Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/18/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Department of Law: Overview | |
| Presentation: Judiciary Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 18, 2022
1:36 p.m.
1:36:35 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon (via teleconference)
Representative Sara Rasmussen (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
ALSO PRESENT
John Skidmore, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law; Cori Mills, Deputy Attorney General,
Civil Division, Department of Law; Doug Wooliver, Deputy
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Amber LeBlanc, Administrative Services Director, Department
of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 281 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 281 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 282 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 282 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW: OVERVIEW
PRESENTATION: JUDICIARY OVERVIEW
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 282
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; making capital
appropriations and supplemental appropriations; and
providing for an effective date."
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW: OVERVIEW
1:38:11 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, introduced himself and the PowerPoint
presentation "Department of Law: Department Overview" (copy
on file). He began with slide 2 which indicated that the
Department of Law's (DOL) mission was to provide legal
services to the state government and to prosecute crimes.
He advanced to slide 3 which showed photos of DOL's
management team. He noted that the department had one of
the smallest ratios of administrative support to department
size.
Co-Chair Foster noted Representative Edgmon had joined the
meeting.
Mr. Skidmore noted that there had been some recent changes
in the administrative team. He added that although the new
hires were highly qualified, the turnover illustrated the
department's challenges with recruitment and retention.
1:41:09 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 4 which showed the two
requests included in DOL's FY 23 budget. The first request
was for the addition of 19 new positions to the Criminal
Division. The second request was made by the Civil Division
and was for a $4 million multi-year appropriation to
address statehood defense issues.
Representative Edgmon welcomed Mr. Skidmore to the meeting.
He wondered how the recruitment efforts were going for the
19 new prosecutors. He understood that there was no
guarantee that those positions would actually be filled.
Mr. Skidmore indicated he would be discussing the topic
later on in the presentation. He relayed that eight of the
ten prosecutor positions had been filled already. However,
recruitment and retention issues remained pressing.
Mr. Skidmore moved to slide 5 which showed the department's
estimated budget from FY 19 through FY 23. He noted that it
was relatively flat over the years.
Mr. Skidmore moved to slide 6 and relayed that the mission
of the Criminal Division was to seek justice, promote
public safety, and further public respect for government
through prompt, effective, and compassionate prosecution.
The division did not prosecute federal or municipal crimes
or investigate criminal conduct.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for an explanation of compassionate
prosecution.
Mr. Skidmore responded that compassionate prosecution meant
acknowledging that individuals experienced a vast array of
circumstances. He noted that sometimes good people made
mistakes, and sometimes the mistakes were criminal. It
meant the department looked at each case individually and
tried to determine what was best for the involved
individuals.
1:45:09 PM
Mr. Skidmore moved to a map of Alaska on slide 7. The map
showed all nine of the physical district attorney offices
across the state and an additional four satellite offices.
He highlighted that there had been significant changes and
turnover within the offices listed on the slide. He wanted
to further illustrate the ongoing recruitment and retention
issues experienced by the department.
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 8 which showed the increment
update for the Criminal Division. He explained that eight
of the new prosecutor positions had been filled. However,
the positions were predominantly filled by individuals who
had already been working in other positions within the
department, which left their old positions vacant.
Individuals elected to transfer into one of the new
positions because there was a lower caseload associated
with the new positions. However, there were six paralegals
and three law office assistants hired from outside the
department, which was a positive step forward in
recruitment and retention.
Mr. Skidmore continued to slide 9 which provided a snapshot
of the recruitment and retention numbers within DOL. He
reported that there were currently 22 vacant attorney
positions. Due to the significant number of vacancies, the
department had begun to engage in hiring practices it had
not utilized before. The department had extended offers to
law students and judicial clerks who could not begin work
immediately because they had to first graduate from school
or finish their clerkship. He explained that 11 of the 22
attorney positions were already filled using this
methodology and therefore only the 11 positions that
remained were in active recruitment. The rest of the
attorneys currently on staff had to manage the workload
until the new hires were able to start work.
1:49:44 PM
Representative Edgmon noted the committee had heard from
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that there was a
$20,000 bonus available to new Alaska State Trooper hires.
He wondered if DOL could offer something similar.
Mr. Skidmore responded that the department could not offer
bonuses. There was a capital appropriation in 2021 provided
by the legislature which included an investigation into
recruitment and retention. He indicated that the department
brought in an outside firm to evaluate recruitment and
retention and the firm identified several issues in the
department. One of the five issues that were identified was
pay.
Representative Edgmon commented that he had been seeing
great difficulty in meeting workforce demands from agency
to agency. He thought it was a key issue that needed to be
addressed quickly. He was concerned that vacancies in the
state such as positions in DOL, the heavy equipment
operator vacancies within the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT), and vacant teacher positions
would remain unfilled if the issue was not addressed.
1:52:14 PM
Mr. Skidmore indicated the department had extended 34
offers in FY 21 for attorney positions, and eight declined
because the pay was too low. In FY 22, the department had
already made 26 offers. There was a continual effort by the
department to hire, but there were many challenges. He
relayed that DOL was experiencing the highest vacancy rate
it had experienced within the last decade. He noted that
half of the people in filled positions had less than five
years of experience.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if any analysis had been done on
compensation offered to state attorneys as compared to
private sector attorneys.
Mr. Skidmore responded in the affirmative. The department
found there was around a 30 percent difference in the pay
offered by the state versus the private sector. The real
problem was the difference in pay between public sector and
public sector. Many attorneys left the state to work for
the United States Attorney's Office or for state agencies
in other states. He was aware that pay was an issue.
Mr. Skidmore returned to slide 9. He relayed that the right
half of the slide showed the vacancies in the Civil
Division. He highlighted that the division had 15 attorney
vacancies but it was actively recruiting for 18 attorneys.
The division was aware that there were three attorney
positions that would be vacant in the near future and there
were proactive recruitment efforts for the positions. He
passed the presentation off to Ms. Cori Mills.
1:55:49 PM
CORI MILLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, introduced herself and began on slide
11. She reported there were now 20 vacant attorney
positions that were in recruitment in the Civil Division,
meaning there were five attorneys leaving within the next
three months. She noted that attorneys were being recruited
for across all divisions within the department. Since 2018,
the Civil Division had 19 percent of its attorneys retire,
10 percent had moved out of state, 10 percent transferred
to another agency, 10 percent transferred to the private
sector, and another 10 percent transferred to federal jobs.
Ms. Mills continued to slide 10 to review the core services
of the division. The core services were as follows:
Protecting Alaskans' safety and financial well-being
Fostering conditions for responsible development of
our natural resources
Protecting the fiscal integrity of the State, and
Promoting good governance
1:58:03 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if DOL was larger than it had been
10 years ago or if growth had been relatively flat.
Ms. Mills responded that the Civil Division had experienced
a 36 percent budget reduction since about 2014. The
division had never needed to let people go, but it had
historically refrained from filling positions due to
attrition. The division had fewer attorneys, but the
workload was the same as it had been prior to the
reductions.
Mr. Skidmore had not looked at the most recent population
statistics but suspected that there was a population
increase in the last decade. He explained that there had
been a similar downsizing effort in the Criminal Division.
The division had increased its resources within the last
few years, but the workload was larger than it was 10 years
ago.
2:00:27 PM
Ms. Mills moved to slide 11. The slide showed the breakdown
of the areas of focus of attorneys within the Civil
Division. An example of a focus area was protecting
Alaskans, which involved occupational licensing, human
services, and child protection. The division was in a
rebuild mode in all of its sections. The largest workload
was child protection appeals, which had only been
increasing over the years. In 2021, there was slight
decrease because children had less contact with mandatory
reporters, but she expected the number to go up again.
Ms. Mills added that promoting good governance was another
area of focus, which involved advising the governor. The
area of focus also included items like labor and state
affairs, information and project support, and public
corporations and government services.
Ms. Mills relayed that the last area of focus was
protecting fiscal integrity and fostering economic
development, which included natural resources, oil and gas,
environmental efforts, and workers' compensation. One of
the duties of attorneys in the environmental section was to
advise the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
She explained that workers' compensation attorneys defended
the state in workers' compensation cases.
2:05:05 PM
Representative Josephson asked about the scarcity of
assistant attorney generals in the state and the need to
contract within the workers' compensation section.
Ms. Mills indicated that the division had never had to
procure outside counsel to assist with workers'
compensation duties before. However, there were so few
workers' compensation attorneys and there were about 270
cases, so the division had to procure outside help to
complete the workload. She was happy to report that one
attorney had recently been hired for the workers'
compensation work and there was one additional position
left to fill.
Ms. Mills moved to slide 12 and explained she divided the
Civil Division's budget into three "buckets" to show the
various areas of appropriation. The three buckets were
child protection, good governance, and statehood rights.
The division's increment request was a multi-year
appropriation and fell within the statehood rights
category. In 2021, the legislature provided $4 million in a
multi-year appropriation for FY 22 through FY 25.
Ms. Mills advanced to slide 13 which explained the
appropriation in detail. She explained that it would be
used by the division for litigation relating to the defense
of rights to develop and protect the state's natural
resources, to access land, to manage its fish and wildlife
resources, and to protect state sovereignty. The division
thought the $4 million was a good start, but after looking
at the details she determined that $4 million was unlikely
to be sufficient. She suggested another $4 million would be
necessary to address the substantial workload that seemed
to be incoming to the division. Generally, it took two to
four years to complete litigation.
2:09:12 PM
Co-Chair Foster commented that statehood defense was not a
new issue, but that the line item for statehood defense and
the appropriation for it in the budget was new. He asked
where the funds came from in prior years.
Ms. Mills responded that the funds usually came through the
natural resources line item. The requested appropriation
for statehood defense in particular was intended to get the
division over a "hump." The department was not planning on
increasing its personnel, but rather trying to utilize
outside counsel and get through the increased workload that
had compounded over time. Litigation was being layered on
top of litigation but there was never a final resolution.
The hope was to use the appropriation to reach a resolution
and receive clarity from the courts. It would allow the
division to start over with a blank slate and manage tasks
internally rather than seeking outside counsel.
2:10:46 PM
Representative Josephson understood that the DOL
subcommittee had learned that only $260,000 of the $4
million multi-year appropriation had been spent.
Ms. Mills responded that Representative Josephson was
correct. To date, about $267,000 had been spent. She
anticipated that the amount would increase to around $1
million or more by the end of 2022. She mentioned that the
department had just begun litigation and the cases would
compound as time went on. She relayed that DOL released a
federal laws and litigation report every year. There were
35 litigation matters reported in 2021, and there were 47
matters so far in 2022. Cases that had been ongoing for
years were still not closed and there were new cases
arising.
Ms. Mills turned to slide 14 to review the department's
general strategy. She reiterated that DOL saw statehood
defense as its core purpose, which involved protecting oil
and gas revenues and the Permanent Fund. When it came to
national issues, she thought the best strategy was to
partner with other states that experienced the same issues
as Alaska. Another option was outsourcing, which the
department employed when there was a case specific to
Alaska, but the department did not have the resources to
properly address it. There were issues that impacted Alaska
in a unique way, such as the Clean Water Act, and it was
important for the state to have its own resources to ensure
that the state's interests were represented.
2:14:19 PM
Ms. Mills continued to slide 15 to discuss how the multi-
year appropriation funding was being used. She relayed that
there were certain historical sources of funding under the
natural resources line item in the budget and the funding
sources would continue to be utilized. However, there were
additional cases for which the state did not have enough
resources, which were intended to be funded by the multi-
year appropriation. She noted that two of the cases funded
by the multi-year appropriation funding were also multi-
state cases and would not be huge cost-drivers because
Alaska would not be bearing all of the costs itself.
However, the Fortymile Rivers Quiet Title Actions case
alone had absorbed $200,000 of the $267,000 that had been
spent thus far and she anticipated the number to double by
the end of 2022.
Ms. Mills explained there were also cases that were
secondarily funded by the multi-year appropriation. There
was an existing funding source for the cases, but there was
uncertainty that the existing funding within the annual
appropriations would be sufficient. The department had
contracted with two outside counsel firms to delegate
overflow work for the natural resources cases.
2:17:29 PM
Ms. Mills continued to slide 16 to go over the matters that
were actively being monitored. She noted that an outside
firm was employed to manage the federally contaminated
sites case. She explained that the sites were contaminated
when they were under federal ownership, then the sites were
transferred to Native Corporations and the Alaska state
government and the sites had still not been cleaned up.
There was some anticipated action in the area that was
being directed by DEC and could lead to litigation.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what the primary source of funding
would be for cases secondarily funded by multi-year
appropriation.
