SB 19-COMPLAINTS AGAINST PEACE OFFICERS/VPSOS  2:06:59 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 19. [Before the committee was CSSB 19(CRA).] Speaking as sponsor, he said the bill is about making the complaint process regarding state troopers more transparent because the current system allows almost no feedback to the citizen who has lodged a complaint against a trooper. The bill has two provisions. The first would allow the citizen to receive status reports to provide reassurance that the complaint is progressing through the system. The second provision, on page 2, allows the citizen to receive feedback once the complaint is finished so they would know whether or not the complainant was found to be valid. He has had numerous conversations with public safety employees and he recognizes their concerns with the bill. He has also spoken with Anchorage Police Department (APD) officers about how they handle this process and they have some interesting ideas. He noted that the administration is also working on the issue to institute [transparency] administratively, with or without passage of SB 19. He recognizes there are pitfalls and benefits to each approach and he intends to proceed cautiously. At-ease from 2:10:03 PM to 2:11:15 PM. 2:11:20 PM JOE MASTERS, Commissioner Designee, Department of Public Safety, said he would primarily comment on what the department is doing that goes along with the intent and spirit of SB 19. The primary intent is to ensure public trust when the department is dealing with internal discipline issues or investigating improper conduct of employees. Early in his tenure he identified the need to change some internal policies and procedures and internal structure on how the department addresses citizen complaints about the conduct of department employees. In the past there wasn't a good mechanism to track or manage complaints and often the investigations were conducted by employees who were not in the area where the complaint was filed. These practices created inconsistency and provided too little feedback to the citizen who filed the complaint. In early 2009 he started the process to open the Office of Professional Standards for the purpose of addressing these issues. Initially the office will be staffed by two investigators who will be responsible for investigating misconduct of officers within the Alaska State Troopers, Alaska Wildlife Troopers, and other divisions within DPS. They also will be responsible for tracking all complaints of employee conduct, regardless of whether that unit investigates the complaint or not. 2:15:00 PM COMMISSIONER MASTERS said they're in the process of identifying software that will allow the unit to track and manage complaints as they come in. It will also provide department supervisors and managers an early warning mechanism identify an employee who is a potential future problem. This will allow conduct and training issues to be dealt with early-on and potentially save employees who are worth holding on to. CHAIR FRENCH asked what he sees the Office of Professional Standards doing with respect to the issues of telling the complainant the status of the investigation and providing feedback to the complainant about the result of the investigation. COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he believes those issues can be handled within a policy structure of the unit. A project manager currently is working to stand up the unit and soon will start to write new and rewrite existing policies to address the issues of complaints coming in and reporting back to the complainant. 2:17:49 PM CHAIR FRENCH noted that an issue that's come to his attention from the perspective of the troopers, the PSEA union, and APD officers is that if feedback on a complaint is too clear and specific, it may have negative repercussions to the officer through the defense and prosecution process. He asked if that's been a concern as he's developed internal policies. COMMISSIONER MASTERS said that is a concern he has, particularly when a mistake was made early in an officer's career and that behavior was corrected. He's also concerned about the potential for the public to be misinformed if a complainant is found to be only partially valid. 2:20:50 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked if he anticipates that the internal policies of the Office of Professional Standards will be reduced to a written policy document. COMMISSIONER MASTERS said yes. CHAIR FRENCH asked when the policies will be in writing. COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he anticipates a draft policy manual will be available within three months. 2:22:06 PM SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there will be any provision for the complainant to find out what remedy was assessed in cases where their complaint has been found to be valid. COMMISSIONER MASTERS explained that all discipline or action taken against an employee is currently part of their confidential personnel record. The policies that the professional standards unit puts forth will conform to the law. Complainants won't be informed of the specific action that was taken against an employee. The generic response will be that an investigation was undertaken and appropriate action was taken. 2:23:26 PM SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that level of protection is provided only to police officer or to all state employees. COMMISSIONER MASTERS replied he understands that is a general protection afforded to all state employees. SENATOR THERRIAULT mused about whether the public will be satisfied with the generic response that the complaint was found to be valid and appropriate action was taken. CHAIR FRENCH said it's also easy to see the morass you wade into if more information is given and the complainant doesn't like the remedy. COMMISSIONER MASTERS said he has two additional concerns. One relates to a complainant trying to escalate an action if they don't like the discipline that's been given. The other concern is that if the process is opened to allow complainants to appeal a decision, it potentially puts every complaint into a more formal process. It could be counterproductive to ensuring the public trust. 2:25:50 PM SENATOR THERRIAULT said he doesn't see anything in the bill that would lead the complainant to believe he or she would have a right of appeal. CHAIR FRENCH said that's a fair observation. His point is that there is a balance between making certain that the public has confidence in the disciplinary process that's levied against individuals who are empowered to arrest and use force against citizens. "It's an awesome grant of power and it has to be used very very carefully," he said. The citizens who are subject to that power have to know that "bad apples" are disciplined. SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the caution about a complaint following an officer throughout his or her career and asked if you wouldn't want to know about a so called bad apple. CHAIR FRENCH replied that is the balance. There are officers you might want to cross examine if you're the subject of an arrest. On the other hand, having every disciplinary process be part of the public record may go farther than is desirable. He said he will hold the bill to look at what other states do and to allow the commissioner time to work out policy for running the department. "I have a strong desire to see something like this become law; on the other hand I want to be very careful about how we go about it," he said. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if there's anyway of knowing what the recommendation was for an officer who was investigated versus the final reprimand. Is it state law or personnel rules that led to that or something the union negotiated? 2:28:34 PM CHAIR FRENCH said that's outside the confines of the bill and he would suggest he discuss the process with PSEA. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked the commissioner if the union negotiates the final reprimand or if it's a statutory or regulatory process. COMMISSIONER MASTERS clarified that he isn't giving a legal answer. He said there are statutes that cover what they can and can't say and there is language in employee contracts pertaining to what the processes can be. CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 19 in committee for further consideration.