Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/28/2022 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| SB81 | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 81(CRA)
"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."
2:32:28 PM
Co-Chair Merrick explained that the bill was companion
legislation to HB 313 sponsored by Representative Zulkosky
that was heard in committee on April 5, 2022, and when
public testimony was taken.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSSB 81(CRA), Work Draft 32-LS0362\W
(Radford, 4/22/22) (copy on file).
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion. She asked her
staff to explain the changes in the committee substitute
(CS).
2:33:23 PM
SORCHA HAZELTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK,
explained the changes in the CS. She explained that in
coordination with the sponsors of both bills the CS before
the committee matched the House Special Committee on Tribal
Affairs CS, version B bill previously heard by the
committee. She added that both bills were substantively the
same and there were no changes to what the committee had
already heard.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, the work draft was ADOPTED.
2:34:09 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that Representative Wool joined
the meeting.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, SPONSOR, reiterated that the House and
Senate bills were almost identical, and he supported the
changes in the CS.
Representative Wool cited language in the bill on Page 7,
lines 20 through lines 22 and read:
of a misdemeanor crime involving domestic violence
unless 10 years have passed since the date of
conviction, the conviction was not for an offense
against and intimate partner, spouse, child
Representative Wool asked for clarification of the passage
regarding domestic violence.
2:37:18 PM
Senator Olson deferred the question to the Department of
Public Safety (DPS).
JOEL HARD, DIRECTOR, VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER
OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), replied that the bill contained
restrictions on who was eligible based on previous
convictions. He elaborated that the bill reflected the high
standards of the program. He agreed that the bill
prohibited anyone previously convicted of a felony, a sex
offense, or a misdemeanor crime related to domestic
violence. He indicated that the language was intended to
restrain the hiring of people with a specific criminal
background.
2:39:29 PM
Representative Wool surmised that the provision would
prohibit a person from passing a background check. He was
not advocating on anyones behalf; however, he recalled in
past years based on public testimony that there had been
difficulty finding people able to pass the background
check. He deduced that other provisions in the bill would
negate the 10 year timeframe and cause an applicant to be
ineligible. He asked if it would be burdensome in some
instances.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting via teleconference.
Mr. Hard replied that the bill contained some relaxations
of other misdemeanors with a five year limitation. He
interpreted the bill and the history associated with the
limitations as a recognition that Alaska had a serious
problem with sexual and domestic violence; it was not the
right place to lessen the standard for eligibility.
Representative Carpenter asked why a waiver needed to be
granted in the circumstance. Mr. Hard responded that
waivers were granted to access the criminal justice
information system to obtain criminal records. He noted
that there were restrictions by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI) and the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC) regarding who could access the information.
Applying for a waiver from DPS was necessary to access the
information. Representative Carpenter asked if waivers were
currently regularly granted outside of the Village Public
Safety Officer (VPSO) program with other officers or
individuals within the department. Mr. Hard was unsure of
the answer. He stated that similar waivers were necessary
for other agencies, but he did not know the frequency of
issuance.
2:43:17 PM
JAMES COCKRELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
answered that the department had granted waivers for
criminal justice information to other department members,
and it was typically for a Driving Under the Influence
(DUI) conviction and other crimes. He related that he
reviewed each case and circumstance in totality and
followed guidelines. Representative Carpenter asked if it
was typical for domestic violence. Commissioner Cockrell
replied he had never granted a waiver for a domestic
violence crime. He added that the states domestic violence
statutes were much broader than federal statutes and the
state included many victims other than intimate partners in
its domestic violence laws. Representative Carpenter deemed
that the 10 year exception and the waiver spoke to a
necessity. He asked if it was hard to find a candidate
lacking a misdemeanor for domestic violence.
2:46:11 PM
Senator Olson interjected that it was difficult to recruit
candidates. He mentioned the Northwest Artic Borough and
relayed that there were some recent tragedies, one where a
family of four was killed in a fire. He stressed that not
one VPSO was located in the area. He had put the bill
forward aimed at recruitment and retention, which was a
huge problem. Representative Carpenter understood domestic
violence and sexual assault was a sensitive topic. He
thought wavering on law enforcement officers caused a
credibility problem. He thought the decision would have to
be on a case by case basis. He stated that it made him
uncomfortable. Senator Olson replied that it was on a case
by case basis, and the commissioner significantly
scrutinized the request.
Representative Edgmon shared that he had served on the
working group that preceded the legislation and had
extensive knowledge of the program. He provided context to
the provision. He confirmed that it was very difficult to
hire VPSOs and the best officers know the community well
and had ties to the culture and people in the village. He
noted that VPSOs responded to all kinds of issues and not
just law enforcement. He understood that the language was
for the very rare occasion where the situation may occur.
He viewed it as an additional tool in the toolbox where
there were not enough tools because the state did not have
the ability to recruit and retain enough VPSOs. It was his
understanding that the waiver would be used sparingly if at
all. He hypothesized that a candidate could have committed
the crime when he was young, and alcohol might have been
involved. It is possible that in ten years the individual
had turned their life around. He stated that in that
context the provision was acceptable to him, but he
understood others concerns.
2:50:47 PM
Senator Olson believed Representative Edgmon had hit the
nail on the head with his remarks. He commented that people
were all human and he was thankful people had the ability
to redeem themselves and move forward. He felt blessed that
his community of Golovin had the same VPSO for years and
White Mountain had a VPSO for 35 years, but it was the rare
exception.
Commissioner Cockrell relayed that the bill gave the
department significantly more flexibility to manage the
VPSO program than in the past. He stated that if and when
he issued a waiver, he took it personally because he was
accountable for the decision. He agreed that if a person
committed domestic violence or other crimes at the age of
19 and many years later, they were good citizens it did not
make sense to continually regard them as ineligible. He
stated that the ultimate objective of the bill was to grant
the department more flexibility when working together with
the program. He felt that the department was married to the
VPSO program.
2:53:50 PM
Co-Chair Merrick appreciated that Commissioner Cockrell
acknowledged that the responsibility was on his shoulders.
Representative LeBon asked if there had been restrictions
on hiring a person who was had used marijuana for a state
trooper position. Commissioner Cockrell responded in the
affirmative and stated that restrictions on drug use still
existed for state troopers in relation to how long ago the
use occurred. He recalled that the restriction for
marijuana use was 5 years. Representative LeBon referenced
the legalization of marijuana. He asked about the policy
for marijuana use for VPSOs or interested trooper
candidates. Commissioner Cockrell answered that if a person
worked at a marijuana facility, under federal law they
could potentially be banned from serving as a law
enforcement officer. He was uncertain of the answer
pertaining to current practices. Representative LeBon asked
if state trooper and VPSO candidates were subject to a lie
detector test. Commissioner Cockrell replied that only
state troopers were tested.
Representative Wool was in support of the ability for the
department to issue waivers. He believed the flexibility
was beneficial if used with discretion. He asked if the
department had a policy pertaining to domestic violence. He
wondered whether an officer who committed a sexual or
domestic violence crime was terminated. Commissioner
Cockrell answered that it depended on the circumstances. He
relayed that troopers were under a labor agreement. The
troopers were initially suspended until the investigation
was completed. He was aware of troopers losing their job
due to domestic violence.
2:57:25 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 81(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 81(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with nine
"do pass" recommendations and one "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN3 (DPS); and one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN4 (DPS).
2:58:14 PM
AT EASE
3:01:56 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 81 HCS CS FIN WorkDraft v.W 042222.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| HB 283 A HCS1 ProjectCompareByAgency 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 B HCS1 ProjectDetailByAgency 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 C HCS1 AgencySummary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 HCS WorkDraft v. I 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 Summary of Changes Ver A to Ver I 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 D HCS 1 House District Summary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 E HCS1 House District Summary 042822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 283 Port of Nome USACE 42822.pdf |
HFIN 4/28/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |