Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/18/2020 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| Alaska Police Standards Council | |
| HB174 | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
2:05:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 287, "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." [Before the
committee was CSHB 287(TRB).]
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this was the proposed
legislation which would be "80 percent for government, 20
percent for the PFD," or whether that was a different bill.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that this is the proposed legislation
pertaining to the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program.
He remarked that the proposed legislation Representative LeDoux
was referring to had not passed out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee and was not before the committee.
2:07:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
had expressed some concerns with the proposed legislation
regarding felonies, and if those were addressed, then the
department would not have objections to CSHB 287(TRB). He asked
the bill sponsor for more information pertaining to the felony
backgrounds and asked whether there was a fix for the proposed
legislation that has the support of DPS. He then noted that
there was a representative from DPS who could answer questions.
2:08:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as prime sponsor of HB 287, answered that
the question came up about whether there should be the same
qualification standard eligibility to serve as a VPSO as any
other law enforcement job class, which currently requires no
felonies. He said that originally, when the language was
adopted, it came out of a recognition that in many of the rural
areas with the highest incidents of violence, assault, and
substance abuse in the state, there are some outstanding young
men and women who did not come out unscathed, but who have the
trust of their villages and communities. He said that it was
asked whether there should be a standard that if an individual
has no prior sex offense or crime-against-a-person convictions
but had a drug or alcohol possession felony that was over 10
years old, should there be a lifetime ban? He said that there
was good discussion around the issue, and the result was the
determination that it is difficult to have different background
qualifiers for different job classes, and much like
standardizing the age of 21 as seen in previous legislation, it
would be easier if there was a standard of no felonies. He
expressed that this would hit some people harshly, as not all
felonies are the same; for example, he said that first time drug
possession convictions are now misdemeanors but would still be
disqualifiers. He said that after talking with the grantees,
they feel comfortable leaving it as a no felony standard, and he
said that he is amenable to that.
2:10:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the existing version of the proposed
legislation allows for some felonies under certain
circumstances, and he asked whether Representative Kopp's
suggestion was that the proposed legislation would be amended to
make it so that the only prior convictions that would be
permitted for employment would be misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill what the department's
perspective was on working an amendment into the proposed
legislation so that the only crimes an individual could have
convictions for and still get hired as a VPSO would be
misdemeanor crimes, and all felonies would be barriers.
2:11:48 PM
ANDREW MERRILL, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, responded that this change would
reinclude the current language in the VPSO regulations of felony
convictions being disqualifiers, and he said that this would
absolutely be a step in the right direction, which DPS would
support.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked what should be done to address someone who
has a felony conviction over 10 years old that would be a
misdemeanor conviction under current laws. As an example, he
remarked that someone could have a 15-year old possession of
cocaine conviction, which would be a misdemeanor under current
law.
CAPTAIN MERILL answered that under current regulation that would
be a disqualifier and that individual would not be eligible for
hire, regardless of when the conviction took place. He added
that if someone is convicted of a felony at any time, he/she
would not be eligible.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked both Captain Merrill and Representative Kopp
whether there was a reason to try to make provisions for old
felonies that would be misdemeanors under current law, [for the
sake of] employment eligibility.
CAPTAIN MERRILL replied that he is not a lawyer and might need
to ask "law" to weigh in, but on his side of the issue he thinks
the simplest thing for consistency would be that a felony
conviction at any time would be a disqualifier.
2:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he agrees with Captain
Merrill, and that conduct that was considered a felony at the
time it was done should be viewed as a disqualifier. He
expressed that this is a delicate issue on which he has listened
to the perspective of DPS and the grantees, and they would like
to have the regulation maintained as a no-felony status.
CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that he had not answered the part of
Chair Claman's question pertaining to misdemeanors. He said
that removing the felonies was important, but that domestic
violence misdemeanor convictions should be maintained as
disqualifiers.
2:14:30 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:14 p.m.
2:14:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he recognizes that the current
DPS regulation is no domestic violence assault misdemeanors
within 10 years, and the proposed legislation is consistent with
that.
