Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/20/2020 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 | |
| Violent Crime Compensation Board | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
1:16:47 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).]
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that his office had received 10 amendments to
HB 287. He noted that in addition to the 10 amendments, his
office had received a one-page memo from the bill sponsor
Representative Kopp's office [hard copy included in the
committee packet], which talks about the definition of indirect
cost and indirect cost rate. He said there had been a question
as to whether that should be an amendment, and the memorandum
addresses the reason as to why it is not an amendment.
1:18:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.2, Radford, 3/18/20, which read as follows:
Page 4, lines 6 - 7:
Delete ", federally recognized tribes,"
Page 4, lines 8 - 9:
Delete ", federally recognized tribes,"
Page 4, line 14:
Delete ", federally recognized tribes,"
Page 6, line 11:
Delete "a federally recognized tribe,"
Page 6, line 30:
Delete "direct grant recipients or"
1:18:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN objected to the motion, for the purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that Amendment 1 would remove a
reference to "federally recognized tribes" in response to the
concern that there are 229 recognized tribes. He said that the
proposed legislation would not exponentially improve the funding
for the program. He said there have been 10 long-acting
grantees with well-established relationships, and it was not the
intent to come up with another $100 million dollars for the
program. He said that this would also provide stability of
funding and more certainty to the current program participants.
1:19:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.14, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 8, lines 28 - 29:
Delete "if less than 10 years has elapsed since
the individual's use"
Insert "unless the individual was under 21 years of
age at the time of the possession and the possession
occurred more than 10 years before the date of hire"
1:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing page 8 of the proposed
legislation, stated that this amendment deals with the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) qualifications. He said that an
individual who has not been previously convicted is otherwise
eligible. He said that the language in the current version of
the bill says that an individual cannot have been convicted of
possession of a controlled substance as defined under AS
11.71.900, which are all controlled substances other than
marijuana, if less than 10 years has elapsed since the
individual's use. He said that this proved to be somewhat
problematic and was inconsistent with other public safety job
classes, so to make the requirement more uniform across job
classes, the reference to "if less than 10 years has elapsed
since the individual's use" would be deleted and replaced with
"unless the individual was under 21 years of age at the time of
the possession and the possession occurred more than 10 years
before the date of hire". He said that this consolidates
things. He said that a mistake under the age of 21 is not an
automatic disqualifier, and he reminded the committee members
that drug possession for first-time offenders is now a
misdemeanor, whereas it used to be a felony. He reiterated the
10-year time limit for eligibility as well.
1:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment
2 was adopted.
1:21:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.13, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 6, line 17:
Delete "probation"
Insert "pretrial, probation,"
Page 14, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) providing pretrial, probation, and parole
supervision to persons under supervision by
communicating with and monitoring the activities and
progress of these persons at the direction of pretrial
services, probation, and parole officers;"
1:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that VPSOs are an integral part of
Alaska's probation and parole program and provide services in
rural Alaska. He said that the Department of Corrections (DOC)
noted that VPSOs are also needed for pretrial services to
supervise individuals. He stated that DOC noted that the VPSOs
are already doing the job on the probation and parole side, and
the department requested that the statute be updated to reflect
that VPSOs could also supervise people in rural Alaska on the
pretrial side.
1:22:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 3. There being no further objection, Amendment
3 was adopted.
1:22:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.15, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 7, following line 29:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(3) is of good moral character;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 8, line 4:
Delete "crime against a person under AS 11.41"
Page 8, lines 6 - 9:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly.
Page 9, line 11, following "section,":
Insert "(1) "good moral character" means the
absence of acts or conduct that would cause a
reasonable person to have substantial doubts about an
individual's honesty, fairness, and respect for the
rights of others and for the laws of this state and
the United States; for purposes of this section, a
determination of lack of good moral character may be
based on a consideration of all aspects of a person's
character;
(2)"
1:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing page 7 of the proposed
legislation, stated that when talking about VPSO qualifications,
Amendment 4 would establish that they also must be of "good
moral character". He explained that this statement is also in
the police officer and corrections officer statute, and the
amendment would standardize that the program is looking for
people of good moral character. He said that the next portion
of Amendment 4 would delete the reference "crime against a
person under AS 11.41". He explained the reason for this is
because the amendment would make all felony crimes
disqualifiers; therefore, it would not matter what a felony was
for; it would always be a disqualifier. He said this would make
the language consistent with other public safety job
classifications. He explained that the amendment would delete
more language on page 8, because of the change to make all
felonies disqualifiers. He said that the amendment would insert
a definition for "good moral character", which would be the same
definition as is in statute currently.
1:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 4. There being no further objection, Amendment
4 was adopted.
1:24:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.4, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 8, line 11, following "conviction":
Insert ", the conviction was not for an offense
against an intimate partner, spouse, child, or
parent,"
1:24:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
1:24:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing page 8 of the proposed
legislation, stated that Amendment 5 would specifically address
crimes of domestic violence pertaining to VPSO qualifications.
He said that what was heard in testimony from the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) is that it has had challenges getting
waivers for crimes of domestic violence, as well as a challenge
in making a complete exclusion for all crimes of domestic
violence. He pointed out that currently under DPS regulations,
an individual who has not had a domestic violation for 10 years
is eligible to be considered. He said DPS had commented that
depending on what the domestic violence crime was, it could
sometimes get a waiver and other times could not, which has been
a challenge. A waiver cannot be acquired if a domestic violence
conviction is against an intimate partner, spouse, child, or
parent, but can be for some other exceptions; therefore,
Amendment 5 would simply clarify the range of domestic violence
convictions that would be disqualifiers.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 5. There being no further objection, Amendment
5 was adopted.
1:26:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.12, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 5, line 11:
Following "funding":
Insert ", depending on the funds awarded,"
Following "for":
Insert "at least"
1:26:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that Amendment 6 would make clear the
legislative intent to provide funding for one or more VPSO in
each village, depending on the funds awarded. Referencing page
5 of the proposed legislation, he explained that there was a
question about "an award of grant funding must provide for one
village public safety officer for each village" followed
directly below by language that read that a grant recipient may
assign more than one VPSO to a village. He said that this was
an oversight in drafting, and he wants to make it clear that if
the funds exist, a village could get more than one VPSO, if
needed.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 6. There being no further objection, Amendment
6 was adopted.
1:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.9, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "35"
Insert "30"
1:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referencing page 6 of the proposed
legislation, stated that Amendment 7 would delete "35" and
insert "30", in order to strive toward more efficiency.
1:28:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he would oppose Amendment 7. He
explained that the organizations currently involved as grantees
with the VPSO program are delivering a state public safety
service. He remarked that government organizations and their
indirect costs are absorbed by the state. He explained that a
trooper costs the state $200,000 annually, which covers
Information Technology (IT), Human Resources (HR), the Office of
Professional Standards, and the entire support team to keep that
trooper in rural Alaska. He said that a VPSO is paid $25 hourly
through the grantees, and the grantees assume the entire
function of supporting the VPSOs. He commented that the
Association of Village Council Presidents has an indirect rate
that is considerably higher than the 35 percent proposed under
HB 287, at 41.7 percent; this is what it costs to support a VPSO
outside of the direct labor cost. He stated that the Copper
River Native Association, which is a partner in this program,
has an indirect rate of 39.6 percent, and others have rates at
or above the proposed 35 percent. He remarked that it seems
like setting the indirect rate at 30 percent would be a
significant hardship on these organizations. He commented that
part of the Working Group's findings, which were unanimously
adopted by members of the Senate and the House, was that there
is a significantly unfunded mandate that is limiting the VPSO
program's effectiveness. He explained that the proposed
legislation would not provide for more money but would allow for
money to be moved around based on public safety needs in the
appropriation that is received. He pointed out that public
safety needs vary from region to region. He summarized that for
these reasons, and to not "handcuff" the grantees, he would
oppose Amendment 7.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that she wants to ensure that
money will be put directly into the "hands of the boots on the
ground" and to try and find more efficiencies in the way
business is conducted. She expressed that she does not want to
limit the grantees but wants to find creative and responsible
ways to use the funds and ensure that the VPSOs themselves are
getting the funding needed. She said that the proposed
amendment was an effort to continue to create a goal for the
grantees to reach, not to prohibit them from using the funds in
the way that they see necessary.
1:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 7.
1:31:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 7.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Vance voted in favor
of the motion to adopt Amendment 7, labeled 31-LS1486\O.9,
Radford, 3/19/20. Representatives Kopp, Drummond, Shaw, and
Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a
vote of 1-4.
1:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.11, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 14, following line 12:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(5) assisting the Department of Public
Safety with felony investigations;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
1:32:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referencing page 14 of the proposed
legislation, stated that she wanted to provide clarity to the
language "conducting investigations" by adding "(5) assisting
the Department of Public Safety with felony investigations".
She said that not all VPSOs are fully trained in areas that they
would be assisting DPS in investigations. She said that there
are obviously times when troopers are not able to get to
villages in a timely fashion, and a VPSO would be able to start
an investigation so that the community would not have to wait,
but it would be under the consultation of the troopers and DPS
via telephone, email, or whatever means necessary.
