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.