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 |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 11, 2020
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chuck Kopp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Public Defender
Samantha Cherot - Anchorage, Alaska
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Todd Fletcher - Anchorage, Alaska
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 290
"An Act establishing an alternative to arrest procedure for
persons in acute episodes of mental illness; relating to
emergency detention for mental health evaluation; and relating
to licensure of crisis stabilization centers."
- HEARD & HELD
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: ALTERNATIVE TO ARREST: MENTAL HEALTH CTR.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/24/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (H) JUD, FIN
03/06/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 287
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
02/24/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (H) TRB, JUD, FIN
02/26/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/26/20 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/03/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/03/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/05/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/10/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/10/20 (H) Moved CSHB 287(TRB) Out of Committee
03/10/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/11/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Appointee
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on her appointment as
public defender.
CHARLES MCKEE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the confirmation
hearing for the public defender.
JOHN CASHION, Attorney
Cashion Gilmore, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the confirmation
hearing for the public defender.
CARRIE JOKIEL, President
ChemTrack Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the confirmation
hearing for the public defender.
JEFF ROBINSON, Attorney
Ashburn & Mason P.C.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony during the confirmation
hearing for the public defender.
TODD FLETCHER, Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on his appointment to the
Commission on Judicial Conduct.
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff
Representative Matt Claman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the proposed committee substitute
for HB 290 on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor.
JOANNA CAHOON, Attorney
Disability Law Center of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 290.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a PowerPoint presentation on HB
287, on behalf of Representative Chuck Kopp, prime sponsor.
MELANIE BAHNKE, President
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
WILLARD MAYO
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:01 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Claman, Drummond,
Stutes, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
Representatives Shaw and Vance arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Public Defender
Public Defender
^Commission on Judicial Conduct
Commission on Judicial Conduct
1:04:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the Confirmation Hearings for the Public Defender and the
Commission on Judicial Conduct.
1:04:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on the confirmation hearing
for the public defender.
1:05:28 PM
SAMANTHA CHEROT, Appointee, Public Defender Agency, Department
of Administration, offered testimony on her appointment as
public defender. She stated that she is currently the director
of the Public Defender Agency. She said that she is an Alaskan
who grew up in Anchorage. She stated that her mother raised her
as a single mother from the time she was eight years old and
instilled in her a strong work ethic, independence, and a
commitment to giving back to those in need. She stated that she
is married to an Alaskan, has been married for 13 years, and has
a two-year-old son. She explained that after growing up in
Alaska, she completed her undergraduate and law school education
in California, and then she initially practiced employment law,
primarily employment law litigation, and training public
governmental employees and governmental entities. She stated
that she represented school districts, sheriff's departments,
counties, and cities, and she really enjoyed the work. She
expressed that she was called back to Alaska, as it is home
for her and her husband. She said that since she returned to
Alaska in 2009, she has primarily worked for the Public Defender
Agency.
MS. CHEROT expressed that she wanted to represent clients, serve
those in need who face great challenges, and try cases;
therefore, she spent three years in the criminal division,
primarily handling felony cases, and she said that she gained
extensive trial experience there. She stated that she then had
additional time in private practice at the small law firm
Cashion Gilmore, LLC, where she worked for prior public
defenders who were mentors to her. She said that she then
continued in criminal defense practice, mostly state practice
throughout Alaska, handling divorce, custody, and other general
civil litigation cases. She stated that in 2015 she returned to
the Public Defender Agency, because of her commitment to working
with families toward family reunification, and she joined the
Civil Division where she worked for four years. She said that
during that time she primarily represented parents in child in
need of aid (CINA) cases, and she pointed out that the parents
in some of those cases were teenagers. She said that she also
represented individuals in commitment proceedings who were
facing forced medication petitions, commitment involuntary
commitments, and individuals struggling with mental health
challenges.
MS. CHEROT expressed that it had been a great privilege to
represent the individuals that she had served and to see so many
come out on the other side for the better as more empowered and
safer parents, with the right programming and services, and to
see people rejoin their communities, find stability with
substance abuse treatment, maintain sobriety, manage mental
health issues, reunify with their children, and maintain stable
employment and housing. She expressed that she is proud of the
programs in place to do that work with clients on the front end
as well.
