04/03/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB351 | |
| HB345 | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 345 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2012
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Kyle Johansen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act establishing procedures relating to issuance,
suspension, or revocation of certification of police officers by
the police standards council; making certain court service
officers subject to certification by the police standards
council; making confidential certain information that personally
identifies a police officer; relating to requesting or requiring
police officers to submit to lie detector tests; repealing a
provision exempting certain police officers from a prohibition
against requiring certain employees to submit to lie detector
tests; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to regulations adopted by the Department of
Administration waiving the commercial motor vehicle driving
skills test for certain drivers with military commercial motor
vehicle experience."
- MOVED HB 345 OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 53(FIN)
"An Act reestablishing the Alaska Commission on the Status of
Women; and relating to the purpose and powers of the Alaska
Human Relations Commission."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 351
SHORT TITLE: POLICE OFFICER PROTECTIONS/CERTIFICATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HAWKER
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) STA, JUD
04/03/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 345
SHORT TITLE: WAIVE CDL SKILL TEST FOR CERTAIN VETERANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) TRA, STA
03/27/12 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/12 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/27/12 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/28/12 (H) TRA RPT 3DP 2NR
03/28/12 (H) DP: PETERSEN, GRUENBERG, P.WILSON
03/28/12 (H) NR: JOHNSON, PRUITT
04/03/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 53
SHORT TITLE: COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) STA, FIN
03/24/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/24/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/11 (S) Moved SB 53 Out of Committee
03/29/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/11 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR
03/30/11 (S) DP: WIELECHOWSKI, KOOKESH, PASKVAN
03/30/11 (S) DNP: GIESSEL
03/30/11 (S) NR: MEYER
01/20/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
01/20/12 (S) Heard & Held
01/20/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/02/12 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/02/12 (S) Moved CSSB 53(FIN) Out of Committee
02/02/12 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/03/12 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
02/03/12 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, THOMAS, EGAN, MCGUIRE,
ELLIS
02/03/12 (S) NR: STEDMAN, OLSON
02/22/12 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/22/12 (S) VERSION: CSSB 53(FIN)
02/24/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/12 (H) STA, FIN
04/03/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 351 as sponsor.
DAVE SEXTON, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 351.
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 351.
JAKE METCALF, Executive Director
Public Safety Employees Association, Inc./American Federation of
State, County, Municipal Employees (PSEA/AFSCME) Local 803
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 351.
STEVE SORENSON, General Council
Corporate Board
Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 351.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 345 as sponsor.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 345.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 345.
CELESTE HODGE, Staff
Senator Bettye Davis
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 53 on behalf of Senator Davis,
sponsor.
JUDITH VAUGHAN-PRATHER, Member
Board of Directors
National Association of Commissions on Women;
Executive Director
Montgomery County Commission for Women
Maryland
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the National
Association of Commissions on Women during the hearing on HB
345.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:39 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
P. Wilson, Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johansen and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 351-POLICE OFFICER PROTECTIONS/CERTIFICATION
8:04:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 351, "An Act establishing procedures relating to
issuance, suspension, or revocation of certification of police
officers by the police standards council; making certain court
service officers subject to certification by the police
standards council; making confidential certain information that
personally identifies a police officer; relating to requesting
or requiring police officers to submit to lie detector tests;
repealing a provision exempting certain police officers from a
prohibition against requiring certain employees to submit to lie
detector tests; and providing for an effective date."
8:05:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 351 as sponsor. He stated that the proposed legislation was
introduced at the request of the Public Safety Employees
Association (PSEA) and would ensure that police officers are
afforded protection of their civil liberties when faced with
unproven allegations or threats related to their job
performance. He directed attention to a matrix [in the
committee packet], which shows four general areas within the
legislation: Licensure Impacts for Misconduct; Definition of
Police Officer; Administration of Lie Detector Tests; and
Confidentiality of Personal Information. Currently, he said,
revocation and refusal to issue a permit is left to the
discretion of the Alaska Police Standards Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said under HB 351 suspension would be
allowed without a hearing; revocation and refusal to issue a
permit would be allowed after a hearing and decision if the
allegations were proven by clear and convincing evidence; and
suspension, revocation, or refusal to issue a certificate based
on a disciplinary action that has been reversed or removed based
on an official proceeding outlined by a collective bargaining
agreement, personnel rules, or the Administrative Procedure Act
would be prohibited.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said court services officers would be
added to the definition of police officer. Regarding the
administration of lie detector tests, he mentioned [AS
23.10.037], which currently prohibits employers from
administering lie detector tests to employees and job
applicants. He indicated that HB 351 would repeal a section of
law that exempts police officers from the current prohibition.
He indicated that [job applicants] are not supposed to be part
of that exemption, and he said there is an amendment prepared to
address that. He stated that under HB 351, personal information
would remain confidential unless the officer voluntarily
authorizes its release in writing.
8:13:37 AM
DAVE SEXTON, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said under HB 351,
the council would have to follow along with decisions made at a
hearing, for example. Currently, he said, although the council
takes many sources under advisement, it is totally independent.
He relayed that when an officer in an agency is terminated, the
hiring agency is required to report that termination, as well as
report whether the officer resigned under investigation or in
lieu of investigation, and whether the agency recommends
decertification. He said the council takes that information
under advisement. He said there are a number of ways that the
council can start an investigation on its own, for example, in
response to reading an article in the newspaper or receiving a
tip from a citizen; however, most of the time the information
received is from the hiring agency.
MR. SEXTON emphasized that revocation is rare. He relayed that
at any particular time there are 3,000 officers in Alaska, and
in the last five years the council has revoked only six
certificates, and those were for serious criminal matters. He
said his staff does the primary investigation, and many times
decides at that level that there is no reason to revoke. If the
matter goes to council, the council thoroughly vets the matter.
He reemphasized the need for the council to maintain its
independence. He noted there has been one instance in which the
hearing officer ruled to give the officer his job back, but the
council revoked the certificate anyway. He indicated that the
hearing officer had ruled on a procedural issue, while the
council considered that the behavior of the officer had been
egregious and unprofessional in nature.
8:17:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 1 of the
proposed bill, which would amend AS 18.65.240(c). He said
currently there is no requirement for a notice and a hearing in
statute. He asked if Mr. Sexton has received or requested any
legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of the statute.
8:18:54 AM
MR. SEXTON deferred to the Department of Law, but said that the
council gives notice.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Sexton if Section 1 of HB 351
would bring the statute into conformance with existing
regulations.
MR. SEXTON reiterated that currently the council gives notice.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referenced page 1, lines 12, and asked
if current regulations allow the accused to request a hearing
for a suspension as well as for a revocation.
MR. SEXTON answered that currently the council does not have the
authority to suspend; language in Section 1 would give that
authority. He stated that the council supports having that
capability.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Sexton if he would support
allowing the accused officer to request a hearing before a
suspension.
MR. SEXTON replied that the council has not yet discussed that
matter.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would explore that issue when
the bill is heard by committees of referral.
8:21:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to the fiscal note
prepared by David Sexton, Executive Director, Alaska Police
Standards Council [included in the committee packet].
MR. SEXTON clarified that although his name is on the fiscal
note, it was actually prepared by his staff.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN observed that it is a zero fiscal note,
but noted language in the analysis portion states that ["DPS
could potentially be required to pay hundreds of thousands of
dollars in back wages to cover the period of time from the date
of termination until the date of the decision."] He remarked
that it is unusual for HB 351 not to have a referral to the
House Finance Committee. He asked Mr. Sexton to point to the
section in HB 351 that refers to the possible cost to DPS.
MR. SEXTON answered that the language is in Section 4,
[paragraph (7)], subparagraph (D), on page 3, lines 5-7, and
would add to the definition of police officer:
(D) a person who is designated
under AS 22.20.130 to assist the commissioner of
public safety in the execution of the authority and
duty vested by AS 22.20.100 - 22.20.140;
8:23:57 AM
MR. SEXTON said the reason for the cost is that if court
officers are brought in under the definition of police officer,
then they would have to have the same training. He said under
HB 351, there are 50-plus court officers who would have to be
trained. In response to Representative Johansen, he said the
expense would not be incurred by the Alaska Police Standards
Council, but would be incurred by the department. He added:
Part of [the Department of] Public Safety has since
started discussions with the union. Everybody's under
the agreement that we can bring the court service
officers in without this change, and this change ...
was taken out of the Senate version of the bill. So,
we're just doing it administratively now, bit by bit,
and that won't have the fiscal impact. So, ... we're
currently looking at handling it administratively and
not in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he appreciates that information,
but opined that it is irrelevant to the committee's discussion
of the proposed bill.
8:25:58 AM
MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained
the reason the court services officers have been added is to
give them the ability to serve warrants and make arrests; it
increases their abilities.
CHAIR LYNN opined that that is "quite a jump" in abilities.
MR. SEXTON, in response to Chair Lynn, said a court officer
could give a warrant in the court room.
MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said
currently court officers act as bailiffs who maintain order in
the courtroom and transport prisoners. In response to a follow-
up question, he deferred to the department representatives to
speak to how they envision using court services officers under
HB 351.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that if court services
officers are going to be asked to do a lot more, then they are
going to want an increase in pay, which would be reflected in
the fiscal note.
MR. SEXTON said current discussions with the union have elicited
an agreement that a pay raise would not happen.
8:28:29 AM
MR. SEXTON, in response to the chair, said under HB 351 court
services officers would be, in theory, fully trained police
officers; however, he said he cannot speak to how DPS would use
them. In response to a follow-up question, he said he does not
know the current pay difference between police officers and
court services officers.
8:29:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the courts have expressed a need
for their court services officers to have an increase in
abilities.
MR. SEXTON answered not that he is aware.
8:29:35 AM
MR. SEXTON, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Seaton, confirmed that the Alaska Police
Standards Council bases its conclusions on the Administrative
Procedures Act, which requires preponderance of evidence. He
offered his understanding that under HB 351 the council would
need to "follow decisions made outside to hearings." He relayed
that if the standard for proving allegations is changed to clear
and convincing evidence, then the assumption is that a higher
burden of proof will be required. He said he does not know how
that will "shake out," but said it would separate the council
from the four dozen boards and commissions that follow the
Administrative Procedures Act.
8:32:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked who would do the extra work in
reaching the higher burden of proof if the standard for proving
allegations is raised.
MR. SEXTON suggested that the council may already be finding
clear and convincing evidence. He said the council is comprised
of 13 members, including law enforcement and corrections
administrators, citizens at large, and union members, all of
whom take their jobs seriously. He reiterated that out of 200
cases there have been only six revocations. He stated that the
council takes only serious cases. He said there would be no
more staff to address finding clear and convincing evidence, so
the burden would fall on existing staff.
8:34:24 AM
MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative Gruenberg, offered his
understanding that clear and convincing evidence must be used in
order to disbar an attorney at law. In response to a follow-up
question, he said he has not heard of any challenges as to the
constitutionality of requiring only preponderance of evidence in
matters related to the council.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his intent to find out more on
the matter.
8:36:18 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director, Legal Services Section,
Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), offered his personal
background. He stated that in the role of supervisor to special
prosecutions, he was responsible for reviewing all cases that
involved officers and would address all officer-involved
shootings. He said he also reviewed conflict cases. He related
that in his current position, he acts as the legal advisor for
the Alaska Police Standards Council. Regarding HB 351, he said
he would address the topic of licensure impacts, as shown on the
aforementioned matrix.
8:38:42 AM
MR. SKIDMORE directed attention to Section 1, on page 1, line 9,
through page 2, line 5, of HB 351. He offered his understanding
that Section 1 would repeal AS 18.65.240(c), which is the
provision that gives the council the ability to revoke the
license or certificate of a law enforcement officer. He said
"it" does not specify that "we" would follow the Administrative
Procedures Act; however, he noted that within the Act, which is
referenced on page 2, line 1, as AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630, it is
specifically stated that the Alaska Police Standards Council
must follow the Act. He said under the Act there is a hearing
to which anyone is entitled and during which the hearing officer
makes findings of fact and recommendations to the council. The
council then exercises its own independent judgment as to
whether to follow the recommendation of the hearing officer. He
stated that this is the same procedure as is followed by the
Alaska Bar Association, but the association is not controlled by
the Administrative Procedures Act.
8:41:47 AM
MR. SKIDMORE stated that under HB 351, the discretion of the
council would be removed, which he opined is not a good idea.
He said the 13 people serving on the council decide whether or
not [the officer in question] has fallen below the minimum level
of the expectations for the standards that are set for officers
across the state. Under HB 351, the person making those
decisions would be a hearing officer who is not in law
enforcement, and the council would not be able to revoke a
license unless the hearing officer had first made that decision.
He stated that society is built on trust that people will follow
the rules of the state or be held accountable by law enforcement
officers. He talked about the importance of being able to trust
law enforcement officers, because without that trust the whole
system falters. He said that is why the decision of who is and
is not an appropriate officer should remain within the council.
8:44:21 AM
MR. SKIDMORE stated that there are also issues with how [HB 351]
would affect the criminal justice system's function. For
example, he said as a prosecutor he is obligated to disclose to
the defense whether an officer is deemed to be dishonest or
there are problems with his/her credibility. The defense will
ask "those questions" during the trial, the jury will judge the
officer, and judges may not be willing to issue a search warrant
to the officer in the future. Current law ensures that only
trustworthy officers are certified, and if [the council] finds
one that is not trustworthy, it is invested with the power to
remove him/her. The proposed legislation would eliminate that
ability and give the decision to a sole hearing officer. He
asked the committee not to let that happen.
8:45:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked what the qualifications are for
the single hearing officer to which Mr. Skidmore referred.
MR. SKIDMORE answered that the specifics are included in the
Administrative Procedures Act.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that Mr.
Skidmore's testimony implies that [a hearing officer] is not the
right person to [make those decisions], and he said he would
like to know why.
MR. SKIDMORE said that while he cannot relate how [hearing
officers] are selected, part of his concern is that the person
selected is not likely to be a member of the law enforcement
community. Furthermore, he reiterated his concern in giving the
decision making to one individual rather than to a group of
individuals that can bring different points of view.
8:49:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the reason for HB 351 is
because someone lost his/her license and is disgruntled.
8:50:11 AM
MR. SKIDMORE mentioned recent court cases, but said he does not
know if those cases were the instigators of the proposed
legislation. In the cases, he said, even though the court
determined that the officers had engaged in egregious conduct,
because the department had a history of not firing those
officers in the past who engaged in similar conduct, it was
determined that it would not be fair to fire the officers in
question. He directed attention to Section 3, which read as
follows:
*Sec.3. AS 18.65 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 18.65.244. Deference to prior
resolutions. Notwithstanding AS 18.65.240, the
council may not suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue a
certificate to a police officer based on a
disciplinary action against the police officer that
has been reversed or removed as the result of
(1) an arbitration or grievance
proceeding under a collective bargaining agreement;
(2) a grievance, hearing, or other
proceeding under applicable personnel rules; or
(3) a proceeding under AS 44.62
(Administrative Procedure Act).
MR. SKIDMORE said lines 10-19 state that the council would also
be bound by what happens in employment law rather than being
allowed to exercise its own discretion and judgment. He offered
further details.
MR. SKIDMORE talked about another case, which involved sexual
harassment and dishonesty, both of which are of concern to the
council. He said there was no question that the harassment and
dishonesty occurred; the question was what the appropriate
sanction would be. He said the answer is completely different
depending on whether the focus is on employment or
certification. He offered an example, in which a lawyer engages
in criminal conduct. He said the lawyer's employer may not
ultimately be able to fire the lawyer, but if the bar decides to
revoke the lawyer's license, then he/she would not be able to
practice law anyway. He said he thinks the view is that if
litigation results in someone being able to remain employed,
then it is unfair that his/her license could then be taken away.
He said he understands that viewpoint but respectfully
disagrees, because the two processes are separate: one is
employment law, while the other is a statewide standard - the
minimum of what should apply. He said there are boards and
councils across the state to uphold those standards. He said he
has worked in places in the state where he is unsure whether
that the litigation that would be involved in employment issues
would be "the same level of litigation." He stated, "Even if
it's dealing with APD or the Alaska State Troopers, I don't even
want to rely on that, because the council conducts its own
independent investigation and reaches its own conclusions, and I
don't think it should have to be bound by what occurs in the
employment litigation context."
8:57:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that Mr.
Skidmore had said that Section 3 would limit the council. He
stated his belief that the legislature confirms each member [of
the council].
MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN ventured that the legislature's
confirmation of members is a good indication they are capable.
He asked if Mr. Skidmore is saying that Section 3 would limit
the information that [the council] would have to make decisions.
MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He clarified that Section 3 would
require the council to follow along with what happens in an
arbitration or a grievance under collective bargaining. He
added, "So, it's not that it limits the information they have;
it just [limits] what they can do."
8:59:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she has a problem with that,
because there are times when she has felt the outcome of a
collective bargaining agreement was unsafe. She offered an
example of a school district that could not do something about a
person who was saying and doing things that were "not good for
students." She opined that the current ability of the council
to override a decision is good.
MR. SKIDMORE noted that teachers are governed under the
Administrative Procedures Act; therefore, the example offered by
Representative P. Wilson is right on point.
9:01:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Skidmore to clarify if what he
is saying is that this could lead down a slippery slope.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he could not have said it more
clearly than that.
9:02:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the mission statement of the
council, which read as follows:
To produce and maintain a highly trained and
positively motivated professional, capable of meeting
contemporary law enforcement standards of performance.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said Mr. Skidmore's testimony is
convincing; however, he noted that the mission statement has no
mention of maintaining the public's trust.
MR. SKIDMORE responded that he equates "professional" with
someone in whom the public can place its trust. He said that
his experience as head of special prosecutions brought him to
consider whether individuals who hold positions of public trust
should be sentenced for criminal conduct beyond what the average
citizen would. He stated his belief that the answer to that
question is yes, because it is the violation of public trust
that is so important. He offered an example. He said he
believes that the vast majority of people working in law
enforcement right now are professionals.
9:05:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the words "reversed
or removed" in Section 3, and he asked for clarification as to
the difference between them.
9:07:01 AM
MR. SKIDMORE answered that a reversal is the ultimate decision.
He said he is not certain of the meaning of removed in the bill
language, but ventured that it may mean the removal from a
personnel file any mention of an allegation. He said the
council already takes into consideration what has happened in an
employment context, but should not be bound by that information.
9:08:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to Representative Keller's
previous remark, proffered that mission statements are often
written by a group of people trying to figure out a way to
present the actual statutory requirements. He read an excerpt
of subsection (a) of AS 18.65.240, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 18.65.240. Standards.
(a) A person may not be appointed as a police
officer, except on a probationary basis, unless the
person (1) has satisfactorily completed a basic
program of police training approved by the council,
which includes at least 12 hours of instruction
regarding domestic violence as defined in AS
18.66.990, and (2) possesses other qualifications the
council has established for the employment of police
officers, including minimum age, education, physical
and mental standards, citizenship, moral character,
and experience. The council shall prescribe the means
of presenting evidence of fulfillment of these
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said, "It's not in the mission
statement; it's in the statute that this body at some point over
time has passed. And I think that may be the basis for some of
the testimony that we've had today."
9:09:49 AM
JAKE METCALF, Executive Director, Public Safety Employees
Association, Inc./American Federation of State, County,
Municipal Employees (PSEA/AFSCME) Local 803, said PSEA/AFSCME
Local 803 represents state troopers, court services officers,
airport police in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and police officers
in Ketchikan, Sitka, Juneau, Fairbanks, Soldotna, Dutch Harbor,
and Dillingham. He relayed that prior to his current position,
he served as an assistant attorney general and attorney general
in Bethel, and as a prosecutor in the Office of Special
Prosecutions, where he was a colleague of Mr. Skidmore. He
said as a prosecutor he dealt with misconduct by police
officers.
MR. METCALF stated that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 believes that the
APSC has a job that is important to the people PSEA/AFSCME Local
803 represents and the job that those people do. He said
PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 does not want to take away any of APSC's
powers. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 helps police officers
surrender their certificates when it is time to do so, but
believes that the process should be a fair one. He stated that
a police officer who has had his/her certificate revoked cannot
work anywhere else in the country. He said this is not wrong
for those who are bad police officers, but for those who have
been accused unfairly, without the full facts, it can ruin their
lives. He stated that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 does not disagree
with testimony stating that there have not been many cases of
revocation, but wants to ensure that the process is fair. He
said the proposals made in HB 351 would make the process fair
and would not take away anything from the APSC, but would
actually give the council more tools.
9:13:37 AM
MR. METCALF, regarding licensure impacts of misconduct, said
PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 has asked that suspension be allowed in
the process. Currently the council has no power to suspend a
license; all it can do is revoke or grant a certificate.
MR. METCALF referred to [paragraph (3), in Section 1], on page
2, which read: "(3) following the filing of a statement of
issues, hearing, and decision under AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630,
refuse to issue a certificate to an applicant, if refusal is
consistent with the decision." He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803
thinks that the person who is coming under revocation should be
given notice, that there should be a hearing, and that the rules
of the APA should be followed. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803
does not believe that is the case currently. He gave an
example, in which someone was given the opportunity to surrender
his/her license, but had not been given notice as to the reason
for decertification. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 hopes that
HB 351 will lay out groundwork for the council for the fair
treatment of people.
MR. METCALF referred to Section 2, which would require the
council to "prove the conduct alleged in the accusation or
statement of issues by clear and convincing evidence." He
recollected that Mr. Skidmore had said that the bar association
is outside of the Administrative Procedure Act. He said the Act
addresses consideration of the preponderance of evidence. He
said that is the lowest burden of proof that the Act requires;
however, an agency is allowed to use a higher burden of proof
under the Act. Mr. Metcalf listed the three burdens of proof:
preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence,
and beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is used in criminal
trial, while clear and convincing is used in employment trial.
He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803's "changes" would protect all
police officers, not just those with collective bargaining
agreements.
9:18:19 AM
MR. METCALF stated that collective bargaining agreements include
clauses that make the decisions of the arbitrator binding on the
employee and the employer. He said the language in PSEA/AFSCME
Local 803's agreement with the state troopers has existed for
over 30 years. He said there is a standard that is followed.
If there is an issue regarding employment, a hearing is held, in
which each side can present relevant evidence. The arbitrator
is trained in employment matters and makes the binding decision.
He said in recent cases the state has not liked the binding
decision and the matter has been brought to the Alaska State
Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court. He mentioned cases
where both courts decided that the arbitrator had made the right
decision. Further, a hearing officer decided that the employee
in question does not deserve to have his/her certificate
revoked. Mr. Metcalf indicated that six years may have gone by,
during which the officer in question has not worked, and that
officer may think the case has been settled, but the APSC then
overturns all the decisions. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803
thinks that the council should pay attention to the decisions of
both parties, the Alaska Supreme and Superior Court judges, and
the hearing officer chosen by both parties.
MR. METCALF said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 thinks Section 1-3 would
make the system fairer and give the council more tools, without
placing burden or taking away any of the standards currently
outlined in statute.
9:23:13 AM
MR. METCALF, regarding Section 3 and the deference of prior
resolutions, said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 wants the council to pay
attention to arbitration, personnel rules, and court
arbitration, but it also believes that the council can make an
independent decision based on new facts.
9:26:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the purpose is for suspending a
certificate.
9:26:32 AM
MR. METCALF answered that one purpose may be to use a suspension
until such time as the council makes a decision on a
termination. It makes it possible for the officer in question
to deal with a problem, for example drug addiction, before being
allowed to come back to work.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that Mr. Metcalf
had noted instances where the APA has not been followed, and he
asked Mr. Metcalf if he has gone to court to address that issue.
MR. METCALF said there are cases in process. He said last week
PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 received letters from APSC regarding the
actions that the council is taking. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local
803 would rather have statutes that set up a fair system that is
clearly defined for APSC, with full disclosure of the actions
being taken against the officer involved, and with due process
followed.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is confused, because Mr. Metcalf
is asking for statute to be changed when the APA is already in
statute and includes full hearing requirements.
MR. METCALF explained that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 is not asking
to move away from the APA, but is asking that the Act be
followed and that the APSC be given guidance as to how to follow
it correctly.
9:29:55 AM
STEVE SORENSON, General Council, Corporate Board, Public Service
Employees Association (PSEA), stated that the intent of the
proposed legislation is to make sure the council follows the
APA. Regarding the information provided by Mr. Metcalf, he
stated that back in December, the council voted in executive
session to take away someone's certificate, but without notice
to the officer and without due process. Echoing Mr. Metcalfe's
testimony, he outlined the process that should have occurred.
He said the council should make the determination whether to
revoke a certificate at the end of the process, not at the
beginning.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that before the next hearing he would
like to hear a discussion of the APA and how it falls within an
occupational licensing board and whether that involves an
administrative hearing officer or is an employment action.
9:33:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding the aforementioned cases,
said she cannot imagine that the officers had no clue they had
done something big enough to result in council action.
MR. SORENSON confirmed that in none of the cases were the
officers informed of the council's action in December; it was
not until March that any of them were notified.
9:38:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to language in Section 1 that
would allow the council to suspend an officer's certificate if
that officer did not meet the standards [under AS 18.65.240(c)].
He asked if the reason for the suspension would be to allow time
for due process.
9:38:48 AM
MR. METCALF said he thinks that is one reason. Another, he
said, is to give a middle ground between granting and revoking a
license.
9:39:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if the suspension could be used as
a form of punishment.
9:39:38 AM
MR. METCALF answered yes, and he reiterated his previous example
of an officer that may have a substance abuse issue.
9:39:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if PSEA would still support HB 351
if the language in Section 1 regarding suspension were the only
language left in the bill.
9:40:26 AM
MR. SORENSEN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that saying the council is not
following the APA is a serious allegation. He asked if PSEA
instigated the proposed legislation "as a result of this case."
9:41:57 AM
MR. METCALF said he respects people on "the board" but thinks
that current statutes have no direction, and that lack of
direction adversely affects police officers.
9:42:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said in future he wants to know what the
procedure is that would prevent recertification after
revocation.
[HB 351 was held over.]
HB 345-WAIVE CDL SKILL TEST FOR CERTAIN VETERANS
9:43:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 345, "An Act relating to regulations adopted by the
Department of Administration waiving the commercial motor
vehicle driving skills test for certain drivers with military
commercial motor vehicle experience."
9:44:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 345 as sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 345 allows the state of Alaska to waive the
commercial driver's license road skills test for
Alaska military personnel who earned their driving
experience operating commercial-grade vehicles in the
armed services.
The modern U.S. military is a highly mobile force,
depending on skilled drivers operating a wide range of
vehicles, under often harsh conditions. Impending
budget cuts and troop reductions mean thousands of
Alaska service members, including active duty, Guard
and Reserve, will soon be hanging up their uniforms to
seek civilian jobs.
In Alaska, where many trades and occupations involve
transportation of goods and people across challenging
landscapes, a commercial driver's license (CDL) is a
valuable credential that can offer a significant boost
to those seeking to enter the civilian work force,
whether in tourism, commercial fishing, construction,
oil field services or other industries.
HB 345 seeks to help returning Alaska military
personnel find good jobs, and to help Alaska
businesses find qualified and credentialed employees,
by acknowledging that many military drivers already
possess the skills they need to be safe, productive
civilian drivers.
HB 345 directs the Department of Administration to
adopt regulations in accordance with Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration guidelines, allowing the
Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles to waive the road
test in accordance with federal law.
To be eligible for a waiver, a driver must have spent
the last two years or more driving the kind of
equipment he expects to use in a civilian job, must
have worked in the past 90 days as a military driver
and must meet federal exemption requirements outlined
in CFR 383.77. He/she also cannot have ever had any
license suspended or revoked, had more than one minor
traffic violation, been convicted of any driving
offense involving drugs or alcohol, or been convicted
for any serious traffic violation involving an
accident.
Alaskans who honed their driving skills while in
service to our nation deserve to have that experience
validated and honored in the civilian world. HB 345 is
an important tool to help them get the credentials
they need to land good civilian jobs, and to help
Alaska employers hire skilled and motivated employees.
9:46:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to Representative Keller,
said those who would qualify under HB 345 would have to have
operated a commercial vehicle while in the military.
9:47:16 AM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), testified in support of HB 345. He stated that one of
the pressing problems in the industry today is finding qualified
commercial vehicle drivers. He said a lot of time is used in
training. He related that in-depth knowledge is needed by
drivers of commercial vehicles. He said sometimes the operating
skills of commercial vehicle drivers can save the lives of those
drivers or the lives of others. He stated that the industry
supports the return of veterans and welcomes the opportunity to
do something that would both support them and the industry. He
urged the committee to support the proposed legislation.
9:49:12 AM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, noted that the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) finalized federal
regulations which allow states to adopt programs that substitute
the required [commercial] driving skills for those that have
recent military commercial motor vehicle experience. She said
the division would build into its regulation the requirements
under HB 345, which are: the individual is or was within the
last 90 days regularly employed in a military position requiring
operation of a commercial motor vehicle; and the individual was
also operating a vehicle representative of the commercial motor
vehicle the driver applicant operates or expects to operate for
at least the two years immediately preceding discharge from the
military. She said the regulation the division promulgates
would include the requirements under [federal regulation] 49 CFR
383.77. She said there are many states that have implemented a
similar program, including Washington, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, New York, and Nevada. She told the committee that
FMCSA is urging states to adopt programs that will allow for
this waiver and is working closely with the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), as well as with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), to make implementation of this
program easier across the country.
9:51:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:51:29 AM
MS. BREWSTER, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed
that the division has the authority to adopt the aforementioned
regulations.
9:52:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he worked with a crew of truck
drivers in past, and the best drivers were those who had driven
in the military. He thanked the bill sponsor for bringing
forward HB 345.
9:52:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked upon the thoroughness of military technical
schools.
9:53:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER relayed that he used to run a truck
driving school and has a commercial driver's license.
9:53:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 345 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 345 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 53-COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
9:53:50 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 53(FIN), "An Act reestablishing the Alaska
Commission on the Status of Women; and relating to the purpose
and powers of the Alaska Human Relations Commission."
9:54:11 AM
CELESTE HODGE, Staff, Senator Bettye Davis, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 53 on behalf of Senator Davis,
sponsor. She stated that SB 53 would reestablish the Alaska
Commission on the Status of Women, a nine-member body devoted to
improving the status of women in Alaska, established in 1978,
renewed and renamed The Alaska Women's Commission in 1983, and
absorbed into the Alaska Human Relations Commission along with
Alaska Commission on Children and Youth. She said the Alaska
Human Relations Commission still exists in statute, but was
never funded and was declared inactive in 1996. She continued
as follows:
Staggering statistics for women in Alaska show the
need to establish the Alaska Women's Commission to
focus on a broad and diverse cross-section of issues
effecting women. ... Alaska continues to have the
highest rates of sexual assault and domestic violence
in the nation and historically women are more likely
to be poor than men. Poverty rates of unmarried
female householders with children are particularly
high and have ... consistently been two or three times
as high as overall male and female poverty rates in
1996.
Survey data compiled by the American Community Survey
shows that of 26,518 families in Alaska with a female
head of household, 22.6 percent live below the poverty
level. The gender wage gap persists in Alaska and
across a wide spectrum of occupations and industries.
In 2009, according to [the Alaska Department of Labor
& Workforce Development], Alaska women on average
earned only 66.6 percent of what men earned. And
although more women than men in Alaska hold a
bachelor's degree or higher, data shows that men's
median annual earnings are higher in every educational
level.
Alaskan ... women, in particular women of color,
experience health care disparities, and women living
in rural Alaska have worse than average disparities on
access and utilization of services. These statistics
speak for themselves and fully justify the need to
reestablish the Alaska Women's Commission.
9:57:08 AM
JUDITH VAUGHAN-PRATHER, Member, Board of Directors, National
Association of Commissions on Women; Executive Director,
Montgomery County Commission for Women, testified on behalf of
the National Association of Commissions on Women (NACW). She
said NACW commends the legislature for addressing the issue and
Senator Davis for sponsoring SB 53. She said NACW urges the
passage of SB 53, which would reestablish the Alaska Commission
on the Status of Women and provide both staffing and some
funding to ensure the commission is able to carry out its
mandate.
MS. VAUGHAN-PRATHER relayed that there are close to 200
commissions for women and commissions on the status of women
around the country at the state, county, and city level. She
said the commissions are distinguished from other advocacy
organizations and each commission is established by the
jurisdiction it serves as an advisory board to the government of
that state or county. She said commissions for women are the
governments' way of assuring that the needs of women are
identified and addressed in bodies that are largely constituted
by men. She related having found out that in the Alaska State
Legislature, only 9 of the 40 members of the House are women and
only 3 of the members of the Senate are women, despite the fact
that of Alaska's total number of females constitute
approximately 48 of the general population of the state.
MS. VAUGHAN-PRATHER said that when the voice of almost half the
population is omitted from the discussion, important and often
critical implications can exist. For example, she said until
this year car manufacturers and the regulating agencies used
crash test dummies that were the size and weight of an average
man; it never occurred to them to design vehicle safety
standards that would protect the other half of the population.
She said there is documentation, including the sponsor's
statement, which highlights other inequities that occur
nationwide.
MS. VAUGHAN-PRATHER said SB 53 proposes to create an advisory
board with a staff of three at a total cost of $515,400 in
fiscal year 2013 (FY13), with the cost decreasing in future
years after the start-up costs are eliminated. The [initial]
budget represents an investment of only about $1.50 per female
in Alaska. She posited, "Surely that would be money well spent
and a tiny cost to pay to ensure that their very real needs are
not overlooked." She stated that NACW urges the committee to
pass SB 53, and she offered the support of its collective
membership and experience to help the staff and commissioners of
the Alaska commission, so that they can "begin again providing
informed, balanced, and valuable advice to the government and to
the people of your state."
10:01:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that SB 53 was held over.
10:02:35 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:02
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB0351A.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 02 HB 351 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 03 HB 351 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 04 HB351 Background.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 05HB 351 Support Letters.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 06 HB351-DPS-APSC-03-31-12.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 07 HB351-DPS-JUD-03-31-12.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 08 HB351-DOA-LR-2-29-12.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |
| 01 HB 345.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 02 HB 345 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 03 HB 345 AK CDL Statute (1).pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 04 HB 345 FederalCDL Statute and Waiver.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 05 HB 345 Connecticut CDL Waiver (1).pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 06 HB 345 New York CDL Waiver (1).pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 07 HB 345 Pennsylvania CDL Waiver.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 08 HB 345 Washington CDL Waiver.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 09 HB 345 Federal Medical Reqmnts.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 10 HB 345 Federal Hours of Service Regs (1).pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 11 HB345-DOA-DMV-3-23-12.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
| 00 SB0053A.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 01 CS SB53 SSTA Version M.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 02 SB53 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 03 SB 53 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 04 SB 53 Background Information.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 05 SB 53 Statistics.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 06 SB 53 Annual Reports.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 07 SB 53 Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 08 SB53 Letter of Support Alaska CSW 3-29-12.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 09 SB53 AARP Support Letter.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 10 SB 53 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 09 HB351 Comparison Table.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 351 |