Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/2017 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB97 | |
| HB16 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to training regarding disabilities
for police officers, probation officers, parole
officers, correctional officers, and village public
safety officers; relating to guidelines for drivers
when encountering or being stopped by a peace officer;
relating to driver's license examinations; and
relating to a voluntary disability designation on a
state identification card and a driver's license."
9:24:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. He introduced his staff. He
detailed that the bill had come to him about five years
earlier when the disability community had shared that
individuals with nonapparent disabilities had encountered
adverse outcomes with law enforcement. He detailed there
had been circumstances where people with nonapparent
disabilities had been misunderstood by officers. The bill
would mandate training for officers on what to do if they
encounter someone with a nonapparent disability. His office
had worked with police departments and state troopers
across the state. The training was now included in the
state trooper training academy in Sitka and police
departments and the Department of Corrections (DOC) had
agreed they could do the training online.
Representative Thompson provided a scenario where a person
[driving] was stopped by a police officer and had red
lights flashing in their rear window. He explained that the
situation could exacerbate a person's disability. He
considered how to solve the problem. He reported that the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) agreed there should be a
section in its driver's manual outlining what a driver
should do when stopped by a police officer. He elaborated
that many states (e.g. Pennsylvania, Montana, and
California) included the information in their manuals. He
shared that the bill had passed the House unanimously the
previous year but had been held up in session-end politics.
9:28:40 AM
Representative Thompson shared that the bill was nearly
identical to its past form but included a couple of
changes. He reported that some letters had come in from
neuropaths where they were the only ones treating someone
with a traumatic brain injury - subsequently, a provision
had been added to the bill in the Senate. He continued that
the original bill specified that the driver's test would
include questions on what to do when pulled over by an
officer. The current version of the bill removed that
provision. Otherwise, the bill was essentially the same [as
a bill offered the previous session]. The goal was to
protect individuals with imperceptible disabilities.
Officers would also be protected given their increased
understanding of how to handle a situation. He emphasized
that the designation on people's driver's license or
identification was voluntary and needed to be requested and
verified by a medical professional. He noted that many
people did not want to be identified as having a disability
and did not want the designation. He reiterated that the
designation was voluntary.
9:30:06 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the sponsor had listed
multiple medical or licensed professionals in the state who
could identify a disability. She elaborated that the
legislation specified the medical professionals would be
responsible for approving a designation for a card. She
wondered if there was any liability for the individuals who
designated the disability.
LYNETTE BERGH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, asked Co-
Chair MacKinnon to repeat the question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was any liability for
the individuals who designated the disability.
Additionally, she asked what happened with the
documentation at DMV to support the designation on a
license or identification card.
Ms. Bergh thought it was probably the same process that
occurred when a person applied for a handicap placard or
license plate. She detailed that a doctor had to verify the
person had a disability. The voluntary designation would
happen the same way. A person's disability would be
verified by a doctor - the specific disability would not be
named. There was not a liability to the state. She reasoned
that if there was a liability to the state, the issue would
have arisen with people getting handicap placards and
plates. The disability designator would serve as
notification to a police officer that a person had a
disability; unless a person wanted to share information
about their disability with a police officer, they would
not have to divulge any information. The designation would
operate as a red flag to indicate to the officer that
perhaps something else was going on in the event that an
interaction became unique.
Co-Chair MacKinnon handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Bishop.
9:33:18 AM
AT EASE
9:33:43 AM
RECONVENED
Ms. Bergh continued to answer the question by Co-Chair
MacKinnon related to liability. She relayed that by
statute, there were only several cases where a person could
bring a suit against the state. The information was
included in a legal memo from the Division of Legal and
Research Services dated March 28, 2017 (copy on file). She
detailed that if an issue came before a court, the court
would have to determine whether the police officer was
following training; it could be a liability to the state if
it was determined the officer was not following training.
The designator itself would not cause any liability.
Senator Micciche highlighted a case in his district where
an individual with an anxiety disorder experienced a
negative outcome with law enforcement. He detailed that the
person had a taillight out and had a panicked reaction to
being pulled over. He supported the bill because of that.
He asked why digestive issues had been included. He
believed it was a catchall for hidden disabilities. He
continued that about half of hidden disabilities were
unlikely to have a negative outcome with an officer. He
asked why the bill did not differentiate between the types
of disabilities.
Representative Thompson stated that his office had been
provided with a lengthy list of disabilities that could be
considered nonapparent. He agreed there were many on the
list that should probably not be considered. He assumed
that the DMV may reduce the list because the current list
included disabilities that were not qualified or pertinent
to the situation.
9:36:25 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop asked whether DMV would have the ability
to pick and choose from the list of hidden disabilities
titled "Appendix A" in members' packets (copy on file).
Alternatively, he wondered whether there would be firm
rules on which disabilities would be included.
Representative Thompson deferred to Ms. Bergh.
Ms. Bergh replied that "hidden disabilities" was a new term
set by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2001. The
organization had determined there were numerous
disabilities, some were visible, and others were not. She
elaborated that WHO had created a list of invisible
disabilities that could cause individuals to have a medical
issue. The list in Appendix A was derived from the WHO
list, which continued to grow as the term hidden disability
evolved. She explained that a medical physician would
specify whether a person was eligible for a voluntary
designator on their identification. She detailed that a
physician be able to determine whether something did not
qualify for the designation. She believed most physicians
would be realistic about what disabilities would be
eligible for a designator.
9:38:43 AM
Senator von Imhof believed it was beneficial that the bill
would provide sensitivity training for police officers, but
she hoped it would not be used against a police officer who
had to use force when they deemed it to be necessary. She
spoke to a circumstance where an individual acted
aggressively and force by the police officer was required.
She hoped an officer would not be reprimanded unfairly for
using the normal course of response.
Representative Thompson thought the bill was something that
would help officers communicate with people. He emphasized
that the designation did not provide any privileges or
extended rights. The purpose of the designation was to
alert an officer that an individual had a disability. The
officer could then ask the individual a question about
their disability to work towards a good outcome. He stated
that if a person acted physically or badly, they should not
be treated any differently than another person. The purpose
was to encourage communication and to avoid overreactions
to situations.
9:40:37 AM
Senator Olson wondered if other states had similar
designations on driver's licenses.
Ms. Bergh responded that other states had trainings on
hidden disabilities and information was available for
individuals to know what happens when a person is stopped
by an officer. To her knowledge no other state had a
designator.
Senator Olson asked if the training used a list of
disabilities.
Ms. Bergh replied that they had not researched whether
other states were using certain lists.
9:41:51 AM
Ms. Bergh reviewed the sectional analysis for HB 16 (copy
on file):
Section 1. Amends AS 18.65.220 to include statutory
language that expands the duties of the police
standards council's training program to include
training in recognizing and interacting with a person
with disabilities, as well as familiarization with
resources that are available to those with hidden
disabilities.
Section 2. Adds a new subsection to AS 18.65.310.
Providing that a person may voluntarily
designate on their state identification card that the
person has a disability and the proof required for the
designation.
Section 3. Amends AS 18.65.670(c) to include
disability training to village public safety officers.
Section 4. Amends AS 28.05.011 by adding a new
subsection to include the duties and responsibilities
of drivers when encountering or being stopped by a
peace officer and that this information be included in
the driver's manual.
Section 5. AS 28.15.111 is amended by adding a new
subsection (d), providing that a person may
voluntarily designate on their Alaska Driver's License
a disability designation, proof required for the
designation and fees that may be charged. Adds
naturopath to the list of licensed individuals who can
provide proof of a disability.
9:43:42 AM
Senator Micciche asked if a $50 fee would be paid by the
applicant requesting the designation on their license.
Ms. Bergh answered in the affirmative.
Senator Micciche wondered how the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) could have a zero fiscal note if the bill
would require training. He asked about the hourly training
requirement.
Ms. Bergh shared that the training had already taken place;
therefore, the fiscal note was zero. The department had
learned the benefits of the training while working with the
bill sponsor's office over the past few years.
Subsequently, the training created by the Alaska Police
Standards Council had been implemented.
9:44:52 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
JUANITA WEBB, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She relayed that
Wallbusters was a local advocacy group in Fairbanks. She
thanked the bill sponsors for bringing the bill forward.
She referred to written testimony that she had sent to the
committee sharing her personal story (copy on file). She
detailed that for her, the bill was about safety and
standardized education that would give new officers a more
complete understanding of disabilities with standardized
training about visible and hidden disabilities.
Ms. Webb believed the bill would give officers another tool
to help guide their interactions accordingly. A discrete,
voluntary icon on a driver's license would give additional
information to alert officers to potential communication
needs for a better outcome. Throughout the bill process she
had learned that people with disabilities and people in
general were unsure of their responsibility when approached
by an officer. She thought that adding additional
information to the DMV manual would help support the need.
She reasoned that the zero fiscal note was an added bonus,
especially given the current economic climate. She was
proud to be part of a bill that would help educate officers
in their approach to Alaskan citizens and help their jobs
become safer. She concluded that the bill would make
Alaskans lives safer and more informed. She asked the
committee to support the legislation.
9:47:23 AM
ART DELAUNE, WALLBUSTERS, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He relayed that he worked at
Access Alaska and was a member of the Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education. He shared that he had
two sons with hidden disabilities. He stated that the bill
was about better communications, accommodations, and
inclusion. The bill would reinforce individual choice,
rights, and responsibilities. The primary focus of the
legislation was on education and training. He stressed that
training of law enforcement and correction officers was
critical because often recognizing a nonapparent disability
was challenging. The bill called for a minimum of an eight-
hour training that would make officers more aware that some
individuals may present with a behavior that was
unintentional or may be viewed as noncompliant.
Additionally, the training would teach officers to
effectively and appropriately interact with people who
experience an apparent or nonapparent disability. He
underscored that the most important aspect of the bill was
safety. The intent of the bill was for law enforcement
officers to discuss information about a disability only
when a situation was secure and diffused.
Mr. Delaune relayed that Wallbusters and Representative
Thompson had been working on the bill for over four years.
He detailed that over the past few years they had met with
many community members, organizations, and law enforcement
and corrections academies. The goal was to create an
effective bill at no cost that would improve the lives of
all Alaskans. He believed the icon the driver's license
would enhance communication. The bill would also educate
the general public. He stressed the importance of Alaskans
understanding their responsibilities for appropriately
interacting with law enforcement. He thought the bill would
reduce potential conflicts between Alaskans with or without
disabilities. He relayed that an identical bill (HB 77) had
passed the House the previous year unanimously. He
explained that the bill had stalled in the Senate Rules
Committee. He urged the committee to pass the bill.
9:50:25 AM
LARRY JOHANSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
bill. He relayed that he had Parkinson's disease, which was
often misinterpreted by people. He shared that when he
walked by the building security it made him wonder if he
would be intercepted because of a misinterpretation of his
symptoms. He stressed that he lived with the issue every
day. He thought the intent of a symbol [on a license or
identification card] was extremely positive. He explained
that the discussion about confrontation with officers was
an escalated version of evaluation he received daily in
particular situations. He believed a symbol on a license
would provide a third-party indication that a person
experienced a disability and it would prevent him from
having to prove through articulating that he had a
disability. He thought it would be helpful even beyond the
original intent of the bill. For example, the symbol could
be useful when entering the capitol building.
Mr. Johanson shared a personal experience of being
approached by security in a mall in Portland. He detailed
prior to his condition he had been the director of
operations for a cruise line and part of his responsibility
had been administering Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities regulations to over 50 buses and drivers.
He was very familiar with the regulatory aspect. He
stressed the importance of the bill and offered to answer
any regulatory questions. He thanked the committee for
considering the bill.
Senator von Imhof thanked Mr. Johansen for his testimony.
Vice-Chair Bishop returned the gavel to Co-Chair MacKinnon.
9:54:18 AM
AT EASE
9:54:51 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Bishop highlighted existing zero fiscal notes
including one from the Department of Administration, two
from the Department of Corrections, and one from the
Department of Public Safety. He noted that the training was
already being completed, hence the zero fiscal notes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed that amendments on the bill were
due by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m.
HB 16 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:56:19 AM
AT EASE
9:57:05 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB97 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB97 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| HB 16 Sponsor Response to Concerns of Senate State Affairs Committee from Mtg on 3-23-17.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| SCS HB 16- Legal Memo - Concerns from SSA Committee.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 16 |
| HB 57 Public Testimony Packet 040317.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
HB 57 |
| SB 97 Von Imhof Amendment D.1.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 97 |
| SB 6 Carter Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/4/2017 9:00:00 AM |
SB 6 |