did play a role. He
continued that there were 50 to 60 members, so all of the
members on Skype was somewhat challenging.
Representative Wilson stated that it was possible from
Dillingham. She stated that there were other options. She
believed that there were options to save money.
HB 231 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:27:17 PM
AT EASE
2:28:53 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to training regarding disabilities
for police officers, probation officers, parole
officers, correctional officers, and village public
safety officers; relating to guidelines for drivers
when encountering or being stopped by a peace officer;
relating to driver's license examinations; and
relating to a voluntary disability designation on a
state identification card and a driver's license."
Co-Chair Thompson read the bill title.
2:29:24 PM
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 77, Work Draft 29-LS0072\N (Martin,
12/2/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
presented the "Sponsor Statement" and "Explanation of
Changes HB 77 version E to version N" (copy on file):
SPONSOR STATEMENT
When people with non-apparent disabilities interact
with peace officers and corrections officers, elements
of their disabilities often brush against officers'
protocols and may result in serious misunderstanding
or even tragedy. The goal of HB77 is to improve
communications between law enforcement and corrections
professionals who interact with people who have non-
apparent disabilities, whether these disabled
individuals encounter the "systems" as victims,
witnesses, or alleged perpetrators.
The first part of HB 77 focuses on training regarding
interactions with people with non-apparent
disabilities. The bill requires the implementation of
a non-apparent disability awareness training component
for Alaska peace officers, corrections officers and
parole/probation officers. The Alaska Police Standards
Council, has established a basic course at the academy
level. The training instructs officers how to engage
in appropriate interactions with individuals who
experience a non-apparent disability. The course
instructs officers and the guidelines will stress
understanding of the different manner in which people
with non-apparent disabilities process sensory stimuli
and language.
The bill also requires that the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) add a section to the Passenger Vehicle
Driver Handbook that instructs drivers as to their
responsibilities when interacting with a peace
officer. Basic instruction will be added to the
driver's manual and one or more questions will be
added to the written driver's license test. Awareness
training for both police officers and the public will
aid in increasing the safety of most encounters.
Another component of HB 77 is to implement a statewide
voluntary identification system where a discrete
marker will be placed on an Alaska Driver's license or
an Alaska ID card. The marker would indicate that the
individual has a disability that may not be apparent.
The police or corrections officer, having taken the
disability awareness training, will be able to
understand and more appropriately interact with the
individual.
If a person's disability is not recognized during an
encounter, it may affect the outcome of that
encounter. This bill would push to improve
communication between peace officers, corrections
officers and parole/probation officers when
interacting with people who have non-apparent
disabilities. The hope of this bill is to reduce the
potential for tragic encounters in our state.
EXPLANATION OF CHANGES:
Section 1 was added back into the bill, as it was in
the original W version of the bill.
The Alaska Police Standards Council has now
adopted regulations concerning the training
component relating to people with disabilities.
This disability training component is part of the
required curriculum for Alaska police officers,
correctional officers, and parole officers. The
curriculum focuses on training officers to
recognize and interact appropriately with persons
with disabilities, as well as familiarize the
officers with resources that are available to
those with hidden disabilities.
Section 3 was also added back into HB 77 to include
training for village public safety officers.
2:33:10 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the identifier was voluntary.
Ms. Pierson responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Neuman told of having a discussion with an officer
in his district in which the officer had gone through a
program that trained in identifying psychiatric disorders.
He wondered if that was similar training.
Ms. Pierson stated that he was correct. There was already
exceptional training available.
Representative Gattis asked about the training. She queried
the reason for removing the training aspect of the
legislation.
Ms. Pierson replied that the training program regulations
were being drafted at the time. The training program was
removed, so it could be drafted to match the regulations.
The reinserting of the training was to ensure that the
statutory inclusion may have to opportunity to be offered
to conforming to Title 2.
Representative Gattis wondered if the bill sponsor had
worked through that issue.
Ms. Pierson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the voluntary component of
the bill. He wondered whether a nonpermanent disability
could be cancelled from the designation. He wondered if the
disability would always be a part of their personal record.
Ms. Pierson answered that it did not relate to the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network (APSIN), which was
through DPS. The disability designation would only be on
the identification card or driver's license.
2:39:36 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted that his driver's license was
tied to his conceal and carry permit. He wondered if the
license would attach to broader systems.
Ms. Pierson deferred the question to Mr. Hansen.
Representative Kawasaki noted that Sections 4 and 5 related
to new language addressing the duties and responsibilities
of drivers when encountering a peace officer. He queried
the duties of the peace officers.
Ms. Pierson replied that the duty was to pull over when
safely possible, ensure license and insurance were
available.
Representative Kawasaki did not know the exact duties and
responsibilities. He shared that some definition he would
be more comfortable with the language.
Representative Wilson referred to section 4 and 5. She
wondered how there was a zero fiscal note if rewriting
tasks was necessary.
Ms. Pierson answered that the book was revised annually so
there would be no extra cost.
Representative Wilson queried DMV process.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that DMV was online to answer
questions as well.
Ms. Pierson reviewed the basics. She did not believe it
would come through regulation
2:43:20 PM
AMY ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), answered
that all of the items on the driver's test were set in
statute, but the division could easily add things to the
system.
Representative Wilson asked about putting the provision in
the manual. She wondered if there was a regulatory
requirement when adding to the manual.
Ms. Erickson replied that the DMV would insert the
language.
Representative Wilson stressed that she was concerned about
greater causing of problems as related to not understanding
the procedures.
Co-Chair Thompson believed even young people did not know
the procedures if they were stopped by police.
Representative Gara believed duties and responsibilities
were defined by law.
Ms. Pierson agreed.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if a designation of a disability
record be kept anywhere. He wondered if it be retained in
DMV's records.
Ms. Pierson replied that she had not thought through the
question and did not know. She imagined it may stay in the
DMV file.
Ms. Erickson answered that if it went into the DMV system
it would go into APSIN, it would be possible to restrict it
from going into APSIN if that was the desire of the
committee.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at page 1, line 13, and wondered
if the professions had the ability to designate a person as
having a disability for any other purpose such as a
handicap parking space.
Ms. Pierson deferred the question to Ms. Erickson.
Co-Chair Thompson wondered if the physical disability
requirement was in statute.
Vice-Chair Saddler repeated the question.
2:47:50 PM
Ms. Erickson answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to other definitions for
disability. He stated that the bill focused on drivers of
motor vehicles. He wondered how many people may likely get
a designation on a license who did not drive.
Ms. Pierson did not know, but the bill did include ID
cards.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that he had a previous bill to
include a veteran's designation on the driver's license,
and remarked that it had a very high fiscal note. He
wondered why there was no fiscal note for the current bill.
Ms. Erickson replied that there was a new vender for the
cards. She stated that it was currently a simple change.
Representative Pruitt relayed that he had visited DMV, and
shared that the DMV was no longer printing the manuals.
Ms. Erickson answered that the division still printed some
manuals in hardcopy and had lightened the printing load.
Representative Pruitt relayed that the individual who
worked for DMV had good ideas. He wondered about the
barriers to access the system to prevent potential abuse.
2:51:33 PM
Ms. Erickson replied that she did not believe under the
legislation the person would not be required to disclose
the specific disability.
Representative Pruitt stated that he must have
misunderstood the earlier comments on the disability. He
wondered if someone had a temporary concern, he wondered
how the scenario would be dealt with.
Ms. Erickson answered that because it was voluntary she did
not see the harm if a person wanted a temporary indicator.
Ms. Pierson pointed to line 13 and read from the bill.
Representative Pruitt pointed to Sections 4 and 5, wondered
about the rights of the individual being stopped.
2:54:55 PM
Ms. Pierson believed it should be left to the discretion of
the legal team. She stressed that the bill only addressed
the basics.
Representative Pruitt countered that the committee was
writing law and did not believe it was an acceptable
answer. He wanted to know the goal of the sections (4 and
5).
Ms. Pierson replied that the sections were developed
because of the issue of what to do when pulled over. The
sections were only the basics to ensure safety.
Co-Chair Thompson interjected that the bill did not set new
precedents.
Ms. Pierson agreed and elaborated.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the sections were included to
provide the information about statutes.
Representative Pruitt stated that Section 4 added a
subsection. He wondered about the crux of the issue. He
wondered if it was a real problem.
2:59:19 PM
Co-Chair Thompson replied that the issue had been brought
forward due to some actions that had taken place in the
past. He provided an example of someone who may not be able
to communicate.
Ms. Pierson replied that she worked with someone who had
been pulled over, and did not know what to do. She remarked
that the sections were knowledge.
Representative Edgmon believed with the neurological
spectrum increasing, specifically the autism spectrum and
Asperger's and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome the bill reflected an
evolution of things.
Representative Pruitt understood the main portion of the
bill, but he was trying to connect the other sections. He
pointed to the sticker symbol that would appear on the
licenses.
3:02:35 PM
Representative Wilson thought that when someone had a
disability it was important the issue was documented and
documented privately. She stated that for many people it
was not possible to visibly see a disability. She thought
it may be important information for an officer.
Ms. Pierson answered that the sponsor did not want to get
into HIPPA law. She imagined that if a person was pulled
over multiple times that it would show up on APSIN. She did
not think the sponsor wanted to identify everyone and their
disorders. She believed it would be a problem to start
compiling everyone's disabilities.
Co-Chair Neuman stated that it was one of his problems with
the prescription database. He did not support compiling all
of the information on people.
Representative Wilson spoke to the option to share the
information if it was voluntary.
Ms. Pierson deferred the question to the department.
3:07:56 PM
Representative Wilson stated that the individual did show
up on the database. She was concerned that it would not
help if a person was not able to verbalize the issue.
Representative Gara referred to APSIN, and did not think
there was any danger that a police officer would think that
a person committed a crime. He surmised that if the purpose
of the bill was to protect individuals with a disability.
3:11:37 PM
JUANITA WEBB, WALLBUSTERS, FOX (via teleconference),
relayed that she is a normal person with a disability. She
supported the concept of making the standard the same
across the state. She explained that Wallbusters was a
grassroots organization that was made up of normal
individuals with disabilities.
3:14:46 PM
RICK WEBB, WALLBUSTERS, FOX (via teleconference), shared
that he is blind. He supported the bill. He shared a story
about a young deaf woman who had been at a party. The
individual had decided not to drive right away. She started
her car because it was cold and climbed into the back and
fell asleep. The military police had grabbed the woman by
the leg to see if she was alive. She had been in fear and
thought she was being attacked. She had been drug out of
the car and restrained all because she could not hear the
instructions of law enforcement. She ended up with 5
felonies including assaulting an officer and drunken
driving. She had plead guilty to all of the charges and now
lives with family in California. He stressed that it was
just one story out of many. He stated that a little
knowledge on law enforcement's part could have ended in
different result. He thanked the sponsors of the bill.
3:19:36 PM
CATHY GERBY, ACCESS ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She provided a story
related to one of the program participants.
3:22:46 PM
SARAH HIEB, ALASKA POLICE STANDARDS COUNCIL, JUNEAU,
relayed that she was available for questions.
Co-Chair Thompson asked where the council stood on having
the issue in statute rather than regulation.
Ms. Hieb replied that the council supported training for
officers in disability awareness. She stated that there
were some regulatory changes that would mandate basic
training, including eight hours of disability awareness.
She noted that the same regulations would require eight
hours of training in recognizing and dealing with
emotionally disturbed individuals, who were different but
related to disability awareness.
3:25:26 PM
Co-Chair Thompson explained that the language had been put
back in related to statute. He stressed that funding may be
cut from training, so the bill would ensure that the
training occur.
Ms. Hieb agreed.
Representative Pruitt wondered how difficult it would be
for the council if the issue was placed in statute.
Ms. Hieb answered that if the council wanted to go above
and beyond what the legislature put into statute it had the
ability to do so.
Representative Pruitt asked about the council's resistance
to the change.
Ms. Hieb understood that the issue had been put in
regulation and not in statute by the prior committee. She
observed that statute and regulation were both law and
imagined it was somewhat redundant.
3:28:01 PM
ART DELAUNE, GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION; AND WALLBUSTERS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. He relayed that
the bill would help police officers to understand that a
person had a disability. He hoped to make encounters
between police and individuals with disabilities safer. He
did not believe records should be kept anywhere on a
person's disability related to the issue. He continued that
some individuals carried an autism card, a person with FASD
was confused by multiple orders by a police officer. He
stressed that the bill was about safety and communication.
Co-Chair Thompson thanked the individuals for their
testimony. He relayed that the bill would be before the
committee again in the future.
3:34:49 PM
Representative Gattis shared that she has an adult nephew
with autism. She supported the idea of the sticker to get
the conversation going. She wondered how someone would have
the opportunity to opt in. She stressed that it was in
issue of the safety of family members.
Co-Chair Thompson assumed that the identification on the
state ID would start the conversation.
Ms. Pierson stated that the person should be able to keep a
visible ID.
Representative Gattis stated that her nephew would keep his
ID.
Representative Edgmon wanted to ensure that a tribal
identification card was included. He would hold his
question to the next hearing.
Co-Chair Thompson believed it was a good idea.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if there was a limit to the
maximum number of designations on a driver's license or ID
card.
Ms. Erickson agreed to provide that information.
Vice-Chair Saddler liked the motive behind the bill, but
had some problems with some of the language. He believed it
would be very difficult to train police. He would be
concerned about liability protection to police officers. He
stated that the state was asking too much.
HB 77 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:40:42 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.