HB 287-VILLAGE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER GRANTS  2:05:03 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).] 2:05:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether this was the proposed legislation which would be "80 percent for government, 20 percent for the PFD," or whether that was a different bill. CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that this is the proposed legislation pertaining to the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program. He remarked that the proposed legislation Representative LeDoux was referring to had not passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee and was not before the committee. 2:07:08 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) had expressed some concerns with the proposed legislation regarding felonies, and if those were addressed, then the department would not have objections to CSHB 287(TRB). He asked the bill sponsor for more information pertaining to the felony backgrounds and asked whether there was a fix for the proposed legislation that has the support of DPS. He then noted that there was a representative from DPS who could answer questions. 2:08:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as prime sponsor of HB 287, answered that the question came up about whether there should be the same qualification standard eligibility to serve as a VPSO as any other law enforcement job class, which currently requires no felonies. He said that originally, when the language was adopted, it came out of a recognition that in many of the rural areas with the highest incidents of violence, assault, and substance abuse in the state, there are some outstanding young men and women who did not come out unscathed, but who have the trust of their villages and communities. He said that it was asked whether there should be a standard that if an individual has no prior sex offense or crime-against-a-person convictions but had a drug or alcohol possession felony that was over 10 years old, should there be a lifetime ban? He said that there was good discussion around the issue, and the result was the determination that it is difficult to have different background qualifiers for different job classes, and much like standardizing the age of 21 as seen in previous legislation, it would be easier if there was a standard of no felonies. He expressed that this would hit some people harshly, as not all felonies are the same; for example, he said that first time drug possession convictions are now misdemeanors but would still be disqualifiers. He said that after talking with the grantees, they feel comfortable leaving it as a no felony standard, and he said that he is amenable to that. 2:10:49 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that the existing version of the proposed legislation allows for some felonies under certain circumstances, and he asked whether Representative Kopp's suggestion was that the proposed legislation would be amended to make it so that the only prior convictions that would be permitted for employment would be misdemeanors. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that is correct. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill what the department's perspective was on working an amendment into the proposed legislation so that the only crimes an individual could have convictions for and still get hired as a VPSO would be misdemeanor crimes, and all felonies would be barriers. 2:11:48 PM ANDREW MERRILL, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, responded that this change would reinclude the current language in the VPSO regulations of felony convictions being disqualifiers, and he said that this would absolutely be a step in the right direction, which DPS would support. CHAIR CLAMAN asked what should be done to address someone who has a felony conviction over 10 years old that would be a misdemeanor conviction under current laws. As an example, he remarked that someone could have a 15-year old possession of cocaine conviction, which would be a misdemeanor under current law. CAPTAIN MERILL answered that under current regulation that would be a disqualifier and that individual would not be eligible for hire, regardless of when the conviction took place. He added that if someone is convicted of a felony at any time, he/she would not be eligible. CHAIR CLAMAN asked both Captain Merrill and Representative Kopp whether there was a reason to try to make provisions for old felonies that would be misdemeanors under current law, [for the sake of] employment eligibility. CAPTAIN MERRILL replied that he is not a lawyer and might need to ask "law" to weigh in, but on his side of the issue he thinks the simplest thing for consistency would be that a felony conviction at any time would be a disqualifier. 2:13:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that he agrees with Captain Merrill, and that conduct that was considered a felony at the time it was done should be viewed as a disqualifier. He expressed that this is a delicate issue on which he has listened to the perspective of DPS and the grantees, and they would like to have the regulation maintained as a no-felony status. CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that he had not answered the part of Chair Claman's question pertaining to misdemeanors. He said that removing the felonies was important, but that domestic violence misdemeanor convictions should be maintained as disqualifiers. 2:14:30 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:14 p.m. 2:14:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he recognizes that the current DPS regulation is no domestic violence assault misdemeanors within 10 years, and the proposed legislation is consistent with that. 2:15:30 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Captain Merrill or Representative Kopp could identify other issues that the state troopers have with the proposed legislation that there has been some effort to resolve over the last few days. He remarked that he is trying to take the committee down the path of what is being done to address concerns and determine whether these changes would satisfy the troopers. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that they may not ever get everyone satisfied but were doing the best they could to bring out a good piece of legislation. He stated that other concerns were that the language that sets the standard for good moral character as a minimum qualification for VPSOs and probation officers, also be applied to every job class of police officer, as this class is given law enforcement duties. He stated that a recommendation from the Department of Law (DOL), which he said that he agrees with completely, is to insert language that refers to a person being of good moral character and someone who has not been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, which includes bribery, deception, and fraud. He stated that in light of this recommendation, his office had worked on a proposal that it would bring before the committee at the right time. 2:17:51 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp whether he has had a chance to speak with Captain Merrill or others from DPS about the moral character language as described. 2:18:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that the only person he had spoken with was Mr. Skidmore at DOL, and he had not spoken with anyone at DPS about this. 2:18:22 PM CAPTAIN MERRILL remarked that this was one of the recommendations DPS had made, and he said that it appreciates that the bill sponsor is considering amendments that DPS thinks are very important to include in the proposed legislation. He stated that domestic violence is very complex because there are domestic violence convictions allowed under current regulations, which was brought up as part of a discussion among the 10 grantees and DPS over the last couple of years regarding hiring applicants with prior domestic violence convictions. He said that DPS has noticed over the past couple of years that none of the grantees have hired any applicants with a domestic violence conviction, because of challenges it creates in application in the field. CAPTAIN MERRILL explained that it is like what he discussed at the previous meeting regarding felonies and possession of firearms. He said that there are certain classes of domestic violence convictions that are permanent disqualifiers for someone to possess a firearm or ammunition. He stated that the challenge comes from having to look closely at how a person was convicted and what they were convicted of; was it a person in the household or a direct family member? He said that while the state has classifications for domestic violence convictions up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, the challenge becomes that some of those are not permanent disqualifiers, and it is difficult to separate those. He said that while current regulation allows this, DPS has had concerns over the last several years for that allowance, because if VPSOs move toward being fully capable of carrying firearms, or if VPSOs convicted of a disqualifier are sent to the academy and participate in firearms training, then they could be violating federal law. CAPTAIN MERRILL said that Kathryn Monfreda might be on the line to offer more information on the topic, and he said that there are some prohibitors that DPS would like to continue discussion on to ensure people, who might have those prohibitors are not being put into a weird situation. He expressed that he is not certain that a blanket domestic violence disqualifier is the right answer, but that is something that needs to be looked at more closely. 2:20:45 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that what he was hearing is that there is a regulation that suggests that after 10 years an individual could still get hired, but in the field in practice no one is getting hired, in part because of the difficulty which arises that some domestic violence convictions create a permanent ban on weapons possession, which makes it nearly impossible to hire someone because it is almost guaranteed that there will be situations in which a VPSO would need to take possession of a weapon in the course of his/her work. He asked Kathryn Monfreda whether she could offer more insight into the issues regarding domestic violence convictions and how easy it is to navigate a 10-year period for eligibility. 2:21:52 PM KATHRYN MONFREDA, Director, Division of Statewide Support, Department of Public Safety, answered that there has been a lot of case law in recent years regarding misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and an early U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2006 led to the conclusion that none of Alaska's misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence fit the federal prohibitor. She said that a couple of years ago that ruling was overturned and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled differently, determining that some misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, depending on the relationship between the offender and the victim and the degree of force used, could be misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence that are prohibitors under federal law. She said that it is probable that the VPSO regulations were written under the old U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which is why it could be put in that after a certain period of time had lapsed someone could be a VPSO, but under current law and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, there is no relief from that prohibitor if barred under federal law. She remarked that she checked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is the expert on the topic, and it confirmed that there is no way to get relief from that disability, regardless of time. 2:23:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the domestic violence prohibitor was in respect to carrying a firearm in the course of duty, which he said he thinks it is, and asked whether it also plays into the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) access or was not an issue with domestic violence. MS. MONFREDA answered that the prohibitor would deny CJIS access for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, but a waiver could be requested of that denial by providing the circumstances of why the conviction should not be considered a prohibitor. She added that this does not impact the federal possession or transfer of firearms and ammunition. 2:24:34 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether an individual, even if he/she could have access to the CJIS database, could not take possession of a firearm during his/her duties and take it from someone's house back to the VPSO station. MS. MONFREDA answered that that is correct. 2:24:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that this is an issue, like the felonies, in which he wants to find the path that suits the public safety process the best. He said that Michael Nemeth, a VPSO coordinator with a lot of experience in this area, was online. 2:25:23 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been following the current discussion regarding misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. 2:25:35 PM MICHAEL NEMETH, VPSO Program Coordinator, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, answered that he had been following the current discussion. He remarked that Ms. Monfreda had commented earlier on the domestic violence prohibitor, and the fact that there are portions depending upon family member and severity of the domestic violence conviction that would not be addressed under the federal provision. He said this could be a situation where two college roommates get into a "bit of a scuffle," one is arrested and convicted, and 15 years has passed. He said this conviction might not be covered under the federal provision that would prohibit the possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition. He asked Ms. Monfreda for clarification on the topic. 2:27:00 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Monfreda whether she could draw some distinction between the relationships that create a federal barrier and the relationships that do not, under which the 10- year provision would not make any difference. 2:27:17 PM MS. MONFREDA answered that the federal requirement is that there must be an intimate relationship between the victim and offender, so Mr. Nemeth was right; if it was two [college roommates] that got into a fight, then it would not be a federal prohibitor. She explained that there is a list of specific relationship requirements for prohibitors under federal law, which includes an intimate partner, spouse, and stepparent of a child who is neglected or abused. CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he thinks the point Ms. Monfreda was making is that there are four or five categories that are prohibited and several other categories that are not, but when trying to decide whether the ban is a lifetime ban, it can be complicated. MS. MONFREDA confirmed that was correct. She said the relationship of the victim and the offender needs to be determined under federal law, not state law. She explained that state law is much broader as far as domestic relationships go. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Mr. Nemeth whether he had been hiring anyone with domestic violence convictions at all, or whether the confusion and challenges had put up a barrier that effectively stops hiring anyone with domestic violence convictions. 2:28:50 PM MR. NEMETH answered that in the 18 years he has been a VPSO for his organization, and the 8 years as a VPSO coordinator, he has not hired someone with a domestic violence conviction of any kind. He said that this has not affected his organization, but he sees how a domestic violence conviction that did not fit the federal guideline, like two brothers or two roommates, could affect the ability for an organization to hire someone down the road. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he was seeking to address, in terms of amending the proposed legislation. 2:29:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were a few more items he wanted to address. He stated that in CSHB 287(TRB), page 6, there is reference to federally recognized tribes, and he said that the reason for that is that this is what all the grantees are. He commented that the grantees have formed nonprofit entities to partner with the state in delivering public safety services. He said that there are 229 federally recognized tribes and only 10 grantees, and it was found that this language had the unintended result of raising the concern among the grantees as to whether they had the money for 229 entities to form partnerships with the state VPSOs, and the fact is that the entities that want to deliver public safety this way are already doing so. He stated that it was not the intention to open the program up to all 229 potential applicants, but to have the ten tribes that do partner with the state stay healthy. He expressed that there are limited funds as it is, and the recommendation is to delete that reference from the proposed legislation to make it clear that the program is not being opened to all 229 tribes. He said that if a new entity wanted to partner with the program, it would not be disqualified from doing so. CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Kopp also wants to remove the reference to "federally recognized tribes" that occurs [in Section 3, subsection (b)], on page 4, [lines 5-6]. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP confirmed that is correct. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill or Ms. Monfreda whether those changes to page 4 would resolve one of the concerns that DPS has raised. 2:31:43 PM CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that from his perspective, there is no specific issue with the addition of the federally recognized tribe language; however, he did note that it would make all the tribes eligible. He stated that in his experience in operating the VPSO program since 2014, he has been approached by individual tribes that were interested in operating the program that were not eligible because they were not nonprofit, because they were not happy with the interaction between their villages or tribes and the nonprofits for their regions. He said that he does not know that DPS has any concerns with that specific language being included, or excluded, from the proposed legislation. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Representative Kopp what other issues he had looked at in terms of potential amendments. 2:32:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there were two other issues that he had not yet addressed, which deal with standardizing regulations pertaining to the possession of drugs. He said that the standard for police officers, VPSOs, probation officers, and parole officers is that an individual cannot have possessed illegal drugs within ten years, unless that individual was under the age of 21. He said that a drafting oversight resulted in the portion that specifies unless someone is under 21 not appearing in the proposed legislation, which would make it stricter than the regulations for the other job classes. In response to a follow up question, he confirmed that this was a change he wanted to make through an amendment. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Captain Merrill whether the troopers would have any problem with that change. 2:33:38 PM CAPTAIN MERRILL answered that the more closely the proposed legislation resembles the standards for other police officers based on the language used in previous hearings, which said the VPSOs should have more authority and more of a breadth-of-scope of work, the better. He added that the troopers think it is appropriate that it mirror very closely what is required under the Alaska Police Standards Council (APSC) standards. 2:34:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be "competitive bidding" if a tribe wanted to get involved in the program. She asked whether that was something done currently and whether the federally recognized tribe language being removed from the proposed legislation would allow for competitive bidding. She remarked she knows that some of the entities charge a lot more than other entities when it comes to overhead charges; therefore, competition would not necessarily be a bad thing. 2:35:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that there were a couple of things touched on by Representative LeDoux that he wanted to address to give context. In terms of competitiveness, he said the legislature funds a finite line item in the DPS budget for approximately $11 million, approximately $2.5 million of which goes to administering the program. He remarked that what is left goes between the ten grantees who develop their budgets based on their differing needs. He explained that the money is apportioned based on need. He expressed that one of the challenges for the current system is a lack of transparency in how these decisions are made; the grantees feel like there is no objective standard as to why a fellow grantee "got this much, and we got this much, and we don't know how those decisions are made." He said that this was one of the things that drove the process. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, regarding whether someone new wanting to get into the program could get in, said the answer is yes. As of now they would have to form a nonprofit and partner with the state. He said, "If the complaint is 'I don't like the nonprofit I was thinking of partnering with or a particular tribe,' well these ... are all the entities that are necessarily the partners, so it may not work out for that area." He said that not having the three words "federally recognized tribe" would not stop any tribe that wants to partner with the state from putting together a nonprofit vehicle to do so. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked why they would have to put together a nonprofit vehicle. She remarked that Representative Kopp had spoken eloquently on the House floor recently about the need to recognize tribes, and she said that she voted for that legislation partially based on what he had expressed. She said that the proposed legislation is now saying that "you don't necessarily want to deal with tribes, but we need to go through the nonprofits." She expressed that she was confused by this. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed appreciation for Representative LeDoux's kind words and support on that legislation, and he said that he thinks Mr. Nemeth, who runs a VPSO program, would be well able to explain this topic. 2:37:41 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there was legislation heard just this year that addressed the fact that Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes ("Tlingit & Haida") have a slightly different qualification, and he asked whether this legislation had passed through the House and the Senate already. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that that is correct, and it is law now. CHAIR CLAMAN asked for a "refresher" on what was done earlier with legislation, specifically with the VPSO program and those eligible to be grantees. He remarked that it seemed like the class had been expanded by one, but he said that he recalls some testimony that there "was only ten and no one else is interested, or something to that effect." 2:38:31 PM KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Chuck Kopp, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kopp, prime sponsor of HB 287, stated that the legislation Chair Claman was referring to was passed in the last session and is current law. He said that it added into statute and is included in HB 287, under subsection (b) of the reenacted AS 18.65.670, on page 4. He explained that it is the same section of the proposed legislation that was previously cited in regard to removing the language "federally recognized tribes." He said that the passed legislation added into statute the phrase "Alaska Native organizations", which has a definition under a different part of the Alaska statutes, in which Tlingit & Haida is referenced. He remarked that the definition of what an Alaska Native organization is, is tightly crafted somewhere else in the Alaska statutes, and this is what allowed Tlingit & Haida to be a program operator as a tribe under the phrase Alaska Native organizations. He expressed he thinks that as the bill drafters made this change, federally recognized tribes were not added in, precisely because of the dynamic that it could potentially open the VPSO program to all 229 entities, and they were not prepared for that. He said he thinks that Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins was the bill sponsor. 2:40:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that Representative Kreiss- Tomkins' legislation managed to make an exception for Tlingit & Haida to continue to operate, even though it is not a nonprofit corporation. She expressed that she has a hard time seeing why there shouldn't be an amendment allowing for any tribe that wants to apply to operate a VPSO program to be able to, if it feels it could do a better job than that being done currently by another organization. She said that she has represented villages in the past, and sometimes tribal entities think they could do a better job than a regional association. She remarked that this may or may not be the case, and she asked, "Why not let it be open and let the chips fall where they may?" 2:41:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP answered that there are short-term and long- term goals, and the proposed legislation is a "near-term view" of allowing the VPSO program to grow under control. He said that another near-term goal, over the next couple of years, is to move the VPSO program under APSC, but under HB 287 it would remain under DPS regulation as it is currently. He expressed that this was mainly because these are significant policy lifts, and he said that the VPSO work group focused on issues that had "the most immediacy, to achieve the most good in a legislative session that is now overrun with Coronavirus." He remarked that time was short, and Representative LeDoux had brought up a good policy discussion. He expressed that long term, that was the direction that the work group wanted things to go. He said that the grantees who the proposed legislation was for, for rural public safety in rural Alaska, are uncomfortable with "opening it wide open at this time," as the money available to the program would not be increased, aside from another $1 million that was appropriated, if it "survives." He reiterated that one of the grantees should be allowed to comment on the topic, because it is just a policy call. 2:43:14 PM MR. NEMETH explained that his organization, Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, represents 13 tribes in the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Region. He explained that a board member from each of those tribes sits on his organization's board, and there is a resolution through the board which allows his organization to manage the VPSO program for his region. He expressed that he is not certain how other organizations work but said that he thinks they also have board members representing their tribes, or the tribe members at least have access to the board and could bring concerns if they were not happy with the management of their programs. He said that there is one organization representing 13 tribes, with 6 VPSOs within those 13 tribes, because 3 of the larger communities have their own municipal police departments. He remarked that another 20 tribes being allowed to apply on their own and receive funds would make it much more different to manage the program as 30 grantees than as 10 grantees. He commented that he thinks Captain Merrill could speak to his, as he has worked so closely with the 10 grantee organizations over approximately the past five years. He said that it seems to him like it would be almost an impossible barrier to overcome, with that number of grantees. 2:45:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she agreed with Mr. Nemeth that it would be impossible to change from one grantee to an additional 10 or 15 grantees. She remarked that perhaps it could be structured so that there is a grant for running an entire program in a specific region; as an example, she pointed out the Aleutian Pribilof area. She said that a tribe might think it could run a VPSO program better and cheaper, and the grantor would need to analyze the situation to determine if this might be the case. She stated that when she heard Representative Kopp say that the grantees feel uncomfortable holding it open to anyone else, she thinks that it is similar to a business, such as a bar, being uncomfortable with having more licenses, but this does not necessarily mean that other licenses could not be a good thing. 2:47:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that there are near-term and long-term goals, and the work group is looking at the best near- term approach that the grantees have identified would allow for the program to grow in a healthy way. He expressed that Representative LeDoux was identifying a future that he thinks is possible, but he reminded her that each grantee acts like a local public safety department, and he reiterated that the tribes are represented on those boards. He pointed out that his staff, Mr. Truitt, was a former VPSO coordinator when he was general counsel to Tlingit & Haida and ran the program in Southeast Alaska. He explained that Tlingit & Haida's board works the same way as Mr. Nemeth had explained his board works; tribes are represented on the boards. He said that Representative LeDoux's suggestion was like asking why a competitive bid wouldn't that be allowed for the Anchorage Police Department, and he explained it would not be allowed because it is a municipality police department. He stated that the tribes have long-standing public safety partnerships that have gone on for decades; it is not like there are a few people waiting in the wings to bid and provide a service. He summarized that a future where more doors are opened could be theorized, but the reality is that the VPSO program is stable and is structured like local public safety, and he said that is the best way he could explain it. 2:48:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he thinks there are two sides to the question: one side is that if the goal were to make the program more competitive, then those changes should be put in place under statute now; and the other side is that there is not really a worry, as there have been a limited number of entities applying for the program over the years. He expressed that it seems unlikely that someone would apply for the program in the near-term, even if the proposed legislation were to open the program to more entities. He said that he would expect to see the same program operators coming back, as getting dialed up with the level of resources needed to run a program would be problematic. 2:50:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she would agree that she did not envision many people applying for the program; however, she said the program has so many problems with recruitment, retention, and most everything else, that it is not as if nothing needs to be changed and everything is going great. She commented that another entity may, however unlikely, have a good idea, and she asked, "Why would you want to preclude it?" 2:51:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that the question has already been asked and answered, and he expressed that he thinks Representative LeDoux is speaking to a future that is desirable. He commented that when opening the door without giving the grantees an adequate understanding of what that might currently look like, the caution received was that the grantees appreciate the direction the VPSO work group wanted to go, but that currently they do not know what that might look like and need time to process it. 2:51:36 PM CHAIR CLAMAN noted that his sense from DPS was that it does not have a strong position as to whether the language, "federally recognized tribes", should remain in the proposed legislation. CHAIR CLAMAN noted for the committee that this discussion was a lot of background that would help when getting to amendments. He remarked that it might seem as if this was a more detailed work-through on the proposed legislation than might be seen usually in this committee but said that he thinks this is part of an effort to move HB 287 forward with some of the limits in time. He remarked that Representative Kopp had commented briefly on a conviction issue, and asked what other issues were on Representative Kopp's list. 2:52:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied, "That just about covers it." He said DOL had asked for clarity that the intent is to allow VPSOs to cover multiple villages, and he confirmed that is the intent. He pointed out one section of the proposed legislation, under AS 18.65.670(e) and (f), which seemed to require a VPSO for each village under (e), while (f) said a VPSO could cover multiple villages. He said [the working group] was looking at language to clarify that while villages do partner with the state in this program, it is not the intent of the proposed legislation that a VPSO would not be allowed to go out of a village to a neighboring village, if that is where the need is. 2:53:26 PM CHAIR CLAMAN remarked that he knew Representative Kopp had met with DOL, and he requested that Representative Kopp's office also communicate directly with Captain Merrill to share proposed amendments. He said that while he acknowledges that at some level the DOL should be speaking on behalf of the troopers, he recognizes that it can be helpful to have the perspective of the troopers. He shared that he had been working on a different bill, and the DOL criminal division seemed content, but a couple of police departments had some questions, and so he had asked that they coordinate with Captain Merrill, so Captain Merrill had an opportunity to review proposed amendments. 2:54:35 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that CSHB 287(TRB) would be held over for further review.