Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/13/2020 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 | |
| HB290 | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2020
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Laddie Shaw
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 290
"An Act establishing an alternative to arrest procedure for
persons in acute episodes of mental illness; relating to
emergency detention for mental health evaluation; and relating
to licensure of crisis stabilization centers."
- MOVED CSHB 290(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: ALTERNATIVE TO ARREST: MENTAL HEALTH CTR.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN
02/24/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (H) JUD, FIN
03/06/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/06/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/11/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 287
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
02/24/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/20 (H) TRB, JUD, FIN
02/26/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/26/20 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/03/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/03/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/05/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/05/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/10/20 (H) TRB AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
03/10/20 (H) Moved CSHB 287(TRB) Out of Committee
03/10/20 (H) MINUTE(TRB)
03/11/20 (H) TRB RPT CS(TRB) 4DP 1NR
03/11/20 (H) DP: KOPP, LINCOLN, ORTIZ, ZULKOSKY
03/11/20 (H) NR: VANCE
03/11/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/11/20 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/20 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/20 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 290, as
amended.
KEN TRUITT, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a PowerPoint presentation on HB
287, on behalf of Representative Chuck Kopp, prime sponsor.
ANDREW MERRILL, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 287.
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
DAVID NEES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 287.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Executive Director
Native People's Action
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
KELSEY WALLACE, Communications Director
Native People's Action
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
CAROL PISCOYA, Vice President
Community Services Division
Kawerak, Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 287.
MARTHA WHITMAN-KASSOCK, Program Administrator
Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
DARELL HILDEBRAND, VPSO Coordinator
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
VIKKI JO KENNEDY
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony on HB 287.
CHRIS HATCH, VPSO Coordinator
Copper River Native Association
Copper Center, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered testimony in support of HB 287.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:00 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Claman, Drummond,
Stutes, LeDoux, Shaw, and Vance were present at the call to
order. Representative Kopp arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 290-ALTERNATIVE TO ARREST: MENTAL HEALTH CTR.
1:07:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act establishing an alternative to
arrest procedure for persons in acute episodes of mental
illness; relating to emergency detention for mental health
evaluation; and relating to licensure of crisis stabilization
centers."
1:07:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that there were two amendments to HB 290
and, since he was the sponsor of both amendments, he would be
passing the gavel to Representative Stutes for the duration of
the amendment process.
1:08:43 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Representative Stutes.
1:08:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 31-LS1513\K.1,
Marx, 3/13/20, which read as follows:
Page 3, lines 9 - 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) not to arrest the person; or
(2) to deliver the person to a crisis
stabilization center or an evaluation facility as
provided in AS 12.25.031(b)."
Page 3, following line 12:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 18.65.530 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
"(g) A peace officer who delivers a person to a
crisis stabilization center or evaluation facility
under (c) of this section shall provide the peace
officer's contact information to the crisis
stabilization center or evaluation facility and, if
the peace officer is notified under AS 12.25.031(d) of
a planned release of the person, the peace officer
shall make reasonable efforts to inform the victim of
a crime under (a)(1) and (2) of this section of the
planned release."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 10:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 5, line 12:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
1:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
1:09:04 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that Amendment 1 was the product of
extensive discussions with the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), as well as law enforcement
officers. He stated that there was an interest in the domestic
violence context of Section 2 of the proposed legislation, which
is what Amendment 1 would address. He said that they wanted to
limit circumstances when a person could be taken to a crisis
stabilization center when there is probable cause to arrest the
person in instances where the person is gravely disabled,
consistent with the involuntary commitment requirements of Title
47. He stated that Amendment 1 would provide that instead of a
broader ability to divert, when there is probable cause to
arrest the only circumstances when an officer could take someone
to a crisis stabilization center, or an evaluation facility, was
if the officer had found the person to be subject for an
involuntary commitment under Title 47, which is under the
provisions of AS 12.25.031(b).
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the second part of Amendment 1 relates
to what happens when a police officer delivers a person to a
crisis stabilization center, when that person is subject to
involuntary commitment, and whereas other provisions make it
optional for police officers to provide their contact
information, in the instance of domestic violence settings
officers would be required to provide their contact information
to the evaluation center or crisis stabilization center. If
that person were at some point released from the center, he/she
would have to notify the police officer, who would then have to
make reasonable efforts to notify the victim of the domestic
violence.
1:11:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment
1 was adopted.
1:11:34 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 31-LS1513\K.2,
Marx, 3/12/20, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 1, following "center":
Insert "or an evaluation facility"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "provider"
Insert "crisis stabilization center or evaluation
facility"
1:11:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected to the motion, for the purpose
of discussion.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Amendment 2 would provide clean-up
language to the proposed legislation, which was the product of
Legislative Legal Services working through the process of
Amendment 1 and realizing that on Page 2, subsection (b), under
"alternative to arrest provisions", rather than referring to
just a "crisis stabilization center", it should refer to a
"crisis stabilization center or an evaluation facility". He
pointed out that the other change would be to change a line on
Page 2 of the proposed legislation from "provided the officers
contact information to the provider", with "provided the
officers contact information to the crisis stabilization center
or evaluation facility".
1:12:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND withdrew her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment
2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES handed the gavel back to Chair Claman.
1:12:57 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Carmen Lowry, from ANDVSA, would be
offering testimony regarding HB 290, as amended.
1:13:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reopened public testimony on HB 290, [as amended].
1:14:43 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:16 p.m.
1:16:49 PM
CARMEN LOWRY, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), offered testimony in
support of HB 290, as amended. She expressed gratitude for
Chair Clamans leadership. She said ANDVSA believes that the
intent of the proposed legislation is to decriminalize actions
associated with individuals who experience an acute behavioral
crisis and to provide help to those people, as opposed to
arresting them. She expressed that ANDVSA thinks the proposed
legislation supports families. She thanked Chair Claman for
allowing ANDVSA to work with him to ensure that victim
notification was present in the proposed legislation, through
the adopted amendments. She said that ANDVSA will always be
looking at how a victim might be able to assert his/her rights.
1:18:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 290.
1:19:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND remarked that she had no idea this was
an issue before she heard HB 290. She said the proposed
legislation would respond to a critical issue in the state, and
she expressed her hope that it would pass as quickly as
possible. She expressed her understanding that it would delay
things tremendously if the legislature did not pass HB 290.
1:19:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she agrees that HB 290, as amended, is
headed in the right direction; however, she expressed
reservations that the committee has not seen the bigger picture
of what needs will arise in the future pertaining to
stabilization centers and mobile units. She said that those
things would involve a lot of capital and employees. She said
that she could see an obvious need but thinks she was being
asked to "take a tiny bite of a very large elephant." She
explained that she could foresee an issue arising in the coming
year in which the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) might express that it received permission to start the
program and needs funding for it. She said that she would like
to have a better idea of what will be "needed to make room for,"
because it is a high priority in the state. She expressed that
she would like as much information about the projections of what
the proposed legislation entails, in order to fully support the
proposed legislation.
1:21:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked DHSS for its extensive work in getting the
proposed legislation to the point it is at. He thanked ANDVSA
for its tireless advocacy, which he said is reflected in its
effectiveness. He also thanked the attorneys from the
Department of Law and encouraged a yes vote on HB 290, as
amended.
1:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report HB 290, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 290(JUD) was
reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
1:22:46 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:22 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.
HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS
1:25:00 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).]
1:25:36 PM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a PowerPoint presentation on CSHB 287(TRB),
on behalf of Representative Chuck Kopp, prime sponsor. He
stated that the first portion of the PowerPoint, which was
covered in the previous hearing, was an overview of the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) Working Group and the Working Group
report. He remarked that what would follow in the presentation
was a sectional walkthrough of the proposed legislation, and an
explanation of the changes that were made in CSHB 287(TRB) in
the prior committee. He briefly noted the previous iterations
of the bill.
MR. TRUITT stated that the slides of the PowerPoint presentation
correspond to the Sectional Analysis of HB 287, and would show
the changes made to the proposed legislation throughout the
process. [Hard copy included in the committee packet.]
1:27:18 PM
MR. TRUITT stated that Section 1, page 1, and Section 2, page 3,
of HB 287, show the changes that would amend the criminal
history background checks, and he explained that the sections
work together. He said that Section 1 would amend AS 12.62.400,
which is the statewide statute that requests criminal background
checks through a national system. He stated that Section 2
would amend the Department of Public Safetys (DPS's) statute AS
18.65.080, and places in that statute the obligation to conduct
criminal background checks for the VPSO program.
1:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that this was important because at
one-point DPS stopped doing the background checks for the VPSO
program and didnt give notice to the grantee organizations;
therefore, Section 1 and Section 2 would make it clear that
background checks are a DPS function for the VPSO program.
1:28:44 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing page 14 of the PowerPoint presentation,
stated that Section 3 would repeal and reenact the single VPSO
statute. He explained that the very first recommendation was to
update the VPSO statute and said that the chart compares
subsection (a) of the existing VPSO statute to the state trooper
duties from AS 18.65.080. He pointed out that the VPSO statute
is ambiguous, especially when compared to how specific the
statutes are for the state troopers. He said that there are six
prepositional phrases before the first actual duty of a VPSO is
listed, whereas the state troopers' duties are very clear and
direct. He remarked that this was the reason for the tightening
of this statute.
1:30:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that the statute would be tightened
up to reflect what the duties really are for a modern-day VPSO
in rural Alaska.
1:30:49 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing page 15 of the PowerPoint presentation,
showed Section 3, as it was introduced in the original bill
version, and lists all the functions that the VPSO personnel
currently perform. He pointed out that the amendments made in
CSHB 287(TRB), which was before the committee, made the statute
too unwieldy; therefore, the bill drafters decided to create a
separate statute dealing with VPSO duties.
1:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the VPSOs were currently
providing all these services or whether there would be services
added to what they currently provided, and she remarked that if
so, it sounds like the VPSOs would need to be paid more.
1:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that there are more duties assigned
for the VPSOs in the proposed legislation, but they would be
identified in statute according to what they have been doing for
a long time, or in other words, they have been performing
outside of the scope of their designated duties for the sake of
necessity. He said that this has led to problems of grant
monies being authorized to fund the public safety mission,
because it is not clear in statute whether the VPSOs should be
conducting investigations or enforcing criminal laws, but they
are in fact doing that, and expected to do so by their villages,
and often do so with a complete absence of other support from
public safety. He said that by identifying these job functions
in statute, it would also help to elevate the profession and
improve recruitment retention. He remarked that he agrees with
Representative Drummond that the VPSOs should be paid more. He
said that there is an appropriation from the legislature each
year into the budget process which is run as a grant program,
and the benefit of the work a VPSO does is significant for a
non-state employee.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the proposed legislation
was formalizing in statute what the VPSOs are currently doing.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that is correct.
1:34:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that he has a concern regarding
development and disbursement of grants made under the section in
statute, and that there is an excess of 800 hours of training
for a VPSO, excluding the firearms training, that they would
need in order to reach certification. He asked whether the
VPSOs would be certified at this level under the Alaska Police
Standards Council (APSC).
1:34:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the VPSO program is certified
through DPS and not APSC. He said that it is under a separate
category and its regulations are not under APSC.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW replied that he understood, but his question
was whether the VPSOs would be at the level of certification
that APSC would require of a certified police officer.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered generally, yes, and stated that the
hours would closely mirror an academy, but the legislature put
it entirely under DPS in the 1970s.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether the additional training which
would need to take place to certify the VPSOs at this level
would come from state funds or the grant program would follow up
on it.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the grant funds would be for
additional training, and he pointed out that most VPSOs
currently get this training, regarding basic criminal
investigation, as part of the basic VPSO training.
1:36:18 PM
MR. TRUITT noted that Captain Andrew Merrill and Michael Nemeth,
a VPSO, would be offering testimony on HB 287, and he explained
that they are both subject matter experts on the details of the
VPSO program and could help to clear up questions when they are
called to testify. Referencing slide 17 of the PowerPoint
presentation, he pointed out changes that were made in the prior
committee. He said that the language was added that "a village
public safety officer has the power of a peace officer of the
state or municipality", and this language mirrors the trooper
statute in existing and current law. He said that both troopers
and VPSOs are in the definition of "peace officer." He said
that language was highlighted to make it clear that VPSOs are
law enforcement peace officers, by using the language "the
powers usually and customarily exercised by a peace officer",
which is language that is in the state trooper statute.
1:38:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether VPSOs would have the same
training as state troopers.
1:38:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the VPSOs complete a
substantially similar academy unless it is specifically
identified as a truncated academy. He said it is possible to
run through a shorter version, but that just defers some
training until later in the field. He explained that when the
VPSOs go through a normal full academy, which most of them do
and have done historically, the training is substantially like
that of state troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked, referencing AS 18.65.686, whether
this would provide for the same authority for VPSOs that state
troopers have.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the VPSOs statutory authority
would be upgraded so that there is nothing in the law that would
prevent them from doing a duty that another trooper would do if
one were available to it. He explained that this is important
because the VPSOs are called upon routinely in some of the
toughest areas of the state to be primary on-scene
investigators, and will at times be singly in charge of a crime
scene for two days before a trooper can get there, in cases
ranging from homicide to sexual assault. He said that it is
important to identify the function in statute, as it is hard to
justify sending them to training; therefore, the statute has to
be in place to show the VPSOs' duties, and then it follows
logically that training would be authorized in order to do that.
1:40:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked, "Why go through all of this; why
not just make them troopers?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the state does not have the
money to hire the hundreds of additional troopers that would be
needed. He remarked that he is personally "for" state troopers,
but the value of the dollar the state receives by working with
tribal governments and local entities who have established
nonprofits to partner with the state, and having no state
benefited employees driving up pension costs, is substantial.
