Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/28/2022 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 | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointees: Kevin Fimon, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (amhta) Board of Trustees | |
| SB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 81
"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."
9:10:20 AM
SENATOR DONNIE OLSON, SPONSOR, introduced his staff.
9:10:30 AM
JULEE DOUGLAS, STAFF, SENATOR DONNIE OLSON, relayed that
she was a First Alaskan Fellow.
9:10:39 AM
BRIX HANH, STAFF, SENATOR DONNIE OLSON, introduced herself.
9:10:52 AM
Senator Olson introduced the legislation.
9:15:00 AM
Ms. Douglas discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Please note that this is a sectional summary and not
an authoritative interpretation of the bill. The bill
itself is the best statement of its contents.
This bill implements eight of the nine short term
recommendations from the Joint Legislative VPSO
Working Group's report adopted January 24, 2020. The
nine recommendations are:
Recommendation 1. Update the VPSO statutes to provide
a clear law enforcement and public safety vision and
mission for the program and provide VPSO personnel
clear law enforcement duties and powers.
Recommendation 2. Create more financial flexibility
for the VPSO grantee organizations in the updated VPSO
statutes.
Recommendation 3. Restore VPSO funding levels to FY18
levels.
Recommendation 4. Fund unfunded mandates.
Recommendation 5. Related to Recommendation 4, in an
updated VPSO statute, mandate that grant awards pay
grantee organization their full indirect costs.
Recommendation 6. Move financial grant management to
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development.
Recommendation 7. Maintain operational advisory,
training, and experience requirement oversight at the
Department of Public Safety.
Recommendation 8. In statute create a Tribal/Grantee
organization consultation process before the
Department can change training and experience
requirements.
Recommendation 9. Revised versions (consistent with
the recommendations of this report) of current VPSO
regulations need to be placed in statute in order to
operationalize the VPSO program and to facilitate the
grant management moving to the Department of Commerce.
Section 1 (pages 1-3)
Amends AS 12.62.400 regarding criminal history
background checks and adds VPSO program personnel as a
program the Department of Public Safety is authorized
to secure background checks via the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The substantive change occurs on page
3, line 21.
Section 2 (page 3)
Related to Section 1, Amends AS 18.65.080, one of the
Department of Public Safety's enabling statutes. The
amendment requires that the Department secure the
background checks for VPSO program personnel.
Sections 1 and 2 implement Recommendation 2 regarding
creating more financial flexibility for the program.
At one point the Department of Public Safety (DPS) was
conducting background checks for the VPSO program then
unilaterally stopped with no notice the grantee
organizations. Sections 1 and 2 together make it clear
that background checks are a DPS function for the VPSO
program.
Section 3 (pages 4-7)
In current statute the VPSO program has only one
statute, AS 18.65.670. Section 3 proposes to repeal
and reenact the statute and add multiple new
subsections.
Subsection (a) has been rewritten to conform to
the current Legislative Drafting Manual and
because a new statute is proposed in Bill Section
4, AS 18.65.686, that updates VPSO duties and
powers.
Subsection (b) is identical to existing (b),
except the last sentence of existing (b) is not
included as it was deemed unnecessary.
Subsection (c) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13 AAC
96.020. This implements Recommendation 9.
Subsection (d) is new and is the statutory
codification of current DPS regulation 13 AAC
96.030 with changes that remove the prohibition
of existing 13 AAC 96.030(2) that prevents the
payment of bonuses from other non-VPSO grant
revenue sources. Also removed is the requirement
that grantees indemnify the state. These changes
implement Recommendations, 2, 4, and 9.
Subsection (e) is new and is the partial
statutory codification of current DPS regulations
13 AAC 96.040, specifically, (a)(2). This
subsection sets the overall policy that one VPSO
is generally assigned to one village unless the
grantee organization requests additional VPSO
personnel per village. The changes reflect a more
neutral and less harsh tone than the language
from the regulation.
Subsection (f) is new and allows for traveling or
"roving" VPSO personnel who are permitted to
itinerate between villages within a grantee's
region as public safety needs arise. These
changes implement Recommendations 1, 2, and 9.
Subsection (g) is new and is the partial
statutory codification of current DPS regulations
13 AAC 96.040. New (g) contains grant award
record keeping requirements and other grant
management requirements. These changes implement
Recommendations 1, 2, and 9.
Subsection (h) contains new regulation adopting
authority for the DPS commissioner, subject to
the new consultation requirements of new (l) of
this bill section. These changes implement
Recommendations 1, 2, and 8.
Subsection (i) allows for funding grantee
organizations' indirect rates up to a statewide
average of 35%. This language has been used as
intent language in multiple prior operating
budget bills. These changes partially implement
Recommendations 2, 4-5.
Subsection (j) is new and provides explicit
instruction to the commissioner on grant fund
disbursement. Specifically, that grant funds can
be used for items reasonably related to public
safety and VPSO duties as codified in this bill.
Further, grant fund disbursement is to be timely
and funding request are not to be unreasonably
withheld. These changes partially implement
Recommendation 2.
Subsections (k) and (l) are related to new (i)
and provides for a consultation and negotiated
rule-making process for when any of the state
agencies involved with the VPSO program exercise
their regulation adopting authority. These
changes implement Recommendation 8.
Section 4 (pages 8-14)
Creates new statutes:
AS 18.65.672 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.080 dealing with
VPSO qualification requirements. These changes
implement Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.674 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.090 dealing with
VPSO background checks. These changes implement
Recommendation 9.
AS 18.65.676 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.100 dealing with
VPSO training requirements. These changes
implement Recommendations 1 and 9.
AS 18.65.678 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulations 13 AAC 96.040(b)(8) and
13 AAC 96.100 dealing with VPSO firearm training
requirements. These changes implement
Recommendations 9.
AS 18 65.682 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.110 dealing with
VPSO certification. These changes implement
Recommendations 9.
AS 18.65.684 is the statutory codification of
current DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.120 dealing with
the denial, revocation, or lapse of a VPSO
certificate. These changes implement
Recommendations 9.
AS 18.65.686 contains the duties and functions
that VPSO personnel are currently performing but
are not codified in the existing statute. This
implements Recommendation 1.
AS 18.65.688 is a definitional section to deal
with various terms used throughout the new
statutory sections.
Section 5 (page 14)
Creates in the uncodified law a standard grandfather
provision for existing VPSO personnel who may have
been certified under different training requirements
than what is provided for in this bill.
Section 6 (page 14)
Creates in the uncodified law a requirement that DPS
continue its current level of interaction between
itself and the VPSO personnel. That requirement is
codified in current VPSO statute AS 18.65.670(c) with
the language relating to DPS regulation authority
extending to "the interaction between the Department
of Public Safety and village public safety officers."
This requirement is maintained by bill section 3(i)
which uses the exact wording regarding DPS regulation
authority.
Section 7 (page 14)
Is an effective date provision and provides that the
subsections (b) (g) of repealed and reenacted AS
18.65.670 become effective on July 1, 2020. These
subsections are proposed codifications and
modifications of current department regulations. This
will allow the department time to take action to make
the department regulations consistent with the new
provisions of statute enacted by this bill.
Section 8 (page 14).
Provides that all other sections of the bill have an
immediate effective date.
9:26:09 AM
Senator Hoffman appreciated this task force. He wondered
whether the financial flexibility created in Section 2
would allow for grantees to do the work under self-
determination.
9:27:22 AM
Senator Olson replied that the main objective of the bill
was for recruitment and retention of Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSO). He said that the numbers were currently at
an all-time low. He deferred to the Department of Public
Safety (DPS).
9:28:35 AM
JOEL HARD, DIRECTOR, VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, stated that the bill went a
long way towards implementing the recommendations of the
VPSO taskforce convened by the legislature in 2000. He said
he would continue to work with the bill sponsor to create a
more flexible program that focused on recruitment and
retention of VPSO officers. He lamented the past failure of
recognizing work/life balance for officers and the direct
relationship between facilities and infrastructure on
retention.
9:30:35 AM
Senator Hoffman expressed concern that grantees could have
their hands tied and wanted assurances that flexibility
would be available to grantees to expend funds under self-
determination. He thought that the VPSO program saved the
state money but thought that the contracts could be too
restrictive because of too strict interpretation of
contracts by DPS.
9:32:21 AM
Mr. Hard replied that DPS had manages the VPSO program for
40 years. He said that the department was willing to engage
in more flexible budget management. He thought that it
would be advantageous for DPS to better understand the
needs of specific communities to build more flexible
contracts.
9:34:55 AM
Senator Wilson queried the current rate for the grantees.
9:35:11 AM
Mr. Hard replied that the rates were established and
negotiated with the federal government. He did not have the
exact rates.
9:35:29 AM
Senator Olson interjected that DPS was online for
questions.
9:35:45 AM
KELLY HOWELL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, said that the
grantees had rates negotiated with the federal government
that ranged from low percentages to 40 percent.
9:37:01 AM
Senator Wilson looked at Section 6 and wondered whether
there were any issues with VPSOs meeting the hiring
requirements set out in the bill.
9:37:35 AM
Mr. Hard replied that he did not believe so. He stated that
he had worked to ensure that there would not be unintended
consequences. He said that VPSOs under the previous stature
had a requirement of 240 hours of training, which was
elevated under the bill. He said that the new standards
would highlight the law enforcement component of the
program, but the hope was to not eliminate the allowance to
hire under the previous statute at the lower model, which
was heavier on the public safety component. He hoped that a
suite of capabilities would be available to villages.
9:39:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there had been a struggle
with the VPSO program over the years, and it had been
difficult to get the political support to strengthen the
program. He noted that some communities could not support a
police department but still deserved basic public safety.
He shared that some of his communities believed that the
communities should be the grantee. He pointed to Section 3
and expressed concern that organized villages might be
precluded from applying. He wondered why the bill was so
restrictive in allowing the communities to receive and
distribute the grants. He expressed concern with the pay
scale for VPSOs. He relayed the concerns of constituents
who lived in villages without any public safety presence.
9:45:16 AM
Senator Olson remarked that the intention of the program
was to provide continuity with a cohesive program with
standards and support. He thought that a centralized
program that provided adequate oversight was necessary.
9:47:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the size of the community
should be considered. He asserted that communities could be
small and sophisticated. He asked about compensation and
whether the pay might be too little. He that the bill could
be an opportunity to provide the necessary financial
flexibility. He reiterated his concerns on VPSO
compensation.
9:50:15 AM
Senator Olson deferred to the department.
Co-Chair Bishop spoke of the financing. He asked for a
definition of "timely distribution" of a grant.
9:51:00 AM
Mr. Hard replied that the department's commissioner was
committed to the VPSO program. He thought that the bill
addressed long existing issues. He thought that too much
time was being spent on the position of VPSOs and felt that
the real question was being lost. He believed the real
issue was wat type of VPSO was needed for each individual
community and how the department could meet that need. He
hoped that the program and statute could be changed to
reflect the current needs of communities. He felt that the
department had done poorly in its management of the
program. He said one area of progress was that salaries in
the 90s were starting at $35,000 annually - currently they
were $60,000 up to $120,000 per year. He said that efforts
were being made towards hiring and retention.
9:55:08 AM
Mr. Hard said that at the peak of the program there were
113 officers - currently there were 51. He believed that
there was room for growth and hoped that innovative
marketing would help. He spoke of current applicants going
through the vetting process. He noted that work/life
balance issues often wore officers out and forced them to
leave their positions.
9:57:09 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered about communities that had no
officers. He spoke to the budget in FY 19 and the increase
in funding for the program over the years - he expressed
concern for the allocation of those resources. He hoped to
work with the bill sponsor to bring in VPSO officers
through City Hall. He stressed the need for more protection
for small communities.
9:59:35 AM
Senator Wielechowski cited Page 11, line 21. He thought
that the language could be interpreted in several ways. He
asked whether there were reasons outside of the language
that could result in the revoking of a VPSO license.
Mr. Hard related that he did not know why the language was
in statute. He said that all circumstance for revoking a
certificate could not be articulated in statute.
Senator Wielechowski thought that the language in the bill
could lead to litigation.
10:01:38 AM
Senator Hoffman asked how communities went about getting a
VPSO and whether there was flexibility for communities to
subcontract with corporations. He asked how unserved or
underserved communities went through the process to get a
VPSO.
10:03:13 AM
Mr. Hard described the process under current statute. He
thought that the current process was flawed. He said that
subcontracting with tribal entities had never been
contemplated but could be beneficial.
10:05:18 AM
Senator Hoffman spoke to the legislature's role in crafting
public safety policy. He felt that the changes to the
program under the proposed legislation took into
consideration only certain public safety considerations.
He asserted that Alaska was diverse, and conditions varied
greatly across the state, which made it important that
public safety policy be crafted to serve the specific needs
of the communities where it would be implemented.
10:06:22 AM
Senator Wilson wondered about program funding over the past
few years, including lapsed funding. He was unsure how the
proposed legislation differed from current statute in
ensuring unfiled positions were going to be filled.
Mr. Hard explained that there were 55 funded positions, 52
VPSO positions and 3 regional coordinators. He furthered
that the governor's budget would add 10 more positions. He
spoke of past lapsed funding, which he felt was due to
years when there were more employees lost than gained. He
said that the issue, with respect to positions, was that
positions could be filled but not for very long. He
lamented that systemic issues drove VPSOs from communities.
He thought that if the statute could be updated to allow
multiple officers assigned to a village and for VPSOs to
move in a transient way to areas that needed support.
10:10:01 AM
Co-Chair Stedman spoke of the grant issue. He wondered what
the difference was when dealing with VPSO grants versus
every other type of grant acquired by local governments. He
asserted that mayors of small towns were just as able to
navigate the grant process as mayors of larger cities.
10:12:16 AM
Senator Olson remarked that there was room for amending the
bill and stated that there would be a committee substitute
crafted that would incorporate suggestions from the
committee and the department.
10:13:03 AM
Senator Wilson looked at page 14 and wondered whether there
current VPSO would fall under the rules of the new statute.
10:13:29 AM
Mr. Hard replied that current VPSOs would not be subject to
the training hour requirement written into the new statute.
He said that much of what was in the bill had been imported
form current regulation, with modest change.
10:14:20 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether any currently employed VPSO
fell under the restrictions listed in Section 4.
10:14:47 AM
Mr. Hard replied in the negative.
10:14:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether a person who had used
marijuana in the past would still be eligible to apply.
10:15:44 AM
Senator Olson considered that everyone makes mistakes when
they are young. He relayed that domestic violence would be
a red flag and that the definition of domestic violence
varied between the city and rural areas. He contended that
the bill had been crafted to reflect the changing times
regarding marijuana.
10:17:52 AM
Co-Chair Bishop opened invited and public testimony.
[NOTE: The following testifiers are to be considered PUBLIC
TESTIMONY.]
10:18:34 AM
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO PROGRAM COORDINATOR, ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF
ISLAND ASSOCIATION, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the legislation. He remarked on the
importance of the partnership between VPSOs and State
Tropers. He thought that statute should evolve and believed
that the proposed bill would meaningfully update the
statutes. He spoke to communities that did not have VPSOs
but wanted them. He said that a diverse selection of voices
existed within his organization. He spoke of the
difficulties of putting a VPSO in every community
regardless of size. He spoke to the indirect rate for his
organization, which was 22.2 percent. He said that the
rated were based on administrative costs for the year and
had been confirmed by a third-party audit. He said that
organizations that managed the programs could reach out to
communities that wanted a VPSO. He lamented that funding
was an issue.
10:24:25 AM
AMBER VASKA, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, ALASKA REGIONAL
COALITION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the bill. She said that VPSO reform was of the highest
priority for the coalition. She stressed the importance of
public safety and the need for improvement in the VPSO
program.
10:28:10 AM
RHONDA PITKA, CHIEF, VILLAGE OF BEAVER, BEAVER (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
stressed the need for public safety in rural Alaska. He
felt that the legislation had significant support from all
stakeholders and was important for triggering meaningful
change to the VPSO program and public safety in rural
Alaska.
10:29:53 AM
JASON WILSON, VPSO COORDINATOR, TLINGIT AND HAIDA CENTRAL
COUNCIL, spoke in support of the legislation. He echoed
previous statements of support for SB 81. He spoke to VPSOs
and TPOs (Tribal Police Officers) in rural communities. He
felt that the bill would cement a strong working
relationship between the department and Tribal communities.
10:32:42 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
10:33:22 AM
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the housekeeping.
SB 81 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmations 2022 - Kevin Fimon Resume 2021 AMHTA_Redacted.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM |
|
| CSSB 81 Version I Explanation of Changes 4.27.21.pdf |
SCRA 4/27/2021 3:30:00 PM SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 Alaska Regional Coalition 2.23.2022.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 Sponsor Statement 2.23.2022.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 Sectional Version I 2.23.2022.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |
| SB 81 VPSO Working Group Report 9 Recommendations Supporting Document 2.23.2022.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 81 |