Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Work Session on AO 2026-62: Public Safety Commission Proposal – May 14, 2026

Assembly & Committee Meetings — Thursday, May 14, 2026

BodyAnchorage, Alaska

SessionAssembly & Committee Meetings

DateThursday, May 14, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 56:53

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

1:44

Okay, everyone, we'll get started in just one more minute.

1:47

We had a prior meeting run long.

1:49

We'll get started in just one more minute.

1:51

Yeah, the prior meeting run long.

2:32

Okay, why don't we go ahead and call this work session to order?

2:36

Um so this is a work session on AO twenty twenty six sixty-two proposing to our amending a municipal code to enact a new section and establish the public safety advisor public safety commission.

2:49

Um so the today is Thursday, May 14th.

2:52

We are noticed um starting a little bit late, but noticed until three thirty PM.

2:56

Um because we are starting late, uh, we might go to three forty PM, but I do I don't recognize we've been here a while, so we will hope to that time.

3:04

Uh so we will do introductions and then we'll get into our business.

3:08

So starting with uh Ms.

3:09

Park.

3:14

Yeah, go ahead.

3:21

Donald hand on Shred Kirker.

3:24

Zach Johnson.

3:25

Sydney Scout, Anna Brawley.

3:29

And we are also joined at the table by uh now former member Felix Rivera.

3:34

Um and we also are joined by our uh assembly staff, clerk, council, members of the public, and um some other folks from the administration.

3:42

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 um more of it.

3:59

And then also uh just for members reminder, so uh our work sessions are uh not times for debate.

4:05

And in particular, this item is on our agenda for May 26th, but the public hearing has not been opened.

4:11

So I want to make sure that we are careful about um how we are engaging.

4:14

And so this is for providing information, asking questions, um, gathering information, and really um this is our opportunity to learn.

4:23

Um, but again, the next step in this process is a public hearing.

4:26

So this is not the time to debate.

4:27

Not we don't want to hear if you love it or hate it.

4:29

Keep that to yourself.

4:30

Um so uh yeah, yeah, there's plenty of yeah, plenty of that later.

4:36

Or be artful in your questions.

4:38

Um so with that, uh I will ask uh the clerk to advance the slides and we've got a presentation and um I will hopefully kick it over to Cameron and we'll kind of tag team this.

4:47

Sure.

4:48

So a little bit of background.

4:50

Um the um oh I'm sorry, yes.

4:52

Um I neglected, uh member Martinez, are you on the phone still?

4:58

Okay, so we're good.

4:59

Go ahead.

5:00

So because I want to make sure there's plenty of time for questions.

5:03

I'm going to move quickly.

5:04

So, but but make sure if I miss anything.

5:06

But it's essentially there's a long history of this of this commission.

5:10

And um, and I think there was a time when it did function well.

5:14

Um, and um, and not too long ago, it was to determine but by some of us that it was not meeting its its purpose, maybe its need.

5:24

Um, and uh and so we allowed it to sunset and it essentially ended.

5:28

Um, and then went the process of reimagining it.

5:31

What what would something um different um and how how would it serve us?

5:37

And so we went through a process um uh a task force uh for about six months where we engaged uh the different departments of the municipality, uh the public, um we did survey, we did a pretty comprehensive process.

5:51

We have a series of meetings where we brought four 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 uh a link in building uh trust, building relationships, um, and and really helping to build a stronger relationship between public safety in Anchorage and the public.

6:14

Um and so that was really our overall goal.

6:17

Um that that task force ended, um, and uh and the um the uh the the three sponsors spent spent time again working with the departments, working with with community groups to uh to draft the this ordinance, which which we felt like um brought back um something that was um both meaningful and uh and valuable to the to the to the community um and balance some of the the the requests.

6:46

We had requests of it um um serving as a more significant oversight body, and that was um folks some folks came forward and won't wanted that.

6:55

And we had we had folks that that wanted to make sure that it that it did not interfere with the operations of of the of the municipality.

7:02

And so um the the short of it is is that we feel like this really um does that, and and there are some key components that we really want to highlight that that really do do that.

7:12

And um do you want to do you want me to go through those or 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 butt let's do that.

7:21

So that's that's just generally the overview, I think is that what I would say.

7:24

Okay, well let's let's keep on going.

7:26

Okay, I I think we did this, but do you want to add anything to this in terms of the the background?

7:31

Yeah, um I'll add I made the slide the text to 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.

7:40

Um, and so just understanding that um there was multiple iterations of these.

7:44

And I guess the one thing I'll add here, I there's a link to an article from 2020.

7:49

It's very brief, um, but it really talks about I think a previous kind of well well, certainly well-intentioned action, but a good example of where if we're not careful about how this commission is structured and supported, um, that this could happen again.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Public Safety█████████████████████████████████████████████57%

Community Engagement██████████████████23%

Procedural██████7%

Personnel Matters█████6%

Meeting Procedures███4%

Public Engagement██3%

Summary of Proceedings

Work Session on AO 2026-62: Public Safety Commission Proposal – May 14, 2026

On Thursday, May 14, 2026, the Anchorage Assembly held a work session on AO 2026-62, which proposes to amend municipal code to establish a new Public Safety Commission. The meeting started late due to a prior meeting running long and was noticed until 3:30 PM but extended to 3:40 PM. The session was focused on providing information and answering questions; no debate or public testimony was taken, as the public hearing is scheduled for May 26, 2026. The sponsors presented the ordinance's background, structure, and intent, followed by a question-and-answer period with assembly members.

Discussion Items

Presentation on AO 2026-62

Assembly member Presverdia, a sponsor, explained that the commission was reimagined after the previous Public Safety Commission sunset. A six-month task force process engaged municipal departments, the public, and surveys to design a community-led advisory body that builds trust between public safety agencies and the public.
The proposed commission has 14 seats: 9 voting community members and 5 ex-officio non-voting representatives from the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Health, Department of Law, and Office of Emergency Management.
Its powers and duties are advisory: policy review, community engagement, annual report to the Assembly and mayor, holding public hearings, and requesting briefings or public records. It cannot interfere with active investigations, make disciplinary decisions, access personal records, or address individual HR issues. Actions must be taken by the full body.
Training includes ethics, governance, AFD/APD ride-alongs, and subject-matter topics provided by the Department of Law. Staffing would be a rotating model from APD, AFD, and OEM, using existing staff (no fiscal note).
The commission is intended to be independent and community-led. Terms are three years, staggered, with a limit of three consecutive full terms.

Questions and Clarifications

Assembly member Silvers asked about the rotating staffing model, time commitment, and department capacity. Sponsors acknowledged the model is still evolving and that they have not finalized commitment from departments but believe existing staff can support the commission. They noted the prior commission had a similar rotating model.
Assembly member Silvers also asked about the commission's ability to conduct public hearings. Sponsors explained it could include public conversations, listening sessions, and forums on specific topics, with the commission meeting at least quarterly.
Assembly member Gerger asked for a preview of the upcoming S version. Sponsors said it will include minor structural and language changes, partly to align with feedback from Police Chief Case, and will likely continue the public hearing after May 26 to allow further development.
Assembly member Gerger also questioned the term "lived experience" in the composition language. Sponsors clarified it is intentionally broad to include any community member who has had interactions with public safety, not limited to specific types of experience. The commission is not meant to be a technical advisory board of public safety professionals.
Assembly member Johnson noted that the composition allows up to three former police or fire officers, but there is no floor; it could be zero. He also asked if the commission's advisory role extends to contracted services like Chugiak Volunteer Fire and Woodyer Police. Sponsors said the purview is broad geographically and by subject.
Assembly member Handeland asked about ensuring representation across the three listed categories (lived experience, subject matter experts, behavioral/mental health professionals) since the language uses "should" not "shall." Sponsors expressed openness to amendments that specify minimum representation.
Assembly member Park asked about the substance and duration of training. Sponsors stated that the training topics are already available from municipal departments and do not require new development.
Assembly member Silvers suggested considering a lottery system for applicants to ensure broad representation. Sponsors were open to the idea.
Assembly member Handeland asked about the process for requesting an independent review of specific incidents. Sponsors explained that the commission could request such a review, but approval would come from the mayor or Assembly; the exact process is still to be developed.
Assembly member Scout asked about ensuring representation of populations with higher police interactions. Sponsors said the "lived experience" language is intended to capture that, but amendments to strengthen this intent are welcome.
Assembly member Gerger raised the possibility of confirmation hearings for nominees. Sponsors noted that current practice allows individual member interaction, but a formal confirmation hearing could be added to code. They also noted that some boards have a 10-day public notice period for appointments.
Assembly member Park asked about the ability to call emergency meetings. Legal counsel clarified that boards can call special meetings with 24-hour published notice, but there is no provision for emergency meetings under current code.
Assembly member Handeland pointed out a potential ambiguity in the composition language: "not more than three members may have been previously employed by the police department, fire department, office of emergency operations, or department of law in any jurisdiction." The phrase "in any jurisdiction" might only apply to the Department of Law, potentially allowing more than three former police officers from other jurisdictions. Sponsors acknowledged the language may need clarification.
Assembly member Gerger asked for a definition of "subject matter experts." Sponsors said it is broad and includes fields of study, but noted that "lived experience" is a separate category.

Key Outcomes

No votes were taken; this was an informational work session.
The public hearing for AO 2026-62 is scheduled for the Assembly's regular meeting on May 26, 2026.
Sponsors intend to continue that public hearing to a future meeting to allow for the development of an S version, which will incorporate feedback from the administration and potentially from assembly members.
Assembly members are encouraged to submit amendments and ideas for consideration outside the public meeting.
The work session adjourned at approximately 3:40 PM.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, 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. Yeah, the prior meeting run long. Okay, why don't we go ahead and call this work session to order? Um so this is a work session on AO twenty twenty six sixty-two proposing to our amending a municipal code to enact a new section and establish the public safety advisor public safety commission. Um so the today is Thursday, May 14th. We are noticed um starting a little bit late, but noticed until three thirty PM. Um because we are starting late, uh, we might go to three forty PM, but I do I don't recognize we've been here a while, so we will hope to that time. Uh so we will do introductions and then we'll get into our business. So starting with uh Ms. Park. Yeah, go ahead. Donald hand on Shred Kirker. Zach Johnson. Sydney Scout, Anna Brawley. And we are also joined at the table by uh now former member Felix Rivera. Um and we also are joined by our uh assembly staff, clerk, council, members of the public, and um 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 um more of it. And then also uh just for members reminder, so uh our work sessions are uh 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 um how we are engaging. And so this is for providing information, asking questions, um, gathering information, and really um this is our opportunity to learn. Um, but again, the next step in this process is a public hearing. So this is not the time to debate. Not we don't want to hear if you love it or hate it. Keep that to yourself. Um so uh yeah, yeah, there's plenty of yeah, plenty of that later. Or be artful in your questions. Um so with that, uh I will ask uh the clerk to advance the slides and we've got a presentation and um I will hopefully kick it over to Cameron and we'll kind of tag team this. Sure. So a little bit of background. Um the um oh I'm sorry, yes. Um I neglected, uh member Martinez, are you on the phone still? 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 but make sure if I miss anything. But it's essentially there's a long history of this of this commission. And um, and I think there was a time when it did function well. Um, and um, and not too long ago, it was to determine but by some of us that it was not meeting its its purpose, maybe its need. Um, and uh and so we allowed it to sunset and it essentially ended. Um, and then went the process of reimagining it. What what would something um different um and how how would it serve us? And so we went through a process um uh a task force uh for about six months where we engaged uh the different departments of the municipality, uh the public, um we did survey, we did a pretty comprehensive process. We have a series of meetings where we brought four 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 uh a link in building uh trust, building relationships, um, and and really helping to build a stronger relationship between public safety in Anchorage and the public. Um and so that was really our overall goal. Um that that task force ended, um, and uh and the um the uh the the three sponsors spent spent time again working with the departments, working with with community groups to uh to draft the this ordinance, which which we felt like um brought back um something that was um both meaningful and uh and valuable to the to the to the community um and balance some of the the the requests. We had requests of it um um serving as a more significant oversight body, and that was um folks some folks came forward and won't wanted that.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com