1:34:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that he would not support Amendment
8. He said that he appreciated what Representative Vance was
pointing out, but said that on page 13 of the proposed
legislation, it read "powers and duties of village public safety
officers", and this makes it clear that an individual certified
under the training requirements has the power of a peace officer
of the state or a municipality, and is charged with doing all of
those things pertaining to: protection of life and property,
provision of emergency medical services, search and rescue,
probation and parole, conducting investigations, and enforcing
the criminal laws of the state or municipality. He stated that
these things are already listed in the entirety of what VPSOs
do, and he said that Representative Vance was right to point out
that they assist DPS with felony investigations. He clarified
that VPSOs are often on a scene upwards of two days before a
trooper can arrive in major felony crimes, whether it be for
child abduction, murder cases, other homicides, or sexual
assaults. He said that testimony had been heard pointing out
that the conviction rate is much higher because the VPSOs are
there.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that Representative Vance made a point
in asking whether the VPSOs would be performing these duties
when they are not trained, and he said that the reason there is
a 24-month plan for certification is because there is a limit on
what the VPSOs can do until they are trained and have the full
complement of hours, in order to make sure they have sexual
assault and death investigation trainings. He said that he
thinks it is superfluous to the proposed legislation that the
VPSOs do these things, but he does not want to add language that
would indicate that they would not be authorized to perform
these activities without a trooper, if they are in fact trained
to do that activity. He stated that the rewrite of the proposed
legislation is structured so that the VPSOs will have the
training and the authority to do so.
1:36:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND maintained her objection to the motion
to adopt Amendment 8.
1:36:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the reason she wants clarity is
because when she read through the proposed legislation, she did
not see clarity as to the defined roles and responsibilities,
whereas the bill sponsor has an understanding of what the VPSOs
have been doing. She said what is clearly defined in statute
will be how DPS and the VPSOs can move forward. She said that
she wanted to ensure that everything is very clear so that there
would not be a gray area, and the purpose of Amendment 8 was "so
that they aren't doing things that could get them in trouble
through litigation in the future."
1:37:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that he understands where
Representative Vance was going with Amendment 8, in the
assistance of DPS in felony investigations, but he said that
having taught at the academy and taught VPSOs, they do have a
level of training that meets the minimums, and within the 24-
month period will probably exceed the minimums in many respects,
and they have enough training to take up felony investigations
by themselves. He said that the VPSOs will always be there to
assist, but as Representative Kopp highlighted, they do not have
the advantage of a trooper onsite all the time, thus VPSOs will
have to take the initial response to a potential felony
investigation. He expressed that he appreciates following up to
ensure that all the bases are covered. He said Representative
Kopp had made a good point relative to the amount of training
and the amount of time that it takes to get the training, as
well as the justification for taking on an investigation
individually.
1:38:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Shaw, and Vance
voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.11, Radford, 3/19/20. Representatives Kopp, Drummond,
and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed by a
vote of 2-3.
1:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 9, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.8, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 28, following "funding.":
Insert "If the grant recipient is a federally
recognized tribe, the grant agreement must include a
limited waiver of sovereign immunity to allow civil
actions against the tribe arising out of the conduct
of a village public safety officer hired by the
tribe."
1:39:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that the reason she was bringing
this forward was not in any way to diminish the sovereignty of
tribes, but to allow the public a process of bringing a case
forward in the case of misconduct by a VPSO. She said that
there have been cases in the state in which an individual was
bringing litigation over alleged misconduct, and the court said
that [the person being accused of misconduct] could not be sued
because he/she had sovereign immunity. She expressed that from
the perspective of the person seeking justice, she thinks there
needs to be an avenue available.
1:41:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that Amendment 9 was moot because
the reference to federally recognized tribes had been removed
previously; therefore, the grantees are all nonprofits, and it
is a trilateral partnership between the state, a village, and a
nonprofit corporation, which is in fact a tribe that has formed
a nonprofit. He said that every agreement now with a grantee
requires these waivers, and there is no functioning VPSO program
currently operating without a waiver. He stated that putting
this into statute does not help, as it is already required by
the state. He summarized that for these reasons he thinks
Amendment 9 is moot.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked where it is defined that the state
requires this in the agreement for hiring VPSOs. She asked how
there is an existing case in which a judge said, "Sorry they
have sovereign immunity," if this agreement already exists.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it is true that a tribal
government would have sovereign immunity; however, no sovereign
immunity is limitless. He said that the way the proposed
legislation is structured, and the way the reference was
removed, the committee is not dealing with a tribal government
alone, in the context of CSHB 287(TRB), as amended. He remarked
that he thinks Representative Vance's question is whether he can
point to a specific statute or regulation, and he said that he
could not. He said that his team member used to supervise the
VPSO program in Southeast Alaska, and he would refer the
question to him.
