Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/18/2020 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 | |
| Alaska Police Standards Council | |
| HB174 | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2020
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative Sarah Vance
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Gary Knopp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Police Standards Council
Daniel Weatherly - Anchor Point
Joseph White - Ketchikan
Ed Mercer - Juneau
Jennifer Winkelman - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 174
"An Act raising the minimum age to purchase, sell, exchange, or
possess a product containing nicotine or an electronic smoking
product; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 174(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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 174
SHORT TITLE: MIN. AGE TO POSSESS NICOTINE/ECIG PRODUCT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KNOPP
05/15/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/19 (H) CRA, JUD
03/05/20 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/10/20 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/10/20 (H) Moved CSHB 174(CRA) Out of Committee
03/10/20 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/11/20 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 5DP
03/11/20 (H) DP: CLAMAN, JACKSON, KREISS-TOMKINS,
HANNAN, DRUMMOND
03/16/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/20 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/20 (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) TRB RPT CS(TRB) 4DP 1NR
03/11/20 (H) DP: KOPP, LINCOLN, ORTIZ, ZULKOSKY
03/11/20 (H) NR: VANCE
03/11/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/13/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/16/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/16/20 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIEL WEATHERLY, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on his appointment to the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
JOSEPH WHITE, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on his appointment to the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
ED MERCER, Appointee
Alaska Police Standards Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on his appointment to the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY KNOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 174.
KERRY CROCKER, Staff
Representative Gary Knopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 174 on behalf of
Representative Gary Knopp, prime sponsor.
JON BERRIER, Senior Director
Public Affairs
Juul Labs
Sacramento California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 174.
ALEX MCDONALD
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 174.
SHAUN D'SYLVA, Business Owner
Fat Boy Vapors
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 174.
MARGE STONEKING, Executive Director
American Lung Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 174.
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 174.
ANDREW MERRILL, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to CSHB
287(TRB).
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Director
Division of Statewide Support
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 287.
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 287.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 287 on
behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:11:25 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Representatives Claman, Kopp,
Drummond, Stutes, and LeDoux were present at the call to order.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^Alaska Police Standards Council
Alaska Police Standards Council
1:12:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
the confirmation hearings for the Alaska Police Standards
Council.
1:12:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on the confirmation
hearings for the Alaska Police Standards Council.
1:13:05 PM
DANIEL WEATHERLY, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
offered testimony on his appointment to the Alaska Police
Standards Council (APSC). He stated that he had sent his resume
via e-mail to the committee members [hard copy included in the
committee packet], and he did not have anything to add to that
but could go through it for the committee. He said that he grew
up throughout most of the United States with three years spent
oversees in Europe, graduated high school, and then attended
Briar Cliff College in Iowa, San Francisco University, and the
University of Alaska campuses in Ketchikan, Anchorage, and
Homer.
MR. WEATHERLY stated that he was in the U.S. Coast Guard for
four years, the last two years of which were spent in Ketchikan.
He said that when he got out of the U.S. Coast Guard he served
as the seasonal state park ranger in Ketchikan, and for two
years he was a full-time firefighter with the Ketchikan Fire
Department. He stated that he left Ketchikan to join the Alaska
State Troopers, and his assignments were at the academy in Sitka
and patrols in Anchorage and Valdez during pipeline
construction. He said that he returned to Anchorage doing
statewide criminal, and after three years transferred to
Kotzebue as the post supervisor for all the villages in the Nana
Region. He stated that while he was stationed in Kotzebue the
original Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program was
started, and he was part of the original group of troopers
working to get the program implemented, organized, and
functional. He remarked that during his last year in Kotzebue
there were 10 VPSOs, 3 constables, 1 trooper, and himself. He
said that he was involved in the hiring, selection, training,
supervision, and evaluation of individual VPSOs.
MR. WEATHERLY stated that his next assignment was as post
supervisor to several villages outside of Seldovia city limits.
He said that while stationed in Homer, he served on several
nonprofit boards. He remarked that for four years he was the
only enforcement representative on a community mental health
board in Homer, Alaska, and when the city commissioned for a new
police station he retired from the State of Alaska after 22
years and worked for the city of Homer for 3 years. He then
left the area and worked on the North Slope at the alpine camp
for 14 years and 8 months as a contract employee for
International Services at ConocoPhillips. He stated that he
retired in 2015. He remarked that his wife and family have
lived in Anchor Point since 1983.
MR. WEATHERLY expressed that his interest in serving on the APSC
is fairly simple, as most of his time in service was as a state
trooper living in small communities in villages and rural areas,
and he worked, explored, and traveled across Alaska, from
Ketchikan to the North Slope and "off-the-chain through Adak."
He said that while with the troopers, he accumulated
approximately 2,000 hours in training and an advanced
certificate as a certified instructor. He expressed that the
state has invested considerable time and expense in his
development as a trooper, and he would like the opportunity to
"make a return on that investment."
1:17:29 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Weatherly whether he had served any prior
terms on the APSC or this would be his first.
MR. WEATHERLY replied that this would be his first term.
1:17:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that he was pleased to see Mr.
Weatherly putting his name forward and remarked that he didn't
realize he had worked in the Coast Guard as well. He expressed
that he was very pleased to support Mr. Weatherly in his
appointment.
1:18:42 PM
JOSEPH WHITE, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council,
offered testimony on his appointment to the Alaska Police
Standards Council. He stated that he is currently the chief of
police in Ketchikan and is coming up on his twenty-fourth year
with the department. He said that he has been the chief of
police for the last three years and during that time had worked
most positions within the police department and has received
thousands of hours of training, some of which was at the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Academy in 2013. He
stated that he sits as chair on the local Emergency Planning
Commission and sits on domestic violence and sexual assault task
forces in Ketchikan, which work unilaterally with other
agencies. He said that he currently serves on APSC and has done
so since May 2018. He expressed that he brings good judgement
to the board and likes to listen to all sides of an issue before
making decisions. He stated that the decisions APSC makes have
grave consequences for many people; it is a serious job to
maintain the standards of law enforcement within the state. He
remarked that he enjoys serving with the current board members.
1:20:57 PM
ED MERCER, Appointee, Alaska Police Standards Council, offered
testimony on his appointment to the Alaska Police Standards
Council. He stated that he has served on APSC since Fall 2019,
and he stated that this was his first confirmation to the board.
He explained that he is the chief of police for the Juneau
Police Department. He said that he was born and raised in
Alaska, grew up in Sitka, and appreciates the opportunity to
serve on APSC. He stated that he has been in law enforcement
for 27 years, starting his career at the Sitka Police Department
in 1992 and transferring to the Juneau Police Department in
2000. He expressed that he has had many opportunities to
advance his career during his tenure in Juneau and has made his
way through the ranks from officer to chief. He said that he
has received thousands of hours of police training throughout
his career, ranging from basic police procedures to more
advanced supervision management and executive level command
school.
CHIEF MERCER said that he holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Criminal Justice from Herzing University, and he graduated from
the FBI National Academy. He stated that he currently serves on
the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police, a working group
known as FBI Criminal Justice Information System for the
Northwest Working Group, and the Alaska High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Board. He pointed out that he has previously
served on several local boards, task force committees, the local
Emergency Planning Committee, and the local Homeless Task Force
in Juneau.
CHIEF MERCER stated that he enjoys serving on boards and law
enforcement, because he has a strong purpose to serve, has a
good understanding of police professionalism and accountability,
and can share his experiences with the board as a critical
thinker who is methodical in decision making. He explained that
some of the decisions APSC makes are very impactful for
individuals, especially to livelihood. He expressed that he has
a strong desire to keep the law enforcement profession credible
by having uniform standards for all Alaska law enforcement. He
stressed accountability and said that he thinks police
departments need a system of internal checks and balances to
ensure that they uphold standards. He summarized that these are
some of the reasons that he feels he is suited to serve on APSC.
1:23:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated the final appointee was Jennifer Winkelman,
but that his office had received a communication that she was
under the weather and would not be able to offer spoken
testimony at the meeting. He said that there was written
testimony from Jennifer Winkelman for the committee to review
[hard copy included in the committee packet.] He noted that she
is a reappointment to APSC and is currently serving on the board
through previous approval. He stated that she is someone that
is known for her work with the Department of Corrections and she
is seen in the Capitol Building with some frequency.
1:24:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on the confirmation
hearings for the Alaska Police Standards Council.
1:25:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that she was impressed with
the level of professionalism and experience conveyed by all four
appointees.
1:25:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that he wanted to echo
Representative Drummond's comments. He noted that Chief Mercer
is a very dedicated public servant who has spent all his law
enforcement time in Southeast Alaska. He stated that Mr.
Truitt, who works with him, provides a very good family
reference for Chief Mercer, as his father went to school at Mt.
Edgecumbe High School, which is where Mr. Truitt's father was a
long-time teacher. He commented that he has it on good report
that Chief Mercer is not only a good chief in Juneau, but a good
man in general, and he expressed that he is proud to support all
the appointees.
1:26:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he would like to echo the comments
that were already spoken, and he said that he thinks these are
outstanding appointees. He expressed he is glad to see that
some who had served previously are willing to continue their
service, which he opined "speaks well."
1:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointees, and recommends that the following names be forwarded
to a Joint Session of the Senate and the House for
consideration: Ed Mercer, Daniel Weatherly, Joseph White, and
Jennifer Winkelman to the Alaska Police Standards Council. He
stated that this does not reflect intent by any of the members
to vote for or against these individuals during any further
sessions for the purposes of confirmation.
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the confirmations for Daniel
Weatherly, Joseph White, Ed Mercer, and Jenifer Winkelman,
appointees to the Alaska Police Standards Council were advanced.
HB 174-MIN. AGE TO POSSESS NICOTINE/ECIG PRODUCT
1:27:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 174, "An Act raising the minimum age to purchase,
sell, exchange, or possess a product containing nicotine or an
electronic smoking product; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 174(CRA).]
1:27:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARY KNOPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 174. He stated that in the past year the
federal government had raised [the age requirement for
purchasing tobacco and products containing nicotine] to 21
years, from 18 or 19 years of age. He remarked that the
proposed legislation would simply raise the age in Alaska to
bring Alaska's statute into compliance with what the federal
government has done. He explained that the reason for this is
because, if left as is, there would be discrepancies: If
someone sold to individuals under 21 years of age, then only
federal penalties would apply; but if sold to someone under 19
years of age, then state penalties would apply. He said that
there is an ambiguity between the ages as to which laws would
apply, and the state penalties are slightly harsher than what
the federal guidelines are. He summarized that the proposed
legislation would bring Alaska into compliance by raising the
age to 21; it would change nothing else.
1:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why it is so important to have
Alaska's tobacco laws in compliance, when there are marijuana
laws that are clearly not in compliance with federal laws, and
she said, "We seem to be living through that."
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP answered that it is "apples to oranges," as
the federal government does not regulate or allow marijuana
whatsoever. He said that age limits for the sale of tobacco
products exist in state and federal law, and it is important to
avoid a conflict between law enforcement and the judicial
system, as it "keeps it clean." He stated that "important"
would be a matter of opinion for some people, and he thinks it
is important in the judiciary process penalty phase to be
consistent in what is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that this is a difference of
opinion.
1:30:48 PM
KERRY CROCKER, Staff, Representative Gary Knopp, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 174 on behalf of Representative Gary
Knopp, prime sponsor. He stated that he could answer
Representative Ledoux's question more extensively. He said that
one of the important parts of the proposed legislation is that
there is approximately $2.8 million dollars of federal substance
abuse grant money tied to the age change. He said that it is
important for the state to realize that down the road, if it
doesn't change the age, there will be a risk of losing some of
those federal substance abuse grants.
MR. CROCKER stated that HB 174 would change Alaska's statute to
match the recently implemented federal guidelines for sale of
tobacco products, would raise the legal age from 19 to 21, and
would end discrepancies in both statute and enforcement in both
state and federal laws. He said that according to the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), smoking costs
Alaska around $575 million in direct medical expenses and kills
around 700 people annually. He stated that the deaths of
Alaskans from smoking costs the state approximately $261 million
annually in lost productivity, and according to the Alaska Youth
Survey, 12 percent of male youth and 9 percent of female youth
use tobacco products. He explained that the use of tobacco
products becomes more prevalent the higher the grade level,
starting around 6 percent in Ninth Grade, and getting to around
16 percent in Twelfth Grade. He stated that this increase in
the number of youth tobacco users, between the freshmen and
senior years, highlights how access to tobacco products leads to
tobacco use, and by raising the legal age of tobacco use from 19
to 21, access would be further removed. He said that 89 percent
of students who smoke get tobacco products from a peer. He
summarized that it is important to match Alaska's smoking
statutes with federal guidelines, in order to allow state law
enforcement personnel to prevent sales to underage consumers and
enforce [penalties for noncompliance]. He indicated that is the
intent of CSHB 174(CRA).
1:33:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that she has heard that there are
a lot of hours wasted by employees who smoke during office
hours, and she asked Mr. Crocker whether he had any idea how
much time is expended by working smokers.
1:34:09 PM
MR. CROCKER replied that he did not have that information, but
he believes it exists.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES remarked that it does, and said, "You can
watch it here."
1:34:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Representative Knopp whether there
would be any change to the penalties or only to the age
eligibility.
1:34:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP replied that he appreciated the question as
it was a point he wanted to make. He said that his office
looked hard at the penalty to see whether there was anything
that should be changed, and it was determined that it should
stay the same. He explained that the penalties were adopted
over many years, by many legislators and lawmakers; they seem to
be appropriate and are that to which the public and industry are
accustomed.
1:35:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that she had heard Mr. Crocker
say that smoking costs the state $261 million annually in lost
productivity, but that information appears to be related to the
deaths of Alaskans, whom she said she assumes were productive
people prior to their deaths, "even though they may have spent a
lot of time leaving the building to smoke." She commented that
the states and the federal government coordinated the age level
for liquor consumption 40 or 50 years ago in relation to highway
safety maintenance and construction funds. She said that it is
about time for that change with tobacco and thanked the bill
sponsor for bringing the proposed legislation forward.
1:36:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the proposed legislation
would prevent someone under the age of 21 from selling tobacco
as well.
1:36:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP confirmed that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be any kind of
grandfather clause, as there are a lot of "kids who are working
in, you know, one-person quick-stops and so forth, so they're
all going to get fired?"
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP answered no, they would retain their jobs,
and just like the restaurant business where wait staff can bring
water and food but there needs to be someone over the legal age
to bring alcoholic beverages, the same would apply where tobacco
products are sold.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that sometimes there is only one
person working at these stores and asked how these people would
be taken care of if they lose their jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP replied that no one would lose their jobs,
but during that period there would be no tobacco sales by under
aged individuals. He said that store owners are aware of this
and would need to make provisions accordingly.
1:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that the proposed legislation has
an effective date of January 1, 2021, and he asked whether this
was to provide time for public education regarding the change
under the proposed legislation.
1:37:47 PM
MR. CROCKER answered that this would allow the public time to
deal with the question raised by Representative LeDoux and allow
for time to adjust to the change under the new statute.
1:38:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 174.
1:38:42 PM
JON BERRIER, Senior Director, Public Affairs, Juul Labs,
testified in support of HB 174. He stated that Juul Labs had
submitted written testimony for the record in strong support of
the proposed legislation to increase the minimum age for
purchase of tobacco and vapor products to 21, in line with the
recent federal law passed by Congress and signed by the
President [hard copy included in the committee packet.] He
reiterated Juul Labs' support for HB 174 and urged the committee
and legislature to pass a clean "tobacco 21 bill." He stated
that Juul Labs is a leading manufacturer of vaping products as
an alternative to combustible cigarettes. He said that progress
in reducing youth use of these products will depend on states
ensuring that underage sales are halted, and for the new federal
law to work appropriately, states should still pass and enforce
laws to ensure that retailers sell only to those aged 21 and
over. He opined this is the right policy to pass, and, as
incentive, reminded the committee that states that do not adopt
strategies to enforce retailers selling to underage individuals
risk losing a portion of their federal block grant funding for
substance abuse.
MR. BERRIER stated that the mission at Juul Labs is to
transition the world's one billion adult smokers away from
combustible cigarettes, and it pursues this mission while
actively combatting underage use of its products. He said that
Juul Labs believes that raising the minimum age is a critical
step in combatting underage use of cigarettes, other tobacco
products, and vapor products. He pointed out that nearly 94
percent of smokers started before the age of 21, and
approximately 80 percent of underage users access vapor products
through social sourcing, which is attaining vapor or tobacco
products from legal age adults, usually a friend or sibling. He
stated that underage use is antithetical to Juul Labs' mission,
and it has taken definitive actions in restricting it, including
voluntarily discontinuing some of its flavored products other
than tobacco and menthol, restricting sales on its e-commerce
platform through industry leading age verification technology,
suspending all advertising and promotion of products through
broadcast media, print, and digital channels, and instituting a
three-strikes policy as part of its secret-shopper program to
prohibit retailers from selling Juul products for at least a
year if they incur three violations.
MR. BERRIER summarized that he thinks Juul Labs shares a common
goal with everyone that is in the policy maker, regulator, and
parent realm, in that it wants to prevent the underage use of
these products; therefore, Juul Labs respectfully urges the
committee and the Alaska State Legislature to pass HB 174, as a
clean tobacco 21 bill.
1:41:29 PM
ALEX MCDONALD testified in opposition to HB 174. He stated that
young adults are currently taking a huge hit in Alaska. He
explained that college students were ordered out of their dorms
without an option of a place to live and no word on refunds for
meal plans or housing, and he said that a lot of the students
will be without jobs with the restaurant closures; he remarked
that he had worked as a cook through college. He stated that
half of the troops currently in Iraq are from Fort Wainwright
and questioned whether their stay over there might be extended
due to the new travel bans.
MR. MCDONALD expressed that these young adults are fighting for
this country, and the legislature should be hearing legislation
on how to help them, instead of restricting their freedoms and
job opportunities during this time. He asked what store would
hire a 20-year-old that could not perform all the duties at a
gas station. He expressed that there are "bigger fish to fry,"
and said that Idaho had just voted down similar legislation,
stating that there are many dangerous things in life, with war
being one of them. He said that it is not questioned when 18-
to 20-year-olds are sent to war and asked to maintain aircrafts,
machinery, and weapons. He expressed that these are adults who
should be allowed to make adult choices. He asked that the
legislature please stay focused on the issues that currently
face the state, and he said that the proposed legislation is not
a major issue. He pointed out that people would soon be out of
jobs, tourism would be taking a hit, and ConocoPhillips just
announced curtailing activities on the North Slope. He added
that businesses are facing uncertainty as to whether they would
be able to open tomorrow, and Alaskans need reassurance that
things are going to continue as normal. He summarized that
restricting peoples' freedoms in a time like this was backwards,
and he said that people should be able to live their lives.
1:44:14 PM
SHAUN D'SYLVA, Business Owner, Fat Boy Vapors, testified in
support of HB 174. He stated that he has adult vapor stores
located in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Wasilla. He said that the
federal age was changed recently, and many states are working on
legislation to move that forward. He remarked that as someone
who has been on the frontlines of helping adults stop smoking by
using vapor products, he is concerned about youth access and
said that many underage users have been getting products through
social circles, including friends and family of legal age to
purchase, which in Alaska is 19 years old. He said that his
business is very supportive of switching that age to 21, to
ensure that youth do not have easy access and to not create more
of a problem in the future. He expressed that as a business
owner in Alaska, who has many customers that have stopped
smoking, who had begun prior to the age of 21, some as young as
12 or 13 years old, he thinks that this would be a tremendous
step in ensuring that there are not underage users. He strongly
encouraged passage of HB 174.
1:46:03 PM
MARGE STONEKING, Executive Director, American Lung Association,
testified in support of HB 174. She expressed thanks to the
committee for continuing to serve Alaskans while keeping
themselves and the public safe through public health practices.
She stated that Alaska is facing a current youth e-cigarette
epidemic, as is the nation, which was identified by the U.S.
Surgeon General and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
She said that raising the minimum age for tobacco products to 21
can help save lives and [prevent] economic damages caused by
tobacco use in Alaska. She stated that youths are especially
vulnerable to the impacts of vaping, including nicotine
addiction, dangers to developing lungs by inhaling harmful
ultra-fine particles, heavy metals and chemicals, and negative
brain development impacts of nicotine. She said that HB 174
offers one strategy to safeguard lung health by increasing the
state's tobacco use age. She stated that the American Lung
Association urges support of HB 174.
MS. STONEKING stated that when President Trump signed "the
spending bill" on December 20, 2019, which included raising the
legal age of purchase of tobacco products nationwide from 18 to
21, this was a major accomplishment for public health, and the
American Lung Association and its other public health partners
cheered this on. She said that at that time, the FDA had
announced that "tobacco 21" took effect when the President
signed the bill. She said there were no exemptions, including
for military personnel anywhere in the U.S. or on tribal lands.
She stated that enforcement is handled primarily at the state
level, particularly in Alaska. She said that in 2013 state law
was strengthened and Alaska has maintained compliance with the
requirement that keeps it in compliance for mental health
funding; in fact, it has exceeded the requirement with only 5
percent of endorsement license holders not passing compliance
checks.
MS. STONEKING summarized that the underage enforcement program
works effectively, and the age needs to be updated from 19 to 21
to reflect the new federal law.
1:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that she was unclear on what
the Synar Amendment is.
MS. STONEKING replied that the Synar Amendment was named after a
former member of Congress, and it is the mandate for maintaining
a certain level of compliance with federal checks, in order to
maintain critical federal mental health and substance abuse
grant funds, as mentioned previously.
1:49:40 PM
EMILY NENON, Alaska Government Relations Director, American
Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, testified in support of HB
174. She expressed gratitude to Chair Claman, members of the
committee, and colleagues and staff for maintaining and
continuing the work of the state during some very challenging
times. She stated that the American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network supports the regulatory update, in order to match
the federal regulation. She expressed that Alaska is proud of a
very successful compliance check program, including vendor
education. She said that Joe Darnell, who heads up that program
was on the line if anyone wanted more details about that
program, and she said that there is a model program across the
state.
1:50:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 174(CRA).
1:50:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:51 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.
1:52:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that while off record a brief conversation
took place among the members of the committee to see if anyone
had any amendments they were planning to offer, and it did not
appear that there were any. He stated that as chair, he was
exercising his authority to waive the second hearing of CSHB
174(CRA), and he invited committee comment.
1:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that this is a society in which
18- and 19-year-olds can go to war, get married and divorced,
can probably take flying lessons and skydive, be part of the
commercial fishing industry - which she said is probably the
most dangerous industry in the world - join circuses on the
trapeze, horseback ride, and all sorts of things. She expressed
that the idea that the laws need to change to conform to the
federal regulation, with which she disagrees, while the state is
not concerned with having laws in sync to the federal government
regarding marijuana, is hard for her to understand. She said
she thinks much of the testimony on CSHB 174(CRA) came from
individuals who would really like to say that there should be a
law that no one can smoke at all, whether they be 19 or 91. She
remarked, "As I say, I can count, so you're going to do what
you're going to do."
1:54:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he appreciated the bill
sponsor bringing the proposed legislation forward and noted that
"this body unanimously passed a joint resolution in 2018 with
the Senate, calling on Congress to align federal and state
penalties, with respect to marijuana use." He said that he
thinks this gets at what the bill sponsor was driving at, which
is that enforcement is a real issue. He said that a licensed
premise, selling both cigarettes and alcohol, could run into
issues in the enforcement of checking licenses for individuals
buying products, when the minimum age for alcohol is 21, and the
minimum age for cigarettes is 19. Sometimes staff make mistakes
when checking identification all day, and uniformity always
makes enforcement easier. He expressed that he thinks an under-
21 general standard would be a good policy.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing a comment made by
Representative LeDoux, stated that he was very sympathetic to
impingement on freedoms, but the one thing different from other
risk-taking activities that is addressed by the proposed
legislation, is the public health crisis surrounding tobacco
use. He explained that over 700 Alaskans die annually from
smoking related deaths, which costs the state over $500 million.
He said that the data points in the statewide smoking ban bill
from a few years prior sound accurate to him. He stated that
there are many behaviors of risktakers where the risk is only to
them; however, smoking is a behavior that affects everyone
around them. He expressed that no right or freedom is absolute,
and this is a right that directly impinges on other people's
quality of health, and in light of the current public health
crisis, he said that he sees the proposed legislation as an on-
point public health bill that the industry supports, including
the people selling vapes. He said that overall he thinks it
would be a good policy, and he thanked Representative Knopp for
bringing it forward.
1:57:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND reiterated that she thinks it is about
time the state got coordinated, as liquor laws were brought to
the same age limits across the nation decades ago. She stated
that tobacco and vaping products contain highly addictive drugs,
as well as highly damaging components, which she said she knows
will contribute to illness in many people as "this wave of
Coronavirus hits us." She opined that the earlier the public
health can be protected, by keeping children from getting
addicted until they are older and can make these decisions with
a clear head, the better off everyone will be.
1:58:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she found it refreshing to
see the letter from Juul Labs, which is a provider of some of
the "smoking paraphernalia," support the proposed legislation,
as usually the providers and manufacturers are "screaming bloody
murder, don't do it, don't do it!" She said that this really
speaks volumes to her, and she is delighted to see support from
the industry for the proposed legislation.
1:59:24 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he appreciated the question
Representative LeDoux raised regarding alcohol. He remarked
that when he was in college in Texas many years ago, beer and
liquor could be purchased at the age of 18, and when he went to
college in Colorado "3.2 beer," which was 3.2 percent alcohol,
could be purchased at 18, but anything else could not be
purchased until 21. He expressed that he grew up in a time when
alcohol could be accessed at the age of 18, and he said that he
had friends and colleagues who joined the military, and the age
was raised and people could go to war but not drink alcohol,
which he expressed he always thought was absurd at some level;
however, he said that he also saw some of the reasons that the
public liked the change. He stated that he sees tobacco in the
same light as alcohol, in that they are both public health
problems. He said that he thinks a good civil Libertarian
argument could be made that the age should be the same for
alcohol and tobacco sales, but that the damage done by both
products as a result of not restricting access can be seen;
therefore, he said that he leans more willingly towards making
the limits than he did when he was 18 or 19. He expressed that
a critical part of the issue is that Alaska has significant
substance abuse issues in its communities, and by changing the
age, it could allow for accesses to additional federal funds for
rehabilitation and treatment, and he said that he has a hard
time not taking steps that would support that, which is the
biggest factor in his support for the proposed legislation.
2:01:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report CSHB 174(CRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 174(CRA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:02:11 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:02 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.
HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
2:05:03 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).]
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this was the proposed
legislation which would be "80 percent for government, 20
percent for the PFD," or whether that was a different bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that this is the proposed legislation
pertaining to the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program.
He remarked that the proposed legislation Representative LeDoux
was referring to had not passed out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee and was not before the committee.
2:07:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
had expressed some concerns with the proposed legislation
regarding felonies, and if those were addressed, then the
department would not have objections to CSHB 287(TRB). He asked
the bill sponsor for more information pertaining to the felony
backgrounds and asked whether there was a fix for the proposed
legislation that has the support of DPS. He then noted that
there was a representative from DPS who could answer questions.
2:08:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as prime sponsor of HB 287, answered that
the question came up about whether there should be the same
qualification standard eligibility to serve as a VPSO as any
other law enforcement job class, which currently requires no
felonies. He said that originally, when the language was
adopted, it came out of a recognition that in many of the rural
areas with the highest incidents of violence, assault, and
substance abuse in the state, there are some outstanding young
men and women who did not come out unscathed, but who have the
trust of their villages and communities. He said that it was
asked whether there should be a standard that if an individual
has no prior sex offense or crime-against-a-person convictions
but had a drug or alcohol possession felony that was over 10
years old, should there be a lifetime ban? He said that there
was good discussion around the issue, and the result was the
determination that it is difficult to have different background
qualifiers for different job classes, and much like
standardizing the age of 21 as seen in previous legislation, it
would be easier if there was a standard of no felonies. He
expressed that this would hit some people harshly, as not all
felonies are the same; for example, he said that first time drug
possession convictions are now misdemeanors but would still be
disqualifiers. He said that after talking with the grantees,
they feel comfortable leaving it as a no felony standard, and he
said that he is amenable to that.
2:10:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the existing version of the proposed
legislation allows for some felonies under certain
circumstances, and he asked whether Representative Kopp's
suggestion was that the proposed legislation would be amended to
make it so that the only prior convictions that would be
permitted for employment would be misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill what the department's
perspective was on working an amendment into the proposed
legislation so that the only crimes an individual could have
convictions for and still get hired as a VPSO would be
misdemeanor crimes, and all felonies would be barriers.
2:11:48 PM
ANDREW MERRILL, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, responded that this change would
reinclude the current language in the VPSO regulations of felony
convictions being disqualifiers, and he said that this would
absolutely be a step in the right direction, which DPS would
support.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what should be done to address someone who
has a felony conviction over 10 years old that would be a
misdemeanor conviction under current laws. As an example, he
remarked that someone could have a 15-year old possession of
cocaine conviction, which would be a misdemeanor under current
law.
CAPTAIN MERILL answered that under current regulation that would
be a disqualifier and that individual would not be eligible for
hire, regardless of when the conviction took place. He added
that if someone is convicted of a felony at any time, he/she
would not be eligible.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked both Captain Merrill and Representative Kopp
whether there was a reason to try to make provisions for old
felonies that would be misdemeanors under current law, [for the
sake of] employment eligibility.
CAPTAIN MERRILL replied that he is not a lawyer and might need
to ask "law" to weigh in, but on his side of the issue he thinks
the simplest thing for consistency would be that a felony
conviction at any time would be a disqualifier.
2:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he agrees with Captain
Merrill, and that conduct that was considered a felony at the
time it was done should be viewed as a disqualifier. He
expressed that this is a delicate issue on which he has listened
to the perspective of DPS and the grantees, and they would like
to have the regulation maintained as a no-felony status.
CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that he had not answered the part of
Chair Claman's question pertaining to misdemeanors. He said
that removing the felonies was important, but that domestic
violence misdemeanor convictions should be maintained as
disqualifiers.
2:14:30 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:14 p.m.
2:14:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he recognizes that the current
DPS regulation is no domestic violence assault misdemeanors
within 10 years, and the proposed legislation is consistent with
that.
2:15:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Captain Merrill or Representative
Kopp could identify other issues that the state troopers have
with the proposed legislation that there has been some effort to
resolve over the last few days. He remarked that he is trying
to take the committee down the path of what is being done to
address concerns and determine whether these changes would
satisfy the troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that they may not ever get everyone
satisfied but were doing the best they could to bring out a good
piece of legislation. He stated that other concerns were that
the language that sets the standard for good moral character as
a minimum qualification for VPSOs and probation officers, also
be applied to every job class of police officer, as this class
is given law enforcement duties. He stated that a
recommendation from the Department of Law (DOL), which he said
that he agrees with completely, is to insert language that
refers to a person being of good moral character and someone who
has not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, which
includes bribery, deception, and fraud. He stated that in light
of this recommendation, his office had worked on a proposal that
it would bring before the committee at the right time.
2:17:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp whether he has had a
chance to speak with Captain Merrill or others from DPS about
the moral character language as described.
2:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the only person he had spoken
with was Mr. Skidmore at DOL, and he had not spoken with anyone
at DPS about this.
2:18:22 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that this was one of the
recommendations DPS had made, and he said that it appreciates
that the bill sponsor is considering amendments that DPS thinks
are very important to include in the proposed legislation. He
stated that domestic violence is very complex because there are
domestic violence convictions allowed under current regulations,
which was brought up as part of a discussion among the 10
grantees and DPS over the last couple of years regarding hiring
applicants with prior domestic violence convictions. He said
that DPS has noticed over the past couple of years that none of
the grantees have hired any applicants with a domestic violence
conviction, because of challenges it creates in application in
the field.
CAPTAIN MERRILL explained that it is like what he discussed at
the previous meeting regarding felonies and possession of
firearms. He said that there are certain classes of domestic
violence convictions that are permanent disqualifiers for
someone to possess a firearm or ammunition. He stated that the
challenge comes from having to look closely at how a person was
convicted and what they were convicted of; was it a person in
the household or a direct family member? He said that while the
state has classifications for domestic violence convictions up
to the fourth degree of consanguinity, the challenge becomes
that some of those are not permanent disqualifiers, and it is
difficult to separate those. He said that while current
regulation allows this, DPS has had concerns over the last
several years for that allowance, because if VPSOs move toward
being fully capable of carrying firearms, or if VPSOs convicted
of a disqualifier are sent to the academy and participate in
firearms training, then they could be violating federal law.
CAPTAIN MERRILL said that Kathryn Monfreda might be on the line
to offer more information on the topic, and he said that there
are some prohibitors that DPS would like to continue discussion
on to ensure people, who might have those prohibitors are not
being put into a weird situation. He expressed that he is not
certain that a blanket domestic violence disqualifier is the
right answer, but that is something that needs to be looked at
more closely.
2:20:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that what he was hearing is that there is
a regulation that suggests that after 10 years an individual
could still get hired, but in the field in practice no one is
getting hired, in part because of the difficulty which arises
that some domestic violence convictions create a permanent ban
on weapons possession, which makes it nearly impossible to hire
someone because it is almost guaranteed that there will be
situations in which a VPSO would need to take possession of a
weapon in the course of his/her work. He asked Kathryn Monfreda
whether she could offer more insight into the issues regarding
domestic violence convictions and how easy it is to navigate a
10-year period for eligibility.
2:21:52 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Director, Division of Statewide Support,
Department of Public Safety, answered that there has been a lot
of case law in recent years regarding misdemeanor crimes of
domestic violence, and an early U.S. Supreme Court decision in
2006 led to the conclusion that none of Alaska's misdemeanor
crimes of domestic violence fit the federal prohibitor. She
said that a couple of years ago that ruling was overturned and
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently, determining that some
misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, depending on the
relationship between the offender and the victim and the degree
of force used, could be misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
that are prohibitors under federal law. She said that it is
probable that the VPSO regulations were written under the old
U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which is why it could be put in that
after a certain period of time had lapsed someone could be a
VPSO, but under current law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
there is no relief from that prohibitor if barred under federal
law. She remarked that she checked with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS), which is the expert on the topic, and it
confirmed that there is no way to get relief from that
disability, regardless of time.
2:23:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the domestic violence
prohibitor was in respect to carrying a firearm in the course of
duty, which he said he thinks it is, and asked whether it also
plays into the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
access or was not an issue with domestic violence.
MS. MONFREDA answered that the prohibitor would deny CJIS access
for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, but a waiver could
be requested of that denial by providing the circumstances of
why the conviction should not be considered a prohibitor. She
added that this does not impact the federal possession or
transfer of firearms and ammunition.
2:24:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether an individual, even if he/she could
have access to the CJIS database, could not take possession of a
firearm during his/her duties and take it from someone's house
back to the VPSO station.
MS. MONFREDA answered that that is correct.
2:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that this is an issue, like the
felonies, in which he wants to find the path that suits the
public safety process the best. He said that Michael Nemeth, a
VPSO coordinator with a lot of experience in this area, was
online.
2:25:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been following the
current discussion regarding misdemeanor domestic violence
convictions.
2:25:35 PM
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator, Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association, answered that he had been following the
current discussion. He remarked that Ms. Monfreda had commented
earlier on the domestic violence prohibitor, and the fact that
there are portions depending upon family member and severity of
the domestic violence conviction that would not be addressed
under the federal provision. He said this could be a situation
where two college roommates get into a "bit of a scuffle," one
is arrested and convicted, and 15 years has passed. He said
this conviction might not be covered under the federal provision
that would prohibit the possession or receipt of a firearm or
ammunition. He asked Ms. Monfreda for clarification on the
topic.
2:27:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Monfreda whether she could draw some
distinction between the relationships that create a federal
barrier and the relationships that do not, under which the 10-
year provision would not make any difference.
2:27:17 PM
MS. MONFREDA answered that the federal requirement is that there
must be an intimate relationship between the victim and
offender, so Mr. Nemeth was right; if it was two [college
roommates] that got into a fight, then it would not be a federal
prohibitor. She explained that there is a list of specific
relationship requirements for prohibitors under federal law,
which includes an intimate partner, spouse, and stepparent of a
child who is neglected or abused.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he thinks the point Ms. Monfreda was
making is that there are four or five categories that are
prohibited and several other categories that are not, but when
trying to decide whether the ban is a lifetime ban, it can be
complicated.
MS. MONFREDA confirmed that was correct. She said the
relationship of the victim and the offender needs to be
determined under federal law, not state law. She explained that
state law is much broader as far as domestic relationships go.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been hiring anyone
with domestic violence convictions at all, or whether the
confusion and challenges had put up a barrier that effectively
stops hiring anyone with domestic violence convictions.
2:28:50 PM
MR. NEMETH answered that in the 18 years he has been a VPSO for
his organization, and the 8 years as a VPSO coordinator, he has
not hired someone with a domestic violence conviction of any
kind. He said that this has not affected his organization, but
he sees how a domestic violence conviction that did not fit the
federal guideline, like two brothers or two roommates, could
affect the ability for an organization to hire someone down the
road.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he was
seeking to address, in terms of amending the proposed
legislation.
2:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were a few more items he
wanted to address. He stated that in CSHB 287(TRB), page 6,
there is reference to federally recognized tribes, and he said
that the reason for that is that this is what all the grantees
are. He commented that the grantees have formed nonprofit
entities to partner with the state in delivering public safety
services. He said that there are 229 federally recognized
tribes and only 10 grantees, and it was found that this language
had the unintended result of raising the concern among the
grantees as to whether they had the money for 229 entities to
form partnerships with the state VPSOs, and the fact is that the
entities that want to deliver public safety this way are already
doing so. He stated that it was not the intention to open the
program up to all 229 potential applicants, but to have the ten
tribes that do partner with the state stay healthy. He
expressed that there are limited funds as it is, and the
recommendation is to delete that reference from the proposed
legislation to make it clear that the program is not being
opened to all 229 tribes. He said that if a new entity wanted
to partner with the program, it would not be disqualified from
doing so.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Kopp also wants to
remove the reference to "federally recognized tribes" that
occurs [in Section 3, subsection (b)], on page 4, [lines 5-6].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill or Ms. Monfreda whether those
changes to page 4 would resolve one of the concerns that DPS has
raised.
2:31:43 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that from his perspective, there is no
specific issue with the addition of the federally recognized
tribe language; however, he did note that it would make all the
tribes eligible. He stated that in his experience in operating
the VPSO program since 2014, he has been approached by
individual tribes that were interested in operating the program
that were not eligible because they were not nonprofit, because
they were not happy with the interaction between their villages
or tribes and the nonprofits for their regions. He said that he
does not know that DPS has any concerns with that specific
language being included, or excluded, from the proposed
legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he had
looked at in terms of potential amendments.
2:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were two other issues
that he had not yet addressed, which deal with standardizing
regulations pertaining to the possession of drugs. He said that
the standard for police officers, VPSOs, probation officers, and
parole officers is that an individual cannot have possessed
illegal drugs within ten years, unless that individual was under
the age of 21. He said that a drafting oversight resulted in
the portion that specifies unless someone is under 21 not
appearing in the proposed legislation, which would make it
stricter than the regulations for the other job classes. In
response to a follow up question, he confirmed that this was a
change he wanted to make through an amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill whether the troopers would
have any problem with that change.
2:33:38 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that the more closely the proposed
legislation resembles the standards for other police officers
based on the language used in previous hearings, which said the
VPSOs should have more authority and more of a breadth-of-scope
of work, the better. He added that the troopers think it is
appropriate that it mirror very closely what is required under
the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) standards.
2:34:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be "competitive
bidding" if a tribe wanted to get involved in the program. She
asked whether that was something done currently and whether the
federally recognized tribe language being removed from the
proposed legislation would allow for competitive bidding. She
remarked she knows that some of the entities charge a lot more
than other entities when it comes to overhead charges;
therefore, competition would not necessarily be a bad thing.
2:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that there were a couple of things
touched on by Representative LeDoux that he wanted to address to
give context. In terms of competitiveness, he said the
legislature funds a finite line item in the DPS budget for
approximately $11 million, approximately $2.5 million of which
goes to administering the program. He remarked that what is
left goes between the ten grantees who develop their budgets
based on their differing needs. He explained that the money is
apportioned based on need. He expressed that one of the
challenges for the current system is a lack of transparency in
how these decisions are made; the grantees feel like there is no
objective standard as to why a fellow grantee "got this much,
and we got this much, and we don't know how those decisions are
made." He said that this was one of the things that drove the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, regarding whether someone new wanting to
get into the program could get in, said the answer is yes. As
of now they would have to form a nonprofit and partner with the
state. He said, "If the complaint is 'I don't like the
nonprofit I was thinking of partnering with or a particular
tribe,' well these ... are all the entities that are necessarily
the partners, so it may not work out for that area." He said
that not having the three words "federally recognized tribe"
would not stop any tribe that wants to partner with the state
from putting together a nonprofit vehicle to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why they would have to put together
a nonprofit vehicle. She remarked that Representative Kopp had
spoken eloquently on the House floor recently about the need to
recognize tribes, and she said that she voted for that
legislation partially based on what he had expressed. She said
that the proposed legislation is now saying that "you don't
necessarily want to deal with tribes, but we need to go through
the nonprofits." She expressed that she was confused by this.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Representative
LeDoux's kind words and support on that legislation, and he said
that he thinks Mr. Nemeth, who runs a VPSO program, would be
well able to explain this topic.
2:37:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was legislation heard just this
year that addressed the fact that Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes
("Tlingit & Haida") have a slightly different qualification, and
he asked whether this legislation had passed through the House
and the Senate already.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that that is correct, and it is law
now.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a "refresher" on what was done earlier
with legislation, specifically with the VPSO program and those
eligible to be grantees. He remarked that it seemed like the
class had been expanded by one, but he said that he recalls some
testimony that there "was only ten and no one else is
interested, or something to that effect."
2:38:31 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor of
HB 287, stated that the legislation Chair Claman was referring
to was passed in the last session and is current law. He said
that it added into statute and is included in HB 287, under
subsection (b) of the reenacted AS 18.65.670, on page 4. He
explained that it is the same section of the proposed
legislation that was previously cited in regard to removing the
language "federally recognized tribes." He said that the passed
legislation added into statute the phrase "Alaska Native
organizations", which has a definition under a different part of
the Alaska statutes, in which Tlingit & Haida is referenced. He
remarked that the definition of what an Alaska Native
organization is, is tightly crafted somewhere else in the Alaska
statutes, and this is what allowed Tlingit & Haida to be a
program operator as a tribe under the phrase Alaska Native
organizations. He expressed he thinks that as the bill drafters
made this change, federally recognized tribes were not added in,
precisely because of the dynamic that it could potentially open
the VPSO program to all 229 entities, and they were not prepared
for that. He said he thinks that Representative Jonathan
Kreiss-Tomkins was the bill sponsor.
2:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins' legislation managed to make an exception for Tlingit &
Haida to continue to operate, even though it is not a nonprofit
corporation. She expressed that she has a hard time seeing why
there shouldn't be an amendment allowing for any tribe that
wants to apply to operate a VPSO program to be able to, if it
feels it could do a better job than that being done currently by
another organization. She said that she has represented
villages in the past, and sometimes tribal entities think they
could do a better job than a regional association. She remarked
that this may or may not be the case, and she asked, "Why not
let it be open and let the chips fall where they may?"
2:41:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there are short-term and long-
term goals, and the proposed legislation is a "near-term view"
of allowing the VPSO program to grow under control. He said
that another near-term goal, over the next couple of years, is
to move the VPSO program under APSC, but under HB 287 it would
remain under DPS regulation as it is currently. He expressed
that this was mainly because these are significant policy lifts,
and he said that the VPSO work group focused on issues that had
"the most immediacy, to achieve the most good in a legislative
session that is now overrun with Coronavirus." He remarked that
time was short, and Representative LeDoux had brought up a good
policy discussion. He expressed that long term, that was the
direction that the work group wanted things to go. He said that
the grantees who the proposed legislation was for, for rural
public safety in rural Alaska, are uncomfortable with "opening
it wide open at this time," as the money available to the
program would not be increased, aside from another $1 million
that was appropriated, if it "survives." He reiterated that one
of the grantees should be allowed to comment on the topic,
because it is just a policy call.
2:43:14 PM
MR. NEMETH explained that his organization, Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association, represents 13 tribes in the Aleutian
Pribilof Islands Region. He explained that a board member from
each of those tribes sits on his organization's board, and there
is a resolution through the board which allows his organization
to manage the VPSO program for his region. He expressed that he
is not certain how other organizations work but said that he
thinks they also have board members representing their tribes,
or the tribe members at least have access to the board and could
bring concerns if they were not happy with the management of
their programs. He said that there is one organization
representing 13 tribes, with 6 VPSOs within those 13 tribes,
because 3 of the larger communities have their own municipal
police departments. He remarked that another 20 tribes being
allowed to apply on their own and receive funds would make it
much more different to manage the program as 30 grantees than as
10 grantees. He commented that he thinks Captain Merrill could
speak to his, as he has worked so closely with the 10 grantee
organizations over approximately the past five years. He said
that it seems to him like it would be almost an impossible
barrier to overcome, with that number of grantees.
2:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she agreed with Mr. Nemeth
that it would be impossible to change from one grantee to an
additional 10 or 15 grantees. She remarked that perhaps it
could be structured so that there is a grant for running an
entire program in a specific region; as an example, she pointed
out the Aleutian Pribilof area. She said that a tribe might
think it could run a VPSO program better and cheaper, and the
grantor would need to analyze the situation to determine if this
might be the case. She stated that when she heard
Representative Kopp say that the grantees feel uncomfortable
holding it open to anyone else, she thinks that it is similar to
a business, such as a bar, being uncomfortable with having more
licenses, but this does not necessarily mean that other licenses
could not be a good thing.
2:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that there are near-term and
long-term goals, and the work group is looking at the best near-
term approach that the grantees have identified would allow for
the program to grow in a healthy way. He expressed that
Representative LeDoux was identifying a future that he thinks is
possible, but he reminded her that each grantee acts like a
local public safety department, and he reiterated that the
tribes are represented on those boards. He pointed out that his
staff, Mr. Truitt, was a former VPSO coordinator when he was
general counsel to Tlingit & Haida and ran the program in
Southeast Alaska. He explained that Tlingit & Haida's board
works the same way as Mr. Nemeth had explained his board works;
tribes are represented on the boards. He said that
Representative LeDoux's suggestion was like asking why a
competitive bid wouldn't that be allowed for the Anchorage
Police Department, and he explained it would not be allowed
because it is a municipality police department. He stated that
the tribes have long-standing public safety partnerships that
have gone on for decades; it is not like there are a few people
waiting in the wings to bid and provide a service. He
summarized that a future where more doors are opened could be
theorized, but the reality is that the VPSO program is stable
and is structured like local public safety, and he said that is
the best way he could explain it.
2:48:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks there are two sides to the
question: one side is that if the goal were to make the program
more competitive, then those changes should be put in place
under statute now; and the other side is that there is not
really a worry, as there have been a limited number of entities
applying for the program over the years. He expressed that it
seems unlikely that someone would apply for the program in the
near-term, even if the proposed legislation were to open the
program to more entities. He said that he would expect to see
the same program operators coming back, as getting dialed up
with the level of resources needed to run a program would be
problematic.
2:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she would agree that she did
not envision many people applying for the program; however, she
said the program has so many problems with recruitment,
retention, and most everything else, that it is not as if
nothing needs to be changed and everything is going great. She
commented that another entity may, however unlikely, have a good
idea, and she asked, "Why would you want to preclude it?"
2:51:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the question has already been
asked and answered, and he expressed that he thinks
Representative LeDoux is speaking to a future that is desirable.
He commented that when opening the door without giving the
grantees an adequate understanding of what that might currently
look like, the caution received was that the grantees appreciate
the direction the VPSO work group wanted to go, but that
currently they do not know what that might look like and need
time to process it.
2:51:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that his sense from DPS was that it does not
have a strong position as to whether the language, "federally
recognized tribes", should remain in the proposed legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted for the committee that this discussion was a
lot of background that would help when getting to amendments.
He remarked that it might seem as if this was a more detailed
work-through on the proposed legislation than might be seen
usually in this committee but said that he thinks this is part
of an effort to move HB 287 forward with some of the limits in
time. He remarked that Representative Kopp had commented
briefly on a conviction issue, and asked what other issues were
on Representative Kopp's list.
2:52:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied, "That just about covers it." He
said DOL had asked for clarity that the intent is to allow VPSOs
to cover multiple villages, and he confirmed that is the intent.
He pointed out one section of the proposed legislation, under AS
18.65.670(e) and (f), which seemed to require a VPSO for each
village under (e), while (f) said a VPSO could cover multiple
villages. He said [the working group] was looking at language
to clarify that while villages do partner with the state in this
program, it is not the intent of the proposed legislation that a
VPSO would not be allowed to go out of a village to a
neighboring village, if that is where the need is.
2:53:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he knew Representative Kopp had met
with DOL, and he requested that Representative Kopp's office
also communicate directly with Captain Merrill to share proposed
amendments. He said that while he acknowledges that at some
level the DOL should be speaking on behalf of the troopers, he
recognizes that it can be helpful to have the perspective of the
troopers. He shared that he had been working on a different
bill, and the DOL criminal division seemed content, but a couple
of police departments had some questions, and so he had asked
that they coordinate with Captain Merrill, so Captain Merrill
had an opportunity to review proposed amendments.
2:54:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSHB 287(TRB) would be held over for
further review.
2:55:44 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Ed Mercer Application 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Daniel Weatherly Application 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Joseph White Resume 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Jennifer Winkelman Resume 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 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 (Updated) 3.13.2020.pdf |
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 Additional Document - DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.4.2020.pdf |
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 Additional Document - VPSO Co-Chairs Response to DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.12.2020.pdf |
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 Fiscal Note DPS-ALET 3.2.2020.pdf |
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 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCRA 3.6.2020.pdf |
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 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 3.2.2020.pdf |
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 Fiscal Note DPS-VPSO 3.1.2020.pdf |
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 174 v. K 3.11.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Sponsor Statement 2.25.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Sectional Analysis v. K 3.4.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Explanation of Changes v. M to v. K 3.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - States Should Enact Tobacco 21 to Reinforce New Federal Law 1.7.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - JUUL Labs letter 2.24.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - American Lung Association Letter 3.3.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DHSS-BHA 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |