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