02/08/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB164 | |
| SB148 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 2018
3:29 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Kevin Meyer, Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on
animals and crops; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 164 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 148
"An Act relating to powers of the Alaska Police Standards
Council; and relating to background checks for admission to
police training programs and certification as a police officer."
- MOVED SB 148 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 164
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (S) STA, RES
02/08/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 148
SHORT TITLE: BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR POLICE & TRAINING
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/18 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/18 (S) STA, JUD
02/08/18 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced and addressed questions regarding
SB 164.
DR. ROBERT GERLACH, State Veterinarian
Office of the State Veterinarian
Division of Environmental Health
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of SB 164 and
addressed questions regarding the bill.
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director
Alaska Farm Bureau
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 164.
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President
Alaska Farm Bureau
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 164.
ROBERT GRIFFITHS, Executive Director
Alaska Police Standards Council
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview and sectional analysis
of SB 148.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 148.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:29:34 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:29 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Giessel, Coghill, Wilson, Egan, and Chair
Meyer.
SB 164-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
3:30:35 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of SB 164.
3:30:59 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage,
Alaska, explained that SB 164 will make certain records held by
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) confidential.
MS. CARPENTER addressed slide 2: SB 164: Confidentiality of
Records, and referenced as follows:
• To keep the Alaska agricultural sector healthy, to
encourage its growth, and to prevent unfair competitive
practices requires a change to the Alaska Statutes (AS),
specifically to keep certain information about agricultural
imports, animal identification, premise, and test results
confidential.
• Amends AS 03.05 to add a new section that would make
certain records held by DEC and DNR confidential.
• SB 164 would provide agriculture producers with similar
confidentiality protection already afforded to other
commercial industries; examples, commercial fisheries or
big-game hunters.
• Coordinated effort with DEC and DNR.
3:32:43 PM
She addressed slide 3: SB 164: Need Overview, and referenced as
follows:
• Farmers are reluctant to subject their animals and crops to
voluntary testing for disease because the results of those
tests are not proprietary as they are in other states.
• Public disclosure of this information can have potentially
negative impacts on their business, and since they are not
mandated tests, they opt not to test at all.
• An outbreak of disease could cause significant threats to
animal health, both wild and domestic, public health, the
environment or the food supply.
• Holding animal import health records, import permit
information and voluntary disease testing or product
quality testing as proprietary allows farmers to keep this
business information confidential.
MS. CARPENTER opined that reluctance to engage in optional
testing means farmers do not work with DEC early in the process
to contain a disease outbreak or a morbidity event. She added
that there is also concern from some animal owners that their
information could be released and accessed by animal rights
activists for harassment purposes.
3:34:32 PM
DR. ROBERT GERLACH, State Veterinarian, Office of the State
Veterinarian (OSV), Division of Environmental Health (EH),
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage,
Alaska, addressed slide 4: Office of the State Veterinarian, and
referenced as follows:
The Office of the State Veterinarian is responsible
for the prevention, control and eradication of animal
diseases in all animals in the state including
livestock and pets, safeguarding the health and food
production capacity of the state's livestock,
reindeer, and poultry and preventing the transmission
of animal diseases to humans.
He said for OSV to carry out its responsibilities requires
access to certain information:
• Identification of where animals are located.
• How many animals are at a location.
• Contact information for animal owners.
• Animal movement information to identify if animals are
moving from one place to another if an outbreak occurs.
• Background information surveillance on diseases in the
state for certification.
He addressed slide 5: Program Functions and Record Examples, and
referenced as follows:
• "One Health" animal disease and traceability:
o Import regulations for animals.
o Disease surveillance and investigation.
o Movi Study: wild and domestic sheep and goats.
• Dairy:
o Sanitation at dairy farms and milk facilities.
o Dairy products safe for human consumption.
o New recipes.
• Reindeer slaughter.
• FSMA produce safety rule.
• Fish tissue monitoring.
DR. GERLACH explained that OSV's records on disease
certification as well as programs to provide proof-of-animal
quality are important for the producers to have a successful
business.
3:37:04 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL addressed Alaska's cross-border trade with
Canada. She pointed out that Canada has some prohibitions on
animals crossing the border to come to Alaska. She asked Dr.
Gerlach to provide details.
DR. GERLACH answered that there are some prohibitions on
movement of certain species like sheep and goats from the Lower
48 that require special permits to travel through Canada. The
other diseases that Canada has surveillance for, like Alaska's
concern regarding certain diseases that are in wildlife, are
parasites in ticks or Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). He revealed
that Canada currently has a CWD outbreak in Alberta.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that Alaska has the Porcupine caribou herd
that moves back and forth across the border and asked if the
caribou herd is monitored for disease.
DR. GERLACH replied the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G) monitors the Porcupine caribou herd and shares the data
with the EH.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked him to confirm that ADF&G has a
veterinarian on staff, like Dr. Gerlach's position.
DR. GERLACH answered correct. He detailed that EH has a
veterinarian as well.
3:40:20 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked Dr. Gerlach to verify that the state has
three veterinarians in three different departments.
DR. GERLACH detailed that the responsibilities of the
veterinarians in each of the departments varies. He emphasized
that there is only one "state" veterinarian. He noted that only
a state veterinarian can act on an outbreak to contain diseases.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked that Dr. Gerlach provide additional detail
on the MOVI Study.
DR. GERLACH explained that the Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae (MOVI)
is a disease of concern that was responsible for some sporadic
die-off of bighorn sheep in the Lower 48. He said the MOVI Study
is collecting data from domestic sheep and goats to see if there
is potential risk to Alaska's wildlife.
3:42:50 PM
He addressed slide 6: Alaska Animal Imports: OSV Records:
• FY2014:
o Number of permits:
square4 Cattle: 6
square4 Sheep/goats: 26
square4 Equine: 77
square4 Swine: 19
square4 Poultry: 220
o Number of animals:
square4 Cattle: 37
square4 Sheep/goats: 92
square4 Equine: 203
square4 Swine: 2,050
square4 Poultry: 14,000
• FY2015:
o Number of permits:
square4 Cattle: 5
square4 Sheep/goats: 21
square4 Equine: 63
square4 Swine: 13
square4 Poultry: 490
o Number of animals:
square4 Cattle: 22
square4 Sheep/goats: 38
square4 Equine: 118
square4 Swine: 668
square4 Poultry: 30,623
• FY2016:
o Number of permits:
square4 Cattle: 14
square4 Sheep/goats: 22
square4 Equine: 203
square4 Swine: 31
square4 Poultry: 1,645
o Number of animals:
square4 Cattle: 169
square4 Sheep/goats: 298
square4 Equine: 352
square4 Swine: 2668
square4 Poultry: 128,372
• FY2017:
o Number of permits:
square4 Cattle: 22
square4 Sheep/goats: 17
square4 Equine: 192
square4 Swine: 37
square4 Poultry: 1,230
o Number of animals:
square4 Cattle: 401
square4 Sheep/goats: 85
square4 Equine: 366
square4 Swine: 2,319
square4 Poultry: 91,929
DR. GERLACH noted that the animal import data shows that permits
and animals continue to increase.
3:43:32 PM
He addressed slide 7: Disease Outbreaks in Alaska, and
referenced as follows:
• Brucellosis:
o 20 percent of cases are associated with recreational
and subsistence hunting.
• Domestic Animals:
o Pet foods (brucellosis canis, leptospirosis, rabies,
avian, swine, and canine influenza).
o Poultry (Marek's Disease, fowl cholera, avian
influenza).
o Baby chicks (salmonella).
o Outbreaks at the Fair (Streptococcus suis, Malignant
Catharral Fever).
o Domestic rabbits (herpes virus).
• Treats & Raw Foods:
o Poultry deaths (Southcentral; toxin).
o Horses (Kodiak; aflatoxin).
o Domestic pets (salmonella, chemical contaminants).
• Records can still be disclosed if there is a threat to the
health or safety of an animal, crop, or the public.
DR. GERLACH explained that disease outbreaks are reported to
certain state and federal agencies. He added that data is
released to inform farmers so that action can be taken. He
emphasized that released information is "generalized" without
personal or business information. He summarized that the intent
is to protect animal health and contain or eradicate diseases
without impacting a commercial entity.
3:45:46 PM
He addressed slide 8: SB 164: Sectional Analysis, and detailed
as follows:
• Section 1:
o Makes certain animal and crop records maintained by
DEC and DNR exempt from the Alaska Public Records Act
if they:
1. Are importation records that identify an animal,
crop, business, or individual;
2. Contain animal or crop test results if certain
conditions are met;
3. Are trade secrets or proprietary business or
financial information.
o Allows the departments to disclose the above described
records in the case that the departments determine
that there is a threat to the health or safety of an
animal, crop, or the public.
o Provides the definition of "varietal.
• Section 2:
o Allows the DEC and DNR to adopt regulations to
implement the act.
• Section 3:
o Provides for an immediate effective date for Section
2.
MS. CARPENTER addressed slide 9: SB 164: Benefits, and
referenced as follows:
• Routine surveillance testing may encourage better animal
husbandry and crop management, resulting in a higher
quality product for sale and increased production
efficiency.
• Early identification and testing of sick or dead animals
and crops decreases the potential for more serious
outbreaks and spread of disease to other farms, plants or
wildlife.
• Confidentiality of proprietary data prevents unfair
advantage to a competitor regarding product development,
marketing strategy, and source of animal inventory.
3:47:36 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if the division had an indication as to how
many people will go ahead and comply with testing. He noted that
the bill has a zero fiscal note and asked who pays for the
testing.
MS. CARPENTER addressed testing payment and explained that
producers have their private veterinarian test and the two
entities have a client-patient confidentiality; however, as soon
as the private veterinarian turns records over to the state, the
information is subject to public record. She specified that the
bill's intent is for records protection rather than an increase
in testing at EH's laboratory.
DR. GERLACH added that some of the testing EH does is paid from
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grants to meet certain
certifications. He noted that farmers are seeing the overall
benefit from obtaining certifications, especially for moving
animals out of state.
3:50:20 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if there is a standard number of testing
days for cattle that come into the state from the Lower 48 or
Canada before the animal can go to market.
DR. GERLACH replied import requirements require testing 30 days
in advance of cattle coming into the state.
SENATOR WILSON asked Dr. Gerlach to confirm that someone could
bring an animal in and slaughter within 15 days and not go
through testing.
DR. GERLACH answered correct. He detailed that an animal brought
into the state for direct slaughter would still have to meet
USDA standards for importation into the country. He noted that
state law requires that direct slaughter must occur within 10
days, federal law requires 14 days. He added that an exemption
for added time to slaughter may be requested.
3:52:20 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if an animal could be imported into the
state, used for breeding, and then be sent for slaughter.
DR. GERLACH answered no. He specified that an animal must go
directly to slaughter. He pointed out that Washington state has
experienced issues where animals brought in for immediate
slaughter have been used for breeding. He emphasized that record
accountability and traceability is vital in verifying that
animals brought in for immediate slaughter are not used for
breeding.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that he is concerned with, "Pulling the
shade down over private industry." He asked what information
will be publicly available if SB 164 is adopted.
DR. GERLACH answered that information of animal imports coming
into the state would be available. He reiterated that
information is generalized and specific information for a
business or person will not be disclosed.
3:55:26 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked what specific information will be
available from the state. He inquired if the information from
the state will show volume and category.
DR. GERLACH answered correct.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that accessing the USDA may be a way
to circumvent restricted information. He noted that the
information provided by the USDA does not provide the name.
DR. GERLACH replied that he did not know what information the
USDA would release. He surmised that the USDA would redact
certain information.
SENATOR COGHILL shared a constituent concern that some people
are bringing animals into the state and calling them "Alaskan
grown" and then marketing them.
DR. GERLACH replied that Senator Coghill poses a very good
question and noted that specific information is available when a
concern is voiced.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to verify that information on volumes
and species will be available without specific identification.
DR. GERLACH answered correct. He emphasized that information
will not being hidden, but information for a specific business
or person will not be disclosed. He noted that the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) on health
information privacy runs the same way.
3:58:59 PM
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that the information that the USDA
releases does show an address.
SENATOR WILSON addressed "Alaskan grown" and asked how livestock
is verified to be "Alaskan grown" if there is a complaint.
MS. CARPENTER explained that information and records would
continue to be shared with "fellow departments" for managing the
"Alaskan grown" program.
SENATOR WILSON asked if only "general" information would be
available to the public and only the state would have access to
the specific information.
DR. GERLACH answered thats true and noted that access is also
available to an "authority" that has the regulation to go ahead
with a program like the "Alaskan grown". He reiterated that any
time there is a question, the Division of Agriculture has access
to specific information. He noted that the confidentiality issue
has been a very big issue in the Lower 48 where states have
strengthened access to information because of several different
issues associated with data misuse by other public entities that
are industry damaging.
4:02:39 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:03:06 PM
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director, Alaska Farm Bureau, Soldotna,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 164. She explained that
compliance with state and federal laws requires farmers to
provide certain information to DEC and DNR as well as compliance
for voluntary testing programs or importation laws. She said
currently there is no confidentiality over testing records as
well as pertinent information on individuals, businesses,
animals, and crops.
MS. SEITZ said the passage of SB 164 will provide information
security for farmers which is the same security already provided
to other businesses in the state. She emphasized that the
passage of SB 164 would not endanger public health and private
information would be released if there was a problem.
4:06:04 PM
BRYCE WRIGLEY, President, Alaska Farm Bureau, Delta Junction,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 164. He said building a
strong and resilient local-food system requires a commitment
from farmers as well as statutes and regulations that encourage
local food production and processes. He said SB 164 will build
trust between the state's food producers and government without
fear that businesses can be impacted because of a sick animal or
crop disease. He explained that the possibility of a serious
problem and the potential food-market impact makes farmers
reluctant to ask for help from agencies because that information
is currently considered public. He asserted that knowing certain
test results are subject to public record requests under the
current law makes animal owners reluctant to voluntarily have
their animals tested for what could be contagious diseases and
viruses.
He summarized that continued distrust can be expected without
the protections that SB 164 offers. He emphasized that SB 164
will build trust between food producers and their government. He
asserted that working together will transform Alaska's food
security.
4:10:40 PM
CHAIR MEYER closed public testimony.
4:11:27 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SB 164, version 30-GS2584\A from
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero
fiscal note.
4:11:42 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that seeing no objection, the motion
carried.
4:11:47 PM
At ease.
SB 148-BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR POLICE & TRAINING
4:14:35 PM
CHAIR MEYER called the committee back to order. He announced the
consideration of Senate Bill 148 (SB 148).
4:15:32 PM
ROBERT GRIFFITHS, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council, Alaska Department of Public Safety, Juneau, Alaska,
provided the following background information on the Alaska
Police Standards Council (APSC):
In 1972 the Legislature created the Police Standards
Council to professionalize law enforcement in Alaska.
We were given the power and authority to establish
regulations that deal with hiring, training,
certification, and in some cases decertification of
officers across the state. A few years later we had
added to our repertoire: corrections, probation,
parole, and what are known as municipal corrections
officers; so, we certify all of those. We have about
2500 different certified officers in the state of
Alaska that we track and try to train as best we can,
and we are responsible for maintaining their
certifications.
He said the intent of SB 148 is to give APSC a tool to assist
rural public safety agencies in hiring and retaining officers.
He remarked that most people assume that every police officer in
Alaska has passed a fingerprint-based background check; however,
that is not always the case. He explained that while APSC has
established regulations that mandate a police officer have their
fingerprints taken and run through the national computer system
to verify identity and past criminal history, those are only
done by regulation and in some cases rural communities do not
have the necessary infrastructure or capabilities to do that.
He disclosed that by statute, rural communities are not required
to run a fingerprint-based background check; however, they must
comply with both federal and state regulations regarding
information access, protection, and security. He added that if a
rural community was to institute any kind of electronic inquiry
system, they would have to have secure data lines, specialized
routing equipment and terminals, and physical security for the
equipment. He said an electronic inquiry system is expensive and
most of the state's rural communities cannot accommodate that.
4:18:16 PM
MR. GRIFFITHS explained that SB 148 fixes a recent problem where
federal regulation that governs fingerprints and background
checks regard the police officer's standards and training
programs across the country of which most states, like Alaska,
as "post agencies" that are regarded as a "licensing agency" as
opposed to a "criminal justice agency." He explained that for
access to be granted under federal law to the criminal justice
system data which is where the fingerprint data resides, Alaska
must have statutory authority for access. He specified that
Alaska's current authority exists only in regulation, not in
statute; as a result, SB 148 was drafted to address the
statutory requirement. He summarized that Alaska's rural
communities will be assisted by acceptance of fingerprints where
they were taken by someone in the community, state trooper, or
village public safety officer.
4:20:31 PM
He provided a sectional analysis as follows:
• Summary:
This bill adds to the power of APSC to request a
fingerprint based national criminal history records check
from the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) through the
Alaska Department Public Safety (DPS) for admittance to a
basic police training program or for employment as a police
officer, if the prospective employer does not have access
to a criminal justice information system (CJIS).
• Section 1:
Amends AS 12.62.400 (National Criminal History record
checks for employment, licensing, and other noncriminal
justice purposes) to include the new subsection (a) (1)
(19) allowing for a fingerprint based records check to be
submitted to the FBI for admittance to a basic police
training program under AS 18.65.230 (APSC training
programs) or for employment as a police officer under
18.65.240 (APSC standards for appointment as a police
officer), if the prospective employer does not have access
to CJIS.
• Section 2:
Amends AS 18.65.220 (Powers of the APSC) to include the new
subsection (8) which requires a state and national criminal
history check for an applicant to a training program
established in AS 18.65.230 and for a person to be
appointed as a police officer under AS 18.65.240 if that
person's prospective employer does not have access to CJIS
to conduct their own criminal history check.
• Section 3:
Amends AS 18.65.230 (APSC training programs) by adding a
new subsection (b) which requires an applicant for
appointment as a police officer or for admittance to a
training program to submit fingerprints and a fee to the
APSC unless the applicant's employer has done this.
• Section 4:
Amends AS 18.65.240 (APSC standards) to reflect the new
subsection (d), added below in Section 5.
• Section 5:
Amends AS 18.65.240 (APSC standards) to add a new
subsection (d) which limits the issuing of an APSC
certificate unless the council determines the applicant
will undergo a national criminal history record check pre-
employment; and requiring a prospective employer to submit
an applicant's fingerprints to the council for submission
to the FBI if the prospective employer does not have CJIS
access. The criminal history records check is required to
assure applicants meet minimum standards established by the
council.
• Section 6:
Amends AS 18.65.290 (Definitions) by adding a new
subsection (9) which clarifies that the meaning of criminal
justice information system is the meaning given in AS
12.62.900(13).
• Section 7:
Specifies the applicability of the act applies to persons
that apply for admittance to a police training program
under AS 18.65.230 or to be appointed as a police officer
under AS 18.65.240 on or after the effective date of this
act.
• Section 8:
Includes a reviser's instruction to change the catch-line
of AS 18.65.230 from "Training programs" to "Training
programs; fingerprints.
4:23:20 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked who would be liable if something happens in a
smaller area that has not gone through the background check
protocol.
MR. GRIFFITHS surmised that the community where the individual
is working would assume most of the liability. He admitted that
liability would be decreased if the individuals go through
APSC's background check, training program, and certification
process.
CHAIR MEYER asked how large the communities are and if they have
taxing capabilities for hiring.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that the communities must be
incorporated. He added that the legislation targets communities
under 1,000 in population that are off the road system. The
targeted communities are primarily in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta
and Northwest Arctic Borough areas.
CHAIR MEYER asked if APSC would be able to get to the smaller
communities to do fingerprint checks.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied that APSC would be able to preform the
fingerprint checks through its partnership with DPS.
4:25:15 PM
CHAIR MEYER asked if the officers in the smaller communities
carry weapons.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that some of the officers do carry
weapons. He assumed that the officers that carry weapons have
been through the APSC/DPS training programs and met the
requirements; however, their officers are not prohibited from
carrying a firearm. The option is up to the community and their
community standards.
CHAIR MEYER said the concern is that some of the smaller
communities are hiring individuals that may or may not be
qualified to be law enforcement and may or may not be enforcing
the state's laws. He asked if the officers in the smaller
communities are on the Alaska Public Employees' Retirement
System (PERS).
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that he did not know but would follow up
with the information.
CHAIR MEYER remarked that there should be some way to make sure
that the individuals are qualified.
4:26:36 PM
CHAIR MEYER opened public testimony.
4:26:55 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 148. She detailed the
public safety challenges faced by smaller municipalities. She
remarked that SB 148 is a bill that makes it easier to get the
smaller municipalities that do have a Village Police Officer
(VPO) to do what they need to do for community safety and avoid
costly lawsuits. She noted that the background check is
typically something that the smaller municipalities cannot do on
their own. She noted that enrollment into PERS is inconsistent
within each community.
CHAIR MEYER asked how smaller municipalities pay for their VPOs.
MS. WASSERMAN replied that she did not know. She surmised that
communities with tribal presence may use tribal grants.
CHAIR MEYER asked Mr. Griffiths how VPOs differ from the Village
Public Safety Officers (VPSO).
4:30:57 PM
MR. GRIFFITHS explained that the communities benefiting from SB
148 are the communities with VPOs. He detailed that APSC adopted
regulations describing the different standards that are applied
to police officers, both for training and for hiring. He said
APSC has recognized that there is a vast disparity between rural
law enforcement and urban law enforcement. He described the two
police officer classifications as follows:
APSC created two classifications of police officer,
they are still police officers under the state statute
and under the law, but the requirements are slightly
different to accommodate the needs and the limited
resources of rural Alaska; we call those folks in
rural Alaska "Village Police Officers," not to be
confused with "Village Public Safety Officers" which
are officers that are not employed by the state of
Alaska or by the local community but instead by
grantees through the Department of Public Safety.
CHAIR MEYER asked who pays for VPOs and VPSOs.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied that VPOs are paid by the local
communities and VPSOs are paid through the VPSO program through
DPS. The VPSO program is grant-funded by the state to regional
corporations or in one case the grantee is a borough. He
detailed that VPSOs are trained, certified and managed by DPS.
CHAIR MEYER asked him to confirm that the VPSOs are state
employees.
MR. GRIFFITHS clarified that VPSOs are funded by state money,
but the individuals are not state employees.
CHAIR MEYER asked him to confirm that VPSOs are different from
VPOs.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered yes.
4:33:27 PM
SENATOR WILSON asked if the bill is retroactive for VPOs to get
their fingerprints and police training.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied as follows:
I'm not sure "retroactive" would be the right
terminology because our regulations currently require
this. If they are currently serving in a community and
haven't complied with those regulations or if this
statute were to be adopted with a statute, we would
still assist them in coming into compliance with both.
SENATOR WILSON assumed that the financial burden for fingerprint
submission would be up to the communities and asked what the
cost is.
MR. GRIFFITHS replied that the cost for a licensing, fingerprint
background check is $47.
CHAIR MEYER asked if VPO turnover is high.
MR. GRIFFITHS answered that turnover for VPOs is exceptionally
high. He opined that part of the issue is that VPOs do not have
an opportunity to enroll in PERS.
CHAIR MEYER pointed out that SB 148 has a fiscal note for DPS
with corrections forthcoming.
4:36:05 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL moved to report SB 148, version: 30-GS2594\A
from committee with individual recommendations and forthcoming
updated fiscal notes.
4:36:18 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced that there being no objection, the motion
carried.
4:37:11 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Meyer adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 4:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB164 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 Ver A.PDF |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB164 DEC Fiscal Note.PDF |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |
| SB 148 Hearing Request-signed.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB0148A.PDF |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB 148 Sectional Analysis version A.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB148-DPS-APSC-01-18-18.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB148 Additional Information Letter 2.6.2018.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 148 |
| SB164 and OSV Overview 02.08.2018.pdf |
SSTA 2/8/2018 3:30:00 PM |
SB 164 |