Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/19/1996 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 437
"An Act establishing the Judicial Officers Compensation
Commission; relating to the compensation of supreme
court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges
of the superior court, and district court judges; and
providing for an effective date."
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
testified in support of HB 437. He stated that the bill
would establish a Judicial Officers Compensation Commission.
The bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the
request of the Alaska Supreme Court.
He added that the bill would create a new Judicial Officers
Compensation Commission to assume the judicial salary
functions of the existing State Officers Compensation
Commission. The existing commission recommends compensation
levels for judges and other state officers to the
legislature; those proposals frequently go unheeded for
reasons unrelated to their merits.
In contrast, the commission created by HB 437 would have the
authority to actually establish compensation levels for
supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals,
judges of the superior court and district court judges. The
commission, appointed by the governor, could submit proposed
salary and per diem for those officers to the Legislature
every two years. These compensation levels would take
effect on the date of the first appropriation to fund the
increase, unless disapproved by another bill enacted into
law within 60 days of submission.
Mr. Christensen summarized:
* Eight states and the federal government operate a
compensation commission which sets the salary of
certain public officials;
* The existing State Officers Compensation
Commission does not have the power to establish
salaries, only to make recommendations to the
legislature.
5
* The commission created by HB 437 is modeled
closely on the existing commission. Two
differences are that the new commission will have
the power to establish compensation for justices
and judges, not make recommendations, and will
have a list of specific factors used in
consideration of fair compensation for justices
and judges.
* The commission would have five members appointed
by the Governor to four year terms. Among those
members must be a business executive, a person
with experience in personnel management, a
representative or a nonpartisan voters'
organization, an economist, and a lawyer.
* The commission meets every other year.
* The commission may consider the compensation of
justices of the supreme court, judges of the court
of appeals, judges of the superior court and
district court judges.
* The legislature has 60 days in which to reject the
order by enacting a law.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-41, Side 2).
Representative Parnell asked why judges should be removed
from the State Officers Compensation Preview. Mr.
Christensen noted that judges get caught up in many battles
over salaries. With passage of the legislation, the
salaries would still be subject to appropriation. In
response to Representative Parnell, Mr. Christensen
explained that a judge's salary could not be changed by
appropriation but instead by a change to the statute.
The State Constitution specifies that a judges salary can
not be diminished during a term in office. That
understanding is repeated in the proposed legislation,
although, would not apply to magistrates. A magistrates
salary is set by the Supreme Court.
Discussion followed referencing material on Page 4, Line 21,
"opportunity for other earned income". Representative Brown
referenced Page 3, Line 30, noting that 60 days was not
enough time to pass a bill through the legislature. Mr.
Christensen replied that 60 days was chosen as it appeared
also in the Boundary Commission recommendations. He
elaborated that in order for the proposed legislation to be
in statute, it must be a bill, not a resolution.
6
Representative Parnell questioned why the fiscal notes do
not reflect any increases for personnel. Mr. Christensen
replied, until the compensation commission actually meets
and orders a change in salary, there would be no fiscal
impact showing. It would be speculative at this time.
Representative Mulder asked if it was a problem attracting
competent people to serve as judges. Mr. Christensen
pointed out that there are fewer private applicants applying
for judgeships and more people from the attorney general's
and public defender's office. He commented that the less
you pay people, the less qualified people will apply.
Mr. Christensen continued, the legislative intent was
initiated during the Hickel Administration through a
salaries commission but then died in the Senate Rules
Committee. The legislation was again introduced last year,
and after a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee,
legislators agreed that they would not support the
legislation if "legislators" remained in it. It was
reintroduced this year with only judges included.
Co-Chair Hanley asked what would happen if the Legislature
did not take action the first 60 days and there was not a
specific appropriation for judges salaries. Mr. Christensen
explained that issue has not yet been discussed.
Representative Parnell recommended changing the language on
Page 3, Line 30, "within 60 days" to "when enacted in law,
within 120 legislative days". That way it could be taken up
at any period of time during the legislative session and
then the appropriate language could be inserted. Mr.
Christensen indicated that an order would have to be
submitted within the first 10 days of the session by the
commission. The 60 day period was chosen because other
items in statute use that time frame.
Mr. Christensen informed Committee members that this issue
has been considered in federal courts on several occasions.
In order for the delegation to set constitutional salaries,
the courts have held that there must be a disapproval
mechanism as well as an appropriation mechanism.
Representative Brown questioned the decision making process
and structure within the court system. Mr. Christensen
responded that under the Constitution, the supreme court is
vested with ultimate administrative authority over the
judicial branch. He concluded that judges salaries total
less that 25% of the court systems budget.
Representative Brown questioned if the list of recommended
commission members needed to include lawyers and economists.
7
Mr. Christensen replied that the supreme court does not care
what type of people are included on the commission as long
as they are "public spirited" and have some knowledge of the
concerns. Representative Parnell thought attorneys should
be included on the commission as they are better informed of
the time and skill required for that type commitment.
HB 437 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-42, Side 1).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|