Worksession re AO 2026-62, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter to enact a new section 4.50.120

Okay everyone, we'll get started in just one more minute. We had a prior meeting run long. Everyone, we'll get started in just one more minute. We had a prior meeting run long. We'll get started in just one more minute.

Okay, why don't we go ahead and call this work session to order. So this is a work session on AO-2026-62 proposing to— or amending a municipal code to enact a new section and establish the Public Safety Advisory—. Or Public Safety Commission. So today is Thursday, May 14th. We are noticed starting a little bit late, but noticed until 3:30 PM.

Because we are starting late, we might go to 3:40 PM, but I do recognize been here a while, so we will hold to that time. Uh, so we will do introductions and then we'll get into our business. So starting with, uh, Miss Park. Yeah, go ahead. No problem.

Sorry. Janice Park. Cameron Perez. Verdia. Donald Handlin.

Jared Kirker. Z Johnson. Sydney Scout. Anna Broley. Yara Silvers.

And we are also joined at the table by, uh, now former member Felix Rivera, um, and we also are joined by our Assembly staff, clerk, council members of the public, and some other folks from the administration. So we have a presentation today and we also have a copy of the ordinance, but I'll say just a couple things and also acknowledge— so I'm one of the sponsors, so I'll be presenting, but I'm also running this work session, so I'll ask your patience and I'll probably defer to Cameron to kind of run through more of it. And then also, just for members' reminder, so our work sessions are not times for debate. And in particular, this item is on our agenda for May 26th, but the public hearing has not been opened. So I want to make sure that we are careful about how we are engaging.

And so this is for providing information, asking questions, gathering information, and really this is our opportunity to learn. But again, the next step in this process is a public hearing. So this is not the time to debate. We don't want to hear if you love it or hate it. Keep that to yourself.

So yeah, yeah, there's plenty of time. Yeah, plenty of time for that later. Or be artful in your questions. So with that, I will ask the clerk to advance the slides. And we've got a presentation.

And I will hopefully kick it over to Cameron, and we'll kind of tag team this. Sure. So a little bit of background. The—. I'm sorry.

Yes. I neglected— Member Martinez, are you on the phone still? No. Okay, so we're good. Go ahead.

So because I want to make sure there's plenty of time for questions, I'm going to move quickly. So, but make sure if I miss anything, but essentially there's a long history of this, of this commission. And I think there was a time when it did function well. And, and Not too long ago, it was determined by some of us that it was not meeting its purpose, maybe its need. And so we allowed it to sunset, and it essentially ended.

And then went the process of reimagining it. What would something different, and how would it serve us? And so we went through a process, a task force, for about 6 months where we engaged the different departments of the municipality, of the public. We did surveys. We did a pretty comprehensive process.

We have a series of meetings where we brought folks together and really thought hard about, you know, what, what role could this body play that would really serve the public and serve the municipality, that would be a link in building trust, building relationships, and really helping to build a stronger relationship between public safety in Anchorage and the public. And so that was really our overall goal. That task force ended, and the 3 sponsors spent time again working with the departments, working with community groups to draft this ordinance, which we felt like brought back something that was both meaningful and valuable to the community, and balanced some of the requests. We had requests of it serving as a more significant oversight body, and that was folks, some folks came forward and wanted that. And we had folks that wanted to make sure that it did not interfere with the operations of the municipality.

And so the short of it is, is that we feel like this really does that. And there are some key components that we really want to highlight that really do do that. And do you want to, Do you want me to go through those, or do you want me to—. I think maybe if we move through the slides, and then—. Because we have a kind of a detailed breakdown of what's in the ordinance.

But let's do that. So that's generally the overview, I think, is that what I would say? OK, let's keep on going. OK, I think we did this, but do you want to add anything to this in terms of the background? Yeah, I'll add—.

I made the slide—. The text is small, so sorry about that. But really just laying out, because this really is 25 years of history at this point, or even more, I guess almost 30. And so just understanding that there was multiple iterations of these, and I guess The one thing I'll add here, there's a link to an article from 2020. It's very brief, but it really talks about, I think, a previous kind of what—.

Well, certainly well-intentioned action, but a good example of where if we're not careful about how this commission is structured and supported, that this could happen again. And that was—. There was 3 Alaska Native women who were appointed to this commission for the purpose of really focusing more of the discussion on missing and murdered Indigenous people. And of course, that's a longstanding issue, it is back in the news. That was not certainly the sole motivation for us, but I did get to talk to one of the former members and really got her experience, her take on what happened, basically not feeling supported.

And then of course administration's changed and other things happened. And so it really didn't fulfill the promise, I think, that was— that folks wanted. But also, you know, her advice was really, if you're going to put it back, make sure that it is meaningful and that it works. And so she wasn't saying it needed to be a certain way, way, but I think this is an important topic, it is a very sensitive topic in a lot of ways, and very personal, and you know, we're talking about very complex issues, and so that's really, I think, at least my motivation generally, is whatever we do, we want to try to make it work, and let it evolve over time, but that's where we're coming from. So I think that's the history.

So Cameron. Yeah, if we can go to the next slide.

So I think we talked about this a little bit more, but this is generally the timeframe that we've been on and leads us up to where we are today. Next slide. Again, more about the background. One of the things I think was really key in the conversation, you'll see this as we get closer to what we actually brought forward, is who is involved, who sits on this, and how does it work with the community at large. And so those were really big parts of it.

And how do we ensure that there is the right kind of representation and that they are building strong relationships with not only the community at large, but community groups?

Again, a key component of this is how it responds to community concerns and making sure that that's partly the representation. So who's on it? That they have relationships in different parts of our community and can bring those concerns forward and, and also be a conduit for communication back and forth. But the key focus of this is making sure that it's a resource to the municipality in terms of understanding what's going on in the community and being a place to learn about what those concerns are, but also be a resource in terms of making the decisions about things like training and policy.

So the themes from the task force came, came, came forward. They were clear in terms of— we talked about authority, we talked about the connectivity to community. There was a lot of interest in making sure that, that our municipality is being held accountable to the public. And rebuilding and maintaining trust were all very, very key pieces that we heard from the task force.

Let's see. So the— the—.

This one, would you like me to cover? Yeah, what's that? Would you like me to cover? Yeah, why don't you cover that one? Yeah, so, so we don't have like a whole kind of plan or a framework, and I certainly encourage folks to go and read the items, the memos that we referenced in there, that really goes through the whole process of the task force itself.

But just pointing to the kind of logo that we had at the time, designing this bridge between community and public safety. So some of the kind of broad things that were both coming out of that process and also I think grounded our work as the three sponsors on this. One is that public safety is a broad category, and that goes all the way back to original discussions in the '90s about this commission. It's law enforcement, fire, emergency response, justice system, parts of the public health system. But It is also true that a lot of the focus has discussed law enforcement and policing because, just because of the way that this has developed.

So I think that's a tension that we've tried to address. The kind of idea with this is that if there's meaningful involvement with the community, communication, building understanding, and really working with our public safety systems, that we can increase trust in those systems and also result in better policies. I think that's kind of the general theory with this commission, whatever it ends up looking like. The commission is meant to be a bridge again and really help community members better understand, provide a forum for the community at large, and to be interfacing with public safety agencies and policymakers. And then again, we want to make sure it works.

And so I think, you know, we cannot guarantee that. We know that whatever we put in code, it matters who's on it, how it is staffed, you know, how it develops over time. But we can try to put some guardrails in place. And we talked a lot about that, I think, how to do that in code and really enable this commission to do its job effectively. So next slide.

So the, the other, the other thing we talked about is that the, there's an independent community-led advisory, and it strengthens public safety, transparency, and trust— key, key components of this. We also, there was a lot of discussion about their role and what role they would play as it relates to to review of policies, of training, of these kinds of things. And the result was that we really felt like that a systems level was a really important thing to be thinking about. That it wasn't their role to get into the day-to-day, to get into necessarily specific cases, and less— but the role was more about how do we ensure that the public safety systems of the municipality are functioning really well. And so, and what information would they need to be able to make that determination?

Again, they're a forum for community engagement, and so the ability to hold public meetings, to be able to engage with the public was a really key piece for that, and then to be a consistent space for community concerns. I think these are all things that were key for us.

Okay, membership. So the proposal is that there are 14 seats. 9 Community members serve as voting members, reinforcing its role as a community-led body. And then there would be 5 ex officio non-voting seats that would be represented from the key departments: the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Health, the Department of Law, and Emergency—. What is it?

Office of Emergency Management. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so that's the representation. Powers and duties: primarily an advisory role with ability to do policy review, a great deal of community engagement.

We anticipate that they would be doing an annual report to the assembly and to the administration so that we would be able to see the progress over the year. They would be able to hold public hearings, and then they would be able to request briefings or public records. So they would be able to request information necessary for them to, to function as a body.

Limitations. So actions must be taken by the body, must be taken by the body, and individual commissioners are not empowered to act alone. So they act as a body. So just because you serve on this commission doesn't give you individual power to necessarily take, to take actions. And they may not interfere with active investigations, make disciplinary decisions or recommendations, nor access personal records, nor otherwise permitted by law.

One of the key pieces here is that they're not involved in HR issues. They're not involved in, in, in, in specific cases, that, that their function is more at a systems policy level.

So the idea here is there would be ongoing trainings for members on key topics relevant to the commission. They would be able to do AFD and APD ride-alongs. They would get ethics and governance training. These, these, these folks would be on a volunteer basis, and then they would be provided staff support by the police department, fire department, and Office of Emergency Services. So we would have a rotating staffing model.

And I think we have that in some other, other examples as well.

Okay, what it does do, this creates a community-led advisory commission on public safety. We all know that it includes diverse perspectives, lived experience, and community members. So that, that diversity, that representation of the community was a key piece for us. It defines clear purpose and set of activities for what they will and will not do. And it imagines a commission that listens and learns and makes thoughtful recommendations.

What it does not do: does not grant investigative or subpoena or other decision powers to the body, does not replace or change existing internal processes, exclude public safety perspectives from the discussion. It does not do that. And it does not fully protect against what happened before. That depends on what What is this? Fully protect against what happened before, that depends on who is appointed, how it is supported by staff, and how the body carries out its purpose.

You want to explain that one for us? Yeah, thanks. That was a mouthful. Yeah, it was again just to be clear, you know, when we create a board or commission or we change it in code, we're trying to put the guardrails on it. We're trying to set up how it functions, structure, staffing, but really over time it depends on how it is implemented.

So it's really just setting expectation that we are doing our best to set this up for success as it's proposed, but recognizing that the kind of risk that it gets unbalanced or that it doesn't become well supported, all of those things really need care and feeding over time. And so that's just— that's true for anything that we put in code, but just to say it again. And I would just add that it was really a big topic, especially when we talked to the departments, that it was staffed well. And that it had the necessary support in order to function well. And we know that from past experience, commissions that have not had that have struggled.

Okay, next steps, questions. We do have a public hearing on May 26th. I will mention that we have been actively involved with talking with Chief Case and We are planning on bringing forth an S version because I think there's some, some new ideas that have come to the table. We wanted to make sure today was an opportunity to present this to you and to answer questions and to make sure you're aware of it and clear, but before we move forward. So that was the goal for today, is really to make sure that you have this information and are able to ask questions.

Yeah, thank you. Also note for the record that, um, Member Martinez joined us back on the phone at 2:57. And, um, then we'll move into questions, but before that, I also want to turn to, uh, our other sponsor and just see if you have other comments or perspective you'd like to add. Um, because I think going forward, obviously this is a matter before the body, but it is important to understand the legislative intent, and Felix was as, as involved as the rest of us on this. And so I'm just seeing if he wanted to make any comments too.

Uh, yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think, uh, Member Perez-Verdia encapsulated, um, really the intent behind this. And I guess I will only emphasize that, um, really the reason behind this commission and the— and trying to create this commission is to allow some form of municipal entity where a bridge can be created between the public and our public safety agencies. And I think that is really why this commission is trying to be recreated and where it could have a lot of power in our community. So I hope that members will look at it from that perspective.

Otherwise, I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you. And first I have in the queue Ms. Silvers and then Mr. Gerker. Okay, bear with me, I have a lot of questions.

So the rotating support roles, AFD, APD, and EOM, what does that look like? What is the time commitment from the departments? Do they have the capacity for that? What is the fiscal note on that? And do you have commitment and support of these departments for the proposal?

Well, I can start and say that this is a conversation that has evolved and is still evolving. We want to come up with a way of staffing this that works and that makes sense. There was a conversation about the clerk's office. There was a conversation about the mayor's office. And also a conversation about having having it just in one department and trying to figure out a way to do that so that it was, again, consistent and fair and made sense.

So I would just say that I think all of us are open to, in this piece, to ideas. We have had this conversation with the mayor. We've had a conversation with her about this. We've had a conversation with with the departments. We have not finalized commitment from them on it, but this is our current sort of idea.

So this is the idea we're bringing forward.

But if my two colleagues have anything to add. Yeah. Go ahead, Mr. Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Through the Chair to Member Silvers, thank you for that question.

So two notes. First is, The prior Public Safety Commission, which, you know, admittedly we allowed it to sunset, actually did have a rotating staffing model where the staffing was between the fire department and the police department. Now one can argue whether that worked in that particular configuration or not, but that has existed in the past. And then the second thing I would say is, I think we as the sponsors of this ordinance purposefully did not include a fiscal note because we did not envision needing to hire additional staff for support. So we envision using existing staff to support the commission.

Okay, but we don't really know what the training or the time commitments or capacity looks like, is kind of what I'm hearing. So, I mean, I think that we— it's our understanding at this point that, that, that could be done with our existing staff, right? And so that there would not be a need to hire existing staff, that those services and those those folks who do that are on staff and would be available and willing to do that work for this commission. Okay, and then my next question is, you said that it could conduct public hearings. Can you tell me what that looks like?

I think it could look a variety of ways. I think that it could be holding a public conversation where the commission on a particular topic, invites the public to come and share their ideas and thoughts about a topic. That's one thing that I think it would be really valuable here, is that this commission would have the ability to convene the public on issues of importance. It could conduct listening sessions where they create space for the community to come forward and share ideas and/or concerns. I think it could look a variety of ways, and I think partly what we've done is to create a framework but not overly prescribe exactly how it will work because we want to create some space for this commission to develop some of those processes.

And I'll just briefly add too, but I think to both of those questions, I believe the way we've written it in the ordinance is that they have to meet at least quarterly. So probably they would meet most— well, not most, many of the commissions do meet monthly, but that's kind of the baseline minimum. And then I think, yeah, just echoing what Mr. Perez-Rodilla said, that we're not mandating that they do XYZ or that they have a certain number of hearings, but leaving that open as a toolbox that they have. Okay. All right.

And then I guess my final thing is just actually probably more of a statement. I would really like to kind of take the time. I'd noticed that there's not anybody from the administration up here, but before we voted on this, I would like to hear from the administration more on how it would be implemented. Thanks.

Yeah, thank you. Next I have Mr. Gerker. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So I also have a litany of questions, but I'll ask the first two that I think they're most pressing to me, and and then let others jump in the queue and see if they get answered. So you mentioned that there's an S version coming.

Could you give us a quick outline or preview of what kind of changes we might expect with the S version? Sure. I think— I don't think you'll see in the S version substantial changes in the structure of this or in the intent. I think that there is some ideas coming from Chief Case on on language, making sure that we're really making sure that we are communicating what the purpose of this is. And beyond that, I think that we're looking at the involvement of the departments.

One of the things that we really like about this is the broadening of the idea of what public safety is.

But at the same time, we know that there is a strong interest right now in policing. And that that is going to be what many folks want. And so what we're looking for with the S version, I think primarily is some minor structural changes and some language changes to really make sure that it aligns with what the administration wants. So. Yeah, thank you.

And then the second question is around the composition. And I'm really—. It's a very broad term. Members of the community with lived experience interacting with law enforcement. That could be, I mean, any of us, right?

I mean, I got pulled over for a parking ticket or expired tags. I mean, I'm a person with lived experience. What does that mean? Can we flesh it out a little bit more? Help me understand who this is.

Yeah, and I'd love for my colleagues to weigh in. I think there's a desire to put some intent language in this that, because of what we're trying to do, communicate. We want people to be a part of this. That have had experience in their own communities interacting with the police department and can bring those ideas and those experiences to the table in a variety of ways. And so it's intentionally broad because we're not necessarily looking for someone who has one particular type of experience, but we're making sure that we want people there who are bringing their own experiences to the table.

And so I think that that's probably as clear as I can be, is our goal is to try to be as open as possible because we don't want to necessarily limit who's on this. We also want to make sure that we're communicating that we want people that can have relationships within the community that they can bring these things back to and bring their experiences and their community's experiences to the table as a part of this role.

Yeah, I'll add briefly, and then I'll turn to Mr. Rivera. One answer on the S version too. I think our intent right now is to open the public hearing and very likely continue the public hearing to a future meeting. So we certainly don't want this to take forever, but I think we're not in a rush and genuinely want to hear from the public too and what folks want to do. So, and then on the lived experience, yeah, I think the reality is a board and commission is either chosen by the mayor and then appointed by us or appointed on the assembly side.

So this is designed like most boards. Appointed by the mayor. But two other pieces I'll briefly mention is, unlike most other boards, this does limit the kind of— well, it limits and doesn't allow current public or municipal employees. And that is unusual on these boards, but the idea being that we truly want community members who are not within the municipality, even if they work in a different department, because we know these are sensitive topics, right? You know, and we've been talking a lot about police, but there's also wildfire issues that could be a topic that this committee covers.

It could be talking about drug interdiction, right? There's a lot of these complex topics. So making sure that it is community and independent in that sense. And then also Cameron and I worked on the ACE Fund board, and we talked a lot about not allowing it to become, for example, stacked with all childcare providers, because then they have one perspective. So trying to also make this— this is not intended to be a technical advisory board of public safety professionals, you know, that would be written in a very different way.

And so So again, limiting that perspective, because I think that was another challenge with this board is it defaulted to that and it wasn't doing what the community expected. So that's—. Actually, I mean, on that, that is actually a quick follow-up, if I may. It lists 3 different categories of folks who might be on this thing, but it doesn't actually say, like, is this saying that we could have 1 person who's a subject matter expert, we could have 1 person who's a behavioral mental health expert, then we could have 7. People that fall in some other category in the first category.

Is that intended or is it supposed to be blocks of 3? There's not intended to have a number of seats that are assigned to a particular criteria. It's, again, it's intended to have intent language to give the sort of the, what the hope is here. We're hoping to have a broad range of community members serving on this with a broad range of experiences. That can represent the community in their work.

Okay. But to, to your point about the ACE Fund though, um, and I'm not trying to be debating, I'm just, I'm just asking questions, uh, regarding the ACE Fund though, that, that was the same, it was a similar thing, right? So there's a scenario where this could happen, where it could be stacked with 7 members of one specific group, or it could be the reverse. We could have 7, you know, behavioral health experts and one person with lived experience and one subject matter expert. I think Mr. Rivera wants to weigh in.

Yeah, thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Through the Chair to Member Gerker, yeah, thank you for those questions. I think we really did put a lot of thought into the composition of this commission because we wanted to make sure that it really did encompass a broad view of perspective. So you'll see that language in here in that section that you were describing, that it should encompass a broad balance of perspectives and reflect the full diversity of the municipality to include. So these are just 3 examples that we wanted to really pull out because these were teased in the task force and through all of those discussions over those 6 months of some variety perspectives that we wanted to include, but nothing in, in this ordinance states that these are the only perspectives that we must include.

And then really what will happen is an application process will be developed and the mayor's office will get applications. And through that, we will learn if those applicants for this commission, if this commission is approved, fit in any of these categories. And then the last thing I'll say is, you know, I personally, in development of this commission, had a pretty broad view of what lived experience could mean. Including folks who went through the APD Citizens Academy, right? Those are folks who have a lived experience with public safety.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you. I think I have just a couple questions. The first is to kind of a follow-up on, on the question Member Gerker was asking.

So in the composition, I see it says not more than 3 members may have been previously employed as police officers or fire department officers, but We say not more than 3, there's also no floor on that. It could be 1 or 2 or even 0 members of this 9-member body. Am I reading this correctly? Yes. Okay.

And then the second question I have is, when we're talking about the advisory role this body fills, would that extend to the contracted services? I'm thinking of Chugiak Volunteer Fire, Girdwood Volunteer Fire, Whittier Police.

So the, the, the, the purview of this commission is extremely broad and serves the municipality and advises the assembly and the mayor. Um, and so the, the, the, the purview of it is, is from our perspective extremely broad, both in, in, in terms of geography and, and, and sub— subject and thinking about public safety as as we mentioned in this, all of the different departments. So I don't see a limitation necessarily in, in their role related to geography or region. So, so it sounds like the answer is yes, they would potentially have an advisory oversight role over these different departments, the contract and services. But I also don't see anywhere in here where we're sort of the members of that community would necessarily have a voice in these decisions either.

I could maybe briefly add to that. I think one thing as I read this again, looking at the not more than 3, I think the intent was voting members. So that's a good, I'm just noting that that's a good, 'cause obviously the other 5 ex officio are from that perspective. In terms of, I think I've dealt with a lot of boards, a lot of organizations, and I think one model is everyone has a designated seat. And I think there is benefit to that because you guarantee a very, you know, however broad you make it, but you guarantee all of those slots have representation.

The downside is sometimes, especially if it is written very specifically, you end up spending all of your time and energy chasing down those, those two seats that you just can't fill. And sometimes that excludes folks who otherwise would be great members, but maybe overlap. And so when we did the ACE Fund board, we talked a lot about that and really designed it more so that the board could not have a majority of any of those perspectives. So recognizing this is different, but it's more in that vein, I think. So it is a fair point, but I think if we get into geographic representation in terms of designated seats, then it's just a different kind of theory of how we, how we do the composition.

So, and is that the— just to clarify, is that the nature of your question in terms of the representation on the board, in terms of who sits at the side? Well, I mean, there's, there's the geographic question. I think there's also, as we talked about, sort of relevant experience, you know. I mean, A volunteer fire department, for example, is quite different than a professionally staffed volunteer fire department, and how they interact with that community is different. Well, and again, that's why we're having these conversations, because I think we want to learn from these conversations.

I think that just to go back to the intent, part of the intent is to not have an overrepresentation of law enforcement. I think that's the— we want to make sure that that those voices are there, both from the, the ex officio, and that there's an opportunity to bring some of those voices on as, as community members, but, but that, that is not a dominant voice on this commission to ensure that it really does have a broad representation of the community. So that's, that's the intent, and if there's ideas that you brothers have to, to sort of meet that intent, then we would welcome that. Thank you. Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, so I mean, I'm kind of a little bit off of what Member Johnson had said. I guess with the—. I mean, we're having—. We're saying should in here. I mean, we could, I guess, envision a future where, hey, either some of these are not being represented at all.

Did you guys look at I guess having, I guess, like 1 or 2 or any kind of, I guess, breakup of that kind of representation there, and then maybe having some, I guess, open spots that, hey, they could fall kind of into any of the categories. Are you talking about law enforcement? No, I'm talking about— sorry, I'm talking about for the A here with the members of the community with lived experience, subject matter experts in the behavioral mental health professionals. Because we're, I mean, kind of what Member Kirkwood said, he's like, oh, well, we could have only one, it could be stacked, but I mean, with the language of should, it could be all or nothing in some of these categories. Yeah, I think if there's interest in members, and interest in members here, ensuring that there's a certain, you know, representation or voice on it, then that would be an idea to sort of bring forward.

I think from our perspective, again, our intent was to, keep it broad and realize that it is at the discretion of the mayor and the assembly in terms of who gets put on this, and to put as clear of intent language as we can to ensure that we're trying to get a good representation but not an overrepresentation. So that's, that's the goal.

Next, I have Janice and then— or sorry, Ms. Park, then Ms. Silvers. I'm interested to know, it says that fundamentals of criminal justice will be provided by the Department of Law. They'll receive a training in these matters of policy and procedures of the police department. So what would be the substance and duration of that training, and who would develop the curriculum, or do we know that yet? My understanding is that these are, these are subjects and trainings that are already available and can be delivered by the department.

So this is, this is not, from our understanding, something new that would need to be developed. This is a— these are common sort of trainings and, and information and resources that we have within the municipality that are often given to other groups. Thank you. And I'll just briefly add in response, I know broadly There's been a lot of work on the administration side really shoring up our boards and commissions because there was a lot of vacancies a few years ago. And I think just the kind of support level was uneven across these boards.

And so thinking about what is the training, for example, I think all board and commission members get ethics training just generally, you know, because they're in a position where they have to follow those rules. So there's things like that. And I know the mayor's office has done a really Good job, especially with former staff member Barbara Jones getting welcome packets, right, just really helping folks get oriented more and in that baseline level of understanding Robert's Rules and things like that. So I think that's another category that is developed that's not specific to this. And then we have certainly been talking to the departments about what would be an appropriate training from them in the more subject matter or, you know, their specific role.

Thank you. Okay. Next, Ms. Silvers. So when we talk about broad representation, representation is limited just by the nature of the fact that all the members are appointed. And, you know, mayoral administrations change.

And so there's a limit there that, that you really can't do much with. So I guess my question is, have you considered something like making one of the positions a lottery position for applicants that meet certain minimum requirements so that you can actually bring in true broad representation from the community?

Nope, I don't think that's something that I considered, but I'm certainly open to that idea. I'm not sure how it would work, but would love to hear more about that idea. Okay, because I think again, that's our goal, right? Our goal is to have broad community representation. And, uh, and I would just say that this is, this is the push and pull, right, of, of how, how, um, what we limit and what we allow, um, in code, um, trying to sort of get that representation that would hopefully survive different administrations, you know, depending on who is in office.

Um, we would hope that there would still be a real value in making sure that this group represented the community to the degree that it can.

And I'll just add briefly too, another piece of this that we didn't say out loud is this does propose term limits. So it proposes terms of 3 years, and then they would be staggered, and then there would be a limit of 3 consecutive full terms. So somebody could serve again, but they would have to wait. And the idea being, one, that there is some continuity, you know, that hopefully folks would want to stick around, but also that there's a built-in turnover mechanism. So that we don't have the same folks for 20 years, say.

So, and we did go back and forth, do we do 4-year terms, do we do more, right? What is the longevity here? So that was just another consideration. But yeah, with all of this, I think we're certainly open to feedback and ideas.

Next, Mr. Handlin. Yeah, so on here it says the body may request an independent review of specific incidences? Because I know they're not going to be doing independent investigations. I guess, how does that look? Who is conducting that independent review?

And I guess if they are requesting it, who, who's approving that? Thanks. I'll start with this one.

Recently, in the past year and a half or so, there have been a couple of examples of this that the administration has called called for an independent review of policies and brought in someone from the outside and provided that review, and then we saw the result of that. And so we felt like that in cases where this commission, where, for instance, something has already been settled and finalized and they bring concerns or questions from the community where they want more information about it or, or, or to it to be looked at further, um, that it would be within their, their purview to ask for an independent review. Um, that, that necessarily— that's not something that they can do themselves or that they can, they can conduct themselves, um, but they can request that. And, and, and ultimately that would have to go to, um, either the, the mayor or the, the, the assembly. And so those would be the two bodies that would be able to approve that and allow it to go forward.

So the exact process of that, I think, still needs to be developed, but the idea there is that we do want to make sure that if there is concern or questions from the community and there is a desire to see an independent review about something, that request is honored and heard, and then a decision will be made as to whether it was granted.

Thanks. Ms. Sopers.

I think you actually answered my question in that. Thanks.

Any additional questions, comments? Oh, who would approve it? My— again, I think that we need to figure out the process here, but I would imagine it would have to be approved either through the assembly or through the mayor. And sorry, can you state the question on the record too? Yeah.

Member Baldemar, for the record, I asked— or I said I missed who the approving entity would be. Thank you.

Miss Scott. Yeah, I'm curious about on the community representation piece, whether there's a way to ensure that the community members represented also represent populations who have higher interactions with police. Has that been considered, covered?

That's our hope as well. Yeah. Is that I think we— this is partly the language of people who have lived experience. Yeah. Is the intent there.

But we want to intentionally bring it broad because I think we— those interactions or those experiences could be a Citizens Academy. It could be that they live and work in a community that has a higher sort of engagement with with public safety. And so they have an interest in making sure that they have a voice as it relates to that. So that's the intent. Again, if there is language that members can bring forward that would help strengthen that intent, I think it'd be great.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Rivera. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Through the Chair to Member Scout, Yeah, you know, I think this is going to be this— the first— and this is going to be your responsibility— the first, if this is approved, the first slate of nominees to fill these commission seats, I think, is going to really set the tone of this commission. And I would urge the Assembly that I think you need to be really introspective about who you decide to appoint.

I know when I served on the body, I interviewed— at one point, I interviewed every nominee for the Equal Rights Commission because that commission had such powerful duties, and I wanted to make sure that the right people were serving on that. And so I think there are a lot of ways, a lot of powers and leverage that you as individual Assembly members have to make sure that the right people get appointed— or not appointed, but confirmed to these seats.

Mr. Gerker. Yeah, would there be appetite if this were to pass to do like a confirmation hearing type thing? I mean, this is, this is a pretty significant commission, pretty significant role. Um, this isn't quite like your normal boards and commissions where we just kind of, you know, when they pop up on the agenda, look them up, see if there's anything nefarious on CourtView or anything like that. Um, but like, this would be— I think I, I personally would appreciate being able to actually have more direct questioning with nominees to this commission, and maybe like, like an actual confirmation hearing with everybody would be nice.

Well, I'll just say that, that, um, that already— so right now, when, um, someone is brought, you know, forth by the mayor and that person's name is— you have— we have, as a body, we have every right to interact with that person individually, or we certainly have the right to, to invite them to, uh, to a committee meeting, to, uh, to a work session. Those are well within our right. Prior to voting. There was a time when, in a previous time, when there was, I think in my experience, some question about some folks who were brought forward, and we paused on them to give us more time to really meet them and talk with them and engage with them, and then brought them back to a later meeting for a vote. So, but if the question is whether we want to have kind of a new process, then that's certainly up to the Assembly to just to determine whether that's something we want to do or not.

I would say that this is an important commission. There's a lot of really important commissions, and so I think it's sort of our responsibility to make sure that we're taking the time to make sure that we're doing it right. So yeah, I know what also does that— it is a really important commission. It's also a brand new, you know, composition, like it's a brand new body. So I You know, I guess I don't mind individually reaching out to everybody, but it would just be nice if we could get everybody all at the same place at the same time.

Just a thought. Yeah. And I'll add just a couple of quick thoughts. One is, yeah, that I think in the past practice has really been just contacting people individually. That is something that I assume we could put in code.

And so the pro and con of that is it mandates it. It does take more time. But as you said, I think that that is something to consider is that, you know, requires a confirmation hearing because I believe that's how— granted, staff are a different situation, but that is in code. Another thing that's in code for certain boards that I have not looked at yet, but just was thinking we should, is there are some boards where if you— we may not have had these on our agendas yet, but where an appointment has a 10—. I think it's a 10-day public notice period.

And so they get introduced and then we don't have a public hearing on the that appointment, but it is—. And this is true for some boards— then it gets moved to the next agenda essentially. So it's introduced and then moved into the unfinished, um, no public hearing section. And so that's another mechanism that we have with some other boards. So I don't know if that's the right move here, but that at least provides more additional notice.

Yeah, what— which commissions are those? Uh, I would have to defer to others, but we can ask for that list to be circulated. Because there are definitely different rules for some commissions. That will— yeah, that would be really fascinating. I don't think we've— I don't think we've seen one of those, or at least I haven't noticed.

So yeah, super interesting. Thank you. Thank you. Next in the queue, I have Ms. Park and then Mr. Hanseland.

Thank you. Would you— so I see Section E-1 on page 7 states how often the commission would meet and that would require public notice. Would you envision or even propose that they would want to meet on an emergent basis if there were a significant public safety issue that arose? And would that be possible, and would that be noticed? So I'm going to actually ask counsel because I think there's—.

Well, one, there's, there's broad code related to boards and commissions, and there's certainly, they have the ability to call a special meeting. I don't know that any board is empowered to call an emergency meeting, and so we'd want to be cautious. And so I don't know if Matthew or Dean, if you have initial, if there's any restriction on a board or commission being able to do that or what the rules are. Yeah, I would agree with your assessment. There's, they have the ability to call a special meeting So long as it's conformed—.

Conforms to the notice requirements of a special meeting. But yeah, an emergency meeting, there's no provision for that for boards or commissions. That's unique to the assembly. And what is the general public notice time? Like, if they did, how soon could they call a meeting if they said on day one, we want to call this meeting?

Published agenda 24 hours out. It's a pretty short timeframe. And I guess just to say broadly, we are looking at this, we can make boards and commissions unique, we can give them different powers, we can structure them differently, but also we do want to caution if we make something so outside of the norm for other boards and commissions, there is a code that generally they conform to, plus they have to follow Open Meetings Act, things like that. So, thank you. Next, Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, so I was reading over the composition in here. So it says no more than 3 members have been previously employed by the police department, fire department, office of emergency operations, or department of law in any jurisdiction. So the way that I guess I'm reading it, I'm not sure if it was your guys's intent, you could have more than 3 members who are former police officers as long as they were in a different jurisdiction. But for the Department of Law, that's the one that would be in any jurisdiction. Oh, I see.

You're—. And so, so what I'm saying, yeah, you could theoretically— hey, we've got 3 former Anchorage Police Departments and we've got 6 members from the San Francisco Police Department on here, but you couldn't do the same thing with former Attorney Generals. Yeah, I think I think that the way you're reading it differently than I would have read it. I was— the jurisdiction refers to, if I'm not correct, all of those categories. And so I think the intent there is to not have people who were previously employed by police departments, fire departments, that sort of thing, as a whole, that we don't want an overrepresentation representation of them.

But I think you're asking whether that just relates directly to the legal department. Yeah, because one that needed— we need another comment there. We probably would need another comment there. I don't know. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I love it, I love it.

Thank you. Um, other questions?

Just checking on the phone. Okay, I don't—. Oh, do you have another one? I can, yeah. Mr. Gerker.

Yeah, just really quick. We're seeing subject matter experts. What exactly does that— what exactly does that mean? Who's being contemplated in that capacity?

Again, it's broad language. I think we're looking for people who bring a wide variety of experience. On subjects that relate to this committee. And so I don't think we have a— I know we don't have a definition of what supplemental experts are. It's intent language to encourage folks to apply who have some expertise that would really— that they could apply here, and for the administration and the Assembly to be looking for people who bring a broad range of expertise to this table.

And I'll just briefly add too, I think subject matter expert in the field of public engagement that I have worked in a lot can have two meanings. One could be kind of technical, like you have a degree, you worked in this field, you know, that's kind of the traditional way of looking at it. SME can also mean really lived experience, or subject matter expert in poverty, in being a single mother, right? There's a different, the different way to look at it, where somebody is not representing a, you know, professional or technical degree kind of expertise, but they, um, through their own experience and, um, just the life that they've lived, you know, it's in the category of lived experience, but there's different ways to use those words. I think here it is saying fields of study, and so that's kind of more in the technical space.

Um, any other questions?

Okay, um, well, thank you very much everyone. So again, this item will be before for us on our May 26th meeting, our next regular meeting, for a public hearing, AO202662. And then I believe the sponsor's intent, as I said, is to continue that public hearing to a future meeting for the purpose of continuing to develop an S version. So members are also encouraged to bring amendments, knowing that we may not be in debate and taking them up, but that is a great way to communicate what you're interested in, ideas, And that's a way that we can do that outside of the public meetings. And thank you again, Mr. Rivera, for joining us today.

Thank you, everybody. We will adjourn this work session, and this is our last meeting for today.