2:15:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Captain Merrill or Representative
Kopp could identify other issues that the state troopers have
with the proposed legislation that there has been some effort to
resolve over the last few days. He remarked that he is trying
to take the committee down the path of what is being done to
address concerns and determine whether these changes would
satisfy the troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that they may not ever get everyone
satisfied but were doing the best they could to bring out a good
piece of legislation. He stated that other concerns were that
the language that sets the standard for good moral character as
a minimum qualification for VPSOs and probation officers, also
be applied to every job class of police officer, as this class
is given law enforcement duties. He stated that a
recommendation from the Department of Law (DOL), which he said
that he agrees with completely, is to insert language that
refers to a person being of good moral character and someone who
has not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, which
includes bribery, deception, and fraud. He stated that in light
of this recommendation, his office had worked on a proposal that
it would bring before the committee at the right time.
2:17:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp whether he has had a
chance to speak with Captain Merrill or others from DPS about
the moral character language as described.
2:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the only person he had spoken
with was Mr. Skidmore at DOL, and he had not spoken with anyone
at DPS about this.
2:18:22 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that this was one of the
recommendations DPS had made, and he said that it appreciates
that the bill sponsor is considering amendments that DPS thinks
are very important to include in the proposed legislation. He
stated that domestic violence is very complex because there are
domestic violence convictions allowed under current regulations,
which was brought up as part of a discussion among the 10
grantees and DPS over the last couple of years regarding hiring
applicants with prior domestic violence convictions. He said
that DPS has noticed over the past couple of years that none of
the grantees have hired any applicants with a domestic violence
conviction, because of challenges it creates in application in
the field.
CAPTAIN MERRILL explained that it is like what he discussed at
the previous meeting regarding felonies and possession of
firearms. He said that there are certain classes of domestic
violence convictions that are permanent disqualifiers for
someone to possess a firearm or ammunition. He stated that the
challenge comes from having to look closely at how a person was
convicted and what they were convicted of; was it a person in
the household or a direct family member? He said that while the
state has classifications for domestic violence convictions up
to the fourth degree of consanguinity, the challenge becomes
that some of those are not permanent disqualifiers, and it is
difficult to separate those. He said that while current
regulation allows this, DPS has had concerns over the last
several years for that allowance, because if VPSOs move toward
being fully capable of carrying firearms, or if VPSOs convicted
of a disqualifier are sent to the academy and participate in
firearms training, then they could be violating federal law.
CAPTAIN MERRILL said that Kathryn Monfreda might be on the line
to offer more information on the topic, and he said that there
are some prohibitors that DPS would like to continue discussion
on to ensure people, who might have those prohibitors are not
being put into a weird situation. He expressed that he is not
certain that a blanket domestic violence disqualifier is the
right answer, but that is something that needs to be looked at
more closely.
2:20:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that what he was hearing is that there is
a regulation that suggests that after 10 years an individual
could still get hired, but in the field in practice no one is
getting hired, in part because of the difficulty which arises
that some domestic violence convictions create a permanent ban
on weapons possession, which makes it nearly impossible to hire
someone because it is almost guaranteed that there will be
situations in which a VPSO would need to take possession of a
weapon in the course of his/her work. He asked Kathryn Monfreda
whether she could offer more insight into the issues regarding
domestic violence convictions and how easy it is to navigate a
10-year period for eligibility.
2:21:52 PM
KATHRYN MONFREDA, Director, Division of Statewide Support,
Department of Public Safety, answered that there has been a lot
of case law in recent years regarding misdemeanor crimes of
domestic violence, and an early U.S. Supreme Court decision in
2006 led to the conclusion that none of Alaska's misdemeanor
crimes of domestic violence fit the federal prohibitor. She
said that a couple of years ago that ruling was overturned and
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently, determining that some
misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, depending on the
relationship between the offender and the victim and the degree
of force used, could be misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
that are prohibitors under federal law. She said that it is
probable that the VPSO regulations were written under the old
U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which is why it could be put in that
after a certain period of time had lapsed someone could be a
VPSO, but under current law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
there is no relief from that prohibitor if barred under federal
law. She remarked that she checked with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS), which is the expert on the topic, and it
confirmed that there is no way to get relief from that
disability, regardless of time.
2:23:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the domestic violence
prohibitor was in respect to carrying a firearm in the course of
duty, which he said he thinks it is, and asked whether it also
plays into the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
access or was not an issue with domestic violence.
MS. MONFREDA answered that the prohibitor would deny CJIS access
for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, but a waiver could
be requested of that denial by providing the circumstances of
why the conviction should not be considered a prohibitor. She
added that this does not impact the federal possession or
transfer of firearms and ammunition.
2:24:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether an individual, even if he/she could
have access to the CJIS database, could not take possession of a
firearm during his/her duties and take it from someone's house
back to the VPSO station.
MS. MONFREDA answered that that is correct.
2:24:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that this is an issue, like the
felonies, in which he wants to find the path that suits the
public safety process the best. He said that Michael Nemeth, a
VPSO coordinator with a lot of experience in this area, was
online.
2:25:23 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been following the
current discussion regarding misdemeanor domestic violence
convictions.
2:25:35 PM
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator, Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association, answered that he had been following the
current discussion. He remarked that Ms. Monfreda had commented
earlier on the domestic violence prohibitor, and the fact that
there are portions depending upon family member and severity of
the domestic violence conviction that would not be addressed
under the federal provision. He said this could be a situation
where two college roommates get into a "bit of a scuffle," one
is arrested and convicted, and 15 years has passed. He said
this conviction might not be covered under the federal provision
that would prohibit the possession or receipt of a firearm or
ammunition. He asked Ms. Monfreda for clarification on the
topic.
2:27:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Monfreda whether she could draw some
distinction between the relationships that create a federal
barrier and the relationships that do not, under which the 10-
year provision would not make any difference.
2:27:17 PM
MS. MONFREDA answered that the federal requirement is that there
must be an intimate relationship between the victim and
offender, so Mr. Nemeth was right; if it was two [college
roommates] that got into a fight, then it would not be a federal
prohibitor. She explained that there is a list of specific
relationship requirements for prohibitors under federal law,
which includes an intimate partner, spouse, and stepparent of a
child who is neglected or abused.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he thinks the point Ms. Monfreda was
making is that there are four or five categories that are
prohibited and several other categories that are not, but when
trying to decide whether the ban is a lifetime ban, it can be
complicated.
MS. MONFREDA confirmed that was correct. She said the
relationship of the victim and the offender needs to be
determined under federal law, not state law. She explained that
state law is much broader as far as domestic relationships go.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been hiring anyone
with domestic violence convictions at all, or whether the
confusion and challenges had put up a barrier that effectively
stops hiring anyone with domestic violence convictions.
2:28:50 PM
MR. NEMETH answered that in the 18 years he has been a VPSO for
his organization, and the 8 years as a VPSO coordinator, he has
not hired someone with a domestic violence conviction of any
kind. He said that this has not affected his organization, but
he sees how a domestic violence conviction that did not fit the
federal guideline, like two brothers or two roommates, could
affect the ability for an organization to hire someone down the
road.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he was
seeking to address, in terms of amending the proposed
legislation.
2:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were a few more items he
wanted to address. He stated that in CSHB 287(TRB), page 6,
there is reference to federally recognized tribes, and he said
that the reason for that is that this is what all the grantees
are. He commented that the grantees have formed nonprofit
entities to partner with the state in delivering public safety
services. He said that there are 229 federally recognized
tribes and only 10 grantees, and it was found that this language
had the unintended result of raising the concern among the
grantees as to whether they had the money for 229 entities to
form partnerships with the state VPSOs, and the fact is that the
entities that want to deliver public safety this way are already
doing so. He stated that it was not the intention to open the
program up to all 229 potential applicants, but to have the ten
tribes that do partner with the state stay healthy. He
expressed that there are limited funds as it is, and the
recommendation is to delete that reference from the proposed
legislation to make it clear that the program is not being
opened to all 229 tribes. He said that if a new entity wanted
to partner with the program, it would not be disqualified from
doing so.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Kopp also wants to
remove the reference to "federally recognized tribes" that
occurs [in Section 3, subsection (b)], on page 4, [lines 5-6].
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill or Ms. Monfreda whether those
changes to page 4 would resolve one of the concerns that DPS has
raised.
2:31:43 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that from his perspective, there is no
specific issue with the addition of the federally recognized
tribe language; however, he did note that it would make all the
tribes eligible. He stated that in his experience in operating
the VPSO program since 2014, he has been approached by
individual tribes that were interested in operating the program
that were not eligible because they were not nonprofit, because
they were not happy with the interaction between their villages
or tribes and the nonprofits for their regions. He said that he
does not know that DPS has any concerns with that specific
language being included, or excluded, from the proposed
legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he had
looked at in terms of potential amendments.
2:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were two other issues
that he had not yet addressed, which deal with standardizing
regulations pertaining to the possession of drugs. He said that
the standard for police officers, VPSOs, probation officers, and
parole officers is that an individual cannot have possessed
illegal drugs within ten years, unless that individual was under
the age of 21. He said that a drafting oversight resulted in
the portion that specifies unless someone is under 21 not
appearing in the proposed legislation, which would make it
stricter than the regulations for the other job classes. In
response to a follow up question, he confirmed that this was a
change he wanted to make through an amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill whether the troopers would
have any problem with that change.
2:33:38 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that the more closely the proposed
legislation resembles the standards for other police officers
based on the language used in previous hearings, which said the
VPSOs should have more authority and more of a breadth-of-scope
of work, the better. He added that the troopers think it is
appropriate that it mirror very closely what is required under
the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) standards.
2:34:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be "competitive
bidding" if a tribe wanted to get involved in the program. She
asked whether that was something done currently and whether the
federally recognized tribe language being removed from the
proposed legislation would allow for competitive bidding. She
remarked she knows that some of the entities charge a lot more
than other entities when it comes to overhead charges;
therefore, competition would not necessarily be a bad thing.
2:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that there were a couple of things
touched on by Representative LeDoux that he wanted to address to
give context. In terms of competitiveness, he said the
legislature funds a finite line item in the DPS budget for
approximately $11 million, approximately $2.5 million of which
goes to administering the program. He remarked that what is
left goes between the ten grantees who develop their budgets
based on their differing needs. He explained that the money is
apportioned based on need. He expressed that one of the
challenges for the current system is a lack of transparency in
how these decisions are made; the grantees feel like there is no
objective standard as to why a fellow grantee "got this much,
and we got this much, and we don't know how those decisions are
made." He said that this was one of the things that drove the
process.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, regarding whether someone new wanting to
get into the program could get in, said the answer is yes. As
of now they would have to form a nonprofit and partner with the
state. He said, "If the complaint is 'I don't like the
nonprofit I was thinking of partnering with or a particular
tribe,' well these ... are all the entities that are necessarily
the partners, so it may not work out for that area." He said
that not having the three words "federally recognized tribe"
would not stop any tribe that wants to partner with the state
from putting together a nonprofit vehicle to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why they would have to put together
a nonprofit vehicle. She remarked that Representative Kopp had
spoken eloquently on the House floor recently about the need to
recognize tribes, and she said that she voted for that
legislation partially based on what he had expressed. She said
that the proposed legislation is now saying that "you don't
necessarily want to deal with tribes, but we need to go through
the nonprofits." She expressed that she was confused by this.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Representative
LeDoux's kind words and support on that legislation, and he said
that he thinks Mr. Nemeth, who runs a VPSO program, would be
well able to explain this topic.
2:37:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was legislation heard just this
year that addressed the fact that Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes
("Tlingit & Haida") have a slightly different qualification, and
he asked whether this legislation had passed through the House
and the Senate already.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that that is correct, and it is law
now.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a "refresher" on what was done earlier
with legislation, specifically with the VPSO program and those
eligible to be grantees. He remarked that it seemed like the
class had been expanded by one, but he said that he recalls some
testimony that there "was only ten and no one else is
interested, or something to that effect."
2:38:31 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor of
HB 287, stated that the legislation Chair Claman was referring
to was passed in the last session and is current law. He said
that it added into statute and is included in HB 287, under
subsection (b) of the reenacted AS 18.65.670, on page 4. He
explained that it is the same section of the proposed
legislation that was previously cited in regard to removing the
language "federally recognized tribes." He said that the passed
legislation added into statute the phrase "Alaska Native
organizations", which has a definition under a different part of
the Alaska statutes, in which Tlingit & Haida is referenced. He
remarked that the definition of what an Alaska Native
organization is, is tightly crafted somewhere else in the Alaska
statutes, and this is what allowed Tlingit & Haida to be a
program operator as a tribe under the phrase Alaska Native
organizations. He expressed he thinks that as the bill drafters
made this change, federally recognized tribes were not added in,
precisely because of the dynamic that it could potentially open
the VPSO program to all 229 entities, and they were not prepared
for that. He said he thinks that Representative Jonathan
Kreiss-Tomkins was the bill sponsor.
2:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that Representative Kreiss-
Tomkins' legislation managed to make an exception for Tlingit &
Haida to continue to operate, even though it is not a nonprofit
corporation. She expressed that she has a hard time seeing why
there shouldn't be an amendment allowing for any tribe that
wants to apply to operate a VPSO program to be able to, if it
feels it could do a better job than that being done currently by
another organization. She said that she has represented
villages in the past, and sometimes tribal entities think they
could do a better job than a regional association. She remarked
that this may or may not be the case, and she asked, "Why not
let it be open and let the chips fall where they may?"
2:41:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there are short-term and long-
term goals, and the proposed legislation is a "near-term view"
of allowing the VPSO program to grow under control. He said
that another near-term goal, over the next couple of years, is
to move the VPSO program under APSC, but under HB 287 it would
remain under DPS regulation as it is currently. He expressed
that this was mainly because these are significant policy lifts,
and he said that the VPSO work group focused on issues that had
"the most immediacy, to achieve the most good in a legislative
session that is now overrun with Coronavirus." He remarked that
time was short, and Representative LeDoux had brought up a good
policy discussion. He expressed that long term, that was the
direction that the work group wanted things to go. He said that
the grantees who the proposed legislation was for, for rural
public safety in rural Alaska, are uncomfortable with "opening
it wide open at this time," as the money available to the
program would not be increased, aside from another $1 million
that was appropriated, if it "survives." He reiterated that one
of the grantees should be allowed to comment on the topic,
because it is just a policy call.
2:43:14 PM
MR. NEMETH explained that his organization, Aleutian Pribilof
Islands Association, represents 13 tribes in the Aleutian
Pribilof Islands Region. He explained that a board member from
each of those tribes sits on his organization's board, and there
is a resolution through the board which allows his organization
to manage the VPSO program for his region. He expressed that he
is not certain how other organizations work but said that he
thinks they also have board members representing their tribes,
or the tribe members at least have access to the board and could
bring concerns if they were not happy with the management of
their programs. He said that there is one organization
representing 13 tribes, with 6 VPSOs within those 13 tribes,
because 3 of the larger communities have their own municipal
police departments. He remarked that another 20 tribes being
allowed to apply on their own and receive funds would make it
much more different to manage the program as 30 grantees than as
10 grantees. He commented that he thinks Captain Merrill could
speak to his, as he has worked so closely with the 10 grantee
organizations over approximately the past five years. He said
that it seems to him like it would be almost an impossible
barrier to overcome, with that number of grantees.
2:45:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she agreed with Mr. Nemeth
that it would be impossible to change from one grantee to an
additional 10 or 15 grantees. She remarked that perhaps it
could be structured so that there is a grant for running an
entire program in a specific region; as an example, she pointed
out the Aleutian Pribilof area. She said that a tribe might
think it could run a VPSO program better and cheaper, and the
grantor would need to analyze the situation to determine if this
might be the case. She stated that when she heard
Representative Kopp say that the grantees feel uncomfortable
holding it open to anyone else, she thinks that it is similar to
a business, such as a bar, being uncomfortable with having more
licenses, but this does not necessarily mean that other licenses
could not be a good thing.
2:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that there are near-term and
long-term goals, and the work group is looking at the best near-
term approach that the grantees have identified would allow for
the program to grow in a healthy way. He expressed that
Representative LeDoux was identifying a future that he thinks is
possible, but he reminded her that each grantee acts like a
local public safety department, and he reiterated that the
tribes are represented on those boards. He pointed out that his
staff, Mr. Truitt, was a former VPSO coordinator when he was
general counsel to Tlingit & Haida and ran the program in
Southeast Alaska. He explained that Tlingit & Haida's board
works the same way as Mr. Nemeth had explained his board works;
tribes are represented on the boards. He said that
Representative LeDoux's suggestion was like asking why a
competitive bid wouldn't that be allowed for the Anchorage
Police Department, and he explained it would not be allowed
because it is a municipality police department. He stated that
the tribes have long-standing public safety partnerships that
have gone on for decades; it is not like there are a few people
waiting in the wings to bid and provide a service. He
summarized that a future where more doors are opened could be
theorized, but the reality is that the VPSO program is stable
and is structured like local public safety, and he said that is
the best way he could explain it.
2:48:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks there are two sides to the
question: one side is that if the goal were to make the program
more competitive, then those changes should be put in place
under statute now; and the other side is that there is not
really a worry, as there have been a limited number of entities
applying for the program over the years. He expressed that it
seems unlikely that someone would apply for the program in the
near-term, even if the proposed legislation were to open the
program to more entities. He said that he would expect to see
the same program operators coming back, as getting dialed up
with the level of resources needed to run a program would be
problematic.
2:50:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she would agree that she did
not envision many people applying for the program; however, she
said the program has so many problems with recruitment,
retention, and most everything else, that it is not as if
nothing needs to be changed and everything is going great. She
commented that another entity may, however unlikely, have a good
idea, and she asked, "Why would you want to preclude it?"
2:51:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the question has already been
asked and answered, and he expressed that he thinks
Representative LeDoux is speaking to a future that is desirable.
He commented that when opening the door without giving the
grantees an adequate understanding of what that might currently
look like, the caution received was that the grantees appreciate
the direction the VPSO work group wanted to go, but that
currently they do not know what that might look like and need
time to process it.
2:51:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that his sense from DPS was that it does not
have a strong position as to whether the language, "federally
recognized tribes", should remain in the proposed legislation.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted for the committee that this discussion was a
lot of background that would help when getting to amendments.
He remarked that it might seem as if this was a more detailed
work-through on the proposed legislation than might be seen
usually in this committee but said that he thinks this is part
of an effort to move HB 287 forward with some of the limits in
time. He remarked that Representative Kopp had commented
briefly on a conviction issue, and asked what other issues were
on Representative Kopp's list.
2:52:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied, "That just about covers it." He
said DOL had asked for clarity that the intent is to allow VPSOs
to cover multiple villages, and he confirmed that is the intent.
He pointed out one section of the proposed legislation, under AS
18.65.670(e) and (f), which seemed to require a VPSO for each
village under (e), while (f) said a VPSO could cover multiple
villages. He said [the working group] was looking at language
to clarify that while villages do partner with the state in this
program, it is not the intent of the proposed legislation that a
VPSO would not be allowed to go out of a village to a
neighboring village, if that is where the need is.
2:53:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he knew Representative Kopp had met
with DOL, and he requested that Representative Kopp's office
also communicate directly with Captain Merrill to share proposed
amendments. He said that while he acknowledges that at some
level the DOL should be speaking on behalf of the troopers, he
recognizes that it can be helpful to have the perspective of the
troopers. He shared that he had been working on a different
bill, and the DOL criminal division seemed content, but a couple
of police departments had some questions, and so he had asked
that they coordinate with Captain Merrill, so Captain Merrill
had an opportunity to review proposed amendments.
2:54:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSHB 287(TRB) would be held over for
further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Ed Mercer Application 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Daniel Weatherly Application 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Joseph White Resume 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Police Standards Council Appointment - Jennifer Winkelman Resume 3.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 287 v. O 3.11.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Sponsor Statement v. K 3.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM HTRB 3/3/2020 8:00:00 AM HTRB 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Sectional Analysis v. O 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD (Updated) 3.13.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Additional Document - DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Additional Document - VPSO Co-Chairs Response to DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.12.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-ALET 3.2.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCRA 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 3.2.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-VPSO 3.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 174 v. K 3.11.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Sponsor Statement 2.25.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Sectional Analysis v. K 3.4.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Explanation of Changes v. M to v. K 3.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - States Should Enact Tobacco 21 to Reinforce New Federal Law 1.7.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - JUUL Labs letter 2.24.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Supporting Document - American Lung Association Letter 3.3.2020.pdf |
HCRA 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DCCED-CBPL 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DHSS-BHA 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |
| HB 174 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 174 |