Ms. Mills responded that there was an allocation within
DOL's budget for natural resources, which covered a myriad
of items. Some of the allocated money could be used as a
primary fund source. Additionally, it was possible that
another department would be contributing a certain amount
for work that the attorneys or outside counsel did in
certain areas. She clarified that when an item was
secondarily funded, it simply meant that DOL was not
turning to the multi-year appropriation first. Instead, DOL
was trying to use its existing sources of money to ensure
that multi-year appropriation funds were only utilized when
absolutely necessary. She added that there were many
sources of possible primary funding, such as money received
to protect royalties.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for more detail about the money
received to protect royalties.
Ms. Mills replied that the department received certain
Permanent Fund receipts to protect or take action on items
relating to royalties. The most common item was
disagreements on oil and gas royalties.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it would be correct to say that
the sources of funding ultimately came from state
resources.
Ms. Mills responded that Vice-Chair Ortiz was correct.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how much the total available funding
resources in a given year increased from year to year.
Ms. Mills did not have the figures in front of her and
deferred the question to Ms. Amber LeBlanc.
2:23:18 PM
AMBER LEBLANC, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW (via teleconference), would provide a detailed
response to the committee in a follow-up email.
Representative LeBon asked if the state had a litigation
partnership with the Voice of the Arctic I?upiat (VAI)
organization. He thought a $1 million grant was offered to
the organization.
Ms. Mills only knew about the appropriation through the
news. She reported that DOL had no connection with VAI and
was not working with the organization.
Representative LeBon asked if the department had an
available report that summarized litigation partnerships
and active cases. He would appreciate any materials the
department could provide.
Representative Josephson thought there were some
contentious matters being funded by the multi-year
appropriation. He thought that about 60 percent of Alaskans
opposed the Pebble Mine. He also thought the use of the
Tongass National Forest might have been supported in the
1990s, but that Southeast Alaska viewed itself differently
than it did years ago. He understood that the attorney
general's office was a unique office to the governor and
understood that it was vital. He wondered what Ms. Mills
would think about the legislature saying that some of the
cases were not supported by the majority of Alaskans.
Ms. Mills responded that the legislature had the power of
appropriation. She reported that most of the cases had been
in existence for years and that a new administration and a
new legislature had not changed longstanding cases. She
argued that when it came to state's rights, state land, and
state management, Alaska knew better. She also pointed out
that the cases were not about personal opinion, but about
who should be responsible for the management of state
resources. The legislature also had an obligation to adhere
to Article 8 of the constitution regarding sustained yield
principles and responsible resource development for the
maximum benefit of the people. She thought it was an
element that should be considered when looking at
appropriations. She thought the cases were about the
management struggle and ensuring that the state remained
economically prosperous.
2:30:46 PM
Ms. Mills continued to review slide 16 which reflected
matters already in litigation. She reiterated that the
multi-year appropriation would only cover a fraction of the
cases. The matters that were being monitored were projected
to come to fruition in the next few years and add for the
need for additional resources. The state was trying to
encourage the federal government to clean up all of the
contaminated sites that had been transferred from the
federal government to Native Corporations and to the state.
She relayed that the contaminated site transfer was a
matter that was actively being monitored. An example of an
actively monitored case was the revised statute (RS) 2477s,
which were public access rights-of-ways. She explained that
it was an evidence heavy matter and time intensive.
Co-Chair Foster had a question about the RS 2477s. He
explained that there was public access north of Nome up to
Taylor, but in order to get to the popular Serpentine Hot
Springs, people had to drive through a national park for
six miles. However, there was already a trail in the
location, and he thought it could be considered for a RS
2477. He had asked this question several times over the
years, and the answer had always been that categorization
was on a case-to-case basis. He wished there would be a day
where the federal government recognized that all trails
could be accessible by the public as long as people stayed
on the trails. He understood the matter was evidence-based
but thought the fact that the trails could be seen from an
aircraft seemed like good evidence that the trails existed.
He asked if she would agree that the matter had to be
considered on a case-to-case basis.
Ms. Mills responded that unfortunately it was a case-to-
case basis. She understood that the trails were visible
today but wondered if the trails were visible in the 1930s.
It was difficult to show the scope and the use of the
trails. The state needed to set a precedent but could not
get the federal government to discuss it properly. She
noted that the state was in the final litigation stage in
the Chicken Trail RS 2477 and a settlement was about to be
reached. She assured the committee that the state was
trying to find the best way to set a precedent.
Co-Chair Foster wondered if anything prior to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) included information
about the trails. He wondered if something like United
States Geological Survey (USGS) maps would suffice as proof
of the trails. He commented that he and Ms. Mills could
talk privately about the matter.
Ms. Mills thought it was a complicated matter and would be
happy to have a conversation about it with Co-Chair Foster
outside of the meeting.
2:38:22 PM
Representative Josephson asked if another difficult element
was that sometimes the cases pitted Alaskans against other
Alaskans. He offered the Klutina Lake case as an example.
Sometimes the vigorous assertion of a RS 2477 caused
internal conflicts.
Ms. Mills replied that case law surrounding RS 2477s was
not simply a federal government and state issue. There were
some cases that the state entered into as a third party
after two private parties had begun the case. She noted the
Iditarod trail was an example of a successful litigation.
The Klutina Lake case was currently in front of the United
States Supreme Court under reconsideration.
Co-Chair Merrick asked how often statehood defense cases
were successful.
Ms. Mills responded that the cases were not tracked in the
database in that way and it was difficult to analyze. She
indicated the department had been making positive progress
in its active cases. The state and the federal government
were not always at odds and in some of the cases, the state
was defending the federal government. Success was highly
dependent upon the case.
Ms. Mills advanced to slide 17 which showed the typical
cost of cases if internal counsel was utilized. If the
state used outside counsel, the costs would typically
double. She compared existing sources of funding with the
anticipated costs and arrived at the request of $8 million.
2:44:21 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the department had done an
analysis on the viability of winning a case. He wondered
how much consideration was given to the likelihood of
winning.
Ms. Mills responded that the attorneys advised and gave the
best and most candid advice possible to the clients.
However, it was important to consider at which level the
state could succeed. The state might win a case at the
district court level, win on an appeal, or win at the U.S.
Supreme Court. The state might lose at every level except
for the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was important to take
each level into account. There were other cases where vital
state's rights were threatened, and even if the state did
not win, litigation might slow the process or cause the
perpetrator to think twice about taking additional action.
Co-Chair Foster thanked the presenters.
^Presentation: Judiciary Overview
2:47:02 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced the PowerPoint presentation "Alaska
Court System Overview" (copy on file) and reviewed the
mission of the department beginning on slide 2. The Alaska
Court System (ACS) intended to integrally and expeditiously
resolve cases in accordance with the law.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 3 and reported that there
were a couple of things that set ACS apart from other
courts. For example, ACS was unified because there were no
county courts or municipal courts in Alaska. He remarked
that unification made it easier for the legislature to set
state policies and made it easier for individuals within
the judicial system to work together.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 4 to discuss the factors that
impacted the workloads of the courts, such as population,
police, economy, and statutory changes. Some statutory
changes had a small impact and others had a large one.
There were also other unpredictable factors to consider
such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 5 and indicated that most of
the court system was comprised of clerical staff. The slide
showed the composition of the 766 authorized positions
within ACS.
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 6, which showed a map of
the locations of the courts in the state in FY 22. There
were four judicial districts in Alaska, but the number of
employees within each district varied dramatically. The
second judicial district encompassing the northern parts of
the state had 34 employees while the third judicial
district encompassing Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley, and the surrounding areas had almost 400.
Co-Chair Merrick asked what determined which district a
case would be tried.
Mr. Wooliver responded the location of the crime.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 7 that showed a pie chart of
all the sources of funding for the department.
2:52:46 PM
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 8 which reviewed the number of
Alaskans served in 2021. He relayed that the slide came
about years ago to better report how many people were
impacted by ACS in a single year. There were 102,237 new
cases filed in 2021 and 1.7 million CourtView searches.
Mr. Wooliver noted the impacts of the pandemic on slide 9.
He relayed that ACS had taken steps to implement new safety
protocols for the public and for employees and that ACS had
always relied on technology more than other courts around
the country. Many courts in the country still did not allow
telephonic testimony, while Alaska's courts would not be
able to operate without telephonic testimony. He emphasized
that ACS never closed due to the pandemic and never stopped
conducting emergency and essential proceedings. He relayed
that jurors had been selected through Microsoft Zoom and
deliberations had taken place remotely.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 10 and indicated that court
case filings in the state were down from FY 20 across the
board. He advanced to slide 11 and reported that FY 21 was
the first year in a number of years where there had been a
slight decrease in felonies. He noted that slide 12 showed
that the same was true for misdemeanor case filings.
Mr. Wooliver spoke about the fiscal impacts of the pandemic
as outlined on slide 13. He explained that jury costs for
FY 22 were about $1 million less than costs in FY 17
through FY 19. The court had received funding through the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
to purchase technology equipment needed to facilitate
remote hearings. The court was applying for additional
funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)to reimburse past expenses related to the pandemic.
He hoped the funding would amount to around $500,000.
2:57:50 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 14 and reported ACS was
continuing to resolve cases and conduct trials through
Zoom. There had been 27 criminal jury trials and three
civil trials since the beginning of 2022. The court system
had used expanded teleconference hearings as well, and
while it had incurred increased costs, it had allowed
proceedings to continue. Additionally, ACS was
livestreaming jury trials which allowed for increased
public access.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if any regulatory changes were made
to allow for trials to be conducted via Zoom.
Mr. Wooliver replied in the negative. The court was
permitted to conduct remote trials under the existing
rules.
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 15 and relayed that ACS was
resuming in-person trials, however it had been a
challenging task. He indicated there had been high rates of
unplanned leave due to COVID-19, staff vacancies, and
turnover.
Representative LeBon asked Mr. Wooliver to comment on the
outcome of the 2020 cyber-attack that targeted ACS.
Mr. Wooliver indicated that the attack had a huge impact on
the court for a short period of time. He was grateful that
the hackers were caught quickly, otherwise the impacts
could have been long-term. The court was able to purchase
more advanced security software and he thought the system
was robust, however software updates were never-ending and
expensive.
Representative LeBon was glad to hear the system withstood
the attack and that the court was prepared for any future
attacks.
3:04:08 PM
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 16 which showed the proposed
operating budget increment requests for ACS. One of the
requests was for $150,000 for evidence management software
to ease the process without sacrificing privacy or posing a
security risk. The largest increment request of $1.1
million was for funding to cover increasing the working
hours of ACS staff. About half of the court's workforce was
returning to a full 37.5 hour workweek to address the
backlog of cases that had built up over the pandemic. The
court was also asking for more funding for software
subscriptions and maintenance. Other increments included
facilities, operating and maintenance costs, and janitorial
and security costs. The $789,500 decrease shown on the side
was ACS's share of the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) savings.
Mr. Wooliver moved to the supplemental request for offsite
trails on slide 17. He relayed that a supplemental request
was not common for the court system and that the
supplemental request would be amended in the fall of 2022.
The idea was that there were some offsite trials in
locations where the courtrooms were not large enough to
offer social distancing. He relayed that ACS was working
with the Legislative Finance Division and the Office of
Management and Budget to ensure that the request for funds
for offsite trials was a multi-year appropriation. The
money would simply lapse if there were not enough offsite
trials.
3:08:37 PM
Representative Josephson asked when Mr. Wooliver would know
if the multi-year appropriation was approved.
Mr. Wooliver had never done a supplemental before. He was
unsure when the supplemental budget request would be
amended, but he knew it would be amended at some point.
Representative Josephson had heard there had been
significant turnover. He asked Mr. Wooliver to describe
what the turnover was like in ACS.
Mr. Wooliver agreed that there had been significant
turnover as well as difficulty retaining current employees.
Many positions were not vacant, but the employees were on
leave due to COVID-19 related issues or childcare. The
court system had implemented some incentive programs and
had expanded its recruitment efforts to address the
difficulties in recruitment and retention. He reported that
a couple of judicial assistants had recently left ACS for
the private sector because the pay in the private sector
was substantially higher than wages paid by the state. In
FY 19, ACS had 35 vacancies and there were currently 62
vacancies.
Representative Josephson asked if ACS had to go through the
Department of Administration when implementing pay raises.
He thought ACS determined pay by looking at trends in other
departments.
Mr. Wooliver replied that the pay for ACS employees was
statutorily required to be similar to pay for employees
with similar duties and job descriptions. The legislature
had generally allowed for the same pay raises and cost of
living adjustments to be given to non-covered ACS employees
who did not participate in the collective bargaining
agreement offered to covered employees.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the presenters and reviewed the
agenda for the following meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:12:57 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| LAW FY23 HFIN Department Overview_Final 021822.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| FY 23 JUD-Court Overview HFIN Feb 18.pdf |
HFIN 2/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |