SB 198-POLICE OFFICER PROTECTIONS/CERTIFICATION  9:09:13 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted that SB 198 was before the committee. The bill changes procedures used by the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) when investigating the conduct of an officer. The committee heard the bill last week and has since had conversations with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA). He thanked both entities for their willingness to address previous concerns. He said that a new committee substitute (CS) for SB 198 has been drafted, version D. SENATOR PASKVAN moved to adopt the CS for SB 198, labeled 27- LS1306\D, as the working document before the committee. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. THOMAS PRESLEY, intern to Senator Bill Wielechowski, sponsor of SB 198, related the changes in SB 198. He read from the following statement: The CS you see before you is a product of input from all sides, and addresses issues discussed during the last hearing on this bill. The language in section 1 has been cleaned up. In the CS, the Alaska Police Standards Council is not bound to follow a decision of an arbitration court when deciding to revoke or suspend a certificate. Testimony from the Executive Director of APSC stated the need for the council to maintain independence in decision making with regards to revocation, and this change allows for that. Executive Director David Sexton and Anchorage Police Chief Mark Mew testified to the fact that the Council has an independent procedure and looks at the conduct of a police officer. APSC should not be bound by the decision of an arbitrator who may focus on process issues. Section 3 now obligates the Alaska Police Standards Council to "substantially weigh" the decisions of arbitrations and employment hearings. This is different because the decision of employment cases now must only be considered when deciding to revoke or suspend a certificate. Section 4 has been removed. This section expanded the definition of "police officer" to include court service officers. Senator Giessel asked whether or not this would have a fiscal impact on training costs. After discussion with the APSC, the Department of Public Safety, and the Public Safety Employees Association, it was found that section 4 would need more discussion and work. As of now, that section has been taken out and the issue of including court service officers in this bill will be taken up in the Judiciary Committee. Sections 5 and 6 now make explicit that pre-employment polygraph testing is permissible under SB 198. In our last hearing, both Mr. Sexton and Mr. Mew stated the need for pre-employment polygraph testing. We have made progress on this bill and addressed many of the concerns by the Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Police Standards Council, and Police Chiefs. SENATOR MEYER asked why court service employees were removed. MR. PRESLEY said there were unanswered questions about them. SENATOR MEYER said he thought they should be included. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI explained that it was found that there could be a large fiscal impact when including court system employees and more information needs to be sought. Senate Judiciary will take SB 198 up next. SENATOR GIESSEL asked for Mr. Sexton's opinion of the changes in the bill. 9:14:01 AM DAVID SEXTON, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC), commented on the changes to SB 198. He opined that the bill was moving in the right direction. He liked the idea of having "a tool to suspend." He said he was not clear about new Section 1. He gave his understanding that it required APSC to follow the Administrative Procedure Act. He suggested adding the word "suspend" to Section 2, where it says APSC is allowed to "revoke and modify." He said he was happy with Section 3 changes. He related that APSC was hoping to remove the words "full time" from the definition of police officer in Section 4. He explained that currently APSC has no jurisdiction over seasonal, part time, or reserve officers. Removing "full time" would allow APSC to have jurisdiction over all officers. He said he appreciated the clarification of the pre-employment polygraphs and keeping the tool for post-employment investigative polygraphs. He noted if that is done, then Sections 7 and 8 could be deleted. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked which version of the bill he was looking at. MR. SEXTON stated he was reading from version B. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted that version D was before the committee. MR. SEXTON continued to say he was fine with the changes in the disclosure and privacy rules. SENATOR GIESSEL asked about Section 3. She read, "The council shall give substantial weight to the significance of a post- removal or reversal of a disciplinary action." She asked if Mr. Sexton was concerned about the words "substantial weight" because she could not find a definition for them. MR. SEXTON replied that he also could not find a definition, but assumed it had a common sense meaning. He said did not have a problem with the intent behind the words. He noted that "substantial weight" is difficult to measure, as is "clear and convincing evidence." He thought the spirit behind the wording was acceptable. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said an attorney suggested that language. He pointed out that SB 198 would be heard next by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He thanked Mr. Sexton for his suggestions. He pointed out that Section 1 clarifies that APSC follows procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. 9:20:48 AM CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted two fiscal notes; one zero note from the Department of Administration and an indeterminate note from the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He thought the DPS note would become a zero note as a result of changes made in version D. TERRY VRABEC, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, answered questions related to SB 198. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DPS fiscal note would now be a zero fiscal note. MR. VRABEC referred to a discussion of the cost to train CSO's and make them certified police officers. He said that CSO's receive training now, but not at the same level as a police officer. Under the legislation, they would have to go to the Police Academy and it would cost about $11,500 to train each CSO for 18 weeks. That training could be modified or could be spread across fiscal years. A related cost would be for overtime shifts at court houses when CSO's were attending the academy. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what it would cost to train 59 CSO's. MR. VRABEC said $650,000. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the DPS fiscal note was now a zero fiscal note. MR. VRABEC thought so. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI thanked Mr. Vrabec. He said that legal issues could be worked out in Judiciary SENATOR PASKVAN moved to report the CS for SB 198, version D, from committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced that without objection, CSSB 198(STA) moved from the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.