MS. CHEROT expressed that it was a difficult decision to apply
for the position of director, as she had anticipated it would
take her from a lot of her case work. She said that she does
still have some clients and cases as director, but she is
primarily tasked with overseeing the agency's 13 offices around
the state, which are fully staffed with over 100 attorneys and
over 70 staff members. She said that as she had anticipated,
her employment law background, background in training attorneys
in the Criminal Division and Civil Division, and supervising
experience has been valuable to her in her role as the director.
She stated that her focus is on efficiency and effectiveness
while not compromising constitutional and ethical mandates to
clients, how to be most creative with resources, and tackling
great retention and recruitment challenges. She explained that
the agency has been more creative with recruitment strategies,
but it continues to lose experienced attorneys. She stated that
it is hiring bright new eager attorneys, but with that comes the
need for resources and training. She said that she is pleased
to say that the vacancy rate has decreased since she assumed her
role, but she recognized that there are many challenges and hard
work ahead.
1:10:09 PM
CHARLES MCKEE offered tangential comments.
1:12:38 PM
JOHN CASHION, Attorney, Cashion Gilmore, LLC, offered testimony
during the confirmation hearing for the public defender. He
stated that he worked with Ms. Cherot as a trial attorney in her
days as a public defender and in private practice. He expressed
that Ms. Cherot stands out as someone with the unique ability to
handle complex issues and situations and is articulate in
advancing whatever her position might be when it comes to those
issues. He said that he worked as a public defender for 13
years and some of those years overlapped with Ms. Cherot. He
stated that he thinks Ms. Cherot is uniquely well positioned to
be public defender, because she has an extensive criminal
background as well as a civil background, which is unusual
within the Public Defender Agency. He stated that Ms. Cherot is
a leader at the Public Defender Agency on a statewide basis, and
she is highly respected by her colleagues. He expressed that
her significant work history at the agency will serve her well
in her ability to act as the public defender. He said that she
is an extremely gracious person who is very well attuned to the
perspective of others, and she will be able to effectively
advocate for the Public Defender Agency and engage in difficult
decision making, which may well be on the horizon for budgetary
reasons. He summarized that Ms. Cherot is very reasonable, and
he expressed that he thinks the position that she adopts on
behalf of the agency will be a position that all sides will be
able to understand.
1:14:38 PM
CARRIE JOKIEL, President, ChemTrack Alaska, offered testimony
during the confirmation hearing for the public defender. She
stated that she has known Ms. Cherot personally for years. She
expressed that she was thrilled when they served on the Young
Womens Christian Association (YWCA) Alaska Board of Directors
together. She said that she had served as president of the
board for two years, and when Ms. Cherot joined the board in
2016, she was quickly put into the role of president of the
board because she showed strong leadership skills. She
expressed that she was impressed with how Ms. Cherot handled a
lot of the board commitments and some of the internal workings
going on at YWCA at the time. She said that she found Ms.
Cherot to be practical and fair, and that she showed a lot of
leadership. She stated that she was easy to follow and a
natural leader of the YWCAs mission of eliminating racism and
empowering women. She summarized that she has known Ms. Cherot
since high school, and she is excited to see the opportunities
in front of her and honored to speak on her behalf.
1:15:59 PM
JEFF ROBINSON, Attorney, Ashburn & Mason P.C., offered testimony
during the confirmation hearing for the public defender. He
stated that he has been a partner at his firm for 3.5 years, in
private practice for approximately five years, and before that
had overlapped with Ms. Cherot at the Public Defender Agency in
Anchorage for approximately 5 years. He expressed that he
thinks Alaska is getting the best of the best with Ms. Cherot
and, as had indicated in Ms. Cherot's testimony, the appointee
has a depth of experience, is from Alaska, has been in private
practice on both the criminal and civil side, and knows all
areas of the agency, including the Civil Division, Criminal
Division, and the rural offices. He stated that she has
supervised personnel across the board and was one of the most
respected trial attorneys in the division when he worked there.
He summarized that he unequivocally supports her confirmation
and looks forward to Ms. Cherot running the Public Defender
Agency for a long time.
1:17:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on the confirmation
hearing for the public defender.
1:18:11 PM
TODD FLETCHER, Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct,
offered testimony on his appointment to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct. He stated that he was born and raised in
Anchorage, works as the branch manager at Wells Fargo Advisors,
is an eagle scout, has been married to his wife Lisa for
approximately 25 years, and has two kids who attend Diamond High
School. He expressed that his interest in serving on the
Commission on Judicial Conduct is to work with both judges and
attorneys to ensure that the ethics in Alaskas court system are
held to the highest standard. He stated that observing how the
process works has been very interesting and, as a public member,
he believes he is of value to the board. He said that he enjoys
reading and listening to the information presented on each case
and helping to make the best decision to help the board address
any of the publics concerns with the judicial system.
1:19:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Fletcher whether this was a reappointment
or whether he was appointed several months prior and had been
serving subject to the confirmation process.
MR. FLETCHER replied that he was appointed several months ago
and has participated in meetings already.
1:19:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on the confirmation hearing
for the Commission on Judicial Conduct. After ascertaining that
there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
1:21:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND thanked Mr. Fletcher for offering
himself to public service and remarked that his application
pointed out that his preference had been to serve on the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority over the Commission on Judicial
Conduct. She asked him to speak to why he wanted to serve on
the Mental Health Trust Authority and asked whether he was
satisfied with his service on the Commission on Judicial
Conduct.
1:21:35 PM
MR. FLETCHER replied that it had been presented to him to have
an opportunity on the Mental Health Trust Authority, but it
ended up that since he is a board member for the University of
Alaska (UA) Foundation, there would be a conflict of interest.
He said that the opportunity to serve on the Commission on
Judicial Conduct came up after , which he described as
fantastic. He expressed that he really enjoys what he can
bring to the table and is excited to learn the process of what
takes place on the Commission on Judicial Conduct. In response
to a follow up question, he clarified that the conflict of
interest arose from his service on the board of the University
of Alaska (UA) Foundation.
1:22:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee had reviewed the qualifications of the governors
appointees and recommends that the following names be forwarded
to a Joint Session for consideration: Samantha Cherot, Public
Defender; Todd Fletcher, Commission on Judicial Conduct. She
said that this did not reflect intent by any of the members to
vote for or against these individuals during any further session
for the purposes of confirmation.
HB 290-ALTERNATIVE TO ARREST: MENTAL HEALTH CTR.
1:23:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act establishing an alternative to
arrest procedure for persons in acute episodes of mental
illness; relating to emergency detention for mental health
evaluation; and relating to licensure of crisis stabilization
centers."
1:24:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Representative Stutes for the
duration of the bill presentation.
1:24:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that there was a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 290, which would be presented
by the bills sponsor, Chair Claman, and his staff, Sophie
Jonas.
1:24:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, as prime sponsor of HB 290, introduced his staff
as the person who would walk the committee through changes for
consideration under a proposed committee substitute.
1:24:46 PM
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor,
explained changes that would be made to HB 290 under the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 290, Version 31-
LS1513\K, Marx, 3/10/20 ("Version K"). She stated that the bill
title would be amended to insert acute behavioral health
crisis in place of acute episode of mental illness, in order
to reflect a more accurate definition of the population that
crisis stabilization centers seek to serve.
MS. JONAS said that Section 1, subsection (a), would be amended
to use the term acute behavioral health crisis, and subsection
(b) would be amended to read emergency custody under AS
47.30.705 and deliver the person to a crisis stabilization
center because the amended language more narrowly describes the
alternative in this subsection. She stated that former
subsection (c) would be removed because the language in that
section is redundant to the language in Section 4 of the
proposed legislation. She stated that subsection (d), formerly
subsection (e), would be amended to add subsection (a) or (b) of
this section for clarity. She explained that subsection (g),
formerly subsection (h), would be modified for clarity, and
subsection (h) would be a new subsection, which would confirm
that prosecutors can charge a person with an underlying crime,
even if a police officer takes him/her to a crisis stabilization
center.
MS. JONAS stated that currently a prosecutor must authorize a
decision not to arrest under Title 18, and Section 2 of the
proposed CS would be amended to require prosecution
authorization of a decision to divert to crisis intervention.
MS. JONAS said that Section 3 would be amended to remove the
word other before evaluation center and before treatment
center. Additionally, the CS would identify the three types of
facilities.
MS. JONAS stated that former Section 6 would be deleted because
it is not required, and the definition would be provided in
regulations.
MS. Jonas stated that Section 6, formerly Section 7, would amend
AS 47.32.900, Section 22, to expand the definition of crisis
stabilization centers to include 23-hour crisis stabilization
centers, crisis residential centers, and subacute facilities.
MS. JONAS stated that Section 7, [paragraph] (22), would be
amended to allow the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) flexibility in the timeline of licensing crisis
stabilization centers, should the need arise before full
licensure under this Act is available. She added that Section 7
refers to the uncodified law of the State of Alaska.
1:28:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for a written copy of the changes
Version K would make to HB 290. She expressed that it is
difficult to follow along flipping back and forth.
1:28:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that his staff would get it to the
committee after the meeting.
1:28:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked how an arresting officer determines
whether he/she is addressing an emotional or behavioral health
crisis.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that, under existing law, police officers
have the authority to take an individual who is greatly disabled
to an involuntary commitment; therefore, police officers
currently have training in terms of dealing with people who have
psychiatric issues. He said that what he learned from ride-
alongs was that more of these types of people make up the
population police officers deal with on a regular basis. He
added that the officers have training and experience, in terms
of assessing whether an individual might be more appropriately
dealt with in a crisis stabilization environment rather than
jail.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES recollected that a bill had been passed
[House Bill 16, passed in 2017, during the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature], which provided for disabled people, mentally
disabled or otherwise, to have a stamp on their state
identifications or drivers licenses indicating that they are
disabled; therefore, a police officer would be able to see
whether an individual has a history of disability when looking
at identification.
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks that bill made it optional
to receive a stamp identifying a disability so that families
could have the option, but it would not be mandatory.
1:30:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES passed the gavel back to Chair Claman.
1:30:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 290, Version 31-LS1513\K, Marx, 3/10/20,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version K was before
the committee.
1:31:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN re-opened public testimony on HB 290.
1:32:14 PM
JOANNA CAHOON, Attorney, Disability Law Center of Alaska,
offered testimony in support of HB 290. She expressed that the
Disability Law Center (DLC) appreciates the introduction of HB
290, and she indicated enthusiasm for the Crisis Now Model. She
stated that HB 290 would provide for a much needed 23-hour
stabilization center to keep people with acute mental illness
out of correctional facilities. She expressed that it is a good
idea to have an alternative to not make an arrest in the first
place. She commented that individuals in Alaska with mental
illness end up in correctional facilities, even though they have
not been engaged in criminal activities pursuant to emergency
detention by a police officer. She said that when there is no
available facility, such as when there is a wait list for Alaska
Psychiatric Institute (API) admission, officers may feel like
there is nowhere to take someone other than a correctional
facility, and HB 290 would provide an important option, which
she said she thinks is a good thing; however, she expressed that
if someone were not stabilized within 23 hours, there would
still be the issue of insufficient capacity to provide 72-hour
evaluations under Alaska statutes.
MS. CAHOON explained that this could still allow for the
situation where individuals, who have not been charged with a
crime, stack up in inappropriate facilities waiting for an
evaluation. She said that the Crisis Now Report recommends a
23-hour recliner center and a short-term inpatient facility for
individuals that are not stabilized within 23 hours. She said
that DLC thinks that in the future it will be imperative to
increase the capacity to perform evaluations by considering
mechanisms for licensing a two- to five-day facility, as
outlined in the Crisis Now Report, and designating that facility
to provide 72-hour evaluations. She summarized that HB 290
would be a step in the right direction, embrace the new
promising Crisis Now Model, and move Alaska towards
decriminalizing mental illness.
1:34:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted for context that Ms. Cahoon, with DLC, is the
lead counsel on the lawsuit that has been brought against the
State of Alaska, regarding staffing at API and the issue of
people being taken to prison rather than API.
1:35:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 290.
1:35:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 290 would be held over for
further review.
1:36:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:36 p.m. to 1:39 p.m.
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.
2:59:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:59 p.m.
| 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 |