Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/08/2022 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB143 | |
| HB256 | |
| HB309 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 309 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 256-LAW ENFORCEMENT: REGISTRY; USE OF FORCE
8:09:31 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 256, "An Act relating to the Alaska Police
Standards Council; relating to municipal correctional officers
and municipal correctional employees; making municipal police
officers subject to police standards; requiring the Department
of Public Safety to submit a yearly use-of-force report to the
legislature; requiring a municipality that employs a person as a
municipal police officer or in a municipal correctional
facility, the Department of Corrections, or the Department of
Public Safety to report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
incidents of use of force by state and municipal police,
probation, parole, and correctional officers and municipal
correctional facility employees; and providing for an effective
date."
8:09:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:09 a.m. to 8:13 a.m.
8:12:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 256. She said she has been working with
Senator Gray-Jackson, whose staff, in addition to her own, has
joined her to present HB 256. She stated the interest in the
proposed legislation comes from the desire to improve public
safety and build trust between the community and law
enforcement. She said she grew up in a household with a
dispatcher and detective, and has spent a lot of time around law
enforcement professionals, and she knows it is a difficult job.
She acknowledged that "one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch."
8:15:04 AM
BESSE ODOM, Staff, Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Alaska State
Legislature, co-presented HB 256. She stated that civilian
casualties have drawn greater attention to policing and police-
to-community relations, as well as created momentum to address a
long-standing injustice within society. She stated that in
2020, the offices of Senator Gray-Jackson and Senator Begich
worked together to develop a series of bills, drafted by
Legislative Legal and Research Services, that are referred to as
"TPIP" - turning pain into progress. She said TPIP was crafted
following the national "Eight Can't Wait" campaign, which
comprises eight specific policies proven to reduce police
violence by as much as 72 percent when implemented correctly.
She said the Senators realized that that campaign should not be
applied to a place as unique as Alaska, and time and effort was
expended in drafting the bills related to TPIP to be customized
specifically for Alaska. She listed public safety agencies that
were involved: the Alaska Police Department, the Alaska Police
Employees Association, the Public Safety Employees Association,
and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives. This proactive approach brings confidence in moving
forward with the implementation of public policy changes that
will benefit both Alaska citizens and law enforcement officers.
8:17:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that HB 256 addresses the reporting
of the use of force into the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) database and aligns training requirements of municipal
correctional officers to those already in training and working
for the state. She deferred to her staff, David Song, to give
the sectional analysis of HB 256.
8:17:49 AM
DAVID SONG, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tarr, prime sponsor,
gave the sectional analysis for HB 256, [hard copy included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: AS 18.65.220 is amended by adding new
subsections (b) which will require a police officer,
probation officer, parole officer, municipal
correctional officer, or correctional officer to
report, to a supervisor, when another officer used or
prepared to use deadly force against a person. (c)
requires that the Council shall maintain a central
registry of denied or revoked officer certificates.
(d) requires that the Council shall adopt and prepare
a report detailing the registry information to the
chief clerk of the house of representatives and the
senate secretary no later than Dec. 1st of each year.
(e) states that upon request, the Council shall assist
a department, an agency, or municipality in developing
rules that comply with regulations adopted under (b)
of this section.
Section 2: AS 18.65.285 is amended to replace the word
"may" with "shall."
Section 3: AS 18.65.290(b) is amended to define
"municipal correctional officer."
Section 4: AS 18.65.290 is amended to add "deadly
force" has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900(b)
Section 5: AS 18.65.670 (c) is amended to provide
training in the subjects set out in 18.65.220(a)(3).
Section 6: Amends AS 29.71 by adding a new section, AS
29.71.070, use of force reporting requirement.
Section 7: Amends AS 44.28.020 by adding a new
subsection (d) that requires the Department of Public
Safety to submit a report on each incident in which a
probation officer, parole officer, or a correctional
officer uses force against a person. The report must
include information required under AS 44.41.055(b).
