HB 351-POLICE OFFICER PROTECTIONS/CERTIFICATION  8:04:02 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 351, "An Act establishing procedures relating to issuance, suspension, or revocation of certification of police officers by the police standards council; making certain court service officers subject to certification by the police standards council; making confidential certain information that personally identifies a police officer; relating to requesting or requiring police officers to submit to lie detector tests; repealing a provision exempting certain police officers from a prohibition against requiring certain employees to submit to lie detector tests; and providing for an effective date." 8:05:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 351 as sponsor. He stated that the proposed legislation was introduced at the request of the Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA) and would ensure that police officers are afforded protection of their civil liberties when faced with unproven allegations or threats related to their job performance. He directed attention to a matrix [in the committee packet], which shows four general areas within the legislation: Licensure Impacts for Misconduct; Definition of Police Officer; Administration of Lie Detector Tests; and Confidentiality of Personal Information. Currently, he said, revocation and refusal to issue a permit is left to the discretion of the Alaska Police Standards Commission. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said under HB 351 suspension would be allowed without a hearing; revocation and refusal to issue a permit would be allowed after a hearing and decision if the allegations were proven by clear and convincing evidence; and suspension, revocation, or refusal to issue a certificate based on a disciplinary action that has been reversed or removed based on an official proceeding outlined by a collective bargaining agreement, personnel rules, or the Administrative Procedure Act would be prohibited. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said court services officers would be added to the definition of police officer. Regarding the administration of lie detector tests, he mentioned [AS 23.10.037], which currently prohibits employers from administering lie detector tests to employees and job applicants. He indicated that HB 351 would repeal a section of law that exempts police officers from the current prohibition. He indicated that [job applicants] are not supposed to be part of that exemption, and he said there is an amendment prepared to address that. He stated that under HB 351, personal information would remain confidential unless the officer voluntarily authorizes its release in writing. 8:13:37 AM DAVE SEXTON, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said under HB 351, the council would have to follow along with decisions made at a hearing, for example. Currently, he said, although the council takes many sources under advisement, it is totally independent. He relayed that when an officer in an agency is terminated, the hiring agency is required to report that termination, as well as report whether the officer resigned under investigation or in lieu of investigation, and whether the agency recommends decertification. He said the council takes that information under advisement. He said there are a number of ways that the council can start an investigation on its own, for example, in response to reading an article in the newspaper or receiving a tip from a citizen; however, most of the time the information received is from the hiring agency. MR. SEXTON emphasized that revocation is rare. He relayed that at any particular time there are 3,000 officers in Alaska, and in the last five years the council has revoked only six certificates, and those were for serious criminal matters. He said his staff does the primary investigation, and many times decides at that level that there is no reason to revoke. If the matter goes to council, the council thoroughly vets the matter. He reemphasized the need for the council to maintain its independence. He noted there has been one instance in which the hearing officer ruled to give the officer his job back, but the council revoked the certificate anyway. He indicated that the hearing officer had ruled on a procedural issue, while the council considered that the behavior of the officer had been egregious and unprofessional in nature. 8:17:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 1 of the proposed bill, which would amend AS 18.65.240(c). He said currently there is no requirement for a notice and a hearing in statute. He asked if Mr. Sexton has received or requested any legal opinions regarding the constitutionality of the statute. 8:18:54 AM MR. SEXTON deferred to the Department of Law, but said that the council gives notice. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Sexton if Section 1 of HB 351 would bring the statute into conformance with existing regulations. MR. SEXTON reiterated that currently the council gives notice. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referenced page 1, lines 12, and asked if current regulations allow the accused to request a hearing for a suspension as well as for a revocation. MR. SEXTON answered that currently the council does not have the authority to suspend; language in Section 1 would give that authority. He stated that the council supports having that capability. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Sexton if he would support allowing the accused officer to request a hearing before a suspension. MR. SEXTON replied that the council has not yet discussed that matter. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would explore that issue when the bill is heard by committees of referral. 8:21:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to the fiscal note prepared by David Sexton, Executive Director, Alaska Police Standards Council [included in the committee packet]. MR. SEXTON clarified that although his name is on the fiscal note, it was actually prepared by his staff. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN observed that it is a zero fiscal note, but noted language in the analysis portion states that ["DPS could potentially be required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back wages to cover the period of time from the date of termination until the date of the decision."] He remarked that it is unusual for HB 351 not to have a referral to the House Finance Committee. He asked Mr. Sexton to point to the section in HB 351 that refers to the possible cost to DPS. MR. SEXTON answered that the language is in Section 4, [paragraph (7)], subparagraph (D), on page 3, lines 5-7, and would add to the definition of police officer: (D) a person who is designated  under AS 22.20.130 to assist the commissioner of  public safety in the execution of the authority and  duty vested by AS 22.20.100 - 22.20.140;  8:23:57 AM MR. SEXTON said the reason for the cost is that if court officers are brought in under the definition of police officer, then they would have to have the same training. He said under HB 351, there are 50-plus court officers who would have to be trained. In response to Representative Johansen, he said the expense would not be incurred by the Alaska Police Standards Council, but would be incurred by the department. He added: Part of [the Department of] Public Safety has since started discussions with the union. Everybody's under the agreement that we can bring the court service officers in without this change, and this change ... was taken out of the Senate version of the bill. So, we're just doing it administratively now, bit by bit, and that won't have the fiscal impact. So, ... we're currently looking at handling it administratively and not in this bill. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he appreciates that information, but opined that it is irrelevant to the committee's discussion of the proposed bill. 8:25:58 AM MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, explained the reason the court services officers have been added is to give them the ability to serve warrants and make arrests; it increases their abilities. CHAIR LYNN opined that that is "quite a jump" in abilities. MR. SEXTON, in response to Chair Lynn, said a court officer could give a warrant in the court room. MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said currently court officers act as bailiffs who maintain order in the courtroom and transport prisoners. In response to a follow- up question, he deferred to the department representatives to speak to how they envision using court services officers under HB 351. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that if court services officers are going to be asked to do a lot more, then they are going to want an increase in pay, which would be reflected in the fiscal note. MR. SEXTON said current discussions with the union have elicited an agreement that a pay raise would not happen. 8:28:29 AM MR. SEXTON, in response to the chair, said under HB 351 court services officers would be, in theory, fully trained police officers; however, he said he cannot speak to how DPS would use them. In response to a follow-up question, he said he does not know the current pay difference between police officers and court services officers. 8:29:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the courts have expressed a need for their court services officers to have an increase in abilities. MR. SEXTON answered not that he is aware. 8:29:35 AM MR. SEXTON, in response to a series of questions from Representative Seaton, confirmed that the Alaska Police Standards Council bases its conclusions on the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires preponderance of evidence. He offered his understanding that under HB 351 the council would need to "follow decisions made outside to hearings." He relayed that if the standard for proving allegations is changed to clear and convincing evidence, then the assumption is that a higher burden of proof will be required. He said he does not know how that will "shake out," but said it would separate the council from the four dozen boards and commissions that follow the Administrative Procedures Act. 8:32:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked who would do the extra work in reaching the higher burden of proof if the standard for proving allegations is raised. MR. SEXTON suggested that the council may already be finding clear and convincing evidence. He said the council is comprised of 13 members, including law enforcement and corrections administrators, citizens at large, and union members, all of whom take their jobs seriously. He reiterated that out of 200 cases there have been only six revocations. He stated that the council takes only serious cases. He said there would be no more staff to address finding clear and convincing evidence, so the burden would fall on existing staff. 8:34:24 AM MR. SEXTON, in response to Representative Gruenberg, offered his understanding that clear and convincing evidence must be used in order to disbar an attorney at law. In response to a follow-up question, he said he has not heard of any challenges as to the constitutionality of requiring only preponderance of evidence in matters related to the council. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his intent to find out more on the matter. 8:36:18 AM JOHN SKIDMORE, Division Director, Legal Services Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), offered his personal background. He stated that in the role of supervisor to special prosecutions, he was responsible for reviewing all cases that involved officers and would address all officer-involved shootings. He said he also reviewed conflict cases. He related that in his current position, he acts as the legal advisor for the Alaska Police Standards Council. Regarding HB 351, he said he would address the topic of licensure impacts, as shown on the aforementioned matrix. 8:38:42 AM MR. SKIDMORE directed attention to Section 1, on page 1, line 9, through page 2, line 5, of HB 351. He offered his understanding that Section 1 would repeal AS 18.65.240(c), which is the provision that gives the council the ability to revoke the license or certificate of a law enforcement officer. He said "it" does not specify that "we" would follow the Administrative Procedures Act; however, he noted that within the Act, which is referenced on page 2, line 1, as AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630, it is specifically stated that the Alaska Police Standards Council must follow the Act. He said under the Act there is a hearing to which anyone is entitled and during which the hearing officer makes findings of fact and recommendations to the council. The council then exercises its own independent judgment as to whether to follow the recommendation of the hearing officer. He stated that this is the same procedure as is followed by the Alaska Bar Association, but the association is not controlled by the Administrative Procedures Act. 8:41:47 AM MR. SKIDMORE stated that under HB 351, the discretion of the council would be removed, which he opined is not a good idea. He said the 13 people serving on the council decide whether or not [the officer in question] has fallen below the minimum level of the expectations for the standards that are set for officers across the state. Under HB 351, the person making those decisions would be a hearing officer who is not in law enforcement, and the council would not be able to revoke a license unless the hearing officer had first made that decision. He stated that society is built on trust that people will follow the rules of the state or be held accountable by law enforcement officers. He talked about the importance of being able to trust law enforcement officers, because without that trust the whole system falters. He said that is why the decision of who is and is not an appropriate officer should remain within the council. 8:44:21 AM MR. SKIDMORE stated that there are also issues with how [HB 351] would affect the criminal justice system's function. For example, he said as a prosecutor he is obligated to disclose to the defense whether an officer is deemed to be dishonest or there are problems with his/her credibility. The defense will ask "those questions" during the trial, the jury will judge the officer, and judges may not be willing to issue a search warrant to the officer in the future. Current law ensures that only trustworthy officers are certified, and if [the council] finds one that is not trustworthy, it is invested with the power to remove him/her. The proposed legislation would eliminate that ability and give the decision to a sole hearing officer. He asked the committee not to let that happen. 8:45:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked what the qualifications are for the single hearing officer to which Mr. Skidmore referred. MR. SKIDMORE answered that the specifics are included in the Administrative Procedures Act. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that Mr. Skidmore's testimony implies that [a hearing officer] is not the right person to [make those decisions], and he said he would like to know why. MR. SKIDMORE said that while he cannot relate how [hearing officers] are selected, part of his concern is that the person selected is not likely to be a member of the law enforcement community. Furthermore, he reiterated his concern in giving the decision making to one individual rather than to a group of individuals that can bring different points of view. 8:49:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the reason for HB 351 is because someone lost his/her license and is disgruntled. 8:50:11 AM MR. SKIDMORE mentioned recent court cases, but said he does not know if those cases were the instigators of the proposed legislation. In the cases, he said, even though the court determined that the officers had engaged in egregious conduct, because the department had a history of not firing those officers in the past who engaged in similar conduct, it was determined that it would not be fair to fire the officers in question. He directed attention to Section 3, which read as follows: *Sec.3. AS 18.65 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 18.65.244. Deference to prior  resolutions. Notwithstanding AS 18.65.240, the council may not suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue a certificate to a police officer based on a disciplinary action against the police officer that has been reversed or removed as the result of (1) an arbitration or grievance proceeding under a collective bargaining agreement; (2) a grievance, hearing, or other proceeding under applicable personnel rules; or (3) a proceeding under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act). MR. SKIDMORE said lines 10-19 state that the council would also be bound by what happens in employment law rather than being allowed to exercise its own discretion and judgment. He offered further details. MR. SKIDMORE talked about another case, which involved sexual harassment and dishonesty, both of which are of concern to the council. He said there was no question that the harassment and dishonesty occurred; the question was what the appropriate sanction would be. He said the answer is completely different depending on whether the focus is on employment or certification. He offered an example, in which a lawyer engages in criminal conduct. He said the lawyer's employer may not ultimately be able to fire the lawyer, but if the bar decides to revoke the lawyer's license, then he/she would not be able to practice law anyway. He said he thinks the view is that if litigation results in someone being able to remain employed, then it is unfair that his/her license could then be taken away. He said he understands that viewpoint but respectfully disagrees, because the two processes are separate: one is employment law, while the other is a statewide standard - the minimum of what should apply. He said there are boards and councils across the state to uphold those standards. He said he has worked in places in the state where he is unsure whether that the litigation that would be involved in employment issues would be "the same level of litigation." He stated, "Even if it's dealing with APD or the Alaska State Troopers, I don't even want to rely on that, because the council conducts its own independent investigation and reaches its own conclusions, and I don't think it should have to be bound by what occurs in the employment litigation context." 8:57:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that Mr. Skidmore had said that Section 3 would limit the council. He stated his belief that the legislature confirms each member [of the council]. MR. SKIDMORE confirmed that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN ventured that the legislature's confirmation of members is a good indication they are capable. He asked if Mr. Skidmore is saying that Section 3 would limit the information that [the council] would have to make decisions. MR. SKIDMORE answered no. He clarified that Section 3 would require the council to follow along with what happens in an arbitration or a grievance under collective bargaining. He added, "So, it's not that it limits the information they have; it just [limits] what they can do." 8:59:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she has a problem with that, because there are times when she has felt the outcome of a collective bargaining agreement was unsafe. She offered an example of a school district that could not do something about a person who was saying and doing things that were "not good for students." She opined that the current ability of the council to override a decision is good. MR. SKIDMORE noted that teachers are governed under the Administrative Procedures Act; therefore, the example offered by Representative P. Wilson is right on point. 9:01:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Skidmore to clarify if what he is saying is that this could lead down a slippery slope. MR. SKIDMORE responded that he could not have said it more clearly than that. 9:02:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the mission statement of the council, which read as follows: To produce and maintain a highly trained and positively motivated professional, capable of meeting contemporary law enforcement standards of performance. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said Mr. Skidmore's testimony is convincing; however, he noted that the mission statement has no mention of maintaining the public's trust. MR. SKIDMORE responded that he equates "professional" with someone in whom the public can place its trust. He said that his experience as head of special prosecutions brought him to consider whether individuals who hold positions of public trust should be sentenced for criminal conduct beyond what the average citizen would. He stated his belief that the answer to that question is yes, because it is the violation of public trust that is so important. He offered an example. He said he believes that the vast majority of people working in law enforcement right now are professionals. 9:05:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to the words "reversed or removed" in Section 3, and he asked for clarification as to the difference between them. 9:07:01 AM MR. SKIDMORE answered that a reversal is the ultimate decision. He said he is not certain of the meaning of removed in the bill language, but ventured that it may mean the removal from a personnel file any mention of an allegation. He said the council already takes into consideration what has happened in an employment context, but should not be bound by that information. 9:08:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to Representative Keller's previous remark, proffered that mission statements are often written by a group of people trying to figure out a way to present the actual statutory requirements. He read an excerpt of subsection (a) of AS 18.65.240, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Sec. 18.65.240. Standards. (a) A person may not be appointed as a police officer, except on a probationary basis, unless the person (1) has satisfactorily completed a basic program of police training approved by the council, which includes at least 12 hours of instruction regarding domestic violence as defined in AS 18.66.990, and (2) possesses other qualifications the council has established for the employment of police officers, including minimum age, education, physical and mental standards, citizenship, moral character, and experience. The council shall prescribe the means of presenting evidence of fulfillment of these requirements. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said, "It's not in the mission statement; it's in the statute that this body at some point over time has passed. And I think that may be the basis for some of the testimony that we've had today." 9:09:49 AM JAKE METCALF, Executive Director, Public Safety Employees Association, Inc./American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (PSEA/AFSCME) Local 803, said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 represents state troopers, court services officers, airport police in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and police officers in Ketchikan, Sitka, Juneau, Fairbanks, Soldotna, Dutch Harbor, and Dillingham. He relayed that prior to his current position, he served as an assistant attorney general and attorney general in Bethel, and as a prosecutor in the Office of Special Prosecutions, where he was a colleague of Mr. Skidmore. He said as a prosecutor he dealt with misconduct by police officers. MR. METCALF stated that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 believes that the APSC has a job that is important to the people PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 represents and the job that those people do. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 does not want to take away any of APSC's powers. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 helps police officers surrender their certificates when it is time to do so, but believes that the process should be a fair one. He stated that a police officer who has had his/her certificate revoked cannot work anywhere else in the country. He said this is not wrong for those who are bad police officers, but for those who have been accused unfairly, without the full facts, it can ruin their lives. He stated that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 does not disagree with testimony stating that there have not been many cases of revocation, but wants to ensure that the process is fair. He said the proposals made in HB 351 would make the process fair and would not take away anything from the APSC, but would actually give the council more tools. 9:13:37 AM MR. METCALF, regarding licensure impacts of misconduct, said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 has asked that suspension be allowed in the process. Currently the council has no power to suspend a license; all it can do is revoke or grant a certificate. MR. METCALF referred to [paragraph (3), in Section 1], on page 2, which read: "(3) following the filing of a statement of issues, hearing, and decision under AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630, refuse to issue a certificate to an applicant, if refusal is consistent with the decision." He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 thinks that the person who is coming under revocation should be given notice, that there should be a hearing, and that the rules of the APA should be followed. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 does not believe that is the case currently. He gave an example, in which someone was given the opportunity to surrender his/her license, but had not been given notice as to the reason for decertification. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 hopes that HB 351 will lay out groundwork for the council for the fair treatment of people. MR. METCALF referred to Section 2, which would require the council to "prove the conduct alleged in the accusation or statement of issues by clear and convincing evidence." He recollected that Mr. Skidmore had said that the bar association is outside of the Administrative Procedure Act. He said the Act addresses consideration of the preponderance of evidence. He said that is the lowest burden of proof that the Act requires; however, an agency is allowed to use a higher burden of proof under the Act. Mr. Metcalf listed the three burdens of proof: preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. The latter is used in criminal trial, while clear and convincing is used in employment trial. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803's "changes" would protect all police officers, not just those with collective bargaining agreements. 9:18:19 AM MR. METCALF stated that collective bargaining agreements include clauses that make the decisions of the arbitrator binding on the employee and the employer. He said the language in PSEA/AFSCME Local 803's agreement with the state troopers has existed for over 30 years. He said there is a standard that is followed. If there is an issue regarding employment, a hearing is held, in which each side can present relevant evidence. The arbitrator is trained in employment matters and makes the binding decision. He said in recent cases the state has not liked the binding decision and the matter has been brought to the Alaska State Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court. He mentioned cases where both courts decided that the arbitrator had made the right decision. Further, a hearing officer decided that the employee in question does not deserve to have his/her certificate revoked. Mr. Metcalf indicated that six years may have gone by, during which the officer in question has not worked, and that officer may think the case has been settled, but the APSC then overturns all the decisions. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 thinks that the council should pay attention to the decisions of both parties, the Alaska Supreme and Superior Court judges, and the hearing officer chosen by both parties. MR. METCALF said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 thinks Section 1-3 would make the system fairer and give the council more tools, without placing burden or taking away any of the standards currently outlined in statute. 9:23:13 AM MR. METCALF, regarding Section 3 and the deference of prior resolutions, said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 wants the council to pay attention to arbitration, personnel rules, and court arbitration, but it also believes that the council can make an independent decision based on new facts. 9:26:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the purpose is for suspending a certificate. 9:26:32 AM MR. METCALF answered that one purpose may be to use a suspension until such time as the council makes a decision on a termination. It makes it possible for the officer in question to deal with a problem, for example drug addiction, before being allowed to come back to work. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that Mr. Metcalf had noted instances where the APA has not been followed, and he asked Mr. Metcalf if he has gone to court to address that issue. MR. METCALF said there are cases in process. He said last week PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 received letters from APSC regarding the actions that the council is taking. He said PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 would rather have statutes that set up a fair system that is clearly defined for APSC, with full disclosure of the actions being taken against the officer involved, and with due process followed. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is confused, because Mr. Metcalf is asking for statute to be changed when the APA is already in statute and includes full hearing requirements. MR. METCALF explained that PSEA/AFSCME Local 803 is not asking to move away from the APA, but is asking that the Act be followed and that the APSC be given guidance as to how to follow it correctly. 9:29:55 AM STEVE SORENSON, General Council, Corporate Board, Public Service Employees Association (PSEA), stated that the intent of the proposed legislation is to make sure the council follows the APA. Regarding the information provided by Mr. Metcalf, he stated that back in December, the council voted in executive session to take away someone's certificate, but without notice to the officer and without due process. Echoing Mr. Metcalfe's testimony, he outlined the process that should have occurred. He said the council should make the determination whether to revoke a certificate at the end of the process, not at the beginning. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that before the next hearing he would like to hear a discussion of the APA and how it falls within an occupational licensing board and whether that involves an administrative hearing officer or is an employment action. 9:33:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding the aforementioned cases, said she cannot imagine that the officers had no clue they had done something big enough to result in council action. MR. SORENSON confirmed that in none of the cases were the officers informed of the council's action in December; it was not until March that any of them were notified. 9:38:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to language in Section 1 that would allow the council to suspend an officer's certificate if that officer did not meet the standards [under AS 18.65.240(c)]. He asked if the reason for the suspension would be to allow time for due process. 9:38:48 AM MR. METCALF said he thinks that is one reason. Another, he said, is to give a middle ground between granting and revoking a license. 9:39:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if the suspension could be used as a form of punishment. 9:39:38 AM MR. METCALF answered yes, and he reiterated his previous example of an officer that may have a substance abuse issue. 9:39:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if PSEA would still support HB 351 if the language in Section 1 regarding suspension were the only language left in the bill. 9:40:26 AM MR. SORENSEN answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that saying the council is not following the APA is a serious allegation. He asked if PSEA instigated the proposed legislation "as a result of this case." 9:41:57 AM MR. METCALF said he respects people on "the board" but thinks that current statutes have no direction, and that lack of direction adversely affects police officers. 9:42:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said in future he wants to know what the procedure is that would prevent recertification after revocation. [HB 351 was held over.]