This bill amends RCW 43.101.080 and RCW 43.101.380 and adds a new, not-yet-numbered section to chapter 43.101 RCW to expand and clarify the powers, duties, and procedures of the Criminal Justice Training Commission. It enumerates commission authority including conducting basic and in-service training, granting/denying/suspending/revoking certification of peace and corrections officers (and participating tribal officers), investigating certification-related complaints, establishing curricula and standards by rule, owning or contracting for training programs and facilities (subject to Department of Enterprise Services approval), reviewing and approving instructor standards, adopting recruitment standards and requiring background investigations, issuing diplomas and temporary replacements for training, appointing hearings panel members, issuing public recommendations to law enforcement governing bodies, and administering rules under the Administrative Procedure Act and Open Public Meetings Act. The bill creates new reporting requirements and changes adjudicative procedure. By July 1, 2027 and every odd-numbered year thereafter, chiefs, administrators, or sheriffs must report to the commission on officer certifications, aggregate training records, and decertifications and reasons; by July 1, 2028 and every even-numbered year thereafter the commission must submit a summary report to the governor and legislature. It sets the standard of proof in commission actions at a preponderance of the evidence and revises hearings procedures: the commission’s final administrative decision is made by a six-member hearings panel (an administrative law judge appointed under chapter 34.12 RCW presides and does not vote except where the panel cannot reach a simple majority, in which case the ALJ enters an initial order under RCW 34.05.461), a simple majority is required for action, and officer-members on the panel who are at or below first-line supervisor level must have at least ten years’ experience. For decertification matters with prior agency or criminal hearings, the panel may rely on those records and prior decisions and may consider additional evidence; upon written request the subject officer must be allowed to present additional evidence of extenuating circumstances. Hearings are open to the public while panel deliberations are not. The bill makes panel decisions public and subject to subpoena and civil discovery, requires annual publication of summary hearing dispositions on a public website, makes the commission’s final administrative decisions subject to judicial review under RCW 34.05.510–34.05.598, and requires the commission to adopt implementing rules. The provided text cuts off mid-sentence in RCW 43.101.380, the exact RCW number for the new section is not shown, and several referenced provisions and definitions cited in the excerpt are not included here, so some details and full context are unclear.

If enacted, local law enforcement leaders will need to compile and send detailed, aggregated data to the Criminal Justice Training Commission every two years beginning July 1, 2027 — including each officer’s certification date, aggregate training completion by subject and hours, and counts and reasons for decertifications. That will increase administrative workload and likely require new staff time or record-keeping resources for many agencies; the commission will use those agency reports to prepare a summary report to the governor and legislature starting July 1, 2028 and publish annual summaries and hearing dispositions, so agencies and individual officers face greater public transparency and potential reputational and legal exposure because panel decisions are subject to subpoena, discovery, and judicial review. The bill also changes adjudication and oversight: final commission decisions come from a six-member hearings panel (with officer-members required to have at least ten years’ experience for certain seats), an administrative law judge presides and steps in if the panel cannot reach a majority, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. These changes make decertification proceedings more formal and public, may allow panels to rely on prior agency or criminal findings while still permitting officers to present additional evidence on request, and will likely prompt agencies and officers to allocate time and possibly legal resources to respond; some implementation details and the end of one subsection are missing from the provided text, so exact procedures and timelines for rulemaking and some record handling remain unclear.