03/10/2020 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB133 | |
| SB88 | |
| SB231 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2020
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joshua Revak, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator David Wilson
Senator Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to testing of sexual assault examination kits;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 133(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to the office of administrative hearings;
relating to the types of proceedings handled by the office of
administrative hearings; relating to the entities that may use
the services of the office of administrative hearings; relating
to the duties of the chief administrative law judge, including
the power to hire professional staff; relating to the
qualifications and powers of administrative law judges,
including subpoena power; relating to the compensation of the
chief administrative law judge; relating to complaints against
administrative law judges and hearing officers; relating to
reimbursement for costs incurred by the office of administrative
hearings; relating to procedures for requesting and conducting
proceedings of the office of administrative hearings; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 231
"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: SB 133
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS: TESTING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GRAY-JACKSON
01/21/20 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/20
01/21/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/20 (S) STA, FIN
03/05/20 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/20 (S) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/10/20 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE: OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
03/13/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/19 (S) STA, FIN
03/10/20 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 231
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
02/24/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (S) STA, FIN
03/10/20 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL WILLIS, Intern
Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 88 on behalf of the sponsor.
ANDREW HEMENWAY, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as a retired Administrative Law
Judge, provided background information on the Office of
Administrative Hearings during the hearing on SB 88.
CHRIS KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge (Tax)
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
Department of Administration
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of SB 88 on
behalf of OAH.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 231.
DENISE LICCIOLI, Staff
Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered the sectional analysis for SB 231.
LEONARD WALLNER, VPSO Coordinator
Chugachmiut
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 231.
AMANDA PRICE, Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 231.
MAYOR LUCY NELSON, Mayor
Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB)
Kotzebue, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 231.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:05 PM
CHAIR JOSHUA REVAK called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Coghill, Wilson, Kawasaki, and Chair Revak.
SB 133-SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINATION KITS: TESTING
3:32:02 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 133,
"An Act relating to testing of sexual assault examination kits;
and providing for an effective date." [The committee adopted the
committee substitute (CS), version U, during the 3/5/20
hearing.]
CHAIR REVAK said this is the second hearing, public testimony
was heard, and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) has
submitted a fiscal note for $540,000. He solicited a motion.
3:32:55 PM
SENATOR COGHILL moved to report the committee substitute for SB
133, work order 31-LS1248\U, from committee with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note.
3:33:06 PM
CHAIR REVAK found no objection and CSSB 133(STA) was reported
from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
3:33:12 PM
At ease
SB 88-OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
3:34:17 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to the
office of administrative hearings; relating to the types of
proceedings handled by the office of administrative hearings;
relating to the entities that may use the services of the office
of administrative hearings; relating to the duties of the chief
administrative law judge, including the power to hire
professional staff; relating to the qualifications and powers of
administrative law judges, including subpoena power; relating to
the compensation of the chief administrative law judge; relating
to complaints against administrative law judges and hearing
officers; relating to reimbursement for costs incurred by the
office of administrative hearings; relating to procedures for
requesting and conducting proceedings of the office of
administrative hearings; and providing for an effective date."
3:34:52 PM
MICHAEL WILLIS, Intern, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor,
introduced SB 88, speaking to the following sponsor statement:
Senate Bill 88 is a "good government" bill to improve
the process for hearing administrative appeals in
Alaska. This bill updates the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) statutes to address due process
concerns, procedural confusion, and inefficiencies,
all with an eye towards improving OAH's ability to
provide timely, cost-effective, and high-quality
administrative adjudication services.
In 2004, under the leadership of Governor Murkowski
and Senator Therriault, the legislature created the
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to centralize
the state administrative adjudication process. The new
system has worked well to reduce cost, improve public
confidence, and provide a speedier process to resolve
disputes. However, the statutory framework needs an
update to correct drafting anomalies and take
advantage of the lessons learned from 14 years of
"test driving" the original innovative legislation.
Some of the corrections and improvements included in
SB 88:
• Reduce procedural confusion over OAH's subpoena
authority by replacing a patchwork system with a
uniform provision. It eliminates gaps that made
it impossible, for example, for a parent accused
of child abuse to subpoena a key witness to the
alleged event.
• Rationalize the system of deadlines that was
created to speed the process. For example, one
final decision deadline applicable to agency
heads, though wise in concept, has been counted
from the wrong event, sometimes leaving
commissioners with virtually no time to consider
far-reaching decisions. At the same time, these
final decisionmakers have had no deadline at all
to act on revised proposed decisions after a
remand, which can lead to long delays that
frustrate the parties.
• Make it possible for parties to respond to one
another's objections to a proposed decision, in
appropriate cases. The lack of a way to allow for
responses has led to due process concerns and
delays. The bill also permits the administrative
law judge (ALJ) to revise a proposed decision
based on errors pointed out by the parties, again
cutting down on inefficiency and delay.
• Permit the Chief Administrative Law Judge to
employ low-cost junior professionals for some
work, correcting an inadvertent omission in the
original legislation. This will create
opportunities for savings.
• Allow OAH to count experience gained in other
jurisdictions toward the minimums needed to serve
as a tax qualified ALJ. This is critical in the
tax docket, where OAH has had serious recruitment
problems and needs to broaden the pool of skilled
practitioners it can recruit from.
• Give OAH a means of reopening decisions that were
entered in error, such as when a party failed to
appear but the failure later turns out to be
because the party was incapacitated, or because
the agency sent the notice to the wrong person.
SB 88 corrects this omission in the original
legislation. The public will be better served by
the corrections and streamlining in the process
for administrative adjudication as provided by SB
88. I respectfully request support for this bill.
3:36:38 PM
ANDREW HEMENWAY, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, read the
following prepared remarks:
Good afternoon. My name is Andy Hemenway. I was
employed by the Office of Administrative Hearings as
an administrative law judge from the time it was
created in 2004 until 2015. I retired from state
service in 2016, and I am appearing before you in a
personal capacity. With your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to provide the members of the
committee with some background information regarding
the Office of Administrative Hearings, in order to put
into perspective what the agency does and why this
legislation is needed.
The Office of Administrative Hearings is, in effect,
the executive branch's judicial branch. The agency
(OAH) conducts adjudicative hearings for executive
branch agencies. These hearings provide due process
of law for a member of the public who has the right to
appeal from an agency decision regarding that person's
state benefit, obligation, program or license.
3:37:32 PM
Before OAH was established, each individual agency
conducted these kinds of adjudicative hearings, using
a hearing officer employed by the agency whose
decision was being appealed. Understandably, this
system resulted in a perception among many people who
appealed that the proceeding was stacked against them,
because the agency controlled the adjudicative process
and employed the hearing officer.
In 2004, the Alaska Legislature created the Office of
Administrative Hearings as an independent agency. The
purpose of the legislation was to eliminate the
perception of unfairness in the adjudicative process
and to separate the adjudicatory functions of
executive branch agencies from those agencies'
investigative, prosecutorial, and policy-making
functions.
OAH's jurisdiction is set out in AS 44.64.030. Since
OAH was established, the legislature has added
additional case categories to the list of agencies,
boards and commissions whose cases must be heard by
OAH. In addition, a number of executive branch
agencies and other public entities, such as
municipalities and school districts, whose cases are
not listed in AS 44.64.030, have decided to refer
their cases to OAH in order to take advantage of what
has come to be seen as a professional, experienced,
fair and cost-effective method of resolving contested
cases.
Today, OAH handles cases from approximately 80
different areas of law. Administrative law judges at
OAH have dealt with matters involving as little as $40
to as much as $800 million, as well as cases where
money is not the issue, such as professional
licensing, ethics, and procurement. Some cases
involve teams of attorneys on both sides, while others
involve a non-attorney agency representative and a
self-represented litigant.
3:39:29 PM
In order to provide some context for the specifics of
SB 88, I'll briefly describe the adjudicative process
as it occurs in the Office of Administrative Hearings
Let's say a person disagrees with an agency decision
regarding a matter such as child support, PFD
eligibility, revocation or denial of a professional
license, or entitlement to a welfare benefit. Under
our constitution, that person is entitled to an
adjudicative hearing to contest the agency's decision.
The person files an appeal with the agency, which is
required to forward the appeal to OAH within ten days.
From then on, OAH has control of the hearing process.
The chief administrative law judge assigns the case to
an administrative law judge, who is charged with
issuing a proposed decision within 120 days. The
assigned judge will review the case file, and either
schedule a hearing or, in more complex cases, schedule
a prehearing conference. There may be some
preliminary issues to deal with, in which case the
parties will be given an opportunity to file
prehearing motions.
In many cases, the administrative law judge will
conclude that the issues that have been raised may be
capable of resolution without a hearing, through
alternative dispute resolution. In those cases, the
chief administrative law judge will assign a different
judge to contact the parties and to conduct mediation,
which is an informal, voluntary process in which the
judge attempts to find a workable solution to the
issues raised that satisfies both the individual and
the agency. This has been a particularly beneficial
part of the OAH docket, which has saved agencies money
by reducing the cost of administrative litigation,
while at the same time providing a fair outcome for
all concerned.
Assuming that the case is not resolved through
alternative dispute resolution, or otherwise, the
administrative law judge presides over the hearing, at
which, just as in a court case, witnesses testify
under oath and are cross-examined, and documents are
submitted into evidence. After the hearing, the
administrative law judge issues a written proposed
decision, and the parties are given an opportunity to
request changes by filing a proposal for action. The
administrative law judge's decision is generally not
the final decision, although in some instances, such
as in tax appeals, it is. Assuming the administrative
law judge's decision is not given effect as the final
decision, the administrative law judge's decision and
any proposals for action are sent to the final
decision maker, which in most cases is the
commissioner of whatever department the agency is in,
or, in cases involving professional licensing or other
boards or commissions, the board or commission
involved. The final decision maker can either adopt
the administrative law judge's decision, modify it, or
send it back to the administrative law judge for
additional proceedings. In most cases, the final
decision maker adopts the administrative law judge's
decision in the form it was issued. In any event,
once the final decision is issued, the parties to the
case may appeal that decision to the superior court.
That, in a nutshell, is how cases generally proceed in
OAH. Over the course of years since the agency was
created, however, it has identified a few provisions
of its enabling statute that could be improved in
order to streamline the adjudicative process and to
clarify the agency's powers. SB 88 was drafted with
the direct and close involvement of OAH and the
Department of Law.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to testify in support of SB 88.
Administrative Law Judge Chris Kennedy, who was the
primary OAH contact in the bill drafting process, will
take the committee through the bill's provisions in
detail, but in the meantime if there are any questions
for me, I am happy to address them.
3:43:03 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if a person who appears before OAH
typically will have counsel.
MR. HEMENWAY answered that defendants typically do not have
counsel for cases involving child support, the permanent fund
dividend, and welfare benefits. However, if enough is at stake
in dollars or in principle, the person typically will have
counsel. Counsel may also appear if the principle will apply to
a lot of Alaskans, even if the dollar amount is not very
significant, so it varies based on the type of case.
3:44:24 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many OAH cases are settled and how
many are appealed to superior court.
MR. HEMENWAY said he did not have the information on hand, but
it is in the annual report. He deferred to Administrative Law
Judge Kennedy to respond further.
3:45:19 PM
CHRIS KENNEDY, Administrative Law Judge (Tax), Office of
Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, State of
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, in response to Senator Kawasaki,
stated that less than one percent of cases are appealed to
superior court. He offered to follow up with the specific
number.
CHAIR REVAK said the committee would appreciate the figure.
MR. KENNEDY said he has worked for the agency since 2005. He
served as the deputy chief until 2016. He presented the
sectional analysis for SB 88:
Sec. 1: Amends AS 18.80.120(b) and is a conforming
change to remove the statutory reference that is being
repealed in section 20 (AS 44.64.055). (Page 1, line
12 Page 2, line 6)
Sec. 2: Amends AS 39.25.120(c)(20) and is a conforming
change to align with the proposed change in section 4.
It adds "professional staff" to the partially exempt
service in the Office of Administrative Hearings.
(Page 2, lines 7-9)
He explained that Section 2 is one of a pair of sections that
address an inadvertent problem created by the original statute.
The statute did not authorize hiring a professional staff, such
as a staff attorney. Other panels in other states have been able
to increase productivity by having junior attorneys do some of
the more repetitive tasks. If done right this can be a means to
reduce overall cost.
Sec. 3: Amends AS 44.64.010(d) to correct two
anomalies in the chief administrative law judge's
salary. The chief administrative law judge would be
paid at step 27 according to the personnel rules and
the duty station where he or she works. (Page 2, lines
10-14)
He said because of the applicability clause, this provision
would not apply to the current chief. The chief currently is
paid on the Juneau salary schedule, but she is located in
Anchorage. This provision would correct that anomaly. Also, the
position is capped at step F, which has effectively prevented
governors from recruiting from senior attorneys at the
Department of Law when selecting a Chief Administrative Law
Judge because those individuals would lose too many steps by
transferring to OAH.
Sec. 4: Amends AS 44.64.020 to provide more
flexibility in staffing structure of the Office of
Administrative Hearings and includes language clean-
up. (Page 2, line 15 Page 4, line 12)
3:48:00 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 4 is the other part of the change he
mentioned in Section 2 to use professional staff. It also adds
language regarding alternative dispute resolution, which as Mr.
Hemenway mentioned has become one of the core duties of OAH. It
was not fully foreseen in 2004, but the agency has found that
greatly expanding its mediation capabilities has been a
tremendous cost-saving tool for OAH. It has twice permitted OAH
to downsize. This section updates the core duties and has some
technical cleanup language that Legislative Legal Services
recommended.
Sec. 5: Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to correct an anomaly
in statute, whereby municipalities and school
districts are expressly permitted to contract with the
Office of Administrative Hearings for services under
AS 44.64.055, but are omitted from the provision for
referral of cases. This section streamlines the
statute and permits the repeal of AS 44.64.055 in
section 20. (Page 4, lines 13-23)
Amends AS 44.64.030(b) to clarify that agencies,
municipalities, and school districts referring cases
to the Office of Administrative Hearings may agree
with the office that certain procedures will apply.
(Page 4, lines 20-21)
He explained that the original statute did not include
municipalities and school districts in the authorization to
accept case referrals. The OAH has accepted those referrals
which has been a significant win-win for cost savings, but OAH
would like to put it on a solid statutory footing.
Sec. 6: Amends AS 44.64.030(c) to add the word
"entity," which makes it explicit that a municipality
or school district may choose to delegate final
decision authority to OAH. (Page 4, lines 24-29)
Sec. 7: Amends AS 44.64.040(a) to require the minimum
experience for all classes of administrative law
judges be four years, but in the case of tax qualified
ALJs it would remove the requirement that the
experience be in Alaska. (Page 4, line 29 Page 5,
line 11)
3:49:37 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 7 is surprisingly important because
some of the most important work OAH does is to act as the
state's tax court. The way the statute is currently worded, OAH
cannot hire tax judges unless they have been practicing law in
Alaska for two years even though Alaska experience is not
necessary for tax work. He offered his view that it is almost
impossible to find a good tax attorney in Alaska who is not
making a lot more money than the state can pay. Advertised
positions have gone unfilled for over a year at a time. He said
he is the last employed tax judge at OAH, and he is
transitioning into retirement so the organization would like the
option to recruit outside Alaska, if necessary.
Sec. 8: Amends AS 44.64.040(b) to clarify that
delegation of a referring agency's or entities'
procedural powers applies to any proceeding the agency
or entity has referred. By adding the term "entity,"
this includes cases accepted from municipalities and
school districts. (Page 5, lines 12-27)
He said Section 8 corrects imprecise drafting in the 2004 bill.
This makes it clear that OAH would have the agency or entity's
power for cases referred to it.
Sec. 9: Amends AS 44.64.040(c) to make a technical
change regarding judges that serve part-time in a
position that is authorized as full-time. (Page 5,
line 28 Page 6, line 2)
3:50:55 PM
MR. KENNEDY said the current language seems to require even
part-time judges to devote full-time to the office if they are
serving in a position that is authorized as a full-time
position. As a cost-savings measure, OAH needs to be able to do
partial fills of full-time positions when case demand is down.
This change will make it clear that OAH can do so.
Sec. 10: Amends AS 44.64.050(c) to put a statute of
limitations on complaints for code of conduct
violations. The section creates a dual limitations
period. First, any person can bring a complaint about
conduct that occurred less than three years ago.
Second, any person can bring a complaint about conduct
that occurred during a proceeding that ended less than
two years ago (even if the conduct itself was more
than three years ago). (Page 6, lines 3-20)
He explained that Section 10 relates to the Chief Administrative
Law Judge's duty to review code of conduct complaints against
hearing officers throughout the state system. He said most of
the code of conduct complaints that OAH reviews come from other
tribunals, not OAH. Currently, there is no statute of
limitations on those complaints and disgruntled people can come
in and complain about things that happened many years in the
past. This provision would limit the look-back period to three
years, except for long running proceedings, in which it would
allow for complaints two years after the proceeding ends to file
a complaint. He said stale complaints have been a problem.
Sec. 11: Amends AS 44.64.060(a) to clarify that if a
municipality sends a case to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, its ordinances apply. Aligns
this section with AS 44.64.030(b) by making it
explicit that preemption by OAH regulations does not
apply to voluntarily referred cases. (Page 6, line 21
Page 7, line 2)
MR. KENNEDY said the current preemption provision is a little
too strong. It could be read to mean that when a municipality
voluntarily refers a case to OAH, the OAH's regulations will
preempt the municipality's ordinances. This makes the language
more precise and ensures that municipalities can refer cases and
not cause an override of their own rules.
Sec. 12: Amends AS 44.64.060(b) to require basic
information be submitted when a case is referred to
the OAH. In addition, this section changes the appeal
process of a denial of referral from the Superior
Court to the OAH. Also, in this section, the timeline
for compiling a full agency record is modified. (Page
7, lines 3-19)
3:52:52 PM
MR. KENNEDY explained that Section 12 gives agencies a few more
days to assemble the full agency record. This change is based on
practical experience of what is possible and not possible at the
beginning of a case. It would also provide that if an agency
denies a hearing and refuses to refer a case to OAH, the person
requesting the hearing can appeal that issue to OAH rather than
going to superior court. This approach is used through
regulations in half of the OAH hearing dockets. It has been a
quick and efficient way to resolve front-end disputes, such as
whether the hearing request was timely.
Sec. 13: Amends AS 44.64.060(d) to adjust the deadline
for stayed cases, allowing the 120-day deadline for a
proposed decision to be suspended while a parallel
case is moving forward. (Page 7, lines 20-29)
He offered his view that the timeline has been a tremendous tool
in keeping OAH as a faster, better, cheaper way to resolve many
cases, but there are times when it is necessary to stop the
clock completely to allow a parallel criminal case or other
court litigation to go first. Currently, both parties must
concur, and it can be cumbersome to get that agreement, he said.
Sec. 14: Amends AS 44.64.060(e) to make changes to the
decision-making process in the majority of OAH cases.
Page 7, line 31: This change brings the language into
line with current drafting standards, without changing
meaning.
Page 8, lines 5-6: Permits extension of the period for
parties to comment on a proposed decision if all
parties agree.
Page 8, line 8: Ensures that proposals for action are
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings for
forwarding to the final decision-maker.
Page 8, lines 9-14: Permits the administrative law
judge to allow parties to reply to one another's
proposals for action, establishes a time limit for
transmittal of the proposed decision and the parties'
briefs, and permits the administrative law judge to
return a proposed decision to make revisions in
response to a proposal for action.
Page 8, lines 15-19: Changes the date from which the
final decision-maker's action deadline is calculated
to the date on which the final-decision-maker receives
the proposed decision.
Page 8, lines 26-27: Permits a final decision-maker to
set the length of time in which a remanded case must
be processed.
MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 is the most complicated section. As
Mr. Hemenway stated, OAH has a proposal for action process after
the proposed decision is circulated, and the current statute
sets a hard 30-day timeline on these objections that OAH cannot
extend it even if both sides agree. This provision will allow
OAH to manage the deadline like any other litigation deadline.
There is also a problem with the proposal for action structure
being a little too rigid. Often one of the best features of the
process is that when parties read the proposed decision, they
finally realize the key issues of the case and tend to make
their best arguments in the proposal for action. However, in
order to consider those arguments and still give due process,
OAH must be able to let the other party respond. This provision
allows OAH to do so. It also allows OAH to revise a proposed
decision to correct any errors before the decision is sent to
the final decision maker.
He said both changes will allow OAH to transmit a case to the
final decision maker that is truly ready for final action,
rather than to ask that person to remand the case to OAH for
more work.
3:55:46 PM
MR. KENNEDY said Section 14 also addresses a major frustration
that commissioners have expressed to the OAH, which is that the
deadline for final decision makers to act is tied to the wrong
trigger. Currently it is counted 45 days from the day OAH mails
the decision to the parties and not when it is sent to the final
decision maker. When parties take the full time to execute their
proposals for action, the commissioners are often left with only
a few days to act. This is problematic in complex cases because
when the deadline for action is missed, it can usurp the
commissioner's decision. This provision would more appropriately
start the 45 days on the date the commissioner receives the
case, consistent with how other deadlines are counted.
3:56:57 PM
Sec. 15: Amends AS 44.64.060(f) to conform with
language in section 14. (Page 9, lines 8-12)
MR. KENNEDY said Section 15 recognizes that what the final
decision maker may be receiving is the revised proposed
decision.
Sec. 16: Amends AS 44.64.060 to add new subsections
(g-h). Subsection (g) creates uniform authority for
the issuance of subpoenas in some cases. Subsection
(h) allows for the final decision maker in a case to
reopen the proceeding for a reason provided in Rule
60(b) Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. (Page 9, lines
13- 21)
He said Section 16 solves several practical problems in case
administration. First, OAH currently has subpoena authority in
most of its cases. However, this authority comes from dozens of
sources with quirky variations. This provision would provide
ordinary subpoena authority across the board. The main areas in
which it has been lacking have been in PERS [Public Employees'
Retirement System] and TRS [Teachers' Retirement System], where
hundreds of thousands of dollars can be at issue. He explained
that a drafting error in the enabling legislation inadvertently
omitted subpoena authority for those types of cases. It also
affects substantiation of child abuse where litigants need to
have the ability to compel testimony in order to get due
process.
MR. KENNEDY outlined a second issue, which has been the
inability of commissioners or boards and commissions to reopen a
decision that has been issued in error. For example, when a
decision has been entered by default because a party failed to
appear, and later OAH discovers that the party did not receive
notice due to an address error. The current remedy is through
superior court, and this provision would create a standard
system for reopening cases parallel to the one used in the court
system.
Sec. 17: Amends AS 44.64.080(c) to clarify what agency
staff can do and what the agency head can do, but does
not change how this section has been interpreted
historically. (Page 9, lines 22-28)
Sec. 18: Amends AS 44.64.200(1) to correct a drafting
oversight in the original legislation. (Page 9, line
29 Page 10, line 2)
Sec. 19: Amends AS 44.64.200 to add three new
paragraphs to the definition section (to define
"entity," "other proceeding," and "school district."
(Page 9, lines 3-9)
Sec. 20: Repealer due to the function of AS 44.64.055
being moved into AS 44.64.030 in section 6. (Page 9,
line 10)
He explained that Section 20 repealed the existing statute on
municipal and school district referrals because the provision is
folded into other sections of the bill.
Sec. 21: Applicability clause. Makes changes to
compensation or prior bar membership requirements
applicable to new hires only. Makes the statute of
limitations in section 10 applicable only to
complaints filed after section 10 is effective. (Page
9, lines 11-25)
Sec. 22: Delays by one year the effective date of the
statute of limitations in section 10. (Page 9, line
26)
MR. KENNEDY said the language in Section 22 ensures that the
statute of limitations is constitutional, such that people would
have notice that a statute of limitations was coming into
effect.
4:00:42 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked for his perspective on the requirement for
administrative law judges to be licensed in the state for four
years instead of two years.
MR. KENNEDY acknowledged that he did not touch on that issue.
The OAH found that it is important for people to have experience
before becoming an administrative law judge. In fact, ten years
would be good, so two years seemed insufficient. That provision
was meant to be a noncontroversial recognition of the basic
experience necessary to preside over the types of cases the OAH
encounters.
4:01:48 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if OAH has struggled with payments from
municipalities or just with the docket
MR. KENNEDY answered that the 2004 enabling legislation did not
address that area sufficiently. In the last few years, in
practice it has worked very well. He offered his view that
smaller municipalities have found tremendous cost savings by
sending procurement or tax cases to OAH since the cases are
heard quickly and efficiently. He said OAH has not encountered
any difficulties in payments.
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to elaborate on potential school
district cases and if the cases would focus on retirement
issues.
MR. KENNEDY replied OAH has been receiving some retirement and
teacher discipline cases in the last year, but they also handle
special education cases from school districts. He stated that a
variety of cases come from small school districts and using OAH
provides them an economy of scale.
SENATOR COGHILL asked about the language change from "alternate"
dispute resolution to "alternative" dispute resolution.
4:04:53 PM
MR. KENNEDY related that the grammarians said "alternate" means
switching back and forth and "alternative" provides a different
choice. He explained two ways that alternative dispute
resolution occurs. In complex cases, parties may ask OAH to
appoint a mediator, who is not the administrative law judge
hearing the case. This administrative law judge will act as a
neutral mediator who meets with the parties and tries to achieve
a solution. Since OAH is a central panel, its administrative law
judges have a multi-disciplinary knowledge base to achieve
complicated solutions acceptable to the parties. This also
results in cost savings by avoiding costly litigation for the
parties. Second, in the public benefits area, OAH uses a
technique that North Carolina uses, which is that a professional
mediator conducts a one-hour mediation before a hearing. Parties
are put on a mediation track, and mediation is held from 10 days
to two weeks after an appeal is filed. The OAH has found the
settlement rate is 85 percent, which dramatically reduced the
public benefits caseload. In fact, OAH laid off an employee,
which saved costs for OAH and Medicaid. He commented that the
feedback has been positive, in part, because the mediator helps
the parties understand how the process works, so they understand
the outcome, even if it is not the result the parties hoped to
achieve.
4:08:21 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if he could review what is new in the
subpoena authority in Section 16.
MR. KENNEDY responded that the enabling legislation gave OAH the
subpoena powers of the referring agency. He said most state
agencies have some subpoena authority. For example, the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development's
authority in the professional licensing area fall under the
Administrative Procedures Act, which provides full subpoena
authority. However, some of the authority is phrased in strange
ways in the agencies, which could lead to litigation, such that
an argument could be made about the transfer of subpoena
authority to OAH. He said the most troublesome one is in the
PERS/TRS area. The OAH was supposed to inherit the subpoena
authority from the PERS/TRS board, but the provision was not
transferred when the 2004 enabling legislation was drafted and
it has not been fixed. OAH also hears a significant number of
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) child abuse and
neglect hearings. The subpoena authority is necessary since
those accused of those types of crimes need to be able to compel
witnesses to testify on their behalf. However, the DHSS statutes
do not give OAH the authority to do so. This provision would
give OAH clear subpoena authority.
SENATOR COGHILL said he thought OAH already had the authority,
so he appreciated the explanation.
4:12:07 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to pages 4 and 5 of the annual report
that provides a list of OAH's mandatory jurisdiction. He asked
if every case category would be included in the final decision-
making authority.
MR. KENNEDY said this bill does not address that issue. Although
Chief Administrative Law Judge Fredrick advocated in the annual
report for expanding its authority, this bill does not expand
OAH's final decision-making authority. In some cases, it would
mean that OAH's decisions would not go to commissioners or
boards and commissions to make the final decision.
4:13:52 PM
CHAIR REVAK opened public testimony on SB 88. He found none and
held public testimony open on SB 88. He asked members to submit
any amendments to his office prior to March 16, 2020.
4:14:30 PM
CHAIR REVAK held SB 88 in committee.
4:15:11 PM
At ease
SB 231-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
4:15:54 PM
CHAIR REVAK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 231, "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."
4:16:10 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
sponsor of SB 231, said this bill was introduced to implement
the nine recommendations of the VPSO Working Group's report
which was adopted on January 24, 2020.
He explained that the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO)
program was created in the late 1970s to assist in the
protection of life and property and coordinate probation and
parole in rural communities.
He said while VPSOs have provided valuable service to
participating areas, the past decade has seen shrinking numbers
of VPSOs, significant difficulty in recruitment and retention of
officers, and community needs that surpass the current duties of
VPSOs. There is undoubtedly a need to address the crisis in
public safety infrastructure and service in rural Alaska, he
said. Last May, Senate President Cathy Giessel and House Speaker
Bryce Edgmon appointed members to a joint VPSO Working Group and
tasked them to find ways to improve the VPSO program.
Representative Chuck Kopp and he served as co-chairs of the
group.
SENATOR OLSON said the working group was assigned to coordinate
with stakeholders to examine the underlying causes of the
recruitment and retention obstacles and provide proposals to
turn around the epidemic rate of personnel turnover within the
VPSO program. The VPSO Working Group met several times over the
interim with VPSO coordinators throughout the state and the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). The results of these meetings
are summarized in a report that was finalized in January 2020.
This report included recommendations for the first phase of
changes identified to improve the program.
He said SB 231 incorporates the Working Group's recommendations
into statutes except for the recommendation for an increase in
funding, which must be done through an appropriation bill. He
reported that one of the biggest changes is to move financial
grant management and oversight function to the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development [VPSO Working
Group Recommendation 6]. The DCCED is a natural department to
handle many other grant programs. He explained that the Alaska
Police Standards Council training, and experience requirements,
and oversight authority will remain at the Department of Public
Safety as per [VPSO Working Group Recommendation 7].
SENATOR OLSON said while all parties recognize more will need to
be done in order to have a strong and vibrant VPSO program, this
is a first step in laying the groundwork for more to come in
this vital program.
4:18:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked the sponsor to provide the sectional
analysis of the bill.
4:19:23 PM
DENISE LICCIOLI, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, read the
following sectional analysis for SB 231:
Section 1 (pages 1-3) Amends AS 12.62.400 regarding
criminal history background checks and adds VPSO
program personnel as a program the Department of
Public Safety is authorized to secure background
checks via the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
substantive change occurs on page 3, lines 19 and 20.
Section 2 (page 3) Related to Section 1, Amends AS
18.65.080, one of the Department of Public Safety's
enabling statutes. The amendment requires that the
Department secure the background checks for VPSO
program personnel.
Sections 1 and 2 implement Recommendation 2 regarding
creating more financial flexibility for the program.
At one point the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was
conducting background checks for the VPSO program then
unilaterally stopped with no notice to the grantee
organizations. Sections 1 and 2 together make it clear
that background checks are a DPS function for the VPSO
Program.
Section 3 (pages 3-8) In current statute the VPSO
program has only one statute, AS 18.65.670. Section 3
proposes to repeal and reenact the statute and add
multiple new subsections.
Subsection (a) has been rewritten to incorporate the
duties and functions that VPSO personnel are currently
performing but are not codified in the existing
statute. This implements Recommendation 1.
Subsection (b) is mostly similar to existing (b), but
it has been updated here to include references to the
commissioner of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED, or "Department of Commerce") and
to include federal recognized tribes as organizations
that can be awarded a VPSO grant. This implements
Recommendation 6.
4:22:18 PM
Subsection (c) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.020
with changes to reflect that DCCED will be performing
financial management of the grants. This implements
Recommendations 6 and 9.
Subsection (d) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.030
with changes to reflect that DCCED will be performing
financial management of the grants. Further changes
remove the prohibition of existing 13 AAC 96.030(2)
that prevents the payment of bonuses from other non-
VPSO grant revenue sources. Also removed are the
indemnification and insurance requirements from the
grantee organizations. These changes implement
Recommendations, 2, 4-6, and 9.
Subsection (e) is new and is the partial statutory
codification of current DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040
and .050 with changes to reflect that DCCED will be
performing financial management of the grants. Further
changes remove the requirement from existing 13 AAC
96.040(a)(1) that villages receiving a VPSO placement
must provide the office space, phone, holding cell.
This in conjunction with new (k) of this bill section
makes clear that these costs can be paid for with VPSO
grant funds.
Subsection (f) is new and is the partial statutory
codification of current DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040,
specifically, (a)(2). This subsection sets the overall
policy that one VPSO is generally assigned to one
village unless the grantee organization requests
additional VPSO personnel per village. The changes
reflect a more neutral and less harsh tone than the
language from the regulation.
Subsection (g) is new and is the partial statutory
codification of current DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040,
specifically proposed new (a)(2). This can be found in
the Working Group's Report, Appendix 2, page 4. This
new provision allows for traveling or "roving" VPSO
personnel who are permitted to itinerate between
villages within a grantee's region as public safety
needs arise. These changes implement Recommendations
1, 2, and 9.
4:26:03 PM
Subsection (h) is new and is the partial statutory
codification of current DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040,
specifically (b) with changes to reflect that DCCED
will be performing financial management of the grants.
New (h) contains grant award record keeping
requirements and other grant management requirements.
These changes implement Recommendations 1, 2, and 9.
Subsection (i) contains new regulation adopting
authority for the DPS commissioner, subject to the new
consultation requirements of new (l) of this bill
section. These changes implement Recommendations 1, 2,
and 8.
Subsection (j) allows for funding grantee
organizations' indirect rates up to a statewide
average of 35%. This language has been used as intent
language in multiple prior operating budget bills.
These changes partially implement Recommendations 2,
4-5.
4:27:29 PM
Subsection (k) is new and provides explicit
instruction to the DCCED commissioner on grant fund
disbursement. Specifically, that grant funds can be
used for items reasonably related to public safety and
VPSO duties as codified in this bill. Further, grant
fund disbursement is to be timely and funding request
are not to be unreasonably withheld. These changes
partially implement Recommendation 2.
Subsections (l) and (m) are related to new (i) and
provides for a consultation and negotiated rule-making
process for when any of the three state agencies
involved with the VPSO program exercise their
regulation adopting authority. These changes implement
Recommendation 8.
4:28:24 PM
Section 4 (pages 8-14) Creates new statutes:
AS 18.65.672 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.080 dealing with VPSO
qualification requirements. These changes implement
Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.674 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.090 dealing with VPSO
background checks. These changes implement
Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.676 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.100 dealing with VPSO
training requirements. These changes implement
Recommendations 1 and 9.
AS 18.65.678 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040(b)(8) and 13 AAC 96.100
dealing with VPSO firearm training requirements. These
changes implement Recommendation 9.
AS 18 65.682 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.110 dealing with VPSO
certification. These changes implement Recommendation
9.
AS 18.65.684 is the statutory codification of current
DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.120 dealing with the denial,
revocation, or lapse of a VPSO certificate. These
changes implement Recommendations 9.
AS 18.65.686 is a definitional section to deal with
various terms used throughout the new statutory
sections.
4:30:48 PM
Section 5 (page 14) Adds a new paragraph to the DCCED
duties to accommodate the VPSO grant management
functions being transferred from DPS. These changes
implement Recommendation 6.
Section 6 (page 14) Creates in the uncodified law a
standard grandfather provision for existing VPSO
personnel who may have been certified under different
training requirements than what is provided for in
this bill.
Section 7 (page 14). Creates in the uncodified law a
requirement that DPS continue its current level of
interaction between itself and the VPSO personnel.
That requirement is codified in current VPSO statute
AS 18.65.670(c) with the language relating to DPS
regulation authority extending to "the interaction
between the Department of Public Safety and village
public safety officers." This requirement is
maintained by bill section 3(i) which uses the exact
wording regarding DPS regulation authority.
Section 8 (pages 14 -15) Provides that the grant
application requirements, which are transferring to
DCCED become effective on July 1, 2020.
Section 9 (page 15). Provides that all other sections
of the bill have an immediate effective date.
MS. LICCIOLI advised that VPSOs have 24 months to get
certified and complete all training. A VPSO's duties
include more than just police services, so the provision in
Section 4 will allow them to participate in search and
rescue operations and other activities. Until certification
is complete, the VPSO can work with a trooper but he or she
cannot work solely as an officer.
4:32:27 PM
She deferred to Mr. Wallner to answer specific questions.
4:32:59 PM
LEONARD WALLNER, VPSO Coordinator, Chugachmiut, Anchorage,
Alaska, spoke in support of SB 231. He explained that
Chugachmiut is a tribal consortium representing Prince William
Sound and Lower Cook Inlet. It is one of ten grantees working
under the VPSO program. He related that in 2016 he retired from
a 25 year career with the Alaska State Troopers, the last nine
years of which was as the statewide coordinator.
He said the VPSO program has evolved since 1979, so updating the
statutes is a necessity. Chugachmiut supports SB 231,
particularly the provisions to tailor the program for each
grantee and region within the state, the flexibility to
reprogram funding, and the elimination of unfunded mandates. He
emphasized the importance of clarifying the duties and
responsibilities of VPSOs, including the ability to conduct
investigations. The training component also plays a significant
role, he said.
4:36:58 PM
AMANDA PRICE, Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
Anchorage, Alaska, spoke in opposition to SB 231. She commented
that this is the first time that Department of Public Safety
(DPS) has been invited to provide testimony even though the
companion bill has been moving through the legislative process.
She stated that DPS's mission is to ensure public safety with
resources deployed throughout the state. In order to accomplish
this mission and protect the life and property of Alaskans, DPS
is committed to working across the state with numerous law
enforcement professions, many communities, and all lawmakers and
stakeholders. The department is always seeking ways to
collaborate on solutions to increase public safety. She
acknowledged that public safety in rural areas has been
challenging for Alaska since statehood. The department has made
progress by hiring 44 state troopers last year and 15 more who
are currently attending the public safety academy who will be
deployed to rural communities. Increasing the number of officers
in a larger number of communities is one of the Department of
Public Safety's core goals. Still, a great deal of work needs to
be done, she said. The DPS would also like to discuss how to
improve rural public safety outside of the VPSO program.
She said SB 231 incorporates recommendations by the VPSO Working
Group. This group was tasked with reviewing and strengthening
the VPSO program. The department provided written comments on
the bill, which she outlined for the committee.
COMMISSIONER PRICE said the bill would transfer the
administration of the VPSO program to the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). In the
spirit of meeting the VPSO Working Group's recommendation, the
DPS has actively engaged in conversations with the DCCED to
immediately move the grant oversight to that department. She
said DPS is experiencing an administrative delay in its
Reimbursable Service Agreement (RSA) of funding to the DCCED,
but she anticipated it would soon be completed.
4:39:17 PM
COMMISSIONER PRICE said SB 231 will allow eligible grant
applicants to include all federally recognized tribes. The
department supports this expansion and believes direct funding
for allowing tribes to hire officers locally could be very
beneficial to public safety in Alaska. She noted that moving
from 10 eligible applicants to more than 200 grant applicants
will create some hiccups and challenges in administering the
grants. However, she offered her view that with support it could
be accomplished.
She expressed concern that the bill also includes eligible
applicants of municipalities with less than 10,000 people, which
includes larger communities such as Kenai and Soldotna. Not only
does that seem to conflict with the spirit of the VPSO program,
but it could create jurisdictional concerns as many of those
larger municipalities have existing police departments.
4:40:29 PM
COMMISSIONER PRICE highlighted that liability insurance poses
another challenge. She explained that insurance companies have
been unwilling to insure non law enforcement agencies conducting
law enforcement functions. Currently, only one company has been
willing to insure VPSOs, she said. While DPS has not had
adequate time to vet the implication of expanding the program to
include the federally recognized tribes, it has been engaged in
obtaining more information on any impacts. She anticipated an
associated fiscal note. Although the bill adds a layer of
complexity to an already complex program, it can likely be
clarified through discussions, she said.
She said DPS was needs to understand the intent of some
provisions in the bill. Specifically, DPS is unclear what it
means that DPS would participate in "monitoring public safety
performance" of VPSOs. The department has historically found
this challenging because VPSOs are not state employees, so the
DPS cannot influence performance even when the department has
identified performance related issues. The department also needs
clarification on what is referenced as background investigation,
as opposed to the fingerprint clearance check that DPS and DCCED
would complete.
4:42:09 PM
COMMISSIONER PRICE said the DPS also will need clarification on
other technical and logistical issues in the bill, including the
requirement to complete annual reviews on grantees' performance.
COMMISSIONER PRICE said DPS does not support the current version
of SB 231, primarily because the candidates who would be
eligible to become VPSOs could have felony convictions. DPS does
not support people with felony convictions serving as peace
officers. As written, the bill allows a convicted felon on
active parole to investigate a felony crime with little or no
training. For example, someone who is on parole for a felony
conviction of child pornography could be hired as a VPSO and
actively investigate child pornography. Although some felonies
are excluded, candidates with felony records for drug dealing or
registered sex offenders could become VPSOs. She said numerous
issues could arise by allowing convicted felons to serve as
police officers, which the DPS views as very damaging to public
safety.
She expressed interest in having the Department of Law analyze
the impact on the criminal justice court process if convicted
sex offenders conduct investigations. The character and
integrity of law enforcement professionals is critically
important during testimony in criminal cases and affects
outcomes of court cases.
4:44:55 PM
COMMISSIONER PRICE said the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
supports more officers serving in rural Alaska but it does not
believe that lowering the standards of those serving in
positions of significant authority in rural communities will
serve the interest of public safety. The department recommends
that all felony convictions disqualify VPSO applicants. Aside
from the necessity that peace officers possess good moral
character, several practical concerns arise when VPSOs have
felony records. For example, VPSOs have access to various
criminal justice information systems necessary to perform their
jobs. However, federal law denies access to these data systems
by anyone with a felony conviction. Federal law also prohibits
convicted felons from possessing firearms. Even if the VPSOs are
not authorized to carry firearms, during their duties they may
be required to seize a firearm, which would be in violation of
federal law.
Further, the bill would allow VPSOs to serve for 24 months
without any training. Although existing regulations authorize
the same timeframe, DPS is concerned since the bill expands VPSO
authorities to include investigation of felony crimes, including
homicides and sexual assaults. It could be very damaging to
communities to have VPSOs serving for two years without adequate
training, she said.
COMMISSIONER PRICE said the department looks forward to
transferring the grant administration to the DCCED. Several
tribes have already reached out to the department, eager to
potentially secure funding through the appropriation, she said.
4:47:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL referenced her March 4, 2020 letter and asked if
she worked with the VPSO Working Group that made recommendations
for the program.
COMMISSIONER PRICE replied DPS was invited to the first meeting,
but not to subsequent meetings.
SENATOR COGHILL asked the sponsor to respond.
4:48:34 PM
SENATOR OLSON deferred to his staff but offered to provide a
response in writing.
4:49:53 PM
MS. LICCIOLI answered that she just received the March 4, 2020
letter outlining the department's concerns. She said the sponsor
is working on amendments or a committee substitute that will
incorporate some of Commissioner Price's recommendations, and
with the sponsor of the companion bill to address changes.
CHAIR REVAK said he supports the intent of the bill and wants
the committee to do its due diligence and get it right.
He asked for any amendments to be submitted by March 16, 2020.
4:52:39 PM
MAYOR LUCY NELSON, Mayor, Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB),
Kotzebue, Alaska, stated that the borough serves about 7,700
people throughout 11 communities in the Northwest Arctic. She
was just elected mayor but served on the assembly for eight
years. She said she is familiar with the VPSO program since the
borough has managed the program since 2011. Prior to that, the
VPSO program was under the Maniiiaq Association, she said.
MAYOR NELSON said the borough administration and assembly
supports SB 231 but has several recommendations. The VPSO
Working Group came to Kotzebue and met with the public safety
commission to address the issues within the VPSO program. The
borough does not have the financial resources to manage the
monies. In 2018, the borough budget of $1.3 million for the
program provided funding for seven VPSOs and a coordinator. Of
the 11 communities in the NWAB, Kotzebue is the only one with a
police force. None of the other 10 communities has a skilled
VPSO, although the borough has one candidate enrolled in the
VPSO training program. She related that residents do not feel
safe because these communities lack law enforcement presence.
She reminded members that the Alaska State Troopers must fly in
to provide service to the villages. The VPSOs serve as first
responders. This bill is important to the borough to protect its
residents. She asked the legislature to restore the 2018 VPSO
budget.
4:55:32 PM
SENATOR COGHILL commented that the bill will need some work to
address the DPS concerns and agreed with the mayor that funding
was needed. He commended the work that the borough has done for
the community.
CHAIR REVAK echoed Senator Coghill's comments.
MAYOR LUCY NELSON said the Northwest Arctic Borough
reestablished the VPSO program and it is currently working on
rebuilding it to attract young people to the program, but the
borough now needs the funding.
[SB 231 was held in committee.]
4:57:39 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Revak adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 4:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 88 Sectional Analysis 3.6.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 Sponsor Statement 3.6.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 88 OAH-annual-report-2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 231 Draft VPSO Work Group Recommendations 1.23.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Sectional Analysis v.U 02.25.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Sponsor Statement 02.25.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB231 Relevant Administrative Codes.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 DPS analysis 3.9.20.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 231 Fiscal Notes 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 231 |
| SB 210 Fiscal Note 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 210 |
| SB 88 Fiscal Note 3.9.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 88 |
| SB 97 Oppose Ak Arts and Culture Found 3.5.2020.pdf |
SSTA 3/10/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 97 |