He explained that the question becomes whether the state wants
to spend $60 to $80 million on it or improve a program that
currently costs approximately $11 million annually, with
approximately $8.5 million going to the grantees and the rest
for administration of the VPSO program. He said that it is an
example of local government providing local solutions to public
safety issues, and it is easy to underestimate how powerfully
the communities are committed to the VPSO program, and it would
be the equivalent of suggesting that state troopers police the
city of Anchorage, rather than its local police force; he
suggested a better example might be a small town in Alaska with
its own police department.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed that communities and community
councils want control of their own public safety, and the
grantees are no different; they represent communities that see
their VPSOs as a local public safety solution, and the state
receives a tremendous value out of that in cost savings. He
said it is a critical partnership, and the state would have to
provide housing, infrastructure, and support for the troopers,
and many of the locations are such tough places to live that
there is not a place to put troopers. He pointed out that even
if the state hired more troopers, they would still have to be
flown into the locations and it would be hard to get young
troopers with families to move to those kinds of places. He
summarized that there are many reasons that the VPSO program
needs to be successful, because it's the "boots on the ground
doing the job for Alaskans."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she thinks that Utqiagvik
wanted a state prosecutor, so the city is paying for that
prosecutor. She asked whether it would be possible to install
troopers and have some of the entities currently paying for
VPSOs through grant programs pay for [the troopers]. She
expressed that it seems to her that if the VPSOs receive the
same training, and perform the same duties, that they might need
to be state troopers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he did not want to confuse
short-term goals with long-term goals and said that long term
they want to raise the status and profession of what these brave
many and women do in rural Alaska every day. He said that in
the short term, what Representative LeDoux suggested is "just
about impossible," because it is hard to appreciate the current
financial contribution with the grantees for the VPSO program.
He said that they are not recipients of a free grant and there
is a massive financial commitment through indirect costs to
support the VPSO program. He remarked that the VPSOs make
approximately $20 hourly, which is not even minimum wage for
where many of them are working in Alaska. He said that the
grantees must pay the labor costs, come up with housing,
information technology (IT), human resources (HR), and the
infrastructure to support each peace officer, and this is at no
cost to the state; therefore, it would be a considerably higher
investment to get the same resource without the grantee
partnership, as the VPSOs would have to be state benefited
employees who cost a lot more.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated the value of what the state
receives and how committed the grantees are to providing
infrastructure for the VPSOs in their communities. He said that
the grantees could partner with the state for a state trooper,
but the difference is that it wouldnt be possible to get a
state trooper to live in one of these locations. He said that
the state troopers are intentionally deployed out of major hubs,
because they need to be able to be flexible, and the VPSOs are
in small, rural villages where they are often also the fire
chiefs, head emergency trauma technicians, first responders for
search and rescue, and "their phone goes off all the time; they
do it all." He stated that there is no other model that Alaska
has practiced that works, and this is a uniquely Alaskan model
that the communities believe could prosper with proper support.
1:46:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked when, and whether, the legislature
authorized the VPSOs to carry firearms and receive firearms
training at the academy.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it was approximately six years
ago that legislation was passed, which he recollected was
proposed by Representative Edgmon. He said an unarmed VPSO was
fatally shot when responding to a "gun call." He said that
there was public outrage surrounding the fact that the VPSOs are
in the toughest spots and violent situations and the grantees
are not allowed the authority to arm them if they want to put
them through the training. He said that the legislation didnt
prescribe that the VPSOs must be armed but made sure that there
is nothing in law to prevent it if they are properly trained and
certified.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the proposed legislation
would enumerate or reinforce that legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it would.
1:48:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked Representative Kopp to highlight for
the committee the oversight and regulatory authority for the
VPSOs.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that this would be coming up
shortly in the presentation on the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that it was highlighted earlier
that the VPSOs training does not fall under the standards of
APSC and their training is equivalent to the state troopers, but
the standards are not equivalent. He expressed that this is a
concern that he has and asked Representative Kopp to elaborate
on the topic.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that was the next issue the
presentation would address.
1:48:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether it had been the case that even though
the VPSOs can now be armed, they must go through additional
training in order to do so, and a very small number of VPSOs
have taken the required training. He said that he thinks there
are only one or two armed VPSOs currently in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that was correct, and very few
VPSOs are armed. He said this is because of the additional
training required, and ongoing training on the appropriate use
of force. He stated that some grantees are willing to invest
heavily in the training, but it could be that other grantees
might not want to have the liability. He reiterated that the
legislature did not prescribe the arming of VPSOs but ensured
that the law would not prohibit doing so.
1:50:30 PM
MR. TRUITT stated that subsection (a), on page 3 of the proposed
legislation, is important because it has been rewritten and
starts to split grant management from DPS to the Department of
Commerce Community and Economic Development (DCCED). He pointed
out that this pertains to AS 18.65.670, which is the repealed
and reenacted VPSO statute. He stated that subsection (b), on
page 4 of the proposed legislation, would be mostly similar to
the existing subsection (b) of AS 18.65.670, but it would be
updated to include references to the commissioner of commerce,
and would also include federally recognized tribes as
organizations that can be awarded a VPSO grant. He expressed
that an amendment might be offered to remove this.
1:51:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that Mr. Truitt should move forward with
CSHB 287(TRB) and address amendments later.
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 18 of the PowerPoint presentation,
stated that subsection (c), on page 4 of CSHB 287(TRB) would
provide a new statutory codification of current DPS regulation
13 AAC 96.020, with changes to reflect that DCCED would be
performing financial management of the grants. He stated that
subsection (d), on page 4 would provide the statutory
codification of the DPS regulation 13 AAC 96.030, with changes
to reflect that DCCED would be performing financial management
of the grants.
1:52:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that this section would be putting
the financial management under DCCED rather than DPS. He
explained that DPS is not a grants management agency and DCCED
is. He said that DPS partners with all the nonprofits on
managing grants, but needs to stay in operational oversight, and
the mentorship, training, and support it provides is critical.
He stated that there was found to be a real conflict, in talking
with all 10 of the grantees in the communities, for DPS to have
both the "money piece and the operational piece," and it ended
up being a mission collision because it was making decisions on
funding, or not funding, training or activities based on a very
literal view of the law, which was too restricted. He said that
the proposed legislation would change the statutes to show what
the VPSOs do in carrying out the law, so that funding can be
adequately directed to support those public safety activities.
He pointed out that DCCED is prepared, and able, to administer
the grants, which is something that it routinely does. He said
that subsection (e) would provide a new partial codification of
current DPS regulations, which sets the overall policy that one
VPSO is generally assigned to one village, unless the
organization requests additional VPSO personnel. He stated that
subsection (f) would allow for travelling VPSOs. He explained
that previously, grant language made it so that a VPSO could not
go to another village nearby in need of help, as that VPSO was
hired for a specific village, which didnt make sense as public
safety needs to be able to respond to nearby locations. He
stated that the proposed legislation would make it clear that
the grantees have the authority to provide roving support.
1:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing slide 24 of the PowerPoint
presentation, remarked that subsection (g) would also go right
in to DCCED performing the financial management of the grants,
and contains grant record keeping and management requirements,
consistent with recommendations 1, 2, and 9 of the working group
report [hard copy included in the committee packet.]
1:54:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing slide 25, stated that
subsection (h) was taken word for word from existing law, and
there were no changes within. He said that subsection (i) would
allow for funding grantee organizations indirect rates up to a
statewide average of 35 percent, and said that this language has
been used as intent language in multiple prior operating budget
bills; therefore, this would not be something new as far as the
state is concerned, as this is what the rate is usually set at.
He pointed out that this was done to implement recommendations
2, 4, and 5 from the working group report. He stated that
subsection (j) was new and would provide explicit instruction to
the DCCED commissioner on grant fund disbursement; in other
words, funds could be used for items reasonably related to
public safety and VPSO duties as identified under HB 287. He
added that grant funds could not be unreasonably withheld and
disbursed in a timely manner.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that subsection (k) and subsection
(l) are related to new items in subsection (h) and would provide
for a consultation process with grantees before making new
regulations; in other words, before any regulations would be
changed in the program, the 10 grantees first would be
consulted. This would pertain to certification requirements,
hiring requirements, and things that grantees need to know, as
they are partners with the state in providing public safety
services that the state would otherwise have to do.
1:56:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing slide 26, stated that Section 4
gets into new statutes under the proposed legislation, which
pertain to the codification of regulations dealing with VPSO
qualification requirements.
1:56:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, referencing slide 27, pointed out VPSO
background check requirements, and stated that an individual
cannot have been convicted of any felony crime against a person,
or any felony sex crime. He explained that if an individual has
not been convicted of any felony sex crimes, or felony crimes
against a person, the proposed legislation would allow for some
latitude, as some people may have had a drug possession felony
which is no longer considered a felony under state law. As an
example, he said that an individual may have been caught with
some drug which would now be considered a misdemeanor possession
offense because of changes in the law, and the proposed
legislation would provide that if someone is 10 years with no
offenses, DPS would have the opportunity in the background
investigation to make a query of the individual. He remarked
that DPS would have to get a waiver to access Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS). He expressed that this would
enable communities to identify people who come from difficult
communities where domestic violence, sexual assault, and
substance abuse is very high, and said it is remarkable to have
young men and women come out of those situations unscathed. He
said that it would allow more room for DPS to grant approval for
someone to serve as a VPSO who does not have any of the
disqualifiers under the proposed legislation. He explained that
the domestic violence section in the proposed legislation was
taken word-for-word from current regulation, which is that an
individual cannot have had a domestic violence crime within 10
years.
1:58:47 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 28 of the PowerPoint presentation,
pointed out how this section was changed in the prior committee,
with the addition of sex offenses to a prohibition. He said
subparagraph (C) shows a carve out that felonies under
subparagraph (A), crimes against a person, and subparagraph (B),
sex offenses, will always be disqualifiers. He highlighted an
option that a program can apply to DPS for a waiver that would
allow an individual to access CJIS, which otherwise they are
barred from due to prior convictions.
1:59:37 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 30, stated that the bill sponsor
had received a letter from DPS asking for an inclusion of a
waiver application requirement through DPS to access the CJIS if
an individual has a misdemeanor domestic violence crime.
2:00:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she did not understand the
meaning behind granting a waiver to an individual to access the
"criminal justice information system."
2:00:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that reports are currently filed by
a public safety officer, and he/she must have background
clearance to access information in CJIS, which includes the
National Crime Information Center and the Alaska Public Safety
Information Network, which are the law enforcement databases
used to pull up basic person history to fill out reports and run
warrants. He summarized that CJIS is the general term for those
specific databases that public safety officers have access to in
getting information for reports, finding out if someone is
wanted or not, and other sensitive public safety data.
2:01:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that another way to look at it is that
the states access to criminal history data is specific to the
state, and that a non-state entity, such as the native
government groups running the VPSO programs, must get permission
to access an individuals criminal history; therefore, to get a
background check the person whose background is being checked
has to agree to let it be seen.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that this is not what it says.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp whether this was what it
is in practice, or whether he was mistaken.
2:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that Chair Claman was "a little bit
right," but Representative LeDoux had asked a separate question
and was looking at the disqualifiers, and none of these
disqualifiers would prohibit access to the system. He expressed
that he thinks Representative LeDoux was simply acknowledging
that DPS would have authority to grant a waiver. He said that
DPS cannot grant a waiver if federal partners who control the
National Crime Information Center refuse the waiver, and he said
this would not be putting DPS in the hotseat of saying yes or
no, but there must be an entity that coordinates with federal
database partners to advocate for a waiver and determine whether
one can be granted or not. He stated that DPS recently informed
him that the federal government has added more breathing room so
that, other than standard disqualifiers, a demonstration of
extraordinary circumstances [can be considered] when applying
for a waiver. He explained that the U.S. attorney general has
declared a public safety crisis in rural Alaska. He pointed out
that some of these communities have identified people, who may
have something on their record such as an 11- or 12-year-old
domestic violence offense but are valued and trusted by the
elders and leaders. He remarked that a domestic violence
offense can include a no-contact order, in which an individual
is told he/she cannot call someone on a phone that is a former
partner or someone with whom he/she has lived or fought. He
stated that the proposed legislation would provide that if those
offenses were outside of a 10-year bracket and DPS can acquire a
waiver to access the system, the individual could, but if it
cannot get a waiver than someone else who is qualified would
have to make the query.
2:04:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether she understood correctly
that the VPSOs need to be able to access the criminal access
system, and normally people who have any crimes are not allowed
to access the data system, and this would provide that DPS could
grant a waiver allowing those individuals access to that system.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that that is correct, except that
Representative LeDoux was missing one important point: DPS
currently already gets waivers for people that it needs them
for, because on "the face" they could be determined to be
invalid, but it will do that for its own clerks, recordkeepers,
and people who have access to this information. He expressed
that this is not an unusual process, and, in other words, if an
individual has a complete disqualifier, DPS could not get that
individual a waiver, but if within a disqualifier with time-bar
limits, it is possible for it to request a waiver.
2:05:46 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 32 of the PowerPoint presentation,
pointed out another change to the same qualifications statute on
pages 9 and 10 and said this was just an oversight in the
drafting process. He explained the language had said three or
more misdemeanor operating a vehicle while under the influence
of alcohol, and it was always meant to be two, so this was
corrected.
2:06:24 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 33, pointed out a technical change
and said that prior versions of the proposed legislation used
the word "use", and the proper term under statute is
"possession" of a controlled substance.
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 34, mentioned AS 18.65.674, on
pages 9 and 10 of CSHB 287(TRB), and he said this would clarify
that DPS would be doing the criminal background checks for the
VPSOs. He explained that in adding DCCED into the VPSO program
during the drafting of the proposed legislation, it was added in
some ways that were unintentional, and it was never meant to be
added into the background check process.
2:07:32 PM
MR. TRUITT, referencing slide 36, remarked that the training
requirements, under AS 18.65.676, might answer some of the
questions from the committee regarding training. He explained
that this reflects 826 hours, 650 of which are in law
enforcement, and he pointed out the topics that would be covered
in that portion of training. He said that in the prior version
of the proposed legislation there were very specific hour
requirements for emergency and trauma technician training,
search and rescue training, and rural fire protections
specialist training, but those specific hours were removed in
Version O and a global hour requirement of training in those
topics was inserted instead.
2:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, referencing slide 37 of the PowerPoint
presentation, asked whether these hours would be required prior
to an individual becoming a VPSO, or whether they were hours
that could be acquired through on-the-job training.
2:09:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that these hours would be required
to be certified as a VPSO. He remarked that this addresses a
question from Representative Shaw pertaining to training,
because it sets the minimum standards of certification by DPS.
He remarked that the proposed legislation would recognize that
there is a 24-month period to be certified, and since a VPSO has
much broader duties than a state trooper, serving as fire chiefs
and first responders, it can take a while to get all of the
required certifications; therefore, the VPSO program has an
intermediate time in which a VPSO can be hired to do several
non-law enforcement duties that the VPSO needs to be trained on
as well. He pointed out that the 24-month requirement would
allow time for all the basic training for law enforcement, such
as physical methods of arrest, use of defensive weapons, the
hours required for criminal procedural law, and domestic
violence and sexual assault prevention response procedures.
Once this time period is over and the training completed, the
VPSOs are certified, but they could be hired before that is all
complete.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether VPSOs who hadnt completed
the training in 24 months would be kicked out of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that he thinks that the VPSOs could
get an extension through DPS, but he is not positive how it
works when they run against the time wall.
2:11:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that Representative Kopp had stated
earlier that the VPSOs do not come under the regulatory
authority of APSC, but they are meeting a minimum number of
hours for certification, and he asked for an explanation on the
oversight and regulatory authority relative to the certification
of training that the VPSOs have, for the committees benefit.
2:11:38 PM
MR. TRUITT answered that certification has always been with DPS,
specifically outside of APSC, and the proposed legislation seeks
to put into statute the certification requirements that have
existed in regulation of DPS. He expressed that he thinks
whether the VPSO program should, would, or could be under APSC
was more of a long-term issue, and the purpose of the proposed
legislation was to help improve the program right away. He
remarked that as he understands it, APSC is also under DPS.
2:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked what amount of training a VPSO has
when he/she enters the field.
2:13:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that it depends on whether the VPSO
has reached full certification status or not. He remarked that
it is much like the field training program for a police officer,
in which case an officer is "not quite worthless but close to
it" for the first two years on the job. He explained that there
is a lot of ongoing training to allow for an officer to function
independently without immediate oversight. He remarked that
sometimes a "partner who is new on the job is the most dangerous
person in the room." He said that it is not much different for
a VPSO, and there is a structure for what he/she is exposed to
and allowed to do, by what he/she is trained to do and ready to
face.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that the grantees put the VPSOs
through a lot of training that enables the VPSOs to do what that
community needs to do immediately; it might be that the biggest
need is to have a fire chief operational, so that VPSO would get
his/her firefighter certifications first, and then medical
training followed with law enforcement training. He said that
the VPSOs are truly "a jack-of-all-trades," but they do not
execute duties until they have had the training. He remarked
that as with any member of a community, in a crisis a VPSO might
be asked to act outside of the scope of what he/she might know
in order to do what is necessary, but as a rule the VPSO would
stay within the confines of what he/she knows. He expressed
that 24 months is very important, because the remoteness of
these locations requires more time for training.
2:15:13 PM
MR. TRUITT stated that page 11, of CSHB 287(TRB), proposes a new
statute, AS 18.65.678, that would provide codification of
firearms training, which is a regulation currently in effect in
DPS. He said that pages 12 and 13 of the proposed legislation,
propose statute AS 18.65.682, which would provide statutory
codification of current DPS regulations dealing with
certification of VPSOs.
2:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that the proposed legislation
provides for what the training program includes, in respect to
arrest, and it discusses the use of batons, but does not address
weapons other than batons, and she asked for an explanation.
MR. TRUITT answered that the firearms training specifically is
under a different statute, AS 18.65.678, on page 11 of the
proposed legislation. He said that the rest of the training
could be addressed by Mr. Nemeth, a VPSO coordinator, in the
testimony he would provide.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there was a specific section
in the proposed legislation that addresses weapons training, and
in addition to that was other training.
MR. TRUITT confirmed that is correct.
MR. TRUITT stated that page 14 of CSHB 287(TRB) proposes AS
18.65.684, which would deal with the denial, revocation, and
lapse of VPSO certificates. He explained that this is a current
DPS regulation that would be codified under the proposed
legislation. He said that pages 13 and 14 of the proposed
legislation, show AS 18.65.686, subparagraph (C), which explains
that DPS said that the listed organization do not have the
authority to manage search and rescue efforts, and just
coordinate with the state. Referencing slide 43, he said that
someone who is not finished training as a VPSO could enforce the
ordinances where he/she is located, to the extent that he/she is
certified and has training. He stated that the definition of
village would be changed to reflect an increase from 2,000 to
2,500 people.
2:18:38 PM
[CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony on HB 287.]
2:19:21 PM
ANDREW MERRILL, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, stated that Commissioner Price was
unable to provide testimony for the meeting and had asked him to
represent for DPS. He explained that he would read a brief
statement provided by Commissioner Price, which he read as
follows:
The mission of the Department of Public Safety is to
ensure public safety with resources deployed
throughout the state; in order to accomplish this
mission the department is committed to working with
law enforcement professionals across the state,
communities, lawmakers, and stakeholders to provide
for greater public safety and seek opportunities to
collaborate on solutions that will increase public
safety. As announced in May 2019, the VPSO working
group was tasked with coordinating with all
stakeholders to provide options to the Alaska State
Legislature to structurally revamp the VPSO program.
The DPS offers continued partnership in addressing all
ways of improving rural public safety, not limited to
one singular program.
CAPTAIN MERILL remarked that he would be as gentle and polite as
he could in most of his comments, and said that he wants to be
clear that the last time he had the opportunity to represent any
discussion on the proposed legislation, it was fairly new and he
did not have a lot of information on it. He said that he has
found in his five years working with the VPSO program, that it
is a lot like "dropping a pebble into a lake," and there are
unintended consequences for some of the decisions that have been
made. He pointed out that multiple modifications and
adaptations have been made in partnership with the grantee
representatives, and it is important to have a clear
understanding of all the changes that would be made.
CAPTAIN MERRILL said that he has heard a lot of times, "This is
current regulation," but the challenge with that is that in some
areas where regulation is being codified, there have been some
changes that would have significant impacts. He expressed that
a concerted effort needs to be made to review any changes and
ensure they are accurate. As an example, he said that the prior
version of the proposed legislations section regarding the
waiver and revocation said "shall", and the current version says
"may", which is a significant change that would change the
meaning of the regulation if it were codified in statute. He
said that he did not have all the changes listed, but he wanted
to make sure that was a general statement of some of the issues.
CAPTAIN MERRILL expressed that there are some concerns that DPS
has about the proposed legislation and said that it is happy to
continue to work with the bill sponsor to address concerns and
challenges that exist. He stated that Kathryn Monfreda, the
applications and security specialist/director, could speak more
clearly to the qualifications for CJIS access, and said that
felonies propose an extreme challenge because, while the Federal
Bureau of Investigations (FBI) language did change allowing for
exceptions in extreme circumstances for CJIS access, felony
convictions disqualify a VPSO from having or possessing
firearms. He said that this would mean that there could be a
VPSO who has a prior felony conviction, whether it be 10 years
or older or not, who would be committing a federal offense if
he/she were to respond to a situation involving a firearm and
took possession of the firearm or ammunition. He expressed that
this is a concern that needs to be addressed, because DPS would
be knowingly hiring people who would be put into situations
where they may or may not have to take possession of firearms,
and if they did so in the course of their business, DPS knows
that those VPSOs would be violating federal law.
2:23:23 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL stated that there are some felony convictions
that might not be against a person but could require an
individual to be a registered sex offender. He explained that
these types of convictions can be unrelated to sexual assault,
but after the 10-year period that individual would still have to
be a registered sex offender, but under the proposed legislation
could be allowed to be a VPSO. He said that challenges like
this in the proposed legislation need to be worked through as
well.
CAPTAIN MERRILL stated that some of the language pertaining to
backgrounds in the proposed legislation presents a challenge for
DPS. He said that the proposed legislation discusses
backgrounds as being fingerprint based in CJIS, but DPS
currently handles this. He remarked that he was not sure
whether this was just a misunderstanding, but DPS has
consistently conducted the fingerprint-based background checks
for VPSOS and has not stopped doing so, at least since he first
started with the program in 2014. He said that DPS did stop
conducting the more in-depth background investigations, which
consisted of calling family members, relatives, and other
individuals who could attest to the character of the individual
DPS was looking into hiring. He explained that DPS stopped
doing this because the grantees were not happy with how long the
background checks took, and he said that they can take anywhere
from six weeks to five or eight months, depending on what
background information is being requested. As an example, he
explained that there was a VPSO coming from out of country and
extensive work was needed to acquire records from out of country
to confirm that this individual did not have a history that
would disqualify him/her, and this investigation took a lot of
time. He expressed that DPS is not certain whether the proposed
legislation is asking for it to conduct full investigations,
which take more time than the grantees like, or continue
conducting the fingerprint criminal history checks, which
typically take two to three weeks unless there is a conviction
requiring a waiver request.
CAPTAIN MERRILL stated that there are some challenges pertaining
to increasing the VPSOs workloads to be more in line with the
state troopers. He explained that state troopers are required
to perform a psychological evaluation and polygraph test prior
to hire, and the question is whether it is the intent of the
proposed legislation to do the same testing with VPSOs, if they
are going to have the same responsibilities and authorities as
state troopers. He said that another topic he highlighted was
that current APSC and VPSO regulations contain language that
police officers, peace officers, and VPSOs must be of good moral
character. He pointed out that this language has been removed
in the proposed legislation and there are concerns regarding
hiring felons with good moral character, and how is this
determined.
CAPTAIN MERRILL stated that there are still some challenges
pertaining to domestic violence convictions. He said that
ultimately the department's stance is that it supports moving
funding to DCCED, with the concerns expressed. He stated that
DPS continues to support ongoing discussion and involvement in
the process, and said that frustration on his side comes from
the fact that he has been involved with the VPSO program for
five years, and this was the first opportunity he had to talk
about the proposed legislation aside from providing information
through the commissioner and letters. He said that he looks
forward to answering questions and engaging in the process, and
the goal that he has had as a state trooper for the last 18
years is to improve the public safety provided to all Alaskans,
especially in rural Alaska. He explained that he has spent five
years in Bethel, five years in Nome, and traveled throughout the
state, and his hope is to make the villages and communities
safe.
2:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether Captain Merrill had
considered the recommendations that were made by the
commissioner to the bill sponsors in the letter dated March 4,
2020.
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that he participated with Commissioner
Price in drafting that letter and the recommendations that were
included in it.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether those changes had been
made to the proposed legislation.
CAPTAIN MERRILL replied that some of the recommendations were
addressed in the current version, but there were still some
concerns that DPS has. He said that he did not have a copy of
the letter in front of him, so he could not [quote] it, and he
said that DPS is happy to engage and try to improve the proposed
legislation.
2:29:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill whether DPS was in support of
the proposed legislation and asked what position it took.
CAPTAIN MERRILL replied that DPS does not currently support some
of the felony language and other challenges that exist in the
proposed legislation. He expressed that there need to be some
changes made before DPS could fully support the proposed
legislation.
2:30:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that it seemed to him that the
proposed legislation was deleting or diluting several
requirements pertaining to good moral character standards for
the VPSO program and expressed that this is of concern to him.
He asked Captain Merrill whether he could comment on standards
required under APSC, and the requirements in the proposed
legislation for VPSOs.
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that DPS has concerns with the ability
for felons to become VPSOs. He said that this becomes a
challenge not only in the academy and said that there are
requirements at times that people are taught subversive
investigative skills that DPS does not want the general public
to know. He pointed out that individuals must pass CJIS
requirements just to be present in the building for those types
of training, and individuals without clearance must be escorted
into the headquarters building. He expressed that the training
and reductions are of concern, and that they need to be
addressed. He said that while he supports the idea of
increasing the stature of the VPSOs and giving them more
responsibility that they have not had in the past, the right
people are needed to do that job. He pointed out that there is
a reason the state troopers are required to take polygraph tests
and go through psychological evaluations, because they have the
authority granted to them through the state to take individuals
rights away; they put people in handcuffs and use force. He
expressed that DPS wants to ensure that it is hiring the right
people, and he said he understands that there is a crisis
surrounding not being able to find people in the rural
communities to do that job, but the right people need to be
found who can do the job appropriately and safely while
minimizing concern as much as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW remarked that for an individual to
investigate felony level crimes, such as sexual assault,
training is needed specific to that. He remarked that the
proposed legislation would allow VPSOs to investigate felony
level crimes without that training, well into the 24 months that
they could be trained for that. He asked Captain Merrill
whether he could speak to this.
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that Representative Shaw is correct
and, as Representative Kopp had pointed out earlier, that DPS
works with the grantees to clearly define what VPSOs can do
prior to going through training. He expressed that there are
challenges with this because there are individuals who are hired
as VPSOs and are viewed as VPSOs by their communities, which do
not really care if those individuals have received the proper
training and just want them to take care of business. He said
that there is pressure put on VPSOs at times to perform duties
that are outside of their responsibilities and training, because
of a need. He said that there are still concerns, and while he
is not familiar with all the proposed training, it would depend
on whether the VPSOs would attend the full training academy
where they receive the firearm training. He stated that work is
still being done with the academy to figure out what the
proposed legislation means at the academy for training.
2:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Captain Merrill whether he felt a
need to have defined in statute what the expectation of grantees
is to ensure that they are not sending VPSOs out without proper
training.
2:35:32 PM
CAPTAIN MERRILL answered yes, and stated that as he read through
the proposed legislation, he noticed a lot of information
regarding what DPS and DCCED would do but little information on
what would be expected of the grantees. He said he thinks it
would make sense, and be fair and appropriate, to have
information that would help DPS know what to expect of the
grantees.
CAPTAIN MERRILL explained that he has worked closely with the
grantees over the past five years and met with them on a
quarterly basis to make multiple changes to the grant agreement
to try and serve the needs of each community, within regulation,
under existing statutes. He said that a challenge relating to
the proposed legislation is that there is a lot of language that
"the department shall, and the state will do," but there is not
a lot of information on what the grantees would provide. He
stated that when he started with the VPSO program, VPSOs would
be hired, given a baton, taser, and belt without training and
then be put into villages to work, and he said that it blew his
mind that this was being done. He explained that this was
changed, but the express need of having VPSOs in villages
sometimes overrides doing things safely, and there are times
when grantees want to hire VPSOs who should not be hired. He
explained that there are times when individuals who are fully
qualified, who are not disqualified due to convictions, but when
DPS does the background check it finds information of
significant concern. He said that DPS would send a letter to
the grantees stating that there are no disqualifications, but it
does not recommend hiring them based on the background check and
they would get hired anyways. He pointed out that most of the
time when DPS made those recommendations, those VPSOs left the
program under less than ideal circumstances because of behavior
or other issues.
2:38:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 287.
2:38:16 PM
MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator, offered testimony in
support of HB 287. He stated that he has been a VPSO since
Spring 2002 and has been the VPSO program coordinator for the
Aleutian Pribilof Islands Region since 2012. He said he has 18
years with the program, both in the field and as a supervisor
for the program. He said that he believes the proposed
legislation would help the people in the field, the
coordinators, and the grantees operate the VPSO program in a way
that would provide better public safety services to people in
rural Alaska. He expressed that he wanted to thank the VPSO
legislative work group for all the work it did in its report for
HB 287.
2:39:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked Mr. Nemeth what kind of training he
has had.
MR. NEMETH answered that he had training provided by the state
in 2004, where he went through eight weeks of training at the
VPSO academy, and he was required to get certification to attend
the rural fire protection specialist training, which was 96
hours of training. He stated that he is not sure how many hours
he attended the academy, and he would have to look at his
certificate to get the actual numbers. He said that he has also
been certified as an emergency trauma technician and has
multiple non DPS provided trainings in his 18-year career. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that he does not
carry a firearm.
2:40:30 PM
DAVID NEES stated that the proposed legislation is very good,
and when doing the budgeting analysis for United for Liberty, it
was found that there was a lot of room for improvement in the
VPSO program specifically. He said that moving grant management
from DPS to DCCED would allow for DCCED to oversee the actual
cost of the program. He said that it is not a huge program as
far as money, but it is very important that as much money gets
to the villages as possible and doesnt get caught up by
administrative costs. He remarked that Version O, Section 3,
Page 6, of the proposed legislation, should follow the example
of what the legislature did with charter schools, as charter
schools have a similar set up in which authority is delegated to
a sub-unit, and that sub unit has rules. He expressed that the
number should be changed from 35 percent to 3 to 5 percent, and
this would free up more money to go towards the cost of
training.
MR. NEES expressed that firearms training is important, as
Representative Shaw had mentioned, and that the VPSOs should be
trained in firearms and conflict de-escalation, as they are the
peace officers and deputies for the state. He said that
anything that can be done to improve the lives of VPSOs by
transferring more money into their pockets by getting rid of
administrative costs would be a good thing. He summarized that
he thinks the proposed legislation has a lot of merit to it, has
a lot of bugs that need to be ironed out of it, but that he
thinks moving it from DPS to DCCED puts the money into the
villages and is used for public safety and not administration of
the program.
2:44:25 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Executive Director, Native People's Action,
offered testimony in support of HB 287. She stated that she is
a tribal citizen of Tlingit and Haida, is originally from
Wrangell and Juneau, currently lives in Anchorage, and is the
mother of two children who are two of her biggest reasons for
being an advocate for increased public safety in Alaska. She
thanked Representative Kopp, Ken Truitt, and the VPSO working
group for making the proposed legislation a priority.
MS. KLOSTER stated that Native Peoples Action is a statewide
Alaska native nonprofit that gives voice to its peoples and
traditional ways of life by taking a stand, working together,
and mobilized action. She said that this is done to ensure
Alaska natives are heard in all levels of policy making. She
stated that Native Peoples Action advocates for safe
communities, equal access to education, health and wellness, and
traditional ways of life. She expressed that public safety is
the right of every Alaskan, and everyone has the right to feel
safe in his/her community, no matter where they live, be that
urban or rural. She explained that safe communities have been a
top priority at Native Peoples Action, and it reaches out to
individuals in communities across the state through surveys,
emails, and phone conversations, and she said public safety is
in the top three concerns that Alaskans are expressing. She
said that numerous people have expressed that only one in three
villages has a VPSO, and the decrease in VPSOs over the years
has been observed.
MS. KLOSTER expressed that Native Peoples Action appreciates
the proposed legislation, because it would take care of some of
the issues that have been brought forward, one of which is
moving funding to DCCED, which she said she thinks is
appropriate for managing funds. She said the proposed
legislation would remove barriers in statute that have hindered
the VPSO program and would still allow for local control on
government to government relationships. She expressed that
tribes and communities have a good feel for what goes on in
those communities, and she thinks this is a good partnership
that should continue throughout Alaska. She summarized that
Native Peoples Action appreciates the work being done to
provide and support more VPSOs, and she hopes that the
legislature will support HB 287.
2:47:13 PM
KELSEY WALLACE, Communications Director, Native People's Action,
offered testimony in support of HB 287. She stated that she is
originally from Bethel Alaska, she is Yupik, and lives in
Anchorage. She said that she is offering testimony as a mom and
concerned family member and friend. She commended the VPSO
working group for its recommendations and said that she thinks
this would be a great first step in ensuring a better public
safety system for Alaska. She stated that Alaskas communities
deserve first responders no matter where they live, and
currently her family members and friends do not have anyone to
turn to when something happens in their communities; oftentimes
they must rely on other community members for help.
MS. WALLACE shared a story of her friend, Apayu Moore, who had
her home broken into this past year in Aleknagik. She explained
that Ms. Moore was home alone when she was woken up to her
window shattering as someone was breaking into her home, and,
when she looked out the window, she saw a man climbing up a
ladder. Ms. Wallace said that even after Ms. Moore shouted to
the man that she had a gun, he kept trying to get into her home,
at which point Ms. Moore fired the gun into the ground in hopes
of scaring the man off and buying some time to call 911;
however, when she called 911 Ms. Moore was told that a police
officer could not be sent, and when she called the troopers the
dispatch was sent to Kenai and the on-call trooper could not be
reached. Ms. Wallace said that by the time the trooper was able
to get to Aleknagik, Ms. Moore had gotten her neighbors to
respond, who helped her board up the broken window and let her
stay at their house for safety. She expressed that her friend
is an incredible single mother, a recognized artist, and a true
example of a person dedicated to living and thriving in rural
Alaska. She said that luckily Ms. Moore's kids were not home
with her at the time of the attack, but the trauma from the
experience still affects her and her kids to this day.
MS. WALLACE commented that Ms. Moore was able to stop a rape or
any physical contact that the man could have inflicted on her by
defending herself and relying on neighbors, but this often is
not the case for a lot of other people living in rural Alaska.
She summarized that the updates proposed under HB 287 are
needed, and it is literally a matter of life and safety.
2:50:47 PM
CAROL PISCOYA, Vice President, Community Services Division,
Kawerak, Inc., offered testimony on HB 287. She stated that one
of the programs she manages is the VPSO program. She thanked
the working group for the time spent working hard on HB 287.
She said that Kawerak, Inc. supports HB 287, but it does have
concerns regarding the felony section of the proposed
legislation, and she suggested that perhaps it needs more
research. She said that Kawerak, Inc. is proud to have seven
VPSOs currently, even though there are still eight vacancies;
however, the seven VPSOs are all from the villages that they
serve. She said that Kawerak, Inc. is constantly recruiting and
encourage local people to apply for VPSO positions in their
communities, because they know their communities and have
housing, as they already live there. She stated that in the
past, when the Kawerak, Inc. VPSO program has requested funds
for additional items, in most cases it has received them,
although some other entities have not received them. She said
that Kawerak, Inc. supports providing flexibility in requesting
additional items that are not included in the budget.
2:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Ms. Piscoya could briefly
explain the concerns regarding felonies in the proposed
legislation.
MS. PISCOYA answered that the concerns were essentially the same
as stated earlier by Captain Merrill.
2:53:14 PM
MARTHA WHITMAN-KASSOCK, Program Administrator, Association of
Village Council Presidents (AVCP), offered testimony in support
of HB 287. She stated that she has oversight over the VPSO
program, which is in AVCPs community services division. She
said that its VPSO director is Alvin Jimmie. She explained that
AVCP is a tribal consortium with 56 federally recognized tribes
as members, it is in Southwest Alaska with 48 villages along the
Kuskokwim and Yukon Rivers and the Bering Sea coast. She said
that AVCPs service area is the same size as the State of
Washington. She pointed out that there is a well-documented
public safety crisis in rural Alaska. She said that AVCPs
tribes have prioritized public safety as the number one priority
for AVCP. She expressed that public safety is the right of all
Alaskans, rural and urban. She explained that there are many
components to rural public safety, and the VPSO program is one
component, which works well when the program is supported. She
said that tribes in her region want VPSOs because they know how
effective it is to have a VPSO in the community.
MS. WHITMAN-KASSOCK stated that the VPSO tribal caucus, which is
made up of the 10 contractors that oversee the VPSO grant, has
been working together to strengthen the VPSO program and has
created a strategic plan it envisions for the program. She said
that AVCP would like to thank the VPSO legislative working group
for listening to its recommendations and taking to heart the
needs of residents in rural Alaska. She expressed that HB 287
reflects many of the concepts AVCP supports to strengthen the
VPSO program and deliver the public safety services that
Alaskas communities deserve. She said that HB 287 supports a
collaborative working relationship between AVCP, the people
operating the program within the villages, and the State of
Alaska. She said that tribes and tribal organizations have
decades of experience operating successful social services, as
well as health programs, and are experts at providing services
in remote, rural, and hard to reach communities. She thanked
the House Special Committee on Tribal Affairs, the VPSO
legislative working group, and the tribal caucus for their
support of rural Alaskans.
2:55:50 PM
DARELL HILDEBRAND, VPSO Coordinator, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
offered testimony in support of HB 287. He said that Tanana
Chiefs conference supports HB 287, especially with the changes
made through amendments. He thanked the VPSO legislative
working group for working so hard with the caucus and the VPSO
grantees to make these much-needed changes for rural Alaska. He
explained that he has been in law enforcement for 21 years, and
in all that time he has never seen changes such as these for the
VPSO program He said that he thinks they are positive changes
that need to happen for the villages to continue on with the
VPSO program, so that they are not in the same position 20 years
from now.
2:57:10 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY offered testimony on HB 287. She expressed
that she was upset about a lot of things going on at the
legislature, and expressed it was appropriate that it was Friday
the 13th. She said that she was in Washington D.C. when two
VPSOs were shot and killed in Hoonah, and it was a tragedy. She
expressed that the people tell a different story than what the
troopers had in their reports. She said that VPSOs are needed,
and they must be locals, or the program will not work. She
expressed frustration at the Capitol building being closed to
the public while the legislature was "also passing laws." She
mentioned the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), and said that she
"will see some people out of this building in handcuffs, because
stealing the peoples money is against the law." She said that
she knew she was off target, but said that she wanted to voice
her opinion before she had to leave the building, as it was
being closed to the public at 5 p.m.
2:59:07 PM
CHRIS HATCH, VPSO Coordinator, Copper River Native Association,
offered testimony in support of HB 287. He stated that the
Copper River Native Association strongly supports the proposed
legislation, although, it has concerns like those of Kawerak
regarding standards.
2:59:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 287.
3:00:07 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSHB 287(TRB) would be held over for
further review.
3:00:21 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 290 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. K 3.10.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Summary of Changes v. S to v. K 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 ver. S 2.24.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Sponsor Statement v. S 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Sectional Analysis v. S 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Supporting Document - Mat-Su Health Foundation Letter 3.5.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Supporting Document - Crisis Now Alaska Consultation Report 12.13.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Mental Health Continuum of Care (Individuals 18 Years and Older) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Substance Use Disorder Continuum of Care (Individuals 12 Years and Older) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Additional Document - DHSS Mental Health Continuum of Care (At-Risk Children & Adolescents Ages 0-21) 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Fiscal Note DHSS-HFLC 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Fiscal Note DHSS-MS 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Fiscal Note DPS-AST 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 Fiscal Note LAW-CRIM 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 290 v. K Amendments #1-2 HJUD 3.13.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |
| HB 287 v. O 3.11.2020.PDF |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Sponsor Statement v. K 3.3.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM HTRB 3/3/2020 8:00:00 AM HTRB 3/5/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Sectional Analysis v. O 3.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 PowerPoint Presentation HJUD (Updated) 3.13.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Additional Document - DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.4.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Additional Document - VPSO Co-Chairs Response to DPS Recommendations and Considerations 3.12.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-ALET 3.2.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCRA 3.6.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 3.2.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Fiscal Note DPS-VPSO 3.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 290 v. K Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Votes 3.13.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 290 |