Section 8: Amends AS 44.41.020 by adding a new
subsection to read: The Department of Public Safety
shall submit the to the statewide use-of-force
database, each time a State trooper, VPSO, or regional
public safety officer uses force against a person.
Section 9: AS 44.41.055 is amended by a new section to
establish a Statewide use-of-force database and its
requirements.
Section 10: AS 18.65.280(b) is repealed.
Section 11: The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section that applies to
employment contracts entered on or after the effective
date of sec. 2 of this Act.
Section 12: Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska by adding a new section pertaining to
transition: employment, peace officers. Giving them an
effective date of sec. 10 of this Act to comply with
AS 18.65.240 requirements.
Section 13: Amended by adding a new section regarding
regulations of the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Public Safety, and municipalities that
employ a person as a police officer or in a
municipality correctional facility to adopt and
publish regulations.
Section 14: Section 13 provides for an effective date
under AS 01.10.070(c).
Section 15: Provides for an effective date of this
Act.
8:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said the proposed bill sets new standards
and outlines "who would be responsible to participate."
Referring to information addressed in Section 7, she said the
FBI is not currently inputting that information into its
database; therefore, in places where the terms "probation
officer", "parole officer", or "correctional officer" are used,
she said she is interested in removing those references because
"it wouldn't be necessary to align with the data that's being
collected by the FBI," and "if they collect it, there'd be
nowhere to send it." Regarding Section 8, she indicated that
the FBI is collecting information from state troopers but not
from the village public safety officers (VPSOs) or regional
public safety officers; therefore, she said there would be
recommendations in the interest of alignment. She noted HB 256
would have "very little fiscal impact." She then related a
recommendation by the Department of Corrections to change "one
year" - shown on page 4, line 17 - to "two years" to accommodate
the timing of bill passage and training blocks.
8:26:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to language on page 2
of HB 256, beginning on line 3, which read:
an incident in which an officer used deadly force or
prepared to use deadly force
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, [regarding the reference in Section 1 to
reporting whether the officer was prepared], said he thinks the
word "prepared" needs further definition, since he questioned
what officer is not prepared to use deadly force [when
necessary].
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed willingness to discuss the
language with the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) to
ensure clarity.
8:27:45 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE noted that representatives from the council and
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) were available to answer
questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested he could offer a friendly
amendment to add definition.
8:28:23 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN said she wants to understand the structure in
order "to make sure that we're improving it."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that the reporting system is new
to the FBI, implemented in 2019. She deferred to Kelly Howell
to address the uniform crime report (UCR), which is "something
that we've long been participating in."
8:30:31 AM
KELLY HOWELL, Special Assistant/Legislative Liaison, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, outlined that HB
256 has two requirements in terms of data collection: one is
for APSC for decertification database, and one is for the use of
force database. She explained that APSC is responsible both for
certifying and decertifying police officers, correctional
officers, and parole officers in Alaska. She said HB 256
contemplates requiring APSC to maintain a statewide database for
any officers that are decertified by the council, which would
allow the information to be shared with other state agencies in
law enforcement, for example, if an officer applies with another
state agency. In response to a follow-up question, she
confirmed there is a national decertification index.
8:33:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted Representative Tarr's sponsor
statement contains a description of the report, which includes
demographic information related to the person against whom force
was used. She noted the information includes "age, gender
identity, and sexual orientation freely given by the
individual." She asked whether race or ethnicity is part of the
report.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recollected that "an earlier version" of
this legislation contained more specific requirements. She
advised that the requirements of the report can be found in
Section 1, [subsection](d), on page 1, lines 15-18], which read:
(d) The council shall prepare a report detailing the
central registry information updates that have been
entered in the preceding year and submit the report to
the chief clerk of the house of representatives and
the senate secretary not later than December 1 of each
year.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR also referred to language in Section 6, on
page 3, [lines 18-22], which addresses "use of force" reporting.
In response to a follow-up request for clarification regarding
demographics, she said, "It'll be consistent with what is
required through the FBI reporting, and Ms. Howell has the list
of those items that we could share."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND explained she was seeking where the
demographic information "about the person against whom force was
used is defined."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, "It will be consistent with what is
required through the FBI reporting." She noted that Ms. Howell
has a list of those items.
8:35:39 AM
MS. HOWELL, in response to Co-Chair Schrage, confirmed she had
the list with her, and at his invitation read it. The elements
required in the demographic information of both the officer and
the person against whom force was used are the following: age,
sex, race, ethnicity, height, and weight.
8:37:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to a paragraph
beginning on page 2, line 5, and he said it "talks about
everybody except VPSOs."
8:38:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR explained that APSC does not certify the
VPSOs. She read the document [subsequently added to the
committee packet] which provides the definition of law
enforcement officers killed and assaulted (LEOKA). The
definition read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The FBI defines a law enforcement officer according to
the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted
(LEOKA) definition, which is as follows: All federal,
state, tribal, county, and local law enforcement
officers (such as municipal, county police officers,
constables, state police, highway patrol, sheriffs,
their deputies, federal law enforcement officers,
marshals, special agents, etc.) who are sworn by their
respective government authorities to uphold the law
and safeguard the rights, lives, and property of
American citizens. They must have full arrest powers
and be members of a public governmental law
enforcement agency, paid from government funds set
aside specifically for payment to sworn police law
enforcement organized for the purposes of keeping
order and for preventing and detecting crimes, and
apprehending those responsible. For this collection,
parole and probation officers, and juvenile detention
officers and not included.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE suggested there is a possible hole in the
legislation because police officers who have been disciplined or
have had their certificates revoked could move to a village and
become VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR responded that she would need to think about
that; however, currently VPSOs are separate from other types of
officers in statute, in terms of training requirements.
8:41:01 AM
MS. HOWELL noted that DPS, not APSC, certifies VPSOs. She
reasoned that if APSC had revoked a certificate from a police
officer, then that information would be known by DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired how that would work if the
decertified officer came from another state and applied to be a
VPSO in Alaska.
MS. HOWELL confirmed that DPS would do a background check.
8:42:36 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE asked Ms. Howell to expound upon the VPSO
hiring process.
MS. HOWELL stated that the process exists under regulation, and
there are two bills under consideration that would codify that
process in statute.
8:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked about the distinction between
deadly force and intent to use deadly force.
MS. HOWELL advised that deadly force and force currently are
defined under AS 11.81.900. She offered her understanding that
pointing a gun at someone would be considered preparing to use
deadly force. In response to a follow-up question, she referred
to the FBI's national database as providing the criteria to be
met.
8:49:09 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE proffered that the act of grabbing someone's
arm may be interpreted by an observer as being a use of force
but is not a use of force if it is not listed in the FBI's
national database as such.
MS. HOWELL confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY underlined the importance of making any
amendments necessary to refer to the definition of use of force.
8:49:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she would ask Legislative Legal
Services to ensure the language of HB 256 is clear about the
definitions.
8:50:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to language in
Section 5, on page 3, [beginning on line 10], which read:
"Regulations adopted by the commissioner of public safety under
this subsection may not prohibit village public safety officers
who otherwise meet minimum standards and training from carrying
firearms." She recollected that the legislature had given VPSOs
the ability to train in academy in order to carry firearms,
which gives them the opportunity to use deadly force; therefore,
she said she agrees with Representative McCabe about "a hole"
where VPSOs are concerned. She pointed out that while the state
may not hire VPSOs, it provides the funding to the agencies that
hire and fire them.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR indicated that some [types of law
enforcement] may need to be "pulled out" of certain sections of
HB 256 in order to maintain alignment with the information being
collected by the FBI. She noted that Alaska is unique in its
use of VPSOs.
8:54:42 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN inquired how many certified police officers and
VPSOs are in Alaska. She explained she wanted the committee to
avoid getting distracted by the scale of a loophole she thinks
is small.
8:55:45 AM
JOSEPH GAMACHE, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards
Council, answered that presently there are "about 1,446" active
police officers in Alaska.
8:56:45 AM
MS. HOWELL answered there are fewer than 50 VPSOs currently
employed in the state, with funding for up to 55.
CO-CHAIR HANNAN commended the efforts of state agencies in
collecting data and observed that efforts may need to be
adjusted to align with the FBI database.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR talked about the benefit of federal funding
coming available for additional training or support. She said
identifying problems could open avenues to solutions.
8:59:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY brought up the issue of confidentiality
and asked how HB 256 is "protecting the individual in their ...
security of themselves." He said "this" has "the same feel" as
requiring a sex offender to register. He also mentioned The
Scarlet Letter. Regarding [an officer who has had his/her
certification revoked], he asked whether HB 256 would be
"incarcerating them in society."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR discussed aggregate data, acknowledging that
in small departments it may be easier to [figure out an identity
of an individual] when race or ethnicity have been listed, for
example; however, the idea of aggregate identity is to protect
individual identity by studying trends. Regarding central
registry data, she said that information is shared among law
enforcement professionals, and she deferred to Ms. Howell to
address what information might be turned over to the public.
9:03:19 AM
MS. HOWELL said she envisions the information is kept internally
for hiring purposes for law enforcement agencies; the report
that would be produced for the legislature would be aggregate
data without information that would identify individuals.
9:03:58 AM
CO-CHAIR SCHRAGE asked for confirmation that the database is
confidential.
MS. HOWELL confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY offered his understanding that once the
information is provided to the legislature, it is no longer as
secure.
9:04:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR directed attention again to Section 1,
[subsection] (d), on page 2, [text previously provided], and she
specified that the report referenced would be the aggregate
report. She talked about reviewing policy and offering
training, including de-escalation training.
9:07:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY drew attention to [Section 2], on page 2,
[lines 22-26], which read as follows:
* Sec. 2. AS 18.65.285 is amended to read: Sec.
18.65.285. Municipal correctional employees. A
municipality that employs persons in a municipal
correctional facility shall [MAY, BY ORDINANCE,]
require that those persons meet the requirements of AS
18.65.130 - 18.65.290 that are applicable to municipal
correctional officers.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked how this fits in with home rule,
"now we are telling the 'munis' we are not going to recognize
home rule."
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that it is not an unfunded mandate.
She pointed to language on page 4, line 17, of HB 256, regarding
the addition of a second year in which to "loop" officers into
training, which would benefit the officers and communities
without adding fiscal impact. She clarified that those officer
are going to be hired anyhow and simply would get training
provided by the state "in a way that we have capacity to
provide."
9:09:57 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN asked whether DPS or the Department of
Corrections (DOC) has official positions on HB 256.
9:10:16 AM
MS. HOWELL answered that although [DPS] holds no official
position on HB 256, it "supports any efforts that increase
transparency and improve public trust with their law enforcement
officers."
[HB 256 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 143 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Sectional Analysis version I.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM SL&C 2/9/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Bill Version I.PDF |
HCRA 3/1/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Deborah B Testimony_Redacted.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Edgewater Villa HOA Anchorage, Testimony 2-9-22.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
SB 143 |
| SB 143 Rebecca Gagnon Testimony_Redacted.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HL&C 3/14/2022 3:15:00 PM |
SB 143 |
| HB 256 Sponsor Statement 3.4.2022.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Sectional Analysis 3.4.2022.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB0256 Ver A 3.4.2022.PDF |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Supporting Documents 3.4.2022.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 LEOKA Definitions.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 Letters of Support 3.4.2022.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 DPS Fiscal Note 1 3.4.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 256 DPS Fiscal Note 2 3.4.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/17/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 256 |
| HB 309 Sponsor Statement ver G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 Sectional Analysis ver G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 CS version G.pdf |
HCRA 3/3/2022 8:00:00 AM HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 Denali Borough letter of Support.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 DOA Fiscal Note 3.4.22.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| Spreadsheet Explanation for HB 309.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |
| HB 309 Updated Spreadsheets.pdf |
HCRA 3/8/2022 8:00:00 AM |
HB 309 |