1:43:04 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, answered questions pertaining to HB 287, on behalf
of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor, offered the following
explanation:
It's a policy that the Department of Law has; it's
internal to their ... workings, so that's where it
resides and that's where these originate from. And I
can tell you, from having reviewed them and having
signed some of them, most of the tribes don't really
like them; they're very much over broad.
MR. TRUITT related that in other states where there are similar
types of agreements between the state government and tribal
governments, there is no requirement for this type of waiver of
a tribe's sovereign immunity. He expressed that this is always
a bit of a "rub" with tribal governments in Alaska, but it is
the condition things are in; "it already happens." He said that
he is not certain to which case Representative Vance had
referred. He said Representative Kopp is correct in that every
grantee currently executes a waiver in the grant award agreement
with DPS, "and without it being in statute."
1:44:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referenced the notion presented earlier that the
Municipality of Anchorage would be allowed to be sued if a
police officer acting beyond his/her duties committed a crime
against an individual that would make him/her subject to
criminal penalties. He commented that he did not think there
would be any hesitation to say that sovereign immunity protects
the Municipality of Anchorage, and that unless egregious
misconduct and gross negligence could be shown, like hiring an
individual even if it was known that he/she had three prior
sexual assaults, the city could not be sued in civil court for
having hired the officer. He said that the notion that Native
nonprofit organizations should get into the public safety
business with the state, but they could be sued civilly if an
employee makes an error on the job, would be treating them
differently from other sovereigns in the same world. He said
that he finds it interesting that the Department of Law is
nevertheless requiring that they sign just such a waiver, even
though it could never get the Municipality of Anchorage to do
the same thing. He expressed that the interesting issue raised
by Representative Kopp is whether Amendment 9 is needed if no
federally recognized tribes are eligible.
1:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 9.
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 10, labeled 31-
LS1486\O.10, Radford, 3/19/20, which read as follows:
Page 10, lines 13 - 29:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 18.65.676. Training. (a) A village public
safety officer must successfully complete the Public
Safety Training Academy provided by the Department of
Public Safety and a basic training program. The
program must include
(1) rural fire protection training approved
by the Department of Public Safety;
(2) emergency trauma technician training
approved by the Department of Public Safety and
provided by an entity other than the Department of
Public Safety; and
(3) search and rescue training."
Page 11, line 22, following "requirements":
Insert "established by the Department of Public
Safety"
1:46:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referencing page 10 of the proposed
legislation, stated that Amendment 10 would get the VPSOs to
successfully complete the Public Safety Training Academy, and
would include rural fire protection training approved by DPS,
emergency trauma technician training, and search and rescue
training, and an annual firearm qualifications requirement
established by DPS. She said that the proposed amendment would
provide clarity on the training in line with the goal of VPSOs
being part of the academy.
1:47:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he opposed Amendment 10. He
said that it goes diametrically in the opposite direction of the
intent of the proposed legislation to provide specificity and
remove points of contention. As an example, he said that a full
program currently is 826 hours of instruction. The main block
of 650 hours is Alaska criminal procedural law, and there are
additional VPSO-specific instructions, as noted on page 10 of
the proposed legislation, pertaining to emergency trauma
technician training, search and rescue training, and rural fire
protection specialist training. He said that this program, if
not under statute and left solely to the discretion of DPS,
could be reduced to only a couple of hundred hours, which did
occur at some point when there was an attempt to shelve the
program. He remarked that this resulted in very untrained
people being put into even more dangerous situations, with
basically only a 240-hour training requirement; whereas what is
listed under the proposed legislation is what happens currently,
and it is made clear that in addition to elevating this group of
public safety partners that are providing a service to the State
of Alaska, it also gets at recruitment and retention of having a
well-defined training schedule in statute. He expressed that
Amendment 10 would basically say that the requirement is subject
to what DPS says it should be, which could result in another
commissioner saying that "you get a 100-hour academy, and then
that's only enough to maybe train you to do search and rescue,"
and he said that this would be a way of defeating the entire
purpose of CSHB 287(TRB), as amended.
1:50:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND maintained her objection to the motion
to adopt Amendment 10.
1:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 10.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked Representative Kopp for clarifying
this topic for the record, and she expressed that she thought
the legislative intent to increase the training and capacity of
the VPSOs needed to be clearly explained for the record. She
said that it should be known that it is desired for the program
to succeed and be equipped to fulfill a job that is needed in
the villages.
1:51:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that there were no more amendments to CSHB
287(TRB), as amended, and this was the last opportunity for
members of the committee to comment on the proposed legislation.
1:51:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, referencing pages 6 and 7 of the proposed
legislation, remarked that there were a lot of specifics as to
what government-to-government interactions should look like, and
she asked Representative Kopp why what seems to be "intent
language" was put into CSHB 287(TRB), as amended, when it seems
to her that it should have been included in a different bill
that dealt with intergovernmental relations with tribes.
1:52:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the structured relationship is
a standard consulting relationship with which all tribal
grantees, which act as regional nonprofits, currently work. He
explained that this is not a new concept, and "they understand
what it means." He said that the previous two gubernatorial
administrations have asked the state department heads to consult
in this way, which prevents a radical change to requirements to
be a VPSO or a structural upheaval to the program, without
talking to the grantees first. He stated that the government-
to-government consultation process is how the state deals with
tribes currently, and the proposed legislation would simply
dictate that the current protocol be followed before any large
changes would be made to the VPSO program. He added that this
process is used in other programs that are partnerships between
the state and tribes.
1:54:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW commented that Representative Vance had
looked through the proposed legislation in depth, while he had
taken a lot of things for granted when he looked at the proposed
legislation, as he had been a part of the program at the academy
for many years. He stated that he knows how deeply
Representative Kopp understands the value of the VPSO program,
as he "put him through the academy." He highlighted that seeing
Representative Vance's thorough review of the proposed
legislation "was pretty nice to see." He said that he didn't
want to go against every one of her amendments, which was why he
had supported her on [Amendment 8], as she had put the time into
looking through the proposed legislation.
1:55:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated that she has served on the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee since her
"freshmen" year in 2013, and she said that that committee has
the good fortune of being the budget subcommittee for DPS, as
well as DOC. She expressed that she has heard continuously for
eight years about the shambles that the VPSO program has been
in, and she said that CSHB 287(TRB), as amended, is desperately
needed. She expressed that she is pleased that the bill sponsor
has provided the proposed legislation to guide the state and
achieve better public safety in as many communities as possible.
She stated that she is happy to be helping to move the proposed
legislation forward.
1:56:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to a question from Representative
Vance, stated that the committee's intent was to move CSHB
287(TRB), as amended, from committee that day, and if more
discussion was necessary, then the committee could reconvene
later in the day.
1:57:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE remarked that she has a lot of concerns
about the proposed legislation, as she likes things to be as
clear as possible when put into statute so that everyone
involved will know what their roles, duties, and
responsibilities are. She said that because this is so
important, she wants to ensure that all parties involved are
safeguarded. She expressed that she appreciates some of the
amendments and changes to CSHB 287(TRB), as amended, in the many
times it had been "worked over." She said that she knows that
the proposed legislation will not be perfect but added that she
was still cautious because she would rather work on the solution
for true healing, not just a "band-aid." She stated that she
would like to partner on the long-term goals, in the hopes that
they would not have to be considered long term anymore but be
accomplished in the short term. She said that she looks forward
to further conversations on the proposed legislation and hopes
that the village needs for public safety can be achieved sooner
than later.
1:58:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP thanked Representative Vance. He added that
the proposed legislation was going to the finance committee
next, where he is sure that it will be "further massaged."
1:58:17 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the delivery of rural public safety in
Alaska is a challenge and commitment that everyone believes in
and shares. He expressed that there is a lot of work to do, and
CSHB 287(TRB), as amended, would be a step forward but would not
solve all the problems. He commented that he and Representative
Vance sit next to each other on the House floor and have more
engaged discussion every day, and he said that she is very
passionate about improving rural public safety, as "all of us"
are. He summarized that he thinks CSHB 287(TRB), as amended,
would be a positive step, he supports the proposed legislation,
and he acknowledged there will be further work to do on the
issue.
1:59:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND moved to report CSHB 287(TRB), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
287(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Violent Crime Compensation Board Appointment - Greg Bringhurst Resume 3.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Violent Crime Compensation Board Appointment - Richard Payne Application 3.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2020 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 Additional Document - Memo From Rep. Kopp on Definition of “Indirect Cost†and “Indirect Cost Rate†3.19.2020.pdf |
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 287 v. O Amendments #1-10 HJUD 3.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 v. O Amendments #1-10 HJUD Final Votes 3.20.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |